Sheffield Party Of Women candidate threatened with arrest for leaflets

[ItsFunToBeAVampire]

Not much info about this yet, but just saw it on Twitter.

BREAKING. Party of Women
@SheffieldPOW
candidate in Leeds has been threatened with arrest for the leaflets she distributed on a charge of malicious communications.

com/terfasaurus/status/1806370775894491266

Agreed, @IwantToRetire take it to @MNHQ if you have a problem with a post.

Just been reading up on this and there is no such thing as "approved legal election leaflets".
There's some guidance on how to engage with campaign material here:
https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/voting-and-elections/campaigning-your-vote/engaging-campaign-material-elections

It is up to you to decide whether you are persuaded by campaign material you see or hear. We encourage you to carefully consider any campaign material you see or hear. This may include thinking about the possibility that the material has been artificially enhanced or created.
You can ask yourself some questions about campaign material and the claims made in it:

1. Does the campaign material reinforce or contradict your views on a certain subject?
2. Do you think it pays attention to the detail, or does it overly simplify complex issues?
3. Does the campaign material you’ve seen or heard give you a good sense of a party’s or campaigner’s policy position?

You have missed my point. Just like hitting children was always child abuse, no exceptions, transitioning children is always child abuse, no exceptions. The parents may not intent it to be abuse, in fact I very much assume they don't, but ultimately this is what it is.

Some things can be both-sidesed, a-bit-of-this-a-bit-of-thatted. This is not one of them.

Children are not born in the wrong body. They cannot have the wrong persoanlity for their sex. They are not broken. Making them believe they are hated and will probably kill themselves someday unless they can force everyone to say they are the other sex is just utterly abhorrent.

Why the hell all this energy is going into making children believe they need to change themselves to fit society's sexism and not fixing the damn sexism I will never ever understand, but it breaks my heart.

From the Royal mail website re election material

I will be interested to see how this shakes out. PC Rainbow's reach has apparently exceeded their grasp.

KJK remains a legend. She hasn't said anything and yet her you are going on like an Ariston about her. Again

It does , however, explain why any GC women who faces an accusation might think it prudent to make sure she is recording or ideally live-streaming as much of the contact with the police as she is able to. Because if it is harrassment, or even just overrreach, you want as much evidence as you can.

If the police didn't want a reputation for bullying women and abusing legal process in the service of misogynists... maybe they could have just yanno, not done that?

Well, I can see where you are coming from (although I think actually you missed my point, but never mind).
I don't think transition is as black and white as smacking. I think a non-medical, accepting approach to a gender questioning child (I.e. maybe supporting social transition) could be helpful to some children, especially ones that are very oppositional.

I think part of the problem we have is the research isn't there to show if social transition is harmful.

So I think saying that social transition is "profound abuse" is stretching the narrative somewhat.

One cannot reduce a topic like transgenderism down to a one sentence "transitioning children is profound abuse".

Does it mean 4 year olds? Or 17 year olds?

Does it mean medical transition, or using preferred pronouns?

Does it only refer to medical professionals or does it refer to everyone who engages with a "trans child" in their preferred identity?

I'm sorry, but I don't think a parent choosing to support their non-binary daughter by calling them xie/xir (or whatever) is "profound abuse".

Yes, agreed. Setting up a livestream twitter, phoning the police, demanding they speak to you right now when they say they are too busy to talk and then accusing them of electoral interference, while livestreaming it on your twitter isn't that though is it.

I am not policing anything.

I am just pointing out how rude and inconsiderate it is that some posters think they can gate crash any thread with zero interest in the actual topic to just drone on with the same posts they make on any thread.

However, as it is always the usual suspects it is easy to whizz through a thread.

It just displays staggering arrogance to not deal with the substance of the OP but presume that their interests should be the topic.

Its like those awful social situations where a group of people are talking and listening to each other, and then (usually some man) turns up and joins in, and whatever anybody says they then start droning on about their hobby or whatever.

Does it mean 4 year olds? Or 17 year olds? Yes

Does it mean medical transition, or using preferred pronouns?
Medical and social.

