Plod has 'regrets'...

[Roy Bloom]

She [Tridi] was nicked for contempt of court. There had already been injunctions imposed on the case she was protesting about. The rights established in the Penn and Mead case were entirely about the injustice of punishing a Jury for failure to give the judge a verdict he wanted.

The sign on the wall was general her protest was specific. It doesn't need to be any more complex than that.

That's why the sign says:

... the opinion of the Court which established"The Right of Juries" to give their verdict according to their convictions."

Penn also ignored a judge's direction to stop preaching, and he carried on. As good as ignoring a court injunction.
The jury were sent to prison for ignoring the judge;s direction to find the defendant guilty.

... the recorder charged the jury to bring in a verdict of guilty. Four jurors dissented, and they were sent back to rethink their verdict. The jury then found Penn and the others guilty of “speaking in the street”, but refused to add the words "in an unlawful assembly". The magistrates refused to accept this, and ordered the jury to be "locked up without meat, drink, fire, and tobacco", while Penn called to them not to give up their rights as Englishmen.
The charge that unarmed worshippers had riotously broken the peace was absurd. Yet the result was that Penn and all twelve of the jury were sent to prison.
The jurors, released on a writ of habeas corpus, sued the mayor and recorder, winning their case before the Court of Common Pleas in a historic decision that conceded that judges "may try to open the eyes of the jurors, but not to lead them by the nose."
This Penn-Meade trial became famous and showed that the arbitrary and oppressive proceedings of the courts badly needed reform. It is a precedent to this day.

William Penn, Criminal Justice, and the Penn-Mead Trial

If you are sympathetic to the defendants defence, i.e their honestly held belief, you can acquit them. However if you do not share their honestly held belief, you are expected to give a verdict on the evidence alone amd ignore the defendants defence.

 

[JohnD]

if you do not share their honestly held belief, you are expected to give a verdict on the evidence alone amd ignore the defendants defence.

A belief does not become honestly or dishonestly held depending on whether not you share the believer's belief.

Idiot.

 

[motorbiking]

Not to mention that it is specific to the offence.

 

[Roy Bloom]

A belief does not become honestly or dishonestly held depending on whether not you share the believer's belief.

Idiot.

There's no need for the insulting behaviour, unless you feel your argument is already weak.

It is quite obvious that if you are sympathetic to the defendants 'honestly held belief', you will agree that their belief is honestly held.
However, if you are not sympathetic to their belief, you will find it difficult to accept that their belief is honestly held, especially if it has been scientifically and medically disproven.
Unless you see the case as something much bigger and wider, i.e. the freedon of speech, the freedom to express an opinion, etc.

In the case of William Penn, the jury were aghast that he was prevented from expressing his belief.
In the case of Trudi Warner, she was also expressing her belief, based on a previous court judgement.
In the case of Maya Forstater, she was dismissed for stating her beliefs, which a court found was unacceptable.
In the case of Maya Forstater, the judge agreed that her belief was:

the judge stressing that while gender-critical views might be “profoundly offensive and even distressing to many others … they are beliefs that are and must be tolerated in a pluralist society”.

Maya Forstater was discriminated against over gender-critical beliefs, tribunal rules

Researcher lost job at thinktank after tweeting that transgender women could not change their biological sex

www.theguardian.com

I.e. the judge took the case to be a test of principle, more than a test of her belief.

 

[motorbiking]

@Roy Bloom you are getting incredibly muddled, with all these different laws as well as the misguided ideas that it is possible to change your biological sex. Humans cannot change sex, it is determined at fertilisation (genotype) and during embryonic development (phenotype). It is fairly easy for scientists to identify males and females from their skeleton alone.

In the case of Maya Forstater, it was not about her correct view that a person cannot change sex, it was entirely about her deliberately mis-gendering trans people and that this could be regarded as offensive. I suggest you read the actual tribunal findings https://assets.publishing.service.g..._v_CGD_Europe_and_others_UKEAT0105_20_JOJ.pdf

Referring to a text written in the 1700s and drawing parallels to a case going on today, is nonsense. I am sure I can find many anti-lgbtq+ texts written in all sorts of places dating back less than 50 years. But if I stood at pride holding a banner with them on, I would expect to get arrested for the obvious offences.

You are also getting muddled about mens rea in general, and some specific laws which have safeguards for mistakes. e.g. section 5 of the Criminal Damage Act vs Section 1 of the contempt of court act. You will see they are very different.

 

[Roy Bloom]

@Roy Bloom you are getting incredibly muddled, with all these different laws as well as the misguided ideas that it is possible to change your biological sex. Humans cannot change sex, it is determined at fertilisation (genotype) and during embryonic development (phenotype). It is fairly easy for scientists to identify males and females from their skeleton alone.

In the case of Maya Forstater, it was not about her correct view that a person cannot change sex, it was entirely about her deliberately mis-gendering trans people and that this could be regarded as offensive. I suggest you read the actual tribunal findings https://assets.publishing.service.g..._v_CGD_Europe_and_others_UKEAT0105_20_JOJ.pdf

Referring to a text written in the 1700s and drawing parallels to a case going on today, is nonsense. I am sure I can find many anti-lgbtq+ texts written in all sorts of places dating back less than 50 years. But if I stood at pride holding a banner with them on, I would expect to get arrested for the obvious offences.

