Retired police officer visited by police for missing the A off Freda Wallace's first name

[Charabanc]

JFK, I would say you couldn't make this up, but you could. In fact you don't have to. We know it's been happening.

The usual suspects are involved. And hopefully, after Glinner's court case this week, their names and activities will become more well-known.

The former superintendent said police informed her that the home visit was related to a handful of social media posts about a transgender activist named Freda Wallace.

Ms Larkam had called the activist Fred, using the “dead” male name of the now transgender woman, and this act had been reported to the police.
...
It is believed that Ms Larkman was reported by a disgraced transgender police officer named Lynsay Watson – a figure with a history of urging the authorities to pursue criminal investigations of people who are critical of gender ideology.

Watson, born Alex Horwood, is believed to have also reported Linehan to the police over several social media posts last week.

https://archive.is/xzitf

ETA: Gah flipping MN link rendering! Got there in the end.

AI says:

In England and Wales, a person can be declared a vexatious litigant under Section 42 of the Senior Courts Act 1981. The process is initiated by the Attorney General, not an individual, and requires the High Court to find that the person has "habitually and persistently and without any reasonable ground" instituted vexatious legal proceedings. This is a severe and uncommon action, meant to address a long-term abuse of the court system.

So that would suggest it's up to Sir Keir's mate Lord Hermer.

The old ‘policing by consent’ chestnut. Another issue is that the 43 forces operate virtually in silos. There is little coordination or information sharing, despite various steps to address this. Things like PNC and PND (Police National Computer - criminal records/Police National Database - soft intelligence) are supposed to mitigate this, however there is disparity in how each force completes entries, different categorisation etc. There are regional coordinators for separate areas, whereby each RC is responsible for 5-6 forces in a particular field, eg modern slavery, to drive a uniform approach but these are dependent on Home Office funding according to priorities and have varying degrees of success. So it’s easy to see how the extent to which bad faith actors can go undetected if operating in the virtual sphere. Bad times.

The defence (civil case) can bring it to the attention of the judge or directly looks for an injunction to stop court actions

As I understand the judge makes a ruling normally that all filings have to be pre-approved by the court as this prevents the filer from forcing their target to react.
Along with respecting the individuals right to access the courts)

This chap.

https://members.parliament.uk/member/5365/contact

However, in Scotland, it would be ...

https://www.gov.scot/about/who-runs-government/cabinet-and-ministers/lord-advocate/

Dorothy Bain! Da-da-daaaaaah.

Yeah, I don't think that'll happen, will it.

Looks like Sir Mark Rowley, the head of the Met, wants the law/policing changed around online commuications:

Change law so we can stop policing tweets, demands Met chief

Sir Mark Rowley wants to free police from investigating complaints with no evidence of intended real-world harm

Britain’s most senior police officer is to present the new Home Secretary with proposed law changes “within weeks” aimed at stopping officers from policing tweets, the Telegraph can disclose.

Sir Mark Rowley, the head of the Met Police, is proposing a shake-up of legislation that would give officers greater discretion to use “common sense” when deciding whether to record and investigate complaints about comments on social media.

He wants Shabana Mahmood, the new Home Secretary, to change the rules so police officers are not required to record or investigate complaints when there is no evidence the suspect intended real-world harm.

The changes could also significantly reduce the requirement for police to record and attend non-crime hate incidents, which have included cases such as a nine-year-old calling a primary school classmate a “retard”.

Change law so we can stop policing tweets, demands Met chief

I imagine Sir Mark is eagerly awaiting his first meeting with new Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood. Which should be something out of Armando Ianucci.

Rowley: Good morning Home Secretary, I understand there are some issues around high profile arrests, but my force is constrained by the law and it's an issue for Parliament to sort out

Mahmood: Just hang on a second Mark, what the fucking fuck do your fuckwit officers think they're playing at

I find potty mouth on politicians oddly reassuring.

I still love that line Shabana came out with when she was put in charge of the Batley and Spen by-election. "Batley Muslims are fucking weird, it's like Birmingham 25 years ago."

I can't think of another senior Labour figure who would say that.

Define 'no real world harm'.

Is this a get out of jail free card to justify ignoring persistent harassment as well as policing that thinks calling someone who goes by the name Freda as Fred is 'hate' and deserving of a police visit.

That interview when on about reforming the the recording of 'non hate crime' (or not a crime at all but something that some people don't like) rather than talking about getting rid of non hate crime completely.

It's bollocks however you cut it.

Crikey. I cant think of another politico full stop.

I think that's the polite version tbh.

It's one of those weird situations where we've got a Labour government that is basically an AI regurgitating fashionable centre-left opinion...

...and a Home Secretary who makes David Blunkett look like a hippie.

Its a bit odd that the police are so overstretched they've decided to stop policing crimes, and instead are going all in with the non-crimes.

Low hanging fruit.

In the short run, I suppose so. A quick and easy way to show successful convictions, with no risk of encountering actual criminals.

Longterm, though, its not a great idea for a functioning society.

Political issues aside and slightly tongue in cheek imagine if Tommy Robinson took offence to be called SLL, I bet the police would knock on a few doors. Well no I don't, it's only one group of people who can be offended and get the law involved.

🤣🤣🤣
🤷‍♀️

I received this from Neighbourhood Watch last week

Hate Crime
A hate crime is committed when a person is targeted due to their disability, race, religion, sexual orientation or gender identity.
Hate crime will never be tolerated.
If you’re a victim or witness a hate crime, we want you to tell us about it.
You can report:
online: https://orlo.uk/b8J6n
Via our 101 non-emergency number or 999 in an emergency.
Every report made helps us to better protect our communities and catch criminals. Nothing is too small to report.

At the bottom of the message is "ALWAYS REPORT HATE CRIME"

So none of the other protected characteristics, and a made up one.

Stonewall Law by the back door.

Have Felix and Lindsay ever been seen together? Just wondering if we have 1 or 2 here?

I don’t understand.

I am absolutely positive that many, many reports to police would have been made by women who received death and rape threats, threats of violence, and have had calls for violence wished upon them.

These tweets/emails/videos/etc have been completely dismissed by police - often with them not even being investigated by police at all, or the female being told to ‘just get off twitter/x and not read the abuse’.

Why could the police use their discretion to dismiss women’s (legitimate and evidenced) concerns and complaints, yet they are now saying that a law change would be required to be able to use discretion?

Because they have wankers (who shall not be otherwise named) filing reports that person A typed word about person B which may meet the definition of a "Malicious Communication" under the Act.

They are therefore obliged to make an initial investigation before the report can be dismissed.

The police know that a woman worried about being battered is unlikely to have the spare time or money to go to the courts to have the process of how her complaint was handled [ investigated and independently reviewed. (edited to finish a thought🙃) ]

In these cases TRA are weaponising the process forcing the police system into a bureaucratic loop and the senior officers are looking for a way to break the loop.

If its changed it also allows activist police to be told to sit down and do some "real" police work rather than bully the public for having opinions and for being rude online.

This break will also have a negitive impact on women (and men) who have a genuine problem with a stalker/abuser using SM to harrass them as it will give individual police an out for poor policing.

I thought so too.

The timing is certainly interesting. They received the complaint last November, but chose to visit her just as Linehan’s arrest is making headline news.

I thought Priti Patel when she was Home Sec had told the plod to stop wasting time on Non Crime Hate Incidents, but they seem to have ignored her and brought them back in through the back door.

That doesn’t really make clear that you should report a hate crime if, but only if, an actual crime has been committed against someone who appears to have any of those characteristics. I’d have thought a neighbourhood watch group would be reporting crimes in general anyway.