JK Rowling in ‘arrest me’ challenge over hate crime law

[Wobblybob]

45 minutes ago, Baht Simpson said:

You're right. I'm not at all interested in Linehan's concerns because I don't see him as a serious commentator. And I'm not sure I want to talk about toilet provisions either because it's so tedious. 🙂 

 

My point was a general one about how I perceive these people, not about any particular issue.

My point at the moment is that women's rights are gradually being eroded by one thing or another, usually another. Graham generally fights for these rights whether males using female loo's or men competing at female sports and so on and so forth. Generally speaking I find him a good egg and very deliberate in his wording on women's rights. We know he doesn't get on with certain clique of society, but overall IMO he is honourable and he means well. 

[JonnyF]

6 hours ago, GarryP said:

This very recent Jonathan Pie comedy video on the Scottish Hate Crime Bill is really entertaining and sheds some light on the subject. You can't make this sh!t up. The last few seconds had me laughing out loud. 

 

 

 

That video is brilliant and sums up the idiocy of this law.

 

The fact that the wording of the new law actually broke the new law by singling out young white males is the cherry on the cake. 

 

Scotland embarrassing itself again, without even going near a sporting event. 😄

 

 

[Baht Simpson]

35 minutes ago, jayboy said:

 

"These people!".

 

I don't see how Jo Rowling belongs in this group.Was including her just your attempt to smear? To many thousands of women she is a hero - brave, compassionate and honest.What you call intransigence, I suspect the vast majority sees a fierce honesty.

 

Yet I admit there is a generational gap.Lets hope the young's views change.

Strange that you think me stating how I perceive people is a smear. Particularly as I used the rather mild admonition "intransigent."

The problem is that like Peterson she brings up some interesting issues but then lets herself down in practice. By saying you are sympathetic to transexuals then calling them "men in dresses" and "women with penises" you are inviting censure. I think that's the problem she's got.

 

Peterson also betrays himself in his language by stating his support for the gay community then saying "Is it the freaks and the queers?" and stating that gays need help to integrate into society (sic). 

 

I will always listen to what these two have to say and I'm sure they raise some relevant points but I don't perceive their views as more important than anyone else's because of their
prominence.

[Baht Simpson]

38 minutes ago, Wobblybob said:

My point at the moment is that women's rights are gradually being eroded by one thing or another, usually another. Graham generally fights for these rights whether males using female loo's or men competing at female sports and so on and so forth. Generally speaking I find him a good egg and very deliberate in his wording on women's rights. We know he doesn't get on with certain clique of society, but overall IMO he is honourable and he means well. 

Linehan clearly has issues and is probably not the best spokeperson for female rights. He was supposedly posing as a woman on Mumsnet trying to drum up anti-trans support. So much for his advocacy for safe spaces for women, eh? He was banned from Twitter for hateful comments.

 

More here:

 

Poor man seems obsessed to the point of harming himself emotionally. He blames others for all his troubles. Needs someone to tell him to pull away from it all.

 

[Chomper Higgot]

2 hours ago, Baht Simpson said:

I do have reservations on this new policy but mostly around workability and fair enforcement. 

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

 

[Baht Simpson]

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

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

 

Quite so.

[Wobblybob]

6 minutes ago, Baht Simpson said:

Linehan clearly has issues and is probably not the best spokeperson for female rights. He was supposedly posing as a woman on Mumsnet trying to drum up anti-trans support. So much for his advocacy for safe spaces for women, eh? He was banned from Twitter for hateful comments.

 

More here:

 

Poor man seems obsessed to the point of harming himself emotionally. He blames others for all his troubles. Needs someone to tell him to pull away from it all.

 

Being banned from twitter doesn't mean a thing these days. Never criticise the hate brigade on twitter, I thought it might have changed when Elon took over but it's pretty much run by the lynch mob intent on ruining good people's lives.

Edited April 3 by Wobblybob

[jayboy]

45 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

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

 

 

Quite so.But you are entirely forgetting (deliberately or not, who knows) the deranged and quasi fascistic part of the transgender movement which aggressively looks to take up public space on these issues.Moderate transgender opinion is as concerned at these maniacs behaviour and antics as much as anybody.

 

[Baht Simpson]

I had a look on the UK Gov. website which publishes figures on English Hate crime figures. Hate crime has existed in England & Wales since 2008.

