9 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

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

 

Hear, hear! 

 

Oh - you mean the people who complained about the FM. I thought you meant the people complaining that they've had 'unkind' things said to them, or heard them said to someone else.

 

Vexatious complaints about wildly misrepresented occurrences cuts both ways and is exactly why this sort of legislation is so dangerous.

 

 

 

 

46 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

 

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

4000 complaints in the first 24 hours of this ridiculous new crime law and the police must investigate everyone, therefore leaving the police under manned to investigate real crimes is criminal in itself, the SNP has made Scotland a laughing stock and you just won't admit it, "Lead on McDuff" I will follow no matter how stupid this new law is!

 

19 hours ago, GarryP said:

You need to get your head out of this place and read more mainstream stuff.  

The mainstream stuff in NZ is such biased rubbish that I don't read or watch it anymore.

 

I do watch Al Jazeera for my news of fact ( I doubt they have AI modifying the images they put on ), allowing for the obvious bias related to religion, and something that should cheer up some posters on here, they are IMO biased against Trump.

 

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.

19 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

 

Also his native land. 

By the way, you spelt white incorrectly.

Perhaps that is how the man in question pronounces it.

19 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

 

If Jonnyf used the same device whenever he mentioned anyone else who had a regional accent then that might make sense. I don't recall him being consistent on that though.

I wasn't aware that you keep a log of the posts other posters make. Perhaps you meant that you never saw it on any of his posts that you read. Perhaps you have nothing to do except look at everything other posters say, but others have a life outside this forum and don't get to read everything.

8 hours ago, Wobblybob said:

4000 complaints in the first 24 hours of this ridiculous new crime law and the police must investigate everyone, therefore leaving the police under manned to investigate real crimes is criminal in itself, the SNP has made Scotland a laughing stock and you just won't admit it, "Lead on McDuff" I will follow no matter how stupid this new law is!

 

 

Indeed, there is seemingly no limit to the idiocy of malicious, bigoted people. I think each one should be charged with wasting police time - but that would, of course, waste even more police time on these idiots.

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I wasn't aware that you keep a log of the posts other posters make. 

 

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?

 

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Perhaps you meant that you never saw it on any of his posts that you read. Perhaps you have nothing to do except look at everything other posters say, but others have a life outside this forum and don't get to read everything.

 

Based on this rant, i suspect it is you who needs to take the break.

11 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

 

Indeed, there is seemingly no limit to the idiocy of malicious, bigoted people. I think each one should be charged with wasting police time - but that would, of course, waste even more police time on these idiots.

This is the reason this rediculous and unworkable law should have not been introduced in the first place, do not blame the people that are wasting police time...blame the idiotic SNP for giving them the ammunition to fire! 

4 minutes ago, Wobblybob said:

This is the reason this rediculous and unworkable law should have not been introduced in the first place, do not blame the people that are wasting police time...blame the idiotic SNP for giving them the ammunition to fire! 

 

I disagree. All laws are open to abuse. Should we avoid passing any law because of a small number of people with malicious intent?

4 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

 

I disagree. All laws are open to abuse. Should we avoid passing any law because of a small number of people with malicious intent?

There is no logic in you disagreeing with the blatantly obvious......when other more serious crimes have to be put on hold to facilitate this ill thought out whim of the SNP it is idiotic. Perhaps it's time for you to admit how ridiculous this new law is, you are doing yourself no favours by defending it!

3 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Perhaps that is how the man in question pronounces it.

Since when was English a phonetic language?

 

 

3 minutes ago, Wobblybob said:

There is no logic in you disagreeing with the blatantly obvious......when other more serious crimes have to be put on hold to facilitate this ill thought out whim of the SNP it is idiotic. Perhaps it's time for you to admit how ridiculous this new law is, you are doing yourself no favours by defending it!

 

There are 2 different issues here. One is the intent of the law; the other is the abuse of it by those who object to it or the party that implemented it. 

 

Note that the SNP does not have a majority in the Scottish parliament. The law was passed with cross party support, 82 for, 34 against and 4 abstentions. This is not an SNP whim.

