• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cont: General UK Politics V Suella Strikes Back

Status
Not open for further replies.
Samson said:
Jesus wept.
You think this child Islamist should be respected?
It is not his fault he was an unelected imbecile, it is a deep structural failure of western proclivity taking the foot off the neck.
Click to expand...

More gibberish.

Why don't you answer questions samson? I mean I have a suspicion, it's because you're incapable of doing so because you don't know enough to actually meaningfully participate and you know it, but I could be wrong. Maybe you're just hugely intellectually dishonest.
 
Samson said:
Jesus wept.
You think this child Islamist should be respected?
It is not his fault he was an unelected imbecile, it is a deep structural failure of western proclivity taking the foot off the neck.
Click to expand...

He has been elected several times, which is amazing given he is according to you, under 18.
 
Darat said:
A First Minister should be concerned whether the laws are being followed or not. And remember what Rowling has been posting for the last few years does not fall foul of the new laws.
Click to expand...
And be very aware that the bespectacled articulate feminists are controlling the future discourse.
I could list them, but they do not need me.
They are fixing everything from mutilating minors to compelled speech.
I support them unconditionally.
This human catastrophe will reverse but the carnage is immeasurable.
BBC hang your head in shame.
 
Last edited:
Samson said:
And be very aware that the bespectacled articulate feminists are controlling the future discourse.
I could list them, but they do not need me.
They are fixing everything from mutilating minors to compelled speech.
I support them unconditionally.
This human catastrophe will reverse but the carnage is immeasurable.
BBC hang your head in shame.
Click to expand...

More word salad.

Again, your sources on transgender care are lying to you samson but that isn't what this thread is about.

Stop spouting gibberish non sequiturs and actually answer people's questions. Support your arguments because if you can't we have no reason to listen to the nonsense you spout off.
 
Lothian said:
The law looks ok to me.
Click to expand...
Really?

I have not seen anyone arrested or prosecuted for breaking it that I didn't agree with,
Click to expand...
It's only been in effect since Monday.

The problems with the law aren't necessarily that lots of people will get convicted for free speech, but that they will be reported for saying things that others do not like. This will have a chilling effect on free speech since, even if you are acquitted in the end, the whole process is expensive, time consuming and stressful.

Also, investigating all the vexatious complaints will place an extra burden on an already over stretched police service.

The Scottish Hate Crimes law is ill conceived and dangerous. It should not have seen the light of day in a democracy.
 
jeremyp said:
Really?


It's only been in effect since Monday.

The problems with the law aren't necessarily that lots of people will get convicted for free speech, but that they will be reported for saying things that others do not like. This will have a chilling effect on free speech since, even if you are acquitted in the end, the whole process is expensive, time consuming and stressful.

Also, investigating all the vexatious complaints will place an extra burden on an already over stretched police service.

The Scottish Hate Crimes law is ill conceived and dangerous. It should not have seen the light of day in a democracy.
Click to expand...

We've already gone through it in E&W - so the precedents have already been set. That's why we knew the likes of "misgendering" someone would not result in any arrests, never mind prosecutions.
 
Carrot Flower King said:
I've raised The Kate Forbes Question a couple of times and he ignored me too.
Click to expand...

jeremyp said:
Really?


It's only been in effect since Monday.

The problems with the law aren't necessarily that lots of people will get convicted for free speech, but that they will be reported for saying things that others do not like. This will have a chilling effect on free speech since, even if you are acquitted in the end, the whole process is expensive, time consuming and stressful.

Also, investigating all the vexatious complaints will place an extra burden on an already over stretched police service.

The Scottish Hate Crimes law is ill conceived and dangerous. It should not have seen the light of day in a democracy.
Click to expand...
Main stream media agree with this thread.
The new law is a marvelous thing.
Sad but true.
Keir Starmer will put bells and whistles on this.

Oh lord please buy me a Mercedes Benz.
 
MarkCorrigan said:
It's not moderate discourse, you're just a bigot.

Let's assume we live in a parallel reality. Yousaf lost the election to be SNP leader. So now instead of a Muslim who made no comment on religion guiding his leadership, we have an evangelical Calvanist who explicitly said her faith, one which is intolerant to homosexuals and is extremely socially conservative is in charge.

Do you still protest this leadership?
Click to expand...

This is the question you've been refusing to answer for pages and pages.
 
Samson said:
Main stream media agree with this thread.
The new law is a marvelous thing.
Sad but true.
Keir Starmer will put bells and whistles on this.

Oh lord please buy me a Mercedes Benz.
Click to expand...

Oh look, more word salad that doesn't answer a question.
 
Darat said:
We've already gone through it in E&W - so the precedents have already been set. That's why we knew the likes of "misgendering" someone would not result in any arrests, never mind prosecutions.
Click to expand...
Disingenuous.
 
Samson said:
Disingenuous.
Click to expand...

Amazing you have the gall to say this.

Hey samson, will you answer my question now? You said you would look back for it to answer because you always post 'in good faith' right? I even provided the question again just a few posts up!
 
Meanwhile.

https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/49061-yougov-mrp-labour-now-projected-to-win-over-400-seats

MRP figures released today from YouGov project that, if the country were voting in a general election tomorrow, Labour would win 403 seats nationwide. Crossing the 400-seat line is a significant milestone for Keir Starmer’s party in what is our second MRP projection this year.

Their Conservative rivals would win just 155 seats according to our model, down from 169 in our January projection, suggesting that the electoral situation is getting worse, rather than better, for Rishi Sunak and the Conservatives as we draw closer to the election.
Click to expand...


January's version
https://yougov.co.uk/politics/artic...7-style-landslide-if-election-were-held-today

The results of the model, which uses data from 14,110 respondents answering between 12 December and 4 January, would see Keir Starmer enter Downing Street having secured a 120-seat majority, with Labour winning 385 Commons seats. This would be a 183-seat increase for the party since the last election.

The Conservatives meanwhile would slump to just 169, losing 196 seats compared to 2019.
Click to expand...

Nice direction of travel for Sunak in 3 months 165 seats to 155
 
Last edited:
catsmate said:
I've never been in a Jewish court but the RC (the old Supreme Roman Rota) one was excessively formal, plenty of wood and everything in Latin (it was worse than Commons as an undergrad). The CoE one, where I was a witness, was held in one of the older Crown Court buildings and was also heavy on the stained oak.
Click to expand...

Well my comment was more in the line of a throw away joke, but I wouldn't be surprised if religious courts have even more of an emphasis on pomp and stuffiness than the secular ones do.
 
jeremyp said:
Really?


It's only been in effect since Monday.

The problems with the law aren't necessarily that lots of people will get convicted for free speech, but that they will be reported for saying things that others do not like. This will have a chilling effect on free speech since, even if you are acquitted in the end, the whole process is expensive, time consuming and stressful.

Also, investigating all the vexatious complaints will place an extra burden on an already over stretched police service.

The Scottish Hate Crimes law is ill conceived and dangerous. It should not have seen the light of day in a democracy.
Click to expand...

Happy to review down the line but the predictions of Armageddon seem over the top.

This is exactly how our democracy works. Elected representatives vote on bills that then pass into law. Sometimes the law achieves the intended purpose, sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes there are unintended consequences, sometimes there are not.

It seems to me that many objections are not about the law itself but about the what the bill the elected representatives voted for (82-32 with SNP, Labour, Lib dem, Tory and Green MSPs supporting the bill) is intended to achieve. Tough, vote for someone else next time. Or if you are not in Scotland and are therefore unaffected and unable to vote then, if you feel strongly enough, write to people who can vote, and persuade them to cast their votes in whatever direction you feel appropriate.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom