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 police arguments do not adequately reflect the importance of free speech in a democratic society. Turning up at his place of work undermines a cardinal freedom. We have never had a GESTAPO. We have never lived in ORWELLIAN SOCIETY"

Fantastic fantastic! Is that from judgement? This is excellent news!

I've put the link in the post before yours Tom

Well done Harry!

Delighted with what’s being reported from Harry’s case. Gutted for Kate though.
I guess these verdicts do make the clear distinction between freedom of speech in general and the targeting of specific individuals (even if they are utterly odious).

Feeling slightly relived I don’t have to chain myself to railings yet...

I've not got very far but this is worth highlighting....

"Where those words, or related words, are used in this judgment, I am referring to individuals whose biological sex is as determined by their chromosomes, irrespective of the gender with which they identify."

Is that a quote snippy?

I had a feeling this would be the outcome; police cannot throw their weight around or we do end up with Gestapo.

What's not been fully clarified from either case is the actual assertion that gender ideology is an ideology. Potentially slightly clarified by Harry's case.

Judgment is 289 paragraps long so going to be a long read but it starts well:

In his unpublished introduction to Animal Farm (1945) George Orwell wrote:

“If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.”

I am failing to see how what Kate did is OK?

This line in an article linked to in this thread..

"Scottow, who was studying a master's degree in forensic psychology, had previously signed a settlement agreement preventing her from contacting or referring to Ms Hayden online."

So, she continued contacting her with different twitter handles? Saying things she knew would upset her?

This is not someone I would be proud of supporting

Please don't post Hayden's tweets here.

I think a complete record is important. The tweet is odious but expected. I was not planning on posting more than the reaction.

Yes I agree about separate threads. I was a bit bemused they were both in one. Makes it confusing and now a little insensitive ( I don't think that was OP's intention though)

So to be clear - the police can still record "non-crimes" and keep some secret record on you? That part was lawful?

Can Kate appeal on the basis of Harry's win?

Or different contexts?

@SonicVersusGynaephobia in my view yes and I would be very surprised and packing my bags out of this dystopian nightmare if it does.

The teach our children to be kind has incensed me. I don’t teach my girls to be kind if someone attacks them.

Sadly not surprised with Kate's outcome, strength to her. I guess it's little comfort that the bad character stuff is out there now. Its also a reminder to 'play the ball not the man'.

Thrilled for Harry and the fair cop team.

The point of the thread was to post updates on both cases as they came in. Feel free to start separate threads on the cases.

The freedom only to speak inoffensively is not worth having.

I hope this is a turning point.

I'm over the moon for Harry personally but very disturbed that the recording of crime non-crimes is lawful. Trying to figure out what this means.

Harry and Kate need different threads

Yes, although the courts deciding to give verdicts on same day is worth noting. And the difference between how males and female are treated.

disturbed that the recording of crime non-crimes is lawful

Indeed. Does this mean people are allowed to say things others find offensive, but it will be put on their record as a 'non-crime'?

Judge says "we teach our children to be kind"

Time for the Trans Privilege Activists to learn a lesson then. If Caroline Farrow decides to bring her harassers and tormentors to court, there's going to be a lot of digging.

So to be clear - the police can still record "non-crimes" and keep some secret record on you? That part was lawful?

Apparently, yes. So the rule is still in place, but applying it to what Harry did is wrong, that's my understanding.

Which, I'm assuming would mean they couldn't apply to anyone else under those circumstances, either.

Recoding of "crime non crimes" doesn't seem to cover women's reporting of harassment or stalking, misogyny etc. Does it.

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

Excerpt from the judgement
"In his judgment handed down today, Mr Justice Julian Knowles concludes that
HCOG is lawful as a policy both under domestic law and under Article 10
([156], [237]). The policy draws upon many years of work on hate crime and
hate incidents which began with the 1999 Macpherson Report into the murder
of Stephen Lawrence in 1993. The Court concludes that HCOG serves
legitimate purposes and is not disproportionate.

1. However, Mr Justice Julian Knowles also finds that the police’s actions

towards the Claimant disproportionately interfered with his right of freedom of expression on the particular facts of this case ([289]). The 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]).

1. Mr Justice Julian Knowles concludes that the Claimant’s tweets were lawful

and that there was not the slightest risk that he would commit a criminal offence by continuing to tweet ([271]). He finds the combination of the police visiting the Claimant’s place of work, and their subsequent statements in relation to the possibility of prosecution, were a disproportionate interference with the Claimant’s right to freedom of expression because of their potential chilling effect. In response to the Defendants’ submissions that any interference with the Claimant’s rights was trivial and justifiable, at [259] of his judgment the judge concludes that these arguments impermissibly Page 3 of 3 minimise what occurred and do not properly reflect the value of free speech in a democracy. He writes: “The effect of the police turning up at [the Claimant’s] place of work because of his political opinions must not be underestimated. To do so would be to undervalue a cardinal democratic freedom. In this country we have never had a Cheka, a Gestapo or a Stasi. We have never lived in an Orwellian society.”

1. To that extent, Mr Justice Julian Knowles upholds the Claimant’s claim."