HCA

[FWJ]

Is “Woke Culture” what used to be called “P.C. Gone Mad” ?

[Pasquale for King]

11 minutes ago, colinmaroon said:

 

 

 

Absolutely spot on.

 

Your kids could let slip you had said something at home to a teacher.. Logged!   A free democracy???

 

Stalin must be laughing his head off.

 

 

Out of all the dictators you choose Stalin, says a lot about you.

[Pasquale for King]

3 minutes ago, FWJ said:

Is “Woke Culture” what used to be called “P.C. Gone Mad” ?

Be woke. 

 

[Bazzas right boot]

6 minutes ago, Threedoorsdown said:

Hasn't Ruth Davidson voted yes on similar legislation in 2023 in the lords? The Tories are bad enough without sweeping generalisations with no substance being thrown into the mix. 
 

 

 

Just check their voting record.

[doctor jambo]

4 minutes ago, Sub4TiddlerMurray said:

There’s a specific Scottish bill on its way to combat misogyny. To include it in this law as well would be inappropriate 

 

 

not really, everyone deserves equal protection- no more and no less. that includes whites,  men, women, christians , gays etc.

all people can be guilty of being bigots, and everyone deserves to be protected to the same extent .

 

[Bazzas right boot]

9 minutes ago, The Mercer Takeover said:

One you start down this anti-demicracy road, there is no going back.

 

What?

The democratically appointed government passing acts via a majority is a anti democracy road?

In what world does that make sense?

 

Where you OK with the UK goverment  pushing through brexit despite the majority in Scotland and Ni being against it?

 

Was that democracy in full flow for you?

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Cruyff]

1 hour ago, Mikey1874 said:

 

You need to focus on what people do.

 

I've said about sectarianism, are any of people singing songs actually discriminating against anyone. Stopping them get jobs etc. 

We already have laws that protect people from actual hate though. If I hate someone so much that I destroy their property, threaten them or physically harm them, I'll be getting a visit from the plod. 

 

We do not need laws that infringe on what essentially is freedom of thought and freedom of speech.

 

It doesn't matter how abhorrent some peoples views are or whether or not you agree with them. If that's what they believe then laws aren't going to change that.

 

How did they learn their prejudice is the key to irradiating those sorts of beliefs but has to be done through education and it needs to be done without bias. That is what freedom of thought is about.

 

 There's norms within society of what we believe to be "acceptable" but there's actually no wrong answer if you think of it in a macro sense. Humans are free the think and express themselves. 

 

And if we are talking about Sectarianism, then that combines a whole plethora of other shit, - history, nationality, religion, culture and traditions. It's not just a bunch of offensive words or songs.

It's an entire belief system built built over centuries which encapsulates all parts of some people's identity and it is integrated deeply within parts of the UK.  

 

But....What's the next step?  

We start censoring tradition, culture,  history, language so these people don't have access to information to broaden their prejudices in the first place? 

 

It's opening Pandora's box here. It's a slippery slope to further censorship on books, language, philosophy, religion, culture, humour. It's really, really unacceptable. It's not forward thinking and doesn't actually address the issue whatsoever. 

Education, integration and assimilation are the only way to create a fairer more equal society otherwise people will always hold those beliefs, all this legislation is saying is you're not allowed to openly express them. 

[Hagar the Horrible]

43 minutes ago, doctor jambo said:

what happened?

In a run down estate, next to where he lives in Broughty Ferry, there was which online looked doctored  but it said F        (a major religion0 + our FM,  but using a lot more licence than you can quote verbatim here.  He complained all ready to the Police.  but the picture on the BBC has filtered out the first word.  

[The Mercer Takeover]

4 minutes ago, Pasquale for King said:

Is wanting Rangers to lose in a cup final against Hibs a hate crime, is there a statute of limitations on this 😜? 
Seriously though thanks for the info, a veritable minefield for the Police..

That's the problem isn't it. In our woke led society, the perma-offended will be the ones driving the agenda.

 

Further to my post earlier, it creates additional problems for sites like this. Lots of stuff said on here will readily breach these rules. The problem is. no-one has the foggiest where the line is with this new hate law shambles. It's all in the perception of someone's hurty feelings. This has been confirmed by KC's on social media.

 

If I don't like your post, I can decide to be offended and make something up on the online reporting portal. It's anonymous and only takes a couple of minutes.

 

Do the mods on here now have to start looking for thought crime. It's a dark rabbit hole to go down.

