Gundermann Posted April 1 Author Share Posted April 1 3 minutes ago, doctor jambo said: He was inferring that in a 96 % white country , there were (shockingly ) huge numbers of white people in senior positions . Which seemed to anger him. He made a racial generalisation, which is , well, racist What happened? Did the seethe get the better of your typing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nookie Bear Posted April 1 Share Posted April 1 19 minutes ago, Gundermann said: Too much common sense here. He was merely giving an account of his observations. He may or may not be correct with stats but to say he hates whites is ludicrous. Some on here are very thin skinned. Nowt to do with pigmenation, likes. Where is the common sense in highlighting the lack of diversity in a 95% white country? Does he hate whites? He clearly has an issue with them in senior positions, otherwise why home in on their skin colour rather than abilities? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ked Posted April 1 Share Posted April 1 3 minutes ago, Gundermann said: What happened? Did the seethe get the better of your typing? Well you will try your best to push him towards that. Humza made a big play . Like everything he seems to do he mucked it . Move on . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ked Posted April 1 Share Posted April 1 1 minute ago, Nookie Bear said: Where is the common sense in highlighting the lack of diversity in a 95% white country? Does he hate whites? He clearly has an issue with them in senior positions, otherwise why home in on their skin colour rather than abilities? And at the same time handing proper racists a peach . He's hopeless. Tried the race card is getting told to get to fek. And rightly so. But this threads about another pile of shite. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cranston Posted April 1 Share Posted April 1 I'm all for minorities being better represented and better protected. The disabled in particular are very hard done by, with inadequate housing provision, inadequate income, and face ever harsher, more stringent tests to prove that they actually are disabled. Its that group of people that should be looked after more than any other along with the elderly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doctor jambo Posted April 1 Share Posted April 1 20 minutes ago, Gundermann said: What happened? Did the seethe get the better of your typing? No seethe. As I said my kids friends and many of mine are BAME . im more than happy with that. Its good for them . Humza sees racism everywhere, when the only place he needs to look is his bathroom mirror Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Psychedelicropcircle Posted April 1 Share Posted April 1 I see that attention seeking ***** JKR has been mouthing off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Mighty Thor Posted April 1 Share Posted April 1 Something I'm curious about..... See all the good folks that have filled about half a dozen pages over two threads, whilst definitely not being triggered by this new law, what is it that you could say yesterday that you cannot say today under this new law? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frankblack Posted April 1 Share Posted April 1 19 minutes ago, The Mighty Thor said: Something I'm curious about..... See all the good folks that have filled about half a dozen pages over two threads, whilst definitely not being triggered by this new law, what is it that you could say yesterday that you cannot say today under this new law? If that was the case then we didn't need a new law as the police had enough powers already? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frankblack Posted April 1 Share Posted April 1 25 minutes ago, Psychedelicropcircle said: I see that attention seeking ***** JKR has been mouthing off. You seem triggered in addition to being completely misinformed. I take it you don't support JKR's defence of women's rights? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim_Duncan Posted April 1 Share Posted April 1 8 minutes ago, frankblack said: You seem triggered in addition to being completely misinformed. I take it you don't support JKR's defence of women's rights? It seems that men pretending to be women are more important than real women to those of a certain political persuasion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frankblack Posted April 1 Share Posted April 1 5 minutes ago, Jim_Duncan said: It seems that men pretending to be women are more important than real women to those of a certain political persuasion. Correct. It seems that devaluing everyone else's rights for a small vocal minority is the priority. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redjambo Posted April 1 Share Posted April 1 The proof of legislation is in the prosecutions. I'll have my popcorn ready. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JudyJudyJudy Posted April 1 Share Posted April 1 Women ? Eh ? Get back in the kitchen wench . Says it all really . https://x.com/jk_rowling/status/1774867571080122858?s=46&t=Uyg6zS_aUfEwlXY6vOoxzQ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JudyJudyJudy Posted April 1 Share Posted April 1 4 hours ago, doctor jambo said: Jk is not trans obsessive. She is a feminist campaigner and women’s rights activist, who supports rape crisis centres and victims of domestic violence. Classic distortion from him . As usual . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JudyJudyJudy Posted April 1 Share Posted April 1 4 hours ago, doctor jambo said: Jk is not trans obsessive. She is a feminist campaigner and women’s rights activist, who supports rape crisis centres and victims of domestic violence. Classic distortion from him . As usual . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cranston Posted April 1 Share Posted April 1 27 minutes ago, frankblack said: Correct. It seems that devaluing everyone else's rights for a small vocal minority is the priority. Division appears to be the Snp's only answer to virtually everything. Women, motorists and small businesses appear to be their main targets at the moment, along with many other anti common sense idealisms. They're hell bent on being turfed out of power it seems. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nookie Bear Posted April 1 Share Posted April 1 If they focussed on sectarian hate speech then it would improve this country beyond recognition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bender Posted April 1 Share Posted April 1 I know that JK Rowling has a reputation for hating trans people and has done for a while now, but I've never actually seen the comments that brought about this conclusion. What was it she said that started the whole thing? I've seen her twitter comments tonight and they don't strike me as being particularly trans-phobic, but maybe someone else can shed some light on the matter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frankblack Posted April 1 Share Posted April 1 5 minutes ago, Bender said: I know that JK Rowling has a reputation for hating trans people and has done for a while now, but I've never actually seen the comments that brought about this conclusion. What was it she said that started the whole thing? I've seen her twitter comments tonight and they don't strike me as being particularly trans-phobic, but maybe someone else can shed some light on the matter. You have it the wrong way around. She merely stood up for women's rights e.g. biological women only in women's toilets. Given that the SNP tried to put an on-remand male sex offender in a women's jail I think JKR was proven to be correct. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manaliveits105 Posted April 1 Share Posted April 1 1 hour ago, Jim_Duncan said: It seems that men pretending to be women are more important than real women to those of a certain political persuasion. Indeed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cruyff Posted April 1 Share Posted April 1 I think it's absolute nonsense We shouldn't be censoring language or thought - no matter how offensive the language used or how unlikeable someone's opinion may be. An absurd piece of legislation and a slippery slope to further censorship. That itself should be a crime. Get all these idiot politicians in the sea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JudyJudyJudy Posted April 1 Share Posted April 1 1 hour ago, Jim_Duncan said: It seems that men pretending to be women are more important than real women to those of a certain political persuasion. And now have more legal protections . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boris Posted April 1 Share Posted April 1 1 minute ago, JudyJudyJudy said: And now have more legal protections . Such as? Genuine question btw. Under this new law, I'm not sure JKR saying what she has said is in anyway stirring up hatred, so not really sure what all the hullabaloo is about? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lone Striker Posted April 1 Share Posted April 1 1 hour ago, Jim_Duncan said: It seems that men pretending to be women are more important than real women to those of a certain political persuasion. Indeed, it seems that way. And there's a strangely similar "logic" between that and Sunak's govt pretending that Rwanda is a safe country by passing a law to say so, despite it being an insult to proper safe countries who aren't explicitly mentioned in a UK law at all Imagine that - Humza taking a leaf out of RIshi's book !! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cranston Posted April 1 Share Posted April 1 12 minutes ago, Cruyff said: I think it's absolute nonsense We shouldn't be censoring language or thought - no matter how offensive the language used or how unlikeable someone's opinion may be. An absurd piece of legislation and a slippery slope to further censorship. That itself should be a crime. Get all these idiot politicians in the sea. 👍 Devolution has become a cesspit of self serving elitist politicos determined to feather their own nests, while demonising, criminalising, and silencing the majority. It all could have been so different, if there had been opposite politicians in charge of devolution, who viewed it as a way of delivering common sense policies based on success. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boris Posted April 1 Share Posted April 1 (edited) 27 minutes ago, frankblack said: You have it the wrong way around. She merely stood up for women's rights e.g. biological women only in women's toilets. Given that the SNP tried to put an on-remand male sex offender in a women's jail I think JKR was proven to be correct. Does govt make these decisions? SPS surely? https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-64729029.amp Edited April 1 by Boris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses Posted April 1 Share Posted April 1 1 minute ago, Boris said: Does govt make these decisions? SPS surely? https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-64729029.amp In Ireland decisions like that are made by the Irish Prison Service. Government wouldn't get involved. Similarly it's a matter for the police to investigate crimes, and hand stuff over to our Director of Public Prosecutions to decide whether or not to prosecute. But Government doesn't get involved in that stuff. I'm presuming it's the same in Scotland. By the way, thanks to @Hmfc1965 and @Gundermann for answering some of my questions earlier, and filling in some knowledge gaps for me. There are still a few questions hanging out there, if anyone else knows the answers or has any thoughts. Here's an edited quote of my original post. 5 hours ago, Ulysses said: I read somewhere that this Act was passed two years ago, in