Somebody may have done something, possibly
Mind you the Telegraph is remarkably coy and evasive about it, not to say incoherent.
Headline:
Arrest after activist told crowd at London Trans Pride to ‘punch Terfs in the face’
That’s basically meaningless. They could be talking about the arrest of an activist in Hong Kong or Ulan Bator or Juneau. Is it the activist who was arrested or just some random person somewhere unknown?
Subhead:
Met says the person is in custody on suspicion of incitement to violence after a video of the incident was widely shared on social media
What kind of person?
Lede:
A 53-year-old woman has been arrested, police said, after an activist told a crowd at a trans pride event to punch gender-critical people in the face.
They stop being coy only to tell us a lie. He’s not a woman. Also, is the “activist” in question the “woman” mentioned in the first clause, or someone else entirely?
At the march in London on July 8, an activist was filmed apparently calling for protesters to “punch Terfs in the face”.
Who says he’s an activist? He’s a convicted felon out on parole, is what he is.
The Metropolitan Police said a woman had now been arrested on suspicion of incitement to violence in Westminster after a video of the incident was widely shared on social media.
He’s a man. A man a man a man a man. Stop pinning these horrible men’s crimes on us.
Terf is an abbreviation for “trans-exclusionary radical feminist”, a term used to describe people who believe that a trans woman’s gender identity is illegitimate.
Well there’s a meaningless claim. Two meaninglesses in one article and we’ve barely started. We don’t “believe that a trans woman’s gender identity is illegitimate”; we know that men are not women. This subject is already rotted from within partly because of obfuscation and gibberish; don’t be making it worse.
In the video, the activist was apparently seen telling a cheering crowd: “I was going to come here and be really fluffy, be really nice and be really lovely and queer and gay and laugh.
“But if you see a Terf, punch them in the f—— face.”
“apparently seen”??? There’s a video of him saying it.
A spokesman for the Metropolitan Police said: “A 53-year-old woman has been arrested on suspicion of Incitement to violence. She has been taken into custody.
“The arrest on 12 July is in connection with an incident during the Trans Pride event in Westminster on 8 July. A video was widely shared on social media.”
He’s a man. A man a man a man a man.
Do they even mention that he’s trans anywhere in the article? I can’t be bothered signing up for a free month-long trial of the Telegraph to find out. It would be strange if it didn’t, given its pertinence to his exhortation to “punching TERFs in the fucking face.” Such a sentiment arises directly from his trans status; it isn’t some random bit of trivia that has no relevance to the story. It would also let people see a bit more obviously that he is indeed a man a man a man.
I’m also curious about whether they mention that he’s on parole for GBH and attempted murder.
This link gets around the paywall.
The article does not mention that the perpetrator is trans, nor that he is male. The article mostly quotes the police in referring to him as “a 53-year-old woman”.
Thanks, Sackbut.
They also fail to mention his criminal history.
It amuses me (in a sort of sour way) how a rag like the Telegraph, whose aim is in the main the peddling of right-wing talking points & ‘anti-wokery’, carefully sits on the fence in a case like this.
@Tim – I subscribed for a free trial to the ‘Graph at one time, too, and found out that in order to cancel one needs to call the subscription line direct. And yes, it definitely favors the Royalist/Tory line and posts articles disparaging our Biden, but in and among those are some decent articles with good writing on subjects with no bearing on politics. But, yes, this is quite the surprising excercise in avoidance of the trans issue on an event so completely indicative of the trans movement.
But what’s even more surprising is the turnaround by the Met from “no big deal, no laws broken,” to arrest and possible revocation of his release conditions. Mr. Baker cooked his own goose.
All water under the bridge, right? Odd, given that “parolee violates terms of release” is a large part of this story too, and conceals the fact that the police had shirked their duty. No mention of his transness or his criminal past, both of which are basic facts that were integral to the story. Completely left out. Would the Telegraph have been so circumspect and deferential to any other class of offender? I wonder at what level within the editorial process this was decided. Did the reporter self-censor themselves to start with, or did the blue pencil come out higher up the chain of command?
Baker must have thought that he could utter such a thing with impunity, and that his trans “status” would shield him. Given the initial lack of response from the police, it nearly did. Only public outcry seems to have prodded them into reluctant action after the fact. How many “cis” parolees with the same conditions of release would have been allowed to walk away from such a violation? How many trans offenders who violate their conditions outside the public eye, without cellphone footage to record it, are allowed to remain at large?