Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Miller v College Of Policing

158 replies

yourhairiswinterfire · 16/12/2021 12:05

Judgement will be here on Monday, finally. It's been about 9 months since the appeal.

twitter.com/WeAreFairCop/status/1471399029321969666

This was a good article by Sarah Phillimore if anyone needs a recap.

thecritic.co.uk/fair-cops-case-in-court/

OP posts:
RoyalCorgi · 20/12/2021 15:06

Although this case isn't directly relevant to Ceri Black's case, the fact that it makes a presumption in favour of freedom of speech is significant and might, I imagine, be relevant in Ceri's case. (NB: I am not a lawyer!) It seems to be part of a trend. If you look back at Kate Scottow's appeal against her conviction under the same law that Ceri is accused of breaking, the judges came down very heavily in favour of free speech:

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/12/17/exclusive-people-must-have-right-offend-without-facing-police/

Here are the relevant paras from that article:

'However, Mr Justice Warby said that had the case “been approached by the Judge in a legally correct manner, it should have been dismissed”.

'The district judge’s approach to section 127(2)c of the Act was said to be "flawed in several aspects" and her reasoning “deficient”.

'Mr Justice Warby stated: “The Judge appears to have considered that a criminal conviction was merited for acts of unkindness and calling others names.”

'But he found there is a “fundamental tension” between "most cases” of harassment by speech that includes "alarming the person or causing the person distress" and Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998 which expressly protects speech that offends, shocks and disturbs.'

Of course, Ceri's case is still with the prosecutor - it hasn't reached court yet and probably never will.

VestofAbsurdity · 20/12/2021 15:08

PC Gul deserves every bit of ridicule he receives, I have no sympathy for him at all. His risible nonsense about how a foetus forms that he learnt on a course, and believed shows he hasn't the very basic intelligence skills to be in the Police, if he can believe that presumably he believes it when criminals say "Not me, it was an alien wot done it".

chilling19 · 20/12/2021 15:16

'On a separate note. Happy Christmas to P.C. Gul, who’d have guessed he would be nearly as effective as Joanna Cherry and Maya Forstater together in protecting womens rights.'

Indeed Sportsmother. 👏

AlfonsoTheUnrepentant · 20/12/2021 15:49

@VestofAbsurdity

PC Gul deserves every bit of ridicule he receives, I have no sympathy for him at all. His risible nonsense about how a foetus forms that he learnt on a course, and believed shows he hasn't the very basic intelligence skills to be in the Police, if he can believe that presumably he believes it when criminals say "Not me, it was an alien wot done it".
I have no sympathy for the gullible Gul.
SolasAnla · 20/12/2021 16:05

@OhLittleBoreOfWhabylon

I actually feel rather sorry for PC Gul. He has come in for a considerable amount of ridicule for acting as his superiors instructed him.
There are ways of testifying to make it clear that the officer is doing the tasks assigned by the higher ranking officer.

There is a way of being professionally neutral when calling someone to explain that a complaint has been received.

If he was acting in instruction he has learned a valuable lesson on thinking.

OhLittleBoreOfWhabylon · 20/12/2021 16:23

Yes, you are all perectly correct, of course. Gul was so bloody earnest though. A product of indoctrination.

Datun · 20/12/2021 16:24

@nauticant

I think they might be able to find a way through that would involve only recording incidents that they have assessed and binning those they haven't. However, as you imply, this could result in a selection being based on political considerations. Which would mean that if this came to light then there'd have to be another case going to court because on something like a failure of impartiality or discrimination on the basis of a protected characteristic.

There's lots of mischief the Police can get up to and as Harry Miller's case shows, it takes an unusual situation and then a vast commitment of years of time, effort, and money to hold them to account. We really have put a great deal of trust in the Police to behave properly and legally.

Okay, got it. Thank you so much.

In terms of trying to get away with discrimination under the radar, I can't see Harry the Owl letting up on the gas even for a nanosecond regarding that.

hereswhatIthink · 20/12/2021 16:56

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lincolnshire-59727118

nauticant · 20/12/2021 17:02

Let's see if Evan Davis on the PM programme shows any interest in this. He did for the High Court decision where he took that as an opportunity to slag off Harry Miller.

unwashedanddazed · 20/12/2021 17:27

Just catching up on the day's news and what a fabulous day it has been!

Bloody well done all of Fair Cop!

Igneococcus · 20/12/2021 18:04

Just this moment was reported on the Radio 3 news at 6pm.

senua · 20/12/2021 18:45

Well done Harry and thank you.

nauticant · 20/12/2021 18:49

Here's the spin by the College of Policing:

twitter.com/CollegeofPolice/status/1472896209241231360

business as usual, mostly, with minor tweaks.

yourhairiswinterfire · 20/12/2021 19:05

It's not surprising that TRAs, misogynists etc used 'non-crime hate incidents' as a weapon, but it was alarming that police Twitter accounts were doing the same.

