Good luck Harry The Owl

Ooh someone isn't happy!

The women who've tried to get them to treat rape and dv victims fairly, let alone humanely, have been working so, so hard for decades and look where we are on that.

So true. Why waste time & resources on actual crime when we can gad about telling people off about their tweets (!)

I wonder how much public money defending this indefensible behaviour has cost, and how many TAs or nurses we could've paid for this year instead?

If you put in an FOI @JacobReesClunge they would have to tell you. It's likely to be in the ballpark of £100k from my experience.

May I say firstly well done to Harry and his legal team, and then to Spero for fabulous and funny tweets all day long. This has kept me gripped for two days and made me so happy! Well worth the few spades I have sent this way. And fascinating to be exposed to the crisp mind of a British judge - genuinely awe inspiring.

What a day! Thank you so much to the tweeters who let us follow the action!

On the institutional capture and training - I agree that these are the mechanisms behind this all, but let's not forget that if this had been good for women, the police would not have given it their ear. The women who've tried to get them to treat rape and dv victims fairly, let alone humanely, have been working so, so hard for decades and look where we are on that.

I think the reason sex was left out was that the police would grind to a halt if hate against women had to be investigated.

Cressida Dick recognises this

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/nov/02/metropolitan-police-chief-cressida-dick-backs-call-focus-violent-crime-misogyny

That makes things clearer @Spero thanks for explaining, it seems I didn't understand the nuance correctly

It seems to come from the Criminal Justice Act 2003 as amended. But the reason for the partial coverage (of protected characteristics) there is also unclear.

Also it seems weird that Guidance protects only '5 strands' and not the 9 protected characteristics.

It seems to follow CPS guidance: www.cps.gov.uk/hate-crime. But what was the basis/reasoning for the CPS to leave out the protected characteristics of age, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, and sex?

Re position re gender reassignment as a protected characteristic under the Equality Act, as I understand it this protects someone who has undergone or is in the process of transitioning. they don't have to be under 'medical supervision'.

So I think when the Judge commented about surgery being required he DID get it wrong. But I don't think that's an error that would lead to a successful appeal - but we will have to wait and see the judgment.

BUT the police guidance - after Stonewall training - seems to be offering protection to anyone who simply self IDs as 'transgender'. Hence Harry's counsel argued they had got it wrong.

Also it seems weird that Guidance protects only '5 strands' and not the 9 protected characteristics. Again, as Harry's counsel pointed out, the EA represents the will of Parliament and those were the characteristics they decided needed protection.

@bettybeans thank you very much! I know the whole situation is unbelievable but how a barrister can fail to have a basic grasp on it is astounding, no wonder I'm struggling to keep up at times!

smileylottie I think the lawyer for Harry had to correct them on that today. I'm not sure how it came up or what context was - I think it might have been references to the police "acting in accordance with the Equality Act"

Unfortunately his job is to look at evidence given and make a judgement based on that. It's not always going to be a good outcome or one we agree with.

True Captain and I assume the Domestic Abuse Bill would not have been necessary had there not been some loophole which allowed for a 'rough sex gone wrong' defence. I just hope that this legislation gets picked up again after the election.

Wow, there has been a lot to catch up on! Thank you to everyone tweeting and your insight. I've been down so many rabbit holes over the past couple of day and learned a huge amount.

I'm hoping someone could answer a basic question for me, which I'm a little embarrassed to ask as I can't seem to find the exact wording to get this right. Can someone please explain the protected characteristic situation? As I understand it being transgender is not a protected characteristic but how is the position being argued that it is?

Nobody's making money out of this other than the lawyers. The cost of this nonsense is borne by ordinary people and, because the police are involved, presumably also the public purse. Money much better spent elsewhere. Maybe those flinging bitter little poison arrows at Harry could instead spend some time considering that aspect.

Of course it doesn't matter and of course there will be an appeal, some one has once again said "no" to them.

Posting this here as well as Maya's thread as the article touches on both cases. Please read it's really very good.

wildwomanwritingclub.wordpress.com/2019/11/20/a-non-zero-consideration-some-thoughts-on-the-mayaforstatercase2019

Our friends think that the judges comments over a ‘factual acronym’ were ‘concerning’.
Say that it’s deffo going to go to appeal if doesn’t go their way. But then say that the outcome doesn’t even matter, even if they lose it won’t matter, as JR only affects process and not outcome.

Images Scapa images dammit [santa]

Finally got to the end of posts to say thanks to Scapa and you've just replied. Thanks though, you did an incredible job,

Did anybody get a chance to screenshot the one who identifies as a lawyer's feed before tweets were deleted?

You're welcome

Great to read the account of Harry's case. The judge seems to be the same one who reduced John Broadhurst's sentence from murder to manslaughter. Sorry - I feel I am putting a dampener on this.

Unfortunately his job is to look at evidence given and make a judgement based on that. It's not always going to be a good outcome or one we agree with.

There was indeed some tough competition.

Inspector: So sue us

Most people are unable to do this due to cost. Let us not forget that Harry is underwriting the huge cost of this action, a cost that the crowd-raised funding covers only a portion of even when that target is reached.

Yes Ova - my favourite comment among really tough competition from an excellent thread.