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.

dimorphism

Yes - its a voluntary interview, so she can decline to be interviewed or walk out of the interview at the start if she wants - that's perfectly fine

But the police will only have the complainants side of the story to go on. So it will end up in court as one word against nothing.

This is probably why her solicitor may have suggested to her to be interviewed.

Unless there is evidence to suggest she is leaving for Australia for good - they can arrange a vol interview when she comes back - so its not being done so she can leave the country. Since the incident happened in September, which ever cop is dealing with it doesn't see it as a priority and is probably busy dealing with a whole host of other crimes and ongoing emergencies which has pushed this on the back burner. A couple more weeks won't make much of a difference.

These multiple videos, and witness testimonies and police statements you mention - where are they? Can you give me a link which shows the event from start to finish giving 100% continuity of KJK on film? Can you give me a link to the witness statements from police and other witnesses at the event which support her account? If not - how can you be certain they exist and what they say.

And yes - you don't need to be interviewed to be charged. But to give a fair and open investigation - they should be given an opportunity to be interviewed at least.

The bike issue - complain if he was adamant that it was one and same bike. You will be able to access the crime investigation log to see why they made the decision not peruse the allegation. Can he say 100% that it was the same bike for example?

Yes - Couzens should have investigated for flashing. Did the people being flashed at identify him and provided a statement at the time? If so, yes he should have been prosecuted if the evidence was there.

That is a false equivalency, which is a logical fallacy.

I think this is right.

Women are not supposed to have a public life. Mary Beard lays it all out in Women and Power.

Are we assuming that SG was the complainant, and that the complaint centres around what she did to her son?

If that is the case, then i would LOVE to see this go all the way to court. Lets see her decision on what she did examined, out in the open using clear language and looked at through a legal lense.

I suspect that SG would evaporate like a vampire in the delicious sunlight. Bonus points for a criminal conviction.

That is a court case i would throw a months salary at in the allotment.

Datun

The point is - the ongoing issues about the dangers of trans ideology on children, hosted by a woman..........

Has nothing to do with this specific alleagtion.

You don't know what the specific allegation is - neither do I - so you can't possibly say that no crime has occurred and hence the police should not be investigating.

Its got nothing to do with her opinions. A complainant has phoned the police and described an incident which has been judged to have been a crime -assessed by a call taker, crimes desk, dispatcher etc etc

So that specific moment is being investigated - not her whole belief system

Yes - Couzens should have investigated for flashing. Did the people being flashed at identify him and provided a statement at the time? If so, yes he should have been prosecuted if the evidence was there

Oh yes a statement to the police about their colleague. It's how they catch them all, on a statement. That guy who was caught masturbating twice on a train - caught. On hang on, no not caught, just moved to admin duties. Oh. Ok. I see.

Of course he was sure it was the same bike, he had distinctive stickers on it and there were chips to the paint in specific locations (which he could evidence via photos). He did complain, it went nowhere.

We all know the police are nowhere to be found for so many issues.

And yet....

I believe the reason they gave for not investigating was lack of police time - which seems bizarre when they visited Posie for being 'untoward about paedophiles'.

dimorphism
So what was the reason for closing the crime enquiry?
How was the crime closed?

She's a woman. Of course its her fault 🙄

I see there is a tag teaming thats a match made in heaven. Both not living in the real world, and incredibly boring to read considering they twist everything to the point its not actually relevant to well...anything.

If the complaint was evidenced enough to charge, she'd have been charged. She's refused an interview twice. How many times does a woman have to say 'no'. If someone keeps on at a woman until they say 'yes' because they're being harassed and they are only saying yes in the hope the harassment will end, is that consent?

dimorphism

That's not a closure code - lack of police time

What was it actually closed with

Are you seriously trying to tell me there are not mutiple crimes where the victims are given a crime number (to claim on insurance) and the police never come out to investigate? You tell me what the code is for this, but it happens a lot.

dimorphism

No - she hasn't refused to be interviewed as far as i know.
That's why she is attending the police station for the interview with her solicitor i believe

Its got nothing to do with her opinions.

🤣🤣🤣

dimorphism

No - but each crime will have a closure code on it
Lack of police time is not one of the closure codes

If a complaint was made - they will have disclosed what the closure code was - I'm just asking what it was.

So what is the complaint then - since you seem to know more than everyone else...?

What did the reporting person say to the call taker....?

What was the specific allegation made....?

If I remember correctly she has been told she will be arrested at the airport if she tries to go to Australia before being interviewed @Felix125. Not very voluntary when faced with that is it

AlisonDonut

You need statements to go to court - eye witness testimony. Its the back bone of court cases.

And I agree with you - he should have been sacked and not simply moved

You need to break into the police station, rifle through their files to find the code, take photos, email them using a burner email to an anonymous account, and don't forget to take the sim card out, tread on it and then throw the phone into the nearest river after wiping your fungerprints off.

Then make sure your mate is your alibi. Totally normal behaviour.

Oh right this is why so many rape cases are successful, it's the top quality of the statements and the evidence left at the 'scene of the crime/vagina'.

Oh hang on.

Somanyquestionstoaskaboutthis
If I remember correctly she has been told she will be arrested at the airport if she tries to go to Australia before being interviewed @Felix125. Not very voluntary when faced with that is it

Can you document that - because that is wrong if she has been told this

She can decline her right to be vol interviewed or walkout of the interview at the start.

i would suggest that there will be no necessity to arrest her in any case as the incident happened in September.

And, we are back to the mantra of “la la la can’t hear you, help help I’m being oppressed by jack booted fascist police” KJK fan club. Apparently KJK should be above the law, she shouldn’t have to put up with pesky complaints from the peasantry and the police should know their place and stay away from her £1m home’s front door.

And, we are back to the mantra of the “la la la can’t hear you, help help I’m being oppressed by jack booted fascist women” anti-women fan club. Apparently men who say they are women and their allies think they should be above the law and they shouldn’t have to put up with pesky women speaking in public, and the police should show those women their place and...etc etc

FIFY

Felix

Women don't go to the police to report a crime. Many women wouldn't dare.

They don't know if they'll be targeted, laughed at, asked out, flashed at, harassed raped or killed.

It's way beyond the point for many women that they would consider even the possibility that they would be taken seriously.

I know you know all that. You've been given Link after Link after link. You represent them perfectly.

SG & Jackie are mother and son

Mother and daughter now, no?