LGB Alliance conference disrupted by TRAs

[Imnobody4]

Do these idiots really think they are clever.

https://x.com/JamesEsses/status/1844755779665948762?t=8n-3lIZxX9BIED6MRh9pGg&s=19

🚨Breaking🚨

Trans activists have just disrupted the annual Conference being held by LGB Alliance by releasing insects in the main hall.

These nasty individuals who seek to disrupt a peaceful conference of lesbian and gay people show themselves up to be the real bigots.

Could we report the crowdfunding page: https://www.justgiving.com/crowdfunding/tkdb-crick-kids

You can report the fundraiser page here: https://help.justgiving.com/hc/en-us/requests/new?ticket_form_id=137825&preview_as_role=anonymous

As far as I can tell, the entire conference and every presentation/Q&A could run without a single reference to trans issues - ie focus on the need to ensure that young LGB people are given the right support as they explore what this means to them/coming out; that Lesbians have a right to female only spaces etc… but the very conversation of ‘how to protect LGB people’ is, in and of itself, deemed to be transphobic hate and entirely about terrorising the trans community?

The only analogy I can think of is it’s like having a conference about the future of arable farming (technology and trade/important issues, for example) and the dairy farmers causing a disruption/making a protest because the conference is clearly about destroying and banning the dairy and beef farming industry?

The crowdfunder is being run by someone called Mara Koenck who, according to a quick Google search, is based in the US. Isn't that rather odd? Why is someone in America crowdfunding for a bunch of young people in the UK?

Also no explanation of what the funding is for, other than "a bug's gotta eat and we can't feed them for ever." As they have already released thousands of crickets and therefore don't need to feed them any longer, I can only assume that they have another batch they intend to release somewhere else. Not that I imagine cricket food is that expensive.

Also no explanation of what the funding is for, other than "a bug's gotta eat and we can't feed them for ever." As they have already released thousands of crickets and therefore don't need to feed them any longer, I can only assume that they have another batch they intend to release somewhere else. Not that I imagine cricket food is that expensive.

Yes, exactly.

I'm quite happy for them to continue to put money towards paying for crickets rather than crowdfunding for surgery, tbh.

Every stunt like this is more sunlight.

Police will love that.

Talk about intent.

Thats NOT encouraging a peaceful protest.

The following is sourced from Galop (the UK’s LGBT+ anti-abuse charity).

Incitement to hatred
Incitement to hatred can occur when an individual or group threatens to harass a person or a group of people because of their sexual orientation
or gender identity. That could be in words, pictures, videos, and even music. It also includes information posted on websites. Illegal hate content may include:

• messages calling for violence against people due to due to their sexual orientation or gender identity
• web pages that show pictures, videos or descriptions of violence against anyone due to their sexual orientation or gender identity
• Chat forums where people ask other people to commit hate crimes against LGBT+ people.

If you become aware of material then you may want to alert others to it. You may also consider reporting it to the police, or through a third party, such as Galop. You should supply the web address and any other relevant detail, such as the identity of the person posting illegal material. https://galop.org.uk/resource/laws-that-cover-hate-crime/

(Before we get comments about MN the above website also says:
While the Internet and postings on social networking sites contain material that may be offensive, very little of it is actually illegal. UK laws are written to allow freedom of speech/expression and to be illegal the content must match the descriptions listed above. For example, if you come across a website where people are expressing anti-gay sentiments, you might not like what’s being said, or you may be angry or upset by those views but they are not necessarily breaking any laws.)

Galop have something of an issue here as they are now supposed to be advocating for both parties in conflict here. It really does highlight why stitching the LGB to the T is problematic. I'd like to see the likes of Stonewall and Galop come out and condemn this because theres a clear problem. Raising concerns about the implications of replacing sex with gender is in the public interest and is NOT a hate nor inciting hatred. Its lawful. Yet we've certainly had Stonewall suggest differently. Yet when have unlawful acts theres a certain problematic silence here. Thats not REALLY going to wash for too long.

The is the problem. That fund raiser is collecting money for and encouraging acts that are in breach of the Public Order Act 1986.

4 Fear or provocation of violence.

(1)A person is guilty of an offence if he—
(a)uses towards another person threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or
(b)distributes or displays to another person any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,

with intent to cause that person to believe that immediate unlawful violence will be used against him or another by any person, or to provoke the immediate use of unlawful violence by that person or another, or whereby that person is likely to believe that such violence will be used or it is likely that such violence will be provoked.

