Harry the Owl and others launching high court battle

From the GOVERNMENT website linked above, the Human rights act:

The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.

Where does it say gender identity?

You told your son to go into bomb disposal because women won't comply with your demands on an internet forum?

I suppose it's a good dinner party story.

"So how did you get into bomb disposal, George?'

"Well there's this site called Mumsnet..."

So why should you be shouldn't trans gender be the same, it's under the same law.

First.... Trangender identity isn't a protected characteristic.
Secondly There was no crime here.

Because right now, we are trying to convince eldest son, who has letters of thanks from Care workers, social workers, former and current Police officers and specialist youth workers, all saying he would make an excellent front line officer, from his cadet performance, to do anything but become a copper. I even suggested Bomb disposal with RAF, because this thread

You told your son to go into bomb disposal because women won't comply with your demands on an internet forum?

Give your head a wobble, love.

is anyone else disappointed that doesn't rhyme? I thought it would initially from the structure

But the guidelines come from the CPS and therefore the government.
Through the college of Policing.
They are National guidelines, set by the nation prosecution service. I would bloody hope the CPS slightly know what thay require the police to follow.
So what law do you and faircop want upholding.
Because under most Uk law free speech loses out to protected characteristics.
So you can't ban gays from your hotel,
You can't say certain terms to black people.
you can't attack lesbians for been lesbian.
You can't say all disabled don't deserve a life,

So why should you be shouldn't trans gender be the same, it's under the same law.

I hiding this section, the sane mumsnetters say stay away, they are so right. Continue in your echo chamber.

I think Harry tweet met one of above reasons to be reported, so was and was recorded as a hate incident
So we can assume the original poster of the limerick was also questioned? Not heard anything and it's pretty big news.
Also anyone else who retweeted said limerick, they been talked to too?

do you believe the Police in these cases should just ignore their guidelines, because it suits your GC sensibilities.

We want them to follow and uphold the LAW.

2Boys Do you have any idea what Harry’s campaign is about? It is about those guidelines which do not represent the law.

Or do you believe the Police in these cases should just ignore their guidelines, because it suits your GC sensibilities.

The case that Fair Cop is bringing is against those "guidelines" from the College of Policing is because it infringes the Human Right to disbelieve the belief of another [Article 9] and it interferes with freedom of expression [article 10].

See Human Rights Act 1998: www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/schedule/1

2Boys

Does the CAB or the police, or any other organisation, provide a definition of "transgender identity" that is agreed to in UK law, please?

The police in this case we're in the wrong, very wrong.
If you didn't agree you wouldn't be posting here trying to rewrite what happened and worrying about payouts.

2boys

What do you think you repeating the same nonsense about your boys is actually going to achieve?

We are not responsible for that fair cop campaign, we are not running it, and you seem to be driving people to donate.

This has really got under your skin, hasn't it?

Anyway, great news about the unmentionables, good stuff. Be great to have clear guidelines so everyone is treated fairly

I don't know why I am back

Because we haven't shut up and kept in our place.

Harry the Owl was investigated for a hate incident

He was harassed, there was no investigation, the police apparently didn't even read the tweets in question.

Unless you are telling us not even looking at the evidence counts as investigation.

All the guidelines on how to deal with Hate Incidents/crimes go back to the cases like Stephen Lawrence and institutional racism.

I don't know why I am back, but Harry the Owl was investigated for a hate incident, which is not automatically a hate crime, but can be.
Please look at Citizen's advise, they have the law as it stands today.
Hate incidents are defined by the Police and CPS,
one of the CPS definitions of a hate incident, according to Citizen advise is
verbal abuse, including offensive jokes
online abuse for instead facebook or twitter
CPS/Police guidance says anyone can report a hate incident if they believe the act was motivated by hostility or prejudice against disability, race, religion, transgender identity or sexual orientation
It is the right of the complaint to have this recorded as a hate incident. all police forces record on these personal characteristics, some on extra ones.
I think Harry tweet met one of above reasons to be reported, so was and was recorded as a hate incident.

