Crime Report
Would be considered.
“Crime report”
“the rainbow ‘pride’ flags which represent the LGBTQ community”
“These comments are targeting specifically the LGBTQ community”
“would be considered ‘grossly offensive'”
“I therefore require you to contact me to arrange a voluntary interview”
“If I do not hear from you”
This is in the UK, where
New scorecards show under 1% of reported rapes lead to conviction.
Under 1% yet the police have the time and money to haul people in for questioning over a tweet about A RAINBOW PRIDE FLAG.
And the combined idiocy and authoritarianism of the language is mind-numbing.
“Crime report” – what crime??? I don’t know what the tweet in fact said, but I do know there’s been a lot of mockery and criticism of “rainbow flags” in crosswalks, some of which point out they interfere with the actual purpose of marked crosswalks, which is pedestrian safety. I really don’t think Mr Goddard swore a genocidal oath in his tweet, and I do wonder why the police have the time and resources to interview people over tweets rather than just telling Twitter to have a word with the naughty tweeter.
Then there’s “”the rainbow ‘pride’ flags which represent the LGBT community.” No they don’t. They may refer to them, or serve as a symbol of resistance and/or solidarity, but it’s not really the job of the police to enforce such meanings. Also there is no such thing as “the LGBT community”; the LGB and the T have conflicting goals and interests. Also, even if there were such a thing, again it’s not the job of the police to police “communities” except in the most literal sense. Town and village police can be said to police communities, but the metaphorical kind are none of their business.
Then “These comments are targeting specifically the LGBTQ community” – but are they? I haven’t seen them (or it – a single tweet was mentioned), but I can say there’s a difference between disputing and targeting. The putative LGBTQ community says a lot of stupid untrue things these days, especially about women who don’t grovel to men in dresses. People have a right to dispute the stupid untrue things that putative community says.
Then “would be considered ‘grossly offensive'” – “would be” if what? By whom? For what reason? Why the conditional? Does the cop mean “I consider” the tweet grossly offensive? If so, why not say so? If not, why not let the people who do consider it offensive write to the “suspect”?
Then of course there’s “I therefore require you to contact me to arrange a voluntary interview” – if you require it it ain’t voluntary.
I hope he tells them to shit in their hat.
Also, I would hold that the B is in conflict with the L and G as well.
Ain’t no BLTGI+Q sandwich.
I think the B can be in conflict with the L and G but doesn’t have to be.
‘Voluntary but refusal might result in legal repercussions or hey might not, we’ll decide without you’. A sad joke.
Mike B, at the very least, B is still about sexual attraction that deviates from the ‘standard’.
Talk to some Lesbians, as I do, and you will hear that some of the worst abuse they have had is from some Gay men. They can unite over topics such as SSM and TRAs, but a lot of Gay men still have the same derogatory feelings about women as their hetero counterparts.
“at the very least, B is still about sexual attraction that deviates from the ‘standard’.”
Point taken.
Yet, it is often the case that B conveniently masquerades as “straight” and limits their G side to anonymous dalliances. On gay pickup apps, married B frequently seeks married B exclusively because, I don’t know, maybe married B is less faggoty than married G, or something. Married B might specify “no kissing,” while simultaneously requesting that one wear a dress. If married B finds out that one is married G, one risks being summarily blocked.
It’s all so confusing. Don’t ask how I know all this.
So it isn’t just me that thinks there is no such thing as a required voluntary interview? I thought maybe it was just because I was from the US that it didn’t make sense.
Sort of like the mandatory volunteer hours they impose on us at work…logic does no good. Explaining what words actually mean is futile at best, criminal hate speech at worst…
Objection, your honor! When mr. Brasi held that gun to the plaintiff’s head and my client assured the plaintiff that either his brain or his signature would be on that contract, my client gave him every opportunity to choose the former. So the plaintiff chose to sign that contract voluntarily.
Also there isn’t a “Malicious Communications Act 2003”. There’s a Communications Act 2003, and a Malicious Communications Act 1988, but not a Malicious Communications Act 2003. Referring to imaginary legislation should be enough to render the letter void, as should the fact it’s not actually signed.
Someone on Twitter has pointed out that this letter was sent to/posted by a man, John (?) Goddard, who is apparently known for his right-wing politics. Not that I think that should make any difference with respect to its egregiousness…in fact, I wonder why the Twitter poster thinks it should.