 

Does anyone really think the 500 Celtic supporters who get tickets for Tynecastle and sing their usual offensive stuff, are going to be prosecuted? Even if 17000 of us file different reports on the police portal nothing will happen.

 

All hate crime incidents will be logged and investigated according to police Scotland, who are rediculously under resourced.  Meanwhile your garage will get broken into and McPlod will not have the resources to investigate. 

[May one-six]

9 minutes ago, The Mercer Takeover said:

That's the problem isn't it. In our woke led society, the perma-offended will be the ones driving the agenda.

 

Further to my post earlier, it creates additional problems for sites like this. Lots of stuff said on here will readily breach these rules. The problem is. no-one has the foggiest where the line is with this new hate law shambles. It's all in the perception of someone's hurty feelings. This has been confirmed by KC's on social media.

 

If I don't like your post, I can decide to be offended and make something up on the online reporting portal. It's anonymous and only takes a couple of minutes.

 

Do the mods on here now have to start looking for thought crime. It's a dark rabbit hole to go down.

 

Does anyone really think the 500 Celtic supporters who get tickets for Tynecastle and sing their usual offensive stuff, are going to be prosecuted? Even if 17000 of us file different reports on the police portal nothing will happen.

 

All hate crime incidents will be logged and investigated according to police Scotland, who are rediculously under resourced.  Meanwhile your garage will get broken into and McPlod will not have the resources to investigate. 

Except it's not. People could make all the complaints they like, but it's the police who will decide if any action is required.

 

[The Mercer Takeover]

18 minutes ago, Cruyff said:

We already have laws that protect people from actual hate though. If I hate someone so much that I destroy their property, threaten them or physically harm them, I'll be getting a visit from the plod. 

 

We do not need laws that infringe on what essentially is freedom of thought and freedom of speech.

 

It doesn't matter how abhorrent some peoples views are or whether or not you agree with them. If that's what they believe then laws aren't going to change that.

 

How did they learn their prejudice is the key to irradiating those sorts of beliefs but has to be done through education and it needs to be done without bias. That is what freedom of thought is about.

 

 There's norms within society of what we believe to be "acceptable" but there's actually no wrong answer if you think of it in a macro sense. Humans are free the think and express themselves. 

 

And if we are talking about Sectarianism, then that combines a whole plethora of other shit, - history, nationality, religion, culture and traditions. It's not just a bunch of offensive words or songs.

It's an entire belief system built built over centuries which encapsulates all parts of some people's identity and it is integrated deeply within parts of the UK.  

 

But....What's the next step?  

We start censoring tradition, culture,  history, language so these people don't have access to information to broaden their prejudices in the first place? 

 

It's opening Pandora's box here. It's a slippery slope to further censorship on books, language, philosophy, religion, culture, humour. It's really, really unacceptable. It's not forward thinking and doesn't actually address the issue whatsoever. 

 

Education, integration and assimilation are the only way to create a fairer more equal society otherwise people will always hold those beliefs, all this legislation is saying is you're not allowed to openly express them. 

Exactly.

 

Don't forget, it has been proved in court that anything read online in Scotland, is perceived as being written in Scotland.

 

The nonsense of Scotland now monitoring the world for hate crime or something previously written in a book, is just laughable.

 

 

[Ulysses]

1 hour ago, Shooter McGavin said:

Yes 😄

 

Forgive me, I just don't think someone calling someone else a specky/fat/old b****** merits potentially looking at 7 years in jail.

 

It was only a few months ago that a footballer was 3 times over the drink drive limit, hit someone, dragged his body along the road, and then left him to die.

 

He got a 6 year sentence.

 

Yeah, but if he did it today with his window rolled down while yelling "take that, you Chinese non-binary wheelchair-driving bead-rattling woofter weirdo", he might be put away for 7.

 

Just saying. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(I'm taking the piss, don't ****ing @ me.)

[Threedoorsdown]

32 minutes ago, Bazzas right boot said:

 

Just check their voting record.

You’ve just ignored the part of my post where I did check the voting record and seen that Ruth Davidson has voted to approve draft versions of similar legislation.

 

😂

[Bazzas right boot]

Folk getting freedom of speech In terms of being able to  express an opinion, spark debate  and comparing it to openly hating and abusing a group are also belting.

 

Free speech doesn't and should never allow you to openly abuse anyone.

 

More to the point,  why would you want it to, unless you're a horrible ******* yourself?

 

[The Mercer Takeover]

1 minute ago, May one-six said:

Except it's not. People could make all the complaints they like, but it's the police who will decide if any action is required.