Does it only refer to medical professionals or does it refer to everyone who engages with a "trans child" in their preferred identity?
Anyone who actively cheerleads and promotes the concept to the child. Not people who have not actively encouraged the child to believe they are "trans" but are caught in the trap of having to be seen to affirm due to their employer's policies or lack of social safety if they are seen to disagree, most of whom will of course be doing their damndest to avoid actively promoting as best they can within the constraints they have (and could well be the child's parents themselves).

Oh BTW, I don't consider non-sex based neo-pronouns transitioning. Never had an issue with people creating new classes of identity. It's the appropriation of the existing identity, experiences and resources of people of the opposite sex in service of ones own distorted ideas about sex and personality I reject, both because it's bad for the individual who is basing their mental health on a lie, and because it's unfair to the people whose identity and history is being appropriated.

I think taking the initiative rather than waiting to be approached is a legitimate strategy if you believe you are going to be stitched up.

Read the PDF:
^A candidate mailing must not contain any signs, words, marks or designs that are offensive, obscene or indecent. The content must not infringe any legislation, for example, Section 19 Public Order Act
1986, the Malicious Communications Act 1988, Section 101 of the Postal Services Act 2000 (as amended).^ This list is not exhaustive and candidates should seek legal advice if they are in any doubt.
It is the candidate’s responsibility to ensure that a candidate mailing complies with the law, the requirements set out in this document, the Candidate Mail guide and the terms of the Successor Postal Services Inland Letter Post Scheme 2001 (as amended) or any Scheme that replaces it.^

Please note
(1) A person who publishes or distributes written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting is guilty of an offence if:
(a) he/she intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or
(b) having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby”

Thats the guidance. Pretty clear the Royal Mail are not "approving" much tegarding candidate mail at all. Don't have obscene imagery or slurs. Don't be racist. And make sure you haven't broken the law.

I know a bloke who won't shut up about boats;it doesn't matter what anyone else is talking about,he'll always turn the conversation around to boats.

I don't really. Trying to have an in depth conversation with someone who is driving, busy on a different piece of work and says they can't respond properly because of that is never going to result in anything productive.

It doesn't matter what you think. The election mailing had to be checked by Royal Mail before they would deliver it.

https://www.royalmail.com/business/manage-mail/candidate-mail

We’ll need to check your campaign material to make sure it doesn’t contain anything obscene or offensive.

Royal Mail have confirmed that the material wasn't obscene or offensive.

I live in a town full of them. Reading this thread makes me think they're not all bad. Being a clubhouse boar about boats is a better hobby than whatever that is (gestures at prolific posts above)

These debates make me learn something new every day:

https://www.virtuallandline.co.uk/blog/item/is-it-illegal-to-record-a-conversation-over-the-phone

According to the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, it is completely legal to record a phone call without telling someone, but there is a caveat when it comes to sharing that recording. If you record a phone call and use it for your own personal use, then it is perfectly legal, but if you share the recording to a 3rd party, without the caller's consent, you will be breaking the law.

They have confirmed it doesn't contain any signs, words, marks or designs that are offensive, obscene or indecent.
That's not quite the same thing. They also make it clear it's the producers ultimate responsibility to ensure its legal.

Hiding behind "electorally approved campaign material" is weasel words.

Also I note another recent example of "police taking action because of someone's GC beliefs" turned out not to be that at all (Sinead Watson).

I always like to see what the facts are before jumping to conclusions. It's old fashioned I know.

Right. So thats your opinion.
Mine is a 17 year old is old enough to decide for themselves what they want to be called, how they want to dress etc. So social transition at that age is not "profound abuse". I don't think anyone should be medically transitioning until they are over 18 and had other comorbid conditions treated/ruled out.

So given both of us have different, equally valid opinions, why can you not appreciate that to me "transitioning children is profound abuse" is a completely over simplistic and unhelpful approach?

Then it is even worse that she was arrested for her leaflets.

We'll miss it when we're all locked up.

Not.

I think you are wrong, and I think minimising a child having a erroneous belief that they "should" be the opposite sex, a belief that can never be realised and will be a source of ongoing mental distress for them, as "decid[ing] for themselves what they want to be called, how they want to dress" is at best a very superficial perpective and at worst knowingly bad faith.

I thought the police demanded a return call within the hour?

She was not arrested I don't think, she was apparently "threatened with arrest" for "malicious communication"
That is all we know. Everything else is speculation at this point