Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Thread gallery
48
OP posts:
ArabeIIaScott · 01/09/2023 20:00

This may offer a little bit of insight into the women supporting Baker:

https://twitter.com/JustMisogyny/status/1680849816052461576

"If you see a terf ... " Sarah Jane Baker thread 2
"If you see a terf ... " Sarah Jane Baker thread 2
IcakethereforeIam · 01/09/2023 20:12

Oh! Idiots.

Original poster
IwantToRetire · 01/09/2023 22:07

Patsy Stevenson

Not THE Patsy Stevenson the useful (and willing) idiot for any number of norraly corrupt and dishonest causes???

OP posts:
Britinme · 01/09/2023 22:07

Ah - the American sense of patsy.

OP posts:
ArabeIIaScott · 01/09/2023 22:10

IwantToRetire · 01/09/2023 22:07

Patsy Stevenson

Not THE Patsy Stevenson the useful (and willing) idiot for any number of norraly corrupt and dishonest causes???

The same.

OhHolyJesus · 01/09/2023 22:20

Sex Matters have a letter you can sign, calling for Sunak and Keir and others to do something.

Can you imagine the result if the situation were reversed and it was a woman who recognised biology calling for trans identified males to be "punched in the f*ing face?" I'm certain it wouldn't have been the same.

You can sign the letter anonymously.

https://x.com/sexmattersorg/status/1697715661433090365?s=46

OP posts:
IcakethereforeIam · 01/09/2023 22:38

Signed, thank you.

Boiledbeetle · 01/09/2023 22:50

IwantToRetire · 01/09/2023 22:09

It has since come to light that Judge Tan Ikram, who allowed this dangerous man to pass of the threat of violence against women as nothing more than a joke, is a ‘Diversity specialist’ and a contributor to the 'Equal Treatment Courts Benchbook'.

Quote from https://grahamlinehan.substack.com/p/playing-to-the-gallery-the-sarah

Of course he sodding is! Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!

MassiveWordSalad · 01/09/2023 23:34

IwantToRetire · 01/09/2023 22:21

Thanks for the letter info.

Can be read at and shared using the web link https://sex-matters.org/posts/updates/prime-minister-will-you-stand-up-to-violence-against-women/

Signed, thanks

BoreOfWhabylon · 02/09/2023 00:54

Defend us

https://youtu.be/96er3pm62IU

PencilsInSpace · 02/09/2023 01:09

From Tribunal Tweets:

Baker was charged under section 4a of the Public Order Act, which states that a person is guilty of an offence if they use “threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour”.

Baker denied the charge and was remanded in custody. On 17th August, the court charged Baker with a second offence of “intentionally encouraging the commission of an offence, namely assault by beating”.

https://tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/sarah-jane-baker-v-cps

The first offence was dropped by CPS before the trial. That offence would have taken into account the effect on members of the public like Heather Binning and the other woman who were both originally going to be called as witnesses.

The second charge relied solely on SJB's intentions so the witnesses were not deemed necessary. That's why there was nobody to push back on his claims that 'TERFs' were extremists who had physically attacked trans people.

I've been looking at the Victims' Right to Review Scheme:

https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/victims-right-review-scheme

‘Victim’ is used to describe a person against whom an offence has been committed, or the complainant in a case being considered or prosecuted by the CPS.

It seems to me that anyone who complained to the police about this incident could use the victim's right to review to challenge the CPS to bring the original charge to court. This would allow Heather Binning and the other woman to take the stand and explain the effect this violent male agenda has on women.

ValancyRedfern · 02/09/2023 09:48

That's a great idea pencils

PurpleGreenandWhiteAreTheNewPrimaryColours · 02/09/2023 10:13

PencilsInSpace · 02/09/2023 01:09

From Tribunal Tweets:

Baker was charged under section 4a of the Public Order Act, which states that a person is guilty of an offence if they use “threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour”.

Baker denied the charge and was remanded in custody. On 17th August, the court charged Baker with a second offence of “intentionally encouraging the commission of an offence, namely assault by beating”.

https://tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/sarah-jane-baker-v-cps

The first offence was dropped by CPS before the trial. That offence would have taken into account the effect on members of the public like Heather Binning and the other woman who were both originally going to be called as witnesses.

The second charge relied solely on SJB's intentions so the witnesses were not deemed necessary. That's why there was nobody to push back on his claims that 'TERFs' were extremists who had physically attacked trans people.

I've been looking at the Victims' Right to Review Scheme:

https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/victims-right-review-scheme

‘Victim’ is used to describe a person against whom an offence has been committed, or the complainant in a case being considered or prosecuted by the CPS.

It seems to me that anyone who complained to the police about this incident could use the victim's right to review to challenge the CPS to bring the original charge to court. This would allow Heather Binning and the other woman to take the stand and explain the effect this violent male agenda has on women.

