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.

@Froodwithatowel ”It isn't 'law', because law is applied equally and impartially to set standards.”. Says who? It is law and the law is not applied equally and impartially. The laws against ‘hate’ are very subjective and that was done on purpose.

@Froodwithatowel ”And for every woman who gets sufficiently angry to write to someone or say this out loud, it creeps a little bit further.” If you think the views of the general population matter I would highly recommend reading a book called ‘The Populist Delusion’.

According to the Telegraph article, NUFC says it withdraws membership from anyone 'under police investigation'!! Surely that's for football-related public order or violent offences, following senior police and legal advice?! Not for women tweeting facts.

Even if someone is 'under investigation' for something serious (and not convicted), then the club still has to tread carefully and not trash civil liberties, or anyone from other clubs could report any Newcastle supporter vindictively ... where are the legally required checks and balances?

This sounds like a right sorry mess for NUFC and NorthumbPol, if the Telegraph article is accurate.

https://uk.yahoo.com/style/newcastle-united-fan-club-membership-123234202.html

I’d imagine NUFC (and most other clubs) have had lots of supporters who at various times have been under investigation by the police. I can’t believe they’ve all been suspended - and how would the clubs know anyway?

very bizarre

How on earth would the club know who of their members is under police investigation? Unless that guy did report to both police and the club. Which is targeted and indicates he knows her.

Somewhere on his timeline he claims (note claims) to have been an ex employee at the club (ticket office) and know people there.

(Also an extreme troll and best not engaged with.)

That article says "temporarily suspended" - if the case has been dropped as no case, surely she should be reinstated?

The equivalent with hate speech would be to say you’re allowed to drive but not allowed to drive drunk and then leaving it up to a highly politicised and ideological police force to decide who was and wasn’t under the influence of alcohol

@Rafalww

Right. So, if this was the case, and you wanted to improve the situation, would it be better to
A) say no-one could drink before driving (or say anyone can drink anything before driving)
Or
B) attempt to get some limits introduced into law, even if someone might in future change those limits?

On Friday, she was asked to attend a voluntary interview at Forth Banks Police Station in relation to “malicious communications” over several posts on X, formerly known as Twitter.

I missed that she went voluntarily for an interview under caution. I hope that she changes her legal advisor.

The football club's involvement is very odd indeed.

@popebishop

B. But only if the limits/rules are clearly defined and apply to all without fear or favour. That’s how it works when it’s something like drink driving.

But that is not how it works with something like hate speech, especially not when the political police are infused with left wing values (or any other values other than impartial law enforcement for that matter).

Hate speech laws not only don’t work like drunk driving laws, they simply cannot work that way. 1. Because it’s based partly on subjective feelings and 2. Because the police are now a politicised institution with leftist/progressive ideological values. The police cannot be neutral now because they have been politicised on purpose to use these subjective laws in exactly the way they are using them today. This was always going to be the case; as soon as these laws were passed where we are now became inevitable. Those who supported these laws have simply gotten the meal they ordered off the menu.

This woman has been deliberately targeted by someone who knew what they were doing. And knew they could use the police.

And I doubt that person is a real toon supporter reading all those tweets from that weird account.

I'm immersed in enough toon supporters (mother of Geordie boys, many friends also football heads) to know the slang and football supporter style. They've slipped up several times.

(The person claiming to have reported the woman to NUFC and the police I mean.)

A. Haddock has links that way. Just saying @WarriorN

I was thinking of someone else too.

Same m.o.
But best leave it there on this forum. I think you are on the right track.

@LarkLane ”I missed that she went voluntarily for an interview under caution. I hope that she changes her legal advisor.”

I think this might be more Orwellian language. I’m pretty sure if you don’t attend these “voluntary” meetings they come and arrest you and ask the same questions at the police station.

Yes, you are quite right @Rafalww. I was thinking about it some more.

I imagine she attended voluntarily as not having been arrested, she will not need to disclose the police interview if, for example, she ever needs to undergo a DBS check for work. Important to note for anyone who may need DBS checks throughout their career.

Sometimes the police invite you to attend voluntarily as a bit of a fishing expedition when they haven't got enough evidence to arrest you, amongst other reasons. Then if you answer the questions more fully, you may be giving them what they are looking for. The questions she was asked are very pertinent to gaining more evidence of her alleged transphobia. So glad she said No Comment.

It's a really good idea to take legal advice before attending for interview voluntarily ime. Although you are entitled to a legal representative at the interview under the legal aid system, it's luck of the draw who turns up to advise you.

