Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Give it a rest mate for fuck sake. Your obsessed." It’s “you’re”. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Give it a rest mate for fuck sake. Your obsessed. It’s “you’re”." 🤣🤣🤣🤣 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It is starting to look more and more like state control. Maybe not at the level of North Korea just yet, but give it time. The three tweets he was arrested for seem very tame in my opinion, one was obviously satire "It looks over the top I agree but there's an awful long way to go before we end up under any colour of politicians anywhere near the likes of North Korea, in fact it won't ever happen.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Give it a rest mate for fuck sake. Your obsessed. It’s “you’re”." Haha | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It is starting to look more and more like state control. Maybe not at the level of North Korea just yet, but give it time. The three tweets he was arrested for seem very tame in my opinion, one was obviously satire
It looks over the top I agree but there's an awful long way to go before we end up under any colour of politicians anywhere near the likes of North Korea, in fact it won't ever happen.."5 police officers, 3 tweets, 1 obviously satire, and bail conditions that ban him from using twitter. I agree I wouldn't call it North Korea control just yet, but to say we will never get there, I'm not 100% convinced.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So does Starmer phone up the coppers and tell them who to arrest?" Surely he 'tweets' them  Mrs x | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Deplorable and a sad sign of the UK's slide into Socialist totalitarianism." What were you saying about hysteria? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Deplorable and a sad sign of the UK's slide into Socialist totalitarianism. What were you saying about hysteria?" Based on actions unfolding in front of our eyes : protesters arrested, imprisoned, police waiting on arriving flights. It's not hysteria, but it is a nightmare. btw where is that champion of human rights The Guardian on all this? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If the transcript of his tweet I have seen is correct, it contains a direct instruction to his followers that they should assault people. So, you know, not really a freedom of speech issue. I'm aware he's saying it was a joke. It's not clear it was a joke, and since his career in comedy ended long ago in favour of his career in persecution of the trans community, it can be safely assumed that the people reading this particular tweet aren't doing so for the LOLs." Isn’t Linehan currently a US resident and working on a comedy show there? This is another blow for the UK’s flailing reputation abroad. Hopefully the US government, which has been taking an interest in free speech issues in the UK, will intervene on Linehan’s behalf. It’s just more lazy fanatical enforcement from the useless police. They can’t solve any actual crimes so they spend their time monitoring the internet. To get anywhere in the police nowadays requires candidates to be North Korean-like zealots for all the DEI “issues of the day” so it’s not surprising that it creeps into their confused priorities. Meanwhile real crimes that actually affect the mass of the population go totally unsolved and unpunished. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Deplorable and a sad sign of the UK's slide into Socialist totalitarianism. What were you saying about hysteria? Based on actions unfolding in front of our eyes : protesters arrested, imprisoned, police waiting on arriving flights. It's not hysteria, but it is a nightmare. btw where is that champion of human rights The Guardian on all this?" There will always be arrests of violent protesters from all sides of the aisle, that's just law enforcement. Police arrest people as soon as they can, for obvious reasons. In this case as he got off a flight. Not sure why an airport is a worse place to arrest someone than anywhere else. Not seeing any "socialist totalitarianism" there. Such things have happened under a Tory government too. And human rights don't encompass telling your fans to assault people's genitals, so I'm not entirely surprised the Guardian isn't leaping to Lineham's defence on this one. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If the transcript of his tweet I have seen is correct, it contains a direct instruction to his followers that they should assault people. So, you know, not really a freedom of speech issue. I'm aware he's saying it was a joke. It's not clear it was a joke, and since his career in comedy ended long ago in favour of his career in persecution of the trans community, it can be safely assumed that the people reading this particular tweet aren't doing so for the LOLs. Isn’t Linehan currently a US resident and working on a comedy show there? This is another blow for the UK’s flailing reputation abroad. Hopefully the US government, which has been taking an interest in free speech issues in the UK, will intervene on Linehan’s behalf. It’s just more lazy fanatical enforcement from the useless police. They can’t solve any actual crimes so they spend their time monitoring the internet. To get anywhere in the police nowadays requires candidates to be North Korean-like zealots for all the DEI “issues of the day” so it’s not surprising that it creeps into their confused priorities. Meanwhile real crimes that actually affect the mass of the population go totally unsolved and unpunished." Blah blah. He's s British citizen and he broke the law by directly calling for people to commit assault. This falls well within the remit of normal law enforcement. It's gonna get hate because he's a hero of the anti-trans brigade, and accordingly the good old US of A might even have a tangle because the current administration never miss a chance to stand up for utter shitheads. But feel free to keep banging on about North Korea or whatever. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If the transcript of his tweet I have seen is correct, it contains a direct instruction to his followers that they should assault people. So, you know, not really a freedom of speech issue. I'm aware he's saying it was a joke. It's not clear it was a joke, and since his career in comedy ended long ago in favour of his career in persecution of the trans community, it can be safely assumed that the people reading this particular tweet aren't doing so for the LOLs. Isn’t Linehan currently a US resident and working on a comedy show there? This is another blow for the UK’s flailing reputation abroad. Hopefully the US government, which has been taking an interest in free speech issues in the UK, will intervene on Linehan’s behalf. It’s just more lazy fanatical enforcement from the useless police. They can’t solve any actual crimes so they spend their time monitoring the internet. To get anywhere in the police nowadays requires candidates to be North Korean-like zealots for all the DEI “issues of the day” so it’s not surprising that it creeps into their confused priorities. Meanwhile real crimes that actually affect the mass of the population go totally unsolved and unpunished. Blah blah. He's s British citizen and he broke the law by directly calling for people to commit assault. This falls well within the remit of normal law enforcement. It's gonna get hate because he's a hero of the anti-trans brigade, and accordingly the good old US of A might even have a tangle because the current administration never miss a chance to stand up for utter shitheads. But feel free to keep banging on about North Korea or whatever." Doesn't this chap have an 'absolute right' to free speech then? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If the transcript of his tweet I have seen is correct, it contains a direct instruction to his followers that they should assault people. So, you know, not really a freedom of speech issue. I'm aware he's saying it was a joke. It's not clear it was a joke, and since his career in comedy ended long ago in favour of his career in persecution of the trans community, it can be safely assumed that the people reading this particular tweet aren't doing so for the LOLs. Isn’t Linehan currently a US resident and working on a comedy show there? This is another blow for the UK’s flailing reputation abroad. Hopefully the US government, which has been taking an interest in free speech issues in the UK, will intervene on Linehan’s behalf. It’s just more lazy fanatical enforcement from the useless police. They can’t solve any actual crimes so they spend their time monitoring the internet. To get anywhere in the police nowadays requires candidates to be North Korean-like zealots for all the DEI “issues of the day” so it’s not surprising that it creeps into their confused priorities. Meanwhile real crimes that actually affect the mass of the population go totally unsolved and unpunished. Blah blah. He's s British citizen and he broke the law by directly calling for people to commit assault. This falls well within the remit of normal law enforcement. It's gonna get hate because he's a hero of the anti-trans brigade, and accordingly the good old US of A might even have a tangle because the current administration never miss a chance to stand up for utter shitheads. But feel free to keep banging on about North Korea or whatever. Doesn't this chap have an 'absolute right' to free speech then?" Not under current legislation | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If the transcript of his tweet I have seen is correct, it contains a direct instruction to his followers that they should assault people. So, you know, not really a freedom of speech issue. I'm aware he's saying it was a joke. It's not clear it was a joke, and since his career in comedy ended long ago in favour of his career in persecution of the trans community, it can be safely assumed that the people reading this particular tweet aren't doing so for the LOLs. Isn’t Linehan currently a US resident and working on a comedy show there? This is another blow for the UK’s flailing reputation abroad. Hopefully the US government, which has been taking an interest in free speech issues in the UK, will intervene on Linehan’s behalf. It’s just more lazy fanatical enforcement from the useless police. They can’t solve any actual crimes so they spend their time monitoring the internet. To get anywhere in the police nowadays requires candidates to be North Korean-like zealots for all the DEI “issues of the day” so it’s not surprising that it creeps into their confused priorities. Meanwhile real crimes that actually affect the mass of the population go totally unsolved and unpunished. Blah blah. He's s British citizen and he broke the law by directly calling for people to commit assault. This falls well within the remit of normal law enforcement. It's gonna get hate because he's a hero of the anti-trans brigade, and accordingly the good old US of A might even have a tangle because the current administration never miss a chance to stand up for utter shitheads. But feel free to keep banging on about North Korea or whatever. Doesn't this chap have an 'absolute right' to free speech then?" It gets pretty boring explaining this over and over to people who have no real interest in free speech except as an excuse to spread hate or as a stick with which to beat law enforcement they don't agree with. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The country is on its arse and the police are wasting money on bullshit like this, and visiting people's houses over social media posts "And meanwhile they claim they are under resourced to investigate burglary and vehicle crime  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The country is on its arse and the police are wasting money on bullshit like this, and visiting people's houses over social media posts And meanwhile they claim they are under resourced to investigate burglary and vehicle crime "offer to pay extra tax to the police then if you're that concerned  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The country is on its arse and the police are wasting money on bullshit like this, and visiting people's houses over social media posts And meanwhile they claim they are under resourced to investigate burglary and vehicle crime
offer to pay extra tax to the police then if you're that concerned "What would be the purpose of more funding? They already arrest thirty people a day for stuff they spout on social media. More funding would just lead to more wasted taxpayer money and zero reduction in actual crimes. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The country is on its arse and the police are wasting money on bullshit like this, and visiting people's houses over social media posts And meanwhile they claim they are under resourced to investigate burglary and vehicle crime
offer to pay extra tax to the police then if you're that concerned
What would be the purpose of more funding?
They already arrest thirty people a day for stuff they spout on social media.
