Police Threaten to Arrest Women’s Rights Campaigner if She Doesn’t Attend ‘Voluntary’ Interview After She Was Attacked by Trans Activists
Sussex Police have threatened a women right’s group founder with a hate crime arrest after a rally two months ago where her group was attacked by pro-trans activists. The Mail has the story.
The force told mother-of-four Kellie-Jay Keen an allegation made about her that she used “words or behaviour to stir up hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation” was now being investigated.
In an extraordinary phone call released by Standing For Women founder Kellie-Jay, one officer said she could be arrested if she did not attend a “voluntary” interview.
The turn of events seems particularly unusual given the same police force had previously investigated menacing messages sent against her before the Brighton rally.
They included many branding Ms Keen – who is also known as Posie Parker – a TERF and urging people to “Fight her by any means you see fit”.
Then at the Let Women Speak event on September 18th officers arrested two people after masked pro-trans campaigners clashed with rally attendees.
It prompted J.K. Rowling to tweet: “I see the Be Kind brigade are once more hiding behind their black masks, throwing smoke bombs, screaming ‘scum’ at women speaking up for their sex-based rights and howling abuse at lesbians for not doing d***.”
Last night Ms. Keen revealed Sussex Police had threatened her with arrest at her home by the Wiltshire force, calling it today a “most pernicious war on women”.
She said she would not be attending the ‘voluntary’ interview.
In the phone call conversation released online the Sussex officer told her: “Somebody has made an allegation against you about a hate crime. We do need to speak to you about that matter as part of our investigation. We do need to do is get you to come down to Brighton ideally so we can have a voluntary interview.”
Ms Keen then presses them on what exactly the allegation was that had been made about her. The police caller replies: “The crime is use of words or behaviour to stir up hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation. It’s gonna be a voluntary interview so you can give your side of the story as well. We’re not putting anything against you, you can bring a solicitor with you if you like. It’s just so we can bottom out your side of what’s gone on. We can discuss what allegations have been made against you as well. We then can look into it a bit further to see if a crime has actually occurred.”
But when the officer is asked exactly how voluntary the interview is, the reply discloses it is perhaps less free than suggested.
They tell Ms Keen: “Essentially we are asking you to come down to Brighton, it’s going to be an interview where essentially it’s a little bit more relaxed, at any point you can end the interview if you like, you can bring a solicitor with you. If you don’t attend then we will potentially be looking at getting Wiltshire Police to come and arrest you so they can come and interview you themselves.”
Worth reading in full.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Ignore them, the process is the punishment.
…absolutely, no way do you go ‘voluntarily! If they can rustle up enough evidence of an offence, then good luck to them..I think it’s highly unlikely…
I’m assuming there might be a bit of compo’ in a false arrest? So she should stick it out!
I Hope Kellie keeps reporting on the idiots, so that we can all see how low supposed law enforcement has sunk!
Do they actually grasp what a joke they have become do you think?
What a sad sorry world we inhabit….utterly depressing….
It would not be a false arrest if you have been asked to attend a voluntary interview and refuse to do so. It’s their way of compelling you into the interview room as part of their investigation, and if you are arrested they can hold you in custody for 24 hours.
The issue here is that an allegation is being pursued when it is clear to the police that it could be malicious based on the history of what happened. Common sense would suggest the police should be seeking evidence from the complainant in such circumstances, to ensure the complaint has genuine foundation.
It seems the police are taking a politicised position in this case because the alleged offender doesn’t share the Chief Constable’s activist leanings on trans rights and freedom of speech.
Do any of these cops realise they are just being used as political tools in an insane ideological game? I’m assuming none of them signed up to the force for job satisfaction or respect from the public. I guess they are mostly failed teachers and bouncers with a GCSE in sociology who want early retirement.
I’m not sure what’s worse the softly delicate woke ones or the bullied at school, headbutt a pensioner ones.
Its far worse. They are graduates. Got to have a degree now to be a policeman. When Theresa May put her reforms through in 2012, what we didn’t realise was that the ‘Police Services’ largely replaced ‘Social Services’, and the whole Peel-ian Rules of Policing went out the window. All that prevention of crime, protecting citizens and property. Not for 10 years now.
What did she actually say? Was it actually offensive or was it a topic for debate (eg, ‘trans men are women, trans women are men’?)
What actually offends me is when people take to the courts to make a political statement where there wasn’t any actual offence — people sometimes use hurty words, but we should be mature enough to take them without crying, and we certainly shouldn’t be allowing the courts to be used as part of a slanging match.
That’s exactly what I was thinking reading that. It’s like at school, kids say all manner of mean things to each other but I’m bringing my kid up to give as good as she gets and not be snitching to the teacher every time somebody says something unkind. It toughens them up and teaches them self-confidence and how to stick up for themselves because if they struggle with that in primary school then high school is often much worse. But then you’ve got adults going on like little kids, snitching to the police just because somebody said something out of turn, out of pure spite. It’s completely pathetic. Snowflakes that totally lack strength of character and resilience.
One of the features of all this “hate speech” nonsense is that you virtually never get to hear or see what was actually said. This is because 99% of people would laugh if they knew. And we can’t have that.
I’m not at all suprised that it’s Sussex police that are behind this. They are surely the wokest most ludicrous police force in the country. The ultimate example of how ridiculous they are must be the fact that they spent a month investigating a woman under the modern slavery act after the Ukrainian refugee she was hosting complained about being asked to help out with the house work.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/ukrainian-refugee-modern-slavery-dishes-b2213000.html
I realise that middle class Sussex is hardly a major crime hotspot, but surely the police can find better things to do with their time. I wonder how ordinary police officers feel when asked to carry out these ridiculous investigations, as the blame surely lies with senior officers who should all be sacked.
I hadn’t heard of that one.It really made me laugh.
I wonder if the officers that give this sort of investigation priority have ever walked the beat or dealt with serious criminals. Sit in the station requesting voluntary interviews quoffing large caramel lattes with plenty of donuts.
This is basically Police Intimidation. Ignore it …. and if they up the ante, get in touch with Laurence Fox.
Cue the cameras folks. It’s the Keystone Cops. I wouldn’t mind betting they send a Swat team. As arrests are difficult for a 4’12” tattooed lesbian to carry out.
Don’t you just love this new meaning of the word ‘voluntary’! We need to issue the police with an Oxford dictionary.
“at any point you can end the interview if you like”. I think she’s already done that, or will the police still arrest her if she did ‘voluntarily’ (coercion under threat of arrest) attend?