No, I think it’s a case of a small, well organised, highly motivated group of activists misrepresenting the law over many years. Since the Supreme Court judgement in FWS V Scottish Ministers (the judgment that clarifies what sex means in the equality act) a term has entered discourse: “Stonewall Law” - which describes equalities legislation as misrepresented by Stonewall as a provider of workplace diversity training. Stonewall and others have thoroughly corrupted enough of our public life that they can always find a police officer senior enough to trigger into taking actions like these.
The Free Speech Union furthermore believes that even under existing law there were no grounds for arresting Linehan in this case. They are assisting him in suing the Met for wrongful arrest and false imprisonment.
The Met Commissioner is squealing about the law needing changed but the police in this case clearly had discretion which they chose not to use. Nice comment piece on it all here:
https://archive.ph/VNm5d
Quote:
At the risk of being handcuffed for causing “distress”, “alarm” or “anxiety”, I say: “Sir Mark, you disingenuous muppet, you!” It’s perfectly clear that the police have discretion to ignore complaints, even crimes, if they want to. Let’s see now:
Phone theft – ignored.
Shoplifting – essentially legal.
Carjacking – we’ll send you a crime number.
Burglaries – help yourself, lads!
Sexual harassment, child gang rape – er, sorry, cultural sensitivities.
For Sir Mark to claim that his officers were unable to use their common sense and ignore a complaint from a notorious trans activist about the Father Ted creator is to insult the public’s intelligence.
|