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

Judge: no hate here.
Humberside: record of hate remains on record
Judge: fine
I rule there was no hate. Yet I am allowing the record of hate to stand, with all its implications.

Yes it's all such a mess.

It's the word hate. They could change it to be something less contentious, I suppose. something which would not require any evidence of hate. Worry incident?

The transwoman on BBC news said something like well if there are 1000 hate incidents, that could equal a hate crime.

Like four houses equalling a hotel in monopoly?

Except a hotel isn't a house. It's not even a big fucking house.

And the reporter said thank you very much for your insight.

It's not insight, it's complete lack of logic and utterly irrelevant to the law in hand.

I agree, the judge claiming there is no evidence of hate, but allowing it to be a hate incident creates a conflict that needs a resolution. Hence the judge issuing a thing called a 'leapfrog certificate'? Allowing Harry to get fast tracked to the Supreme Court.

Whilst I agree that it sounds personal, the arguments are all identical to those put forward by anyone advocating for trans ideology.

It all seems rather odd to me. Why would a random transwoman take exception to Harry, of all people. There are hundreds of people who say far worse. What about the originator of the limerick?

Datun I doubt very much if this was/will be 'Mrs B's' only report against those perceived to be 'dangerous bigots' whether to the Police or using other routes to authority

No doubt there are groups who 'monitor' twitter users just as there are those who monitor Mumsnet, Facebook, Labour Party members etc etc
(there may even be overlaps sometimes!)

Datun I doubt very much if this was/will be 'Mrs B's' only report against those perceived to be 'dangerous bigots' whether to the Police or using other routes to authority

That's true R0 And, of course, Harry is one of the few to be vexed enough to take it further.

One would hope that if anyone else is under these kind of hate incident constraints, they would come forward now that it's splashed across every media in the land.

Ooh, I hope that's the case.

Thanks @nauticant but then where does the freedom of speech come in? I thought I saw something that said it had to be motivated by hate but wasn't necessarily a crime?

I agree, the judge claiming there is no evidence of hate, but allowing it to be a hate incident creates a conflict that needs a resolution. Hence the judge issuing a thing called a 'leapfrog certificate'? Allowing Harry to get fast tracked to the Supreme Court.

It is vital that there is resolution
CPS released Hate Crime guidance toolkit to be taught in schools a couple of weeks ago:

important thread for parents, teachers & school governors:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3809302-CPS-school-hate-crime-guidance-we-must-complain

Here is the summary and the judgements

www.judiciary.uk/judgments/miller-v-college-of-policing/

Overjoyed for Harry, gutted for Kate. So at least one judge can see through the emperor’s new clothes, and has the courage to defend free speech.

Great news for Harry.

The College of Policing press release about this decision is helpful in that regard JustHereWithMyPopcorn:

What is a hate incident?

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.

It's eye of the beholder stuff. Who has the thinnest skin and is continually looking to be offended and has the Police looking out for them. Freedom of speech is secondary to that.

5 January 2019:
“Victim states that she has not been contacted by the suspect. She was informed that the suspect had made comments about the transgender community by another person. Victim states they would like the suspect speaking to but on further research the victim has herself been making derogatory comments on [REDACTED] about people who are making comments about transgender people.”

Thank you Rowantrees. There is going to be a lot to digest on this ruling.
We all know that the Mrs.B s of this world have had Mumsnet, Twitter, tv media , all political parties and the police on the hop for years.

Good to see it in black and white in today's ruling associated with the words Stasi and Gestapo.

JustHereWithMyPopcorn This is the summary of the judge's findings:

www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/miller-v-college-of-police-summary.pdf

Big coverage on world at one R4 now.

Can someone answer me a quick question about Harry? Harry retweeted the limerick. Who was the person who tweeted it initially for him to retweet it - and what happened to this person? Were they hauled up by police for hate speech or was it just Harry?

The leapfrog thing is interesting.

The person commenting on the BBC news, can't remember their name, something-Jon- something, was explaining how they had been visited by the police about their comments and how happy they would hypothetically be to have that hate incident recorded against them.

Except.
If the EA protected characteristic SEX was also one of the protected characteristics for hate crime - it isn't
AND if every time a person on twitter announced that male people are women women reported the offence this caused us as a person with the protected characteristic sex
And that became a hate incident on the records of anyone saying offensive things about what females are
And those records prevented the people-who-are-offensive-to-the-female-sex from getting jobs?

The entire system would collapse.

The only women who have recourse to hate crime laws on the basis of 'being a woman', are the 'women' who are actually male.

In fact, when you think about it, there is a two tier level of justice available to women.

Women of the male sex can avail themselves of the protection of hate crime laws.
Women of the female sex cannot.

Hate crime laws themselves discriminate against people with the EA protected characteristic SEX.

What a monumentally tangled web we weaved when the GRA first practiced to deceive.

(Playing fast and loose with language more than once here)

I don't think that can possibly stand up if it goes to the Supreme Court.