 

 

9 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

 

There are 2 different issues here. One is the intent of the law; the other is the abuse of it by those who object to it or the party that implemented it. 

 

Note that the SNP does not have a majority in the Scottish parliament. The law was passed with cross party support, 82 for, 34 against and 4 abstentions. This is not an SNP whim.

 

 

Spin it as much as you like but I suspect you know how ridiculous this law is.

Which brings me back to my initial post that the Scottish government is turning Scotland into a police state and you are complicit with your apathetic approach to the whole situation.

18 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Since when was English a phonetic language?

 

 

 

A language does not need to be phonetic to have different accents.

 

If he can pronounce it as WHAITE, I can write it as whaite.

 

This law does certainly highlight the dangers of devolution. Like giving a gun to an 8 year old. Hopefully Scots will take this as a lesson in terms of what could happen if ever the SNP got their way and made Scotland their personal fiefdom with a vote for Independence. Be afraid Scotand, be very afraid. 

11 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

A language does not need to be phonetic to have different accents.

 

If he can pronounce it as WHAITE, I can write it as whaite.

 

This law does certainly highlight the dangers of devolution. Like giving a gun to an 8 year old. Hopefully Scots will take this as a lesson in terms of what could happen if ever the SNP got their way and made Scotland their personal fiefdom with a vote for Independence. Be afraid Scotand, be very afraid. 

A language does need to be phonetic for any spelling of pronunciations to make sense.

 

You can misspell any word you like, but how that miss spelled word ‘reads’ is dependent upon the accent of the reader.

 

6 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

A language does need to be phonetic for any spelling of pronunciations to make sense.

 

You can misspell any word you like, but how that miss spelled word ‘reads’ is dependent upon the accent of the reader.

 

 

I cannae and winnae agree with that.

6 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

A language does need to be phonetic for any spelling of pronunciations to make sense.

 

You can misspell any word you like, but how that miss spelled word ‘reads’ is dependent upon the accent of the reader.

 

I think that if it's ok for Robert Burns to write phonetically it should be ok for JohnnyF.

Don't let lifes trivialities get to you, lifes too short!

1 hour ago, RuamRudy said:

 

Indeed, there is seemingly no limit to the idiocy of malicious, bigoted people. I think each one should be charged with wasting police time - but that would, of course, waste even more police time on these idiots.

 

Spot on - let's prosecute them all! The bigots on both sides. Thought crime legislation is just the ticket for fostering inclusivity and social harmony. Not. 

 

 

46 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Since when was English a phonetic language?

 

 

 

It may be pedant's corner, but English spelling was certainly not standardised until the C19/20, thanks to the introduction of state mandated schooling in the late C19th. The printing press helped a great deal in standardising much spellingfrom the C16th onwards, but mass literacy is a comparatively recent phenomenon. And nowadays, with so much communication being by app, spelling is often all over the shop anyway.

 

Under this ridiculous new law, it's probably a hate crime to criticise someone's spelling ability, in case they are 'neuro-diverse' in some way or whatever. So spelling standards slip and language over-simplifies to be 'more inclusive'.

 

 

49 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

One is the intent of the law; the other is the abuse of it by those who object to it or the party that implemented it. 

Why is this law only 'abused' by people you say - or insist can only be - people who 'object' to it?

 

It's impossible that supporters of the law won't abuse it? Of course it isn't. It's open to abuse by all and sundry, depending on their motivations.

 

 

 

1 hour ago, Wobblybob said:

Spin it as much as you like but I suspect you know how ridiculous this law is.

Which brings me back to my initial post that the Scottish government is turning Scotland into a police state and you are complicit with your apathetic approach to the whole situation.

 

A genuine question - how do you feel about Sunak's attack on the right to protest?

 

"For holding a sign outside a courthouse reminding jurors of their right to acquit defendants, a retiree faces up to two years in prison. For hanging a banner reading "Just Stop Oil" off a bridge, an engineer got a three-year prison sentence. Just for walking slowly down the street, scores of people have been arrested."

