Thread by @SVPhillimore

This is unimpressive from @CollegeofPolice - gives reason for its new guidance on NCHIs as

"This followed a legal ruling that sought to strike a balance between freedom of speech and protecting vulnerable members of the public."

college.police.uk/article/record…

When what you meant to type was 'this followed a decision in the Court of Appeal that declared our existing approach was unlawful'

It wasn't that you were 'unbalanced' - its rather that you didn't give any consideration to Article 10 at all - the 'victim's' perception was King.

And I am quite worried about one of the examples you give of how the New Improved Guidance will work, shows that you are still wedded to the notion that any challenge to or criticism of gender identity must be inherently wrong.

So I hope many join us on #NCHIDayofAction on May 20th - lets see how many unlawfully recorded NCHIs are out there, and how quickly the police respond to delete them.

I disagree that the APP is easy to understand

"To understand and properly apply this guidance demands an understanding of the relevant case law around Article 10 ECHR and why it is so important - and why your earlier iterations of this guidance were found to be unlawful."

"It is concerning that you fail to mention this or provide a link to the Court of Appeal judgment, as it is central to ensuring that those applying the APP understand what went so wrong previously and are committed to making sure it never happens again"

"To present this APP in isolation to what went before, reduces the ability of those meant to follow it, to understand what they are supposed to be doing and why it is important"

"My concern about this is exacerbated by one of the 'examples' given in the consultation where challenge to 'transgender identity' is simply assessed as 'threatening'. This does not inspire confidence that who ever drafted the APP understands the true ambit of Article 10."

Here is the ‘example’

"If this APP is built on assumptions that some expression of views are inherently 'wrong', it is inevitably going to infect the process of recording."

"There needs to be a clear admission that previous iterations of this APP were found to be unlawful and a short explanation as to why This will provide valuable context for those who need to understand and apply it."

"You need to reconsider your 'example' of challenge to transgender identity as something inherently threatening, otherwise you are likely to find yourselves back in court."

"If it is built on a foundation that criticism of or challenge to 'transgender identity' is seen as 'threatening' without more, then this APP could have a significantly negative impact on those with the protected belief that sex is real and immutable ..."

"... as well as putting the College of Policing and individual police forces at risk of further financial and reputational harm."

"I refer to my earlier answers. The College of Policing needs to ask itself some hard questions as to the extent to which it has accepted its former approach was unlawful."