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,

I'm frankly appalled that @mnhq are allowing endorsement of this individual Kate. Not quite 'in the spirit' is it? She has been charged with criminal offences, I presume she's the person you refer to who has lost their job as a result of the charges, and It's bemusing that HQ allow a love fest for this person. Innocent until proven guilty, I get that, but HQ are being uber lenient on this person. For some strange reason.

NotBad

It must really sting Hayden to know that people are talking about Hayden and not being deferential. Hayden is so used to all of Hayden’s Twitter buddies telling Hayden what a heroine Hayden is. And here we all are talking about Hayden’s previous convictions and seeing Hayden for what Hayden really is, and supporting someone who also sees that. I would even wager it would spur Hayden to come on here and post about themselves, because we know Hayden likes to talk about Hayden in the third person even on Hayden’s own Twitter account, so how big a leap would it be to talk about Hayden in the third person here?

Well I wouldn't want my history being brought up if it was irrelevant to a case I'm a victim in. I do understand that that is how the law operates, but I don't like it. The good or bad character of the witness surely has no relevance to whether they were the victim of the crime. Particularly since the crime in question was carried out on social media in full public view, so her testimony can't really be called into question can it? You're all for facts here. What's written in print is fact. I thought that that's what the case was about - though all I know about it is what I've read on the DM article linked.

notbad

I’m going to ignore the silly attempt to make an equivalence between rape and name calling on Twitter.

Of all my opinions about Hayden, I don’t think Hayden wears a wig, to be fair.

Do you all disagree with what has been written in the DM article then?

Saylwhat - do I think calling someone a "pig in a wig" on Twitter should be be a matter for police or courts? No, I don't.

Do I think a woman's previous sexual history should be allowed in court? No I don't - but not really relevant, or comparable to this.

Do I think Steph's bad character should be brought up in court?

Yes, I do, because Hayden's past behaviour in taking several people to court ("abuse of process") should be heard - eg Glinner, Caro, and others - and then "settling" and gloating about it on Twitter, gloating about the legal fees, eg. Glinner had to pay. Hayden is, IMHO abusing the legal process and the courts to settle frivolous twitter disputes.

Oh I agree with bits of it. Like this bit:

The judge was told that accuser Ms Hayden had a string of convictions dating back to 1996, for affray, breaches of community orders, making false representations with a view to gain and attempting to gain property by deception, for which she had received a sentence of imprisonment. She had also been acquitted of beating someone with a golf club, the judge was told, which she had later made joking tweets about. The judge decided the trial could safely proceed, despite Ms Wilson arguing it was an 'abuse of process', but allowed a bad character application which would allow the lawyers to quiz Ms Hayden about her previous convictions.

I like that bit.

She had also been acquitted of beating someone with a golf club, the judge was told, which she had later made joking tweets about.

Oh! I remember reading those jokes on Twitter. Wasn't SH making jokes with Adrian Harrop about playing golf in the location of Caroline Farrows husbands' church?

Round about the time SH was taking Caro to court?

Or is my memory shot!? Could well be. I'm an old gimmer

Good luck, unbelievable it's got this far

If the roles were reversed, hmmmm.

What offensive thing could a stranger say to or about a woman that would result in her going to the police and them prosecuting. I can think of lots of offensive things said to or about women - But let's face it only transgendered people have legal protection, or black people, the rest of us don't.

What is so ridiculous is that either or both could just not use Twitter.
It's not like there are no other online places they can go.

Oh yes, Hayden thinks it’s hilarious to joke about golf:

Link:

mobile.twitter.com/flyinglawyer73/status/1081257486693384192

NotBad

I impressed myself! My memory was spot on - I'm giving myself a to celebrate.

Thanks 😊

She has been charged with criminal offences, I presume she's the person you refer to who has lost their job as a result of the charges, and It's bemusing that HQ allow a love fest for this person.

Are you quite new to all this Sayl? I believe the person you're thinking of who lost her job for stating facts is Maya Forstater. Stick around and do some reading across the board while you're here - it's all quite eye opening.

SH is bringing the charge of using a public communications network to cause annoyance, inconvenience and anxiety......we could all claim XY individuals using twitter claiming to be women causes us annoyance and anxiety. That would probably be thrown out of court though.

I thought The Mail article painted Kate's case in a very bad light? I hope I've misunderstood.

In court reporting, newspapers can only report what's said in court. So they were only able to print Hayden's testimony. Today they will no doubt report Kate's testimony, and what Hayden says under cross-examination.

What struck me most from the report of Hayden's evidence is the feebleness of the complaints. Hayden was "misgendered" several times, accused of being "racist" and called a "pig in a wig". If that's the worst that Kate wrote about Hayden, it's absolutely astonishing that the CPS chose to prosecute.

Compare and contrast with the vile, misogynist and abusive names women have been called on Twitter, along with threats of violence, rape and torture, when the police haven't acted. It's difficult to see the logic.

Goodbye mumsnetters I've probably got a ban for my last message

Could MNHQ ask the police to charge previously banned posters with using a public communications network to cause annoyance, inconvenience and anxiety?