Lesbian interviewed under caution for tweets

[Justme56]

Link to https://x.com/wearefaircop/status/1723241217536758023?s=46&t=ZX_bLozRqm8etdGICMcAvA

Attached the transcript from the interview- not sure if posted in order.

Quite, let's just move on!

(Aargh, still not wooorking!!!!!)

it's a Saturday, poor you!

🙂 Thank you. I know. Bad week...

Something just occurred to me. Everyone else has probably already thought of this but .

If we can't refer to trans women as men in court if we are raped and then the man claims he's a trans women - is this taking us down the route that because you need to be a man to rape, they are looking to get lesser sentences and get it charged as assault?

Apologies of this is a stupid question.

I've been reading up thanks to the links upthread.
I note that Kate Scottow was prosecuted under the Communications Act 2003 s.127 (2) (c) In the main, because of Stephself and other civil action shenanigans
Conviction overturned on Appeal.
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Scottow-v-CPS-judgment-161220.pdf

BUT here the woman has been interviewed under caution with a view to prosecution under. s.1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988

The CPS Guidelines for s.127 CA do refer to the Scottow case. The Guidelines on s.1 MCA don't. But the Guidelines DO say the following:

For all offences under s.1 MCA 1988, the prosecution must establish that the sender's purpose, or one such purpose, is that the message should cause distress or anxiety to the recipient or to any other person to whom it is intended that the message or its contents or nature should be communicated. This is a higher standard than for section 127 CA 2003.

s.1(1)(a)(iii) MCA 1988 requires proof that the sender knew or believed the information was false.

The Guidelines then refer to Art. 10 ECHR Right to Freedom of Expression and say:

Prosecutors should only proceed with cases under section 1 MCA 1988 or section 127 CA 2003 where the interference with freedom of expression, is necessary and is proportionate. See
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/social-media-and-other-electronic-communications

The copper asked: why the woman's LGB was separate from the QT?

That copper was briefed by someone prior to interview. Either a helpful nod to refer to Art 10 (ha ha) - or an attempt to get an admission that she is part of a Terfy plot i.e. interference with freedom of expression is necessary and proportionate. Sinister.

If I've got any of that wrong then please shout up.
I think CF was the MCA? Dropped - but still subject to CPS review if requested by the.. erm... Alligator.

So killing terfs is absolutely fine, but biological reality is literal violence!

Although @boudiccathecat Caroline Farrow sent out an email this morning. Her Malicious Communications Act charges have been dropped. So perhaps there's room for optimism.
However, the civil case against her for Misuse of Private Information is still ongoing. Due to be heard 2024. Same Alligator.
Caroline is gearing up to sue Surrey Police for costs, wrongful arrest etc.

I was talking about shouting at a stranger IRL, although not randomly.

What did you think of the Sept. incident in Manchester where a large group of people pursued Helen Joyce and Maya Forstater, swearing at them, shouting, possibly making threats?

https://www.thehelenjoyce.com/joyce-activated-issue-60/

I'm genuinely confused by your post, @RethinkingLife. All of the following possibilities cross my mind!

• You've not read my posts very carefully, you think I'm approving of shouting at randoms, & you want to persuade me it's a Bad Thing.
• It's suggesting that, because I argue for a more cautious approach to dealing with vulnerable individuals "on the other side", I must, by extension, be accepting any aggressive behaviour attacking "our" side?!
• You're making the tit-for-tat argument that "They shout at us, so we should damn well shout right back!"
• Or it's a defence of shouting along the lines of, "OK, we both shouted, but there were more of them & they were scary & sweary!"
• Or, OK, maybe it's a totally random "knight's move" contribution to the thread that I'm misinterpreting entirely, in which case, apologies for the much more cynical readings above.

Whatever, my answer's predictably consistent with all my other posts on the thread & elsewhere. It's reprehensible, on a level that totally eclipses anything I've seen "our side" doing.

