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

@ChazsBrilliantAttitude

I was suggesting you have a specific debate not no debate. This thread is on a limited topic. You would get a much broader debate on your own thread.

Stop misrepresenting what I said. That is a cheap and transparent tactic that does you no credit.

if I started my own thread I would be told that it's not a suitable topic for FWR and everyone would start talking about recipes. and what 'broad debate' are you envisioning about the rights and wrongs of endangering a child? on a parenting site?

The principles involved in this hearing are really important to us all and I support fair cop for bringing it about.

However, fair cop frequently put their foot in it and have said some stupid things on Twitter. They have been their own worst enemy at times. I hope they are learning and there will be less heat and more light in future.

Glad to hear your child is safe.

I am really sorry for anyone who has to go through the agony of a missing child but equally I just can't get my head around giving false information in a plea to find them. But I have never been in that situation so my comments probably have limited use.

That's all I think I can sensibly say. I don't think this is relevant to the discussion which is about a Court of Appeal case that has implications for all of us.

If anyone wants to catch up on the case

@unwashedanddazed

The principles involved in this hearing are really important to us all and I support fair cop for bringing it about.

However, fair cop frequently put their foot in it and have said some stupid things on Twitter. They have been their own worst enemy at times. I hope they are learning and there will be less heat and more light in future.

Glad to hear your child is safe.

It's a group of volunteers campaigning in their own time. You want slick professionalism, I am afraid you have to pay for that.

It's a group of volunteers campaigning in their own time. You want slick professionalism, I am afraid you have to pay for that.

here's a suggestion: next time you're too busy to check that your tweets aren't a) massively inaccurate, b) endangering an already vulnerable child, and causing massive distress to their friends and family, and c) based on nothing but sly spiteful bitchy gossip, you could um, not tweet? what other facts has this account been too busy to properly verify? what else have you been wrong about? anyway I accept your nonpology.

Spero I completely support Fair Cop's aims and have contributed financially. That doesn't mean that I don't sometimes wish whoever is tweeting for them might think for a few minutes before diving in boots first. Just because I support you doesn't mean I can't see faults when they occur.

Can someone summarise what happened today or point me to a summary? Thanks.

@unwashedanddazed

Spero I completely support Fair Cop's aims and have contributed financially. That doesn't mean that I don't sometimes wish whoever is tweeting for them might think for a few minutes before diving in boots first. Just because I support you doesn't mean I can't see faults when they occur.

Of course. As long as you recognise and respect the limitations people are working with.

@Cismyfatarse

Can someone summarise what happened today or point me to a summary? Thanks.

In 2019 Harry Miller was reported to the police for a 'hate incident' for a variety of tweets. The police came to his work place. He applied for judicial review of the legality of the actions of the Humberside police (who investigated him) and the College of Policing (who wrote the Hate Crimes Guidance).

At his judicial review in November 2019 he won against Humberside - the Judge saying they had acted like the Cheka, the Gestapo or the Stasi BUT he lost against the College of Policing as the Judge found the guidance was lawful. The Judge did say the case was so important it would 'leap frog' to the Supreme Court but they knocked it back to the Court of Appeal, which is part of reason why we have waited so long.

His appeal is based on the common law (which I didn't understand, thought was dull and irrelevant and it seemed to also annoy the Judges) and more interestingly on breach of Article 10 in that the 'hate crimes' guidance is irrational and has a chilling impact on freedom of speech.

the key points for me (and i thought it was a pretty dry presentation with little passion or punch) were that
A) its wrong to apparently have no discretion about what you record and this was NOT the intention behind the Macpherson report
B) no one can foresee if they will be reported as its entirely based on the perception of the victim and there is no test of the rationality or motivations of the reporting person. (Harry was reported by 'Mrs B' who was described as 'on the outer margins of rationality' in being outraged by his tweets).
C) there is a 'chilling effect' on freedom of speech if people are worried they might be reported even if they weren't told.

Also the police seem to be admitting that they have so much data they just can't investigate it and they do nothing with it, other than potentially disclose it via enchanced DBS. That was one of the only times I think the barrister made a passionate point - he said this was 'the Stasi effect'.

I think this is such an important case - I have already been reported 4 times to two separate police forces. I have asked my local force what they are going to do about me - the only justification they have for this is that it prevents my 'escalation' into criminality. No one will explain what is going to happen to me. Will I be arrested? Under surveillance? If nothing is going to happen to me -why am I recorded, under my name, address, telephone number and professional email address?

