Criminal Justice (Incitement to Violence or Hatred and Hate Offences) Bill 2022 - Read OP

there is no suggestion that the person harassed was doing anything other than waiting to use the toilet.

She of course has the right not to feel comfortable, but the only thing she can do about it is leave and find another toilet. Even if the victim in this case wasn't transgender, there's no law in England and Wales preventing men from using womens' toilets or women from using mens'. The establishment in question was even fine with it, so there isn't even the argument that the T&Cs of using the bathroom were breached. There is, however, laws against filming people in private places. Being filmed without your consent in a changing room is in absolutely no way the same or even vaguely similar to the situation at hand. Frankly, it's a ridiculous comparison.

Also, you say "there's always two sides to every story" - the Reduxx article only gives her side - in an extremely biased way. So you haven't given us a side we haven't already heard from.

Translation: "Will this get rid of those views that I don't like?"

The irony too of you posting it here, on a sub forum that you've actively tried to get rid of since you started posting on boards. You're almost the poster boy for the abuse of language, and terms like "hate", hence why you hope so dearly that these laws will be your friend.

There's no legal basis for holding that personal opinion.

Mere curious, T.

I have never “actively” tried to get this forum. In fact, if you look at my, many, comments on the “subject” over in the “Feedback” forum, and elsewhere, you will clearly see that I have always supported this forum and have called for lighter moderation.

What I have called for is stricter moderation in “After Hours” to keep the, angry oddball, CA types out of that, more normal, forum. I don’t think that’s too much to ask, do you?

As for “these laws”, well, they’ll be the friend of anyone who abides by them and doesn’t go attacking others with hateful speech.

Attacking others with hateful speech " there is nothing " hateful " about opposing fictional lies being taught to children in schools about so called multiple genders and teaching boys fiction that they have periods too, as has been reported in the past.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/boys-can-have-periods-too-primary-pupils-are-taught-hg5lb85mp

The far right meltdown has been great to watch lately.

The very fact that she was "de-arrested" (according to the article), means that she was never brought to a Police station. If she was, she couldn't have been de-arrested, she'd have to be "released without charge". They're two different things.

A custody record is only created by the Custody Officer when you're actually brought to the station. Since she wasn't, there couldn't be one. The arresting officer is supposed to log the arrest in their notebook at the time of the arrest if they're able to, or at the first available opportunity if circumstances don't allow it. Outside a pub at 2am in a volatile situation like this would be the kind of situation where the officer wouldn't necessarily be in a position to write up the arrest immediately after it happened. Once the woman was de-arrested, there was no onus on the officer to record anything, as at that stage there was no arrest. Even if they did log it in their notes, the custody record - not the notes - is the official record of the arrest, and in this situation doesn't and couldn't exist.

Looking at the photo in the tweet Definity seems like a police car / van she is being held in.

https://twitter.com/PankhurstEM/status/1584372350036094977

https://twitter.com/PankhurstEM/status/1584505317278515200

It says absolutely nothing about her being in a cell. The article specifically mentions her being held in a police vehicle. And as I said, it would be physically impossible for them to de-arrest her if she had been brought to a station. Once you’re processed by the Custody Officer, you just can’t be de-arrested, only released without charge. The difference between the two is that with de-arrest, there is no record of the arrest by definition. I mean, it’s really clear cut. She wasn’t in a cell, and there will be no record of her arrest. This is exactly the way the process she went through is supposed to work - nothing suspicious or wrong about it at all.

Imagine a Traveller was arrested on suspicion of a public order offence before being de-arrested, got an article written on the Pavee Point website about their experience. Would you take it completely at face value? That’s exactly what you’re doing here. It’s one of the most biased, one sided articles I’ve ever read.

I really don’t understand your obsession with the article - all you’ve done is misinterpret it time and time again. It’s a bog standard public order incident that the police handled according to protocol, not the TERF version of the Birmingham 6.

I find the use of the word cúnt hateful towards wimmin.