April 2021, but I don't recall the same amount of noise and heat about it at the time. Did I miss something? Will adding misogyny (or passing similar legislation in respect of misogyny) improve the legislation or make it worse? If the Labour Party goes down the HCA route in England, will they get support from the likes of the Greens and the Liberal Democrats? Would the Conservatives and Reform see things the same way as their Scottish counterparts? Some elements of the legislation depend on the term "reasonable person". Is that term defined in the legislation, or will it rely on the "reasonable person standard" normally used in English and Scottish courts? I'm assuming it's the latter, but not having read the Act I don't know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doctor jambo Posted April 1 Share Posted April 1 10 minutes ago, Boris said: Such as? Genuine question btw. Under this new law, I'm not sure JKR saying what she has said is in anyway stirring up hatred, so not really sure what all the hullabaloo is about? Siobhan brown has stated that mishendering may be a crime, and that it is up to police Scotland to decide . So that is her remit. Her parties legislation . and ignores the fact that gender critical beliefs are protected under law - and the party that formed the legislation are so unsure of it they leave it to the police to decide what it means? Is this mature responsible politics or pandering to minorities shite? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boris Posted April 1 Share Posted April 1 21 minutes ago, Cruyff said: I think it's absolute nonsense We shouldn't be censoring language or thought - no matter how offensive the language used or how unlikeable someone's opinion may be. An absurd piece of legislation and a slippery slope to further censorship. That itself should be a crime. Get all these idiot politicians in the sea. I'm not convinced this act does that though. I'm not saying I support it, just think that the point is being missed. They're are a lot of things said that I find unlikeable and on occasion offensive, but does it stir hatred? Usually not. Anyways, it's now been immersed in toxic culture war bullshit and another indictment showing how banal our politics have become. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ked Posted April 1 Share Posted April 1 Progressive Scotland where if you call a man a man you can be in breach of law but if you call a woman a slag you can. Except . We have always had the breach of peace. The catch all charge. Was there really a need? Who drove this bill? Seriously who decided such drive was needed on such a niche problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JudyJudyJudy Posted April 1 Share Posted April 1 3 minutes ago, doctor jambo said: Siobhan brown has stated that mishendering may be a crime, and that it is up to police Scotland to decide . So that is her remit. Her parties legislation . and ignores the fact that gender critical beliefs are protected under law - and the party that formed the legislation are so unsure of it they leave it to the police to decide what it means? Is this mature responsible politics or pandering to minorities shite? This Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JudyJudyJudy Posted April 1 Share Posted April 1 2 minutes ago, Ked said: Progressive Scotland where if you call a man a man you can be in breach of law but if you call a woman a slag you can. Except . We have always had the breach of peace. The catch all charge. Was there really a need? Who drove this bill? Seriously who decided such drive was needed on such a niche problem. The greens were behind plus the “ progressives” in the SNP championed by Mrs Sturgeon . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doctor jambo Posted April 1 Share Posted April 1 2 minutes ago, Boris said: I'm not convinced this act does that though. I'm not saying I support it, just think that the point is being missed. They're are a lot of things said that I find unlikeable and on occasion offensive, but does it stir hatred? Usually not. Anyways, it's now been immersed in toxic culture war bullshit and another indictment showing how banal our politics have become. The new act also includes “insulting behaviour” that is not hate speech per se, but merely being rude . They are criminalising insulting behaviour. The end of comedy, both professional and ad hoc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Montpelier Posted April 1 Share Posted April 1 4 minutes ago, Ked said: Progressive Scotland where if you call a man a man you can be in breach of law but if you call a woman a slag you can. Except . We have always had the breach of peace. The catch all charge. Was there really a need? Who drove this bill? Seriously who decided such drive was needed on such a niche problem. Answer Sturgeon and Murrell. Always that pair of clowns behind this sort of pish Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boris Posted April 1 Share Posted April 1 3 minutes ago, doctor jambo said: Siobhan brown has stated that mishendering may be a crime, and that it is up to police Scotland to decide . So that is her remit. Her parties legislation . and ignores the fact that gender critical beliefs are protected under law - and the party that formed the legislation are so unsure of it they leave it to the police to decide what it means? Is this mature responsible politics or pandering to minorities shite? Personally, I think there are more pressing matters to be sorted out by state. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JudyJudyJudy Posted April 1 Share Posted April 1 (edited) 11 minutes ago, Boris said: but does it stir hatred? Usually not. Valid point . How do you prove this , ? You can’t . That’s why it’s not very clear . Therefore the “ perception “ of the supposed “ victim “ is taken into account . An internet “ pile on “ or “ retweeting” an “ offensive post might be considered in law to “ stir up hatred” as it deliberately attempts to get others involved . Edited April 1 by JudyJudyJudy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doctor jambo Posted April 1 Share Posted April 1 Just now, Boris said: Personally, I think there are more pressing matters to be sorted out by state. Me too, though I’m surprised to have it said by a large state Bolshevik Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cranston Posted April 1 Share Posted April 1 5 minutes ago, doctor jambo said: The new act also includes “insulting behaviour” that is not hate speech per se, but merely being rude . They are criminalising insulting behaviour. The end of comedy, both professional and ad hoc Comedy died out decades ago to be fair. However, I agree with your central points. Dictators dictate, its what they do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
henrysmithsgloves Posted April 1 Share Posted April 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frankblack Posted April 1 Share Posted April 1 25 minutes ago, Boris said: Does govt make these decisions? SPS surely? https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-64729029.amp This was driven by the SNP and Greens Gender recognition bill, and caused chaos. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boris Posted April 1 Share Posted April 1 2 minutes ago, doctor jambo said: Me too, though I’m surprised to have it said by a large state Bolshevik Oh, I'm all for freedom of speech, within reason. The whole transgender thing confuses me somewhat so I don't really comment on it tbh. I mean if folk want to transition then that's up to them. Equally, I get the concerns JKR et al have. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OTT Posted April 1 Share Posted April 1 It feels like very unnecessary legislation. The wording around it seems very wishy washy and I do believe that the police will need to contend with a slew of frivolous complaints. Considering they are stretched to the point of having to abandon investigating certain low level crimes, I'm really not on board with this. I can't help but shake the feeling this is a consequence of the culture wars bollocks around trans folk/ GRA and a weak attempt to criminalise those that aren't in favour from being able to speak frankly about their views. Viewing comments online, it does seem that the "gender critical" like JK Rowling and so forth, are most threatened by this legislation, so I'm really uncomfortable with it. I also think far more time and energy needs to be put into tackling sectarianism. Every country is different and whilst other countries may have big issues with racism, I think Scotlands biggest issue in this sphere of issues is sectarianism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
henrysmithsgloves Posted April 1 Share Posted April 1 3 minutes ago, OTT said: It feels like very unnecessary legislation. The wording around it seems very wishy washy and I do believe that the police will need to contend with a slew of frivolous complaints. Considering they are stretched to the point of having to abandon investigating certain low level crimes, I'm really not on board with this. I can't help but shake the feeling this is a consequence of the culture wars bollocks around trans folk/ GRA and a weak attempt to criminalise those that aren't in favour from being able to speak frankly about their views. Viewing comments online, it does seem that the "gender critical" like JK Rowling and so forth, are most threatened by this legislation, so I'm really uncomfortable with it. I also think far more time and energy needs to be put into tackling sectarianism. Every country is different and whilst other countries may have big issues with racism, I think Scotlands biggest issue in this sphere of issues is sectarianism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JudyJudyJudy Posted April 1 Share Posted April 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckydug Posted April 1 Share Posted April 1 1 hour ago, frankblack said: You have it the wrong way around. She merely stood up for women's rights e.g. biological women only in women's toilets. Given that the SNP tried to put an on-remand male sex offender in a women's jail I think JKR was proven to be correct. Some places have dual sex toilets. The Queens Hall in Edinburgh for instance. Her complaints about toilets are a nonsense. Just lock the cubicle door ffs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JudyJudyJudy Posted April 1 Share Posted April 1 Good night Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cranston Posted April 1 Share Posted April 1 16 minutes ago, luckydug said: Some places have dual sex toilets. The Queens Hall in Edinburgh for instance. Her complaints about toilets are a nonsense. Just lock the cubicle door ffs. What about Holyrood Parliament? Does that have dual sex toilets? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nookie Bear Posted April 1 Share Posted April 1 18 minutes ago, luckydug said: Some places have dual sex toilets. The Queens Hall in Edinburgh for instance. Her complaints about toilets are a nonsense. Just lock the cubicle door ffs. What about changing rooms? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frankblack Posted April 1 Share Posted April 1 8 minutes ago, luckydug said: Some places have dual sex toilets. The Queens Hall in Edinburgh for instance. Her complaints about toilets are a nonsense. Just lock the cubicle door ffs. Oh dear. 🙈 What a complete pile of shite. You seem to be an SNP appologist that defends the indefensible. Dual Sex toilets? What percentage of public places has them? I take it you don't believe in safe spaces for women? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.7d2eb04fc6e1ac22a4f023ea64cda41e.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.