Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Harry the Owl and others launching high court battle

209 replies

Nephilim1964 · 12/05/2019 10:49

Link to story below

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7018915/Businessman-launches-landmark-High-Court-battle-overhaul-official-rules-hate-crimes.html#comments

OP posts:
Popchyk · 10/06/2019 22:21

So I am sorry but I still think under UK law the tweet from Harry falls into a hate incident.

Which Tweet?

What are you referring to? Be specific. Provide the evidence.

CaptainKirksSpookyghost · 10/06/2019 22:22

So I am sorry but I still think under UK law the tweet from Harry falls into a hate incident.

You've clearly not even got the basics of what's happening down, what tweet are you talking about, clearly not any of the 30 the police have?
Do you mean the poem, harry didn't write that, it wasn't his post....

Thats why I disagree with the campaign and suing my police force.
He's not suing your police force either. Faircop is bringing a case against the Royal college of policing.

CaptainKirksSpookyghost · 10/06/2019 22:23

Have you actually read about what is happening 2boys?

CaptainKirksSpookyghost · 10/06/2019 22:25

But I can do simple research

You've got almost every aspect of this whole thing wrong, you don't even know what it is the police had an issue with.

BatShite · 10/06/2019 22:34

'The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.'

if they believe the act was motivated by hostility or prejudice against disability, race, religion, transgender identity or sexual orientation

How interesting that, it 2boys has this right, CPS has also removed 'sex' from the list. Like many councils and such, replacing sex with 'trans identity' ot something waffly. But no, women absolutely are not losing rights Hmm

Mind, I guess CPS might have had to do that, as if they left sex in and suddenly any tweet women see that offends them (so of course, we are adding in the constant threats of rape and violence from TRAs, along with the usual 'go find a terf to punch!' Type posts)..and had the potential to be reported a hate crime, then what would they do? Womn are abused, on a daily basis. Yet, apparently sex is not a factor, despite these angry young men knowing exactly which people to target for some reason, cannot possibly see what that is. They do not acknowledge sex, but they all know who they are meant to piss on. And its not the half of the population with penises for sure. Hmm

LangCleg · 10/06/2019 22:35

2Boys does not think it a waste of time for the police to investigate non-crimes. And that it's a good thing if the police spend time threatening dressing down citizens of a democracy for their thoughts and beliefs.

Harry the Owl thinks this is the hallmark of an authoritarian society and the police guidelines should be subject to court challenge. Many MNers agree.

This has led 2Boy's oldest son to pursue a career in bomb disposal. But the prospects are bleak.

Do I have this correctly?

CaptainKirksSpookyghost · 10/06/2019 22:38

Do I have this correctly?

Yes but we ended on a cliffhanger for a while as the bomb disposal unit is being disbanded and no longer accepts new recruits.

Birdsfoottrefoil · 10/06/2019 22:46

Do you mean the Protection from Harassment Act 1997?

Birdsfoottrefoil · 10/06/2019 22:53

2Boys I just skim read the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, no mention of any protected characteristics as far as I could see.

2BoysandaCairn · 10/06/2019 23:07

No Ds1 is studying criminology at Lincoln.
Finally the haressment guides come from the 1997 act, which sets the bar for a crime to be that of civil law, not criminal law. So on balance of probalities not beyond reeasonible doubt. Which allows police and authorities to investigate so called non crimes to make sure haressment hasn't happen. It original was for racial, stalking and anti social behaviour.
But over time governments added religion, trans gender and sexual orientation to the act.
Sex, ie women where never covered by this act. This is why wolf whistling is not a hate crime.
Human rights act covers sex as all others, but the haressment law never covered sex.

Sorry, but I believe thst's why upskirting had to have separate law, why the MP for Grimsby, Melanie Ong keeps trying to am wolf whistling to hate crimes and gets it kicked out by sexist MP's especially from Shipley.

I know it is probably wrong but hate crime law and incidents, have never covered sex and therefore women. Just disabilty, race, relegion, trans gender and sexual orientation. Never just sex.

