(This was story 1 of 4 of my interactions with the police and the court system in the UK, and how neither is interested in truth and justice.)

The police lied to cover themselves for what they knew at the time they weren't allowed to do.

And yes, the barristers and the clerk saw through it but that should have played out in open court. And the police dishonesty was quietly excused in a closed room.

It stunk.

The police had broken down the door of the defendant's home to arrest him when there was no imminent threat of harm. Afterwards the officers had conferred to agree a post-hoc justification for their actions.

The charge in question was resisting arrest, and (as a witness) I knew the arrest was unlawful. The barristers/clerk has recognised that the police account of it didn't stack up.

But the conviviality and cooperative planning behind closed doors of what should be open justice really stuck with me.

It's the degendering in every article. The BBC matter-of-factly using a slur to describe the victim.

Nope. Just nope nope nope.

I actually think it's bad that the law thinks that calling a 17 year old a "sissy porn-watching scumbag", a "groomer" and a "disgusting incel" in public is not a crime, and indeed I do not think criticising this would constitute "[picking] sides in the debate about sex and gender identity".

As someone who knew her through work, Sophie's passing was following a short illness and unlikely to be related to her being trans. Her death was in the news (rdg.today/reading-prid...) because she was a local pride organiser in Reading.

Is this conceding that a cis woman would struggle to bring a claim for disadvantage if a trans women were admitted to a trans-inclusive SSS post-Scottish Ministers?

You can't change that; it's binding!

Maybe even by saying both the SC judgment and the CoP are fundamentally flawed, incompatible with ECtHR judgments ,and thus the UK's human rights obligations, but hey 🤷

Like, it is the literally EHRC's job to form a view independent of Government and to apply pressure to enact change.

The Minister can't reasonably say "pipe down" in that context, and should instead be engaging publicly to explain why the code of practice can't be approved "as soon as possible".

Cue the song!