Mumsnet is breaching section 26 of the Equality Act 2010 (harassment) by hosting feminist forums that discuss gender-critical issues - legal case?

A politician could have a spent conviction, but from a point of view of a voter I think transparency is important and I would expect them to be able and willing to talk about that experience as a matter of trust.

I tend to hold leading activists and public figures to the same standard if they are campaigning on a particular issue, because its a matter of trust.

If someone tried to wriggle out of that with 'lawyer speak' or technicalities I'd have a problem with it, because I'd immediately question why they weren't prepared to be honest about it.

The conviction itself might not be the thing that I have a problem with. It's the credibility and honesty I'd have a greater issue with because that's the thing that helps me assess their current intent.

I'm not sure why you are PM-ing me whatsthecomingoverthehill

I'm quite happy to talk about this on the thread

I think you're saying that it's OK for Stephanie Hayden to use vaguely threatening legalise to try to intimidate a mumsnetter into removing a post which links to what appears to be a court document because what they say is technically true - i.e. a conviction from 2002 is now spent, so they have no convictions

however the document linked to is also appears to be factually correct, and states that a person who shares Ms Hayden's birth name appeared in court in 2002.

can't see the issue really.

Allegedly, someone has not used their new persona consistently during the past two years. I wouldn't know about that, but if that was the case, could they still have a GRC?

The wording is interesting -
The material is factually inaccurate in that I am a person of good character and have no criminal conviction

The conviction would be spent now so not normally need to be disclosed when applying for a job (although law is an exception here) so I suspect the wording has been chosen for that reason.

Good character also has quite a specific meaning in law. You definitely have good character if you have no past convictions but can also have good character if you have old convictions for minor offences and good conduct since.

[Edited by MNHQ at poster's request]

so was Stephanie Hayden not born Anthony George Steven Halliday then whatsthecomingoverthehill

if they were then what's their issue?

Or is it their contention that it is a different Anthony George Steven Halliday, who happens to share their date of birth, who had been in front of the courts 6 times as at 2002 (they would have been 28 at that point), for a variety of offenses?

in which case a simple explanation would clear this whole thing up wouldn't it? honest mistake made, no harm done. Anthony George Steven Halliday is a common name right?

Steven Hayden aka Tony Halliday elected as Employment Rights & Trade Union Liasion; Tom Noble as Anti-racism & fascist; Luc Sei as Trans*

Two names, ONE person. We aren't discussing theology and the Holy Trinity here.

An individual was certainly operating under two names back in 2015. How odd?

mobile.twitter.com/birkbeckunion/status/670323865621536769

I think you guys are wrong. Steph hasn't said their objection is because it is related to a previous name, or divorcing their past.

And it's not a 'dead name' it's a previous name. Like when a woman fills out a form and try want to know if you have a maiden name. Nobody is dead. Melodramatic claptrap.

Can we so bin the phrase 'honour killing' whilst we are about it?

cross post fekko.

Is this really about harassment by MN or about establishing the 'right to divorce your past'?

What happened in that case in Ireland, where the person said they couldn't stand trial because they had been charged in their 'dead name'?

Sounds like Stephanie is going down that route, where if you change your name your criminal record is magically erased.

I can't see any problems with that at all. No safeguarding issues whatsoever. No security issues at all. No legal issues. Nope nothing.

Just magic. Poof.

I think this is rather in the public interest to be discussing the effect of not being allowed to know 'dead names' for public figures and activists.

What happened the the case in Ireland where a lawyer for a trans women was arguing that the crimes committed by them as a 'man in a 'past life' shouldn't be tried because they aren't the same person?

ALH you don't know any of that I'm afraid and you are speculating.

And I think you are also wrong in thinking that a GRC means there is no link to convictions under the previous name.

Probably not the same person as the "Steven Hayden aka Tony Halliday" who was suspended from Birkbeck Students Union and all affiliated societies in 2016 either amid allegations of misconduct and harassment in 2016 either then.

Also all publicly available information.

whatsthecomingoverthehill

This is very true, but SH is trying to be a lot more sneaky in saying Stephanie Hayden has no criminal offences because SH is a new identity and sex (I guess the birth date would be that on her GMC?).

If asked, before becoming SH and before using the name Steven Hayden, were you know as Anthony George Steven Halliday and did Anthony George Steven Halliday commit those said offences" then SH would have to answer, yes.

Someone is trying to play smart on technicalities and bury their past, which seems totally normal behaviour for this fraudster. I suspect if nothing in the public limelight goes her way, we will end up with another name change in preparation for her next scam (may even become male again).

There is a difference between saying "I have no criminal convictions" and "I have never been convicted of a criminal offence".

I don’t want anyone to feel targeted, (although I don’t believe that’s happening here) but someone in this person’s position should know the consequences for wasting police time and how arguably more urgent crimes are not being dealt with as police resources are used to deal with social issues. There is a lot alleged in the complaint and if those claims cannot be backed up further action should be taken in response. The CPS seem to take a dim view of of premeditated malicious and flimsy claims.

Okay, let me get this straight:
They share their opinions robustly on Twitter, inviting others to comment.
Other people have different, similarly robust opinions and share them.
Then follows a complaint to the actual police because other people have different views to theirs?
Hopefully, because the West Yorkshire police were very publically criticised and ridiculed for their post about thought crime, they’ll want to run away very far and very fast from anything as silly as this.

And biological women have never been ridiculed on the internet etc...?!!

"I want a public plaform to voice my opinions and beliefs and influence others as a social media personality and activist."

People comment and don't like that opinion, those beliefs and tell social media personality / activist / politician in no uncertain terms they have their own opinions, concerns and are worried about the intent of the public personality which is in part related to the personal credibility, history and interests of the social media personality.

"I am being harassed. I am being treated unfairly. Is it cos I is black trans? Ban them. Sort them out"

Er no its cos your a dubious individual, who I wouldn't trust with a barge pole in a political context because of your past. You know like how the press look at the background of any other activist or politician. And comments like 'sort them' out don't exactly make me change my mind, they just reaffirm my original opinion that you should be kept as far away from a position of power as possible, because of the risk of abusing that power.

Funny that.

Shed load of Hot Fuzz here Spero plus prison officers, firefighters and for some reason specialist health care professionals, including a trick cyclist. That's the extended family.
I blame the dressing up box myself.
A few on their way over now. I'll show them the thread, and will not resist arrest.

Putting aside sex gender, whatever you want to call it. If you knew of a person who swung a golf club which is a terrifying thought, wouldn`t you avoid that person?

To be honest I avoid any boring bugger who plays golf. 'A good walk spoiled' as Mark Twain said.

I have just had a DM from someone worried about the whole harassment issue so I sent a link to this post I wrote about the current state of the law - I don't pretend to be expert but its an area I am very interested in as the dividing line between permissible free speech and criminal hate speech sometimes seems very blurred.

the link is here if anyone is interested or wants reassurance. I really don't see how discussion of matters of public interest can ever or should ever be a matter for the police.

TLDR provided you don't descend into personal abuse I cannot see that the line has been crossed into criminality.

remediesagainstsocialmediaharassment.wordpress.com/2018/06/11/online-abuse-intimidation-and-harassment-is-the-law-fit-for-purpose/