Fair Cop Court of Appeal 8-10 March

Ahh I see!

So X writes something on twitter. X does not know Y.

Y complains [that they feel harrassed/personally attacked]

Judge says - is Y to be treated as seriously as someone who is in frot of X at the time X says the thing and is so potentially more seriously affected.

Is that it?

thanks

Can anyone tell me the name of the 'Lady Judge'? Just for interest.

Lady Justice Simler, according to the stream.

Did anyone catch that?

Yeah, that was where the "unreal" came in. Treating this situation of people complaining about the general writing of someone who doesn't even know the complainer as the same as targetted harassment.

Can anyone tell me the name of the 'Lady Judge'? Just for interest.

Some political activists have files inches thick and have never been convicted of anything.

And she's trying to ascertain whether saying transwomen are not women, would result in such a file.

I suspect Manderleyagain that that's in the nature of an appeal court. The punch-up happened in the lower tier court, and now the appeal court judges' job is to dig deep into what was decided and whether it can be upheld.

If words aren’t important why did it take multiple parliamentary debates to use “mother” in a maternity law.

One of the points made by one of the judges (Ingrid Simler, on the right as we face them), was 'how likely is it [ I think, that it is necessary to record as a hate incident] that this is necessary for two people online who will never know each other, vs recording incidents between two people that do know each other [the implication that that may be more likely to escalate I suppose into violence].

I found that quite interesting. Because some harrasment is conducted online by people who don't know each other. And so both the original comment and also the reporting to the police could be 'true hate' as opposed to 'non hate'.

Did anyone catch that?

Having followed the live tweeting, it's really going better today isn't it. It looks like (but it's tricky to get through the tweeting so could be wrong) that neither legal team did that great, but the judge is doing a really good job of challenging the defence, and seems to instinctively see the significance.

It's the difference between someone just pissing around in court for lols and strategic litigation.

If two words aren't important why did people in Scotland throw such epic tantrums about Johann Lamont's amendment to change "gender" to "sex" being agreed?

Judge - if we know records are being kept about what we are saying about things this wouldn't cause us to moderate what we are saying?

Hell yeah.

The whole point about having the record is to alert you to the possibility that there is potentially a greater risk of crime being committed in the future

May I suggest that this is viewed against the bigger backdrop of the Home Offices refusal to destroy fingerprints and DNA evidence from people who are never charged on the basis that we are all potential "future offenders".

nauticant and ereshkigalangcleg that's exactly it. There was an awful lot of 'they went to court to get them to take out two words lmao' but it doesn't matter because it's one step. It's actually quite difficult to describe sometimes, but a judge agreed that sometimes male has to mean male, and in some contexts the fact a person is male is more important than how they perceive themself. Well the judge agreed the interim change to the guidence and granted the full hearing at least.

This being recognised in court bit by bit will be how the whole thing is picked apart. Not in the pages of academic journals, not on twitter, but in court. It's ridiculous it got that far and will cost so much money and time but so be it.

jj

You have managed to miss the point yet again. I don’t care if Harry is a good or bad person. I care if the CoP guidelines are breaching all our human rights.

For example, I agreed with the abolition of IPP not because the people sentenced were good people but because an indeterminate sentence (not to be confused with a whole life term) is unacceptable no matter how unpleasant the person.

Cases like this are about wider rights in society not just an individual.

It reminds me of the Lord questioning Graham Linehan yesterday, who wanted to make something of the fact that Graham had been banned from four platforms, as if that of itself meant he was more likely to be guilty of hate, rather than looking at the evidence of hate itself.

It's exactly this.

That a person who has been persecuted will be, whilst giving testimony to the House of Commons, thought of as suspicious.

I wonder if we can also look forward to accusations that this is all the doing of 4Chan? That seems to be a favourite guilt-by-(fictional)-association claim at the moment.

I wonder if we can score a hat-trick of shining sunlight this week?

FPFW, check
Glinner and Helen, check
Faircop..... (crosses fingers)

Don't get bogged down in categorisation arguments greyhound!

The close scrutiny of this specific piece of guidance is really interesting. The judge is identifying the relevant issues, I feel?

Why are you again conflating / confusing the right to free speech with the "safety" of a trans child, jj?
Every post of yours on any thread I've seen is an attempt to derail.