Good luck Harry The Owl

[BoreOfWhabylon]

Court case today.

twitter.com/WeAreFairCop

I think there are two elements there - a terrible policy, and the fact that certain individuals may choose to apply it with a great deal more enthusiasm than was necessarily required of them.

Anyone who is there know who is counsel for humberside police?

Gul should have had a backbone then shouldn't he.

"just following orders"

He's lied about what he said tho.

It's in the Daily Mail!

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7710009/amp/Right-offended-does-not-exist-says-High-Court-judge.html?__twitter_impression=true

If we're offering personal opinions that are pure speculation, I think there was collusion and someone went looking for a copper who would be willing to smite the unbelievers.

.

I'm inclined to send PC Gul chocolates. Without him turning up on Harry's doorstep and accusing him of wrong-think we wouldn't be having this judicial review. Interesting that Gul didn't keep notes. I'd been under the impression that all police officers wee required to keep notebooks.

When he took the decision to do what he did (thanks to his Stonewall-inspired training) he pulled out a little brick that will see the whole wall gradually collapse.

If this goes the way I think it's likely to go, where will that leave the lawyer who can't be named and their case(s)?

It's in the Daily Mail!

Do you mean Daily "Judges are the enemies of the people" Mail ?

Or another shit rag ?

It is increasingly looking like the counsel for the police is going to have to explain why he enforced a specific political lobby view instead of impartiality before the law. With obvious questions about why the police find themselves acting as the personal enforcement unit of the TRA political lobby/ failure of impartiality and non politicisation.

Because it looks like the judge is rapidly getting there.

Also does the protected characteristic bit mean that anyone with any of those/specific subjects must be treated with politeness and care over and above the standard expectations (hello FWR special moderation rules) and anything named as causing a subjective feeling of having been offended (no objective standards for this, no evidence needed) by those with the protected characteristics represent a punishable offense for which the perpetrator - even if committing the 'non crime' without realising - is at risk of significant suffering for? And is this being equally applied to all protected characteristics or just the most important one?

Thanks to the tweeting genius who is live tweeting. There should be some award given out for what you're accomplishing on Twitter!

Gosh, yes, Mumsnet is going to have to take a close look at the way it's patrolled and in some cases stifled free speech here.

Having worked years ago for a national body where nutjob managers and highly neo lib policies ended in a court/public opinion severely criticising - it was framed in meetings as 'a disaster for us', and blamed on a failure of people whose ignorance and lack of education (including the judges) had led to their coming up with the wrong answer. Instead of seriously considering had policy majorly lost its way and got out of touch with public opinion and duties to tax payers. The way forward was instructed as to continue pushing the criticised policies, just quietly and discreetly and wait for the public scrutiny to go away: the Right Way would be achieved anyway in the end.

Dispiriting but true. Some of the people in high powered jobs in these bodies are quite alarming in the lack of grip on reality and actual employability skills to do the basic jobs in their own departments compared to their political ideals and enormous salaries. The same issue affects many MPs.

That DM article (such as I could read without disabling my adblocker) keeps saying 'the right to be offended does not exist' - is this multiple typos or do they not actually understand what was said (or do I not understand it and it's accurate?)

I've been thinking that Pope. And I think it's correct.

You can't say you've been offended and it's your right to take it further ?

Surely it's "the right to not be offended doesn't exist"

As PC Gul did not fail to understand the evidence that was presented to him as part of his specialist diversity training perhaps it is time for the Police and a mass of organisations to consider retrieving the money they paid for such poor-quality and (frankly) wrong training.

The tweeting is fabulous. Factual but also with interesting/funny asides. I can’t pull myself away!

I thought that was wrong too, but perhaps it's a badly phrased way of saying that offence isn't in the eye of the beholder. That people can't claim something is offensive without any merit?

Surely it's "the right to not be offended doesn't exist"

You'd think? But I thought I saw a tweet saying 'the right to be offended' (does not exist) yesterday - wasn't sure then if it was typo on tweet or what.
This suggests otherwise:
twitter.com/WeAreFairCop/status/1197173306715254784
"- and no one has the right to freedom from offence."

time for the Police and a mass of organisations to consider retrieving the money they paid for such poor-quality and (frankly) wrong training

It's going to be interesting isn't it. As more and more organisations are taken to court, more and more organisations will start taking a look at who have them the incorrect information in the first place.

perhaps it is time for the Police and a mass of organisations to consider retrieving the money they paid for such poor-quality and (frankly) wrong training.

Indeed. I wish the judge would look at this. How have they been trained so that PC Gul thought he could scurry over there and accuse Harry of, transphobia, wrong think, whatever.

I mean, a sensible position would be "you can of course be as offended as you like, but your being offended doesn't mean that you have a right to prevent others from speaking". Maybe it was just awkwardly phrased and the papers are keeping the awkward phrasing for the sake of accuracy?

The Telegraph are running an editorial entitled: ‘The police must rethink its Orwellian obsession with ‘transphobia’ Last word in inverted commas. About time.