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.

Meanwhile there is actual crime out there, rape, theft and murder, but hurty tweets trump that. Insane

There seems to be an indication on Twitter that NUFC may be sued over this. (They revoked her season ticket.)

That is absolutely insane. I bet they have dozens of far right twats with season tickets.

The crime of rape in the UK requires a penis. It doesn't matter whether the penis owner calls himself a man or a woman.

The crime of assault by penetration, which can be committed by women as well as men, carries the same penalties as rape.

A woman can be charged with rape if she assists a man who rapes someone. If a 'woman' is charged with rape as the sole offender, that 'woman' is actually a man.

So Northumbria police are No Comment?
Lol

They won't say nuffink till the brief gets there!

Well now, your history is a bit wonky, it's nothing new. For example:
Jesus and the Apostles didn't do too well under the Romans. Those famous lefties.
He only said 'Render unto Caeser what is Caeser's'.
The Roman's reckoned that was tantamount to stickering. After that, it was all down hill for the Christians.

The concept of hate speech is at least several thousand years old.

Hate speech was only ever what the people in power disagree with. Probably originally known as treason. I think it’s a sign of human progress that, after generations of it protecting the ruling classes or Establishment only, it got a rebrand which aims to give the vulnerable some protection. But is it always going to be misused & abused as a concept, whatever form it takes? Of course - it’s a construct tied to power dynamics in a flawed society. The challenge is working out where to draw the line, when the line itself is always going to be subjective & arbitrary.

Not to mention that in a sane, modern society, should the tax payer funded force intended to deal with criminal activity (to prevent citizens needing to take matters into their own hands to protect themselves and their property) be using very stretched resources and funds to run about wasting them on 'but she said facts I don't like and my feelings got ouchy'?

And while there IS a shading into criminal law in, for example evidenced o the thread, threatening in a public space to behead people, this appears to be ok so long as you only do it to women saying no to men .

So the law isn't being applied equally or impartially or even logically.

The tax funded police are using up overstretched resources, taking away from actually doing their jobs, to enforce political control on the dictat of an extremist, unbalanced lobby with no democratic mandate of any kind.

This is a bit of bloody horrific issue in historic terms. But it's ok, Sunak's got his fiddle out.

people need to start reporting those tweets to the police. Someone writes that to you, or in reply to one of your tweets? report directly to the police

Also note the fur coat and no knickers approach of the left (which the right has not had sufficient guts or organisation to deal with.)

Your house is being burgled and we've got no one spare to come for a few weeks to pop you a crime number, kids being knifed in the street across the UK, we have no time to deal with your muggings and even if you can evidence your rape it probably won't get to court - but by God we'll put the frighteners on a woman who dares to tell a bloke he's a bloke when he doesn't want her to say it!

Sorry I don't know how to link but on Twitter someone called Bee Loud Bonnet has done a thread with what they would have said to the police. It's hilarious.

NLand police account usually has under 10k views per tweet.

This one is up to 448k and still rising. Sunlight, hopefully.

@Redshoeblueshoe

I think the twitter account is Naomi Cunningham's.

Hope it's okay to quote, for those not on Twitter/X.
She runs through the police questions with her own answers.
My favourite bit:

Bee-loud bonnet (thou/thee)

1. What do I mean by "thou/thee" in the bio, you ask. Well, people often give their pronouns. If you think people ought to use preferred pronouns, these are mine.

1. Please remember this, if you decide to interview me.

You will need to ask questions like "How often dost thou use X?" "What dost thou mean by "thou/thee" in thy bio?"

You may find there is a modest cognitive cost to this, but that's ok with me.

(And the NLand police tweet views is now up to 456k since my last post.)

471k now

The police are constantly making themselves look like absolute clowns, but despite cases being dropped and public ridicule they just keep on doing it.

More seriously I think the only way this will stop is if the police forces are sued alongside individual officers (Im talking about the people giving the orders rather than boots on the ground PCs though some of them probably need it)

473k by the time I previewed and posted.

473k and only 113 likes.

No comment.

I’ll see you all in jail. Bagsie the top bunk.

They forgot to mention this in their round up of actions they've taken this week - but it's OK as commentators have reminded them 😂

https://twitter.com/northumbriapol/status/1723010294820045206

If any of you are Bee Loud Bonnet I doff my cap to 'thee'

Sometimes I cannot help but wonder the following:

Hate speech = blasphemy.
The religion involved that has been blasphemed against is that of Gender Identity Ideology.

Don't think we will know all the facts though here for a while; I'm picking these bits up off twitter

It is exactly this. Blasphemy law. That is nowhere anywhere in the law and has never passed through any form of democracy or mandate. And is escaping direct accountability by hiding under a very old and battered fig leaf of 'hate speech/criminal communications' when the law is not enforced against men who openly threaten to rape and kill women.

If it wasn't so bloody appalling it would be laughable.

Trans activists can freely threaten to kill (in graphic, deeply disturbed and often sexual detail), sexually assault, rape, batter and maim women, and post pictures of them posed with the weapons to do so, and this is apparently fine and an exception to the law of malicious communications/hate crime/yada yada.

Women stating to a man that he is a man when this is against his wishes is an arrestable offence.

This would suggest that accountability under the law depends on who is breaking it and that the law is applied to oppressed groups (women for example) and not to powerful groups (trans activists, almost entirely male ones, and many not actually TQ or only temporarily TQ).

Well said, Frood.

These facts are clear. Our ‘justice’ system is openly biased against women in this area, putting female lives at risk.

It’s not as if those in power haven’t noticed social media. They have, and choose to weigh in against women.

Thanks Frood I'm glad that my thought made sense. Sometimes I have thoughts like that, and then I think that it can't possibly be right - because it's insane - but then I look again and think that unfortunately, it might actually be correct after all.

So when people say 'transphobe' we should translate it to 'blasphemer.'