Scottow conviction overturned on appeal.

[marvellousnightforamooncup]

Whoop!

Just seen her tweet.

The whole thing sounds like a nightmare DrM. Good luck with getting it sorted out.

I too heard this on R4 news headlines. It’s an extremely important case, it means people can’t be arrested then detained for calling someone a few hurtful names and then hauled through the courts. Police officers must take note of this case and stop bullying women.

DrLouise I hope this case is over soon. Do you need a crowd finder help? Also could you counter sue this person for being malicious?

I heard the blink and you miss it report on R4 Today just after 8am. It was most odd and mostly focussed not on the name-calling.

Hullo!

I actually had a Crowdfunder (which is sitting in my solicitor's client account) which the prolific litigator reported several times (not only do they try to force you into spending significant sums they seek to deny you access to representation). Appreciate the offer though!

No case update for a few months (I'm irked at how long this is taking, not least because it means it's more time for them to continue their demonstrable online abuse).

I think they chose not to fully report the decision at the time because it didn't fit into their progressive narrative and someone has realised that it's a significant case and it is such an omission that this could be used to criticise the BBC in minimising certain news stories.

It is a decision that, after nearly 20 years, finally gives an answer to the question: can someone be criminally convicted over being rude to someone a handful of times over the Internet. You only have to stick the terms "section 127" communications into a search engine to see how much public interest there is over this.

Wow front page of Daily Mail Online. Also links through to an item on female prisoner being assaulted by trans woman in prison. 800+ comments. Obviously an issue of some interest. Strange it’s being reported today.

Same thoughts here about why the DM decided to report it and the other case.
Could it be that someone at the newspaper is the child who pointed out the Emperor does not have new clothes.

@yourhairiswinterfire

Thanks OhLittleBoreOfWhabylon

Yes indeed, thanks for the link.

Very good point about whose “feelings” were more hurt. The litigious person who read a tweet and is not themselves above name calling, or the person who was arrested in front of their children including their breast fed child,, held in a cell for seven hours, interviewed by police, brought to court after months of uncertainty, fined and vilified by a judge.

not kind girls unite!

@Itsagiven

Wow front page of Daily Mail Online. Also links through to an item on female prisoner being assaulted by trans woman in prison. 800+ comments. Obviously an issue of some interest. Strange it’s being reported today.

Crikey!

DrLouise, I'm so sorry you are having to go through this, the waiting and uncertainty must be torture.

I would imagine the Mail got their own lawyers to go over the ruling and then preapprove their article?

They’ve had to waste money on their own legal wrangles with SH (and won, but still, expensive and time wasting ballache).

The pig in a wig comment has just been discussed briefly on Jeremy Vine, all three panelists thought it ridiculous that the police are investigating and prosecuting these types of non crime hate crimes.

@Thingybob

The pig in a wig comment has just been discussed briefly on Jeremy Vine, all three panelists thought it ridiculous that the police are investigating and prosecuting these types of non crime hate crimes.

Excellent. Good to see this getting so much coverage.

Nobody else seems to have the police called on them for writing the words the Mail quotes. Why is that?

There are more pictures of one side in the case than the other in that Mail article, wonder why?

I wonder if SH had thought of the Streisand Effect when they brought the case?

From the Daily Mail article:
Trumpeting her Gender Recognition Certificate, the complainant told the court how Ms Scottow was bound by law to refer to her as a woman.

They have a way with words.
I don't think trying to sue the DM is good PR. They like a good sue.

Nice coverage in the mail, summing up the other cases as well.

I am looking forward to the coverage when Maya wins, as surely now she must.

I do wonder whether they Daily Mail have set out to (arguably) contravene the IPSO guidance in this area knowing that IPSO would be foolish to intervene:

www.ipso.co.uk/member-publishers/guidance-for-journalists-and-editors/transgender-guidance/#PointsForEditorsToConsider

@Melroses

From the Daily Mail article: Trumpeting her Gender Recognition Certificate, the complainant told the court how Ms Scottow was bound by law to refer to her as a woman.

They have a way with words.
I don't think trying to sue the DM is good PR. They like a good sue.

Surely we are not bound by law to refer to people with GRC as their chosen gender in everyday speech, or casual correspondence?

Surely, we are only bound to treat & refer to the chosen gender in "legal" situations: contracts, employment, etc?

What have I missed?

The DM was quoting Ms Hayden there.

Good choice of pictures in the Mail, I thought

Lovely one of Kate.

The DM seem to be very artistic in their picture placement wrt Hayden. Yes, lovely one of Kate.

Thanks for posting the IPSO Transgender guidance, Nauticant.

A couple of thoughts occur.

Clause 1 (Accuracy) requires that the press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information or images
Flippantly, does that include photoshopped images from SM that bear no resemblance to an individual?

Would the story be newsworthy if it did not concern an individual of transgender status?
Is the individual’s status relevant?
I find this one more worrying. Male attacks female, is such a common occurrence sadly, that it may not be newsworthy. That doesn't make it acceptable for misleading articles headlined "woman attacks..."

What about the truth?

Anyone a fan of facts ?

www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2020/3421.html