Good, I made an original crime report to the met but never had any form of response. Will look in to this

Ereshkigalangcleg · 02/09/2023 11:00

It has since come to light that Judge Tan Ikram, who allowed this dangerous man to pass of the threat of violence against women as nothing more than a joke, is a ‘Diversity specialist’ and a contributor to the 'Equal Treatment Courts Benchbook'

Absolutely astonishing news. I've never been so completely surprised in my life.

GoatsareGOAT · 02/09/2023 13:09

RoyalCorgi · 01/09/2023 16:47

The fact that the KC was posting about Scotland (procurator fiscal, hate crime and public order bill) makes me think it wasn't in reference to the Baker case.

And as PPs have said the fact that misogyny isn't an aggravating factor is neither here nor there - it was straightforwardly a case of incitement to violence.

Knowing that the magistrate is a legally qualified person is depressing.

Roddy's commenting (or not😉) on this case

https://www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/columnists/police-warning-for-a-man-attacking-a-woman-sometimes-the-law-really-is-an-ass-susan-dalgety-4276698#

RealityFan · 02/09/2023 13:14

Ereshkigalangcleg · 02/09/2023 11:00

It has since come to light that Judge Tan Ikram, who allowed this dangerous man to pass of the threat of violence against women as nothing more than a joke, is a ‘Diversity specialist’ and a contributor to the 'Equal Treatment Courts Benchbook'

Absolutely astonishing news. I've never been so completely surprised in my life.

I mean, women are so diverse. More diverse than they ever imagined.

Original poster
IwantToRetire · 02/09/2023 19:14

PencilsInSpace · 02/09/2023 01:09

From Tribunal Tweets:

Baker was charged under section 4a of the Public Order Act, which states that a person is guilty of an offence if they use “threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour”.

Baker denied the charge and was remanded in custody. On 17th August, the court charged Baker with a second offence of “intentionally encouraging the commission of an offence, namely assault by beating”.

https://tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/sarah-jane-baker-v-cps

The first offence was dropped by CPS before the trial. That offence would have taken into account the effect on members of the public like Heather Binning and the other woman who were both originally going to be called as witnesses.

The second charge relied solely on SJB's intentions so the witnesses were not deemed necessary. That's why there was nobody to push back on his claims that 'TERFs' were extremists who had physically attacked trans people.

I've been looking at the Victims' Right to Review Scheme:

https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/victims-right-review-scheme

‘Victim’ is used to describe a person against whom an offence has been committed, or the complainant in a case being considered or prosecuted by the CPS.

It seems to me that anyone who complained to the police about this incident could use the victim's right to review to challenge the CPS to bring the original charge to court. This would allow Heather Binning and the other woman to take the stand and explain the effect this violent male agenda has on women.

Thanks for this. I was very confused, maybe because I missed that one of the charges had been dropped.

Hopefully those who did initially complain can use this to then challenge the Magistrate's decision.

What a joke (in a really horrible way) the Justice system is.

Just a game for those who know the rules can manipulate and / or the police sabotage.

OP posts:
Original poster
IwantToRetire · 02/09/2023 20:30

Haave just seen this tweet:

The judge who found Baker not guilty of inciting violence found a woman guilty when she revealed her breasts in protest at Prince Phillip's funeral. Ikram thought that was disgusting. Maybe if she'd said it was just a joke he'd've let her off. #misogyny
https://twitter.com/HespeChristina/status/1697774121176674690

OP posts:
ANameChangePresents · 02/09/2023 23:09

I wish I had some wonderful insight to share, but instead all I have is sadness and rage.

It's truly the Family Guy sketch, made real.

Posies monologue the other night was so true. Say you're Trans, do what you want, as far as the law is concerned.

NitroNine · 03/09/2023 11:45

The ever-handy Thompson Reuters “Practical Law” suggests that recusal was in order. Ikram clearly isn’t impartial on the matter (whether due to his work on the Bench Book, something more personal, or a combination thereof 🤷‍♀️); & while the prosecution shouldn’t have dropped “causing harassment alarm & distress” (presumably they thought they had “encouragement to violence” all sewn up) & should have challenged the blatant perjury (though I imagine they were caught off-balance by it) they presented an actual case while SJB had no real defence.

Hopefully the parole board won’t be so easily won over. Will they look at it as being part of a pattern of escalation does anyone know? SJB was using Twitter to menace women’s rights campaigners prior to arrest, for example 🫤

Recusal | Practical Law

Recusal | Practical Law

https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/2-205-6249?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&firstPage=true#:~:text=A%20situation%20in%20which%20a,observer%20would%20conclude%20that%20the

MrsOvertonsWindow · 03/09/2023 11:54

Ereshkigalangcleg · 02/09/2023 11:00

It has since come to light that Judge Tan Ikram, who allowed this dangerous man to pass of the threat of violence against women as nothing more than a joke, is a ‘Diversity specialist’ and a contributor to the 'Equal Treatment Courts Benchbook'

Absolutely astonishing news. I've never been so completely surprised in my life.

Well there's a surprise! (not).