My own position is that they would have to arrest me, but everyone's situation is different, and that might not be appropriate for someone else, as in DBS checks for your employment.

I strongly disagree that the police are leftist and progressive. We have seen how anti-woman they are. I don't think how the police actually act is any representation of what the law sets out. Just because the police are inconsistent and biased and act what appears to be unlawfully, I don't think that's a reason to shrug and bin any law they claim to be upholding.

I agree that outlawing certain types of speech because that speech itself in a manifestation of hate is impossible when it's so dependent on context, humour etc - and if we attempt it, the bar should be very high. That doesn't mean there shouldn't be any bar whatsoever though, in my opinion. It's tiring beyond belief to live your life hearing hatred against you day in, day out, people persuading others that you are vermin or less than human or deserve violence simply because of an aspect of yourself - not your beliefs, or actions, or words, but just how you were born.

Saying a male is male does not come under this, so it's not what I want at all. I wouldn't say "I supported these laws" as I don't know much about them in detail. I think a decent analysis would need to be done about their effects.

I was mainly disagreeing with your argument that "BUT… then guess what happens, the BUT becomes whatever those in positions of authority want the BUT to be" the fact that people can apply laws inconsistently or may change them in future, does not, in itself, mean there shouldn't be a law at all.

She seems to have had advice from Fair Cop to secretly record the interview. I wonder if she got any other advice from them or anyone else. In her position, I'd probably trust advice from Fair Cop.
https://nitter.net/WeAreFairCop/status/1723241224507633920#m

Yes, true @LarkLane . KJK had to attend a voluntary in fairly recent history.

@popebishop ”Saying a male is male does not come under this, so it's not what I want at all. I wouldn't say "I supported these laws" as I don't know much about them in detail. I think a decent analysis would need to be done about their effects.”

It absolutely does, or at least it absolutely can. It’s not complicated. You have hate speech laws that are subjective and based on perception and these laws protect ‘protected characteristics’, one of which is gender identity. In some circumstances you absolutely could be done under that legal framework for saying someone who identifies as female is a man.

@popebishop “I was mainly disagreeing with your argument that "BUT… then guess what happens, the BUT becomes whatever those in positions of authority want the BUT to be" the fact that people can apply laws inconsistently or may change them in future, does not, in itself, mean there shouldn't be a law at all.”

Then suck it up, eat what you ordered and don’t complain when someone reports you based on their subjective feelings about something you have said. I won’t waste my time replying to you again. Enjoy living in the society you helped to create.

How did the police find out who she is? Did she have her name publicly available, or was she doxed by the complainant, or did the police track her down through her internet connection, or ...?

Then suck it up, eat what you ordered and don’t complain when someone reports you based on their subjective feelings about something you have said. I won’t waste my time replying to you again. Enjoy living in the society you helped to create.
Are you replying to someone else? What did I 'order' or help to create? I genuinely don't understand what it is you think I have done.

You have hate speech laws that are subjective and based on perception and these laws protect ‘protected characteristics’, one of which is gender identity

No it isn't.

The police have been captured by leftist/progressive ideology so it should come as no surprise that they manipulate language and use the word ‘voluntary’ to describe a situation where you’ll be arrested and forced to comply if you don’t do exactly what they want. That is just typical left wing language games. I don’t think they believe in absolute truth so I don’t think words really matter to them, language is just another thing to be twisted and manipulated to get them what they want and what they want is to get you into trouble.

In my opinion you are completely correct to say that best to say as little as possible and say ‘no comment’ if you can. I think their goal is to keep people talking until they say something that can be used to incriminate them. They might act all friendly but I think they’re looking to use whatever you say against you in anyway that they can. In that situation I agree that it’s wise to say as little as possible. What could you possibly gain from speaking to people openly and freely when they have already decided to use everything you say against you?

“You have hate speech laws that are subjective and based on perception and these laws protect ‘protected characteristics’, one of which is gender identity

No it isn't.”

Anyone else want to take this one? I have given up?

No I don’t see your point at all I’m afraid. If you have exceptions to free speech, I.e free speech BUT… then

So, you're all cool with scumbags following my wife home from the Metro, chanting racist abuse at her, because to stop them would infringe on their rights of free speech.

OK, I see what you are.

@Rafalww
The protected characteristic that pertains to gender is that of gender reassignment. Not that the definition thereof makes very much sense; but it is still distinct from the nebulous concept of “gender identity”.