Supreme Court reported for T***phobia

[gardenbird48]

twitter.com/SVPhillimore/status/1328633118434209792

the awe-inspiring Sarah has reported the Supreme Court for transphobia in relation to the transman applying to be named as father on the baby's birth certificate as a third party bystander.

The judgement in the court case satisfied the conditions for defining it a Hate Incident so Sarah has reported it as such and will be waiting for the response.

If she is criticised for wasting police time then she will be asking why all the malicious and frivolous reports being made against her are not also deemed to be a waste of police time, and after repeated requests, these records held against her and previously without her knowledge are not being deleted.

If not and the complaint is upheld, that will be an interesting test of the Hate Crime/Incident reporting. Will it mean that any judgement made in court that 'particular groups' don't like/deem offensive is automatically a Hate Crime/Incident??

Law will eat itself.

Don't courts have Absolute Privilege though?

It's about making the Police think about how they are supposed to handle this report and to trigger cognitive dissonance, with the Police feeling they must follow the established ridiculous process and having to think whether they should do so in the case of the Supreme Court.

Sunlight

@WeeBisom

But judges and the legal system have immunity from liability, so even if this qualified as a hate crime they can't be prosecuted. The reason the reports against her are not a waste of police time is because she, as a private citizen, can be liable for hate crimes. Courts cannot.

It's not being reported as a hate crime. It's being reported as a hate incident.

Hate incidents stay on your record despite the fact there was no court case and no prosecution.

"It's not being reported as a hate crime. It's being reported as a hate incident.
Hate incidents stay on your record despite the fact there was no court case and no prosecution."

Sure, but judges have absolute immunity from liability for anything they say in a court case, so they wouldn't be liable for a hate incident either. So this won't go anywhere.

My understanding is that she hasn't reported the individual judge, she's reported the Supreme Court. Her evidence is claims of transphobia made online.

So this won't go anywhere.
Except into the public arena, which is exactly where it's needed.

Wow.

Good question in the comments: 'if someone misgenders me by calling me "cis" (suggesting that my "gender identity" is the same as my sex) I can use this to report them?'

Yeesh, the endless possibilities for vexatious lawsuits. It's going to be one long endless Twitter spat in the courts.

Good question in the comments: 'if someone misgenders me by calling me "cis" (suggesting that my "gender identity" is the same as my sex) I can use this to report them?'.

I certainly consider it hateful to call me cis.
And how dare anyone make that assumption about my gender.

True Vision?!

Eeeeeeeek!!!

Poor Freddy won't know if they're coming or going 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

I assume the idea is to unpack the meaning of hate incident

I have a question about hate incidents.

If 10 men witness and report a crime, it was still only one crime. The defendant will only be tried once for one offense.
But it 10 men report the same hate incident, does that count as one incident or 10?

Thelnebriati how do you know they are men?

I’m also baffled by the fact that one person can report a hate incident while 100 can witness and be un-offended but the opinion of the 1 is recorded.

I'm not sure this was the best idea, but I'm certainly interested to see where it goes

@PearPickingPorky

I'm not sure this was the best idea, but I'm certainly interested to see where it goes

I agree. Given where this stuff has gone in the past I not sure we won’t see the Supreme Court prostrating themselves in front of TRAs.

True Vision is linked everywhere as the portal to record hate crimes and hate incidents yet when you go to the site it appears you can only report hate crimes through it.
I'd be interested to know how it can be used to report hate incidents. Even the "online hate material" (not all hate incidents will be this) takes you to a page titled "True Vision report online hate crime".

It seemed very muddled when I last had a good look, with nowhere specific for hate incidents. Did you find this, @spero ?

Oooooh

I could be wrong DeaconBoo, but as I understand it, although hate crimes and hate incidents are two separate categories, they are often reported together under the title of 'hate crimes'. When you see stats of how many hate crimes were reported last year etc, it's a combination of figures from the crimes and incidents.
Happy to be corrected, but that's how I understood it from reading various information from policing orgs. It's never made obvious - usually in footnotes.

If an actual crime has taken place, then what is reported to the police will be put in the hate crime list, otherwise it will be classed as a hate incident. I think maybe the police have been naively trying to make things simple for the general public by calling everything a hate crime and having a single portal for reporting.

Ah, thanks nonny! It's not at all clear when you have websites making the distinction (to varying extents) or taking pains to say "hate crimes and hate incidents" but then they all end up linking to the True Vision site which makes no mention of hate incidents and seems to apply only to hate crimes.

CAB says if you want the police to investigate it, you need to provide your contact details, whereas certain Local Authority websites say "Even if you don’t want to give your name – please report it. You can remain anonymous if you want and give as much or as little information as you wish."

Everyone seems to have a different approach, which is confusing!

I'm not a lawyer. But I did read about Sarah's challenges to having accidentally discovered she's been put on some kind of 'watch list' or 'black list', which apparently they can do these days without that person having been proven to have committed any kind of crime.

Sounds much like the guy who received a phone call from the Humberside police to 'check your thinking'.

And it's all done under the radar, without that person actually having the basic right to KNOW they've been put on the watch list.

How in anybody's universe is that not a contravention of the Human Rights Act?

Sarah, you rock

@DeaconBoo

True Vision is linked everywhere as the portal to record hate crimes and hate incidents yet when you go to the site it appears you can only report hate crimes through it. I'd be interested to know how it can be used to report hate incidents. Even the "online hate material" (not all hate incidents will be this) takes you to a page titled "True Vision report online hate crime".

It seemed very muddled when I last had a good look, with nowhere specific for hate incidents. Did you find this, @spero ?

My understanding is that you report 'hate' via the True Vision form. If it is not a crime - highly likely or you would be calling 999 not filling in a stupid form - then it MUST be recorded as a 'hate incident' and the police are explicitly forbidden from questioning the rationality and motivations of the reporting person. You are allowed - nay encouraged! - to report as a third party witness.

I am not aware that judges have 'immunity' for what they say in court. I think that applies only to Parliamentary privilege.

But if you think reporting the Supreme Court is stupid then consider supporting my legal action against the College of Policing.

Frankly I thjnk the whole thing is stupid.

Thanks Sarah.
I fundamentally don't understand what the bar is for something being a hate incident - I had a thread here musing about whether you could report your neighbour's planning application for an extension as a hate incident because you perceived it as such, or the name of the 'Wimpy' restaurant etc - everyone has a protected characteristic of one kind or another, so surely anything could be (claimed to be) perceived as being hatred on that basis, however spurious?:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4011623-Using-hate-incidents-for-unintended-purposes?