Good luck Harry The Owl

"Counsel for P - even taking the whole package, when looking at the effect of it, HM says he was concerned and anxious but we don't accept that evidence.

OK, so police making people concerned and anxious is fine, if it's because they offended a person, who becomes a victim... this does not make much sense to me.

Clitheroe, this precise point is made in The Telegraph article. I wish I could figure out how to post a share token to it because it’s blistering about the entire case

I am so angry. This is my police area and I was talking to an elderly couple a few weeks ago who went into Hull on the train. When they alighted they were met by a street fight between two rival gangs and not a copper in sight. They are too frightened to go into town now.

Get on with bloody policing!

And yes, the police essentially arguing that they have the right to intimidate members of the public is really not a good look. After all of this is done and dusted I'd like to see that specific point picked up for further action.

You might wait a very long time, I'm afraid. It's already been well established that the police are able to use their powers in a "social" capacity even when no offence is being committed. As shopkeepers who were openly harassed for legally selling cannabis seeds found out a few years ago. One of the polices official guidelines was to "actively monitor" such shops - especially if they display posters or other material agitating for a change in the law.

This is one of the problems with having "favoured" causes. Pastor Neimoller is never far away.

It's not, is it? Gender reassignment only.

"Judge -

your point is that transgender as identified in CoP guideline is NOT a protected characteristic"

[santa]

They are now saying that transgender is NOT a protected characteristic...

I would like to propose that "not even in the foothills of x,y,z" becomes part of standard Mumsnet phraseology.

I can see it being well applied to AIBU.

sanction but to remind him of the limits of speech and that applies to everyone. You can keep doing what you are doing but be aware

Be aware. Beware. Beware the Orwellian reach of the specially trained agents of the state even when you haven’t committed a crime. It’s true what Harry said. Do they think 1984 is a training manual?

@mnhq will you be incorporating the principles of freedom of speech laid out in the judgement into your talk guidelines? Or will you also continue to break the law?

MN is a private site and can set it's own rules. It owes no one any "right" to free speech, in the same way that I owe no one any "right" to erect a posted saying "God is Great" or "Down with this sort of thing" on my land.

Grassroots movements do not work like that. This is authoritarianism at work, and a particularly alarming version of it too. Tie that in with the tweet someone posted a few days ago of Leicester police in gas masks with automatic weapons in the name of inclusion and what's being proposed is a police state.

My god. The upshot of this is that the police will just get better at making sure people aware too scared to tell on them 🤬

If he was scared enough he wouldn't have told anyone? Yeah, that's not fucking sinister or anything.

PC Gul did not bring him to brink of criminal sanction but to remind him of the limits of speech and that applies to everyone. You can keep doing what you are doing but be aware

Limits of speech? I cannot believe what I am reading.

And yes, the police essentially arguing that they have the right to intimidate members of the public is really not a good look. After all of this is done and dusted I'd like to see that specific point picked up for further action.

"Counsel for P - even taking the whole package, when looking at the effect of it, HM says he was concerned and anxious but we don't accept that evidence. Proof is in the pudding and that is the continued tweets and publicising this incident."

If that is a verbatim transcription of Counsel's comment then they deserve to lose the case for not knowing that the saying is "the proof of the pudding is in the eating".

No worries, BovaryX, thanks for trying!

@mnhq will you be incorporating the principles of freedom of speech laid out in the judgement into your talk guidelines? Or will you also continue to break the law?

Do you think his Lordship is on the Board for the Plain English Campaign Bovery ?

The problem with the internet (well one problem) is that it's created a circle jerk of moronity where a bunch of cretins are egged on by idiots in believing they are somehow more right that those that actually did the fucking long hours needed to get a qualification. The paradigm being "Freeman of the land" bollocks that's become so popular.

The reality is English law has for a very long time been predicated upon the everyday use of language. If there is a need to create a specific definition then that has to be done within the wording of the act creating that offence. So unless a word or term is specifically defined, then the law reverts to "everyday usage" when being interpreted.

"Public" is a good example. Some acts - in particular Road Traffic Acts - have to specifically define "public" in a way that extends the everyday usage.

So here, the judge is simply applying first term legal theory to the case, as is right and proper. And as with a lot of freeman bollocks - reality has a chilling effect on fairies.

Indeed.

Prodigal, I am sorry but I can’t seem to find a way of doing the share token. It must be available and it’s just that I haven’t used it before and can’t seem to find it. I will have another go

I think that obscuring, redefining, inventing language seems to be a deliberate tactic of this lobby group. This judge seems to realize this and he is challenging this tactic to great effect

"Intimidate up to the point of an actual recordable sanction"

Indeed.

"In a legal context, a chilling effect is the inhibition or discouragement of the legitimate exercise of natural and legal rights by the threat of legal sanction. The right that is most often described as being suppressed by a chilling effect is the US constitutional right to free speech."

Didn't he speak to the chief constable on the phone, who said so sue us, or something

Police counsel is saying that it couldn't be state interference because Harry kept on tweeting. Therefore he wasn't intimidated into not tweeting. Therefore it wasn't state interference.

This is truly chilling because they are, effectively, arguing for their right to intimidate up to the point of an actual recordable sanction.