Good luck Harry The Owl

When placed under the spotlight the whole house of cards comes tumbling down.

It's the actual result of brainwashing being played out in a courtroom.

Do they realise that they are working for, and advocating on behalf of, a whole heap of cross dressers, autogynephiles, and transvestites? According to stonewalls own definition. Who want access to women's spaces as part of their 'lived experience'. And are self describing themselves as a marginalised minority?

Yes, and in doing so they’ve demonstrated that they have no more interest or understanding of racism or gay and lesbian rights than they ever have.

The tweets read like a dystopian horror story!

I am totally fascinated by this glimpse into institutional motivations.

It seems that, having handled race and race bias crimes so poorly in the past, the police have swallowed Stonewall et al's advice uncritically in hopes of avoiding a parallel mistake when it comes to gender identity.

Having handled gay and lesbian rights so badly in the past, many politicians have swallowed Stonewall et al's advice uncritically in hopes of avoiding a parallel mistake when it comes to gender identity.

but this is not just non criminal. It is non criminal incident that impinges on freedom of speech

This.

I’m bloody riveted!

Currently identifying as a responsible parent and not reading this while breastfeeding...

I don't know if it's this guy's argument or the twitter feed but is a jumbled mess, i can't follow it.

...For expressing a perfectly reasonable opinion, for which they are then ensnared by some arcane opaque and undemocratic mechanism whereby they are punished for a non-crime they have been subjectively supposed to have committed because of complaints made by anonymous persons for reasons unknown

Well said. The arbitrary and unknowable aspect of this is deliberate. It creates fear and confusion and paranoia and its aim is to silence any dissent from the orthodoxy. The judge seems excellent though.

Does that mean they have to have lived experience of being burgled, raped, beaten?? Before they can apply any kind of critical focus. What a nonsense.

Whilst we're on it, no tw has lived experience of being a woman.

Yes, and it is 'funny' that they don't uncritically believe women who have been raped/sexually assaulted in the same way isn't it.

"You can say something is objective fact, but that doesn't mean that fact can't be deployed in an offensive way"

That doesn't say much for the supposed intelligence of the police does it, if they have to have lived experience of something before they are capable of policing related to that something.

Defence submissions are basically that police have 'no lived experience' of transgender community and thus can apply no critical focus to any complaint. WOW.

What!

Have they? I think most people would have some idea of what a hate crime is, or what it might be. This, however, has the judiciary scratching their heads.

Part of the contract between the police and the people is that they uphold the law in a way that can be understood and predicted. This is neither understandable nor predictable.

Defense submissions are basically "police have 'no lived experience' of transgender community and thus can apply no critical focus to any complaint."

Captain Yes just as in Maya's case. I think that as PPs have said, the arguments are falling down under the light. What is horrendous is that policy and organisational capture has taken place with NO critical thinking, testing or review whatsoever. Which the regular (and magnificent) FWR posters have been saying all along.

For those that aren't getting the Hashtag updates
The latest update from the defense counsel is:

Take reporting from minority communities seriously - this is essential for the police to gain confidence from minority communities. We must gain confidence of marginalised communities - a key issue here.

Obviously Parroting the Stonewall classes or something.

It’s ridiculous that the police think the way to combat phobia (irrational fear), is to employ an arbitrary set of punitive rules that nobody quite understands, and that people have no idea they’re even breaking or how it is that they are breaking them, let alone the fact that they have no recourse to appeal.

Why is it ridiculous ? It's how they've done it this far for years.

Blimey - did someone read Mockers' post of 13.13 and think 'That's a good idea

I immediately thought it might have been an attempt to disrupt the case too. I'm sure it wasn't, but it's a bit alarming that we are in an environment where that seems like a realistic possibility.

Defense counsel seems to be a bit of a mumbling car crash.

The judge is (so far) a giant among judges. So clear and incisive and sensible. I'm feeling faint with appreciation in between feeling faint with terror that it's come to this. Even contributed to the FairCop Crowdfunder in my excitement!

This is riveting