In court tomorrow

[BitterAndOnlySlightlyTwisted]

Hayden versus Associated Newspapers.

The Judge? Go on guess. Mr Justice Julian Knowles.

Remember him? I couldn’t be happier.

This is according to contacts at the NZ fruit farm

1. Justice Knowles understands that the current trans debate is necessary, people have a right to speak about it, and presumably, journalists have a right to write about it.
2. returning to an earlier screenshot, there is no evidence that Kate was assisted by this story, she has been convicted (for now, at least) and the not tagging Hayden indicates that harassment of Hayden was not the goal.
3. Justice Knowles knows that some people on the trans activism side of the debate do not behave reasonably or logically...

Well spotted DuLang

Haydens complaint was that they saw the tweets by Kate and felt targeted and that they were addressed to them. And the complaint, now, is that they haven't seen them and they're not addressed to them.

The incoherence and industrial goalpost moving of this ideology is profound.

Someone is at this hearing. Hayden asked Mr Knowles to recuse himself and Mr K said no!

Hayden representing themself, as usual.

Last 2. Shout out to Doc Stock

10 & 11 some trans people consider stating known facts to be harassment. This is not a reasonable interpretation.

Is there a # I can follow for this? I got kicked off twitter, so my usual sources are lost to me

Someone is at this hearing. Hayden asked Mr Knowles to recuse himself and Mr K said no!

Good. But I'm wondering if it might also be tactical. Whether the judge now feels as though they have to overcompensate.

God yes, please a hashtag!

One last reminder, I do not identify as a lawyer, I am a mere bored housewife enjoying a brain exercise on a rainy Tuesday morning, whilst procrastinating over washing the covers of the sofa cushions 🤗

If I can spot these inconsistencies/counter arguments/numpty claims, then I fully envisage a (non-literal) bloodbath will be taking place at the courts today.

And I imagine Knowles J is pretty tough anyway, tbh. Didn't come across as someone with many fucks to give in the Fair Cop case.

I wish I'd seen Hayden telling him he should recuse himself.

Me too Datun, how fucking arrogant.

There's no #, I'm in a WhatsApp group and one of the attendees has informed us.

We don't want to tweet or share too much in case it is any way compromising.
But this little bit seemed too good not to share here.

Sorry I usually just lurk but this was too neat.

Hayden asked Mr Knowles to recuse himself

on what grounds? That he is transphobic?

I can't work out of Hayden is brave, arrogant, or stupid for going up against the DMs lawyers on his own.

Two out of three ain't bad?

We don't want to tweet or share too much in case it is any way compromising.

Hopefully it will be in the DM in great detail tomorrow

3 little WTF moments from Hayden’s claim:

1. The reputation of the claimant AS A PUBLIC FIGURE?

1. The articles went out 6 months ago, and happily, no physical harm has occurred to Hayden. Hopefully the immediate response marker can be downgraded in time, as it is now evident that the danger Hayden imagines Haydenself to be in is overestimated. Good stuff.

1. If this statutory declaration thing is what I assume it to be, the journalists may very well have the receipts that prove fraud - Hayden posted on Reddit explaining how and when Hayden had made the application, it was all in the public domain, if I recall correctly?

DuLANGMondeFOREVER

Do you mean keeping their trans status secret?

Is there a distinction between keeping your trans status secret and keeping your acquisition of a GRC secret?

Because, obviously, Hayden's entire existence revolves around the publicity of their trans status.

Yes I think there is a distinction. If someone has a GRC there are extra privacy aspects.

@DontBuyLangClegCashmere ooooh, insider knowledge! If any other cringey gems pop up, do share with us!!

Got it, thanks Erishkigal.

Well let's hope the lawyers have the receipts for Hayden talking about it in public.

Hopefully if this case goes against Hayden it will have implications for Kate's appeal.

Excuse me your honour, seeing as you've previously found someone guilty of theft, I don't want you to preside over my theft trial because, well, you clearly understand the complexities of theft

The 'placing of a marker' by Police was used by Aimee Challenor as 'proof' that the Police agreed that there was substantial risk to Challenor.

I think this potentially overstates the level of proof required by the police to make such a decision.

Presumably the police will put a marker on an address when contacted by a member of the public who provides reasons why they believe they are at risk?
My understanding is that this is so that in the event of any reports of incidents at this address, additional information is available to those taking the call or responding?

(Im not a police officer or legal expert)

Hi, there! May I ask a favour? If anyone is sharing this story, can you point out that Hayden was the same person behind this? This has been the story most use to smear me as transphobic, and I want people to know the truth. Thank you! www.theguardian.com/culture/2018/oct/07/graham-linehan-police-warning-complaint-by-stephanie-hayden-transgender-activist-twitter

'used', doh. And even that's grammatically shite. You know what I'm saying.