Fair Cop Court of Appeal 8-10 March

Thans for the scolding jj1968

What about today's case in the Court of Appeal?

Anyone else slightly appreciating the lunch break - It's been a tricky one to try and follow the ins and outs of. Great job by the live tweeter.

Yesterday the trans activists were all over twitter sneering at the FPFW victory and saying "but you've only changed a word or two". They were missing the point, what happened yesterday is that a High Court judge effectively decided "sometimes it's all about sex, and for those cases then decision-making applies to sex, and not to gender identity". As more cases get to the courts, even if some are lost, judges will become focused on the fact that material reality is important and this gender identity stuff can be harmful.

Yes, exactly.

do you agree with 'but free speech' being a justification for wading into a sensitive situation about which they knew absolutely fuck all, and putting an already very vulnerable child in further danger? is it free speech to shout 'fire' in a crowded theatre?

@outedbyfaircop

I remember this, it was shocking I'm so sorry you and your family had to go through it. Placing a vulnerable child at risk of harm to score political points was truly one of the lowest points of this debate and that people still support Harry and Fair Cop after that really reveals something very wrong within some gender critical circles. It chills me where this might one day lead, especially now Harry is whipping up outrage from Tommy Robinson supporters and conspiracy theorists.

It is pertinent to this thread, which is about Fair Cop and the potential limits to free speech - this is an organisation which has shown they couldn't care less about the safety of a trans child or the feelings of their family at what must have been one of the most difficult times of their lives attacking policies brought in following the Stephen Lawrence inquiry and which was founded by an abusive man with growing links to the far right. That he receives any support on the feminist part of a parenting website is truly shocking, not least because he is intending to destroy policies such as monitoring misogynist hate incidents which was hugely popular with women when it was trialled.

whatever the decision is

This is the point, this is not a case of playing the game in the courts until a case is lost and then we have to shut up.

Yesterday the trans activists were all over twitter sneering at the FPFW victory and saying "but you've only changed a word or two". They were missing the point, what happened yesterday is that a High Court judge effectively decided "sometimes it's all about sex, and for those cases then decision-making applies to sex, and not to gender identity". As more cases get to the courts, even if some are lost, judges will become focused on the fact that material reality is important and this gender identity stuff can be harmful.

I have watched a bit. It is reassuring to feel that whatever the decision is, the judges are really getting to the heart of the matter.

This lunchtime I shall mostly be singing

.. but it was just cat-egor-isation, running away with me...

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, the more "hate incidents" are recorded against the person the more they need to be wary that this person may escalate to hate crime.

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.

I get the sense this is a bit of a form v substance argument. Courts will look beyond what something is called (or categorised ) to what it actually does in practice.

It feels like the CoP are saying this guidance only covers this limited purpose / process and the Judge is saying but in reality it has the effect of doing something broader.

Its just a categorisation!

"It's just admin!"

Following.

So there you have it, no consequences, just categorisation mmmmmmm

udge - but this is recording as hate incidents. We know the implications for this in the real world are very significant.

JC But what are the implications? Its just a categorisation!

Back at 2 p.m.

UDGE - lets just look at this. If fact is people know about this type of recording and it impacts on what they feel they can and can't safely say - what then?

I like this one

Surely the purpose of writing guidance is to avoid the more outrageous misinterpretation of the law, not to just shrug your shoulders and say - well we didn't actually tell them to do that.

JC battles on: that is not stigma, not equivalent to a judgment. The categorisation goes no where. It is useful for certain purposes, but in and of itself it doesn't stigmatise or interfere with the person complained about.

Judge - is that right? The purpose is to have something there the next time a complaint is made! Might lead the police to think we need to take this further?

JC They might think 2 times zero is zero.

I had lost the thread. Quite a bit happening
udge - 6.3 uses mandatory language. It would just be recorded as a complaint if the guidance didn't exist. ... doesn't that potentially stigmatise a group of people engaged in public debate, more likely to be complained about by Mrs B and others offended, and has chilling effect
Judge - lets link this to rationality argument. Must be some rational basis to make it hate incident. You say its completely neutral but saying must be rational basis! Is that stigma free? Connotes acceptance by police that there is rational basis for hate element in this tweet!

This lady judge really likes to frame her questions about how this could be damaging to female academics

It's very reassuring to hear isn't it :)
She's probably thinking bloody hell that could be me!

This lady judge really likes to frame her questions about how this could be damaging to female academics.

Judge can't get her head around his argument.

One weird thing about the College of Policing case is that they've written their guidance, it leads to injustices, and yet they do not feel under any obligation at all to write clearer guidance to reduce the likelihood of harm.

To me a fundamental point is how can the College of Policing put themselves forward in this way but then disclaim any responsibility for their guidance leading to harm? I get that the harm isn't inevitable but that shouldn't be enough to get them off the hook of needing to seek to reduce more harm in the future.

Lady judge: Doesn't that potentially stigmatise a group of people who are engaged in a public debate about these issues, who are more likely to be complained about, by people like Ms B or others, who feel offended by this debate? And doesn't it have a chilling effect then on their freedom of expression? And that's the interference.

JC: at a high level the principles are equally applicable to the different types of hate crime and hate incidents.

[Refusing to accept the distinction between clearly racist speech and debate about existing laws will I trust be their downfall]

Fair Cop's comment about this distinction between the different types of incidents seems to be important. I can remember thinking that the Race recording was the one that had been brought in post Stephen Lawrence and was the foundation and most important. Others have ineffect been tagged on but are not anywhere near as significant

Judge is sounding a bit testy!