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

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

This is significant too.

The figure of justice carries the sword of the law in one hand, the scales of justice in the other, and is blindfolded to be impartial.

The point about research which challenges trans' narratives on history could be a description of Professor Selina Todd's situation....

@CatalogueUniverse

They’ll be too busy that’s why - and because girls don’t count.

I have had far more abuse directed at me in the street - sexually explicit because I am female - compared to what was said to the trans man police officer (may have been a support officer) who got a young man with Aspergers convicted for asking if he was male or female. (No account of the mans Aspergers of course). Even if I had reported it - it wouldn’t have been included in the hate crime statistics.

Elderly abuse is also rampant. Are they likely to report? Nope. Not defined as a hate crime.

Who thinks the police take disability hate crime seriously? Think of the case of Fiona Pilkington. Are some people with disabilities able to report hate crime? No they are not. Is this taken into account when collecting the statistics? Nope.

Hate crime statistics are intrinsically flawed and do not accurately show hate incidents/crimes against protected groups.

Racism is generally regarded as being entirely unacceptable today. The problem comes when you extend this to other concepts.

The way to get round this, surely, is to specify what constitutes transphobia?

Calling someone a 'fucking tr**ny', yes. Saying humans can't change sex and transwomen are men, no.

The whole point of this is how it stops women explaining why the trans ideology is dangerous to them. If you can't use the correct words, you can't explain it.

It really would not be a tremendously difficult exercise to decide what does, or doesn't constitute the concept of transphobia.

Pointing out that sex matters is being called hate. Pointing out the number of men who fetishise women and are advocating for self identification, is regarded as hate.

Tiptoeing around the edges of the debate doesn't work. Fortunately, I genuinely believe that people are getting closer and closer to the centre.

I wonder if the judgement will make MN rethink their rather precious and quaint moderation of the feminist boards.

Don't be stupid. Be nice.

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.

Barracker Indeed thats true at the present time.
However, just in case hate crime were extended to include misogyny (as I think Stella Creasy has said she intends to pursue) some transactivists are already attempting to ensure that 'male women' would claim this additional protection & presumably also hope to resist any accusations on that basis?

Labour Trans Pledge
(extract)
"5. Accept that there is no material conflict between trans rights and women’s rights, and that all trans women are subject to misogyny and patriarchal oppression.

1. Listen to trans comrades on issues of transphobia and transmisogyny, allowing trans people to lead the way on our own liberation." (continues)

"I think it will reinforce an opinion that courts don't understand trans lives and aren't there to protect trans people."

This whole 'totally separate, mysterious species for whom normal rules and standards must be set aside' bit needs to go.

Trans people are people exactly like anyone else. Society is one whole. The courts have equal responsibility to all, not to make special pets out of particular groups. Which is in itself discriminatory and infantilising.

That was referenced extensively in the first few pages of the full judgement

Buzz
Yes, I thought that was very interesting. And the John Stuart Mill quote from On Liberty in conclusion.

catalogue, yes it's interesting isn't it?

One could play a "spot the difference" game.

• "Sex" - just gone, nothing to replace it (eg. misogyny) - despite harassment of women and girls being reportedly at epidemic levels.

• "Transgender identity" added - something which isn't currently protected under the equality act, and is something quite different from "gender reassignment".

Trans lobby groups (like Stonewall, but there are others) have been working with the police on this, and providing training to the police. Hence the bizarre statements that the hapless PC Gul came out with, that he's "learned on a training course with a transgender person".

Take a look at this thread for a further, even more sinister explanation. www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3822853-Insiders-story-of-how-trans-activists-in-the-Labour-Party-were-seeking-to-undermine-womens-rights

Equal Rights For All is the Western Model.

The alternative is found in some other cultures whereby vairous named groups, usually religion-based, are recognised and get special rights, and/or are subject to particular restrictions.

It’s squeaky wheels driving policy. It’s clearly effective. So how can women harness it as effectively as those who are currently utilising it?

