Scottow conviction overturned on appeal.

[marvellousnightforamooncup]

Whoop!

Just seen her tweet.

With apologies for my atrocious grammar. It's been a long day.

Justice Knowles also heard Hayden v Daily Mail/Mail on Sunday.

He also heard the Miller vs College of Policing case. Trans activists are forgetting what they were told in the Dentons' guidance and about not being visible whilst they're lobbying and applying pressure to change the law. It looks like this has innoculated the Queen's Bench division against being manipulated.

It makes me think of this: www.youtube.com/watch?t=1951&v=l7zemtYf0Vw&feature=youtu.be

If injunctions like this shouldn't be granted, why do the judiciary keep granting them?

That's an excellent question from the appellant. It's one it looks like Justice Knowles plans to investigate further.

The response to the judgement from that quarter does emphasise the belief that causing offence to a trans person is a much more serious offence than causing offence to anyone else, and therefore should be treated differently under law. Which is the legal situation that keeps being tested in court in every case really: does the law apply equally and impartially to all, or should there be different and more favourable treatment under law for a specific group.

Justice Knowles also heard Hayden v Daily Mail/Mail on Sunday.

Is that the time Hayden asked him to recuse himself from the case due to being the judge in Harry Miller v College of Policing/Humberside Police?

I will be interested to see if the appellant now initiates legal action against CPS.

That judgement is really interesting on freedom of speech. I'm also getting into reading high court judgements as someone said upthread. SH's cases are helping to clarify, restate, and I would say therefore shore up our freedom of speech rights regarding online communications.

This is quite stark, and really fundamental:

"No convincing, relevant or sufficient reasons have been given for the
decision to prosecute Ms Scottow under s 127 for those messages, and there was and is in my judgment no pressing social need to do so. A prosecution and conviction on these facts would represent a grossly disproportionate and entirely unjustified state interference with free speech."

I'm horrified (again) that she was arrested & has gone through all of this for those few messages, the worst of which were run of the mill twitter nastiness, the 2019 ones were completely reasonable communication. I don't know if she can seek compensation for how she was treated around the arrest. I hope the police & cps take a serious note of this.

There is a huge difference between how senior judges/courts are treating this general issue, compared to some lower courts.

I will be interested to see if the appellant now initiates legal action against CPS.

I just posted this on another thread, but it seems like Kate is considering it. Might put a stop to the nonsense with a bit of luck.

Good article on Glinner's site about this case:

grahamlinehan.substack.com/p/haydens-latest-debacle

In relation to the passage from the judgement quoted above by ManderleyAgain, I'm thinking of Sarah Phillimore's name being recorded on the 'hate speech' blacklist and her determination to take this through the courts to the highest possible level.

Surely a judgement such as this would strengthen her position and that of anyone else in the same boat. I hope so.

yourhair I do wonder if we may actually see both parties open complaints/action against CPS over this, for different reasons.

Is that the time Hayden asked him to recuse himself from the case due to being the judge in Harry Miller v College of Policing/Humberside Police?

Yes, it was. As they also did in Hayden vs Dickenson. Making a recusal application that is without basis is a very good way to piss off a judge.

This is though, if I understand it, the basis of social justice thinking: that legal responsibility and treatment should be applied differently depending on the perceived hierarchy. So for example the belief I've seen stated on Twitter that a trans person cannot commit a rape because rape is an act of power which a trans person cannot make over a biological female. It's merely unwanted or forced sex, and a lesser offence, where if a non trans male does so then it is rape. The crime and situation is seen differently depending on the perceived social inequality involved, rather than objective, equal justice for all.

So cases currently going through the courts: should the police take matters more seriously and the law be harsher, more punitive to a non trans person who has been perceived to offend a trans person as opposed to any other person? Should the law be extended further and stretched beyond it's usual meaning and limits in protection of a trans person due to the need to signal support and care for and in acknowledgement of perceived vulnerability of the entire group? Should safeguarding and Gillick be adapted and reduced when this particular group is involved?

It's essentially testing that 'righteous' inequality.

By coincidence I was reading today about the SJW recasting of racism to mean racial prejudice but only when it is conducted against an oppressed person by a person with relative privilege. This means that mere racial prejudice isn't racism, there needs to be the power aspect. It is a strange way of looking at the world.

Intelligent and thoughtful judges, who knew they existed!!?

Well done Kate.

So for example the belief I've seen stated on Twitter that a trans person cannot commit a rape because rape is an act of power which a trans person cannot make over a biological female.

Fuck. I thought I'd seen the worst of the damaging, invasive, offensive lies TRAs peddle.

Evening All!

Cannot POSSIBLE THINK why I might want to acknowledge this thread, can you?

STROLLS BACK OUT.

Luff you all.

Mariel

On a slightly more light-hearted note this is from Kate's twitter about the case:-

Captain Tweep @tweepwitch
Replying to @Kate_Scottow80
"I am satisfied that this was wrong in law" was almost as delightful to read as seeing "MandiMcGirlDick" over and over again in an official court document.

Kate Scottow @Kate_Scottow80
You should have seen my face when the old bill had to keep repeating it at me during interview

Waves at DrLouise

NickyManchester I would like to take a moment to appreciate your posts over the the last few weeks - your professional insight is invaluable.

(Reports of penis related pseudonyms are also good )

@DrLouiseJMoody

Evening All!

Cannot POSSIBLE THINK why I might want to acknowledge this thread, can you?

STROLLS BACK OUT.

Luff you all.

I * wonder how much all these antics have cost the public purse.*

It really is dispiriting that we live in a time when courts are tied up adjudicating playground insults. Time was when only the very rich might be inclined to bring a libel case, and the rest of us could enjoy the entertainment that inevitably ensued. Now we have two a penny hurty feels cases. Court time and public money are wasted.
It is quite right that judges should be interested to spot a pattern and deal with it. Vexatious litigation has more victims than just the unfortunate target of the claimant. It needs to be called out for what it is and appropriate action taken to put a stop to it.

@iguanadonna

Has anyone every totted up the appalling amount of court time that S.H. has taken up in pursuing these numerous litigation cases?

And how much of that time has S.H. paid for, and how much has the taxpayer paid for it?

WOW

S.H. has started a thread of tweets targetting Louise and especially nasty about her late wife.

The sidekick mentioned in the court case joins in.

The overt, sneering vicious hatred, and the sheer hypocrisy, are UNBELIEVABLE.

mobile.twitter.com/flyinglawyer73/status/1339521293486612480

5 hours since SH claimed to have lots of chums. 1 like.

archive.md/JSrib