14.02.20 Live updates on Harry and Kate’s cases HERE

[MrsSnippyPants]

I shall be glued to social media this morning and thought it might be useful to have a place where we can post updates as they come in so people need to follow just one thread.
Please post Twitter handles of anyone providing live updates as you find them.
@WeAreFairCop are saying it is likely the judgement will NOT be read out so they hope to get a copy and summarise and tweet after 10.30am

The tweets were not directed at the transgender community. They were primarily directed at the Claimant's Twitter followers

First item on the 11 o'clock news on Radio 4, that the Police were wrong. That alone is a big win.

Harry's judgement was just the lead story in the 11am news on R4.

Miller Case says recording 'hate incidents' is lawful, but judgement appears to remind plod that for there to be a hate incident there needs to be both hate and an incident.

Hope plod appeals and get their arse spanked.

@ThumbWitchesAbroad clearly now though, what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander?

Hypothetically of course, if someone complained to Twitter about hate speech and they were banned, as per Harry's case we then aren't being allowed free speech? If we were banned for, for example, saying biological males are not females. And you knew a specific person had reported you for "hate speech"

Asking for a friend.

There is no suggestion in PC Gul's statement that he considered whether Mrs B was really a 'victim'

Harry is on BBC newsroom live. They're just getting through the cabinet reshuffle, then they have a segment on him. BBC Two.

The Victim Surcharge doesn't go to the victim directly, but to organisations that support victims of crime.

Harry's case was the first story on Radio 4's news bulletin just now - surprised about that, seeing as it's the BBC...

Just watching BBC News on Iplayer. Harry's segment coming up.

Oops I started a separate thread for Kate's verdict.

Still got no idea how this works.

Onwards, sisters. Courage calls

Cross posted!

Page 63 of the full article, in case no one else has got this far yet

'. I hesitate to be overly critical of Mrs B, given she has not given evidence, but I consider it fair to say that her reaction to the Claimant’s tweets was, at times, at the outer margins of rationality. For example, her suggestion that the Claimant would have been anti- Semitic eighty years ago had no proper basis and represents an extreme mindset on her
behalf. Equally, her statement that if the Claimant wins this case, transgender people will have to ‘kiss their rights goodbye’ was simply wrong. The Equality Act 2010 will remain in force. The evidence of Professor Stock shows that the Claimant is far from alone in a debate which is complex and multi-faceted. Mrs B profoundly disagrees with his views, but such is the nature of free speech in a democracy. Professor Stock’s evidence demonstrates how quickly some involved in the transgender debate are prepared to accuse others with whom they disagree of showing hatred, or as being transphobic when they are not, but simply hold a different view. Mrs B’s evidence would tend to confirm Professor Stock’s evidence.'

As per previous poster, I also don't understand Kate's case. She contacted the complainant under several different names after agreeing not too, right? Wasn't she in the wrong?

No. Kate's first account was targeted and banned
Her second account made no direct contact with the lawyer yet the lawyer was on a witch hunt and and smelt her out
Same with 3rd account. I've been freidns with Kate for yonks and after she was reported to the police she never openly mentioned the claimant on social media again.

Please don't use the tra misinformation to cast doubt in a woman.

I worded that badly. I mean, going on the two cases

If one person complained to Twitter about hate speech and the user was banned, as per Harry's case we then aren't being allowed free speech? If we were banned for, for example, saying biological males are not females. And you knew a specific person had reported you for "hate speech" and Twitter accepted this. So you then can't open another account to speak freely even if you're not aiming your tweets at the reporter, you would be speaking generally?

So atm obviously we can't speak freely if one person objects to it as hate crime, but this judge thinks we should be able to

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

Hate crimes/incidents only apply to certain categories of perceived victims. Women, as a category, are not covered.

www.citizensadvice.org.uk/law-and-courts/discrimination/hate-crime/what-are-hate-incidents-and-hate-crime/

The police and Crown Prosecution Service have agreed a common definition of hate incidents.
They say something is a hate incident if the victim or anyone else think it was motivated by hostility or prejudice based on one of the following things:
disability
race
religion
transgender identity
sexual orientation.

I see no costs award in the full judgement in the Miller case. Has the judge ruled on this yet?

So Hayden had a press release all ready for "if" they won.

Of course Hayden did.

I hesitate to be overly critical of Mrs B, given she has not given evidence, but I consider it fair to say that her reaction to the Claimant’s tweets was, at times, at the outer margins of rationality. For example, her suggestion that the Claimant would have been anti- Semitic eighty years ago had no proper basis and represents an extreme mindset on her behalf. Equally, her statement that if the Claimant wins this case, transgender people will have to ‘kiss their rights goodbye’ was simply wrong.

Professor Stock’s evidence demonstrates how quickly some involved in the transgender debate are prepared to accuse others with whom they disagree of showing hatred, or as being transphobic when they are not, but simply hold a different view. Mrs B’s evidence would tend to confirm Professor Stock’s evidence.'

Indeed

@golgiapparatus
Sorry, I'm reading in so many places struggling to keep up. Who is Mrs B?

There is a separate thread on Scottow's verdict, here: Scottow verdict: Guilty www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3822685-scottow-verdict-guilty

Please don't use the tra misinformation to cast doubt in a woman.

Please don't witch hunt other women because they are asking for clarification.

On BBC2 now

My issue with women not being included in the hate crime list is we cannot compare hate their crimes to their murders which have risen by 10%.

It would show how misogynistic society is.