 

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/world/the-right-to-protest-is-under-threat-in-britain-undermining-a-pillar-of-democracy

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Since when was English a phonetic language?

 

Since the left took over education. Now, all alternative spellings and pronunciations are equally acceptable and if you don't like it, you're (your?) a bigoted oppressor and need to be arrested, convicted and incarcerated. 

 

All decent must be crushed for the greater good. 

Just now, RuamRudy said:

 

A genuine question - how do you feel about Sunak's attack on the right to protest?

 

"For holding a sign outside a courthouse reminding jurors of their right to acquit defendants, a retiree faces up to two years in prison. For hanging a banner reading "Just Stop Oil" off a bridge, an engineer got a three-year prison sentence. Just for walking slowly down the street, scores of people have been arrested."

 

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/world/the-right-to-protest-is-under-threat-in-britain-undermining-a-pillar-of-democracy

I would say you are deliberately going off topic because you cannot and have not made any reasonable input to this topic which is disingenuous.

14 minutes ago, Wobblybob said:

I would say you are deliberately going off topic because you cannot and have not made any reasonable input to this topic which is disingenuous.

 

Off topic? Are the parallels not obvious to you? Seriously? 

 

You called Scotland a police state yet you have no comment on the much worse situation across the UK? I would say that your position is not objective but political.

4 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

 

A genuine question - how do you feel about Sunak's attack on the right to protest?

 

"For holding a sign outside a courthouse reminding jurors of their right to acquit defendants, a retiree faces up to two years in prison. For hanging a banner reading "Just Stop Oil" off a bridge, an engineer got a three-year prison sentence. Just for walking slowly down the street, scores of people have been arrested."

 

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/world/the-right-to-protest-is-under-threat-in-britain-undermining-a-pillar-of-democracy

 

Should someone be allowed to hang a "Buy Chevron Oil" banner over the "Just Stop Oil" banner? 

 

I do not think people should be allowed to hang banners off bridges or on any public property without permits. What happens when the banner blows down into traffic? Who should have to pay to have the banner taken down? Rights come with responsibilities. 

 

I think people should have the right to protest, but I do not think they have the right to leave a mess, or to interfere with other people's rights. People blocking vehicular or pedestrian traffic should be removed, forcibly if necessary.

 

 

Just now, RuamRudy said:

 

Off topic? Are the parallels not obvious to you? Seriously? 

Do you understand what staying to topic entails, or are you just being belligerent!

Just now, Yellowtail said:

 

Should someone be allowed to hang a "Buy Chevron Oil" banner over the "Just Stop Oil" banner? 

 

I do not think people should be allowed to hang banners off bridges or on any public property without permits. What happens when the banner blows down into traffic? Who should have to pay to have the banner taken down? Rights come with responsibilities. 

 

I think people should have the right to protest, but I do not think they have the right to leave a mess, or to interfere with other people's rights. People blocking vehicular or pedestrian traffic should be removed, forcibly if necessary.

 

 

 

3 years for hanging a banner off a bridge? That is not the sign of a healthy democracy.

1 hour ago, BKKBike09 said:

Why is this law only 'abused' by people you say - or insist can only be - people who 'object' to it?

 

It's impossible that supporters of the law won't abuse it? Of course it isn't. It's open to abuse by all and sundry, depending on their motivations.

 

 

 

You can be sure that the TRAs (explanation of the term previously provided in this thread) are going to have a field day with this legislation. It going to be their new Twitter. 

37 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

 

3 years for hanging a banner off a bridge? That is not the sign of a healthy democracy.

Three years and five months for a protestor that ran around the Capital with a Viking hat on? 

 

I have no ideas what the details are surrounding the banner, do you? 

 

 

Just now, Yellowtail said:

Three years and five months for a protestor that ran around the Capital with a Viking hat on? 

 

I have no ideas what the details are surrounding the banner, do you? 

 

 

 

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.

 

46 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

 

3 years for hanging a banner off a bridge? That is not the sign of a healthy democracy.

 

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.