I made the point on another thread recently about how much of the police's approach to trans hate crime comes from the top brass not wanting to have a trans Stephen Lawrence on their hands, which is a laudable aim up to a point - no one here wants to see any murders or attacks - but just as there are issues with safeguarding (as Lang always reminded us) the problem that arises when the police/CPS make a group into a sacred caste is that justice for anyone not a member of that caste flies out of the window.

Some systemic misogyny/sexism within the Police will also have played a significant role.

The figure of justice carries the sword of the law in one hand, the scales of justice in the other, and is blindfolded to be impartial.

Some vocal activists won't be satisfied until she carries a baseball bat, the scales of a mermaid and wears a rainbow lanyard instead.

....blue hair on Lady Justice to replace the crown as her symbol of authority.

But literally anyone could have reported Harry Miller to the police, including someone who has none of the relevant protected characteristics but has some other personal grudge against HM or his family member.

Fair point. But the guidelines were drafted on the basis that the people who lived under them were normal every day men and women. Not thought-controlling misogynistic obsessives with chips on their shoulders the size of gulags, who want to police (pun intended) everyone's opinion to make sure it is The Only Approved One.

We need an equivalent of the Macpherson report. Women killed by men due to systematic dismissal of domestic abuse/stalking/“honor” killings/fetish play etc etc

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.

I don't think you can report a hate incident about age either - although it is a protected characteristic under the EA. Us old women had better watch out!

Every #nodebate should get the immediate response #nohecklersveto.

Maybe the issues are best shown with a deductive argument;

Premises
Transwomen are men (legal)
is a transwoman (also legal)

Conclusion
is a man (illegal)

If the premises are true, the conclusion necessarily must be true, so why should it not be said?

But literally anyone could have reported Harry Miller to the police, including someone who has none of the relevant protected characteristics but has some other personal grudge against HM or his family member.

The crime report shows that police carried out a number of checks from which they likely confirmed that 'Mrs B' was a "transgender lady", they also established & recorded that 'Mrs B' did not have a direct reletionship with Harry Miller.

Full Judge's findings:
(extract)
71. After Mrs B contacted the police, they created a document called a ‘Crime Report Print’. Given the common ground that at no stage did anyone (apart from Mrs B) think that the Claimant had committed a crime, the title is striking. It is also striking that throughout Mrs B is referred to as ‘the victim’ and the Claimant as ‘the suspect’. Whether or not Mrs B was properly to be regarded as a victim, it was certainly inaccurate to describe the Claimant as a suspect.

72. The first entry is from 4 January 2019 and reads as follows: “Threat – low [REDACTED] Harm – emotional Risk – unlikely Investigation – named suspect, no factors for CSI, no known witnesses, no CCTV, twitter posts available Vulnerabilities – none known Engagement – passed to CMU

The Crime Report has this entry for 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.”

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

But the guidelines were drafted on the basis that the people who lived under them were normal every day men and women. Not thought-controlling misogynistic obsessives with chips on their shoulders the size of gulags, who want to police (pun intended) everyone's opinion to make sure it is The Only Approved One.

That's the problem. The difference with the transgender group is that the belief system itself has effectively become the protected characteristic, but not in the way other beliefs are protected. It's basically a state-enforced religion.

If the point of recording non-crime hate incidents is to spot local patterns then there is no need for the name of the supposed perpetrator to be recorded, let alone for it to appear be on a DBS check.

I thought Kate Scottow was prosecuted under the Communications Act 2003, section 127.

Thanks Nauticant, yes I got that wrong. It was under the section of the Communications Act targeting malicious communications, aimed to stop people sending hundreds or thousands of letters. Not aimed at tweets. It's completely unfit for purpose when it comes to social media.

Barracker's point about male 'women' having more protection than female 'women' is fascinating:

Two friends walking together down the street, one is an adult human female, the other is a TW. Two blokes go past and shout "Ugly bitches" at them - so the TW can report this as a hate incident, but the adult human female can't?

How can that be deemed fair?