Let's have a look at some of the statistics for actual disabled people, rather than people who are mistakenly identified as disabled.
The unemployment rate for disabled people was 8.4% in the latest quarter, compared to 4.6% for those without disabilities.
42.6% of those with disabilities were economically inactive in the latest quarter, compared to 15.3% of those without disabilities.
In the year ending March 2019, around 1 in 7 (14.1%) disabled adults aged 16 to 59 years experienced any form of domestic abuse in the last year in England and Wales, compared with 1 in 20 (5.4%) non-disabled adults of the same age.
Disabled women were more than twice as likely to experience domestic abuse than non-disabled women, and almost twice as likely than disabled men.
I could go on but hopefully you get the point. Disabled people are more likely to be physically assaulted and less likely to have the economic power to escape. So why is police time and attention directed to people who were 'mistakenly' believed to be disabled?
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Asked @DerbysPolice for their definition of ‘woman’ and been sent a link to this. Don’t think it will answer my question. But it’s interesting nonetheless. What are the Top Ten threats they face?
More evidence that the police are just making this up on the hoof. How do you define ‘gender’ Derbyshire? Is denying that gender should have anything to do with policing ‘hate’?
They aren’t merely making it up, they are getting their own policies fantastically wrong. ‘Gender reassignment’ is an EA protected characteristic. ‘Transgender’ is the monitored strand.
Ah! They mean ‘misogyny’. But don’t mention the word ‘women’ once.
We have now been told
A) person holding banner ‘Kill Cops’ was an activist from the USA causing trouble
B) or an undercover police officer trying to discredit rioters
We have seen nothing but some videos and commentary as evidence either way.
Just in fact banner holder seemed determined to show his face, option A seems more likely. Regardless, that any person for any reason would display that message publicly is insane.
And it shows how easy it is to identify the difference between ‘hate’ and ‘dangerous’ speech.
‘Hate’ has been destroyed as any kind of useful identification of the limits to free speech, given that it now includes the exercise of political speech. But an incitement to kill can only ever be ‘dangerous’ and should remain unlawful.
We were interested to know the identities of those police officers responsible for the @LGBTpoliceuk account given its recent social media output. @CollegeofPolice told us they didn’t know - ask the forces. So we did.
They don’t know.
So we now have a secret and unaccountable group of senior police officers who will threaten to ‘report’ citizens for the exercise of their protected political speech.
Remember the response to our follower who complained?
So no one knows who these people are. No one will hold them to account. They operate with the sanction of the police. They threaten to ‘report’ us. To whom? For what? What consequences? They won’t say.
Dear T/Commander Blackburn @CityPoliceCB We note you used the pejorative term ‘trolls’ in relation to women during a recent conference.
We have written to @LGBTpoliceuk asking for details of all senior officers within that organisation pending legal action.
The dehumanising of a class protected by virtue of sex is a recognised precursor to violence. We note an officer of @metpoliceuk is currently under arrest for indecent exposure, kidnap and murder. Do you see the link?
The @CollegeofPolice claims that antilocution (shit talking) is step 1 of 5 on a journey to genocide. Why do you consider that calling women ‘trolls’ does not count especially given that 2 women a week are unlawfully killed?
JC: on the question of retention periods, some evidence before court below.
{WHY ISNT THIS CLEAR AND CONSISTENT?}
Answer seems to be 'it depends' on local policies and how applies? Suggestion is 6 years.
JC Returning to submissions about implications for individual about categorisation of complaint about hate. Para 177 of Knowles J judgment, he accepted submission that while overall information is important to policing, the 'mere recording' has no real consequence.