Human rights yes, hate crime no. Never.
That's the problem the haressment law allows for hate incidents, it was written that way.

Sorry I only found all this out today from my sons criminology books and wiki and google searches.
So I am right the haressment law covers trans gender, and due to its sloppy writing means if Harry retweets and some one officially complains police need to log incident. They can decide no futher action, investigate and decide no crime, like Harry, and close case or investigate and ask CPS to prosecute the offender, using evidence. Then CPS decide.
Hope that helps.
Don't blame police/college of police or CPS. Of me even, I am only the messenger who is willing to bloody read law and guidance. Blame either John Major's or Tony Blair 's government and others. It would seem on the face of it you and the faircop campaign will have to repeal whole off the 1997 act and all the following additions.

I am so sorry for being a boring fool, but sometimes the law isn't as easy as you think.

Birdsfoottrefoil · 10/06/2019 23:11

wiki and google searches. 🤣😂🤣

Birdsfoottrefoil · 10/06/2019 23:14

The 1997 Act does not include protected characteristics. It protects everyone from harassment, including Harry from harassment by the police.

LangCleg · 10/06/2019 23:20

So now the law covers everything but women - and anyone with opinions about their rights.

But Harry the Owl is still evil to challenge this?

And the prospects for those pursuing a career in bomb disposal because Harry and feminists are wicked are still somewhat limited?

I confess, I'm finding it hard to keep up.

Birdsfoottrefoil · 10/06/2019 23:25

2Boys The GRA grants people with gender dysphoria who apply for and meet the requirements a certificate that grants them the right to be treated as the opposite sex for certain (but not all) purpose. About 5000 people have such a certificate.

Ali86 · 10/06/2019 23:47

2boys I'm really sorry but I think you're getting very confused. All these bits and pieces of legislation aren't relevant to this challenge and are making it more difficult to see the issue.

So the Gender Recognition Act is completely irrelevant here. As Birdsfoot explains, it allows people to go through a formal process to gain a gender recognition certificate that allows them to be treated as the opposite sex in law for most purposes. Its not relevant to this case. It's also nothing to do with EU law and BREXIT will not have any impact on it (it was passed after a series of cases to the European Court of Human Rights).

I think the point that you are getting from the 1997 Act is that a breach of a civil injunction can itself amount to a criminal offence under the Act and is was controversial because the initial injunction would be granted on the balance of probabilities rather than beyond reasonable doubt. That is also completely irrelevant to this case as there doesn't seem to have been an injunction here.

There doesn't seem to be anything in Harry's challenge that has anything to do with either of those pieces of law or which would in any remote way ask for the repeal of the 1997 Act (no court could demand that anyway).

Treefloof · 11/06/2019 05:09

I personally don't care why Harry was investigated, if his poem had been report for being
It wasn't his "poem, harry retweeted someone else's "poem". So did anyone else who retweeted that limerick get a talking to by humber police? Did the orignal creator of the limerick get a talking to? If not why not?

2BoysandaCairn · 11/06/2019 08:23

FGS,
Read the bloody Hate crime laws, and how hate incidents are to be treated. It is clearly described on CitizensAdvice website it only covers 5 characteristics.
For the 5th time, not sex or women.

Two local female MP's Melanie Ong and Diana Johnson have had private members bills to try and add women to the list. All have failed, maybe if faircop or MP's had backed either the law would be different.

I have explained the law, relevant to Harry's case. In every one of my posts, I haven't changed, you keep say Human rights law, but harassment law covers 5 characteristics and is there appropriate to hate incidents, including trans gender people.

The law clearly states any one can report a hate incident, and what it covers, doesn't need to be your original tweet or poem , retweeting or reposting is covered. You don't need to be one of the characteristics, you can be a parent/guardian of one or someone who works with or for them or is in a relationship with them.
once reported as a hate incident it has by law to be recorded by the police, it is then up to that police force whether to investigate further.

the hate crime law isn't difficult or hidden away. Maybe if people on here, put down their blinkers and read the law, you would understand it.

it was brought forward to deal with the aftermath of Stephen Lawrence case, the horrific case where a mother burnt herself and her disabled daughter alive in a car, and numerous gay bashing and religious hate crimes. Our government added trans gender too.
You might hate the law, but Humberside and all other police forces follow it. There are hundreds of you moaning about non crimes tweets from police forces, now you know why they do it.
I say again to get rid of hate incidents you will need to repeal the 1997 act. I don't see the courts being to keen to agree to that.