(2)An offence under this section may be committed in a public or a private place, except that no offence is committed where the words or behaviour are used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation is distributed or displayed, by a person inside a dwelling and the other person is also inside that or another dwelling.

(4)A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or both.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/64/section/4

4A Intentional harassment, alarm or distress.

(1)A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he—

(a)uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b)displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,

thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress.

(2)An offence under this section may be committed in a public or a private place, except that no offence is committed where the words or behaviour are used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation is displayed, by a person inside a dwelling and the person who is harassed, alarmed or distressed is also inside that or another dwelling.

(3)It is a defence for the accused to prove—

(a)that he was inside a dwelling and had no reason to believe that the words or behaviour used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation displayed, would be heard or seen by a person outside that or any other dwelling, or

(b)that his conduct was reasonable.

(5)A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or both.

Section 5 is similar in nature but is slightly broader in scope.

If they are actively fund raising to carry out more actions like this, we have clear intent and clear intention to harass the LBG Alliance and its members with the aim to intimidate and create fear.

You would struggle in a court of law to say differently.

This is not a legitimate aim, nor can it qualify as having a defence that their behaviour was reasonable in any way in the public interest. Whilst it might be considered reasonable to stand and make a protest about something you disagree with but if you are shouting abuse at others whilst doing it, you risk a public order offense breech. Technically I think we've seen actions that fall into this, but haven't quite tipped into the police's minds as 'out of control'. At this point the police start to look incompetent and theres real concerns about further escalations - its far from namecalling on the street and more spontanteous confrontations. The difference is the start of premeditation, planning and a campaign of targetted harassment with an aggrevated factor.

This means that the police can start to look at this group as one which has started to demonstrate extremist behaviour - it starts to become difficult for them to ignore due the distruption its causing and the publicity its creating (by its own design). If the police DON'T challenge it, then it risks wider public disorder and demands on police time, cos they will get called out to similar copy cat attacks. Thus its in the police interest (hello we are into it being in the public interest) to start labelling this as a extremist hate group (who are actually doing extremist things and deliberately inciting hate - unlike women just holding meetings and talking about how they are being affected).

If they acknowledge the mere existence of an extremist pro-Trans group which is planning and co-ordinating attacks against a homosexual rights group, then there are implications for Prevent and for safeguarding within schools more generally.

There will be plenty of people who won't want this type of acknowledgement for their own political reasons but its going to be extremely difficult for the police to just keep ignoring if there is a persistant problem and theres an active element of premediation and organisation involved.

We are no longer in the land of Be Kind and 'The most oppressed'. We've potentially just hit a massive tipping point.

If you look at how much damage Just Stop Oil have done in terms of managing to piss off and alienate people who are generally sympathetic and support efforts to stop climate change, this really isn't a step forward for Trans Rights Activism.

I don't think those kids will REALLY fully understand the implications of this.

It boogles my mind that one of the parents involves is a criminology specialist though, because they SHOULD have an idea about this though.

Also if the police are tipped off about this (and everything says to me that it WILL be reported), they've just created a bunch of work for the police to look at everyone who decides to donate to that fundraiser to carry out an illegal activity... Its a honey trap.

Its the bread and butter of anti-extremist policing to identify potential problematic individuals and put them on the radar.

Its more than sunlight.

It begs for action to be taken in the public interest to prevent public disorder and potential violence.

It forces the hand of certain quarters in positions of power.

Was just going to post to this effect. If the fundraiser is deemed criminal then every donor is guilty of incitement? Fuck me, am guessing I need to have a chat with my DD to make sure she is not dipping into her pockets for this…

'If they are actively fund raising to carry out more actions like this, we have clear intent and clear intention to harass the LBG Alliance and its members with the aim to intimidate and create fear.'

Absolutely. And I understand the Met are already investigating this incident and aware of the people involved.

Never interrupt when they're making a mistake.

Good I hope they are investigated

Make sure she understands the difference between legitimate disagreement and rights to protest and the line where it crosses into criminality and potential extremism.

Tbh it's a conversation we should all be having with kids because actually - as we've seen with recent riots - there are implications with social media and public order which are a hot topic more generally and the police and government are taking a good look at right now.

https://www.gov.uk/report-terrorism

'Report illegal or harmful information, pictures or videos you’ve found on the internet.
You can report things like:

articles, images, speeches or videos that promote terrorism or encourage violence
websites made by terrorist or extremist organisations
videos of terrorist attacks
You can make your report without leaving your name and contact details.'

