Good luck Harry The Owl

I'm aware of the cab rank rule, am a solicitor. Just wondered who drew the short straw on this one!

Having a good chuckle at the Conservative Woman link:

Mr Miller explained that that meant PC Gull was acting like the Thought Police. He asked PC Gull if he had ever read George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four. Gull hadn’t, of course, and Mr Miller explained that it was a dystopian novel and not a police handbook.

PC Gull then explained to Mr Miller: ‘What you have to understand, Mr Miller, is that sometimes a female brain grows with the wrong body parts and that is what being trans is.’

Mr Miller asked if that was the official definition of trans. PC Gull said: ‘Yes, I’ve been on a course.’

It does read like something out of Tom Sharpe.

There is something shameful in using Stephen Lawrence as a human shield isn't there?

I don't think they are.

The idea of recording non-crime hate incidents came from the Macpherson report. I don't think they can avoid the topic:

The definition of a "racist incident" will now include incidents categorised in policing terms both as crimes and non-crimes. It will now encompass "any incident which is perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person". A new Code of Practice will record all such crimes.

The public will be encouraged to report racist incidents by making it possible to report them 24 hours a day, and not only at police stations.

www.theguardian.com/uk/1999/feb/24/lawrence.ukcrime12

Upcoming item on BBC radio 4 news just trailed....

Finally caught up. Have been checking this all throughout the day, but but bloody work has got in the way! It’s been absolutely riveting

Only of course women can't be victims of hate incidents, even when we are patently being hated purely because we are women.

Is it a bit like when men shout at other men 'Oy! Don't speak to my bird like that'?

That's what it sounds like.

"The guidance defines a hate incident as “any non-crime incident which is perceived, by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by a hostility or prejudice against a person who is transgender or perceived to be transgender”.

Or any other person?

So despite not being black, I can file a complaint on behalf of black people, or a lesbian, or someone who is disabled? Or, in fact, anyone. I can get a mark put on anyone's DBS, any time I Iike. Despite not needing any evidence, or in fact being in possession of any protected characteristic?

Breathtaking.

*What crime are they so frantically trying to prevent?

Disobedience*

Only two years ago I'd have laughed dismissively at this.
Now? Not laughing.

The Guardian article says it's Jonathan Auburn representing the College of Policing.

To be fair (claws back in) English law has the cab rank system, and barristers don't get to pick and choose their cases. They can only present the case they are given the best they can. If a client turns up with a hopeless case, but a bag of cash (so that's any official case) the barrister is pretty fucked. Although they doubtless would have explained the strengths and weaknesses of the case to the client (who rarely listens ....)

Do we know who the unfortunate defence counsel getting reamed was?

Somebody who followed Michael Goves point that we've all had enough of experts ?

Agree that Ian Wise QC, representing Harry, seems to be well worth everyone's spades.

The Guardian article says it's Jonathan Auburn representing the College of Policing.

my pro Bono contribution

Enough recording artistes!

Lmao yes, definitely a tenner's worth of entertainment to be had there! I've spent more for things that weren't half as funny.

Do we know who the unfortunate defence counsel getting reamed was?

Call it my pro-bono contribution.

Everyone who donated to Harry’s Crowdfunder had excellent value today. His barrister sounded very well-prepared and briefed. The FairCop twitter feed makes for riveting reading and a 👍 for the judge.

It's the opposite.

And when everyone falls into line Peace will reign!

It really is so mixed up. They talk about inspiring confidence in the community.

Everyone but a handful of bullies is petrified. It's the opposite.

It's absolutely shocking that it takes pitching up at a court (at considerable cost) to force review of patently damaging, illogical and plain flaky policing.

How else can we keep the riff raff out ?

"The guidance defines a hate incident as “any non-crime incident which is perceived, by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by a hostility or prejudice against a person who is transgender or perceived to be transgender”.

Yeah, transgender is not a protected characteristic.

How people cannot see this as being weaponised to create mischief is very alarming.

I hope the judge has some guts here. Because this is pivotal, and could go all the way.

I hope this judge is as sensible and rational as he sounds. It's absolutely shocking that it takes pitching up at a court (at considerable cost) to force review of patently damaging, illogical and plain flaky policing.

Maya, Harry, but how many others? How much infiltration and damage needs to be rectified? The coverage from court this week has been uplifting but you still can't help feel that, even if they both win, it's only the tip of the iceberg.

What happens tomorrow?

Does it continue where it left off?

All about the T, honey.

Ha the body language of beardy bloke in that pic is the definitive pictorial representation of mansplaining!!!

Isn't it just? And the way Posie's stance just says so clearly "who is this fuckwit?"

Well it's the guardian so no nothing else matters.