Man arrested for self identifying as a converted muslim woman.

[AwfulButTrue]

I think this throws the door open for all kinds of questions about fairness.

Men have been banned from covering their faces at protests so one man identified as a muslim woman and wore a burka, he was arrested.

I've seen 2 media outlets so far with headlines reporting that 'a man' has been arrested.

If we break it down...

If a 'real' muslim woman attends a protest (a Pro Palestine one for example) would she be arrested?

Has he been arrested for wearing the burka or identifying as a woman falsly?

Why is he not believed when he says he is a woman?

After all, it is fluid day to day and just a feeling! And any man can decide to become a woman at any point?

And who says he cannot decide to convert to Islam??

And why is he being reported as 'a man in a burka' when transwomen are NEVER reported this way when they self identify, even after committing rape?!

We all know why he is doing this.

But he is simply playing the establishment at their own game.

Why have so many Palestine protests occoured with men covering their faces with Kaffirs and balaclavas but it only becomes a problem now?

Why is it a problem to self identify now?

Why is it not a problem for a muslim woman to cover her face in a bank or school or park but this 'muslim woman' cannot?

Of course its ridiculous

But the point is that ALL self identification and complete covering of the face in public is ridiculous

But its only this man be arresed and called out for seemingly both things?

I am a 41 yr old woman and I can tell you now I would feel a thousand times safer stood in the middle of that 'far right' crowd than the leftie crowd.

I have been a victim of a campaign of hate from a certain community and there is NO room in that space for a difference of opinion and questioning the rhetoric.

That is the difference between the left and the right these days, ironically. The left have no tolerance for communication or difference of opinion. Their mantra is promoting diversity

Whereas the right champions free speech and equality. EQUALITY for everyone who wants to come here, follow our laws, contribute to the economy and support themselves without infringement on anyone elses rights.

AKA...what was known as normality 20 years ago.

....

2819 Pro Palestine arrests for violence and supporting a terrorist organisation

Vs 180 arrests of men protesting asgainst undocumented men breaking into the country.

Who are the thugs again?

Face coverings? Dressing in black? Chanting? Marching? Intimidation?

Indeed.

Would you like the law explained yet again?

Would you like to look at that photo and tell me those men are peaceful and within their rights to dress that way? IF you oppose the Portsmouth men doing the same?

How can you condemn one and not the other when they are dressed exactly the same?

Where are they? When was this taken? What did the police do?

Why was this man not arrested, on the same day, in the same area, at a protest?

Possibly because he was asked to remove it and did. Did you have the information on the other picture you posted? And do you want the law explaining again?

I think it’s pretty obvious that if the protesters politics align with the government’s politics they are going to treat you differently. Angela Raynor was interviewed straight after the Dover protests and said she had told the Police Commissioner to use the full force of the law. Labour are also doing everything they can to backdate legislation to block Reforms recent large cash donations. They aren’t hiding it.

Similarly Rupert Lowe is showing support for the hard right protesters. I suspect if he or Farage were in power they would be cracking down on the hard left. They would be coming up with ways to stop the pro-Palestine marches altogether and thinking about all face coverings being banned including religious coverings.

No one is trying to find a comfortable middle ground anymore. You’re either hanging off the pendulum on the left, or hanging off of it on the right.

This is a pointless argument with an OP who has zero ability to read into the subject they seem to be so vehement about.

I started conversing in good faith and it's deteriorated further and further.

I'm out.

The law came into effect at the end of June this year. It was widely reported as a response to the ‘pro-Palestine’ protests.

They didn't speak to him. He was not asked to remove his face covering. There are multiple reports of people questioning police about him and they said they didn't need to speak to him.

Can you tell me how this man is not violating the same law as the man arrested?

Powers under Section 158 of the Crime and Policing Act 2025 prohibits the wearing of face coverings used to conceal identity during any protest activity.

That man is at a protest and concealing his face.

So can YOU tell me what part of that needs explaining to me? And how that counter protester is exempt?

