WeAreFairCop on the hearing day 2 – the whole thing is fascinating (and heroic work; well done to WAFC); I’ll just dive in at point x to give a sample. It’s shorthandy because done at speed. Counsel for P=for the Police.
Counsel for P – it caused a strong reaction – Judge – to ONE person. We have looked at the evidence. Reference to other people being upset. People don’t have the right to go through life not being upset.
—
Counsel for P – I accept that but police have duty to engage with community and duties under EA Judge – I am afraid you will have to give me a specific reference to where it says police role is to act in community mediation …give me the reference please
Team Cop lawyer says Harry’s naughty tweet caused a strong reaction, the Judge says “to ONE person” – which is like what we’ve been talking about in regard to Oxford Brookes. One worked-up complaint about the sharing of two tweets, and that was all it took. What is the source of and reason for this instantaneous veto? People don’t have the right to go through life not being upset. Team Cop lawyer says yes, I get that, but police have a duty to engage with the community. (Which community, would be my first question. Why isn’t Harry the community? Why aren’t women? Why can’t women call the cops when people call them “TERFs”?) The judge says you have to show me where it says police role is to act in community mediation.
Judge – ‘have due regard to the need to’… yup Counsel for P – due regard to need to foster good relations… Judge just a second – reads – doesn’t say anything there about acting as community mediation service
<nearby snicker>
—
Counsel for P – can I assist further Judge – No. no.
Snicker
Counsel for P[olice] – can be no dispute that recording was in line with the guidance bearing in mind the complaint. looking at definition of non crime incident which is perceived by victim or another as motivated by hate.
What about when women perceive being called “TERFs” as motivated by hate? Can we call the P then? What if Harry perceived the complaint as being motivated by hate?
Judge – phobia is a particularly strong word. What do you say it means? Counsel for P – its almost irrelevant what it means
<wow>
Wow indeed. We can tell Counsel for P, from years of experience, that it’s not irrelevant at all. Years of being accused of “transphobia” because we don’t believe lies=meaning of phobia not irrelevant.
Judge – if I find impact of PC Gul’s behaviour was to stop behaviour, that is classic example of state interference. Intention doesn’t matter.
Counsel for P – we know that wasn’t outcome as he continued tweeting
Judge – I take point, not conviction or fine etc.
Someone (it’s not clear who) mentioned a chilling effect.
Judge – what point are you making?
Counsel for P – chilling effect can only follow a sanction
What?!
Counsel for P – no definition in law
Judge – its US Supreme Court jurisprudence from 1950s. Accept no sanction in classic sense, accept all of that. but H[arryM[iller] Counsel says ‘take a step back. Look what happened. Threat of proceedings. All together has chilling effect’.
Fascinating that it’s from US Supreme Court jurisprudence – I’ll guess in the wake of McCarthyism.
Anyway that’s a sample. I find it fascinating, 5 stars, highly recommended. The judge is now considering, hopes to have a ruling before Xmas. Andy Lewis sums up:
The @WeAreFairCop Judicial Review currently underway is huge. Can police guidelines on following up accusations of ‘hate’ be seen as interfering with Article 10 rights? Can women describe themselves as adult human females without gender activists using the police as a weapon?
Can the law compel us to submit to a lie?
