All the best to Kate Scottow in court tomorrow

[BitterAndOnlySlightlyTwisted]

@BustedWench: we haven’t forgotten. I have a prior commitment tomorrow but fully intend to be there to support you on Friday,

Kate, they are picking on you to try to scare the rest of us off. But far from being scared off, we get angrier at every attack. And most of the population agrees with us.

I wish you all the best. But whatever the result of your case, it will have the valuable effect of publicising these attacks on our freedom, to the many people who didn't know what was going on.

A sort of legal question. Is a Judge allowed to consult other people/authorities etc. while they are deliberating? It seems a long time, in the case of Harry Miller and now in the case of Kate, that the Judges appear to me as a lay-person to be reading and re-reading the same evidence to come to a conclusion.

I assume they are expected to investigate and apply the decisions of previous cases, but I am concerned that our other friends, of whom I dare not speak their names, may be allowed to have some input, in the form of experts in this field.

As an aside its worth noting that a person ... for the purpose of causing annoyance ... to another ... persistently makes use of a public electronic communications network means that much of the use of the Internet that is taking place all of the time is criminal.

Exactly. And the crazy thing is that it's quite easy to demonstrate that Hayden herself has been using Twitter to cause annoyance - and worse - to other people quite extensively. But Hayden wasn't on trial.

This is the FOI request that didn't get anywhere
www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/613596/response/1468387/attach/html/3/Gary%20Pollard%20FOI%20191019008%20response.pdf.html

I don't know if this link has been posted. It is great this is getting media coverage. It is happening at the same time the Telegraph is reporting on the failure of the police to investigate other crimes

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7978797/Mother-two-called-transgender-woman-man-racist-series-offensive-tweets.html?ito=native_share_article-masthead

Lots of information in that Mail article. It’s all gone a bit Streisand effect for our lawyerly friend, I’m not on twitter and hadn’t a clue about half of it, but I do now! I wonder if taking a twitter spat to the police seems like such a great idea now it’s being discussed in the nationals? 🤨

Hopefully Kate's barrister mentioned both Hayden's own use of Twitter, for example re Caroline Farrow, and the golf jokes.

I used to hate the Mail and still do to large degree, but I have to say their use of images to supplement the written narrative is masterful.

CPS have been working with Stonewall haven’t they? Maybe no surprise they allowed this to go to court.

My local police force have also been celebrating making Stonewall’s list of top 100 employers. It’s frightening when you don’t even feel like you can trust the organisations that should actually understand the law and the protected characteristic of sex.

I have trouble keeping track of the litigation, but is Hayden not already suing the Mail? I seem to have a recollection of that.

I wonder if they are cross about that over there...

Dream not sure about this case but for Harry's case the judge won't have spent the whole time since the hearing looking at the evidence: they will have other cases to hear and consider so they may be gaps of several weeks during which he won't have time to look at that case.

Same here, learned lots, that Streisand effect...it's getting out there, isn't it?

Is the case now adjourned until the verdict on the 14th or is there more evidence to come? The DM says 'the trial continues'.

I know in jury trials the jury can be out for days but I've never heard of a magistrates court deliberating for so long. Does anybody know if this is unusual?

Kate, this must be so incredibly stressful, I hope you have something nice planned for the weekend

What I don't really understand is Kate's on trial for "allegedly using a public communications network to cause annoyance, inconvenience and anxiety" which seems like a low bar for a criminal offence. On that basis the BBC causes me annoyance, inconvenience and anxiety on a daily basis so could I take them to court? There are lots of people online who cause me annoyance, inconvenience and anxiety - surely I can't take them all to court?

Furthermore the police arrested Kate in front of her children, causing both Kate and her children inconvenience and extreme anxiety (as well as interrupting a breastfeeding relationship IIRC) and the entire court process must be causing way more inconvenience and anxiety to Kate and her family than the tweets possibly could have done to anyone. I mean it's tweets vs being taken to court - surely that is just beyond dispute? It's insane.

She said Ms Hayden had been before criminal courts on 11 occasions for 21 offences and had spent six months in prison for obtaining property deception.

Didn't realise Hayden had actually been locked up. Must have been pretty serious. It's not like Hayden had a tough upbringing either. Affluent family, university education etc.

Re DM article: I have had friends talking about this, people who are not tuned into this issue at all, and it's like the scales have fallen from their eyes! Why would it take this trial? They didn't have a 'side' but they saw SH for what SH is. This is a GOOD day.

to Kate

on trial for "allegedly using a public communications network to cause annoyance, inconvenience and anxiety"

Maybe we all have a legal come back for Labour candidates being useless in webchats.

is Hayden not already suing the Mail?

And MN, iirc?

According to the DM piece, this was the 3rd trial/case this week. I'm in awe of somebody with memory problems who can track this amount of project management. I want that software or personal assistant.

There are lots of people online who cause me annoyance, inconvenience and anxiety - surely I can't take them all to court?

You could but it would need to be by means of a private criminal prosecution. It would cost you a great deal though.

The Communications Act 2003 is one of bunch of acts passed by the Labour government when it was feeling particularly authoritarian. The idea is that an authoritarian government loves to have laws that many people will be continually in breach of so that, when the government decides it doesn't like a particular person X and wants to target them, it can readily find a criminal provision to find person X guilty of.

Because these laws are political tools, they are not for general use so no matter how much your harasser is in breach of the law, don't expect that it will be used to protect you. Unless the Police decide that it will suit their purposes to fight your corner.

Here's to a good verdict for Kate, women and freedom of speech.

DM clearly don't see Hayden as a very womanly woman, they don't list her age at all

DM clearly don't see Hayden as a very womanly woman, they don't list her age at all

Or the value of SH's home. LOL.
I wonder if the DM are aware that SH has a holiday home in South Africa (possibly let out). We need to know the value to assess the true level of SH's womanliness. 😂

I used to hate the Mail and still do to large degree, but I have to say their use of images to supplement the written narrative is masterful.

Isn't it though

Good to know who is the real criminal---
"attempting to gain property by deception, for which she had received a sentence of imprisonment."