JudyJudyJudy Posted April 2 Share Posted April 2 21 minutes ago, Sooks said: They were from the last time I bothered my arse to spend any time in the Shed on here . I only recently started looking in again . You were posting some seriously offensive anti trans stuff , and my opinion was that it was ignorant , offensive and pathetic . I never reported you at the time , and it would require a serious bit of searching to find the posts in question sadly Like i said Back it up or clamp it with your malicious statements . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JudyJudyJudy Posted April 2 Share Posted April 2 30 minutes ago, Sooks said: No , I expanded on his trope about prison rape which is often materialised in fiction as occurring when an inmate “ drops the soap “ . It is such an age old tired bit of nonsense . I attempted to veer it off that particular path by making out weegies are soap dodgers instead In other words I made a comment which some might perceive as offensive so I’m back tracking to wiggle out of it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JudyJudyJudy Posted April 2 Share Posted April 2 25 minutes ago, Sooks said: How so ? Who is it offensive too ? Prison rapists ? If so then I do not really want to apologise to them …….. are you trying to make out my reply was homophobic ? It was not It was homophobic . But im not a delicate little snowflake . So it’s waters off a ducks back to me . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JudyJudyJudy Posted April 2 Share Posted April 2 31 minutes ago, Jim_Duncan said: Exactly. It’s funny watching these self-righteous clowns berate people for the same behaviour they exhibit. They are tying themselves up in knotts trying to defend the undefendsible . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moogsy Posted April 2 Share Posted April 2 In amongst all the other pitfalls of this legislation, the recording of ‘hate incidents’ is absolute nonsense which does nothing but big down Police with unnecessary paperwork. As soon as it has been determined that no crime has occurred, that should be the end of police involvement. The recording of innocent people’s details on police systems when they have committed absolutely no crime is worrying. Sure someone took a similar matter to court down south and won. It’s absolutely bonkers that it’s still encouraged up here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JudyJudyJudy Posted April 2 Share Posted April 2 21 minutes ago, BlueRiver said: You can think something is poorly legislated without being a racist, sectarian bigot, sexist, transphobe or general . A lot of folk on this thread seem to equate not supporting particular pieces of legislation with an agenda beyond that. It happened on the Gender Recognition Bill discussions as well. And not unsurprisingly that are big snp fanboys and Indy fan boys . Not clouded their judgment at all like 👍 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
May one-six Posted April 2 Share Posted April 2 1 minute ago, Ulysses said: What's the legislation that requires the cops to list you as having a "hate incident" on your record even if you haven't done anything? You've explained that it's not this 2021 Act, and @Hmfc1965 put me right on that earlier in the thread. So which law is it? I'm not sure there's a specific law that requires the police to record hate 'incidents'. I'm guessing that having a list is a policy that helps them keep track of potential perpetrators of threatening/abusive behaviour or assault. It seems that they may flag up to a potential employer if someone is on that list, but it's not mandatory for them to do so. I could well be wrong, but I don't think this is governed by a particular law, Scottish or English. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JudyJudyJudy Posted April 2 Share Posted April 2 (edited) 4 minutes ago, May one-six said: I'm not sure there's a specific law that requires the police to record hate 'incidents'. I'm guessing that having a list is a policy that helps them keep track of potential perpetrators of threatening/abusive behaviour or assault. It seems that they may flag up to a potential employer if someone is on that list, but it's not mandatory for them to do so. I could well be wrong, but I don't think this is governed by a particular law, Scottish or English. It’s at the “ discretion “ of the chief superintendent . Well it was previously . This may have changed , maybe it’s at the “ discretion “ of Patrick Harvey ! 😂 on disclosure Checks they have a part which is “ any other information. “ not offences . So it could easily be placed there Edited April 2 by JudyJudyJudy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ex member of the SaS Posted April 2 Share Posted April 2 59 minutes ago, XB52 said: So you will be all for the HCA then as it was voted through by the vast majority My post was about the democratic process. I never expressed an opinion for or against Brexit. What I will say though is before the vote many got the wrong idea of what Brexit meant and were influenced by the number of illegal immigrants crossing the channel. This IMHO is why most of those voters in England voted for Brexit and the promise of stopping the boats was the main reason for it. The democratic process won't always produce the result individuals want but it's the best system available. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ex member of the SaS Posted April 2 Share Posted April 2 10 minutes ago, moogsy said: In amongst all the other pitfalls of this legislation, the recording of ‘hate incidents’ is absolute nonsense which does nothing but big down Police with unnecessary paperwork. As soon as it has been determined that no crime has occurred, that should be the end of police involvement. The recording of innocent people’s details on police systems when they have committed absolutely no crime is worrying. Sure someone took a similar matter to court down south and won. It’s absolutely bonkers that it’s still encouraged up here. I think you will find the leader of the Scottish Conservatives is fighting this very thing right now. He was reported ( can't remember what for) but his name is in the report even though no crime was recorded. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JudyJudyJudy Posted April 2 Share Posted April 2 1 minute ago, Ex member of the SaS said: I think you will find the leader of the Scottish Conservatives is fighting this very thing right now. He was reported ( can't remember what for) but his name is in the report even though no crime was recorded. Murdo Fraser Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JudyJudyJudy Posted April 2 Share Posted April 2 Actually just seen this . Lots of salty tears on this I reckon . https://x.com/jk_rowling/status/1775187763995824350?s=46&t=Uyg6zS_aUfEwlXY6vOoxzQ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JudyJudyJudy Posted April 2 Share Posted April 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doctor jambo Posted April 2 Share Posted April 2 55 minutes ago, Pasquale for King said: What about Hermaphrodites? Where do they fit in to sex being determined by biology? Medical breakthroughs have made it possible for people to change sex/gender, why cant folk accept that, not saying you dont. Can’t argue with multi gender spaces though, Im not sure women are safe anywhere and our sex/gender is the cause of that. Intersex are not transgender . They fit into biology perfectly. Medical procedures do not change your sex. You don’t need anything to change your gender- no medication , no surgery , nothing. Just picking a gender or no gender is fine, it’s done. Your gender is your choice . Live as you want , it’s all good, I’ll call you whatever you want. but women need safe spaces. Your rights extend only so far, and that applies to everything in life. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sooks Posted April 2 Share Posted April 2 1 hour ago, Sooks said: What an absolute mess you are . You are completely incapable of self reflection or thinking about how your publicly stated opinions may hurt or offend others . You have been completely offensive to the trans community on many occasions , but the minute anyone questions you you have a big teary tantrum I I have found a great many of your posts on such subjects extremely offensive previously but I did not report you . If you are so completely incapable of self reflection , then in future I suppose I will just report you or something From previous experience of your rightwing bigotry , I doubt you are much of a reader or someone who is inclined to digest scientific material , but just in case , here you go https://srf-reproduction.org/events/sex-in-three-cities-events/ It is a shame you never bothered your arse to watch the link @JudyJudyJudy , but not even a tiny little bit surprising Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norm Posted April 2 Share Posted April 2 Can someone explain what's changed to make everyone go mental about this? It's surely no just including trans folk in the protected characteristic bit, is it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jack D and coke Posted April 2 Share Posted April 2 7 hours ago, boag1874 said: Just want to prefix this by saying I’m not looking to get into a debate about the wider hate crime bill, that’s more for the Shed, this is just an observation on a specific comment by Ally McCoist. Not exactly a great look when we should be trying to stamp out sectarianism in Scottish Football for one of our most prominent media figures to essentially encourage it at Ibrox. I generally find the guy pretty likeable especially on co-comms but this is poor imo & shows him up as a bit of a fud. https://x.com/football_scot/status/1775088376263139463?s=46&t=SrqSNwJR3cnKo5Ytt-xW5A Just another hun prick. Alll over Scotland fans booing that turgid GSTK shite but never any doubt he’s calling people fenian *******s whether you like it or not Bad men booing 👎🏼 Dirty fenian *******s 👍🏼 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JudyJudyJudy Posted April 2 Share Posted April 2 4 minutes ago, Sooks said: It is a shame you never bothered your arse to watch the link @JudyJudyJudy , but not even a tiny little bit surprising I think it’s you who lacked self awareness . Why only a couple pages ago you posted a homophobic comment , unaware that it was . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taffin Posted April 2 Share Posted April 2 8 minutes ago, doctor jambo said: Intersex are not transgender . They fit into biology perfectly. Medical procedures do not change your sex. You don’t need anything to change your gender- no medication , no surgery , nothing. Just picking a gender or no gender is fine, it’s done. Your gender is your choice . Live as you want , it’s all good, I’ll call you whatever you want. but women need safe spaces. Your rights extend only so far, and that applies to everything in life. Perfectly put, imo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JudyJudyJudy Posted April 2 Share Posted April 2 3 minutes ago, Norm said: Can someone explain what's changed to make everyone go mental about this? It's surely no just including trans folk in the protected characteristic bit, is it? No it’s regarding the low threshold for the offence plus placing people on a secret register even if they are not guilty of the said hate crime Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sooks Posted April 2 Share Posted April 2 1 minute ago, JudyJudyJudy said: I think it’s you who lacked self awareness . Why only a couple pages ago you posted a homophobic comment , unaware that it was . Would you prefer it if I put the contents of the link in to a wee comic for you mate ? Or perhaps a finger puppet show ? Anything that might actually make you able to watch it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses Posted April 2 Share Posted April 2 14 minutes ago, May one-six said: I'm not sure there's a specific law that requires the police to record hate 'incidents'. I'm guessing that having a list is a policy that helps them keep track of potential perpetrators of threatening/abusive behaviour or assault. It seems that they may flag up to a potential employer if someone is on that list, but it's not mandatory for them to do so. I could well be wrong, but I don't think this is governed by a particular law, Scottish or English. According to what I've read on here, the police are recording things on people's records, even when they aren't factual, and then releasing information about those to third parties - and that this has been going on all over the UK for years and has nothing to do with this legislation. All of that strikes me as being, to say the least, "a bit weird". It's not so much the data gathering and storage, because that's what policing services do. It's the dissemination to third parties that surprises me. The legal position in Ireland is that the police can do a huge amount of data gathering, but the right of the police to give that information to anyone else is quite limited by law. Are things different in Scotland? Because if they are, that strikes me as being a far bigger deal than this legislation. Are people misinterpreting what the police can do, or am I misinterpreting what people are saying? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Polonia Gorgie Posted April 2 Share Posted April 2 1 minute ago, Sooks said: Would you prefer it if I put the contents of the link in to a wee comic for you mate ? Or perhaps a finger puppet show ? Anything that might actually make you able to watch it It's 40 minutes long, any chance of a quick synopsis? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norm Posted April 2 Share Posted April 2 4 minutes ago, JudyJudyJudy said: No it’s regarding the low threshold for the offence plus placing people on a secret register even if they are not guilty of the said hate crime What was the threshold before? And it looks like the rozzers have been doing that already, going by Uly's post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JudyJudyJudy Posted April 2 Share Posted April 2 6 minutes ago, Taffin said: Perfectly put, imo. I’ll second that Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JudyJudyJudy Posted April 2 Share Posted April 2 Just now, Norm said: What was the threshold before? And it looks like the rozzers have been doing that already, going by Uly's post. No they haven’t. “ Offences” are recorded no matter if they are criminal or not . If a “ victim “ is offended that’s it . It’s not to be challenged . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JudyJudyJudy Posted April 2 Share Posted April 2 6 minutes ago, Sooks said: Would you prefer it if I put the contents of the link in to a wee comic for you mate ? Or perhaps a finger puppet show ? Anything that might actually make you able to watch it You’re losing the argument it seems . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses Posted April 2 Share Posted April 2 1 minute ago, Norm said: What was the threshold before? And it looks like the rozzers have been doing that already, going by Uly's post. Not me, to be fair. I'm the one trying to work out why other people are saying this happens. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JudyJudyJudy Posted April 2 Share Posted April 2 6 minutes ago, Ulysses said: According to what I've read on here, the police are recording things on people's records, even when they aren't factual, and then releasing information about those to third parties - and that this has been going on all over the UK for years and has nothing to do with this legislation. All of that strikes me as being, to say the least, "a bit weird". It's not so much the data gathering and storage, because that's what policing services do. It's the dissemination to third parties that surprises me. The legal position in Ireland is that the police can do a huge amount of data gathering, but the right of the police to give that information to anyone else is quite limited by law. Are things different in Scotland? Because if they are, that strikes me as being a far bigger deal than this legislation. Are people misinterpreting what the police can do, or am I misinterpreting what people are saying? As I said before the police can disclose information in the other part of any disclosure form they feel may be relevant to the post a person is applying for . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sooks Posted April 2 Share Posted April 2 (edited) 11 minutes ago, Polonia Gorgie said: It's 40 minutes long, any chance of a quick synopsis? It is to do with sex determination and how things take place on a genetic timeline hitherto unappreciated , and most specifically before the development of physical sexual determination in organs . It is a really really good watch and it opened my eyes quite a bit . I was however open minded to being shaken from my ignorance , and some others are not Edited April 2 by Sooks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses Posted April 2 Share Posted April 2 1 minute ago, JudyJudyJudy said: No they haven’t. “ Offences” are recorded no matter if they are criminal or not . If a “ victim “ is offended that’s it . It’s not to be challenged . Are you telling me that @Hmfc1965 and @May one-six were incorrect? There's nothing in this legislation that involves recording "offences", and apparently the police have been recording "offences" under other laws and telling third parties about them for years. I'm not saying any of that, by the way. That's what other people are telling me on this thread. So, which is it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses Posted April 2 Share Posted April 2 2 minutes ago, JudyJudyJudy said: As I said before the police can disclose information in the other part of any disclosure form they feel may be relevant to the post a person is applying for . Under what legislation? In Ireland, they can't do this under our data protection legislation, and they can't do it under our vetting legislation. All they can do under our vetting legislation is report current convictions, spent convictions, and active but incompleted prosecutions for specific offences. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norm Posted April 2 Share Posted April 2 2 minutes ago, JudyJudyJudy said: No they haven’t. “ Offences” are recorded no matter if they are criminal or not . If a “ victim “ is offended that’s it . It’s not to be challenged . They didn't record accusations before? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hmfc1965 Posted April 2 Share Posted April 2 (edited) 10 minutes ago, JudyJudyJudy said: No they haven’t. “ Offences” are recorded no matter if they are criminal or not . If a “ victim “ is offended that’s it . It’s not to be challenged . As Ulysses has asked, where is this stated? It isn't in the Act. There may be a record that Mrs X made a complaint about Mr Y but it's not recorded as an offence. In fact this if a victim says it, it isn't to be challenged is diametrically opposite to when the Act says an offence is committed. Edited April 2 by Hmfc1965 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Polonia Gorgie Posted April 2 Share Posted April 2 1 minute ago, Sooks said: It is to do with sex determination and how things take place on a genetic timeline hitherto unappreciated , and most specifically before the development of sexual determination . It is a really really good watch and it opened my eyes quite a bit . I was however open minded to being shaken from my ignorance , and some others are not Fine fair enough, but there is a massive difference from ignorance and opinion. Im in my 40s and can struggle with some of the trans stuff, can't quite get my head around some of it. I have teenage twins, in their school there is a group who refer themselves as furries!! I don't get it man! However if it makes them happy then I'm happy for them Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Findlay Posted April 2 Share Posted April 2 1 hour ago, Sooks said: I said when is sex determined When the sperm fertilises the egg in the woman's womb. That is a woman who can biologically give birth to another human being. Not a man who says they are a woman but still has a penis and testicles, and no womb and ovaries, therefore does not menstruate once a month, and cannot produce eggs for re-production. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sooks Posted April 2 Share Posted April 2 Just now, Polonia Gorgie said: Fine fair enough, but there is a massive difference from ignorance and opinion. Im in my 40s and can struggle with some of the trans stuff, can't quite get my head around some of it. I have teenage twins, in their school there is a group who refer themselves as furries!! I don't get it man! However if it makes them happy then I'm happy for them I share a similar love and let live sort of attitude to yourself . I do definitely still get irritated by people self identifying as things that they just are not in reality ( cats or ducks or whatever ) and I feel this gets in the way of acceptance of gender and sex dysphoria Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses Posted April 2 Share Posted April 2 This is good news, surely? And it should assuage any worries about "free speech", shouldn't it? Two main points in the article. First, the "offending" posts by JK Rowling aren't criminal. Secondly, the courts have set a very high bar to proving that someone is "stirring up hatred", and this legislation doesn't change that. JK Rowling hate law posts not criminal, police say (bbc.com) (Not that I think it's capable of being implemented anyway, but it looks like free speech is the winner here, which has to be a good thing) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sooks Posted April 2 Share Posted April 2 (edited) 8 minutes ago, John Findlay said: When the sperm fertilises the egg in the woman's womb. That is a woman who can biologically give birth to another human being. Not a man who says they are a woman but still has a penis and testicles, and no womb and ovaries, therefore does not menstruate once a month, and cannot produce eggs for re-production. Are you saying that sex can only be determined during conception in adults ? As wrong as you are , I was asking when sex is determined after fertilisation of said egg by said sperm . Do not worry if you do not know , but please do watch the link and perhaps it will help you . It is not from the Bible or anything , it is from sources who are forced to actually back up their findings and theories with scientific evidence and peer review Edited April 2 by Sooks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JudyJudyJudy Posted April 2 Share Posted April 2 Is this any clearer ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Polonia Gorgie Posted April 2 Share Posted April 2 1 minute ago, Sooks said: I share a similar love and let live sort of attitude to yourself . I do definitely still get irritated by people self identifying as things that they just are not in reality ( cats or ducks or whatever ) and I feel this gets in the way of acceptance of gender and sex dysphoria Well then this is when our paths take a different route, because I get irritated when a man claims to be a woman and when a woman claims to be a man. That being said I don't think I'm ignorant to this subject matter it's that I have a different opinion from others. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JudyJudyJudy Posted April 2 Share Posted April 2 4 minutes ago, Sooks said: I share a similar love and let live sort of attitude to yourself . I do definitely still get irritated by people self identifying as things that they just are not in reality ( cats or ducks or whatever ) and I feel this gets in the way of acceptance of gender and sex dysphoria Patronising much ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JudyJudyJudy Posted April 2 Share Posted April 2 Just now, Jim_Duncan said: It’s really not that hard is it? Biology has given us as clear a definition of what a man/woman male/female is. Anything else is complete fantasy. Yep Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JudyJudyJudy Posted April 2 Share Posted April 2 10 minutes ago, Norm said: They didn't record accusations before? Once im back home I’ll elaborate . Cant type too long on my phone as i get sore fingers ! 😎 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JudyJudyJudy Posted April 2 Share Posted April 2 2 minutes ago, Polonia Gorgie said: Well then this is when our paths take a different route, because I get irritated when a man claims to be a woman and when a woman claims to be a man. That being said I don't think I'm ignorant to this subject matter it's that I have a different opinion from others. As JK states call yourself whatever you want or believe whatever you want but don’t COMPELL others . Everyone has that was right to believe what they wish . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JudyJudyJudy Posted April 2 Share Posted April 2 Next battle Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JudyJudyJudy Posted April 2 Share Posted April 2 6 minutes ago, Sooks said: Are you saying that sex can only be determined during conception in adults ? As wrong as you are , I was asking when sex is determined after fertilisation of said egg by said sperm . Do not worry if you do not know , but please do watch the link and perhaps it will help you . It is not from the Bible or anything , it is from sources who are forced to actually back up their findings and theories with scientific evidence and peer review Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sooks Posted April 2 Share Posted April 2 Ah well . Seeing as no one is prepared to watch the link I provided , I suppose I will just leave you all to it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JudyJudyJudy Posted April 2 Share Posted April 2 5 minutes ago, Sooks said: Ah well . Seeing as no one is prepared to watch the link I provided , I suppose I will just leave you all to it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jambo_Gaz Posted April 2 Share Posted April 2 10 minutes ago, JudyJudyJudy said: Next battle Great, let's see this awful affront of a law and free speech reduced to rubble already. 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.