@RedToothBrush braved the discussion (skirting around crickets/LGB Alliance, focusinf on JSO convictions and the recent far right riots) and managed to ascertain that we have raised her well with respect to understanding the implications of a digital footprint in the current climate. I was very clear that I would never dictate her political affiliations, but that they do have implications not only for her, but for her family and friends. It seems she has been very sensible. Thank fuck. Had a blood pressure spike for a few minutes there!

RedToothBrush - thanks for the explainer about the law. So the releasing of insects into the hall was most likely a breach of the Public Order Act 1986? I'd been wondering what law it might fall under. It seems obvious that what they did would constitute a criminal act but I wasn't sure what law it would fall under. Presumably there isn't an act that specifically relates to releasing insects to cause disruption?

Not to miss the point or anything but please don't lump vegans in with that lot. We're not all blue-haired TRAs.

It's a wildlife crime, I'm not sure what other crimes it may be prosecuted under.

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/importing-non-native-animals

'You can be fined or prosecuted if you:

• allow any non-native animal to escape into the wild in the UK
• release any non-native animal without a licence to do so
• keep some non-native animals without the right licence

Non-native animals are any animals which have been deliberately or accidentally introduced into the UK. Non-native animals can be any of the following:

• mammals
• birds
• reptiles
• amphibians
• fish
• insects and other invertebrates, for example, spiders'

By the way, this is for posters who on a recently finished thread who said that they would only take surveys which LGB Alliance had done that had been 'used in evidence in court' as being credible .

It seems that some posters forget that LGB Alliance had to answer what their supporter breakdown was in court for the Charity Commission. Now.... maybe for the particular poster who was being rather choosy, that tribunal is not has good as the Allison Bailey employment tribunal. I mean if you are going to be that absurdly choosy about evidence being used in court, let's admit that that person is going to put up barriers for accepting evidence that are that specific.

But anyway, just in case they are reading this one:

https://lgballiance.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/14-September-2022-Mermaids-v-Charity-Commission-Anor-Transcript-of-Hearing-as-agreed-by-the-Parties-.pdf

Page 56/57.

"The bit on membership is here: Yes, one of our biggest battles is to fight disinformation and on 11 August we sent out a survey, quite a complicated survey, to our 6,000 subscribers. Those are people who subscribe to LGB Alliance newsletters. There were many questions, and we’re still going through the responses, but one of the first questions was to ask people whether they were lesbian, gay, bisexual, straight, trans, etc. These are- We got a 20% response rate, which is unusually high. We were pleased about that, and it more or less shows an 80/20 split which is 80% gay, lesbian, bisexual, 20% straight, so it could be families of LGB people, it could be supporters. So 34% are lesbian, 33% are gay, the rest of bisexual and straight. Just to clarify and to add something else. The two founders are lesbians. The management team has always been made up of lesbian, gay and bisexual and the same with our trustees. So it’s very irritating to constantly be told that we have been led by homophobic, straight, white men, which is quite a common accusation."

Let me pull this out for you all.

"We were pleased about that, and it more or less shows an 80/20 split which is 80% gay, lesbian, bisexual, 20% straight, so it could be families of LGB people, it could be supporters."

Now.... remember... apparently according to some people LGB organisations have to be demonised if they have heterosexual supporters, even if those supporters have family who they are in turn supporting. oh... yeah... has anyone crunched the numbers for Stonewall?? Shall we demonise Stonewall for the large % of donations from hetersexual people, remember, you need to also consider all those employees of the organisations that donate to Stonewall.

Anyone?

I think the thing is it'd be so easy for a naive 16 or 17 year old (or perhaps even younger) to get swept along with seeing kids this young doing this.

They identify as being the same as these kids. They think they have a worthy cause etc etc.

That's precisely why these kids are fronting it all and NOT the middle aged males.

It's extremely cynical in terms of the optics. But very deliberate.

These kids can't just pick up a bunch of crickets as minors - it's illegal for them to buy them if they are under 16....

I do hope the appropriate authorities have been made aware of SJ Baker's involvement in this.

Yep.

As ArabellaScott points out it's likely a wildlife related violation of the law. There's possible livestock related laws at play here too. As well as harassment and public order offences with an aggravated element of hate present.

Certainly I'd be looking to see just how much the kids were acting under their own steam too.

Keep in mind:
Grooming can be sexual, romantic, financial or for criminal or terrorism purposes, and can target both children and adults. The common aspect is that a perpetrator manipulates a victim by building trust and rapport.

Especially in the context of updated government definition of extremism (these only go back to March this year so there may be an element of new ground). Reading the following I think this attack ticks a whole pile of boxes.

