Good luck Harry The Owl

[BoreOfWhabylon]

Court case today.

twitter.com/WeAreFairCop

Defining the supposed crime around which the entire complaint revolves is irrelevant!

I mean, at least he's honest.

I think you just click the "share" thingy on the top left and that pops up an email link, or at least that's how The Times works if you have a subscription.

I am also finding it difficult to follow the argument. Reassuringly so is the judge.

Judge - he wasn't harassing anyone. He wasn't even in the foothills of harassment.

Counsel for P - er, I am not referring to criminal harassment

Judge - in ordinary English words, he wasn't harassing anyone he was conversing with those who elected to follow him on Twitter.

Sorry, haven't worked out how to create an image of a Tweet, but that exchange in particular encouraged me.

Is it wrong to have a bit of a crush on Mr Justice...?

As long as it's his mind you are admiring ...

^Judge - phobia is a particularly strong word. What do you say it means?
Counsel for P - its almost irrelevant what it means"
WTactualF?^

It seems to me this is central. It’s the repeated attempts to invent language, redefine the meaning of words and deliberately obscure reality thru absurd semantics. What’s so great about this judge is he is having absolutely none of that. He keeps insisting on clarity ‘in plain English’ About bloody time

Police counsel is saying that it couldn't be state interference because Harry kept on tweeting. Therefore he wasn't intimidated into not tweeting. Therefore it wasn't state interference.

That is absolutely breathtaking.

Harry has taken them to court because he was so fucking interfered with !!!!!!

Counsel for P - on a correct interpretation of the guidance, there was a need to report and no reason not to report.

Well, yeah, the guidance is shit and has to go. I thought that was sort of the point...

And he was sanctioned. Police came to check his thinking.

No wonder they're denying that

"Judge doesn't want to be addressed on common law so we go to page 13 of skeleton for Humberside. Quite telling in this case that HM had to resort to argument of 'chilling effect' as he doesn't seem to be able to establish classic interference.

Judge - that is for ME to decide."

Do you think his Lordship is on the Board for the Plain English Campaign Bovery ?

I would consider the threat of being considered to be breaking the law (which they won't actually define, but will wait until it is broken! Dog law??)
IS a sanction!?

@Prawnofthepatriarchy I loved that bit too. 'He wasn't even in the foothills of harassment' is going to be my new favourite phrase.

Police counsel is saying that it couldn't be state interference because Harry kept on tweeting. Therefore he wasn't intimidated into not tweeting. Therefore it wasn't state interference.

This is truly chilling because they are, effectively, arguing for their right to intimidate up to the point of an actual recordable sanction.

"In a legal context, a chilling effect is the inhibition or discouragement of the legitimate exercise of natural and legal rights by the threat of legal sanction. The right that is most often described as being suppressed by a chilling effect is the US constitutional right to free speech."

Didn't he speak to the chief constable on the phone, who said so sue us, or something

"Intimidate up to the point of an actual recordable sanction"

Indeed.

I think that obscuring, redefining, inventing language seems to be a deliberate tactic of this lobby group. This judge seems to realize this and he is challenging this tactic to great effect

Prodigal, I am sorry but I can’t seem to find a way of doing the share token. It must be available and it’s just that I haven’t used it before and can’t seem to find it. I will have another go

Indeed.

Do you think his Lordship is on the Board for the Plain English Campaign Bovery ?

The problem with the internet (well one problem) is that it's created a circle jerk of moronity where a bunch of cretins are egged on by idiots in believing they are somehow more right that those that actually did the fucking long hours needed to get a qualification. The paradigm being "Freeman of the land" bollocks that's become so popular.

The reality is English law has for a very long time been predicated upon the everyday use of language. If there is a need to create a specific definition then that has to be done within the wording of the act creating that offence. So unless a word or term is specifically defined, then the law reverts to "everyday usage" when being interpreted.

"Public" is a good example. Some acts - in particular Road Traffic Acts - have to specifically define "public" in a way that extends the everyday usage.

So here, the judge is simply applying first term legal theory to the case, as is right and proper. And as with a lot of freeman bollocks - reality has a chilling effect on fairies.

@mnhq will you be incorporating the principles of freedom of speech laid out in the judgement into your talk guidelines? Or will you also continue to break the law?

No worries, BovaryX, thanks for trying!

"Counsel for P - even taking the whole package, when looking at the effect of it, HM says he was concerned and anxious but we don't accept that evidence. Proof is in the pudding and that is the continued tweets and publicising this incident."

If that is a verbatim transcription of Counsel's comment then they deserve to lose the case for not knowing that the saying is "the proof of the pudding is in the eating".

And yes, the police essentially arguing that they have the right to intimidate members of the public is really not a good look. After all of this is done and dusted I'd like to see that specific point picked up for further action.

PC Gul did not bring him to brink of criminal sanction but to remind him of the limits of speech and that applies to everyone. You can keep doing what you are doing but be aware

Limits of speech? I cannot believe what I am reading.