I am disappointed but not surprised at your take on this.
In common parlance, JK Rowling took one for the team.
Cont: General UK Politics V Suella Strikes Back
- Thread starter KDLarsen
- Start date
- Status
In common parlance, JK Rowling took one for the team.
How did she 'take one' when it was determined that she didn't breach the new law?
Oh, I'd better be careful, I'll be at the Camden Club on Saturday!
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
I guess it could be argued she took a risk for the team, in that there was a non zero chance the police would interpret the new law in the way trans right activists wanted.
I just peaked into the thread on the other forum I belong to which is devoted to painting Rowling as the devil incarnate, and they're incandescent about it.
I have had the interest to watch this closely, and I hold the view she took one for the team. The team is articulate women who post fearlessly on X.
Actually wrong, the team is the common plebiscite, those who see a Trojan horse to criminalizing those that see the prophet Mohammed as an evil pedophile.
Last edited:
junkshop
Otto's Favourite
When did this plebiscite that you keep mentioning happen?
What question was put to the voters, and what was the result?
The Islamist Humza Yousaf was not elected it was hereditary.
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
What? 
Thank you for reminding there are other views.
Some here might be interested in a link to the other forum.
To read only in my case.
In New Zealand, no prime Minister has been re elected after taking the reigns mid term.What?
Yousaf has not faced the plebiscite in an election.
Yousaf was a minister driving this bill. When Sturgeon imploded he inherited the First Minister title as a young Islamist.
No in common parlance she didn't take one for the team. There was, as I explained to you beforehand no chance of her even being arrested as long as she continued to post as she had always posted.
junkshop
Otto's Favourite
Neither of these posts answer my questions.
When did this plebiscite occur?
What was the question?
What was the result?
But it was a zero chance if she continued to post as she had always posted. That some people were ignorant of what decisions had been made previously in decisions that affect the entire UK doesn't alter that.
Yet when I corrected your concerns you provided links to lengthy YouTube videos that you claimed supported your concerns, So the facts are that you apparently watched hours of YouTube videos not that you had no interest to watch this closely.
Maybe I'm missing something here, but what has New Zealand got to do with Yousaf?
No he was first of all voted as the leader of his party. He was then voted for by the representatives of the people. There was nothing inherited.
I take a keen interest in all this, and I understand your interpretation.
There are valid views that
1. The law poses no threat to those that correctly sex individuals on the internet and to their person.
2. That the polis are the arbiters and will decide whether to confiscate devices and record non crime hate incidents.
Last edited:
What reminder? You've been posting the same views as the people Pixel42 mentions in regard to the new laws so we knew there were people that shared your view of the new law.
- Status