Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

Fair Cop Court of Appeal 8-10 March

382 replies

Spero · 17/02/2021 10:49

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

OP posts:
Thread gallery
7
Signalbox · 10/03/2021 11:51

Judge is asking what if a feminist says trans women are not women? Would that be recorded?

NecessaryScene1 · 10/03/2021 11:52

Glad I just tuned in. Lawyer utterly floundering.

nauticant · 10/03/2021 11:53

Kathleen Stock's witness statement made a significant impact in the High Court and it's doing the same here. This is really hotting up!

NecessaryScene1 · 10/03/2021 11:55

Judges seem very sceptical that feminist academics/teachers aren't going to get their careers scuppered by a police database recording a complaint against them by Mrs B for saying "transwomen are not women" in some debate about prisons or shelters.

Lawyer's response is, "well Mr Miller isn't planning to be a teacher".

"People do have career changes, you know".

nauticant · 10/03/2021 11:55

"It think you've provided answered enough questions for the time being."

That's lady judge speak for: "you've just seriously undermined your own case".

RedDogsBeg · 10/03/2021 12:14

Judge - you said there WOULD be an investigation if its in 'grey area'.

JC: yes, if investigated, outcome may be that the categorisation is removed. If no investigation, all you have on file is a complaint that hate incident occurred (THOUGHT YOU SAID PERCEPTION NOT FACT?]

So a person is deemed guilty without due process.

I am somewhat surprised that the QC defending the College of Policing is the same QC that defended FPFW in the Census case and he does seem to be tying himself in knots on this one.

CardinalLolzy · 10/03/2021 12:18

Just catching up with the Twitter thread. "Compendiously" is a fantastic word!

RozWatching · 10/03/2021 12:19

I am somewhat surprised that the QC defending the College of Policing is the same QC that defended FPFW in the Census case and he does seem to be tying himself in knots on this one.

I think garbage in, garbage out applies here.

nauticant · 10/03/2021 12:19

That was just the introduction! The College of Policing has now moved into the substantive case and the proceedings are now far more drier. But I expect more judge-led WTF outbursts later on.

CardinalLolzy · 10/03/2021 12:26

"Judge - so you are better off if the complaint against you MIGHT be a crime, so you are investigated and it might be that its no crime at all! No evidence of hate! Person perceives hate but its irrational. So you are better off the more serious it is."

Amazing point!

NecessaryScene1 · 10/03/2021 12:26

I think garbage in, garbage out applies here.

Yes, they're not miracle workers. I believe there is some sort of rota so they get turns being handed the crappy side of a case.

Experience having to present muppets' cases means they can make presenting good cases look effortless. :)

Ereshkigalangcleg · 10/03/2021 12:27

Yes I think that's very striking.

highame · 10/03/2021 12:27

Just tuned in. Did I get that right. Breach of Article 8

highame · 10/03/2021 12:28

The Barrister has just conceded. Apparent.y Sarah Phillamores case is Article 8

NecessaryScene1 · 10/03/2021 12:29

Okay, judge speak dictionary time again. What does "unreal" mean?

CardinalLolzy · 10/03/2021 12:29

In a much drier way this is resembling an argument that was had on these boards a while ago, imo!

highame · 10/03/2021 12:30

Unreal unicorns methinks

NecessaryScene1 · 10/03/2021 12:30

@CardinalLolzy

In a much drier way this is resembling an argument that was had on these boards a while ago, imo!
But we wear sillier wigs.

Don't we?

You are all wearing yours, right?

Blush
Chrysanthemum5 · 10/03/2021 12:33

@highame

The Barrister has just conceded. Apparent.y Sarah Phillamores case is Article 8
Sorry this is all a bit complex to follow - what does it mean if it is Article 8?
Imnobody4 · 10/03/2021 12:34

Have just been watching it and am very encouraged. Was quite depressed yesterday but the judges seem to be on the ball.

ArabellaScott · 10/03/2021 12:36

My wig is not silly, Necessary. The clown nose might be, granted.

highame · 10/03/2021 12:40

Chrysanth They, (Harry Miller) I think are taking the case under article 10 but Barrister for College of Policing has conceded that this would be an infringement of rights under article 8, Now I believe Sarah Phillimore has a case which is waiting on the outcome of this one that uses article 8

NecessaryScene1 · 10/03/2021 12:40

Sorry this is all a bit complex to follow - what does it mean if it is Article 8?

Both Harry Miller and Sarah Phillmore have ongoing cases about the police recording. Both cases are going through, but they're taking care that they are not both ruling on the same points.

So one case is claiming contravention of rights under certain ECHR articles, and the other under different articles. Miller's JR is unable to now bring in the articles that Phillmore is relying on, as they'll be considered by her case.

If they both lost and appealed, the two cases would likely be combined at that point, but for now they're separate and at different stages.

highame · 10/03/2021 12:40

Have only just tuned in so am trying to catch up. Might be wrong, if so, hope someone will correct

highame · 10/03/2021 12:42

thanks necessary much clearer