Chomper Higgot

Thank you for your service.

You know the answer, and so do I, otherwise I would not have asked. The pensions of civil servants, police officers and others in public office are subject to forfeiture in the event of certain criminal convictions relating to their duties in office, chiefly corruption. It’s a big stick to keep these people on the right side of the law as they climb the career ladder, gain more power and more to lose - we can thank Samuel Peeps for that. It’s also a glaring example of precisely why there is no equivalence to be drawn between public and private sector pension schemes. They come with completely different rules, one can be forfeited for behavior in office, the other cannot.

Remind me. Amongst the reasons to leave is criminal conviction of certain crimes while in office (not that this applies to you) but when it does what happens to the Civil Servant’s/Police Officer’s pension?

Maybe this “deranged and quasi fascistic part of the transgender movement which aggressively looks to take up public space on these issues.” doesn’t exist neither in reality nor in the behaviors you attribute.

Thank you. Yes you are correct. She bending over backwards to help the guy who she owed her job to. Interestingly, there only needs to be an appearance of bias for the judge to be removed from the case. I have the feeling Jack Smith had been giving her all the rope she needs.

He’s also set the stage for the appellate court to consider if Judge Cannon is making judgements void of legal basis and pointing out she is clearly exhibiting impartiality.

Non of which require any ranting about transgender people in order to make any sensible arguments on those or any other reservations.

What’s not to understand about JFK Jnr. The man’s a conspiracy riddled fruitcake. I believe the medically correct term is, ‘he’s nuts’, or something like that.

Cause to delist the sock?!

Incorrect. Gag orders are an established procedure used to do exactly what the judge’s order states. Trump is not the first defendant to be ordered gagged in very specific terms, nor will he be the last. He’s being treated just the same as any other defendant who attacks or threatens the execution of justice in the courts: https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/press/PDFs/Clarification-OrderRestrictingES.pdf

Jack Smith has responded and directly challenges the Judge’s legally baseless ruling: ‘Writ of mandamus’ ! https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.648652/gov.uscourts.flsd.648652.428.0.pdf

I read that multiple times, still non the wiser on what it was meant to say.

Maybe it was some internet troll, there’s a lot of the about. Assuming a ‘pro trans lobby’ exists and have broken the law and of course the grievance laced assumption of what the law is for.

If that is indeed who made the threats. Pass any information you have on their identities to the police.

As stated above, Rowling hasn’t broken the law. Maybe she needs to push the envelope if she wants to be arrested. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/apr/02/jk-rowling-will-not-be-arrested-under-new-scottish-hate-law-say-police

She’s not standing up for anything. She’s saying come and arrest me when she knows she hasn’t broken any laws.

You mean people who propose baiting Muslims with bacon at the start of Ramadan? Doesn’t it come from the same animal as that bacon of yours?

Agreed

That’s not any kind of a definition of hatred. But by all means, hate whoever you like, you just don’t get to spew it on them or incite others to hate. I do understand how for some this would be a challenging restriction to their behavior.

You assert ‘they are turning a blind eye’. Evidence? Perhaps evidence of her spewing hate? Or perhaps you don’t have any thing to back up this conspiracy of yours.

JKR has suffered online abuse, it’s exactly the kind of thing this laws addresses and calls for regulation of social media address. She’s not been arrested, she’s not being censored, she’s persecuted by anyone beyond the very kind of people she’s giving cover for. When did I ever use the term ‘TERFS’? My Ilk? Hate speech against Jews? And of course you add in conspiracy. You’re on a roll Jonny.

Except your ‘arguments’ add nothing, they have no basis in fact.

There’s nothing factual about your post.

Again, she hasn’t broken the law. So why would ‘they go after her’?

Precisely that. She’s chosen to become the poster child for bigots and transphobes stoking their self awarded grievance - poor poor me, I can’t spew hate on other people. Nobody has silenced JKR, nobody has censured her. If she wishes to debate the issue she can do so without reporting to hate mongering.