Fair Cop Court of Appeal 8-10 March

[Spero]

Please save the date! This is such an important hearing for freedom of speech, particularly around the issues of sex and gender.

The hearing will be for 1 1/2 days some time between 8-10 March, we don't have an exact listing yet.

Hopefully there will be some live tweeting.

Do support if you can.

twitter.com/WeAreFairCop/status/1361820204649639951?s=20

Fairly limp argument - "this can't have a chilling effect, because it's merely a police record kept purely for intelligence purposes".

But this case involved a police officer calling round to "check Harry's thinking!" Are they arguing that checking people's thinking is against the guidelines, but merely keeping the information and secretly disclosing it to employers is not?

If you go on social media and say anything that might upset someone, you have a very real possibility of a police recording about it.

JUDGE - new guidance p274 example of incident at a party in someone's home.

IW I reiterate the point. The CoP are emboldened and reach grows.

IW - I read 140K incidents recorded

Judge - what period? We must be clear, volume is such they cannot be investigated. Bloody Hell, wonder if I'm one of them

IW is really laying into them now

IW - significant change in how CoP presented their case. He used word 'categorisation' repeatedly. Clearly a deliberate decision to try to make the whole procedure more palatable. Its a recording. That's what it says on the tin.

The current case in the Court of Appeal allmywhat is about the guidance of the College of Policing and their argument is "we've written our shitty guidance but we are not responsible for what police forces do when they follow it".

I think he's implying that CoP is all smoke and mirrors

He also says guidance isn't intended to be comprehensive as if that absolves CoP for responsibility for any omissions. Can't have any traction with new version. He says its 'high level guidance', what does that mean? officers on the ground rely on it.

nauticant fabulous

like this IW - our case was NOT about rationality of perception based recording - it was about rationality of recording with NO EVIDENCE OF HATE.

So CoP didn't address our argument at all.

The post box analogy by Ian Wise was dumb as fuck.

This is what I want to hear - distinctions between race hate and the rest

IW: you asked JC about distinction between racist and other incidents and I apprehend you had in mind
@Docstockk
second witness statement where she sets out how behaviour and language are very different in different contexts. Racist comments can generally be identified clearly.

Thanks nauticant that genuinely has made this much clearer! Though I have merely ascended to a higher plane of bewilderment.

This point is important as the genesis of this guidance is about combatting racial abuse and hatred. We do not seek to undermine this. But Macpherson DID NOT say that incidents should just be recorded without any investigation.

exactly this

I always used to think that somewhere in the hierarchy of these institutions there used to be one or two thinkers. Yes I know

Latest tweets

WeAreFairCop
@WeAreFairCop
·
3m
impact on Mr Miller - reaction of anyone operating their rights of free expression.

JUDGE - if there had been a mere recording, Mr Miller would never have known about that entry. Inevitably he must be identifying his response to being told.

WeAreFairCop
@WeAreFairCop
Replying to
@WeAreFairCop
IW - yes, distinction between knock on the door. That was beyond the pale.

JUDGE - but if no knock on door may not have known. How does that leave your argument.
3:40 PM · Mar 10, 2021·Twitter Web App

WeAreFairCop
@WeAreFairCop
·
1m
Replying to
@WeAreFairCop
IW er, er he may be aware in world of social controversy. Others now know because of him. Word will get out, it is inevitable. Those on social media will be told about what is going on in these sorts of cases. Quickly will become a general awareness that police collect info.

WeAreFairCop
@WeAreFairCop
·
1m
IW: this is the argument on chilling effect. And now have guidance re children. How quickly round the playground will this go?

@allmywhat

Thanks nauticant that genuinely has made this much clearer! Though I have merely ascended to a higher plane of bewilderment.

Just gotta say “Though I have merely ascended to a higher plane of bewilderment”, this made me spurt my tea a little!

That Lady Judge seems very clued up and switched on. I really have gained such a deeper respect of our Judges through all these court cases.

I thought this was quite relevant for this thread:

twitter.com/VictoriaPeckham/status/1363852717966385152

impact on Mr Miller - reaction of anyone operating their rights of free expression.

JUDGE - if there had been a mere recording, Mr Miller would never have known about that entry. Inevitably he must be identifying his response to being told.
IW - yes, distinction between knock on the door. That was beyond the pale.

JUDGE - but if no knock on door may not have known. How does that leave your argument.

IW er, er he may be aware in world of social controversy. Others now know because of him. Word will get out, it is inevitable. Those on social media will be told about what is going on in these sorts of cases. Quickly will become a general awareness that police collect info.
IW - it is not a defence to say we will do it and not tell anyone.
IW also Jodie Ginsberg's evidence - gives actual examples of police involvement on social media. That is interference.
Now arguments on 'prescribed by law' and surprisingly omission of the word 'foreseeable' by JC. It gives rise to question - could person foresee the consequences? How on earth could anyone foresee the reactions of someone like Mrs B on the outer edges of rationality?

The other side don't address this for good reason - there is no logical answer. no one can foresee the actions of an irrational person.

[WELL QUITE]

It does give an insight into the intellect and capabilities of focus required to operate as a judge, barrister, solicitor at these elevated levels.

IW - this debate on social media is the new life blood of democracy [God help us] and needs compelling reasons to be curtailed.

IW Very surprising submission to hear the CoP now don't support Humberside! They were very supportive before.

The touches of sarcasm or nice

I have admired the judges in these cases, they just seem to be so clued up and yet they are only looking at what is presented. I am in awe

Unsurprisingly the bench have given no indication of when their judgement can be expected.

Learned junior reminds IW that the Assistant police constable posted statement in paper just before pre action letters that it was correct to record. So shows the level of support. This wasn't a 'rogue' case where something went wrong. Who does this benefit??? any ideas

Well. That went rather better than I had expected after yesterday. But what a pity mine and Miss B's points weren't before the court formally - but IW did a good job of slipping some of them in. Hopefully the point about extending this to schools will make them really sit up and take notice.

So that's a wrap then. We just have to await the judgement now.

@highame

Learned junior reminds IW that the Assistant police constable posted statement in paper just before pre action letters that it was correct to record. So shows the level of support. This wasn't a 'rogue' case where something went wrong. Who does this benefit??? any ideas

The people who have built livelihoods and professional reputations on 'hate crimes' - those who lecture, offer training or the chance to be a 'special ambassador' for a mere £3K per annum.

Spero even if the case is lost, do you see the CoP having to make some changes?