 

You have missed the point.

 

If someone perceives hate, no matter how spurious, police have to act and log the details of it. If police deem it not offensive, the details are still logged, and your name remains there.

 

You could lose your job over having a police file for hate. If two people are going for a new job and one has a police hate file entry, even if no crime had been committed, who do you honestly think will get the job in a woke society

 

In football terms in Scotland this law is just farcical and open to abuse.

[XB52]

If the SNP haters on here and the transphobic bigots like Cherry and Rowling are against it then it's pretty certain it's a good law

[Hagar the Horrible]

Clever people can say stupid things, just blowing off steam, but this law really will punish the plain stupid.  Its a woke charter to weaponise thought.

 

If person A complains about something which person B says, but in person B's head its just an aired thought, But person A takes offence then person B gets charged, then where person B did not have 'Hate' in him, he bloody well would if person A convinces a court they are indeed a victim.  Then person C and D will rally around poor wee sticks and stones will hurt me but names hurt more and you need to be put away for 7 years as justice for my hurty feelings.  Persons E to Z will back person B and will create a mass hate against persons A, C and D but as there is loads of them, the police just have to ignore.  Person A has created a rod for their own back.   Now if Person B is found not guilty should person A be automatically charged with a hate crime as they used this bill to victimidate and harass person B.  by which person B will still end up hating person A where they did not before.

 

Person A could just say to person B, to either clarify their views and even say to them please stop that as its upsetting me in a real and not namby-pamby wokeratti way.   Now did all of that make sense?

 

I think we are going to burn people at the stake for not drowning in the river on all of this.  I just cant see it ending well

[Ulysses]

1 hour ago, Threedoorsdown said:

 

We would be able to start paying the national debt and stop paying a third (can’t remember the exact % so I’ve estimated) of our tax receipts on interest payments.

 

 

 

10.4% of total government revenue, according to Fitch.

 

https://www.investmentweek.co.uk/news/4120827/uk-debt-interest-costs-developed-world#:~:text=Britain will spend 10.4% of,the period to September 2021.

 

 

[boag1874]

Oh well, that got derailed a bit as should probably have been expected

[The Mercer Takeover]

2 hours ago, Shooter McGavin said:

Yes 😄

 

Forgive me, I just don't think someone calling someone else a specky/fat/old b****** merits potentially looking at 7 years in jail.

 

It was only a few months ago that a footballer was 3 times over the drink drive limit, hit someone, dragged his body along the road, and then left him to die.

 

He got a 6 year sentence.

Sorry to burst your bubble but astonishingly, this qualifies as hate crime in Scotland now.

 

Fat disability and old are protected attributes.

 

If I decide I have hurty feelings over this. I can report you for a hate crime, which will be logged against you.

 

There will not be enough police left to monitor our roads for drink driving, they will all be knee deep in nonsense hate crime.

 

Watch what you now post here!

Edited April 2 by The Mercer Takeover

[Ulysses]

1 hour ago, Bazzas right boot said:

 

If you look at the tory parties voting history they have been against every progressive law or act in our history. 

 

 

 

Wasn't it the Cameron government that legislated for marriage equality in England?  And wasn't that 9 months before marriage equality came into effect in Scotland?

[Ulysses]

1 hour ago, Sooks said:

Unless that teacher was your wife , then there would be bigger domestic issues at play 

 

And legal jurisprudence issues.

[JudyJudyJudy]

4 hours ago, jamboozy said:

He’s basically saying the Huns can do whatever they want and no one will do a thing about it.🤷‍♂️

  Totally hate what those two clubs represent.

No he’s not . He’s pointing out the absurdity of the legislation. 

[westbow]

“I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” - Voltaire

 

 

[Sooks]

2 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

 

And legal jurisprudence issues.

One and the same in this instance !!!

[Ulysses]

1 minute ago, Sooks said:

One and the same in this instance !!!

 

A workmate of mine used to refer to his wife as "my lawfully registered owner". 

 

He'd be lifted and jailed for 14 years for doing that now.  

 

Well, he wouldn't, obvs, because he doesn't live in Scotland.

 

[doctor jambo]

19 minutes ago, XB52 said:

If the SNP haters on here and the transphobic bigots like Cherry and Rowling are against it then it's pretty certain it's a good law

only ... they are not bigots.

when men start explaining to women what a woman is ( mansplaining) 

we have surely reached a new low.

when men tell women who they need protected from, that is misogyny.

women cannot decide for themselves what a woman is?

