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

[RuamRudy]

8 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

Sounds pretty irresponsible to me. What if it fell off onto a truck's windscreen or a motorcyclist going under the bridge in rush hour?

 

There are ways to protest without endangering the lives of innocent people. 

 

That it seems reasonable to you comes as no surprise, but I am sure that there are many who recognise it as being truly authoritarian and Draconian; the sign of a weak government who uses fear and bullying to quash dissent.

[Yellowtail]

10 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

 

Regardless of the details of his banner, 3 years for protesting is an outrage. I don't recall that law generating nearly so much umbrage on these boards.

 

So, if the guy had hung banners repeatedly, he been warned and ticketed over and over, and each time the state had to send a crew out to take then down at significant cost, and finally one of the banners blew down into traffic and caused an accident resulting in an overturned school bus and ten dead, it would not matter? 

 

Got it. 

[Yellowtail]

15 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

Sounds pretty irresponsible to me. What if it fell off onto a truck's windscreen or a motorcyclist going under the bridge in rush hour?

 

There are ways to protest without endangering the lives of innocent people. 

It's a good thing he did not overstate the value of his property or incorrectly report hush money to a porn-star, he'd have gotten life. 

[JonnyF]

6 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

 

That it seems reasonable to you comes as no surprise, but I am sure that there are many who recognise it as being truly authoritarian and Draconian; the sign of a weak government who uses fear and bullying to quash dissent.

 

Just Stop Oil have a history of endangering the public with their protests. Whether it be blocking people on their way to hospitals for emergency treatment, hanging huges banners over busy motorways etc. they are incredibly selfish and irresponsible. 

 

I see the sentence as one for endangering the public, not for protesting. 

[RuamRudy]

6 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

So, if the guy had hung banners repeatedly, he been warned and ticketed over and over, and each time the state had to send a crew out to take then down at significant cost, and finally one of the banners blew down into traffic and caused an accident resulting in an overturned school bus and ten dead, it would not matter? 

 

Got it. 

 

Why did you stop so soon? Maybe the bus could have careered into a nuclear facility and created a Chernobyl type situation across the south east, or it might have taken out a passing world leader, sparking an international crisis that led to global nuclear war? Your fantasy has so many more miles left in it.

[Yellowtail]

10 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

 

Why did you stop so soon? Maybe the bus could have careered into a nuclear facility and created a Chernobyl type situation across the south east, or it might have taken out a passing world leader, sparking an international crisis that led to global nuclear war? Your fantasy has so many more miles left in it.

Exactly. We do not know the details, yet you claimed: "Regardless of the details of his banner, 3 years for protesting is an outrage."  which is ridiculous. the details do matter, only a fool would pretend otherwise. 

[Yellowtail]

18 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

Just Stop Oil have a history of endangering the public with their protests. Whether it be blocking people on their way to hospitals for emergency treatment, hanging huges banners over busy motorways etc. they are incredibly selfish and irresponsible. 

 

I see the sentence as one for endangering the public, not for protesting. 

Simply intentionally delaying people on their way to work should be cause for arrest and or prosecution. 

 

What punishment is fitting for someone that shuts a bridge down during rush hour, a $50 fine? 

[JonnyF]

18 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

 

Why did you stop so soon? Maybe the bus could have careered into a nuclear facility and created a Chernobyl type situation across the south east, or it might have taken out a passing world leader, sparking an international crisis that led to global nuclear war? Your fantasy has so many more miles left in it.

 

You deflection from the issues in Scotland re. the hate bill appears to be working quite well.

 

Keep it going...

[JonnyF]

2 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Simply intentionally delaying people on their way to work should be cause for arrest and or prosecution. 

 

Totally agree.

 

2 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

 

What punishment is fitting for someone that shuts a bridge down during rush hour, a $50 fine? 

 

In Scotland, probably nothing. Unless you misgendered one of the attending officers, or were guilty of being WHAITE in a position of power, then I guess 7 years for hate crime. 

[James105]

1 hour ago, RuamRudy said:

 

That it seems reasonable to you comes as no surprise, but I am sure that there are many who recognise it as being truly authoritarian and Draconian; the sign of a weak government who uses fear and bullying to quash dissent.

 

You seem to have forgotten to include the context surrounding this sentence so to help you out here is the link:

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-essex-65263650

 

The context is:

- They climbed and suspended themselves from the QEII bridge for about 37 hours

- The bridge had to be closed for 41 hours, delaying almost 565,000 drivers

- Small businesses lost up to £170,000 in earnings

- Caused delays to people who needed urgent medical care

 

So they didn't just unfurl a banner over a bridge, their actions directly impacted thousands of people.  If they want to show a banner in a peaceful protest on a street they can do this.  Their sentencing represents a deterrent so that other idiots of "no fixed address" think again when they have a desire to hold up their "end of the world is nigh" signs in places that are a danger to themselves and others, and is neither authoritarian or draconian unlike the original topic this thread relates to.    

