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 you’re a proper hero & proper stubborn which is my kind of hero

People keep saying if you block someone they can see if it is retweeted but that’s not true - it would only be seen if it was screenshotted (is that a word?) & tweeted.

Kate you’re a proper hero & proper stubborn which is my kind of hero

Agree!

People keep saying if you block someone they can see if it is retweeted but that’s not true - it would only be seen if it was screenshotted (is that a word?) & tweeted.

It’s another lie, among all the others, and quite possible the judge will not know that. I hope Kate’s barrister made the implications fully clear.

Those who are seeking out tweets in order to sift out anything that might be used for the purposes of litigation quite possibly use multiple accounts.

I should also imagine they might have a network of like-minded people who relay information to them. Quite possibly, that network might also set out deliberately to encourage perjorative statements that can be then used as evidence that the other party is at fault.

That’s what gaslighters do. They find people and wind them up until they are so angry and frustrated that they put themselves in the wrong. I know, because it’s been done to me.

Kate is not the only woman who is being targeted this way.

Wait, what? Kate had blocked Hayden?

How can you be harassed by someone who has actively sought to prevent all contact? That is just bonkers. And of course you'd know you were blocked in this scenario, because you'd need to take active steps to circumvent that block, in order to find out what was being tweeted.

SH socks wouldn’t have been blocked...

How can you be harassed by someone who has actively sought to prevent all contact? That is just bonkers.

As I said, I hope Kate’s barrister spelled this out so the judge couldn’t miss the implications.

SH socks wouldn’t have been blocked...

Obviously, but that's wholly irrelevant to the case at hand. Kate's awareness of who Hayden was is key to her having the necessary intent. If you have to go to lengths to circumvent a ban, then you can't be harassed by the person banning you, who by definition is seeking to avoid all contact. It's pretzel logic in purest form to argue otherwise.

As I said, I hope Kate’s barrister spelled this out so the judge couldn’t miss the implications.

Absolutely. I'm hoping very much that the lengthy gap here is to allow the judge time to go and research the way social media works, if they don't already know. I doubt many magistrates hear cases this likely to attract attention, so I expect they're anxious to ensure t's are crossed and i's dotted. One can hope.

Gosh my first strike for a one liner about the Mail photos
I feel like I've been blooded

You can’t make jokes on a weekend, Penguin! Gotta save them up for Monday!

As I said, I hope Kate’s barrister spelled this out so the judge couldn’t miss the implications.

She didn't really spell it out under cross-examination, but may have done so in her final summing-up. What she seemed to be emphasising, more than the blocking, was whether Hayden was aware they had been blocked. She was sure that Hayden was aware, Hayden was adamant that they weren't. But I'm not entirely clear of the implications of this.

By the way, am not sure how much of this we are allowed to discuss - is it OK because it's a judge rather than a jury?

I was awarded PIP at the higher rates for care and mobility last autumn and I don't care two hoots if people know about it. It is an inoffensive piece of information IMO. I'm ecstatic about it - I've been struggling along for years on bugger all, to the extent that getting PIP feels like riches.

I can't see that knowing someone receives PIP would make you think less of them. It definitely doesn't give me a worse opinion of SH than I already had.

I've been deleted too. Not the foggiest as to why.

How is it different, if we question a known criminal's motivation for the protected status of gender reassignment, like Karen White, and if we question the motivations of a known deceiver who claims a disability that allows a get-out for perjury?
Just because there are good people on PIP or good people with memory loss, who encounter difficulty and discrimination, does not mean we cannot or should not criticise individuals.
How is it different to TRAs trying to silence women?
I feel this matter is relevant to the sacred caste concept and the humble apologies of the purity spiral. Someone will no doubt prove my point shortly.

And the way some people talk about transgender ideology exposes their transphobia?
I used to listen politely, I used to reflect, I used to think deeply about my internalised ableism when I read threads on here and questioned disability self-ID.
But then I compared the language to the trans debate and decided that there were parallels. I have decided, mainly based on the language used by Self-id activists, that I don't support it.
No doubt I will be piled on now with lots of women unironically telling me to "be nice" and "it doesn't cost you anything" and "you're gatekeeping disability from self-id'ers who can't get a diagnosis".
Nope, I don't care if I'm not nice. There's too many parallels to trans activism. Silencing debate with attacks of ableism don't fly with me any more.
And if you try and challenge my right to speak on this issue, we'll again, that's identity politics, isn't it? Those with oppression points get to shut down debate. I don't have to prove my stake in the disability community to have a view.

