Good luck Harry The Owl

[BoreOfWhabylon]

Court case today.

twitter.com/WeAreFairCop

If he was scared enough he wouldn't have told anyone? Yeah, that's not fucking sinister or anything.

My god. The upshot of this is that the police will just get better at making sure people aware too scared to tell on them 🤬

Grassroots movements do not work like that. This is authoritarianism at work, and a particularly alarming version of it too. Tie that in with the tweet someone posted a few days ago of Leicester police in gas masks with automatic weapons in the name of inclusion and what's being proposed is a police state.

@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?

MN is a private site and can set it's own rules. It owes no one any "right" to free speech, in the same way that I owe no one any "right" to erect a posted saying "God is Great" or "Down with this sort of thing" on my land.

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

Be aware. Beware. Beware the Orwellian reach of the specially trained agents of the state even when you haven’t committed a crime. It’s true what Harry said. Do they think 1984 is a training manual?

I would like to propose that "not even in the foothills of x,y,z" becomes part of standard Mumsnet phraseology.

I can see it being well applied to AIBU.

They are now saying that transgender is NOT a protected characteristic...

"Judge -

your point is that transgender as identified in CoP guideline is NOT a protected characteristic"

[santa]

It's not, is it? Gender reassignment only.

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.

You might wait a very long time, I'm afraid. It's already been well established that the police are able to use their powers in a "social" capacity even when no offence is being committed. As shopkeepers who were openly harassed for legally selling cannabis seeds found out a few years ago. One of the polices official guidelines was to "actively monitor" such shops - especially if they display posters or other material agitating for a change in the law.

This is one of the problems with having "favoured" causes. Pastor Neimoller is never far away.

I am so angry. This is my police area and I was talking to an elderly couple a few weeks ago who went into Hull on the train. When they alighted they were met by a street fight between two rival gangs and not a copper in sight. They are too frightened to go into town now.

Get on with bloody policing!

Clitheroe, this precise point is made in The Telegraph article. I wish I could figure out how to post a share token to it because it’s blistering about the entire case

"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.

OK, so police making people concerned and anxious is fine, if it's because they offended a person, who becomes a victim... this does not make much sense to me.

"Counsel - this is a 2010 Act with all Parliamentary agreement. They have decided which characteristics should be protected

Judge - your point is that transgender as identified in CoP guideline is NOT a protected characteristic

Counsel - yes, and thus their assertions that they are acting in accordance with the Equality Act are simply wrong.

"

(That last < > comment is mine.)

This is riveting. Says what I've been saying for a while. The Equality Act 2010 is an Act if Parliament from 2010. No, it hasn't been amended to include either 'transgender' or 'gender identity' as a protected characteristic. No, you can't just rewrite an Act of Parliament to suit your own agenda. Go Judge!

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.

So, trans person makes a statement that a tweet has offended them or made them feel threatened - police believe them. Harry says that police behavior has made him feel concerned and anxious - police don't believe him.

Are people who are not trans inherently less trustworthy?

Clitheroe, this precise point is made in The Telegraph article. I wish I could figure out how to post a share token to it because it’s blistering about the entire case

Bovary, could you C&P the article? (Is that allowed?)

Not allowed - they may be able to archive it though?

Actually, Bovary, I think you need to click the email icon that looks like an envelope to get a share link.

Judge - I have become familiar with term TERF. It is a derogatory term used by those who seek to deplatform those who hold different views.

If complainants comments directed particularly at women who hold TERF views that wouldn't be a protected characteristic.

Perfection

We're not saying you did anything wrong. Just that, if you keep tweeting, you will be doing something wrong. Also, if you keep tweeting, it's proof that we're not intimidating you into not tweeting, even though as we've already stated, we may choose to legally sanction you if you do keep tweeting... is that all clear or do I need to check your thinking?

(haha just kidding, you actually have done something wrong already, it's on your criminal record.)

Thanks Its, thought I'd seen full articles pasted but I must be thinking of FB.

Doesn't work for me because not a subscriber but may work if you are, I'm trying to extrapolate from how The Times works.

"Judge -

I have become familiar with the term TERF...."

[santa]