Our thanks to John for this. Examples of issues that North Yorkshire police will regard as a misogynistic hate crime, from today, include:
– unwanted or uninvited sexual advances [men must be psychic and know if their sexual advances will be wanted or not, and all sexual advances must now be ‘invited’ by women]
– physical or verbal assault [men must never be cross at women, or shout at them]
– unwanted or uninvited physical or verbal contact or engagement [men must be psychic and know if women want to be touched or talked to by them, and they must neither talk nor touch women without being invited to do so]
– sexually graphic and explicit obscene language
– use of mobile devices to send unwanted or uninvited messages or take photographs without consent of permission [men must be psychic and know whether women will want their text messages, and they must not text women without being invited to do so]
The final paragraph in the piece cites the female Police & Crime Commissioner for the area, who is – needless to say – in agreement with the move.
In 2013 I published a piece, The next feminist campaign? Men should wear ‘blinkers’. We’re rapidly heading in that direction.
John writes:
The good news is that their announcement of the new policy on Youtube is getting ripped to shreds, currently over 158 downvotes and 5 in support, perhaps your readers can improve that further still – here.
If everyone who read this gave us just £1 – or even better, £1 monthly – we could change the world. Click here to make a difference. Thanks.
Justice for Men & Boys 
I’ve just left a sweary rant. I wouldn’t be surprised if I end up with the cops at my door. Nothing surprises me now.
LikeLike
My comment also.
LikeLike
Shipley just misses being North Yorkshire, if I have my geography right.
LikeLike
…but this will go National soon. That was always obvious.
LikeLike
I don’t understand how a local police force have the power to do this. They don’t make laws.
LikeLike
They do, in a way. As I understand things, Chief Constables have the authority to interpret instructions and guidance from the Ministry of Justice on parliamentary legislation, which is how speed limit enforcement varies from county to county. It seems contrary to the values of a supposedly democratic society but that is currently how things stand as I understand them.
I don’t know whether this ‘crime’, which does not exist in the statute books, can actually be prosecuted in the courts or has simply been created by ‘The Police’ for recording purposes with the intention of building a case for legislation. One thought that occurs is whether or not they can create a non existent offence and then issue one of those new fangled restraining orders which do not require court action or evidence of wrong-doing but do result in an automatic prison sentence and criminal record if broken.
LikeLike
Whereas true misogyny – a genuine hatred of women – will continue by those inclined to feel that way regardless of the law. As do other illegal acts; murder, robbery etc…
This treatment of women as weak minded mentally retarded humans who are in need of special treatment needs to stop.
This law is itself a true form of misogyny.
I, for one, believe that women are fully capable of standing on their own two feet and making their own decisions. This hate crime law assumes that women are stupid and need help.
LikeLike
Police commissioners have to sign an oath that they will be impartial. This woman should be asked by somebody in Yorkshire how she can justify supporting just the protection of the female half of the population.,
LikeLike
There seems to be nothing anyone can do to stop this society from degenerating into full-blown insanity. It could well signify the end of Western civilisation. Certainly Camille Paglia thinks so – she has linked the current transgender mania as an obsession with androgyny often seen at the end of civilisations. Curiously enough many of the most noteworthy examples involve the police. It is always interesting to speculate – at either an individual or collective level – when the madness started. I would plump for what happened after the Stephen Lawrence murder in 1993. John Major hired a dangerous old lunatic, Sir William Macpherson, to come to the conclusion that the police were ‘institutionally racist’.
LikeLike
This nonsense confirms that ‘The Police’ and the office of Police and Crime Commissioner have been thoroughly corrupted, the latter since its creation, as was to be expected of anything in which Blair had a hand. It is a matter of serious concern to men and boys, and the women who love us, that bogus laws are being created by aggressively misandrous feminists simply for the purpose of criminalising masculinity and attacking men with the intention of putting us in a position of fearful inferiority to women.
MRAs must contest PCC elections and pressure must be put on MPs to establish effective means of genuinely independent supervision and real accountability of police officers. Surely the creation of bogus crimes to further a vicious and dysfunctional political agenda is within the purview of the Ministry of Justice or the Home Office?
I left a comment that I’m sure will be logged as a ‘hate crime’, which is the sort of category one might expect in a corrupt, centralised police state.
LikeLike
There is so much to object to here one scarcely knows where to start.
So I’ll focus on one small area – the bit that in the police statement reads
“….or take photographs without consent of permission….”
Consent or permission is NOT needed to take photographs in a public place, and doing so is quite legal unless a pre-existing court order specifically forbids it in precisely stated circumstances.
The arguement here is that by voluntarily appearing and thus inevitably being seen in public, they have already ‘published themselves’ (that is to say ‘made public’)
So the police appear to be actually just making up new laws – off the top of their er, helmets as it were.
A point also made by a previous commenter I think.
Of couse, it’s only good manners to enquire first before sticking a camera in someone’s face for a close up.
My experience is they quite often say yes though if approached politely.
If course, it helps to establish your bona fides if you are wielding a serious looking piece kit I agree.
So much for photos in a public place.
On private property it is the owner of it (or other responsible person) who can decide if photos are allowed, and if not invite any photograper to ‘desist or depart…’ but this need not, of itself, involve the old bill.
But now it seems this pleasant and harmless is pastime is just the latest thing to be oh-so-deviously verboten by those would rule us by politically motivated dictat.
On a slightly different but very relevant note, it’s important I think to realise what is actually going on when anyone claims to object to being looked at, admired, or even politely approached.
This is not to be understood as a genuine complaint in any real sense at all —
LikeLike
This doesn’t surprise me and I have no doubt will be adopted nationally in due course as we all know all women must be protected from all men.
My work brings me into contact with a lot of forces across the UK, a depressing amount of them treat DV in a gendered way rather a gender neutral way as they should.
Nobody questions feminism I’m afraid.
LikeLike
Sue Perkins
Hosting last weekends Baftas made insulting and derogatory remarks about men. Remarks which, had they been made by a man about women would have resulted in prosecution or worse. Now classed as a hate crime, when will we prosecute those who persist in their abhorrent behaviour.
LikeLike
She’s a lesbian feminist ‘comedienne’ largely funded by the BBC, so in line with expectations. Give me Mel every time.
LikeLike
Now 650 thumbs down on the video and 7 thumbs up, fantastic news. Archived here in case they disable ratings: https://archive.fo/5b02B
LikeLike