I remember one police account gleefully telling (mainly) women that they had been reported for simply asking about their rights when it comes to being strip searched. Women were asking the police to confirm that if they didn't want to be strip searched by a male officer who identified as woman, that their 'no' and request for a female would be respected.

Police accounts. Reporting women for respectfully asking about their rights. Then there was the force reporting fucking stickers. (I don't know if they actually did report/log, but even if they didn't, using it as a threat is still sinister as hell).

Look at those vile screenshots that were linked to earlier on this thread. That disgraceful persons identity is being protected, and yet women are being arrested in front of their children for pictures of ribbons, for playground insults, for a child safeguarding thread...

When women report rape and death threats (actual crimes), they're told by the police to stay off Twitter. When grown men go snivelling to the police because women have opinions, they're taken seriously and women are arrested or have a record made against them Hmm

The police are an absolute fucking joke. ''Without fear or favour'' my arse.

OP posts:
Manderleyagain · 20/12/2021 22:07

The college of policing statement is a bit defensive and a bit minimising, it also words it as 'a case involving' their guidence, rather than a case in which they were the defendent. It does still fudge the difference between hate incidents and hate crimes a bit.

But it does say

"The court has found we need to make safeguards in our guidance more explicit to help police officers proportionately enforce the law. We will listen to, reflect on, and review this judgement carefully and make any changes that are necessary."

And tells officers that while the ruling is being considered they should:

"For allegations of hate incidents, police need to apply their judgement in establishing whether there is hostility towards a protected characteristic group.
If, having applied their judgement and taking account of the full context, no hostility is found, the incident should not be recorded as a hate incident.
Additionally, policing will need to consider whether the incident in question might be dealt with in a way that is less intrusive and that does not infringe freedom of expression, for example, signposting to alternative areas of support or ways of raising concern.
Particular care is needed when the incident complained of takes place as part of debate. While hostility can sometimes be defended as being fair debate, police responders will need to consider whether, in the context of the incident, the words or behaviour complained of could reasonably be considered as motivated by hostility. In those cases, where common sense indicates an absence of hostility, no record should be made."

So that is quite a change. I get that they want to defend their practices, but why are the CoP so invested in recording non crime hate, in addition to actual hate crime, and the general intelligence they must record about potential criminal behaviour. Why are they so into this?

Spitspotsput · 20/12/2021 22:48

Does sound awfully like they still want people to check their thinking

SolasAnla · 20/12/2021 22:57

@yourhairiswinterfire

It's not surprising that TRAs, misogynists etc used 'non-crime hate incidents' as a weapon, but it was alarming that police Twitter accounts were doing the same.

I remember one police account gleefully telling (mainly) women that they had been reported for simply asking about their rights when it comes to being strip searched. Women were asking the police to confirm that if they didn't want to be strip searched by a male officer who identified as woman, that their 'no' and request for a female would be respected.

Police accounts. Reporting women for respectfully asking about their rights. Then there was the force reporting fucking stickers. (I don't know if they actually did report/log, but even if they didn't, using it as a threat is still sinister as hell).

Look at those vile screenshots that were linked to earlier on this thread. That disgraceful persons identity is being protected, and yet women are being arrested in front of their children for pictures of ribbons, for playground insults, for a child safeguarding thread...

When women report rape and death threats (actual crimes), they're told by the police to stay off Twitter. When grown men go snivelling to the police because women have opinions, they're taken seriously and women are arrested or have a record made against them Hmm

The police are an absolute fucking joke. ''Without fear or favour'' my arse.

That officer tweeting was basically fantasizing about sexually assaulting a woman in police custody. That aged well.

I do remember one police officer for a district tweeting on their offical ac to inform another district's officer that they had copied a thread and would be submitting an official complaint. Was nothing like the level you describe just being an incompetently unprofessional claiming his opinion TWAW was "police policy".
Never saw a tweet go poof so fast🤣

jinxyminxy · 20/12/2021 23:04

@Manderleyagain

The college of policing statement is a bit defensive and a bit minimising, it also words it as 'a case involving' their guidence, rather than a case in which they were the defendent. It does still fudge the difference between hate incidents and hate crimes a bit.

But it does say

"The court has found we need to make safeguards in our guidance more explicit to help police officers proportionately enforce the law. We will listen to, reflect on, and review this judgement carefully and make any changes that are necessary."