I guess the misogyny bill wont happen, because that would require an agreement as to what a woman is.

Is a trans man a woman?

is a trans woman a woman?

When sturgeon could not apply her own definition to Isla Bryson she looked foolish.

How is all  this defined?  And by whom?

 

[Sooks]

1 minute ago, westbow said:

“I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” - Voltaire

 

 

Of course , but how does that fit in to society at large in terms of public preaching ? For example , free speech was not questioned too much until a few vile Islamic extremist preachers started holding sermons in public extolling the virtue of murdering innocents that they saw as infidels . Now there is a massive kickback about not being able to express your opinions about the ideology of those who believe in different theological and political systems that are seen as the norm in The west . It feels a lot like people just want to be able to freely just be horrible to those that are different to them , but get annoyed when they do the same in return 

 

 

[westbow]

55 minutes ago, Bazzas right boot said:

 

What?

The democratically appointed government passing acts via a majority is a anti democracy road?

In what world does that make sense?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well this November Trump could well become US president. An elected president who was an election denier. Can’t get more anti democratic and contradictory than that.

[Sooks]

4 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

 

A workmate of mine used to refer to his wife as "my lawfully registered owner". 

 

He'd be lifted and jailed for 14 years for doing that now.  

 

Well, he wouldn't, obvs, because he doesn't live in Scotland.

 

It would come down to how kinky the judge is in that particular scenario imo 

[Threedoorsdown]

24 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

 

10.4% of total government revenue, according to Fitch.

 

https://www.investmentweek.co.uk/news/4120827/uk-debt-interest-costs-developed-world#:~:text=Britain will spend 10.4% of,the period to September 2021.

 

 

Thank you.

 

Interest rates and borrowing have increased tremendously since covid. I’d speculate the true figure is probably in the middle of the 30% and the 10% of three years ago. 
 

I don’t think people realise how ****ed we are. 

Edited April 2 by Threedoorsdown

[Sooks]

4 minutes ago, doctor jambo said:

only ... they are not bigots.

when men start explaining to women what a woman is ( mansplaining) 

we have surely reached a new low.

when men tell women who they need protected from, that is misogyny.

women cannot decide for themselves what a woman is?

I guess the misogyny bill wont happen, because that would require an agreement as to what a woman is.

Is a trans man a woman?

is a trans woman a woman?

When sturgeon could not apply her own definition to Isla Bryson she looked foolish.

How is all  this defined?  And by whom?

 

Exposing yourself in bright neon in the subtext of this post imo 

[doctor jambo]

3 minutes ago, Sooks said:

Of course , but how does that fit in to society at large in terms of public preaching ? For example , free speech was not questioned too much until a few vile Islamic extremist preachers started holding sermons in public extolling the virtue of murdering innocents that they saw as infidels . Now there is a massive kickback about not being able to express your opinions about the ideology of those who believe in different theological and political systems that are seen as the norm in The west . It feels a lot like people just want to be able to freely just be horrible to those that are different to them , but get annoyed when they do the same in return 

 

 

Hate speech is already dealt with.

we have now progressed onto offending people.

if JK had said "kill all trans" that is hate speech and rightly illegal.

she didnt, and never would.

she went out her way to say they can live freely and live their best lives free from hate.

the bar for blocking speech should be incredibly high- its why Abu Hamza walked that line for a very long time.

 

[JudyJudyJudy]

4 hours ago, Polonia Gorgie said:

Forget sectarianism for a second...... If its the Edinburgh derby, would I get lifted for singing "all the hibees are gay"? Would my pal next to me get lifted for calling an Aberdeen fan a sheepsh*****  

 

Yes in theory you could . 

[doctor jambo]

5 minutes ago, Sooks said:

Exposing yourself in bright neon in the subtext of this post imo 

How so?

Do I believe that humans can change sex?

No.

They cannot.

Is that bigotry?

No.

That belief is protected under law.

[Sooks]

3 minutes ago, doctor jambo said:

How so?

Do I believe that humans can change sex?

No.

They cannot.

Is that bigotry?

No.

That belief is protected under law.

When is sex determined and by what means and by what definitions please…….

[jamboozy]

15 minutes ago, JudyJudyJudy said:

No he’s not . He’s pointing out the absurdity of the legislation. 

Maybe so triple J, but they will still do as they please.

