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

Yes, CharlieParley, that's how I understand it. As such the College of Policing are right to say they've won. It's Humberside Police who lost.

This is misleading and confusing; it describes the incident being logged as a "hate incident". Which leads the tone of the article to be that he did commit a crime.

Harry Miller: Ex-police officer's transgender tweets lawful www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lincolnshire-51501202

Yay to Kathleen Stock! We do seem to have all the large brains on the GC side. If you are on here Kathleen, thanks for being consistently awesome.

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.'

Quite. The judge also says that accusing Harry of likely being anti-Semitic 80 years ago also has no basis in reality.

As is accusing people of racism and homophobia for exactly the same reasons. It's a deliberate, and utterly illogical, derail.

As I guessed weeks ago "Harry did nothing illegal but the law is fine"

College of Policing statement suggests they think they won.

I guess they did, in terms of their guidelines being found lawful. What individual police forces do with them is not their issue, i expect they think.

I'm so pleased for Harry and for what this judgement means for freedom of speech.

Do we know who Mrs B is?

Getting confused now. What happened about costs?

Professor Stock then describes the 'hostile climate' facing gender-critical academics working in UK universities. She says that any research which threatens to produce conclusions or outcomes that influential trans-advocacy organisations would judge to be politically in expedient, faces significant obstacles

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,

Except women and girls (HALF THE POPULATION) since misogyny doesn't count - the only protected characteristic for which you can't report a hate incident even though - as we all know - women are repeatedly targeted. So when they say 'everyone' they mean everyone who is biologically male then. I'm never paying my tv license again BBC you pile of misogynistic bastards.

So, rapes basically legal (1.4% of reported rapes prosecuted), we're getting rid of the most obvious risk reduction measures to prevent sexual assault of girls in schools (sex segregation), not allowed to report misogyny as hate incidents, and whilst overall crimes and homicides are down - more women and girls being killed than ever.

FUCK OFF. We need to stand together and fight, women. For Kate, for Maya, for our children and for ourselves. Everyone reading and lurking - if you haven't done so already, write to your MP. Complain, loudly and repeatedly - about the removal of sex segregation in schools and elsewhere, about the woeful rape prosecution facts, about misogyny being excluded from hate incidents, about women being punished for recognising biological reality. Be a pain. We're 50% of the population, if we all speak up they can't ignore us.

Solidarity to Kate - please do appeal, we have your back.

in terms of their guidelines being found lawful. What individual police forces do with them is not their issue, i expect they think.

"I'm not to blame for where the rockets come down, said Dr Von Braun."

^much more

Harrys case was twofold, though. Both the guidelines, and the application of them, is my understanding.

He was prepared to offer both strands. One as an alternative to the other. And, it was the second, which was upheld.

In this application for judicial review the Claimant challenged the lawfulness of HCOG. He argued that, as a policy, it violates domestic law and also Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which protects freedom of expression. Alternatively, he argued that even if the policy is lawful, his treatment by the police was disproportionate and unlawfully interfered with his right of free speech under Article 10(1).

(HCOG stands for hate crime operational guidance)

In fact, it's worth reading through the College of Policing press release:

A hate incident is any incident which the victim, or anyone else, thinks is based on someone's prejudice towards them because of their race, religion, sexual orientation, disability or because they are transgender.

Why should the Police be involved in this?

A hate incident does not automatically show up on police checks.
...
However, an Enhanced Criminal Records Check contains information on the Police National Computer and information about the person held on local police records which the police believe may be relevant and ought to be included.

Generally speaking, Enhanced Criminal Records Checks are required when someone applies for a position which is especially sensitive, for example, working with children or vulnerable adults.

There's the CoP trying to distract from the problem which actually does exist. An incident involving no crime and no hate can be recorded without any assessment at all and once recorded is a threat to an innocent person's employment prospects.

Oh thank fuck. Not perfect, but another breach in the dam.

We can do this. Puuuuuuullll.

I take the following points from this evidence. First, there is a vigorous ongoing debate about trans rights. Professor Stock's evidence shows that some involved in the debate are readily willing to label those with different viewpoints as 'transphobic' even when they are not. It is clear that there are those on one side of the debate who simply will not tolerate different views, even when they are expressed by legitimate scholars

BBC now being 'balanced'

Harry's statement was magnificent.

BBC predictably has trans talking head, as I guessed.

some involved in the debate are readily willing to label those with different viewpoints as 'transphobic' even when they are not.

I really want to hear what Labour have to say about this.

Do we know who Mrs B is?

I should imagine Mrs B is a strategic claimant, very likely connected to TELI or, one of the other groups who are hellbent on pursuing 'strategic litigation' for their cause.

The reporting says that Mrs B didn't even read the tweets themself, they were shown them by someone else, and they were the only person who, having read them, decided to go to the police.

It doesn't get more tenuous.

They were actually trying to make a case out of someone to whom the treats were not addressed, who would never have read them, but were shown them by someone else's, next door neighbour's hair dresser.

The implications for a win in that case are absolutely chilling.

'...it starts with tweets and and ends in murder.'

Mrs Bs reactions were at times, 'at the outer margins of rationality', according to the verdict.

No shit.

Katy Jon Went criticising Harry for suggesting that this kind of thing is akin to the Gestapo as using inflammatory language.

It wasn't Harry, it was the JUDGE, pal.

I like how they keep showing examples of his tweets which are in no way hate speech