New Year New Judicial Review? CPS Hate Crime Guidance for schools

Does the document record the potential consequences CPS foresee for a person accused of using their eyes in a way subjectively interpreted as 'unwelcoming'?

Particularly considering it's one person's word against another with no evidence of any kind? And that many assaults and rapes with full forensic evidence (in one case the woman managed to video it on her phone) don't get put forward by CPS on grounds of not being sure it will get through court?

There's evidently no one involved with any experience of children, schools or group dynamics. This ignorance is catastrophic. As we see from all the awful school guidance that deliberately seeks to pit gender non conforming children against all other children as well as their parents, the lack of knowledge about child development, psychology and safeguarding is evidenced in every pack.
We cannot stand by while adults use their own political campaigns to target children and use them as collateral. This is shameful coming from the CPS.

I'm actually staggered that whoever advised the CPS didn't consider the damage this potentially does to children who are trans. This implication of disproportionate power, of heaven help anyone who displeases them - this actively works against equality and good feeling, it's going to make people afraid.

expect side eye = unwanted = hate crime

If females are expected to accept that someone trans in the toilets may subjectively interpret their eye movements and facial expressions as a crime and take action against them accordingly, then what sane female is going to enter a toilet where a trans person may possibly be? Who would take that risk?

In the pack they frame any non acceptance or non inclusion as potentially "hate".

By doing so they are ignoring various international human rights treaties the UK is bound by which grants its residents freedom of belief/religion/thought.

We are not allowed to harass someone, or to verbally or physically attack them. It's right that the law protects all of us in this way. But outside of specific circumstances (like a work environment or if you're serving someone), if you don't want to have someone's company whose beliefs you profoundly disagree with, you are not under any obligation to have it. And in and of itself, not wanting someone around is not a hate crime.

This seems to be an argument that not accepting someone is always motivated by hate and phobias. Which even a child can tell you is ludicrous.

More misrepresentation of the law. From the CROWN PROSECUTION SERVICE!

To echo what @CharlieParley said. In my work in another field, I have often seen local authorities particularly misapply the law on the basis that most ppl won’t challenge it. I was involved in a case where a local authority refused to apply section 117 of the mental health act. Talking to the social worker involved she said the LA knew that legally we were right but they worked on the basis that most ppl won’t challenge or will get fed up & go away eventually if they string it out long enough. The tiny number of ppl who don’t give up make the approach financially worth while.

They do know the difference between what the law says and what guidance/suggested good practice is. They just hope enough ppl don’t

So in essence challenge challenge challenge

Can’t they focus on inclusion and acceptance of people with disabilities?

In the pack they frame any non acceptance or non inclusion as potentially "hate".

Women are being told that this is the law. Lobby groups are being paid to advise companies, schools, centres that this is the law.

Can I just reassure everyone that it is not illegal for the women to challenge a male who identifies as trans for using the ladies.

The only person who could possibly have a right to access a female only space is another legal female.

The only way to be a legal female is to be born female or born male and then apply for and receive a GRC. As this isn't mentioned anywhere, of course, this must be seen as a scenario based on self-id.

What the CPS of all people are doing here is

mistaking policy for the law

Far too many organisations have been introduced to Stonewall law, which majorly misrepresents the Equality Act, and now they operate on a self-id basis for access to female-only provisions. Stonewall has thereby managed to influence, cause and shape policy. Which should normally be but isn't always based on the law.

However, women and girls have still existing rights as females. These rights are ignored in this guidance.

Binterest we need someone prepared to put forward a case first, I think it has to be done by an affected individual?

Do we need another crowdfunder?

Unwanted ? Yes this person’s feelings are correct. They are unwanted in the women’s toilets.

How is this a crime ?

Wow. I take it there is zero recognition of women and girls right to boundaries, privacy and dignity? That single sex spaces are not mentioned?

It is clear authoritarianism that privileges one class over all others and teaches submission is mandated by law.

Dear god. I stopped reading at that point. It all feels a bit hitler youth

expect side eye = unwanted = hate crime.

You expect correctly.

Did the man who banged on the door commit any crime? If so, what could he be charged with? See the students’ information sheet 4 to help you.

And later on there is a worksheet which says that the police are called due to this. "While they are there they learn about the earlier incident" ie the MTF trans person being made uncomfortable in the ladies by disobedient women. So that too is a matter for the police and potentially the CPS.

I expect side eye = unwanted = hate crime.

I'm just carrying with the toilet thing because I'm not a safeguarding expert and this is the bit which just clearly tramples over girls' and women's boundaries about same sex spaces.

The guide returns to this scenario in which children have to watch the video again and pretend they are police officers.

This is how the guidance after the plenary session starts:

The students should find that the women and men can be charged with public order offences, in this case aggravated by hostility based on gender identity.

And the next bit:
Your initial investigation identifies a distressed young trans woman who, on questioning, tells you that she has been made to feel threatened and unwanted and obliged to use the accessible toilet.

Unwanted is an interesting word isn't it? So is being unwanted (by the women one presumes) as much as a crime as feeling threatened? Looks like it!

It has been repeatedly documented that transwomen get more side eye from women in the women's loo than they do from men in the men's, though they do get the occasional side eye in the men's.
The myth of male bodied people not being safe in the men's toilets has been repeatedly debunked but it is still used in marketing mixed sex facilities.

This is the worksheet. Note, I have not watched the video but I think we can make some assumptions based on the questions and the image at the top of the page which shows someone who looks male but wearing make up and with long hair.

Ladies’ toilets
Can you say why the person went into the ladies’ toilets and not the mens’ toilets? How did the women behave towards her?
How did that make her feel?

I think we can assume that the person was subject to stares and whispers - not a crime but not kind

Gents’ toilets
In the gents’ toilets what happened when she went into the cubicle?
Did the man who banged on the door commit any crime? If so, what could he be charged with? See the students’ information sheet 4 to help you.

In this one, the person is called 'she'. Now the person is subject to threat of physical violence which can be reported as a hate crime. But the only reason the poor person is being subject to the threat is because the women were unkind.

Accessible toilets
What made her finally consider using the accessible toilets? Was this appropriate for her?

I assume here we are (rightly) supposed to say that it's inappropriate to use the accessible toilets when you don't need them

Ah I note one of the Hate Crime Scenarios is Toilet choice. The points for the teachers to note after watching the video clips (which I haven't seen) are very confused but left me feeling like if I saw a boy in the girl's toilets, I should be worried because it would be transphobic of me to complain and that might be a hate crime.

Many thanks Spero this is so important. Even if the guidelines had turned out to be uncontentious - and they sound anything but - the secrecy is really disturbing and frankly scares the hell out of me.

Conduct a thought experiment;
what would society look like for women, if the most extreme MRA's were put in charge?

Would women be permitted to name male pattern violence?
Would women be permitted to say no to men?
Would women be permitted to self organize?
Would women be permitted to name men at all? I'm thinking of how in some religions, man as the lesser being is not permitted to speak the name of God.

Who would vote for this outcome? Who benefits from it?

Yes, good point. The society run by the most extreme MRAs starts to look rather familiar.