   I remember many years ago when  Celtic visited Falkirk to play at the old Brockville ground, their fans disgorged from buses at a large car park in the town centre, as it happened my wife ,two children and myself were just getting out our car to go get some shopping done. The scummy Celtic fans started urinating in front of my family. I turned to three of our local policemen who were looking on and asked “ aren’t you going to do something about that?” They just laughed at me and said “ what do you want us to do?”  I just asked them back “so if I return here tomorrow and do the same thing it will be alright?!” They replied they would arrest me now if I didn’t move on.

    After that I realised that the both sides of the old firm will do as they please regardless of legislation. The rest of us will have to bear the brunt.

[Pasquale for King]

1 hour ago, The Mercer Takeover said:

That's the problem isn't it. In our woke led society, the perma-offended will be the ones driving the agenda.

 

Further to my post earlier, it creates additional problems for sites like this. Lots of stuff said on here will readily breach these rules. The problem is. no-one has the foggiest where the line is with this new hate law shambles. It's all in the perception of someone's hurty feelings. This has been confirmed by KC's on social media.

 

If I don't like your post, I can decide to be offended and make something up on the online reporting portal. It's anonymous and only takes a couple of minutes.

 

Do the mods on here now have to start looking for thought crime. It's a dark rabbit hole to go down.

 

Does anyone really think the 500 Celtic supporters who get tickets for Tynecastle and sing their usual offensive stuff, are going to be prosecuted? Even if 17000 of us file different reports on the police portal nothing will happen.

 

All hate crime incidents will be logged and investigated according to police Scotland, who are rediculously under resourced.  Meanwhile your garage will get broken into and McPlod will not have the resources to investigate. 

Yeah I agree to an extent, the Police can’t investigate crimes as it stands. 
The mods already have a lot to deal with on here, so I should amend my behaviour and help them out. 
There’s nothing wrong with not saying things that are going to offend someone, we all sang songs back in the day that we don’t now. 
The uglies both sing songs that offend me, but I cant see the Police doing anything about it if we all complained as you say.
I will definitely need to modify my own language and terminology at the games, a part of growing up or just older, I don’t have an issue with that. It would be hypocritical of me to call fans stinking weegie ***** anymore when I am offended by their behaviour. I think we need to take a moral high ground stance against the antics of the uglies and our foolish neighbours going forward. 

[westbow]

1 minute ago, Sooks said:

Of course , but how does that fit in to society at large in terms of public preaching ? For example , free speech was not questioned too much until a few vile Islamic extremist preachers started holding sermons in public extolling the virtue of murdering innocents that they saw as infidels . Now there is a massive kickback about not being able to express your opinions about the ideology of those who believe in different theological and political systems that are seen as the norm in The west . It feels a lot like people just want to be able to freely just be horrible to those that are different to them , but get annoyed when they do the same in return 

 

 

Good question. When you say “West” there is a difference between what is acceptable in the UK and the USA. Everything is about the 1st amendment over there. You get Nazis with swastikas picketing the road into DisneyWorld and the most liberal of commentators will defend their right to free speech. It’s about the right of the individual over the state.
 

Over here we have more of a brothers keeper approach. We have the right to free speech but let’s not let it get ridiculous. If it creates incitement to violence then vulnerable groups should be protected.

 

 

[Bazzas right boot]

45 minutes ago, XB52 said:

If the SNP haters on here and the transphobic bigots like Cherry and Rowling are against it then it's pretty certain it's a good law

 

Aye, imagine being against a anti hate bill, at least in principle. 

 

By default,  that makes you pro hate.

They don't even realise it as they disguise their argument in age auld  the freedom of speech pish, which falls apart as soon as you mention racism. 

 

 

 

 

[Ex member of the SaS]

1 hour ago, Bazzas right boot said:

 

What?

The democratically appointed government passing acts via a majority is a anti democracy road?

In what world does that make sense?

 

Where you OK with the UK goverment  pushing through brexit despite the majority in Scotland and Ni being against it?

 

Was that democracy in full flow for you?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ha Ha, You obviously don't head your own advice. Berxit was democratic as the MAJORITY Voted FOR it. Just because Scotland and Ireland ( North )didn't want it is tough sh!t.  The MINORITY ( English voters will always out number the rest of the UK ) didn't really have a chance. Brexit was democratic whether you wanted it or not.

[westbow]

50 minutes ago, XB52 said:

If the SNP haters on here and the transphobic bigots like Cherry and Rowling are against it then it's pretty certain it's a good law

A good few SNP supporters don’t think it’s a good law.  

[westbow]

5 minutes ago, Bazzas right boot said:

 

Aye, imagine being against a anti hate bill, at least in principle. 