(Name Change for this post)

Very pleased to see the photos in yesterday's Daily Mail article

I complained to the DM after they published the article on 6 Feb, ie. that if they chose to run a headline that included the "pig in a wig" allegation it was ridiculous to publish a heavily photoshopped image of Hayden - and hadn't they got any photographers they could send to the court??

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

I also agree to an extent with terfsandwich above.

There have been no generalising, disrespectful comments about Disability Benefit claimants that I have noticed - and I too am among those who would be "targeted" if there had been, would be upset and have cause to complain. There have instead been helpful clarifications about means testing and the horrendous process of applying for assistance.

However, "Self-ID" in terms of disability is a VERY different kettle of fish to "Self-ID" in terms of the GRA 2004 and Equality Act 2010. In order to obtain protections under the Equality Act 2010 objective evidence is required. It is not sufficient to "self declare" that one "feels disabled".

Terfsandwich this was part of my concern - this the thread was started to support Kate and the disability issue may well derail it. Of course I'm not trying to shut down debate or challenging your right to speak, which is of course the whole issue behind having to even have this thread, but it may well be worthy of a different, separate thread though?

I'm not saying be nice or be kind but drawing parallels between disability rights activists and TRAs is, I would think, spectacularly going to polarise opinion, derail from the support that this thread was started to give, and worthy of a separate thread.

Personally I think the "eyes on the prize" of this thread is support for Kate, and discussion of SH's total twattery is definitely relevant, but the wider disability issue might distract from this.

But I'm not very articulate or intelligent today, I may be reading it all wrongly and saying it all wrongly too Plus I know I didn't even start the thread, or everyone else may think I'm talking bollocks want to discuss these issues here...

Feel free to ignore, or tell me to fuck off - I won't be offended I would actually really like a discussion about disability self ID (in fact I'm sure there have already been lots and I've forgotten them ) I just feel its worthy of a whole separate discussion elsewhere.

I agree with Spartacus about the way PIP is being discussed on this thread.

There are good people on PIP and there are absolute arseholes on PIP and everyone inbetween. The qualifying criteria quite rightly don't include being a nice person.

Nobody self-ID's onto PIP.

You have to fill in a HUGE form, list all your diagnoses and the ways they affect you, list all your medication and side effects, all the therapies you need to attend, all the aids and appliances you need to use and include details of relevant HCP who can be contacted for further information. You have to answer a bunch of depressing questions about all the things you can't do independently and you have to explain repeatedly and in excruciating detail exactly why you can't do them. You're not obliged to send in medical evidence but your chances of a successful application are very slim if you don't. In most cases you then have to attend a face to face assessment with a HCP who is likely not to know much at all about your specific conditions or the way they affect people and who is actively looking for reasons why PIP should not be awarded. Many applicants then need to go through the further stages of mandatory reconsideration and appeal before finally getting their award around 18 months to 2 years after they first apply, having shown their actual fucking medical evidence to a benefit appeal tribunal panel which includes a judge and at least one medical professional. 75% of PIP and ESA appeals are now successfully overturned.

The idea that you can 'self-declare' that one 'feels disabled' for the purposes of PIP is incredibly offensive. Not because of any snowflakey reasons but because an absolute fuckton of disabled people are being left living in extreme poverty, without the support they need, because they are not able to jump through all the required hoops and/or they do not have the wherewithal or the energy to challenge the decision through tribunal.

PIP fraud is not unheard of but it's very uncommon because of all the hurdles. There is no evidence that Hayden has fraudulently claimed PIP and frankly, given how litigious this individual is, it would be unwise to speculate.

Meanwhile, 11 criminal court appearances for 21 offences and 6 months in prison!

Really pleased to hear you got your award Prawn

Sorry, not a GP but has access to a prescription pad.

I'm so disappointed that the comments have been turned off in the Daily Mail article.

Not a sentence I ever thought I'd type. But I was quite curious what the Mail readers would make of Stephanie's two photographs, and the curious contrast between her golfing history and her delicate Twitter sensibilities.