Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

Fair Cop Court of Appeal 8-10 March

382 replies

Spero · 17/02/2021 10:49

Please save the date! This is such an important hearing for freedom of speech, particularly around the issues of sex and gender.

The hearing will be for 1 1/2 days some time between 8-10 March, we don't have an exact listing yet.

Hopefully there will be some live tweeting.

Do support if you can.

twitter.com/WeAreFairCop/status/1361820204649639951?s=20

OP posts:
Thread gallery
7
nauticant · 10/03/2021 12:50

I mean the chat feature up the side of the webpage, not the comments. Chat was on yesterday but isn't on today.

Chrysanthemum5 · 10/03/2021 12:48

Thanks @highame and @NecessaryScene1 that makes it clearer!

nauticant · 10/03/2021 12:48

It's uncertain greatpurplepolkadots. Yesterday it looked like Harry Miller was struggling to make headway but today it seems the judges are very skeptical of a number of parts of the College of Policing case.

I see that today the youtube comments have been turned off. Yesterday people were merrily chatting away about what it load of bollocks it was.

highame · 10/03/2021 12:47

It's hard to tell which way this will go, because there are arguments on both sides, but clearly the College of Policing have been a bit cavalier so one hopes that even if the judgement went against harry that it would still result in some changes to the recording of hate incidents?

highame · 10/03/2021 12:45

JC; volume of hate incidents so large would be impossible for police to investigate each one. Recording on basis of perception ensures they continue to be monitored.

[But police don't monitor] Now that's interesting isn't it

greatpurplepolkadots · 10/03/2021 12:44

So...is that good or bad for Harry?

NecessaryScene1 · 10/03/2021 12:43

thanks necessary much clearer

Not necessarily right though - that was my understanding from previous reading here. I missed the article 8 reference in today's case.

highame · 10/03/2021 12:42

thanks necessary much clearer

highame · 10/03/2021 12:40

Have only just tuned in so am trying to catch up. Might be wrong, if so, hope someone will correct

NecessaryScene1 · 10/03/2021 12:40

Sorry this is all a bit complex to follow - what does it mean if it is Article 8?

Both Harry Miller and Sarah Phillmore have ongoing cases about the police recording. Both cases are going through, but they're taking care that they are not both ruling on the same points.

So one case is claiming contravention of rights under certain ECHR articles, and the other under different articles. Miller's JR is unable to now bring in the articles that Phillmore is relying on, as they'll be considered by her case.

If they both lost and appealed, the two cases would likely be combined at that point, but for now they're separate and at different stages.

highame · 10/03/2021 12:40

Chrysanth They, (Harry Miller) I think are taking the case under article 10 but Barrister for College of Policing has conceded that this would be an infringement of rights under article 8, Now I believe Sarah Phillimore has a case which is waiting on the outcome of this one that uses article 8

ArabellaScott · 10/03/2021 12:36

My wig is not silly, Necessary. The clown nose might be, granted.

Imnobody4 · 10/03/2021 12:34

Have just been watching it and am very encouraged. Was quite depressed yesterday but the judges seem to be on the ball.

Chrysanthemum5 · 10/03/2021 12:33

@highame

The Barrister has just conceded. Apparent.y Sarah Phillamores case is Article 8
Sorry this is all a bit complex to follow - what does it mean if it is Article 8?
NecessaryScene1 · 10/03/2021 12:30

@CardinalLolzy

In a much drier way this is resembling an argument that was had on these boards a while ago, imo!
But we wear sillier wigs.

Don't we?

You are all wearing yours, right?

Blush
highame · 10/03/2021 12:30

Unreal unicorns methinks

CardinalLolzy · 10/03/2021 12:29

In a much drier way this is resembling an argument that was had on these boards a while ago, imo!

NecessaryScene1 · 10/03/2021 12:29

Okay, judge speak dictionary time again. What does "unreal" mean?

highame · 10/03/2021 12:28

The Barrister has just conceded. Apparent.y Sarah Phillamores case is Article 8

highame · 10/03/2021 12:27

Just tuned in. Did I get that right. Breach of Article 8

Ereshkigalangcleg · 10/03/2021 12:27

Yes I think that's very striking.

NecessaryScene1 · 10/03/2021 12:26

I think garbage in, garbage out applies here.

Yes, they're not miracle workers. I believe there is some sort of rota so they get turns being handed the crappy side of a case.

Experience having to present muppets' cases means they can make presenting good cases look effortless. :)

CardinalLolzy · 10/03/2021 12:26

"Judge - so you are better off if the complaint against you MIGHT be a crime, so you are investigated and it might be that its no crime at all! No evidence of hate! Person perceives hate but its irrational. So you are better off the more serious it is."

Amazing point!

nauticant · 10/03/2021 12:19

That was just the introduction! The College of Policing has now moved into the substantive case and the proceedings are now far more drier. But I expect more judge-led WTF outbursts later on.

RozWatching · 10/03/2021 12:19

I am somewhat surprised that the QC defending the College of Policing is the same QC that defended FPFW in the Census case and he does seem to be tying himself in knots on this one.

I think garbage in, garbage out applies here.