 

The latest stats they show are for recorded crime 2021-2022 and it's quite interesting.

 

Of the 155,841 hate crimes recorded 97% were for public order offenses, violence, criminal damage and arson which are already crimes in law. It doesn't specify but let's assume the remaining 3% are for offenses of abuse.

 

Now these are just recorded crimes, not criminal convictions. It doesn't specify how many people were convicted or just issued with warnings. It also doesn't detail offenses reported but not recorded.

 

Make of these figures what you will but it does seem to be that the huge majority of hate crimes are existing crimes which are deemed to be aggravated by hate rather than a new type of crime.

 

It seems that the Scottish system is more draconian and possibly unworkable. 

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/hate-crime-england-and-wales-2021-to-2022/hate-crime-england-and-wales-2021-to-2022#police-recorded-hate-crime

Edited April 3 by Baht Simpson

[Chomper Higgot]

14 minutes ago, jayboy said:

 

Quite so.But you are entirely forgetting (deliberately or not, who knows) the deranged and quasi fascistic part of the transgender movement which aggressively looks to take up public space on these issues.Moderate transgender opinion is as concerned at these maniacs behaviour and antics as much as anybody.

 

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.

 

 

Edited April 3 by Chomper Higgot

[Baht Simpson]

55 minutes ago, Wobblybob said:

Being banned from twitter doesn't mean a thing these days. Never criticise the hate brigade on twitter, I thought it might have changed when Elon took over but it's pretty much run by the lynch mob intent on ruining good people's lives.

You're right. He just created another Twitter account where he pretended he was a Trans man. He then created a fake account pretending he was a lesbian. He threatened to kill trans activists, was banned by Twitter again.

 

I actually feel sorry for him.

 

 

[Baht Simpson]

22 minutes ago, jayboy said:

 

But you are entirely forgetting (deliberately or not, who knows) the deranged and quasi fascistic part of the transgender movement which aggressively looks to take up public space on these issues.

 

Can you name some of them? Let's have a look at them.

[scottiejohn]

Hoist with his own petard?

 

Humza Yousaf has received more complaints under Scotland's new hate crime bill than JK Rowling, it has been revealed today.

Revealed: More of the 3,000 new hate crime complaints were made to Police Scotland over First Minister Humza Yousaf's rant about 'white people of Scotland' than JK Rowling's ten-post thoughts on gender | Daily Mail Online

[GarryP]

2 minutes ago, scottiejohn said:

Hoist with his own petard?

 

Humza Yousaf has received more complaints under Scotland's new hate crime bill than JK Rowling, it has been revealed today.

Revealed: More of the 3,000 new hate crime complaints were made to Police Scotland over First Minister Humza Yousaf's rant about 'white people of Scotland' than JK Rowling's ten-post thoughts on gender | Daily Mail Online

He's certainly reaping what he sowed. 🤣

[transam]

2 minutes ago, scottiejohn said:

Hoist with his own petard?

 

Humza Yousaf has received more complaints under Scotland's new hate crime bill than JK Rowling, it has been revealed today.

Revealed: More of the 3,000 new hate crime complaints were made to Police Scotland over First Minister Humza Yousaf's rant about 'white people of Scotland' than JK Rowling's ten-post thoughts on gender | Daily Mail Online

How I would love Humza to be summoned...........

[Yellowtail]

Speak out and be crushed. 

[scottiejohn]

2 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Speak out and be crushed. 

Introduce a stupid law when you are justice minister and when it becomes law you are the First Minister!

The perfect definition of being "hoist by your own petard"!

 

PS;  Unfortunately the idiot's comments were made before the new stupid law came into force so will/cannot be actioned against him, on this occasion! 

[jayboy]

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

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.

 

 

 

[jayboy]

1 hour ago, Baht Simpson said:

Can you name some of them? Let's have a look at them.

 

Not on this forum and certainly not with someone with your posting record.

[Baht Simpson]

2 minutes ago, jayboy said:

 

Not on this forum and certainly not with someone with your posting record.

What the hell does that mean?

[Chomper Higgot]

12 minutes ago, jayboy said:

 

Is that evidence that stuff you dream up is true?

[RuamRudy]

1 hour ago, scottiejohn said:

Hoist with his own petard?

 

Humza Yousaf has received more complaints under Scotland's new hate crime bill than JK Rowling, it has been revealed today.

