All the best to Kate Scottow in court tomorrow

(Name Change for this post)

Very pleased to see the photos in yesterday's Daily Mail article

I complained to the DM after they published the article on 6 Feb, ie. that if they chose to run a headline that included the "pig in a wig" allegation it was ridiculous to publish a heavily photoshopped image of Hayden - and hadn't they got any photographers they could send to the court??

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7978797/Mother-two-called-transgender-woman-man-racist-series-offensive-tweets.html

I also agree to an extent with terfsandwich above.

There have been no generalising, disrespectful comments about Disability Benefit claimants that I have noticed - and I too am among those who would be "targeted" if there had been, would be upset and have cause to complain. There have instead been helpful clarifications about means testing and the horrendous process of applying for assistance.

However, "Self-ID" in terms of disability is a VERY different kettle of fish to "Self-ID" in terms of the GRA 2004 and Equality Act 2010. In order to obtain protections under the Equality Act 2010 objective evidence is required. It is not sufficient to "self declare" that one "feels disabled".

And the way some people talk about transgender ideology exposes their transphobia?
I used to listen politely, I used to reflect, I used to think deeply about my internalised ableism when I read threads on here and questioned disability self-ID.
But then I compared the language to the trans debate and decided that there were parallels. I have decided, mainly based on the language used by Self-id activists, that I don't support it.
No doubt I will be piled on now with lots of women unironically telling me to "be nice" and "it doesn't cost you anything" and "you're gatekeeping disability from self-id'ers who can't get a diagnosis".
Nope, I don't care if I'm not nice. There's too many parallels to trans activism. Silencing debate with attacks of ableism don't fly with me any more.
And if you try and challenge my right to speak on this issue, we'll again, that's identity politics, isn't it? Those with oppression points get to shut down debate. I don't have to prove my stake in the disability community to have a view.

How is it different, if we question a known criminal's motivation for the protected status of gender reassignment, like Karen White, and if we question the motivations of a known deceiver who claims a disability that allows a get-out for perjury?
Just because there are good people on PIP or good people with memory loss, who encounter difficulty and discrimination, does not mean we cannot or should not criticise individuals.
How is it different to TRAs trying to silence women?
I feel this matter is relevant to the sacred caste concept and the humble apologies of the purity spiral. Someone will no doubt prove my point shortly.

I've been deleted too. Not the foggiest as to why.

I was awarded PIP at the higher rates for care and mobility last autumn and I don't care two hoots if people know about it. It is an inoffensive piece of information IMO. I'm ecstatic about it - I've been struggling along for years on bugger all, to the extent that getting PIP feels like riches.

I can't see that knowing someone receives PIP would make you think less of them. It definitely doesn't give me a worse opinion of SH than I already had.

As I said, I hope Kate’s barrister spelled this out so the judge couldn’t miss the implications.

She didn't really spell it out under cross-examination, but may have done so in her final summing-up. What she seemed to be emphasising, more than the blocking, was whether Hayden was aware they had been blocked. She was sure that Hayden was aware, Hayden was adamant that they weren't. But I'm not entirely clear of the implications of this.

By the way, am not sure how much of this we are allowed to discuss - is it OK because it's a judge rather than a jury?

You can’t make jokes on a weekend, Penguin! Gotta save them up for Monday!

Gosh my first strike for a one liner about the Mail photos
I feel like I've been blooded

As I said, I hope Kate’s barrister spelled this out so the judge couldn’t miss the implications.

Absolutely. I'm hoping very much that the lengthy gap here is to allow the judge time to go and research the way social media works, if they don't already know. I doubt many magistrates hear cases this likely to attract attention, so I expect they're anxious to ensure t's are crossed and i's dotted. One can hope.

SH socks wouldn’t have been blocked...

Obviously, but that's wholly irrelevant to the case at hand. Kate's awareness of who Hayden was is key to her having the necessary intent. If you have to go to lengths to circumvent a ban, then you can't be harassed by the person banning you, who by definition is seeking to avoid all contact. It's pretzel logic in purest form to argue otherwise.

How can you be harassed by someone who has actively sought to prevent all contact? That is just bonkers.

As I said, I hope Kate’s barrister spelled this out so the judge couldn’t miss the implications.

SH socks wouldn’t have been blocked...

Wait, what? Kate had blocked Hayden?

How can you be harassed by someone who has actively sought to prevent all contact? That is just bonkers. And of course you'd know you were blocked in this scenario, because you'd need to take active steps to circumvent that block, in order to find out what was being tweeted.

People keep saying if you block someone they can see if it is retweeted but that’s not true - it would only be seen if it was screenshotted (is that a word?) & tweeted.

It’s another lie, among all the others, and quite possible the judge will not know that. I hope Kate’s barrister made the implications fully clear.

Those who are seeking out tweets in order to sift out anything that might be used for the purposes of litigation quite possibly use multiple accounts.

I should also imagine they might have a network of like-minded people who relay information to them. Quite possibly, that network might also set out deliberately to encourage perjorative statements that can be then used as evidence that the other party is at fault.

That’s what gaslighters do. They find people and wind them up until they are so angry and frustrated that they put themselves in the wrong. I know, because it’s been done to me.

Kate is not the only woman who is being targeted this way.

Kate you’re a proper hero & proper stubborn which is my kind of hero

Agree!

Kate you’re a proper hero & proper stubborn which is my kind of hero

People keep saying if you block someone they can see if it is retweeted but that’s not true - it would only be seen if it was screenshotted (is that a word?) & tweeted.

I think it's perfectly fine to point out SH was incorrect in saying PIP was means tested. Speculating why someone would be awarded PIP and what they may use it for (even if you think they are a complete twat) isn't reasonable, IMO. It also leads to comments (which are on this thread) about good use of taxpayers money etc and talking about benefit scammers, which isn't relevant to the discussion, and is unpleasant for people with disabilities to read.

Perhaps I am taking it too personally as memory issues are a sensitive subject for me, but I think speculation and conjecture about an individual's PIP award (and therefore their disabilities) rather than discussing already stated facts, is going off topic and unnecessary. (I appreciate your post @teawamutu thank you).

Ahahahahaha absolutely perfect 🤣

Always admired your style, especially in the 90's, iconic (dons shiny PVC trousers and stacked platforms)

Shampoo stole my look!

m.youtube.com/watch?v=QL15Ya5fsgo

I’ve hardly changed at all, just ask @Doobiegetta 😂

So Scottow wasn't even tweeting at Hayden? Scottow had blocked Hayden, but Hayden was still obsessively seeking out Scottows tweets so that Hayden could take offence?

My understanding is that at some point Kate blocked Hayden - I'm not sure of the timeline - but that Hayden still saw the tweets. If I recall correctly, Hayden said that you can still see tweets that get retweeted by other people and that's how they would have seen it. I think Kate's barrister was trying to get Hayden to acknowledge that they knew the were blocked and therefore had, as you say, gone seeking the tweets out, but Hayden was very adamant that that wasn't the case.

PIP isn't means tested, ESA can be.

Sorry, not querying the PIP thing, but didn't the DM article quote SH as saying PIP was means tested, meaning the publication of that information (which I understood to be SH's personal financial position) was detrimental to SH. Maybe I misunderstood that?