Why are malicious people ‘on the edges of rationality’ allowed to make unchallenged and unverified reports about people they don’t like? And why do the police promise them anonymity and a free reign to continue?
It’s now very clear to us why only a heavily redacted document about ‘Mrs B’ was initially provided to the court. Mrs B isn’t any kind of victim of ‘hate’ but rather a long standing and enthusiastic perpetrator of it.
And why is any of this any business of the police?
To argue - as @CollegeofPolice does - that Harry Miller, Sarah Phillimore or a teenage girl, have embarked upon the first of five steps leading to murder by the exercise of their Article 10 rights, is crazy.
Not a single police force could tell us how they monitored ‘hate incidents’ to show their ‘escalation’ into crime. This is an exercise in box ticking which costs millions of wasted police hours, has a chilling impact on freedom of speech and contravenes data protection law.
And, as SVP will argue, excluding misogyny as a ‘monitored strand’ for hate crimes means that women are left unprotected from the tsunami of abuse and threats directed at any woman who dares question the erasure of her own sexed body. The guidance is inherently discriminatory.
Please help us fight this. We think it is wrong, damaging and will serve only to increase antagonism in our society, when certain groups are given protection and others none at all.
More coverage of @HarryTheOwl101’s killer point - the police do NOTHING with the ‘hate incident’ info they gather - other than leave it on your police record for onwards disclosure. thetimes.co.uk/article/hate-c…
Let’s just consider ‘escalation’ for a moment. Harry didn’t stop airing his views. He carried on, airing them to all and sundry and is taking the College of Policing to court. On those ‘five steps’ to murder - where do the police think he now is?
Similarly SVP has been reported 3 times to Wiltshire and once to GMP. Pretty clear pattern of escalation there! Is she under surveillance now? If not - why not? What is the point of the police recording that she discussed an article and this upset someone?
They may regret not turning off replies. Interesting ratio for an account with so many followers that claims to be on the right side of history.
We can find only one supportive comment - from someone in the USA who clearly doesn’t understand what’s going on but hopes that ‘terfs’ end up eating their ‘collective asses’. If this is the quality of the opposing argument, Allison Bailey has already won.
Something very significant and very concerning happened over the weekend which we think encapsulates the real dangers now faced by our democracy and the rule of law.
Embedded in the first version of the ‘Call to action’ was a link to a series of tweets by David Paisley which accused Joanna Cherry of ‘funding a hate group’.
Her crime? Donating to the crowdfunder of @SVPhillimore who is a member of this group.
Both @SVPhillimore and Joanna Cherry, unsurprisingly, complained about this. A combination of concise emails and Ms Cherry’s access to good libel lawyers resulted in a surprisingly swift climb down.