Revealed: More of the 3,000 new hate crime complaints were made to Police Scotland over First Minister Humza Yousaf's rant about 'white people of Scotland' than JK Rowling's ten-post thoughts on gender | Daily Mail Online

 

Are you sure you understand what it meant to be hoisted by one's own petard?

 

There is no doubt that Scotland has its fair share of bigots who object to the notion of a democratically elected nationalist government, and one led by a confident son of immigrants is anathema to many, hence the inevitable vexatious and malicious reports. 

 

The proof of your post however, will be if Police Scotland decides there is a case to forward to the PF. Let's hope that justice prevails - even though it will result in the usual outcry from the usual bigots that he is being protected.

[scottiejohn]

58 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

 

Are you sure you understand what it meant to be hoisted by one's own petard?

 

There is no doubt that Scotland has its fair share of bigots who object to the notion of a democratically elected nationalist government, and one led by a confident son of immigrants is anathema to many, hence the inevitable vexatious and malicious reports. 

 

The proof of your post however, will be if Police Scotland decides there is a case to forward to the PF. Let's hope that justice prevails - even though it will result in the usual outcry from the usual bigots that he is being protected.

Of course I know what "hoisted by one's own petard" or rather as I quoted and Shakespeare wrote ""Hoist with his own petard" means!  I would not have used it in this context otherwise!

 

Did you read my post and the link?

 

As the comments were made before this act was passed and it was previously investigated he cannot, according to the Scottish judiciary, be charged with any offences over those comments but if he says anything similar in future he will have been "Hoist with his own petard"!

Edited April 3 by scottiejohn

[RuamRudy]

14 minutes ago, scottiejohn said:

Of course I know what "hoisted by one's own petard" or rather as I quoted and Shakespeare wrote ""Hoist with his own petard" means!  I would not have used it in this context otherwise!

 

Did you read my post and the link?

 

As the comments were made before this act was passed and it was previously investigated he cannot, according to the Scottish judiciary, be charged with any offences over those comments but if he says anything similar in future he will have been "Hoist with his own petard"!

 

So you recognise that the law does not apply retrospectively yet you use this phrase? Strange...

 

Funnily enough, it seems that 3,000 people have failed to understand the basic premise of the law, and rushed to put their bigoted ignorance on display.

[kwonitoy]

 

[Yellowtail]

5 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

 

So you recognise that the law does not apply retrospectively yet you use this phrase? Strange...

 

Funnily enough, it seems that 3,000 people have failed to understand the basic premise of the law, and rushed to put their bigoted ignorance on display.

Hopefully, they will be prosecuted, convicted and incarcerated for their bigoted ignorance. 

[norfolkandchance]

13 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

 

So you recognise that the law does not apply retrospectively yet you use this phrase? Strange...

 

Funnily enough, it seems that 3,000 people have failed to understand the basic premise of the law, and rushed to put their bigoted ignorance on display.

I think Penny's remarks carry more weight then this <deleted>te.

Edited April 3 by norfolkandchance

[Wobblybob]

16 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

 

So you recognise that the law does not apply retrospectively yet you use this phrase? Strange...

 

Funnily enough, it seems that 3,000 people have failed to understand the basic premise of the law, and rushed to put their bigoted ignorance on display.

Peoples concern that Scotland is turning into a police state is hardly bigoted ignorance, more like you putting a finger in each ear and bellowing 'I can't hear you'! 

[scottiejohn]

22 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

So you recognise that the law does not apply retrospectively yet you use this phrase? Strange...

That was the whole point of my post if you had bothered to read and digest it correctly!

Did you not actually read my post, where unless you are extremely obtuse you may have noticed that what I said was "Hoist with his own petard?" 

Please note the "?"! 

I did not say he had been "Hoist with his own petard" but implied with the "?" that he could be in the future!   If I thought he had  been "Hoist with his own petard"  at this time I would have posted  "Hoist with his own petard!" 

Please note the substitution of the "?" in the original post with that of the "!" in this last post!

 

Edited April 3 by scottiejohn

[RuamRudy]

7 minutes ago, Wobblybob said:

Peoples concern that Scotland is turning into a police state is hardly bigoted ignorance, more like you putting a finger in each ear and bellowing 'I can't hear you'! 

 

Positive political discourse is taking a stand. Making vexatious complaints to the police about wildly misrepresented occurrences is not.