It's totally meaningless and open to abuse as we all know. More to the point its unenforceable in a way that can be consistent and in that sense can not lead to people feeling they have equal access to justice.

The comments on this thread about men and women having different justice are noticeable in this.

Kates case is different but its very clear that women feel the law is being abuse maliciously too.

Hanging I have also wondered this - is the writer of the lyrics also guilty of a non crime hate incident?

The origin of Harry Miller's tweet:

www.peaktrans.org/youre-a-man/

So it seems it's lawful to say 'transwomen are men' (Harry's case) but not 'He [Barbara, formerly known as Sebastian] is a man' (Kate's case]?

The judge in Kate's case did not rule on whether it is lawful to tell someone who identifies as trans that they are not the sex they identify as.

Prosecution was brought under the Malicious Communications Act. Which was decidedly not created to deal with a case like this where one person sent 15 tweets to another person which the latter finds hurtful, but laws have always been used in unintended ways.

The judge only ruled on whether he found that the nature of Kate's tweets constituted harassment under the act, not whether they were truthful or lawful statements.

The reality is that hundreds of thousands of claimants could be bringing prosecution under the Malicious Communications Act. That's because it simply wasn't designed to deal with the way we now communicate across social media.

The Act has also come under criticism several times for its misuse as a means to curb free speech. I would expect Kate's appeal to address all of this in detail.

God knows how many people have had their thinking checked by the police and have a NCHI on their record.

The situation remains that you mustn't make fun of any man who claims that he is a woman. It's not even anything to do with the Gender Recognition Act or the Equality Act. It's bonkers to have this particular category of hate crime/incident. It has to go.

Hate incidents are like Shrödingers incidents.
If they are observed and reported, they exist.
If they are observed and not reported, they don't exist.
If they are neither observed nor reported, they don't exist.
Therefore they both exist and don't exist simultaneously, depending upon who is observing.

The original poet (it wasn't a limerick) was not reported. Therefore the poet did not commit a hate incident in composing the poem, but Harry did in retweeting the poem.
The poem is both evidence of a hate incident, and not evidence of a hate incident, and tweeting it is both a hate incident and not a hate incident.

I'm pretty sure physics scholars will write dissertations on this in due course.

The only women who have recourse to hate crime laws on the basis of 'being a woman', are the 'women' who are actually male.

In fact, when you think about it, there is a two tier level of justice available to women.

Women of the male sex can avail themselves of the protection of hate crime laws.
Women of the female sex cannot.

Every step of the way this ideology continues to be a mindfuck of mammoth proportions. And fucking over women, every single step. One after the other.

One of the other things was that Harry said the College of policing was a private company. Is it only me that finds that strange? Is it normal?

I suppose it can't be anything else, but to give a private company such power seems very, very dangerous.

Who has the thinnest skin and is continually looking to be offended and has the Police looking out for them. Freedom of speech is secondary to that.

In UK there is a relationship between the rights to freedom of expression & responsibilities of both the state & its citizens.

From the Miller judgement:
In R v Shayler [2003] 1 AC 247, [21], Lord Bingham emphasised the connection between freedom of expression and democracy. He observed that ‘the fundamental right of free expression has been recognised at common law for very many years’ and explained:

^“The reasons why the right to free expression is
regarded as fundamental are familiar, but merit brief
restatement in the present context. Modern democratic
government means government of the people by the
people for the people. But there can be no government
by the people if they are ignorant of the issues to be
resolved, the arguments for and against different
solutions and the facts underlying those arguments. The
business of government is not an activity about which
only those professionally engaged are entitled to receive
information and express opinions. It is, or should be, a
participatory process. But there can be no assurance that
government is carried out for the people unless the facts
are made known, the issues publicly ventilated …”.^

1. Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the Convention) also protects

freedom of expression. It provides:

^“1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right
shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and
impart information and ideas without interference by public
authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not
prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting,
television or cinema enterprises.^
^2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it
duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities,
conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law
and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of
national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the
prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or
morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others,
for preventing the disclosure of information received in
confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality
of the judiciary.”^

All very interesting and more to be nailed down.

So with the point about sexuality being protected where would that leave statements like:

I’m a heterosexual man I am sexually attracted to women. I am not sexually attracted to a transwoman because transwomen are biologically male.

I’m a gay man. I am sexually attracted to men not trans men because trans men are biologically female.

I’m a lesbian, I am sexually attracted to women not transwomen because transwomen are biologically male.

Or disability

I’m autistic. Single sex means single sex, I can’t understand how someone else’s gender identity means single sex becomes mixed sex.

Would those be classed as lawful but still hate incidents? It’s really hard to understand.

Bang on again Barracker.

P.S. It's precisely because the judge ruled only on the harassment aspect and not on the truthfulness or awfulness aspect of Kate's tweets, that he commented that we teach our children to be kind.

It's why we tell white lies, why things go unsaid, why we self-censor in so many ways. Because it wouldn't be kind. Not because the things we might otherwise say wouldn't be true.