New Year New Judicial Review? CPS Hate Crime Guidance for schools

[Spero]

If you haven't seen this, I think you should.

www.faircop.org.uk/post/police-must-not-patrol-trans-discussion-in-schools

In brief, the CPS have published guidance about hate crimes in school - but won't let parents see the guidance. Its for teachers only. I've emailed for a copy and so have others. I have a child in the school system. I want to know how serious the risk is that she will be arrested and charged for discussing biology.

I think anyone else who is also worried should email the CPS and ask to see the guidance.

Teachers and schools can download the pack from this website. This is a resource for schools, so a password is required to download the pack. This can be requested by emailing [email protected].

Women are being told that this is the law. Lobby groups are being paid to advise companies, schools, centres that this is the law.

In the pack they frame any non acceptance or non inclusion as potentially "hate".

Can’t they focus on inclusion and acceptance of people with disabilities?

To echo what @CharlieParley said. In my work in another field, I have often seen local authorities particularly misapply the law on the basis that most ppl won’t challenge it. I was involved in a case where a local authority refused to apply section 117 of the mental health act. Talking to the social worker involved she said the LA knew that legally we were right but they worked on the basis that most ppl won’t challenge or will get fed up & go away eventually if they string it out long enough. The tiny number of ppl who don’t give up make the approach financially worth while.

They do know the difference between what the law says and what guidance/suggested good practice is. They just hope enough ppl don’t

So in essence challenge challenge challenge

In the pack they frame any non acceptance or non inclusion as potentially "hate".

By doing so they are ignoring various international human rights treaties the UK is bound by which grants its residents freedom of belief/religion/thought.

We are not allowed to harass someone, or to verbally or physically attack them. It's right that the law protects all of us in this way. But outside of specific circumstances (like a work environment or if you're serving someone), if you don't want to have someone's company whose beliefs you profoundly disagree with, you are not under any obligation to have it. And in and of itself, not wanting someone around is not a hate crime.

This seems to be an argument that not accepting someone is always motivated by hate and phobias. Which even a child can tell you is ludicrous.

More misrepresentation of the law. From the CROWN PROSECUTION SERVICE!

expect side eye = unwanted = hate crime

If females are expected to accept that someone trans in the toilets may subjectively interpret their eye movements and facial expressions as a crime and take action against them accordingly, then what sane female is going to enter a toilet where a trans person may possibly be? Who would take that risk?

I'm actually staggered that whoever advised the CPS didn't consider the damage this potentially does to children who are trans. This implication of disproportionate power, of heaven help anyone who displeases them - this actively works against equality and good feeling, it's going to make people afraid.

There's evidently no one involved with any experience of children, schools or group dynamics. This ignorance is catastrophic. As we see from all the awful school guidance that deliberately seeks to pit gender non conforming children against all other children as well as their parents, the lack of knowledge about child development, psychology and safeguarding is evidenced in every pack.
We cannot stand by while adults use their own political campaigns to target children and use them as collateral. This is shameful coming from the CPS.

Does the document record the potential consequences CPS foresee for a person accused of using their eyes in a way subjectively interpreted as 'unwelcoming'?

Particularly considering it's one person's word against another with no evidence of any kind? And that many assaults and rapes with full forensic evidence (in one case the woman managed to video it on her phone) don't get put forward by CPS on grounds of not being sure it will get through court?

I'm actually staggered that whoever advised the CPS didn't consider the damage this potentially does to children who are trans. This implication of disproportionate power, of heaven help anyone who displeases them - this actively works against equality and good feeling, it's going to make people afraid

Agree. The damage this politically motivated guidance will do to trans children (and all children) is so clear and obvious. Is it lack of understanding about how children and their social dynamics work - or is it just they don't care?. It seems to me that they don't care about the welfare of ANY children at all - they just want to get their political point enshrined as some kind of best practice to raise one protected group above all others, and organisations weaponised to enforce this. For what ends? (I have my own ideas to be honest but not going to write here or I might get deleted).

Does the document record the potential consequences CPS foresee for a person accused of using their eyes in a way subjectively interpreted as 'unwelcoming'?Particularly considering it's one person's word against another with no evidence of any kind? And that many assaults and rapes with full forensic evidence (in one case the woman managed to video it on her phone) don't get put forward by CPS on grounds of not being sure it will get through court?

Great post Michelle. I'm afraid I think the consequences are clear and that they're probably the intended end result. I know that's pessimistic but it's the only rational, logical conclusion for such a lack of interest in the impacts on girls.

And I wonder, when there is no evidence, whose word will be believed? I wonder if there will be any class of people who will be systematically disbelieved and punished?

I know Lang! Is it the unwelcoming women?

Sorry to bang on, just also wondering here if this has been mentioned in this release to schools: are trans children not already protected within the existing equality/behaviour/bullying policies that schools have?

Are schools not already experienced in managing social issues between children? Are trans children coming up as disproportionately represented in statistics regarding bullying needing police involvement? What is the evidenced issue here that the CPS are trying to solve for this one specific group over all vulnerable groups?

Or is this mostly about stamping out resistance to children using opposite sex facilities?

The rise in the number of children being sexually abused at school (by other pupils) is being ignored.

If females are expected to accept that someone trans in the toilets may subjectively interpret their eye movements and facial expressions as a crime and take action against them accordingly, then what sane female is going to enter a toilet where a trans person may possibly be? Who would take that risk?

And females in places of work or education will then get into trouble for not using the same toilets as transpeople.

Compelled to use the 'right' loo. Oh, the irony!

Females are just going to have to learn not to pee

Mass outbreak of what teenaged girls at schools have already had to resort to: not drinking.

Is the one linked to the same one thats now password protected or is this the one that's deemed suitable for parents to read before they made a worse one that's locked down?

Either way this is disturbing. I mean if a kid is a dick to someone who then doesnt want to play, and someone else applies a different motive then they could still be guilty of a hate crime? Seriously?

It all read like a grooming manual

How on earth can children be expected to know exactly what it is they can and can't do, in order to stop themselves committing 'hate'? It's hard enough for us as adults to fathom.

And just who is going to police these children's play and words and thoughts?

The only conclusion I can draw is that a Stalin model would be most effective.

This is the same guidance which is discussed on this thread: New Year New Judicial Review? CPS Hate Crime Guidance for schools www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3804613-New-Year-New-Judicial-Review-CPS-Hate-Crime-Guidance-for-schools

Sorry, meant to post that on the new thread that was started today!

Criminalising children through secret rules and offenses depending on the hurt feelings and subjective impressions of non-acceptance of their classmates.

Regardless of our knowledge of child development and psychology. Regardless of our knowledge of brain maturity and hugely differing capacities.

In Scotland the law is crystal clear by the way that there is no hate crime without a crime.

In order to treat the above mamed scenarios as hate crimes, are we now creating new offences in our schools? Can an 11 year old now be criminalised for giving voice to her discomfort and refusing to use the same changing room as a 16 year old teenaged male? What is the original offense she is committing here that is then supposedly aggravated by hate?

Sorry to bang on about this, but children are protected under international human rights law in this country.

Article 1 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child states:

1. In all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration.

Does the CPS consider this policy to be in the best interests of every child in the UK?

.

are trans children not already protected within the existing equality/behaviour/bullying policies that schools have?

I wonder about this too. I've no doubt that gender non-conforming children get bullied more than others. But so do short kids, ginger kids, nerdy kids... anyone seen as "different". Bullying is horrible, but it it really much more horrible to be bullied for your trans identity than for your height or hair colour?