Further CPS/Police guidelines say a hate incident can be also a hate crime, and the Police may investigate further, and hate crimes will be prosecuted by CPS.
Though the Police/CPS may decide there was no hate crime and take it no further.
The Citizen Advise ask people to report hate incidents, as they can often lead to hate crimes, they say even if it isn't a hate crime the police may be able to help the victim further.

I know the above is the law of England, and how the Police/CPS work, my eldest has a CSE and hate crime booklet from CPS, which was given to all officers, PCSO and cadets in Humberside, which explains all the above over 50 pages.

So I know you think I'm deranged, but seeing Harry meet the hate incident threshold, and a Police officer has the right to further investigate, how you all think he was victimised is beyond me.
In fact I would say most of faircop cases are correct under CPS guidelines.

Or do you believe the Police in these cases should just ignore their guidelines, because it suits your GC sensibilities.

Because right now, we are trying to convince eldest son, who has letters of thanks from Care workers, social workers, former and current Police officers and specialist youth workers, all saying he would make an excellent front line officer, from his cadet performance, to do anything but become a copper. I even suggested Bomb disposal with RAF, because this thread and RL, proves what ever the police do they are always blamed.
Speak to someone posting tweets with an hate incident report, male bastard
women attacked, police don't do enough to stop,
CSE police blamed,
Fights at football and in street, police don't stop it,
Terroism at Manchester/London police's fault the bombers weren't stopped.
No way do we want our caring(CAMHS treated) lad facing that, it also why no one wants to be a social worker.
50% of ex officer's tell him don't do it, because the 75% public treat you like shit and don't respect you.
You be left with kids like him and lots of the female cadets walking away, and you just end up with macho white cops, who still believe in Life on Mars policing.

If the police are incapable of deciding whether or not something is homophobic or racist, they need to be trained better.

Or the law needs to be written with clear definitions not left open to interpretation

Government decided to take away any discretion from the police. As a consequence, the complainant gets to decide. Hate crimes and incidents occur in the eyes of the beholder.

If the police can't be trusted to decide if something is a crime, and conclude that the word huh is, then something has gone wrong.

I genuinely don't see how the eye of the beholder could ever work. Anyone, with any kind of malicious intent, can tie the police up, full time, until the end of time.

And are.

If the police are incapable of deciding whether or not something is homophobic or racist, they need to be trained better.

The police were investigating

......Laughable if they didn't even look at the tweets....

Harry has not committed a crime, the police admit he has not committed a crime.

There doesn't have to be a crime.

The police were investigating a hate incident. A non-crime.

A hate crime require a crime the ‘hate’ bit relates to the motivation for the crime. Harry has not committed a crime, the police admit he has not committed a crime.

The entire 'eye of the beholder' premise

Successive governments have had a healthy suspicion of the police. In a nutshell, various scandals and tragedies showed that the police were unable to recognise racism and homophobia in particular.

Government decided to take away any discretion from the police. As a consequence, the complainant gets to decide. Hate crimes and incidents occur in the eyes of the beholder.

The complainant is not the same as the victim - anyone's perception will suffice whether they are a bystander, witness, family member, friend, anyone.

The policy assumed that perpetrators would be brought to justice/warned if only the police had the right mind-set. If you subscribe to that view (and many people do) then so far, so good.

The hate crime policy is an important one because it gives the Government some legitimacy and support from 'communities' affected by racism, disability and homophobia etc, where there is mistrust of the police.

They won't give up that support easily. And they don't trust the police anyway.

There is a lot at stake for a Government that wants to redesign hate crime/incidents and I believe that they are prepared for 'collatoral damage' in people like Posie, Glinner, Harry, Margaret and the rest.

Someone reported a disability 'hate crime' against me quite recently. I had to work quite hard to persuade the police that, vis a vis that incident, I in no way and at no point felt intimidated, threatened, hated, frightened etc.

It is a box ticking exercise to make the police look woke and with it and these non-crimes are dealt with much more quickly than real investigations into real crimes.

so there is no need for the police to review them as their opinion is not relevant?

Well that does appear to be the logic, yes. It's absolute nonsense.

Hopefully the fact that there are so many people leveraging this nonsense, which Harry is now pointing out, will be enough to address The entire 'eye of the beholder' premise.

How they ever thought it would not be used to harass people, is beyond me.