Can we now move on from my brief (but apparently treacherously anti-feminist) suggestion that we consider not shouting as a tactical step, & get back to the original topic in any future posts on a dying thread? 😁

(Edited to tone down irritation & add distressing missing apostrophe).

PS A note on the power of gentle persuasion - @Ereshkigalangcleg, I read your post re: working this afternoon & it tipped the balance: I decided to put it all away, & have done absolutely nothing since reading it. Am unexpectedly feeling much, much better for it. Thank you!

Glad to hear that @Catiette!

Yeah, quite seriously - it made me realise I should take tomorrow totally off, too (it was a truly tough week last week!) To hell with what Monday brings! 😀

• You've not read my posts very carefully, you think I'm approving of shouting at randoms, & you want to persuade me it's a Bad Thing.

None of your interpretations.

apologies for the much more cynical readings above.

OK.

Good to hear. On the same page, then. Awful behaviour in Manc - so sick of it & sickened by it.

Don’t understand why so many people here are so upset. Most people here are on the left. The left created the concept of hate speech both in culture and in law. Now they discover their opinions are considered hate and hate speech by others? Lie in the bed you made.

I'm fine with action against actual perpetrators of hate speech; racist rabble rousers, people calling for Muslims to be deported, people who harass disabled people and the like.

I'm not fine with the Police abusing it, to falsely arrest and threaten people who state scientific facts, which are legally protected philosophical beliefs.

Do you see my point?

Don’t understand why so many people here are so upset.

Is this actually true?

Jane Fae didn’t like this one bit and found it crass and offensive. But in my opinion, transgender and transage are cut from the same cloth. In both cases, you have people wishing to deny reality and become something they’re not. Why not just learn to live with the hand you’ve been dealt? You don’t have to stick to gender or age stereotypes, you’re free to live the way that suits you best, as long as it causes no harm to others.

No last time I checked there were like over 300 "women" convicted of rape in the past 5 years.

It's why "not our crimes" is so important because they are charged as women. Can't remember which show but they were talking about there was sudden rise in women pedos so much that the number doubled and they just did not know why. No one on the panel said that it's because they are men.

I actually partly agree with you. Personally I think that no one should be able to be prosecuted for what they say however offensive (unless it's directly threatening or inciting violence (actual not literal!)) because I can now see where this leads. 15 years ago I would probably have been supportive of hate speech legislation because I didn't anticipate what the impact would be on free speech and how 1984 everything would get! It's terrifying that people are being dragged into police stations and interviewed under caution for saying things that are factually correct, or expressing an opinion that is simply contrary to someone else's opinion, just because it might upset them or someone else. That shouldn't be the bar.

I remember defending the right of the BNP to exist over 30 years ago because we needed to win the argument against them not simply declare their views illegal. I thought that "illegal" opinions was too dangerous a concept.

However, I definitely did parrot "freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences" a few years ago. I still think it's partly true but if your job is at risk if you express unpopular opinions, then speech is very much not free.

Having said that, it's terrifying that the police are so keen to arrest women for calling men men.

The left created the concept of hate speech both in culture and in law

No they didn’t. It’s a tale as old as time. The authoritarian Left labelled it “hate speech” but it’s been going on forever. Joe McCarthy wasn’t left wing of course, it’s just his definition of “hate speech” was hating America.

I'm very suspicious of the account that supposedly made the report to NUFC. As are many others.

Tags MUFC a lot too.

Interestingly it's been restricted.

x.com/jjtooner/status/1723367860129415506?s=46&t=A2fpFNgDRyXF2d6ye97wEA

x.com/northumbriapol/status/1723348183248429381?s=46&t=A2fpFNgDRyXF2d6ye97wEA

Yeah it's a very odd account. Claims to be a Newcastle fan, posted a picture of 'the boss celebrating on the train'. But at least one person in that picture is wearing a Bournemouth FC top. Bournemouth beat Newcastle yesterday

Also a few months ago that account was begging for new followers, I'm sure the current activity is just a coincidence.