Edited April 4 by James105

[thaibeachlovers]

21 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

I don't keep a log on anyone's activities, but then again even if I was why would you be aware. Are you keeping a log on users' activities?

I don't and I don't say things like

" I don't recall him being consistent on that though. ".

 

Since when were we required to be consistent to gain your approval of our posts?

[Yellowtail]

19 hours ago, James105 said:

 

You seem to have forgotten to include the context surrounding this sentence so to help you out here is the link:

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-essex-65263650

 

The context is:

- They climbed and suspended themselves from the QEII bridge for about 37 hours

- The bridge had to be closed for 41 hours, delaying almost 565,000 drivers

- Small businesses lost up to £170,000 in earnings

- Caused delays to people who needed urgent medical care

 

So they didn't just unfurl a banner over a bridge, their actions directly impacted thousands of people.  If they want to show a banner in a peaceful protest on a street they can do this.  Their sentencing represents a deterrent so that other idiots of "no fixed address" think again when they have a desire to hold up their "end of the world is nigh" signs in places that are a danger to themselves and others, and is neither authoritarian or draconian unlike the original topic this thread relates to.    

 

He didn't forget to include the context any more than PBS forgot, they simply know that providing the context does not support the narrative they need to promote their ideology. 

 

The left does not care about truth and RuamRudy admitted as much when he claimed: "Regardless of the details of his banner, 3 years for protesting is an outrage."   

 

 

 

[RuamRudy]

4 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

 

He didn't forget to include the context any more than PBS forgot, they simply know that providing the context does not support the narrative they need to promote their ideology. 

 

The left does not care about truth and RuamRudy admitted as much when he claimed: "Regardless of the details of his banner, 3 years for protesting is an outrage."   

 

 

 

 

You speak about me in the 3rd person with such confidence, despite being so utterly wrong.

 

5 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

The left does not care about truth and RuamRudy admitted as much

 

What utterly sanctimonious, poorly thought out tripe you wrote. How far can you see from up on that high horse of yours?

 

The case was hardly a secret, having been splashed across the UK news at the time. I said then and I say it again now, 3 years is a disgusting penalty designed to scare people away from protesting against the interests of big business and their friends in government.

 

Should they have been punished? Yes, of course they should have been. But the penalty was wholly disproportionate to the offence.

[Wobblybob]

So there we have it, barely 36hrs into the Scottish new hate crime bill and it has already shown what a Yousless waste of time it has become, unwanted, unwelcome and unwarranted, but it gives the lefties chance to waste valuable police time! 

 

 

[Wobblybob]

9 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

 

You speak about me in the 3rd person with such confidence, despite being so utterly wrong.

 

 

What utterly sanctimonious, poorly thought out tripe you wrote. How far can you see from up on that high horse of yours?

 

The case was hardly a secret, having been splashed across the UK news at the time. I said then and I say it again now, 3 years is a disgusting penalty designed to scare people away from protesting against the interests of big business and their friends in government.

 

Should they have been punished? Yes, of course they should have been. But the penalty was wholly disproportionate to the offence.

You don't get to decide whether the penalty was disproportionate to the offence, thank goodness! 

[RuamRudy]

17 minutes ago, Wobblybob said:

So there we have it, barely 36hrs into the Scottish new hate crime bill and it has already shown what a Yousless waste of time it has become, unwanted, unwelcome and unwarranted, but it gives the lefties chance to waste valuable police time! 

 

 

I would hardly call JonnyF a leftie...

[JonnyF]

13 minutes ago, Wobblybob said:

So there we have it, barely 36hrs into the Scottish new hate crime bill and it has already shown what a Yousless waste of time it has become, unwanted, unwelcome and unwarranted, but it gives the lefties chance to waste valuable police time! 

 

 

 

The guy is power mad. A wannabe dictator. His vitriolic, nasty nature really shone through in the WHAITE rant. He hasn't thought this all through very well either. From later in that tweet...

 

 

So he can't define hate and is leaving it to the police to decide. I mean, what could possibly go wrong with such a system? Absolutely no room for abuse of power there... 😄

 

What a clown (sorry if that is clownist but I don't believe clownism is one of the hate categories so I should escape 7 years in jail on that one).

[JonnyF]

1 minute ago, RuamRudy said:

 

I would hardly call JonnyF a leftie...

 

If you think reporting racist language is wasting police time I wonder why you support the bill?

 

That's what it is for.

[Yellowtail]

27 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

 

You speak about me in the 3rd person with such confidence, despite being so utterly wrong.

 

 

What utterly sanctimonious, poorly thought out tripe you wrote. How far can you see from up on that high horse of yours?

 

The case was hardly a secret, having been splashed across the UK news at the time. I said then and I say it again now, 3 years is a disgusting penalty designed to scare people away from protesting against the interests of big business and their friends in government.

 

Should they have been punished? Yes, of course they should have been. But the penalty was wholly disproportionate to the offence.

