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

Attn, Headline Writers:

Super Harry's Views Realistic, Coppers Were Atrocious

surely Harry's win will help with Kate's appeal?

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

Fair Cops say College of Policing is offering 50% but Harry wants 100%

Thanks for the explanation about the multiple accounts Amalfimamma. That was not clear in the press coverage

Judge given right to appeal, will be either court of appeal, or the Supreme Court if they accept

Fannycann

I think Mrs B is the person who saw Harry's tweets, took offence and reported then to the police. I think. Not completely sure

Mrs B was the complainant

Thanks for the explanation about the multiple accounts Amalfimamma. That was not clear in the press coverage

No it wasn’t and it absolutely should have been.

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

Its from the judge's ruling in Harry Miller Case.
'Mrs B' was the single complainant about Harry's tweets. 'Mrs B' perceived they were transphobic & hateful, felt injured & lodged a complaint with the police.

I wonder what other reports 'Mrs B' made/makes. It would seem unlikely that this was a single Hate Crime report.

The BBC news segment was erm... interesting. Very little time spent explaining the police overreach and a lot of time mentioning how worried trans groups would be and how the BBC had of course been in contact with them.

Bbc reporter said the non crime crimes can come up on an advanced DBS check.

The BBC correspondent is at pains to assure viewers that the BBC have talked to trans groups in researching this story (yeah, we know, BBC. We know) and that not only are trans groups very keen for non crime crimes to be logged for the sake of trans people, but for the sake of everyone, though the correspondent uses this as his wrapping up sentence and doesn't elaborate on why totalitarian control is a benefit for society.

I suspect it is a rhetorical device designed to cast the poor, unrepresented trans groups as altruistic, rather than the people with the thought police on speed dial.

Phew. I'm relieved about the permission to take the non crime part to appeal.

This judgement is significant with regards to the labour pledges.

Ah right, I'd forgotten that bit. Makes sense re "Mrs B".

.... And that the verdict would be hugely controversial, and that the BBC had, of course, consulted with Trans Rights Groups for clarification... . Ooooo - it's back again.

I find Kate's court case really interesting. By making yourself a famous as Hayden has done, are you not somehow expected to be talked about. Will posters here who regularly scrutinise well known people be subjected to the same problems?

Isnt it a bit like saying you can never talk about Ryan Giggs online ever again? Absolutely if Kate kept trying to get in touch and private message, send letters by post etc. But once your anonymity is gone, and you're so forthright and public. Isnt discussion fair?

Is the court going to now the arbitrator of niceness for every celebrity? Will Rebecca Vardy now make her money suing everyone for £1000 who tweeted unpleasant things about her during the Colleen Rooney scandal? And then, once threatened by her, post their annoyance and then she has sealed the verdict.

Or am I missing something???

Glad it's not just me Floral we were obviously both watching and coming to the same conclusion.

Sorry - cross posts.

Isn't this against the Equality Act?
It puts women at a disadvantage. Either there is such a thing as hate speech or there isn't. How can the police pick and choose the categories.

But women can't ruin people's lives by reporting the non-crime crime of misogyny as a hate crime because hating women isn't a crime.
One of the many ways in which trans people have MORE rights than women.

College of Policing statement suggests they think they won.

bit.ly/2Hm0FrH

So, both cases most likely to appeal.

With all sympathy to Kate for the verdict and the stress she must be under, I am much wore worried about the verdict in Harry's case.

The judge found recording his tweets as non-crime hate crimes would have been lawful and not violated his Article 10 rights.

Harry only won because what the police did after that was unlawful in this judge's view.

That has truly frightening implications for our freedom of speech.

The tone of the BBC reporting is very grumpy. They really want to cast Harry's winning point as a sad, sad thing. I'm waiting for the Trans talking head to be given first dibs on guest comment. They've used a still of Harry so far.

...judgment emphasises the vital importance of free speech in a democracy and provides a reminder that free speech includes not only the inoffensive, but the irritating, the contentious, the eccentric, the heretical, the unwelcome and the provocative, and that the freedom only to speak inoffensively is not worth having ([3]).

I wonder if HQ can use this statement to defend the women here who want to speak about this issue.

It is very important to recognise that the Claimant was not tweeting in a vacuum. He was contributing to an ongoing debate that is complex and multi faceted. In order to understand the contours of that debate I have been assisted by the first witness statement of Professor Kathleen Stock , Professor of Philosophy at Sussex university. She researched and teaches the philosophy of fiction and feminist philosophy. Her intellectual pedigree is impeccable