Harry Miller in The Times

[BovaryX]

Harry Miller speaks in The Times about how the police have adopted Stonewall policies, leading to the insanity of crime non crimes

Speaking ahead of the judgment on the case, which is expected early next month, he said: “I am pro-police. I do not think that the people in the police force have looked at this and thought how can we become totalitarian? “In trying to do the right thing and be inclusive, they’ve done absolutely the wrong thing because they sold out on the core principle of not being political. I think that in so doing they’ve subcontracted out their critical thinking to Stonewall [the lobby group for LGBT rights]

The judgment www.judiciary.uk/judgments/miller-v-college-of-policing/

YESSSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!

Congratulations @hazzatheowl - bloody well done!

(I just screamed when I heard the 11am news on R4)

What a victory for freedom of speech and well done for fighting this

IANAL but the nuance of the judgment seems important. It confirms that it is lawful to record non-crime Hate-crime offences.

Possibly why HM's legal team is considering an appeal on this point to the Supreme Court. It looks like the judge agrees with them that this might be useful.

Thread about possible appeal on the issue of it being lawful to continue to record non-crime hate-crime offences.
#FairCopJR is talking about appeal, and maybe a leapfrog straight to the supreme court. The judge seemed to agree it's an important case and worthy of appeal (about the HCOG element)

There is some urgency about this, he says. In the wider context this is v significant. A while host of reasons why appropriate to leapfrog straight to supreme court.

The police counsel seems to be challenging the appeal idea. [Justice Knowles] is smacking him down somewhat.

twitter.com/ismesarahjane/status/1228272827008245761

Super Harry's Views Realistic, Coppers Are Atrocious

One of the interesting things in the judgement is the evidence from Professor Kathleen Stock. The judge concludes Harry was taking part in a multi faceted debate in which one side people with gender critical views of hatred, even when there is no evidence of it. He concludes with a quote from John Stuart Mill On Liberty. Great result for Harry.

Yes - the recognition of Kathleen Stock and Jodie Ginsberg's statements was very welcome!

I also liked the judge's final comment.

"We have never lived in an Orwellian society.”

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/02/14/police-compared-stasi-gestapo-judge-rules-interfered-freedom/

B’s response was ‘at the outer margins of rationality’.

Judge-speak for being utterly cray cray.

To fully protect free speech and stop intimidation, the police must be prevented from recording non-crimes as hate incidents

• ntbo, if they were hate, then they would be crimes

So I hope there is an appeal to stop this classification.
Otherwise the police can effectively use their own TRA law on "hate speech", instead of the law of the land

Still, mostly a victory:
Judge decided that it is unlawful for police to try to intimidate lawful tweeting.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/feb/14/transgender-tweet-police-acted-unlawfully

The judge said:
“The claimants’ tweets were lawful and there was not the slightest risk that he would commit a criminal offence by continuing to tweet.

“I find the combination of the police visiting the claimant’s place of work,
and their subsequent statements in relation to the possibility of prosecution,
were a disproportionate interference with the claimant’s right to freedom of expression

because of their potential chilling effect.”

In his judgment, Knowles stated:
“I conclude that the police left the claimant with the clear belief that he was being warned by them to desist from posting further tweets on transgender matters even if they did not directly warn him in terms.

“In other words, I conclude that the police’s actions led him, reasonably, to believe that he was being warned not to exercise his right to freedom of expression about transgender issues on pain of potential criminal prosecution.”

I'm no fan of some of Adam Wagner's views wrt to the intersection of Human Rights and the anti-woman feel to some clashes in the UK but this is an interesting discussion that he broadens out to include s.127 of the Communications Act in relation to social media.

twitter.com/AdamWagner1/status/1228284223552917506?s=20