Good luck Harry The Owl

[BoreOfWhabylon]

Court case today.

twitter.com/WeAreFairCop

"You can say something is objective fact, but that doesn't mean that fact can't be deployed in an offensive way"

Yes, and it is 'funny' that they don't uncritically believe women who have been raped/sexually assaulted in the same way isn't it.

Does that mean they have to have lived experience of being burgled, raped, beaten?? Before they can apply any kind of critical focus. What a nonsense.

Whilst we're on it, no tw has lived experience of being a woman.

...For expressing a perfectly reasonable opinion, for which they are then ensnared by some arcane opaque and undemocratic mechanism whereby they are punished for a non-crime they have been subjectively supposed to have committed because of complaints made by anonymous persons for reasons unknown

Well said. The arbitrary and unknowable aspect of this is deliberate. It creates fear and confusion and paranoia and its aim is to silence any dissent from the orthodoxy. The judge seems excellent though.

I don't know if it's this guy's argument or the twitter feed but is a jumbled mess, i can't follow it.

I’m bloody riveted!

Currently identifying as a responsible parent and not reading this while breastfeeding...

but this is not just non criminal. It is non criminal incident that impinges on freedom of speech

This.

I am totally fascinated by this glimpse into institutional motivations.

It seems that, having handled race and race bias crimes so poorly in the past, the police have swallowed Stonewall et al's advice uncritically in hopes of avoiding a parallel mistake when it comes to gender identity.

Having handled gay and lesbian rights so badly in the past, many politicians have swallowed Stonewall et al's advice uncritically in hopes of avoiding a parallel mistake when it comes to gender identity.

The tweets read like a dystopian horror story!

Yes, and in doing so they’ve demonstrated that they have no more interest or understanding of racism or gay and lesbian rights than they ever have.

Do they realise that they are working for, and advocating on behalf of, a whole heap of cross dressers, autogynephiles, and transvestites? According to stonewalls own definition. Who want access to women's spaces as part of their 'lived experience'. And are self describing themselves as a marginalised minority?

It's the actual result of brainwashing being played out in a courtroom.

When placed under the spotlight the whole house of cards comes tumbling down.

Defence now talking about someone sending leaflets to a school or making a film.

It’s also the logical end result of twitter soundbite culture, where one only has to say the right things and where no thought or nuance is applied.

Well it explains a lot about deplorable rates of conviction for rape, sexual assault, not understanding escalation of violence (Sussex Police)
Clearly most of the UK Police Force will only have ‘lived experience’ of being Straight. White. Male.

I LOVE 'No one has the right to freedom from offense'

I am going to turn that into giant lettering and plaster it all over Twitter. Then turn it into an artwork.

Judge - so victim is someone who is offended or who 'feels' attacked or subject to hostility because of protected characteristic whether directed at them or not.
Def Counsel YES

Judge - so victim is someone who is offended or who 'feels' attacked or subject to hostility because of protected characteristic whether directed at them or not.
Def Counsel - YES

Judge - and no one has the right to freedom from offence.

Omg.. perfect.

Hurt feelings more important than actual facts 😬

This does worry me though:

Judge returns to the idea of arguments being predicated on the existence of a victim, when it's more that things were tweeted into the ether and read by ppl at random.

If a case is a nightmare, for example for political reasons, a judge can be tempted to reach the right decision but on very narrow grounds so they can step around the really complicated issues.

So is the police standard that no one can offend anyone ever? And if you do you will have a mark on your record/DBS? EVEN IF IT IS NOT A CRIME?

Judge - why have police been interested in what are just public statements of opinion?
Defence - clear that not all tweets were offensive
Judge - but complainant said ALL were 'transphobic'
Def Counsel - she obviously had a 'strong reaction' to what was said.
Def Counsel - complainant genuinely considers tweet offensive to
her as transgender woman. Genuine offence. She was offended.
Judge - not disputing that. Will take witness statement at face value.

....This person is saying this in court as a defense....

Judge "Just give me an answer"

Ohhhhhh