Police action for using the wrong pronoun

[Big Fat Sam]

Is the UK turning into Canada? No more freedom of speech? I find the following news article an absolute disgrace if true, which it appears to be.

Sky News full article

Woman to be questioned by police over claims she misgendered a trans woman

A journalist has been called in for police questioning after allegedly misgendering a trans woman on Twitter.

Police want to question Caroline Farrow, a catholic and conservative commentator, over claims she used the wrong pro-nouns.

Ms Farrow is alleged to have referred to Ms Green's daughter as her son, which is known as misgendering.

Surrey Police confirmed they are speaking to Ms Farrow and in a statement said: "A thorough investigation is being carried out to establish whether any criminal offences have taken place."

"A 44-year-old woman has been asked to attend a voluntary interview in relation to the allegation as part of our ongoing investigation"

 

[kev]

Now now @Big Fat Sam, you're just being deliberately controversial here girl.

 

[Big Fat Sam]

Now now @Big Fat Sam, you're just being deliberately controversial here girl.

I find that post extremely offensive and am going to post about it all over Twitter and call the police on your ass.

 

[Harryflashman]

According to other reporting there is quite a bit more to the story like the woman accusing the mother of child abuse by mutilating and castrating . To quote reporting “Doing so could be an offence under the Malicious Communications Act, which makes it a crime to send messages that are indecent or grossly offensive, threatening, or contain information which is false or believed to be false, if the purpose for sending it is to cause distress or anxiety.”

So possibly not as simple as simple use of the wrong pronoun .

 

[Philw]

Even the PCs have gone too PC...

 

[Tree13]

According to other reporting there is quite a bit more to the story like the woman accusing the mother of child abuse by mutilating and castrating . To quote reporting “Doing so could be an offence under the Malicious Communications Act, which makes it a crime to send messages that are indecent or grossly offensive, threatening, or contain information which is false or believed to be false, if the purpose for sending it is to cause distress or anxiety.”

So possibly not as simple as simple use of the wrong pronoun .

Notice the quantifier at the start of the part I've put in bold.

"if"

In legalese, the "if" is the kicker. Nothing described before the "if" will ever be a criminal offence UNLESS the part following the "if" is ALSO happening.

Hypothetical scenario:

You greet somebody who, by outward appearance, you presume is male. "Good morning sir." you say.
That person is in fact transgender and identifies as female. They are very upset at your "misgendering" of them.
Did you add the word "sir" to your greeting with the aim of causing distress or anxiety?
No.
So no crime.

 

[Harryflashman]

Notice the quantifier at the start of the part I've put in bold.

"if"

In legalese, the "if" is the kicker. Nothing described before the "if" will ever be a criminal offence UNLESS the part following the "if" is ALSO happening.

Hypothetical scenario:

You greet somebody who, by outward appearance, you presume is male. "Good morning sir." you say.
That person is in fact transgender and identifies as female. They are very upset at your "misgendering" of them.
Did you add the word "sir" to your greeting with the aim of causing distress or anxiety?
No.
So no crime.

Well it’s different in that I think we’re talking about malicious communications so it’s sending electronic communications so less likely to be accidentally sent I’d suggest . Anyway putting that aside if you’ve actually read what I posted and taking your analogy then i agree if it’s similar if I say “good morning sir , why did your mother castrate you and allow you to mutilate your body . it’s against gods will you’re a child that’s child abuse and you sir will suffer now “ and then continue to talk about God , abuse, multilation and castration.

If somebody uses the wrong pronoun accidentally in a passing conversation then a police investigation would seem mad . If somebody talks about god , castration , multilation and child abuse in emails or text or whatever I can see it could be offensive .

 

[Bungle]

Notice the quantifier at the start of the part I've put in bold.

"if"

In legalese, the "if" is the kicker. Nothing described before the "if" will ever be a criminal offence UNLESS the part following the "if" is ALSO happening.

Hypothetical scenario:

You greet somebody who, by outward appearance, you presume is male. "Good morning sir." you say.
That person is in fact transgender and identifies as female. They are very upset at your "misgendering" of them.
Did you add the word "sir" to your greeting with the aim of causing distress or anxiety?
No.
So no crime.

Good morning you beautiful hairy bollocked lady.

Is that a crime? Seems a tricky one.

 

[JimmyJeffers]

@chrismpw your thoughts please

 

[Big Fat Sam]

Good morning you beautiful hairy bollocked lady.

Is that a crime? Seems a tricky one.

<unable to determine intent>
<just assumes it was meant in an insulting manner>
<calls police>

 

[Bungle]

<unable to determine intent>
<just assumes it was meant in an insulting manner>
<calls police>

I've essentially made her aware that I know I'm getting bummed if we take things further and that I'm ok with that.

 

[chrismpw]

@chrismpw your thoughts, please

I'm trying to refuse to believe we live in a country where it's a possible crime if somebody gets upset by what someone else says about them. The social stability afforded by the stiff upper lip has been destroyed by the proliferation of cryarses desperate for attention.

The wrong assumption is that because somebody is offended they are in the right.

Meanwhile, the rozzers only attend a domestic burglary in action several hours after the criminals have got long away saying there's little they can do; yet they send out public appeals for information, and grainy footage to the press if a yob nicks a mars bar from sainsburys.

The laws and police are there to repress the public and protect the establishment. Though police?

 

[chrismpw]

Notice the quantifier at the start of the part I've put in bold.

"if"

In legalese, the "if" is the kicker. Nothing described before the "if" will ever be a criminal offence UNLESS the part following the "if" is ALSO happening.

Hypothetical scenario:

You greet somebody who, by outward appearance, you presume is male. "Good morning sir." you say.
That person is in fact transgender and identifies as female. They are very upset at your "misgendering" of them.
Did you add the word "sir" to your greeting with the aim of causing distress or anxiety?
No.
So no crime.

Yet.

 

[COYBL25]

I'm trying to refuse to believe we live in a country where it's a possible crime if somebody gets upset by what someone else says about them. The social stability afforded by the stiff upper lip has been destroyed by the proliferation of cryarses desperate for attention.

The wrong assumption is that because somebody is offended they are in the right.

Meanwhile, the rozzers only attend a domestic burglary in action several hours after the criminals have got long away saying there's little they can do; yet they send out public appeals for information, and grainy footage to the press if a yob nicks a mars bar from sainsburys.

The laws and police are there to repress the public and protect the establishment. Though police?

I expected nothing less.

Carry on the good work sir.

 

[Groucho]

Could someone summarise this for me?