I decided to leave you to it, you won't read the law and it's guidelines or even accept they are correct. But I want this explanation to be visible to every one who reads this thread.
WHY?
Because as CitizenAdvise say, not ME, it's the law.

You keep saying constantly you want Humberside and the police to up hold the law, CitizenAdvise, the CPS, College of Police and me, all say they are.
It really is not difficult.
change the law, back Melanie Ong/Diana Johnson, not faircop.

By the way it was West Midlands Police and Nottingham who trialled wolf whistling as a hate incident, and called it a success, they even had PCSO talk to offenders and advise them to change their ways. If you backed the MP's you could, have the law you all hate defending you, but I never saw one thread supporting them.

I will leave you to it, by the way ACC Young of Humberside has tweeted why they investigated the incident, why they could do it again, he has explained it on local TV/radio and in local newspapers. He was backed by the police chiefs and CPS.
I really don't get why intelligent people, can't understand a simple law.

Birdsfoottrefoil · 11/06/2019 08:35

Which ‘Hate Crime Law’ would that be 2Boys?

2BoysandaCairn · 11/06/2019 08:35

Final thought, obviously I am just to much of a fool, to believe and want my local force to uphold the law. For all citizens, whatever colour, creed, sex, gender, straight, gay/lesbian, bi-sexual or non.
I am really glad they try to, my youngest spent Sunday helping with local students the 999 services do a major incident response trial, next weekend he is helping out with troubled teens to paint empty houses in their community to reduce crime, he is off to do pride too.
For the first time ever Humberside is rated good, it is getting so much better.
I really wonder on here how many of you have met, and worked with it or even have met or talked to trans gender people.
I have done bother, neither are evil bogey people out to get you or Harry.

Birdsfoottrefoil · 11/06/2019 08:38

As we discussed ‘the harassment law’ does not include protected characteristics

Birdsfoottrefoil · 11/06/2019 08:44

2Boys you might find this site helpful for reading the actual law: www.legislation.gov.uk/

PencilsInSpace · 11/06/2019 08:44

Even deranged thick idiots like me ...

Oh dear 2boys Blush

I perceive this as a disablist comment against people with mental health issues and against people with learning disabilities.

What was that you were saying? Oh yes ...

The definiation of a hate incident is one where any one is offend by what they believe is an offensive comment against one of the 5 above.
Once reported the police have to record it has an hate incident.

So I could call the police now and report your post as a hate incident. The police would not have to investigate because there has been no crime, they would just have to record the incident. If they're being diligent they might phone you up for a chat, just to check your thinking.

And then the police would have a file on you even though you have not committed an offence.

Can you not see the problem with this?

Harry is not suing 'your' police force. He is seeking judicial review of the College of Policing guidelines on hate incidents.

It's actually not clear where these guidelines come from but I admit I have not trawled through the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.

It doesn't matter whether hate incidents are written into legislation somewhere or whether the College of Policing just made them up.

If the guidelines are incompatible with human rights law they can be challenged by judicial review.

SmallHaddockAndChips · 11/06/2019 08:54

But what criminal offence is Harry supposed to have omitted? This all just waffle if he hasn’t actually done anything wrong! And surely everyone should be very worried indeed that the police officer who contacted him in the first place was doing so to check his thinking. That is outrageous!

howlsmovingcastle84 · 11/06/2019 09:02

This campaign is to challenge the definition of a hate incident by the college of policing. It is nothing to do with the harassment act.
The CPS has a definition for hate crime but the definition for hate incident comes from the police.

SpartacusAutisticusAHF · 11/06/2019 09:10

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.