KJK v the Police this Friday

[Birdsweepsin]

Kellie is still getting harassed by TRAs it seems. Come and support if you can at Trowbridge Police Station, midday on 24th Feb.

She asked for carrots this afternoon to help pay her legal fees and she is close to 5 and a half already, more than the 3 she needed urgently. What a woman.

Generally, you don’t have multiple run ins with the police over your civil disobedience activities if you’re staying well within the law.

Haha!! Tell that to PC Gul who shows up at people's work to 'check their thinking'.

Still, that little, er, run in, got the college of policing in some piping hot water. So Gul's time wasn't completely wasted.

There's quite a difference between "castration" ( blunt but accurate description) and "Decapitate TERFS" (violent threat), surely?

Yes they’re different but they’re both problematic in terms of free speech.
One is incitement to violence, and the other is defamation by calling a parent a child abuser.

Right, so based on one isolated incident & PC you are tarring the entire police force. Your critical thinking skills never fail to astound me.

All that straw must get v itchy. May I suggest calamine lotion?

Onnabugeisha - YES a police officer is stood right next to KJK in the 'standing for women' Brighton event, I was not there but watched the live feed albeit back in September.

The police officer is visible throughout and does not appear to move from her post. If you saw the footage, it would be impossible to not notice her, she's stoic, wearing hi vis and if I remember rightly stepped away from her post only briefly, to recover a smoke bomb thrown into the speaking 'space'.

I have wondered if the investigation of a public order offence includes the testimony of the police officer in the SFW live stream?

Also castration is what it is...removing testicles is castration.. using another term may be more palatable...but lacks clarity.

A child was castrated,there's no way to dress that up.

It's like trying to find a nice,cuddly word for 'paedophile'.

It's like trying to find a nice,cuddly word for 'paedophile'.

And it was paedophiles themselves that coined the word to sound more nice and cuddly than ‘child molester’ or ‘kiddy fiddler’.

No. Castration is the procedure used. It is stark, it is confronting. The ‘child abuse’ angle between saying ‘she took x to be castrated’ versus ‘she took x to have bottom surgery’ requires a conceptual leap.

Whereas ‘decapitate terfs’ is both an instruction and the desire to those carrying the sign.

Felix125 · Yesterday 18:40

You could - but you also run the risk of being prosecuted for making a false allegation if there is sufficient evidence

True, but if there was any semblance of substance, it'd be very unlikely.

As for castration, she did fly her son to Thailand and have him castrated, among other things. Orchidectomy is partial castration, full genital removal is castration, so what KJK said was true and fully accurate.

If Green had done the same and taken her daughter abroad for FGM, she'd be in prison.

Aah I remember that one when she stood in a public square and did nothing at all. They had to get what was it, 4 van loads of police to come and deal with her.

They were arguing about what to charge her with and because they didn't realise she had her phone on, it was all recorded.

So mean that woman - standing in a public square! Anyone would think we were in Afghanistan. But no, Yorkshire.

Onnabugeisha
The police have just dragged a woman into court for silently praying
near an abortion clinic. Found no case to answer.
That must have gone through lots of scrutiny. Don't pretend this is isolated to a few officers. It has become endemic in certain police forces, generally the one's who handle crimes against women badly.

A fish rots from the head down - this starts with the College of Policing.

Hang on, I haven’t had the time to catch up with lots of fabulous FWR stuff since yesterday, but am I right in his, that someone is arguing that - telling a boy that castration is both a small thing and capable of turning them into a woman AND takes them abroad to get off label drugs which weren’t available here to stop their sexual development, preventing them from growing to adulthood AND gets them castrated abroad when they are a minor because it is against the law here - someone is arguing that this isn’t child abuse? 🫤The mind boggles.

Imnobody4

The police have just dragged a woman into court for silently praying
near an abortion clinic.

She breached an exclusion zone which was placed on her. There was a thread about this at the time and people on here generally didn't support her.

www.mumsnet.com/talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/4705348-woman-arrested-in-birmingham-for-praying-outside-abortion-clinic

Impossiblenurse

Onnabugeisha - YES a police officer is stood right next to KJK in the 'standing for women' Brighton event, I was not there but watched the live feed albeit back in September.
The police officer is visible throughout and does not appear to move from her post. If you saw the footage, it would be impossible to not notice her, she's stoic, wearing hi vis and if I remember rightly stepped away from her post only briefly, to recover a smoke bomb thrown into the speaking 'space'.

So, the officer didn't have constant observations on KJK - if she stepped away from her into the crowd. How do we know something hasn't happened then?

If you have watched the footage and can state that when KJK arrived to the point where KJK left - there was a police officer giving constant observations 100% of the time (without being distracted or being swapped over by other officers) then why not supply a statement to the police. Bare in mind you may have to stand in court and confirm this on oath and risk contempt of court proceedings if its found to be incorrect.

If I see a thief breaking into a car and chase them down the road. If they turn into a side road and I lose sight of them momentarily whilst I catch them up - I have lost continuity and can't 100% say that it is one in the same person.

Have you actually watched the footage yet?

Surely we can all agree that castrating children is wrong? Surely it should be legal to state this without having the police come round to interview us?

AlisonDonut

I've watched parts of it - but I haven't found any footage that covers from when KJK arrives to when she leaves. And for the camera angle to completely follow KJK 100% of the time with the officer on her shoulder during this.

Have you? Please share the footage and I will happily view it

While footage focussed on recording the event speakers that captures her on the margins can provide some evidence, it cannot possibly cover the entirety of KJKs words and actions on that day.

heathspeedwell · Today 09:18
Surely we can all agree that castrating children is wrong? Surely it should be legal to state this without having the police come round to interview us?

Yes it is wrong

But the offence she was being investigated for was malicious communications wasn't it?

So what was the precise allegation made against her on that occasion? Time, dates, MO...... We need to know this before we can judge on what investigation should/could have taken place

The 'malicious communication' was Kellie stating that it's wrong to castrate children.

Do you think we should be able to say that it's wrong to castrate children?

That’s not the issue as to why the police interviewed KJK.

KJK made a multiple personal attacks on the legal decisions of another parent regarding their trans child, even denying that their child was trans and therefore parent was abusing their child. The parent then complained to the police under malicious communications- essentially alleging that the comments made by KJK amounted to cyber harassment/bullying.

The police then interviewed KJK, I suppose mostly to warn her off continuing her harassment or they would be forced to prosecute.

They didn’t interview her because she just said generally to the world at large that it’s wrong to castrate children. 🙄 That’s the straw man.

No - malicious communication is:

Any person who sends to another person a letter, electronic communication or article of any description which conveys—
(i)a message which is indecent or grossly offensive;
(ii)a threat; or
(iii)information which is false and known or believed to be false by the sender; or
which is, in whole or part, of an indecent or grossly offensive nature,

Just stating its wrong to castrate children would not fall into this. So there must have been something else 'allegedly'' sent that drops into that category