So, what should the punishment be for intentionally closing a bridge and significantly disrupting the lives of hundreds of thousands of people, and costing the state and private citizens hundreds of thousands of pounds? 

 

Perhaps ten hours of community service? 

[RuamRudy]

Just now, JonnyF said:

 

If you think reporting racist language is wasting police time I wonder why you support the bill?

 

That's what it is for.

 

Yeah, but you know that's not correct - or at least if you were willing to actually educate yourself about his speech you would know (although I appreciate that you take comfort from your position of Daily Mail fed ignorance).

 

You also know that even were his speech to have been racist, it would not be covered retrospectively by this bill (or is that something else you have failed to grasp) yet you still chose to waste the valuable time of police in another country by raising a vexatious issue for fits and giggles.

[RuamRudy]

5 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

So, what should the punishment be for intentionally closing a bridge and significantly disrupting the lives of hundreds of thousands of people, and costing the state and private citizens hundreds of thousands of pounds? 

 

Perhaps ten hours of community service? 

 

3 years of imprisonment or 10 hours of community service? Balance isn't really your thing, is it?

[Yellowtail]

1 minute ago, RuamRudy said:

 

3 years of imprisonment or 10 hours of community service? Balance isn't really your thing, is it?

So, what should the punishment be for intentionally closing a bridge and significantly disrupting the lives of hundreds of thousands of people, and costing the state and private citizens hundreds of thousands of pounds? 

[JonnyF]

8 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

 

Yeah, but you know that's not correct - or at least if you were willing to actually educate yourself about his speech you would know (although I appreciate that you take comfort from your position of Daily Mail fed ignorance).

 

It was racist, pure and simple. If it was a white guy saying that about black/brown people you'd be calling them racist, bigoted etc. 

 

8 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

 

You also know that even were his speech to have been racist, it would not be covered retrospectively by this bill (or is that something else you have failed to grasp) yet you still chose to waste the valuable time of police in another country by raising a vexatious issue for fits and giggles.

 

It is my job to report it. It is up to the authorities to decide whether they will/can prosecute or not. I did my job. They can do theirs. If they cannot prosecute this as a crime due to a legal technicality then maybe they will mark his record with a non crime hate incident which his future employers will see after the Scottish people remove him from his current position? 

 

They are actively encouraging people to report on others, so don't start crying when someone does. 

[Wobblybob]

22 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

 

I would hardly call JonnyF a leftie...

Neither would I, he speaks the truth which is difficult for lefties to understand, he reported a racist speech by a incompetent man that has failed miserably at every position he has held in the SNP, christ he can't even ride a scooter without falling off. 

This new bill is designed to incarcerate people that tell the truth, if you call a man that was genetically born a man that can land you with a 7 year jail sentence, Yousaf is a clown of epic proportions! 

[Wobblybob]

24 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

 

Yeah, but you know that's not correct - or at least if you were willing to actually educate yourself about his speech you would know (although I appreciate that you take comfort from your position of Daily Mail fed ignorance).

 

You also know that even were his speech to have been racist, it would not be covered retrospectively by this bill (or is that something else you have failed to grasp) yet you still chose to waste the valuable time of police in another country by raising a vexatious issue for fits and giggles.

Gosh how much patronising can one get into 2 paragraphs? 

[n00dle]

38 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

The guy is power mad. A wannabe dictator. His vitriolic, nasty nature really shone through in the WHAITE rant. He hasn't thought this all through very well either. From later in that tweet...

 

 

So he can't define hate and is leaving it to the police to decide. I mean, what could possibly go wrong with such a system? Absolutely no room for abuse of power there... 😄

 

What a clown (sorry if that is clownist but I don't believe clownism is one of the hate categories so I should escape 7 years in jail on that one).

 Dude makes Justin Trudeau look almost reasonable.

 

At face value, it all seems silly. Then you realize just how much common sense has been undermined.

Edited April 5 by n00dle

[Yellowtail]

15 minutes ago, n00dle said:

 Dude makes Justin Trudeau look almost reasonable.

 

At face value, it all seems silly. Then you realize just how much common sense has been undermined.

Ten years ago, this would be a Saturday Night Live sketch...

[thaibeachlovers]

48 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

 

3 years of imprisonment or 10 hours of community service? Balance isn't really your thing, is it?

Perhaps he was being sarcastic.

[thaibeachlovers]

20 minutes ago, n00dle said:

 Dude makes Justin Trudeau look almost reasonable.

 

At face value, it all seems silly. Then you realize just how much common sense has been undermined.

Nah. Nobody and nothing could make Trudeau look reasonable, IMO.

[impulse]

On 4/4/2024 at 5:47 AM, thaibeachlovers said:

Amid the anti Trump dross on here there is actually some very good information being put out on AN, given us posters are a very broad demographic of western populations.

 

My God, man.  We can't have that... 

 

That must be coming from unapproved sources.  Because it certainly isn't coming from the MSM.