More funding would just lead to more wasted taxpayer money and zero reduction in actual crimes."Those 30 people a day include people posting threats, sharing pedo porn etc Is this something you'd rather the police didn't look into ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The country is on its arse and the police are wasting money on bullshit like this, and visiting people's houses over social media posts And meanwhile they claim they are under resourced to investigate burglary and vehicle crime
offer to pay extra tax to the police then if you're that concerned
What would be the purpose of more funding?
They already arrest thirty people a day for stuff they spout on social media.
More funding would just lead to more wasted taxpayer money and zero reduction in actual crimes.
Those 30 people a day include people posting threats, sharing pedo porn etc
Is this something you'd rather the police didn't look into ?"That is a weird twist, you went straight to 11 to make a point that supports policing tweets. I'm not sure why reading the mood of the nation is this difficult, Streeting has said we need to be policing the streets not tweets, today, and No10 said "the PM wants focus on tackling antisocial behaviour, shoplifting, street crime, as well as reducing serious violent crimes like knife crime and violence against women". | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Can I remind people to Not critique others users spelling and grammar, none of us are perfect and mistakes can be made. " Well said, I am dyslexic & sometimes find myself a victim of the spelling police, not been arrested yet! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The country is on its arse and the police are wasting money on bullshit like this, and visiting people's houses over social media posts And meanwhile they claim they are under resourced to investigate burglary and vehicle crime
offer to pay extra tax to the police then if you're that concerned
What would be the purpose of more funding?
They already arrest thirty people a day for stuff they spout on social media.
More funding would just lead to more wasted taxpayer money and zero reduction in actual crimes."if that's you're opinion then you already have the police force you deserve | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The country is on its arse and the police are wasting money on bullshit like this, and visiting people's houses over social media posts And meanwhile they claim they are under resourced to investigate burglary and vehicle crime
offer to pay extra tax to the police then if you're that concerned
What would be the purpose of more funding?
They already arrest thirty people a day for stuff they spout on social media.
More funding would just lead to more wasted taxpayer money and zero reduction in actual crimes.
Those 30 people a day include people posting threats, sharing pedo porn etc
Is this something you'd rather the police didn't look into ?
That is a weird twist, you went straight to 11 to make a point that supports policing tweets. I'm not sure why reading the mood of the nation is this difficult, Streeting has said we need to be policing the streets not tweets, today, and No10 said "the PM wants focus on tackling antisocial behaviour, shoplifting, street crime, as well as reducing serious violent crimes like knife crime and violence against women"."It's politicians' jobs to read the mood of the nation. And to make the appropriate noises. It's the police's job to enforce the current laws. Those laws currently include monitoring mass online communication for stuff that passes the criteria for criminal. Which Linehan's tweet does. There may come a time in the future where Linehan's online instruction to his fans that they should physically assault trans people does not constitute a crime in British law. At that point it will be valid for people to want the police to ignore it. Until such time, any bitching about the cops arresting Linehan but not catching the guy who broke your car window is whataboutery. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The country is on its arse and the police are wasting money on bullshit like this, and visiting people's houses over social media posts And meanwhile they claim they are under resourced to investigate burglary and vehicle crime
offer to pay extra tax to the police then if you're that concerned
What would be the purpose of more funding?
They already arrest thirty people a day for stuff they spout on social media.
More funding would just lead to more wasted taxpayer money and zero reduction in actual crimes.
Those 30 people a day include people posting threats, sharing pedo porn etc
Is this something you'd rather the police didn't look into ?
That is a weird twist, you went straight to 11 to make a point that supports policing tweets. I'm not sure why reading the mood of the nation is this difficult, Streeting has said we need to be policing the streets not tweets, today, and No10 said "the PM wants focus on tackling antisocial behaviour, shoplifting, street crime, as well as reducing serious violent crimes like knife crime and violence against women".
It's politicians' jobs to read the mood of the nation. And to make the appropriate noises.
It's the police's job to enforce the current laws. Those laws currently include monitoring mass online communication for stuff that passes the criteria for criminal. Which Linehan's tweet does.
There may come a time in the future where Linehan's online instruction to his fans that they should physically assault trans people does not constitute a crime in British law. At that point it will be valid for people to want the police to ignore it.
Until such time, any bitching about the cops arresting Linehan but not catching the guy who broke your car window is whataboutery."Good to see that Linehan is suing the police for wrongful arrest, false imprisonment, and breach of his free speech rights. Hopefully he will take them to the cleaners and heads will roll. It’s the only way these people will learn. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The country is on its arse and the police are wasting money on bullshit like this, and visiting people's houses over social media posts And meanwhile they claim they are under resourced to investigate burglary and vehicle crime
offer to pay extra tax to the police then if you're that concerned
What would be the purpose of more funding?
They already arrest thirty people a day for stuff they spout on social media.
More funding would just lead to more wasted taxpayer money and zero reduction in actual crimes.
Those 30 people a day include people posting threats, sharing pedo porn etc
Is this something you'd rather the police didn't look into ?
That is a weird twist, you went straight to 11 to make a point that supports policing tweets. I'm not sure why reading the mood of the nation is this difficult, Streeting has said we need to be policing the streets not tweets, today, and No10 said "the PM wants focus on tackling antisocial behaviour, shoplifting, street crime, as well as reducing serious violent crimes like knife crime and violence against women"."What ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The country is on its arse and the police are wasting money on bullshit like this, and visiting people's houses over social media posts And meanwhile they claim they are under resourced to investigate burglary and vehicle crime
offer to pay extra tax to the police then if you're that concerned
What would be the purpose of more funding?
They already arrest thirty people a day for stuff they spout on social media.
More funding would just lead to more wasted taxpayer money and zero reduction in actual crimes.
Those 30 people a day include people posting threats, sharing pedo porn etc
Is this something you'd rather the police didn't look into ?
That is a weird twist, you went straight to 11 to make a point that supports policing tweets. I'm not sure why reading the mood of the nation is this difficult, Streeting has said we need to be policing the streets not tweets, today, and No10 said "the PM wants focus on tackling antisocial behaviour, shoplifting, street crime, as well as reducing serious violent crimes like knife crime and violence against women".
It's politicians' jobs to read the mood of the nation. And to make the appropriate noises.
It's the police's job to enforce the current laws. Those laws currently include monitoring mass online communication for stuff that passes the criteria for criminal. Which Linehan's tweet does.
There may come a time in the future where Linehan's online instruction to his fans that they should physically assault trans people does not constitute a crime in British law. At that point it will be valid for people to want the police to ignore it.
Until such time, any bitching about the cops arresting Linehan but not catching the guy who broke your car window is whataboutery.
Good to see that Linehan is suing the police for wrongful arrest, false imprisonment, and breach of his free speech rights.
Hopefully he will take them to the cleaners and heads will roll. It’s the only way these people will learn."If he's committed a crime he should rot in jail. I don't know what he posted so I won't say how's guilty or not. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The country is on its arse and the police are wasting money on bullshit like this, and visiting people's houses over social media posts And meanwhile they claim they are under resourced to investigate burglary and vehicle crime
offer to pay extra tax to the police then if you're that concerned
What would be the purpose of more funding?
They already arrest thirty people a day for stuff they spout on social media.
More funding would just lead to more wasted taxpayer money and zero reduction in actual crimes.
Those 30 people a day include people posting threats, sharing pedo porn etc
Is this something you'd rather the police didn't look into ?
That is a weird twist, you went straight to 11 to make a point that supports policing tweets. I'm not sure why reading the mood of the nation is this difficult, Streeting has said we need to be policing the streets not tweets, today, and No10 said "the PM wants focus on tackling antisocial behaviour, shoplifting, street crime, as well as reducing serious violent crimes like knife crime and violence against women".
It's politicians' jobs to read the mood of the nation. And to make the appropriate noises.
It's the police's job to enforce the current laws. Those laws currently include monitoring mass online communication for stuff that passes the criteria for criminal. Which Linehan's tweet does.
There may come a time in the future where Linehan's online instruction to his fans that they should physically assault trans people does not constitute a crime in British law. At that point it will be valid for people to want the police to ignore it.
Until such time, any bitching about the cops arresting Linehan but not catching the guy who broke your car window is whataboutery.
Good to see that Linehan is suing the police for wrongful arrest, false imprisonment, and breach of his free speech rights.