You are also getting muddled about mens rea in general, and some specific laws which have safeguards for mistakes. e.g. section 5 of the Criminal Damage Act vs Section 1 of the contempt of court act. You will see they are very different.

@motorbiking, you frequently misinterpret the laws to suit your own prejudice, so you're in no position to advise anyone.

Humans cannot change sex unilaterally, but you are obviou;sy not aware of intersex, or ambiguous sex.
Nature doesn't follow the rules.
Sex can be changed with the appropriate surgical processes.
And please don't claim that such surgical procedures do not allow biological parenthood. Such people were probably not capable of biological parenthood anyway.

HOW HUMAN BONES REVEAL THE FALLACY OF A BIOLOGICAL SEX BINARY​

Science keeps showing us that sex also doesn't fit in a binary, whether it be determined by genitals, chromosomes, hormones, or skeletons.
She wasn't especially tall. Her testosterone levels weren't unusually high for a woman. She was externally entirely female. But in the mid-1980s, when her chromosome results came back as XY instead of the "normal" XX for a woman, the Spanish national team ousted hurdler María José Martínez-Patiño. She was ejected from the Olympic residence and deserted by her teammates, friends, and boyfriend. She lost her records and medals because of a genetic mutation that wasn't proven to give her any competitive advantage.

https://psmag.com/social-justice/our-bones-reveal-sex-is-not-binary

​

Archaeology’s sexual revolution​

Graves dating back thousands of years are giving up their secrets, as new ways to pin down the sex of old bones are overturning long-held, biased beliefs about gender and love

Archaeology’s sexual revolution

Graves dating back thousands of years are giving up their secrets, as new ways to pin down the sex of old bones are overturning long-held, biased beliefs about gender and love

www.theguardian.com

Sex Determination from Skeletal Remains - Forensic's blog

Introduction One of the first biological characteristics determined from the adult bones is a person's sex. Because some methods for determining other differentiating characteristics, such as age at death and size, are gender-specific. Furthermore, knowing the sex of a deceased person eliminates...

forensicfield.blog

Twenty skeletons of varied provenance had their sex determined by 15 existing methods of forensic anthropology .... The methods were evaluated for their consistency in determination of sex. No single individual was identified as belonging to one sex exclusively. Ambiguous results were obtained ...

The Difficulty of Sexing Skeletons from Unknown Populations

Determination of sex from skeletal remains is performed using a number of methods developed by biological anthropology. They must be evaluated for consistency and for their performance in a forensic setting. Twenty skeletons of varied provenance had their sex determined by 15 existing methods of...

www.hindawi.com

Until ambigtuous or intersex people are also checked for the their skeletal formation, any evidence suggesting a genuine skeletal sex binary is flawed.

It's like arguing that all equines are horses. Until zebras are examined the argument is flawed.

 

[motorbiking]

1-2% have some deviations. That does not create an argument that biological sex can be changed for the other 98% and probably 80% of the 1-2%.

Other than make false allegations about my legal knowledge, I note you ignored the information.

For the avoidance of doubt the Mens rea for criminal damage and contempt of court are as similar as zebras and carrots.

 

[Roy Bloom]

1-2% have some deviations. That does not create an argument that biological sex can be changed for the other 98%

Of course it does't. That's yet another strawman argument. No-one has suggested that everyone can change sex if they wish. You realy like those.
And no-one is suggeting that the other 98% are interested in changing sex.
But adopting gender critical beliefs is different to being ambivalent about it.
As arguing about changing sex is irrelevant to gender issues.

and probably 80% of the 1-2%.

Your prejudicial asumption with no scientific or medical knowledge of the issues.

Other than make false allegations about my legal knowledge, I note you ignored the information.

You have demonstrated that you swing like the breeze depending on your own ideological views.

For the avoidance of doubt the Mens rea for criminal damage and contempt of court are as similar zebras and carrots.

The intention to act in a criminal way is no different whatever the 'crime'.
The difference is only in what is a justifiable crime.
Educating a jury as to their rights can not be considered a crime, nor a justifiable charge if the defendant was intent on simply educating the jury.
It's purely a personal opinion that she was attempting to influence the jury.
Whereas wanton damage of public property is a fully justifiable charge of criminal action and criminal intent.

 

[motorbiking]

I'm ignoring your blah blah on sex as anyone who disagrees with you is a transphobe or has gender critical prejudice.

The intention to act in a criminal way is no different whatever the 'crime'.

which is completely wrong - when the strict liability rule applies to the offence... If only we had some guidance on this for say contempt of court? https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1981/49/section/2

The difference is only in what is a justifiable crime.

again complete nonsense. No crime can be justified. A defence may exist and there may be substantial mitigation.

Educating a jury as to their rights can not be considered a crime, nor a justifiable charge if the defendant was intent on simply educating the jury.

and wrong 3/3 - I wonder if there is some law about this. Could such an attempt place the Juror at risk of taking outside influence on the case? I wonder if that is an offence? https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1974/23/section/20A. I wonder who is the right person to educate a jury, is it the judge or a protester? I wonder what recourse a judge has to someone who thinks/acts otherwise? Could it be contempt of court?

It's purely a personal opinion that she was attempting to influence the jury.

of course, and she will have her chance to present her defence

Whereas wanton damage of public property is a fully justifiable charge of criminal action and criminal intent.

and finally one more (wrongness) I'm not sure what adding the word wanton does, but fortunately simply damaging property is nowhere near sufficient for criminal charge.