Yeah this country needs to sort out its fundamental values. No issue with people having beliefs at home but it shouldn't interfere with public safety and social cohesion. My biggest issue is that it's sexist because only the women do it. They're the only ones missing out on being a real part of public life - taking pictures with their friends and family / being recognised by friends in the street (safeguarding - how do you even know who you're looking at / talking to).

However: given we're heading towards a dictatorship and the facial recognition nonsense just allowed the government/police to capture your 'fingerprint' without being arrested or even accused, plus track your every move in society, and no one cares: I was planning to wear a face mask everywhere soon anyway so let's not ban face coverings until we get rid of facial recognition (!)

I am for promoting social cohesion, equality (only women do this) and safety, but not at the expense of your right to privacy. And I definitely don't support anything that only impacts women and hides them from society. Even if it's 'their choice'. That's a cop out. Just like it isn't our choice to eat junk food or wear short skirts - it's normalised and then you do it. We're bombarded with psychological weapons (adverts, stealth advertising, peer pressure) and then we're told we made a choice. We didn't.

Don’t be disingenuous.

2 men. Same protest (opposite sides)

The law :

1. Police Powers at Public Protests

Under Sections 157 to 159 of the Crime and Policing Act 2026, senior police officers have the authority to establish temporary "mask-free zones". 1]

• How it works: A police inspector (or higher rank) can designate a specific area for up to 24–48 hours if they reasonably believe a protest is occurring that carries a risk of criminal activity. 1, 2]
• The Offence: It is a criminal offence to wear or use an item (such as a balaclava or mask) to conceal your identity within these zones. Officers can formally demand that you remove the covering. 1, 2, 3]
• Exemptions: These protest restrictions do not apply to individuals wearing face coverings for medical, health, religious, or work-related reasons. 1]

So both are doing the same thing but only 1 is arrestable.

And also, technically the 'far right' protester actually had more of a right as he self IDd as a muslim woman so he should have been protected under the exemptions.

And if you don't believe that he was entitled to that exemption then you do not believe in Self ID or freedom of gender expression because as we all know there are HUNDREDS of genders and they are completely interchangeable hour yo hour depending on the persons feelings.

The left cannot have it BOTH WAYS.

Either self ID is valid to everyone, in every circumstance (like Isla Bryson transitioning after rape) or all of it is just manipulation and bollocks!

And either Burkas are religious exemptions to anyone who self Ids at the point of the question being asked (because again, trans people do not have to present as trans every day to be valid!) or they aren't.

Right wing idiots deliberately breaking the law. And their sympathisers on hear claiming "not to understand" something they could google in a minute

You’d need to show the man arrested was the only other man covering his face. HTH.

What?! Are you on the wind up? How is that disingenuous??

Its a valid question.

What is the difference between those 2 people stood at a protest covering their faces?

The difference is one if on the righteous left and one is on the demonised right.

Thats it.

Thats why one was approach and one wasn't.

Two tier.

You’re being disingenuous because my reply was to your post of a march showing multiple men with their faces covered. No indication that this was in an area where face coverings had been banned, or even that it had taken place after the law came into force. I asked you for that info. Nada. You’re now disingenuously claiming that I asked if you needed the law explaining in relation to an entirely different post. Again HTH.

The law change was flagged as overreach by multiple ‘lefty’ groups. When the right didn’t think it impacted them, they didn’t care. There’s probably a moral for everyone there.

It doesn't matter if he's a man or a woman if they have their face covered they have to remove it for the police to be able to identify them. The fact it was a man wearing a burka is totally irrelevant. No one is allowed to cover their face and refuse to remove the covering for the police, particularly in an area where face coverings are specifically banned.

Seems to be a lot of armchair lawyers on the thread, the police don't have the right to impose a blanket ban in a designated area. The government has given them the power to ask people to remove face covering, which I always thought they had any way. They've also got the power to arrest anyone who doesn't, but if it goes to court the CPS have still got to prove there was intent to conceal identity.
I too would like to know why the hooded leftie wasn't arrested, if he removed it because he was asked fair enough but is there proof he was and did.

Read the legislation

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2026/20/section/158