I refer to point 3 detailed in the link here.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/new-definition-of-extremism-2024/new-definition-of-extremism-2024#:~:text=Behaviour%20that%20could%20constitute%20extremism,-Aim%201%20(negate&text=Including%3A,legally%20defined%20rights%20and%20freedoms

3. Behaviour that could constitute extremism
Aim 1 (negate or destroy fundamental rights and freedoms): Behaviour against a group, or members of it, that seeks to negate or destroy their rights to live equally under the law and free of fear, threat, violence, and discrimination. Including:

Using, threatening, inciting, justifying, glorifying or excusing violence towards a group in order to dissuade them from using their legally defined rights and freedoms.
Aim 2 (undermine, overturn or replace liberal democracy): Attempts to undermine, overturn, or replace the UK’s system of liberal parliamentary democracy and democratic rights. Including:

Advocating that the UK’s parliamentary democracy and democratic values and rights are not compatible with their ideology, and seeking to challenge, overthrow, or change our political system outside of lawful means.
Using, threatening, inciting, justifying, glorifying or excusing violence towards citizens, in order to dissuade them from participating freely in the democratic process.
Subverting the way public or state institutions exercise their powers, in order to further ideological goals, for example through entryism, or by misusing powers or encouraging others to do so.
Using, threatening, inciting, justifying, glorifying or excusing violence towards public officials including our armed forces, police forces and members of local, devolved or national legislatures, in order to dissuade them from conducting their obligations freely and fearlessly, without external interference.
Establishing parallel governance structures which, whether or not they have formal legal underpinning, seek to supersede the lawful powers of existing institutions of state.
Aim 3 (enabling the spread of extremism): Intentionally creating a permissive environment for behaviour in aim 1 or aim 2. Including:

Providing an uncritical platform for individuals or representatives of groups or organisations that have demonstrated behaviour in either aim 1 or aim 2.
Facilitating activity of individuals or representatives of groups or organisations that have demonstrated behaviour in either aim 1 or aim 2, including through provision of endorsement, funding, or other forms of support.
The dissemination of extremist propaganda and narratives that call for behaviour in either aim 1 or aim 2.
Attempts to radicalise, indoctrinate and recruit others to an ideology based on violence, hatred or intolerance, including young people.
Consistent association with individuals or representatives of groups or organisations that have demonstrated behaviour in either aim 1 or aim 2 without providing critical challenge to their ideology or behaviour.
If any behaviour listed in aim 1 or aim 2 has occurred previously, a refusal by the individual, group or organisation that conducted the behaviour to rescind, repudiate or distance themselves from the behaviour.

So anyone who is hosting a discussion saying how great the actions of these kids is OR allowing them to fund raise is potentially also problematic. (Hello Reddit).

The police have something of a head ache here in establishing what laws have been broken, what is deemed worthy of pursuing in the public interest.

I will make the point here over whether is it worth throwing the book at the kids, or do they see the kids as vulnerable and instead go after the adults?

What and who are they likely to be able to have a serious shot at a successful prosecution with?

The fact that there seems to be some pride and intentions to do it again will definitely be something to take into consideration.

I'd argue here that potentially they won't want to effectively martyr the children involved if they can help it, under these circumstances. I'd have thought cautions might be more appropriate if they don't have a history of doing things. They will also be consideration about media interest and safeguarding I suspect. Repeatedly and persistently trying stunts like this, isn't going to go down well with the police either.

What do you charge these kids / adults with is the big question for me. There's plenty here to look at though.

Also scope for a civil case to pursue damages? Cost of cleanup/fumigation etc won't have come cheap, especially if the creatures got into the ventilation system.

@RedToothBrush that’s the issue for me too - it was quite clear that they had been brought along by at least one consenting (enthusiastically encouraging) parent and were with SJ. A sort of Fagin and his troop of pickpockets, getting them in to do the adults dirty work. Was so please every post from Kate and Bev has highlighted that these were impressionable young kids who, once caught at the end, seemed very frightened/silent.

They have been led to believe that LGBA is full of hateful people, not kindly mature lady founders offering them biscuits before the disruption and asking them what they actually wanted/offering to sit and talk with them afterwards. Not showing anger at these vulnerable kids was the right approach, but JFC it can be directed at the criminal barrister mother and SJ et al.

I have to say that MN decision to suddenly crack down on a certain word (when they had allowed it's use to a certain degree if qualified) has pissed me off. We are looking at a potential issue with grooming which also relates to political banned word.