India Willoughby reports jk rowling to the police

never heard of willoughby, but apparently she’s under protection (or was) by the counter terrorism unit for receiving death threats so not unimaginable she has a lil ptsd and maybe a lil sensitive on the subject of her gender. nice low blow by 100-year-old billionaire bored with all that money; yk there'd something called being the bigger person or at least going after someone closer to your size. why senior citizens spend their time arguing on twitter is beyond me.
cringe the media is reporting reporting a crime now. not a police investigation, not an arrest. just a phone call. afaik case has already been dropped lol
couldn’t read the link in the op, but other sources at least show rowling trying to defend herself with forstater which is disappointing. surely someone with unlimited finances would be able to understand a judgment or pay someone to explain it to her. no, forstater does not give automatic impenetrable protection to anyone expressing gender critical opinions (ignoring the fact not everyone with this pov will be classed as a ‘philosophical belief’ for the purposes of the ea 2010 but that is another convo only nerds familiar with legal precedents would appreciate).
in short page 4:
‘This judgment does not mean that those with gender-critical beliefs can ‘misgender’ trans persons with impunity. The Claimant [Forstater], like everyone else, will continue to be subject to the prohibitions on discrimination and harassment that apply to everyone else. Whether or not conduct in a given situation does amount to harassment or discrimination within the meaning of EqA will be for a tribunal to determine in a given case.’
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/60c1cce1d3bf7f4bd9814e39/Maya_Forstater_v_CGD_Europe_and_others_UKEAT0105_20_JOJ.pdf
nevermind she, nor anyone else, can't use forstater to defend a crime which is what willoughby is complaining of by going to the police here. civil suits, yes: crimes no. just like can't use religion to defend a crime, you can't use your philosophical belief. that makes no sense. are there defences? yes but your protected characteristic isn't one of them. for more info see below
https://www.stuartmillersolicitors.co.uk/malicious-communications-offences/

You are mistaken in your description of the effect of the Forstater decision. It is of general application in establishing that gender critical (or, to use a more accurate term, sex realist) views are protected by the Equality Act 2010. A prosecution of a person for expressing a protected view could not succeed. In addition to the 2010 Act, a prosecution would founder on Article 10 ECHR, which guarantees freedom of expression.

The Article 10 right can be limited on narrow grounds, for example to protect the rights of others, but not to protect the feelings of others.

Nothing said or written by J K Rowling on the subject of gender has contravened any law, or could reasonably be characterised as hateful or phobic. For an example of the clarity and rationality of Rowling's views, which rightly attach more importance to the rights of women and girls (biological human females) than to the feelings of men (biological human males), please see the attached.

https://x.com/jk_rowling/status/1776616861888655835?t=o4nIJqZlEyeUnkh3MwNz1w&s=08

I don’t think that anyone in this thread is saying that JK Rowling has broken any laws 🤷🏾*♀️.

Perhaps not, but the summary of the effect of the Forstater decision given above is inaccurate (it may be that its author is not a lawyer), and might inadvertently mislead some into thinking that there would be a material difference of outcome between a civil dispute and a criminal charge based on the same statements.

I’m not a lawyer and don’t have a law degree so I can’t comment on whether the effect is inaccurate or not.

The inaccuracy is the apparent suggestion that the decision only applies in the context of civil litigation, and would not apply to an allegation of criminal words, when the words are expressions of a protected belief. After the decision was published, gender ideologists (including some activist lawyers ) published misleading commentaries on it, seeking to downplay the scope and impact of the decision, and it may be that the poster above had been misled by one or more of those commentaries.

In other news, Maya Forstater's organisation "Sex Matters" is now recognised as a charity, as the fightback of science, reason, and feminism against mumbo jumbo and misogyny continues to succeed.

Yeah I don’t know if the forstater gives the right for people to say whether they want about gender identity (to the point where it’s protected).

Forstater establishes that the Equality Act protects the right to express the view that sex is objective and immutable, a right which gender ideologues had sought to eliminate. The decision is a great victory for science and the values of the Enlightenment over a pseudoscientific quasi-religion.

You are mistaken in your description of the effect of the Forstater decision. It is of general application in establishing that gender critical (or, to use a more accurate term, sex realist) views are protected by the Equality Act 2010. A prosecution of a person for expressing a protected view could not succeed. In addition to the 2010 Act, a prosecution would founder on Article 10 ECHR, which guarantees freedom of expression.
The Article 10 right can be limited on narrow grounds, for example to protect the rights of others, but not to protect the feelings of others.
Nothing said or written by J K Rowling on the subject of gender has contravened any law, or could reasonably be characterised as hateful or phobic. For an example of the clarity and rationality of Rowling's views, which rightly attach more importance to the rights of women and girls (biological human females) than to the feelings of men (biological human males), please see the attached.
https://x.com/jk_rowling/status/1776616861888655835?t=o4nIJqZlEyeUnkh3MwNz1w&s=08

yes ik how article 10 works. what do you mean ‘A prosecution of a person for expressing a protected view could not succeed’? you’ve heard of Connolly v DPP 2007? surely
i’m not saying rowling is anywhere near Connolly but i don’t know what you’re getting at here. didn't suggest rowling would be prosecuted if that's what you're looking for.
btw i don’t have a laptop or wifi or patience at mine so this convo probably won’t last that long, unfortunately. when it gets sorted hopefully will clarify what i meant about defences in my post above.

I’m not sure whether I agree with that or not.

I invite you to read "Material Girls" by Kathleen Stock and "Time To Think" by Hannah Barnes.

I’m not sure how that relates to my response to
the statement above.

Reading those books might assist you in making up your mind about the significance of the Forstater decision and/or the wider debate about gender. They are arguably two of the most important books published in the UK in the last few years.