And tells officers that while the ruling is being considered they should:

"For allegations of hate incidents, police need to apply their judgement in establishing whether there is hostility towards a protected characteristic group.
If, having applied their judgement and taking account of the full context, no hostility is found, the incident should not be recorded as a hate incident.
Additionally, policing will need to consider whether the incident in question might be dealt with in a way that is less intrusive and that does not infringe freedom of expression, for example, signposting to alternative areas of support or ways of raising concern.
Particular care is needed when the incident complained of takes place as part of debate. While hostility can sometimes be defended as being fair debate, police responders will need to consider whether, in the context of the incident, the words or behaviour complained of could reasonably be considered as motivated by hostility. In those cases, where common sense indicates an absence of hostility, no record should be made."

So that is quite a change. I get that they want to defend their practices, but why are the CoP so invested in recording non crime hate, in addition to actual hate crime, and the general intelligence they must record about potential criminal behaviour. Why are they so into this?

I think the recording of non-crime hate incidents was initiated with the intention of building intelligence and to spot patterns of behaviour and early indications of radicalisation. The idea was to get early intervention to prevent an escalation of behaviour and prevent serious crime. Obviously it's been grossly misused and abused and there were probably better ways of handling that sort of data. I think the definition of 'hate incident' caused the majority of issues. As it stands, if any person perceives that the hostility was motivated by the named protected characteristics (sex not included) then a hate incident or crime has to be recorded. This is obviously ridiculous and I'd bet very few police officers get excited about investigating this type of incident. Almost no one joins the police to deal with people sayi g things on Twitter. I'd imagine having to investigate Twitter arguments is never the highlight of anyone's day. I wouldn't be surprised if the majority of officers care not a jot about hurt feelings and just want to go back to locking up burglars and car theives. Hopefully, this judgement will help to free them up so they can do the job they trained to do.
ChazsBrilliantAttitude · 20/12/2021 23:11

This is an important judgement for society as a whole. People should have the right to debate robustly and to say offensive things. NCHI have been used to attack gender critical people in this case and I am so glad that Harry and Spero have fought this. If they got away with using the police to shut down comment in this way then what else could it be used for? Would political debate be affected? Could satire be challenged?

MonsignorMirth · 21/12/2021 00:12

"For allegations of hate incidents, police need to apply their judgement in establishing whether there is hostility towards a protected characteristic group.
If, having applied their judgement and taking account of the full context, no hostility is found, the incident should not be recorded as a hate incident.

Particular care is needed when the incident complained of takes place as part of debate. While hostility can sometimes be defended as being fair debate, police responders will need to consider whether, in the context of the incident, the words or behaviour complained of could reasonably be considered as motivated by hostility. In those cases, where common sense indicates an absence of hostility, no record should be made."

Not read the judgment yet - but am I right in thinking that previously there was NO requirement for any objective assessment of any hostility, hate, whatever you want to call it, for a NCHI?
As mused on here before, could you call your neighbour's planning application for an extension a NCHI, because you perceive it to be fuelled by hatred against your sexuality (or race, or perceived sexuality etc)?
The only criterion was that the complainant had to 'perceive' that hatred was happening - and now they are specifically talking about assessing the presence or absence of hostility .

Which, as we know from various tweets discussing outings to golf courses, may be less straightforward than one might think, but at least there is now a requirement to consider it where it wasn't explicitly outlined before?

Or am I completely wrong and there was previously guidance about making sure there is hostility and not just being forced to accept if the complainant said there is?

MonsignorMirth · 21/12/2021 00:23

Ah, have now read the summary and a bit of the judgment - the 'perception-based recording' is at the heart of it.

Blibbyblobby · 21/12/2021 00:31

It still terrifies me that TWAW has been turned into a statement of "truth" strong enough to support legal enforcement even though the only basis on which it can be claimed to be true is "we changed the meaning of the word Woman to make it true".

This sleight of hand in changing, not the law itself, but the meaning of words on which the law sits, makes it literally impossible for the people who were defined as women under the previous meaning of the word to discuss the impact of the change on them without being accused of transphobia not because of the content of their words but simply because anything that draws a distinction between Women-as-was and trans women is de facto transphobic.

MonsignorMirth · 21/12/2021 00:38

I found this interesting in the original guidance under 'Malicious Complaints' : It is also important not to falsely accuse an innocent
person and harm their reputation, particularly where the allegation is made against a public figure
.

This is (was) surely contradictory - if there is no requirement to assess veracity then how can anyone know if any accusations are 'false' or not? I don't understand how the same author could have written both parts of this - no need to find out if it's actually true, but don't record the false ones!

thinkingaboutLangCleg · 21/12/2021 01:14

Thanks and congratulations to Harry and his team, and all their supporters.

Swipe left for the next trending thread