 

By default,  that makes you pro hate.

They don't even realise it as they disguise their argument in age auld  the freedom of speech pish, which falls apart as soon as you mention racism. 

 

 

 

 

“Freedom of speech pish” - good lord. 

[doctor jambo]

5 minutes ago, Sooks said:

When is sex determined and by what means and by what definitions please…….

sex is determined by biology

gender is determined by self perception

the confusion is generated by conflating the two

sex and gender are entirely different

you could have single sex spaces, and multi gender spaces

this would be really easy- female facilities would be single sex

male spaces could become multi gender- we men dont really need our own spaces or events

[Bazzas right boot]

Just now, Ex member of the SaS said:

Ha Ha, You obviously don't head your own advice. Berxit was democratic as the MAJORITY Voted FOR it. Just because Scotland and Ireland ( North )didn't want it is tough sh!t.  The MINORITY ( English voters will always out number the rest of the UK ) didn't really have a chance. Brexit was democratic whether you wanted it or not.

 

I have no problem with it tho, the poster I replied to was stating that we are on a anti democracy road, not me.

 

So ha ha, yourself,  you haven't read the post or my reply,  I was asking the poster why he thinks this bill is anti Democratic and brexit wasn't?

 

I'm perfectly fine with both.

As per, you jump in and miss the point and are arguing with yourself. 

I have never said brext was anti Democratic. Never.

I accepted the majority of Scots are happy to be run by Westminster,  it's a fact. 

I fully understand the process,  the Mercer lad clearly doesn't. 

 

Try and read and absorb the information and conversation correctly,  if you don't, you'll just look daft.

 

Just like you did when you used the term "woke" incorrectly. 

 

 

[Ex member of the SaS]

In general an anti hate law is a good thing, BUT the way the law is written and interpreted means it will never really work the way the law makers intended. 

Loop holes like football stands are just one example of where the police won't / can't act, not to mention spurious reporting of so call criminal behaviour clogging up the works and wasting police time with no consequences.

[Sooks]

2 minutes ago, doctor jambo said:

sex is determined by biology

gender is determined by self perception

the confusion is generated by conflating the two

sex and gender are entirely different

you could have single sex spaces, and multi gender spaces

this would be really easy- female facilities would be single sex

male spaces could become multi gender- we men dont really need our own spaces or events

I said when is sex determined 

[JudyJudyJudy]

1 hour ago, PortyBeach said:

The issue around how enforceable the new law is reasonable grounds for debate, in my view.

McCoist has - at best - been clumsy in expressing a view on whether, or to what extent, this is enforceable.

At worst, he’s openly admitting he’ll be up to his knees giving it Fenian this, Fenian that.

Not a good look. Nevertheless, I’d say it was an accurate reflection of the normal Ibrox hate-fest experience…

Yep . A bad law has problems being enforced . This is a clumsy law . 

[JudyJudyJudy]

2 hours ago, Hagar the Horrible said:

I just cant wait until the Old Firm game.   You have 2 sides who will sing songs of hate, but as the game is at Ibrox, its their turn to sing uninterrupted as there is no away fans, so Celtic fans will swamp the call centres complaining about everything and every song as a hate crime (which it is), but its going to be interesting to see how 48k Ra People will be arrested.  Then next Month Celtic will go into double Victim Mode and Victimidate the SFA and police into Rangers fans complaining about them signing songs on hate (the irony as it is)  But they will complain that their songs are cultural about celebrating a terrorist group blowing up civilians. And somehow an anti Palestinian agenda?

 

Plus both will sing these songs with more gusto to goad the government into trying and failing to do heehaw,  because one defence for the first individual is, you do heehaw at public events, but can prosecute for someone's thoughts in their own home? 

 

Its another SNP waste of money trying to criminalise White Middle Class males while failing to protect vulnerable women.  And as a White male in one of those whom were categorised as being too white in the Civil Service, whereas I am good at my job and there on merit and ability.  But Humza v JKR,   its first Set to JKR. 

Well said 

[Bazzas right boot]

13 minutes ago, westbow said:

“Freedom of speech pish” - good lord. 

 

It is.

It's an age old argument used to help spread hate, bile and lies.

 

Thankfully in this country the boundary was drawn at open racism,  bigotry is the next big one for Scotland.

 

Freedom of expression and debate is different from being allowed to say what you want, or we'd all be allowed to go around calling folk black *******s , and we're not.

Quite rightly imo.

 

 

Edited April 2 by Bazzas right boot