Thanks. So helpful.

I remember the previous case. Is there more tomorrow or are they considering the verdict?

Harry's barrister is finishing up his arguments about proportionality but said he would be quick.

The the College of Policing will take up the rest of the day.

Given that Mr Justice Knowles took from November 26th to February 14th to deliver his judgment I am assuming we will have to wait at least a few weeks for determination in this one.

If Harry loses he may consider appealing on to the Supreme Court - if he wins, the College of Policing probably will; they are very invested in their guidance and think it a crucial tool for police (even at the same time they are arguing there is too much data to analyse or investigate!)

I am hoping that it does go to the Supreme Court because maybe then mine and Miss B's case can be bundled up and go along with it! but who knows what will happen.

Thanks for the update, Spero. Hope it goes well tomorrow.

Thanks so much. Fingers and everything else crossed here.

As seen on Twitter - the College's Hate Crime Guidance: "They're collecting haystacks in case they ever want to go looking for needles."

I've thought that for a long time. It's not about gathering evidence because there's been a crime, it's about gathering evidence so if they want to find a crime to pin on an individual, they have material to work with. This actually has a lot in common with how the security services operate.

But the 'material' is utterly bogus.

My second and third reports to Wiltshire were about me posting an article from the Illinois Family institute and making a joke that a video about a police man dancing was 'my specialist Hate Crimes Officer on his way to read my tweets'.

The same complaint about the article was made to my regulator. They rejected the complaint and said I had done nothing wrong.

the police initially recorded me as having committed a PUBLIC ORDER OFFENCE for publishing an article. Another officer 'had a word' and they downgraded it to hate incident.

There is simply no way on earth this 'intelligence' could be used to support any criminal prosecution of me for anything, ever. It is utter nonsense and embarrassing to the police.

I look forward to what my March Subject access request is going to reveal!

Fair Cop, Court of Appeal, Day 2 link: www.judiciary.uk/you-and-the-judiciary/going-to-court/court-of-appeal-home/the-court-of-appeal-civil-division-live-streaming-of-court-hearings/

(I have also put this in the 9th March thread. Even though it's technically the 10th today, it identifies as the 9th)

The argumentation today is much more accessible than yesterday. One reason for this is that the College of Policing are now presenting their response.

It's interesting that in these David and Goliath court cases of the little person going against the government over an injustice, it's often telling to hear Goliath give their explanation of why they are entitled to go after David.

The argumentation today is much more accessible than yesterday. One reason for this is that the College of Policing are now presenting their response

Yes also much more interesting watching the defence getting a hard time from the judges :D

Police's lawyer: the Non-crime hate incident doesn't routinely show up on an Enhanced criminal record search

Judge: but it does appear if you search?

Lawyer: yes but another copper would know that it's not important enough to add to the DBS report

Judge: the previous judge didn't agree with that

Lawyer: there could always be conceivable circumstances when it would go on your DBS certificate. But there are rigorous safeguards to restrict those circumstances. It has to be relevant, cogent, accurate and proportionate. People can argue against it being included.

Judge: but only if the individual knows about it in the first place. How do they argue against it being included if they don't know it exists.

Lawyer: that's precisely the kind of thing the police need to consider before including it in the Criminal Check!

Judge: Surely the very fact of there being a record means the record is important enough to be recorded, and therefore put on a criminal check? Otherwise what was the point?

The College of Police QC has just said that maybe the record will be useful because even if it's uninvestigated, Harry Miller might actually be a bigot. I can't believe he said that.

One of the Court of Appeal judges, a woman, is now asking about female academics getting malicious records made against them for saying that a transwoman isn't a woman. The QC is really struggling over this.

Sounds like the Judge gets it

Judge is asking what about Feminists and biology! Brilliant!

From the live tweeting it reads like it is going well for fair cop. The college of policing' barrister is giving the defence and the judge is picking up on things in a way that suggests he dies get the issues and the risks.

A link to the live tweet thread, where the judge points out to the defence that a search of the force's computers using the person's name will bring up that there is a file against the person.

mobile.twitter.com/WeAreFairCop/status/1369613565439664130

It's partly the defence arguing that the policy is fine and the way individual police forces interpret it in their recording methods isn't the fault if the policy, and the judge not sounding convinced.