Good luck Harry The Owl

[BoreOfWhabylon]

Court case today.

twitter.com/WeAreFairCop

Unfortunately his job is to look at evidence given and make a judgement based on that. It's not always going to be a good outcome or one we agree with.

True Captain and I assume the Domestic Abuse Bill would not have been necessary had there not been some loophole which allowed for a 'rough sex gone wrong' defence. I just hope that this legislation gets picked up again after the election.

smileylottie I think the lawyer for Harry had to correct them on that today. I'm not sure how it came up or what context was - I think it might have been references to the police "acting in accordance with the Equality Act"

@bettybeans thank you very much! I know the whole situation is unbelievable but how a barrister can fail to have a basic grasp on it is astounding, no wonder I'm struggling to keep up at times!

Re position re gender reassignment as a protected characteristic under the Equality Act, as I understand it this protects someone who has undergone or is in the process of transitioning. they don't have to be under 'medical supervision'.

So I think when the Judge commented about surgery being required he DID get it wrong. But I don't think that's an error that would lead to a successful appeal - but we will have to wait and see the judgment.

BUT the police guidance - after Stonewall training - seems to be offering protection to anyone who simply self IDs as 'transgender'. Hence Harry's counsel argued they had got it wrong.

Also it seems weird that Guidance protects only '5 strands' and not the 9 protected characteristics. Again, as Harry's counsel pointed out, the EA represents the will of Parliament and those were the characteristics they decided needed protection.

Also it seems weird that Guidance protects only '5 strands' and not the 9 protected characteristics.

It seems to follow CPS guidance: www.cps.gov.uk/hate-crime. But what was the basis/reasoning for the CPS to leave out the protected characteristics of age, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, and sex?

It seems to come from the Criminal Justice Act 2003 as amended. But the reason for the partial coverage (of protected characteristics) there is also unclear.

That makes things clearer @Spero thanks for explaining, it seems I didn't understand the nuance correctly

I think the reason sex was left out was that the police would grind to a halt if hate against women had to be investigated.

Cressida Dick recognises this

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/nov/02/metropolitan-police-chief-cressida-dick-backs-call-focus-violent-crime-misogyny

What a day! Thank you so much to the tweeters who let us follow the action!

On the institutional capture and training - I agree that these are the mechanisms behind this all, but let's not forget that if this had been good for women, the police would not have given it their ear. The women who've tried to get them to treat rape and dv victims fairly, let alone humanely, have been working so, so hard for decades and look where we are on that.

May I say firstly well done to Harry and his legal team, and then to Spero for fabulous and funny tweets all day long. This has kept me gripped for two days and made me so happy! Well worth the few spades I have sent this way. And fascinating to be exposed to the crisp mind of a British judge - genuinely awe inspiring.

I wonder how much public money defending this indefensible behaviour has cost, and how many TAs or nurses we could've paid for this year instead?

If you put in an FOI @JacobReesClunge they would have to tell you. It's likely to be in the ballpark of £100k from my experience.

The women who've tried to get them to treat rape and dv victims fairly, let alone humanely, have been working so, so hard for decades and look where we are on that.

So true. Why waste time & resources on actual crime when we can gad about telling people off about their tweets (!)

Ooh someone isn't happy!

@teawamutu

If PC Gul's career is adversely affected, presumably he can sue his employer because the rotten Stonewall training they arranged has damaged his reputation and his promotion prospects. He is the one person who won't suffer for his uselessness.

Ooh someone isn't happy!

They're only ever happy if they have something to gloat over. Miserable.

That's an excellent point about poor old PC Plod Gul. Perhaps we can crowd fund for his case against Stonewall.

Have just seen this on twitter.

So the woke suddenly care about murdered women (and suddenly know what one is)?

Yes, and that’s another fight that many of us are supporting elsewhere. At the moment “sex game gone wrong” is, unfortunately, a valid defence to murder. We are supporting Harriet Harman’s campaign to change this. The judge sentenced on the “facts” available to him and on what had been proven or admitted to in a court of law, with recourse to sentencing guidelines.

Let’s not start down the Daily Mailesque “enemy of the people” road when judges don’t act in accordance with how we’d like the law to be. Equally, let’s not immediately turn into squealing fangirls when the judge’s actions do happen to align with our views (see also: Lady Hale and spider brooches) because another case on another day will be different.

That definitely puts a dent in my sisterly feelings, but like RuffleCrow I don't believe for a second that the people pointing it out care about Natalie Connelly. Just more manipulation.

The people trying to push back against Harry's case are likely to be the same people pushing all the sex positive stuff that got us into a position where the law thinks women can consent to being sexually tortured to death.

Our friends think that the judges comments over a ‘factual acronym’ were ‘concerning’.

Well they're either stupid or deliberately trolling. Factual acronym my arse.

Agree with OnlytheTit - this judge can be justly criticised for that pathetic sentence - but this is indeed another legal battle for women to to face - the "rough sex defence"

But I'm still very pleased to hear the words "Terf is a derogatory term used to deplatform people you disagree with" and that "phobic" is overused" spoken by a Judge in the High Court. It shows that there are still people in power who have not been captured, that common sense can still prevail.

As someone said up thread, judges can only judge on the evidence they're given, and make decisions according to the law. I don't know enough about the Natalie Connolly case to know what the judge saw, but if there was sufficient plausible deniability the options were pretty limited.

.