Hopefully he will take them to the cleaners and heads will roll. It’s the only way these people will learn."remains to be seen hey. ther's the little matter of a police invetigation. he's in court tommorow for an unconnected incident because of his historic obsessive behaviour that's ruined his own life. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If the transcript of his tweet I have seen is correct, it contains a direct instruction to his followers that they should assault people. So, you know, not really a freedom of speech issue. I'm aware he's saying it was a joke. It's not clear it was a joke, and since his career in comedy ended long ago in favour of his career in persecution of the trans community, it can be safely assumed that the people reading this particular tweet aren't doing so for the LOLs." Don't talk ridiculous. So can we have the cast of Little Britain arrested then please for their comedy sketches, along with the BBC for airing it. Total bullshit and a pathetic insightment of the law. Mr F. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If he's committed a crime he should rot in jail. I don't know what he posted so I won't say how's guilty or not. " i've read a number of the things he's published on social media and it's very disturbed to be fair. i also agree that justice should be allowed to run it's course before declaring him innocent or guilty, unlike the usual extremists | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"“The decline into Third World despotism continues. Regrettably UK citizens are now almost entirely dependent on interventions from the US government to protect their rights” Good grief seek some help. " you mean like the good friday agreement in norniron? good work bro 🤣🤣🤣🤣 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"“The decline into Third World despotism continues. Regrettably UK citizens are now almost entirely dependent on interventions from the US government to protect their rights” Good grief seek some help. you mean like the good friday agreement in norniron? good work bro 🤣🤣🤣🤣" On whose planet has the good Friday agreement anything to with social media policing | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"“The decline into Third World despotism continues. Regrettably UK citizens are now almost entirely dependent on interventions from the US government to protect their rights” Good grief seek some help. you mean like the good friday agreement in norniron? good work bro 🤣🤣🤣🤣 On whose planet has the good Friday agreement anything to with social media policing "what are you talking about?  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I remember most comedians warned of this type of behaviour from the establishment, but we didn't listen and now here we are being arrested for options and telling jokes. If a man says his a women and wants to use female only places, against women opinions, then as a last resort punch him in the balls. Shows to me the stupidness of a man saying his a women and insists on sharing women only places even if this women has balls. I think he was highlighting this very fact. And has a right to do so imo." He didn't need to add the bit that's got him arrested, if a member of a golf club tweeted the same about a none member using a parking space or in the clubhouse then they took would be inviting violence.. There's other none violent ways to settle a difference or resolve a situation.. I don't think he'll be charged personally but given words of advice but his words have needlessly crossed the line that is there in law.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I remember most comedians warned of this type of behaviour from the establishment, but we didn't listen and now here we are being arrested for options and telling jokes. If a man says his a women and wants to use female only places, against women opinions, then as a last resort punch him in the balls. Shows to me the stupidness of a man saying his a women and insists on sharing women only places even if this women has balls. I think he was highlighting this very fact. And has a right to do so imo. He didn't need to add the bit that's got him arrested, if a member of a golf club tweeted the same about a none member using a parking space or in the clubhouse then they took would be inviting violence.. There's other none violent ways to settle a difference or resolve a situation.. I don't think he'll be charged personally but given words of advice but his words have needlessly crossed the line that is there in law.." As I see it he was highlighting the absurd reasoning that a man who identifies as a women usually in most cases can be allowed to use women only spaces even though they have balls. Thats how I read it, I do not need the police to arrest anyone who's followers did not hit anyone in the balls. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"“The decline into Third World despotism continues. Regrettably UK citizens are now almost entirely dependent on interventions from the US government to protect their rights” Good grief seek some help. you mean like the good friday agreement in norniron? good work bro 🤣🤣🤣🤣 On whose planet has the good Friday agreement anything to with social media policing
what are you talking about? "Your post 👍 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"“The decline into Third World despotism continues. Regrettably UK citizens are now almost entirely dependent on interventions from the US government to protect their rights” Good grief seek some help. you mean like the good friday agreement in norniron? good work bro 🤣🤣🤣🤣 On whose planet has the good Friday agreement anything to with social media policing
what are you talking about?
Your post 👍"clearly not | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If the transcript of his tweet I have seen is correct, it contains a direct instruction to his followers that they should assault people. So, you know, not really a freedom of speech issue. I'm aware he's saying it was a joke. It's not clear it was a joke, and since his career in comedy ended long ago in favour of his career in persecution of the trans community, it can be safely assumed that the people reading this particular tweet aren't doing so for the LOLs. Don't talk ridiculous. So can we have the cast of Little Britain arrested then please for their comedy sketches, along with the BBC for airing it. Total bullshit and a pathetic insightment of the law. Mr F. " Well done for demonstrating that you don't understand the meaning of the word "context". | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I remember most comedians warned of this type of behaviour from the establishment, but we didn't listen and now here we are being arrested for options and telling jokes. If a man says his a women and wants to use female only places, against women opinions, then as a last resort punch him in the balls. Shows to me the stupidness of a man saying his a women and insists on sharing women only places even if this women has balls. I think he was highlighting this very fact. And has a right to do so imo. He didn't need to add the bit that's got him arrested, if a member of a golf club tweeted the same about a none member using a parking space or in the clubhouse then they took would be inviting violence.. There's other none violent ways to settle a difference or resolve a situation.. I don't think he'll be charged personally but given words of advice but his words have needlessly crossed the line that is there in law.. As I see it he was highlighting the absurd reasoning that a man who identifies as a women usually in most cases can be allowed to use women only spaces even though they have balls. Thats how I read it, I do not need the police to arrest anyone who's followers did not hit anyone in the balls." I agree with your first point.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I remember most comedians warned of this type of behaviour from the establishment, but we didn't listen and now here we are being arrested for options and telling jokes. If a man says his a women and wants to use female only places, against women opinions, then as a last resort punch him in the balls. Shows to me the stupidness of a man saying his a women and insists on sharing women only places even if this women has balls. I think he was highlighting this very fact. And has a right to do so imo. He didn't need to add the bit that's got him arrested, if a member of a golf club tweeted the same about a none member using a parking space or in the clubhouse then they took would be inviting violence.. There's other none violent ways to settle a difference or resolve a situation.. I don't think he'll be charged personally but given words of advice but his words have needlessly crossed the line that is there in law.." Well, quite. Or to use a less middle-class example, I wonder what the people screaming about Linehan's right to publicly invite violence on groups he doesn't like would feel if it was an Imam being arrested for preaching violence against the infidel. I wonder if they'd be quite so annoyed about the police wasting their time on that. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"“The decline into Third World despotism continues. Regrettably UK citizens are now almost entirely dependent on interventions from the US government to protect their rights” Good grief seek some help. you mean like the good friday agreement in norniron? good work bro 🤣🤣🤣🤣" You didn't post that then ? I guess my internet is broke | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"“The decline into Third World despotism continues. Regrettably UK citizens are now almost entirely dependent on interventions from the US government to protect their rights” Good grief seek some help. you mean like the good friday agreement in norniron? good work bro 🤣🤣🤣🤣 You didn't post that then ? I guess my internet is broke "no, just your mind | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"“The decline into Third World despotism continues. Regrettably UK citizens are now almost entirely dependent on interventions from the US government to protect their rights” Good grief seek some help. you mean like the good friday agreement in norniron? good work bro 🤣🤣🤣🤣 You didn't post that then ? I guess my internet is broke
no, just your mind "So you didn't post that ? It's got your name on the post ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I remember most comedians warned of this type of behaviour from the establishment, but we didn't listen and now here we are being arrested for options and telling jokes. If a man says his a women and wants to use female only places, against women opinions, then as a last resort punch him in the balls. Shows to me the stupidness of a man saying his a women and insists on sharing women only places even if this women has balls. I think he was highlighting this very fact. And has a right to do so imo. He didn't need to add the bit that's got him arrested, if a member of a golf club tweeted the same about a none member using a parking space or in the clubhouse then they took would be inviting violence.. There's other none violent ways to settle a difference or resolve a situation.. I don't think he'll be charged personally but given words of advice but his words have needlessly crossed the line that is there in law.. As I see it he was highlighting the absurd reasoning that a man who identifies as a women usually in most cases can be allowed to use women only spaces even though they have balls. Thats how I read it, I do not need the police to arrest anyone who's followers did not hit anyone in the balls." Quite, but I'd be guessing someone made a complaint and the police are obligated to investigate. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"“The decline into Third World despotism continues. Regrettably UK citizens are now almost entirely dependent on interventions from the US government to protect their rights” Good grief seek some help. you mean like the good friday agreement in norniron? good work bro 🤣🤣🤣🤣 You didn't post that then ? I guess my internet is broke
no, just your mind
So you didn't post that ?
It's got your name on the post ?
"here's another one bitching about posts .... careful | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"“The decline into Third World despotism continues. Regrettably UK citizens are now almost entirely dependent on interventions from the US government to protect their rights” Good grief seek some help. you mean like the good friday agreement in norniron? good work bro 🤣🤣🤣🤣 You didn't post that then ? I guess my internet is broke
no, just your mind
So you didn't post that ?
It's got your name on the post ?
here's another one bitching about posts .... careful"Asking a question isn't bitching, bitching is bitching lol | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I remember most comedians warned of this type of behaviour from the establishment, but we didn't listen and now here we are being arrested for options and telling jokes. If a man says his a women and wants to use female only places, against women opinions, then as a last resort punch him in the balls. Shows to me the stupidness of a man saying his a women and insists on sharing women only places even if this women has balls. I think he was highlighting this very fact. And has a right to do so imo. He didn't need to add the bit that's got him arrested, if a member of a golf club tweeted the same about a none member using a parking space or in the clubhouse then they took would be inviting violence.. There's other none violent ways to settle a difference or resolve a situation.. I don't think he'll be charged personally but given words of advice but his words have needlessly crossed the line that is there in law.. As I see it he was highlighting the absurd reasoning that a man who identifies as a women usually in most cases can be allowed to use women only spaces even though they have balls. Thats how I read it, I do not need the police to arrest anyone who's followers did not hit anyone in the balls. Quite, but I'd be guessing someone made a complaint and the police are obligated to investigate. " The police are not obligated to investigate anything, just speak to people who have been victims of crime and asked for police assistance. I see his comments as a comment on the rights of women and those men who like to use women only spaces. One has balls the other hasn't, and those that haven't and want to get rid of this women who wants to use their space, is to hit them in the balls as they have them and real women do not. To incite violence their firstly has to be violence and that violence then has to be linked to the tweet. And this kind of thing does not make me want to change the law so I have less freespeech. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If someone thinks his tweet was “incitement to violence,” they have lost their sense of humour and all sense of proportion. It was satire, a play on words to underline the point that men born male remain men regardless of how they identify. People don’t have to like the joke, but treating it as a criminal act is absurd. Comedy has historically pushed boundaries, and that is uncomfortable for some, particularly on the far left, who often act as if their right to be offended outweighs, freedom of speech. But jokes, even offensive ones, are not crimes, it is not against the law to offend someone, for now..." It's not about left or right or even your constant need to put that 'particularly on the left' whenever you sense an opportunity to make a dig in this case very spuriously.. It's not even about comedy in the context he said it.. The ones who think and act upon the law don't tend to factor in if their sense of humour is relevant or even necessary.. He's a great satirist yes but he didn't say it satirically which he's more than well capable of doing .. He just didn't need to add it in order to make what many across all political leanings see as a issue for some women.. To try and say that protection of women in public spaces is a left or right thing is nonsense.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"“The decline into Third World despotism continues. Regrettably UK citizens are now almost entirely dependent on interventions from the US government to protect their rights” Good grief seek some help. you mean like the good friday agreement in norniron? good work bro 🤣🤣🤣🤣 You didn't post that then ? I guess my internet is broke
no, just your mind
So you didn't post that ?
It's got your name on the post ?
here's another one bitching about posts .... careful
Asking a question isn't bitching, bitching is bitching lol"ok chap, seeing as you are struggling with simplicities i'll spell it out for you just this once. yer mon there made a reference to relying on american intervention to underpin uk citizen rights. on noticing the stated location of yer mon in northern ireland the irony of his statement was not lost when one takes into consideration that uk citizens rights there are underpinned by america ... you're welcome | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If someone thinks his tweet was “incitement to violence,” they have lost their sense of humour and all sense of proportion. It was satire, a play on words to underline the point that men born male remain men regardless of how they identify. People don’t have to like the joke, but treating it as a criminal act is absurd. Comedy has historically pushed boundaries, and that is uncomfortable for some, particularly on the far left, who often act as if their right to be offended outweighs, freedom of speech. But jokes, even offensive ones, are not crimes, it is not against the law to offend someone, for now..." When this thing came about, Rowan Atkinson highlighted the absurd law and the attack on free speech and expression. https://youtu.be/BiqDZlAZygU?feature=shared | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I remember most comedians warned of this type of behaviour from the establishment, but we didn't listen and now here we are being arrested for options and telling jokes. If a man says his a women and wants to use female only places, against women opinions, then as a last resort punch him in the balls. Shows to me the stupidness of a man saying his a women and insists on sharing women only places even if this women has balls. I think he was highlighting this very fact. And has a right to do so imo. He didn't need to add the bit that's got him arrested, if a member of a golf club tweeted the same about a none member using a parking space or in the clubhouse then they took would be inviting violence.. There's other none violent ways to settle a difference or resolve a situation.. I don't think he'll be charged personally but given words of advice but his words have needlessly crossed the line that is there in law.. As I see it he was highlighting the absurd reasoning that a man who identifies as a women usually in most cases can be allowed to use women only spaces even though they have balls. Thats how I read it, I do not need the police to arrest anyone who's followers did not hit anyone in the balls. Quite, but I'd be guessing someone made a complaint and the police are obligated to investigate. The police are not obligated to investigate anything, just speak to people who have been victims of crime and asked for police assistance. I see his comments as a comment on the rights of women and those men who like to use women only spaces. One has balls the other hasn't, and those that haven't and want to get rid of this women who wants to use their space, is to hit them in the balls as they have them and real women do not. To incite violence their firstly has to be violence and that violence then has to be linked to the tweet. And this kind of thing does not make me want to change the law so I have less freespeech." No .. There doesn't have to have been an act of violence before the police will act if there's clear incitement.. Just as they and the intelligence services tend to act before an act of terrorism is commited if they have pre warning.. If someone is saying on social media they are going to harm or hurt your loved one your not telling me you would expect no action from the police if you've told them? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I remember most comedians warned of this type of behaviour from the establishment, but we didn't listen and now here we are being arrested for options and telling jokes. If a man says his a women and wants to use female only places, against women opinions, then as a last resort punch him in the balls. Shows to me the stupidness of a man saying his a women and insists on sharing women only places even if this women has balls. I think he was highlighting this very fact. And has a right to do so imo. He didn't need to add the bit that's got him arrested, if a member of a golf club tweeted the same about a none member using a parking space or in the clubhouse then they took would be inviting violence.. There's other none violent ways to settle a difference or resolve a situation.. I don't think he'll be charged personally but given words of advice but his words have needlessly crossed the line that is there in law.. As I see it he was highlighting the absurd reasoning that a man who identifies as a women usually in most cases can be allowed to use women only spaces even though they have balls. Thats how I read it, I do not need the police to arrest anyone who's followers did not hit anyone in the balls. Quite, but I'd be guessing someone made a complaint and the police are obligated to investigate. The police are not obligated to investigate anything, just speak to people who have been victims of crime and asked for police assistance. I see his comments as a comment on the rights of women and those men who like to use women only spaces. One has balls the other hasn't, and those that haven't and want to get rid of this women who wants to use their space, is to hit them in the balls as they have them and real women do not. To incite violence their firstly has to be violence and that violence then has to be linked to the tweet. And this kind of thing does not make me want to change the law so I have less freespeech. No .. There doesn't have to have been an act of violence before the police will act if there's clear incitement.. Just as they and the intelligence services tend to act before an act of terrorism is commited if they have pre warning.. If someone is saying on social media they are going to harm or hurt your loved one your not telling me you would expect no action from the police if you've told them? " he's previously posted that he's going kill people, purely because they disagreed with some of his troll posts. he later went on to dox people and their families because he didn't like what they said. he's a very sad and obsessed man. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If someone thinks his tweet was “incitement to violence,” they have lost their sense of humour and all sense of proportion. It was satire, a play on words to underline the point that men born male remain men regardless of how they identify. People don’t have to like the joke, but treating it as a criminal act is absurd. Comedy has historically pushed boundaries, and that is uncomfortable for some, particularly on the far left, who often act as if their right to be offended outweighs, freedom of speech. But jokes, even offensive ones, are not crimes, it is not against the law to offend someone, for now..." I name one comedian Bernard manning shocking comedian but said what he wanted. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If someone thinks his tweet was “incitement to violence,” they have lost their sense of humour and all sense of proportion. It was satire, a play on words to underline the point that men born male remain men regardless of how they identify. People don’t have to like the joke, but treating it as a criminal act is absurd. Comedy has historically pushed boundaries, and that is uncomfortable for some, particularly on the far left, who often act as if their right to be offended outweighs, freedom of speech. But jokes, even offensive ones, are not crimes, it is not against the law to offend someone, for now... It's not about left or right or even your constant need to put that 'particularly on the left' whenever you sense an opportunity to make a dig in this case very spuriously.. It's not even about comedy in the context he said it.. The ones who think and act upon the law don't tend to factor in if their sense of humour is relevant or even necessary.. He's a great satirist yes but he didn't say it satirically which he's more than well capable of doing .. He just didn't need to add it in order to make what many across all political leanings see as a issue for some women.. To try and say that protection of women in public spaces is a left or right thing is nonsense.." Isn’t you missing the satire kind of proving exactly what I was saying about humour being the blind spot here? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I remember most comedians warned of this type of behaviour from the establishment, but we didn't listen and now here we are being arrested for options and telling jokes. If a man says his a women and wants to use female only places, against women opinions, then as a last resort punch him in the balls. Shows to me the stupidness of a man saying his a women and insists on sharing women only places even if this women has balls. I think he was highlighting this very fact. And has a right to do so imo. He didn't need to add the bit that's got him arrested, if a member of a golf club tweeted the same about a none member using a parking space or in the clubhouse then they took would be inviting violence.. There's other none violent ways to settle a difference or resolve a situation.. I don't think he'll be charged personally but given words of advice but his words have needlessly crossed the line that is there in law.. As I see it he was highlighting the absurd reasoning that a man who identifies as a women usually in most cases can be allowed to use women only spaces even though they have balls. Thats how I read it, I do not need the police to arrest anyone who's followers did not hit anyone in the balls. Quite, but I'd be guessing someone made a complaint and the police are obligated to investigate. The police are not obligated to investigate anything, just speak to people who have been victims of crime and asked for police assistance. I see his comments as a comment on the rights of women and those men who like to use women only spaces. One has balls the other hasn't, and those that haven't and want to get rid of this women who wants to use their space, is to hit them in the balls as they have them and real women do not. To incite violence their firstly has to be violence and that violence then has to be linked to the tweet. And this kind of thing does not make me want to change the law so I have less freespeech. No .. There doesn't have to have been an act of violence before the police will act if there's clear incitement.. Just as they and the intelligence services tend to act before an act of terrorism is commited if they have pre warning.. If someone is saying on social media they are going to harm or hurt your loved one your not telling me you would expect no action from the police if you've told them? " Nail + Head | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If someone thinks his tweet was “incitement to violence,” they have lost their sense of humour and all sense of proportion. It was satire, a play on words to underline the point that men born male remain men regardless of how they identify. People don’t have to like the joke, but treating it as a criminal act is absurd. Comedy has historically pushed boundaries, and that is uncomfortable for some, particularly on the far left, who often act as if their right to be offended outweighs, freedom of speech. But jokes, even offensive ones, are not crimes, it is not against the law to offend someone, for now..." Oh yeah, the "just joking bro" defence, in the context of a completely straight-faced controversy where a number of influential people spend a lot of time accusing a vulnerable minority of being theoretical r*pists to deny them the right to experience their identity because it offends homophobes. How positively hilarious to suggest to a lot of people who explicitly fear and hate the trans community that they should go ahead and physically harm members of the trans community. I get the joke, by the way. It's "some trans women are pre-op". What a fucking side-splitter. What a fucking laugh riot. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If someone thinks his tweet was “incitement to violence,” they have lost their sense of humour and all sense of proportion. It was satire, a play on words to underline the point that men born male remain men regardless of how they identify. People don’t have to like the joke, but treating it as a criminal act is absurd. Comedy has historically pushed boundaries, and that is uncomfortable for some, particularly on the far left, who often act as if their right to be offended outweighs, freedom of speech. But jokes, even offensive ones, are not crimes, it is not against the law to offend someone, for now... Oh yeah, the "just joking bro" defence, in the context of a completely straight-faced controversy where a number of influential people spend a lot of time accusing a vulnerable minority of being theoretical r*pists to deny them the right to experience their identity because it offends homophobes. How positively hilarious to suggest to a lot of people who explicitly fear and hate the trans community that they should go ahead and physically harm members of the trans community. I get the joke, by the way. It's "some trans women are pre-op". What a fucking side-splitter. What a fucking laugh riot." Thank you for proving my point, you being offended is only your problem, it is not a police matter. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I remember most comedians warned of this type of behaviour from the establishment, but we didn't listen and now here we are being arrested for options and telling jokes. If a man says his a women and wants to use female only places, against women opinions, then as a last resort punch him in the balls. Shows to me the stupidness of a man saying his a women and insists on sharing women only places even if this women has balls. I think he was highlighting this very fact. And has a right to do so imo. He didn't need to add the bit that's got him arrested, if a member of a golf club tweeted the same about a none member using a parking space or in the clubhouse then they took would be inviting violence.. There's other none violent ways to settle a difference or resolve a situation.. I don't think he'll be charged personally but given words of advice but his words have needlessly crossed the line that is there in law.. As I see it he was highlighting the absurd reasoning that a man who identifies as a women usually in most cases can be allowed to use women only spaces even though they have balls. Thats how I read it, I do not need the police to arrest anyone who's followers did not hit anyone in the balls. I agree with your first point.. " Now you agree with my first point cool. you do not agree with the second cool. Now do I call the police or do you, am I offended for you not whole heartedly agreeing with me and I feel offended. Or do you for the same reasons or reasons of your own. Or does a member of this thread complain as we both offended them. Where will it end. If I go see a comedian and that comedian was racist I vote with my feet the comedian if they realise their humour is affecting their income I feel a change in the comedians routine would come to pass. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If someone thinks his tweet was “incitement to violence,” they have lost their sense of humour and all sense of proportion. It was satire, a play on words to underline the point that men born male remain men regardless of how they identify. People don’t have to like the joke, but treating it as a criminal act is absurd. Comedy has historically pushed boundaries, and that is uncomfortable for some, particularly on the far left, who often act as if their right to be offended outweighs, freedom of speech. But jokes, even offensive ones, are not crimes, it is not against the law to offend someone, for now... Oh yeah, the "just joking bro" defence, in the context of a completely straight-faced controversy where a number of influential people spend a lot of time accusing a vulnerable minority of being theoretical r*pists to deny them the right to experience their identity because it offends homophobes. How positively hilarious to suggest to a lot of people who explicitly fear and hate the trans community that they should go ahead and physically harm members of the trans community. I get the joke, by the way. It's "some trans women are pre-op". What a fucking side-splitter. What a fucking laugh riot. Thank you for proving my point, you being offended is only your problem, it is not a police matter." It's literally illegal to tell people to hurt other people. You can feel free to disagree with whether or not it should be, but your defence that it was an extremely unfunny joke really has no bearing on whether the police had legal cause to feel his collar. And you're presumably not sixteen so feel free to drop the whole "triggered" thing. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If someone thinks his tweet was “incitement to violence,” they have lost their sense of humour and all sense of proportion. It was satire, a play on words to underline the point that men born male remain men regardless of how they identify. People don’t have to like the joke, but treating it as a criminal act is absurd. Comedy has historically pushed boundaries, and that is uncomfortable for some, particularly on the far left, who often act as if their right to be offended outweighs, freedom of speech. But jokes, even offensive ones, are not crimes, it is not against the law to offend someone, for now... It's not about left or right or even your constant need to put that 'particularly on the left' whenever you sense an opportunity to make a dig in this case very spuriously.. It's not even about comedy in the context he said it.. The ones who think and act upon the law don't tend to factor in if their sense of humour is relevant or even necessary.. He's a great satirist yes but he didn't say it satirically which he's more than well capable of doing .. He just didn't need to add it in order to make what many across all political leanings see as a issue for some women.. To try and say that protection of women in public spaces is a left or right thing is nonsense.. Isn’t you missing the satire kind of proving exactly what I was saying about humour being the blind spot here?" No .. As usual you've made an assumption about someone.. I love satire, it's one of the great comedic elements of that genre but he didn't word it in a satirical way.. He could have and so can you with a bit of thought, a reference about a trans woman who is still intact so to speak is an easy one to make a point about them having a pair of bollocks and being in a women's toilets.. His point would have been a stronger one from his perspective but he literally diminished it by saying what he was arrested for .. Almost like he wants the story to be about poor him.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If someone thinks his tweet was “incitement to violence,” they have lost their sense of humour and all sense of proportion. It was satire, a play on words to underline the point that men born male remain men regardless of how they identify. People don’t have to like the joke, but treating it as a criminal act is absurd. Comedy has historically pushed boundaries, and that is uncomfortable for some, particularly on the far left, who often act as if their right to be offended outweighs, freedom of speech. But jokes, even offensive ones, are not crimes, it is not against the law to offend someone, for now... It's not about left or right or even your constant need to put that 'particularly on the left' whenever you sense an opportunity to make a dig in this case very spuriously.. It's not even about comedy in the context he said it.. The ones who think and act upon the law don't tend to factor in if their sense of humour is relevant or even necessary.. He's a great satirist yes but he didn't say it satirically which he's more than well capable of doing .. He just didn't need to add it in order to make what many across all political leanings see as a issue for some women.. To try and say that protection of women in public spaces is a left or right thing is nonsense.. Isn’t you missing the satire kind of proving exactly what I was saying about humour being the blind spot here? No .. As usual you've made an assumption about someone.. I love satire, it's one of the great comedic elements of that genre but he didn't word it in a satirical way.. He could have and so can you with a bit of thought, a reference about a trans woman who is still intact so to speak is an easy one to make a point about them having a pair of bollocks and being in a women's toilets.. His point would have been a stronger one from his perspective but he literally diminished it by saying what he was arrested for .. Almost like he wants the story to be about poor him.." It is because of his arrest, that the government are speaking about a review and why the chief constable of the met has stated that his officers are in a rock and a hard place so to speak. Wes Streeting states M.p's make the laws and if theses laws have made policing harder then M.P's need to look at what they can do. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I remember most comedians warned of this type of behaviour from the establishment, but we didn't listen and now here we are being arrested for options and telling jokes. If a man says his a women and wants to use female only places, against women opinions, then as a last resort punch him in the balls. Shows to me the stupidness of a man saying his a women and insists on sharing women only places even if this women has balls. I think he was highlighting this very fact. And has a right to do so imo. He didn't need to add the bit that's got him arrested, if a member of a golf club tweeted the same about a none member using a parking space or in the clubhouse then they took would be inviting violence.. There's other none violent ways to settle a difference or resolve a situation.. I don't think he'll be charged personally but given words of advice but his words have needlessly crossed the line that is there in law.. As I see it he was highlighting the absurd reasoning that a man who identifies as a women usually in most cases can be allowed to use women only spaces even though they have balls. Thats how I read it, I do not need the police to arrest anyone who's followers did not hit anyone in the balls. I agree with your first point.. Now you agree with my first point cool. you do not agree with the second cool. Now do I call the police or do you, am I offended for you not whole heartedly agreeing with me and I feel offended. Or do you for the same reasons or reasons of your own. Or does a member of this thread complain as we both offended them. Where will it end. If I go see a comedian and that comedian was racist I vote with my feet the comedian if they realise their humour is affecting their income I feel a change in the comedians routine would come to pass." Given the supreme court in April pretty much said the same thing albeit more eloquently as your first point it would be odd for anyone to disagree with what you were trying to say.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If someone thinks his tweet was “incitement to violence,” they have lost their sense of humour and all sense of proportion. It was satire, a play on words to underline the point that men born male remain men regardless of how they identify. People don’t have to like the joke, but treating it as a criminal act is absurd. Comedy has historically pushed boundaries, and that is uncomfortable for some, particularly on the far left, who often act as if their right to be offended outweighs, freedom of speech. But jokes, even offensive ones, are not crimes, it is not against the law to offend someone, for now... It's not about left or right or even your constant need to put that 'particularly on the left' whenever you sense an opportunity to make a dig in this case very spuriously.. It's not even about comedy in the context he said it.. The ones who think and act upon the law don't tend to factor in if their sense of humour is relevant or even necessary.. He's a great satirist yes but he didn't say it satirically which he's more than well capable of doing .. He just didn't need to add it in order to make what many across all political leanings see as a issue for some women.. To try and say that protection of women in public spaces is a left or right thing is nonsense.. Isn’t you missing the satire kind of proving exactly what I was saying about humour being the blind spot here? No .. As usual you've made an assumption about someone.. I love satire, it's one of the great comedic elements of that genre but he didn't word it in a satirical way.. He could have and so can you with a bit of thought, a reference about a trans woman who is still intact so to speak is an easy one to make a point about them having a pair of bollocks and being in a women's toilets.. His point would have been a stronger one from his perspective but he literally diminished it by saying what he was arrested for .. Almost like he wants the story to be about poor him.." I'm not assuming the same as I was not having a spurious dig. If you can't see the satire in the tweet, there is nothing I can do or say to change that. Let's wait to see where this ends up, no further action and maybe an apology, or court. I know what my money is on. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If someone thinks his tweet was “incitement to violence,” they have lost their sense of humour and all sense of proportion. It was satire, a play on words to underline the point that men born male remain men regardless of how they identify. People don’t have to like the joke, but treating it as a criminal act is absurd. Comedy has historically pushed boundaries, and that is uncomfortable for some, particularly on the far left, who often act as if their right to be offended outweighs, freedom of speech. But jokes, even offensive ones, are not crimes, it is not against the law to offend someone, for now... It's not about left or right or even your constant need to put that 'particularly on the left' whenever you sense an opportunity to make a dig in this case very spuriously.. It's not even about comedy in the context he said it.. The ones who think and act upon the law don't tend to factor in if their sense of humour is relevant or even necessary.. He's a great satirist yes but he didn't say it satirically which he's more than well capable of doing .. He just didn't need to add it in order to make what many across all political leanings see as a issue for some women.. To try and say that protection of women in public spaces is a left or right thing is nonsense.. Isn’t you missing the satire kind of proving exactly what I was saying about humour being the blind spot here? No .. As usual you've made an assumption about someone.. I love satire, it's one of the great comedic elements of that genre but he didn't word it in a satirical way.. He could have and so can you with a bit of thought, a reference about a trans woman who is still intact so to speak is an easy one to make a point about them having a pair of bollocks and being in a women's toilets.. His point would have been a stronger one from his perspective but he literally diminished it by saying what he was arrested for .. Almost like he wants the story to be about poor him.. It is because of his arrest, that the government are speaking about a review and why the chief constable of the met has stated that his officers are in a rock and a hard place so to speak. Wes Streeting states M.p's make the laws and if theses laws have made policing harder then M.P's need to look at what they can do." The legislation has been passed by the last three governments I think, back to 88 and added to it amended as parliament struggles to play catch up with the tech and social media aspects of life .. Im not sure his intent when saying it was to get the reaction we've seen today from those you mentioned.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If someone thinks his tweet was “incitement to violence,” they have lost their sense of humour and all sense of proportion. It was satire, a play on words to underline the point that men born male remain men regardless of how they identify. People don’t have to like the joke, but treating it as a criminal act is absurd. Comedy has historically pushed boundaries, and that is uncomfortable for some, particularly on the far left, who often act as if their right to be offended outweighs, freedom of speech. But jokes, even offensive ones, are not crimes, it is not against the law to offend someone, for now... It's not about left or right or even your constant need to put that 'particularly on the left' whenever you sense an opportunity to make a dig in this case very spuriously.. It's not even about comedy in the context he said it.. The ones who think and act upon the law don't tend to factor in if their sense of humour is relevant or even necessary.. He's a great satirist yes but he didn't say it satirically which he's more than well capable of doing .. He just didn't need to add it in order to make what many across all political leanings see as a issue for some women.. To try and say that protection of women in public spaces is a left or right thing is nonsense.. Isn’t you missing the satire kind of proving exactly what I was saying about humour being the blind spot here? No .. As usual you've made an assumption about someone.. I love satire, it's one of the great comedic elements of that genre but he didn't word it in a satirical way.. He could have and so can you with a bit of thought, a reference about a trans woman who is still intact so to speak is an easy one to make a point about them having a pair of bollocks and being in a women's toilets.. His point would have been a stronger one from his perspective but he literally diminished it by saying what he was arrested for .. Almost like he wants the story to be about poor him.." For me the satire is that he said hit them in the balls because he should of said pu55y but couldn't because the women he refers to has balls, which brings up questions around the whole idea of men using women only spaces. Which is the point of satire highlighting an issue through the use of risky humour. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I remember most comedians warned of this type of behaviour from the establishment, but we didn't listen and now here we are being arrested for options and telling jokes. If a man says his a women and wants to use female only places, against women opinions, then as a last resort punch him in the balls. Shows to me the stupidness of a man saying his a women and insists on sharing women only places even if this women has balls. I think he was highlighting this very fact. And has a right to do so imo. He didn't need to add the bit that's got him arrested, if a member of a golf club tweeted the same about a none member using a parking space or in the clubhouse then they took would be inviting violence.. There's other none violent ways to settle a difference or resolve a situation.. I don't think he'll be charged personally but given words of advice but his words have needlessly crossed the line that is there in law.. As I see it he was highlighting the absurd reasoning that a man who identifies as a women usually in most cases can be allowed to use women only spaces even though they have balls. Thats how I read it, I do not need the police to arrest anyone who's followers did not hit anyone in the balls. I agree with your first point.. Now you agree with my first point cool. you do not agree with the second cool. Now do I call the police or do you, am I offended for you not whole heartedly agreeing with me and I feel offended. Or do you for the same reasons or reasons of your own. Or does a member of this thread complain as we both offended them. Where will it end. If I go see a comedian and that comedian was racist I vote with my feet the comedian if they realise their humour is affecting their income I feel a change in the comedians routine would come to pass. Given the supreme court in April pretty much said the same thing albeit more eloquently as your first point it would be odd for anyone to disagree with what you were trying to say.. " it is so rare to see posters in agreement, I thank you. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If someone thinks his tweet was “incitement to violence,” they have lost their sense of humour and all sense of proportion. It was satire, a play on words to underline the point that men born male remain men regardless of how they identify. People don’t have to like the joke, but treating it as a criminal act is absurd. Comedy has historically pushed boundaries, and that is uncomfortable for some, particularly on the far left, who often act as if their right to be offended outweighs, freedom of speech. But jokes, even offensive ones, are not crimes, it is not against the law to offend someone, for now... It's not about left or right or even your constant need to put that 'particularly on the left' whenever you sense an opportunity to make a dig in this case very spuriously.. It's not even about comedy in the context he said it.. The ones who think and act upon the law don't tend to factor in if their sense of humour is relevant or even necessary.. He's a great satirist yes but he didn't say it satirically which he's more than well capable of doing .. He just didn't need to add it in order to make what many across all political leanings see as a issue for some women.. To try and say that protection of women in public spaces is a left or right thing is nonsense.. Isn’t you missing the satire kind of proving exactly what I was saying about humour being the blind spot here? No .. As usual you've made an assumption about someone.. I love satire, it's one of the great comedic elements of that genre but he didn't word it in a satirical way.. He could have and so can you with a bit of thought, a reference about a trans woman who is still intact so to speak is an easy one to make a point about them having a pair of bollocks and being in a women's toilets.. His point would have been a stronger one from his perspective but he literally diminished it by saying what he was arrested for .. Almost like he wants the story to be about poor him.. I'm not assuming the same as I was not having a spurious dig. If you can't see the satire in the tweet, there is nothing I can do or say to change that. Let's wait to see where this ends up, no further action and maybe an apology, or court. I know what my money is on." Ditto in that you seem to be unable to see how lacking in satire it was to say it how he actually did.. Funny enough I said the same thing earlier.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If someone thinks his tweet was “incitement to violence,” they have lost their sense of humour and all sense of proportion. It was satire, a play on words to underline the point that men born male remain men regardless of how they identify. People don’t have to like the joke, but treating it as a criminal act is absurd. Comedy has historically pushed boundaries, and that is uncomfortable for some, particularly on the far left, who often act as if their right to be offended outweighs, freedom of speech. But jokes, even offensive ones, are not crimes, it is not against the law to offend someone, for now... It's not about left or right or even your constant need to put that 'particularly on the left' whenever you sense an opportunity to make a dig in this case very spuriously.. It's not even about comedy in the context he said it.. The ones who think and act upon the law don't tend to factor in if their sense of humour is relevant or even necessary.. He's a great satirist yes but he didn't say it satirically which he's more than well capable of doing .. He just didn't need to add it in order to make what many across all political leanings see as a issue for some women.. To try and say that protection of women in public spaces is a left or right thing is nonsense.. Isn’t you missing the satire kind of proving exactly what I was saying about humour being the blind spot here? No .. As usual you've made an assumption about someone.. I love satire, it's one of the great comedic elements of that genre but he didn't word it in a satirical way.. He could have and so can you with a bit of thought, a reference about a trans woman who is still intact so to speak is an easy one to make a point about them having a pair of bollocks and being in a women's toilets.. His point would have been a stronger one from his perspective but he literally diminished it by saying what he was arrested for .. Almost like he wants the story to be about poor him.. I'm not assuming the same as I was not having a spurious dig. If you can't see the satire in the tweet, there is nothing I can do or say to change that. Let's wait to see where this ends up, no further action and maybe an apology, or court. I know what my money is on." I hear he wants to sue them. The police that is. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If someone thinks his tweet was “incitement to violence,” they have lost their sense of humour and all sense of proportion. It was satire, a play on words to underline the point that men born male remain men regardless of how they identify. People don’t have to like the joke, but treating it as a criminal act is absurd. Comedy has historically pushed boundaries, and that is uncomfortable for some, particularly on the far left, who often act as if their right to be offended outweighs, freedom of speech. But jokes, even offensive ones, are not crimes, it is not against the law to offend someone, for now... Oh yeah, the "just joking bro" defence, in the context of a completely straight-faced controversy where a number of influential people spend a lot of time accusing a vulnerable minority of being theoretical r*pists to deny them the right to experience their identity because it offends homophobes. How positively hilarious to suggest to a lot of people who explicitly fear and hate the trans community that they should go ahead and physically harm members of the trans community. I get the joke, by the way. It's "some trans women are pre-op". What a fucking side-splitter. What a fucking laugh riot. Thank you for proving my point, you being offended is only your problem, it is not a police matter. It's literally illegal to tell people to hurt other people. You can feel free to disagree with whether or not it should be, but your defence that it was an extremely unfunny joke really has no bearing on whether the police had legal cause to feel his collar. And you're presumably not sixteen so feel free to drop the whole "triggered" thing." I'm going to leave it here as I have the other poster who is also finding it difficult to find the humour. I'm confident that common sense will prevail and this will end as it should, a lessons learnt exercise for the police and those who find edgy humour a touch too much. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I remember most comedians warned of this type of behaviour from the establishment, but we didn't listen and now here we are being arrested for options and telling jokes. If a man says his a women and wants to use female only places, against women opinions, then as a last resort punch him in the balls. Shows to me the stupidness of a man saying his a women and insists on sharing women only places even if this women has balls. I think he was highlighting this very fact. And has a right to do so imo. He didn't need to add the bit that's got him arrested, if a member of a golf club tweeted the same about a none member using a parking space or in the clubhouse then they took would be inviting violence.. There's other none violent ways to settle a difference or resolve a situation.. I don't think he'll be charged personally but given words of advice but his words have needlessly crossed the line that is there in law.. As I see it he was highlighting the absurd reasoning that a man who identifies as a women usually in most cases can be allowed to use women only spaces even though they have balls. Thats how I read it, I do not need the police to arrest anyone who's followers did not hit anyone in the balls. I agree with your first point.. Now you agree with my first point cool. you do not agree with the second cool. Now do I call the police or do you, am I offended for you not whole heartedly agreeing with me and I feel offended. Or do you for the same reasons or reasons of your own. Or does a member of this thread complain as we both offended them. Where will it end. If I go see a comedian and that comedian was racist I vote with my feet the comedian if they realise their humour is affecting their income I feel a change in the comedians routine would come to pass. Given the supreme court in April pretty much said the same thing albeit more eloquently as your first point it would be odd for anyone to disagree with what you were trying to say.. it is so rare to see posters in agreement, I thank you." Only on the first point .. I've addressed above why and how you are wrong about not needing the police etc.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If someone thinks his tweet was “incitement to violence,” they have lost their sense of humour and all sense of proportion. It was satire, a play on words to underline the point that men born male remain men regardless of how they identify. People don’t have to like the joke, but treating it as a criminal act is absurd. Comedy has historically pushed boundaries, and that is uncomfortable for some, particularly on the far left, who often act as if their right to be offended outweighs, freedom of speech. But jokes, even offensive ones, are not crimes, it is not against the law to offend someone, for now... It's not about left or right or even your constant need to put that 'particularly on the left' whenever you sense an opportunity to make a dig in this case very spuriously.. It's not even about comedy in the context he said it.. The ones who think and act upon the law don't tend to factor in if their sense of humour is relevant or even necessary.. He's a great satirist yes but he didn't say it satirically which he's more than well capable of doing .. He just didn't need to add it in order to make what many across all political leanings see as a issue for some women.. To try and say that protection of women in public spaces is a left or right thing is nonsense.. Isn’t you missing the satire kind of proving exactly what I was saying about humour being the blind spot here? No .. As usual you've made an assumption about someone.. I love satire, it's one of the great comedic elements of that genre but he didn't word it in a satirical way.. He could have and so can you with a bit of thought, a reference about a trans woman who is still intact so to speak is an easy one to make a point about them having a pair of bollocks and being in a women's toilets.. His point would have been a stronger one from his perspective but he literally diminished it by saying what he was arrested for .. Almost like he wants the story to be about poor him.. It is because of his arrest, that the government are speaking about a review and why the chief constable of the met has stated that his officers are in a rock and a hard place so to speak. Wes Streeting states M.p's make the laws and if theses laws have made policing harder then M.P's need to look at what they can do. The legislation has been passed by the last three governments I think, back to 88 and added to it amended as parliament struggles to play catch up with the tech and social media aspects of life .. Im not sure his intent when saying it was to get the reaction we've seen today from those you mentioned.." I posted a link to Rowan Atkinson speech or section 5 which threatened free speech. In a quote he states there should be more offensive comments more hate speech more of the stuff that makes us angry as the more we hear it the more we get use to it, the more absurd the persons saying it looks, and the more we will think of other pressing issues we need to sort out. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If someone thinks his tweet was “incitement to violence,” they have lost their sense of humour and all sense of proportion. It was satire, a play on words to underline the point that men born male remain men regardless of how they identify. People don’t have to like the joke, but treating it as a criminal act is absurd. Comedy has historically pushed boundaries, and that is uncomfortable for some, particularly on the far left, who often act as if their right to be offended outweighs, freedom of speech. But jokes, even offensive ones, are not crimes, it is not against the law to offend someone, for now... Oh yeah, the "just joking bro" defence, in the context of a completely straight-faced controversy where a number of influential people spend a lot of time accusing a vulnerable minority of being theoretical r*pists to deny them the right to experience their identity because it offends homophobes. How positively hilarious to suggest to a lot of people who explicitly fear and hate the trans community that they should go ahead and physically harm members of the trans community. I get the joke, by the way. It's "some trans women are pre-op". What a fucking side-splitter. What a fucking laugh riot. Thank you for proving my point, you being offended is only your problem, it is not a police matter. It's literally illegal to tell people to hurt other people. You can feel free to disagree with whether or not it should be, but your defence that it was an extremely unfunny joke really has no bearing on whether the police had legal cause to feel his collar. And you're presumably not sixteen so feel free to drop the whole "triggered" thing. I'm going to leave it here as I have the other poster who is also finding it difficult to find the humour. I'm confident that common sense will prevail and this will end as it should, a lessons learnt exercise for the police and those who find edgy humour a touch too much. " It's not humour to say what he said.. If I say to your neighbour I'm going to punch him next door and then do, how hilarious do you think that will be..? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I remember most comedians warned of this type of behaviour from the establishment, but we didn't listen and now here we are being arrested for options and telling jokes. If a man says his a women and wants to use female only places, against women opinions, then as a last resort punch him in the balls. Shows to me the stupidness of a man saying his a women and insists on sharing women only places even if this women has balls. I think he was highlighting this very fact. And has a right to do so imo. He didn't need to add the bit that's got him arrested, if a member of a golf club tweeted the same about a none member using a parking space or in the clubhouse then they took would be inviting violence.. There's other none violent ways to settle a difference or resolve a situation.. I don't think he'll be charged personally but given words of advice but his words have needlessly crossed the line that is there in law.. As I see it he was highlighting the absurd reasoning that a man who identifies as a women usually in most cases can be allowed to use women only spaces even though they have balls. Thats how I read it, I do not need the police to arrest anyone who's followers did not hit anyone in the balls. I agree with your first point.. Now you agree with my first point cool. you do not agree with the second cool. Now do I call the police or do you, am I offended for you not whole heartedly agreeing with me and I feel offended. Or do you for the same reasons or reasons of your own. Or does a member of this thread complain as we both offended them. Where will it end. If I go see a comedian and that comedian was racist I vote with my feet the comedian if they realise their humour is affecting their income I feel a change in the comedians routine would come to pass. Given the supreme court in April pretty much said the same thing albeit more eloquently as your first point it would be odd for anyone to disagree with what you were trying to say.. it is so rare to see posters in agreement, I thank you. Only on the first point .. I've addressed above why and how you are wrong about not needing the police etc.." Argh we do not agree well I'm offended and reporting you to admin. Admin has sense and I would get the ban if sanity prevails. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If someone thinks his tweet was “incitement to violence,” they have lost their sense of humour and all sense of proportion. It was satire, a play on words to underline the point that men born male remain men regardless of how they identify. People don’t have to like the joke, but treating it as a criminal act is absurd. Comedy has historically pushed boundaries, and that is uncomfortable for some, particularly on the far left, who often act as if their right to be offended outweighs, freedom of speech. But jokes, even offensive ones, are not crimes, it is not against the law to offend someone, for now... It's not about left or right or even your constant need to put that 'particularly on the left' whenever you sense an opportunity to make a dig in this case very spuriously.. It's not even about comedy in the context he said it.. The ones who think and act upon the law don't tend to factor in if their sense of humour is relevant or even necessary.. He's a great satirist yes but he didn't say it satirically which he's more than well capable of doing .. He just didn't need to add it in order to make what many across all political leanings see as a issue for some women.. To try and say that protection of women in public spaces is a left or right thing is nonsense.. Isn’t you missing the satire kind of proving exactly what I was saying about humour being the blind spot here? No .. As usual you've made an assumption about someone.. I love satire, it's one of the great comedic elements of that genre but he didn't word it in a satirical way.. He could have and so can you with a bit of thought, a reference about a trans woman who is still intact so to speak is an easy one to make a point about them having a pair of bollocks and being in a women's toilets.. His point would have been a stronger one from his perspective but he literally diminished it by saying what he was arrested for .. Almost like he wants the story to be about poor him.. I'm not assuming the same as I was not having a spurious dig. If you can't see the satire in the tweet, there is nothing I can do or say to change that. Let's wait to see where this ends up, no further action and maybe an apology, or court. I know what my money is on. I hear he wants to sue them. The police that is." Yes, and it might take that type of action to stop the overreach that has become the norm. It seems to have provoked quite the backlash already with No 10, Ministers and the Met Commissioner all having an opinion that appears to contradict the arrest and there is even a suggestion the law needs revisiting after the arrest from the Met. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Thank you for proving my point, you being offended is only your problem, it is not a police matter. It's literally illegal to tell people to hurt other people. You can feel free to disagree with whether or not it should be, but your defence that it was an extremely unfunny joke really has no bearing on whether the police had legal cause to feel his collar. And you're presumably not sixteen so feel free to drop the whole "triggered" thing. I'm going to leave it here as I have the other poster who is also finding it difficult to find the humour. I'm confident that common sense will prevail and this will end as it should, a lessons learnt exercise for the police and those who find edgy humour a touch too much. " By all means, feel free to cherry-pick so you don't have to address the substance of the argument. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If someone thinks his tweet was “incitement to violence,” they have lost their sense of humour and all sense of proportion. It was satire, a play on words to underline the point that men born male remain men regardless of how they identify. People don’t have to like the joke, but treating it as a criminal act is absurd. Comedy has historically pushed boundaries, and that is uncomfortable for some, particularly on the far left, who often act as if their right to be offended outweighs, freedom of speech. But jokes, even offensive ones, are not crimes, it is not against the law to offend someone, for now... It's not about left or right or even your constant need to put that 'particularly on the left' whenever you sense an opportunity to make a dig in this case very spuriously.. It's not even about comedy in the context he said it.. The ones who think and act upon the law don't tend to factor in if their sense of humour is relevant or even necessary.. He's a great satirist yes but he didn't say it satirically which he's more than well capable of doing .. He just didn't need to add it in order to make what many across all political leanings see as a issue for some women.. To try and say that protection of women in public spaces is a left or right thing is nonsense.. Isn’t you missing the satire kind of proving exactly what I was saying about humour being the blind spot here? No .. As usual you've made an assumption about someone.. I love satire, it's one of the great comedic elements of that genre but he didn't word it in a satirical way.. He could have and so can you with a bit of thought, a reference about a trans woman who is still intact so to speak is an easy one to make a point about them having a pair of bollocks and being in a women's toilets.. His point would have been a stronger one from his perspective but he literally diminished it by saying what he was arrested for .. Almost like he wants the story to be about poor him.. It is because of his arrest, that the government are speaking about a review and why the chief constable of the met has stated that his officers are in a rock and a hard place so to speak. Wes Streeting states M.p's make the laws and if theses laws have made policing harder then M.P's need to look at what they can do. The legislation has been passed by the last three governments I think, back to 88 and added to it amended as parliament struggles to play catch up with the tech and social media aspects of life .. Im not sure his intent when saying it was to get the reaction we've seen today from those you mentioned.. I posted a link to Rowan Atkinson speech or section 5 which threatened free speech. In a quote he states there should be more offensive comments more hate speech more of the stuff that makes us angry as the more we hear it the more we get use to it, the more absurd the persons saying it looks, and the more we will think of other pressing issues we need to sort out." Slippery slope from him saying that to someone else saying burn the whatever down with them inside.. Offence fine yes but hate? No because we have people who have an agenda and as we've seen some are so angry they will riot based upon false tweets .. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I remember most comedians warned of this type of behaviour from the establishment, but we didn't listen and now here we are being arrested for options and telling jokes. If a man says his a women and wants to use female only places, against women opinions, then as a last resort punch him in the balls. Shows to me the stupidness of a man saying his a women and insists on sharing women only places even if this women has balls. I think he was highlighting this very fact. And has a right to do so imo. He didn't need to add the bit that's got him arrested, if a member of a golf club tweeted the same about a none member using a parking space or in the clubhouse then they took would be inviting violence.. There's other none violent ways to settle a difference or resolve a situation.. I don't think he'll be charged personally but given words of advice but his words have needlessly crossed the line that is there in law.. As I see it he was highlighting the absurd reasoning that a man who identifies as a women usually in most cases can be allowed to use women only spaces even though they have balls. Thats how I read it, I do not need the police to arrest anyone who's followers did not hit anyone in the balls. I agree with your first point.. Now you agree with my first point cool. you do not agree with the second cool. Now do I call the police or do you, am I offended for you not whole heartedly agreeing with me and I feel offended. Or do you for the same reasons or reasons of your own. Or does a member of this thread complain as we both offended them. Where will it end. If I go see a comedian and that comedian was racist I vote with my feet the comedian if they realise their humour is affecting their income I feel a change in the comedians routine would come to pass. Given the supreme court in April pretty much said the same thing albeit more eloquently as your first point it would be odd for anyone to disagree with what you were trying to say.. it is so rare to see posters in agreement, I thank you. Only on the first point .. I've addressed above why and how you are wrong about not needing the police etc.. Argh we do not agree well I'm offended and reporting you to admin. Admin has sense and I would get the ban if sanity prevails. "Not my first rodeo.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If someone thinks his tweet was “incitement to violence,” they have lost their sense of humour and all sense of proportion. It was satire, a play on words to underline the point that men born male remain men regardless of how they identify. People don’t have to like the joke, but treating it as a criminal act is absurd. Comedy has historically pushed boundaries, and that is uncomfortable for some, particularly on the far left, who often act as if their right to be offended outweighs, freedom of speech. But jokes, even offensive ones, are not crimes, it is not against the law to offend someone, for now... Oh yeah, the "just joking bro" defence, in the context of a completely straight-faced controversy where a number of influential people spend a lot of time accusing a vulnerable minority of being theoretical r*pists to deny them the right to experience their identity because it offends homophobes. How positively hilarious to suggest to a lot of people who explicitly fear and hate the trans community that they should go ahead and physically harm members of the trans community. I get the joke, by the way. It's "some trans women are pre-op". What a fucking side-splitter. What a fucking laugh riot. Thank you for proving my point, you being offended is only your problem, it is not a police matter. It's literally illegal to tell people to hurt other people. You can feel free to disagree with whether or not it should be, but your defence that it was an extremely unfunny joke really has no bearing on whether the police had legal cause to feel his collar. And you're presumably not sixteen so feel free to drop the whole "triggered" thing. I'm going to leave it here as I have the other poster who is also finding it difficult to find the humour. I'm confident that common sense will prevail and this will end as it should, a lessons learnt exercise for the police and those who find edgy humour a touch too much. It's not humour to say what he said.. If I say to your neighbour I'm going to punch him next door and then do, how hilarious do you think that will be..? " That could be the rabbit hole you have fallen in. He wasn't aiming at anyone person in particular but you are making it so in your example. The legal test here is whether a reasonable person would consider the tweet as a genuine call to violence or as satire. I know where my money would be placed, and those in power are seemingly siding with satire. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Thank you for proving my point, you being offended is only your problem, it is not a police matter. It's literally illegal to tell people to hurt other people. You can feel free to disagree with whether or not it should be, but your defence that it was an extremely unfunny joke really has no bearing on whether the police had legal cause to feel his collar. And you're presumably not sixteen so feel free to drop the whole "triggered" thing. I'm going to leave it here as I have the other poster who is also finding it difficult to find the humour. I'm confident that common sense will prevail and this will end as it should, a lessons learnt exercise for the police and those who find edgy humour a touch too much. By all means, feel free to cherry-pick so you don't have to address the substance of the argument." There is nothing left to say, you think it is a call for violence I think it was satire. Our only course of action now is to see what occurs next. I look forward to picking up with you then. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Thank you for proving my point, you being offended is only your problem, it is not a police matter. It's literally illegal to tell people to hurt other people. You can feel free to disagree with whether or not it should be, but your defence that it was an extremely unfunny joke really has no bearing on whether the police had legal cause to feel his collar. And you're presumably not sixteen so feel free to drop the whole "triggered" thing. I'm going to leave it here as I have the other poster who is also finding it difficult to find the humour. I'm confident that common sense will prevail and this will end as it should, a lessons learnt exercise for the police and those who find edgy humour a touch too much. By all means, feel free to cherry-pick so you don't have to address the substance of the argument. There is nothing left to say, you think it is a call for violence I think it was satire. Our only course of action now is to see what occurs next. I look forward to picking up with you then. " Actually, I think it's both. I think Linehan was genuinely trying and failing to make a funny while simultaneously - and obviously, given his track record - genuinely inviting people to attack trans women who go into women's bathrooms. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Thank you for proving my point, you being offended is only your problem, it is not a police matter. It's literally illegal to tell people to hurt other people. You can feel free to disagree with whether or not it should be, but your defence that it was an extremely unfunny joke really has no bearing on whether the police had legal cause to feel his collar. And you're presumably not sixteen so feel free to drop the whole "triggered" thing. I'm going to leave it here as I have the other poster who is also finding it difficult to find the humour. I'm confident that common sense will prevail and this will end as it should, a lessons learnt exercise for the police and those who find edgy humour a touch too much. By all means, feel free to cherry-pick so you don't have to address the substance of the argument. There is nothing left to say, you think it is a call for violence I think it was satire. Our only course of action now is to see what occurs next. I look forward to picking up with you then. Actually, I think it's both. I think Linehan was genuinely trying and failing to make a funny while simultaneously - and obviously, given his track record - genuinely inviting people to attack trans women who go into women's bathrooms." He sees himself as an activist for women's rights, on that journey he has by all accounts been rather offensive. By putting himself out into the public domain as an activist he will no doubt have his supporters and detractors. From my point of view I knew nothing about his activism, until I started to look him up in detail after the news of his arrest. Before that point I had read his tweet and considered it to be satire. The legal test being, would a reasonable person consider it a call to incite violence. I had no bias, I considered it to be satire. Your argument will no doubt be am I reasonable, park it | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If someone thinks his tweet was “incitement to violence,” they have lost their sense of humour and all sense of proportion. It was satire, a play on words to underline the point that men born male remain men regardless of how they identify. People don’t have to like the joke, but treating it as a criminal act is absurd. Comedy has historically pushed boundaries, and that is uncomfortable for some, particularly on the far left, who often act as if their right to be offended outweighs, freedom of speech. But jokes, even offensive ones, are not crimes, it is not against the law to offend someone, for now... Oh yeah, the "just joking bro" defence, in the context of a completely straight-faced controversy where a number of influential people spend a lot of time accusing a vulnerable minority of being theoretical r*pists to deny them the right to experience their identity because it offends homophobes. How positively hilarious to suggest to a lot of people who explicitly fear and hate the trans community that they should go ahead and physically harm members of the trans community. I get the joke, by the way. It's "some trans women are pre-op". What a fucking side-splitter. What a fucking laugh riot. Thank you for proving my point, you being offended is only your problem, it is not a police matter. It's literally illegal to tell people to hurt other people. You can feel free to disagree with whether or not it should be, but your defence that it was an extremely unfunny joke really has no bearing on whether the police had legal cause to feel his collar. And you're presumably not sixteen so feel free to drop the whole "triggered" thing. I'm going to leave it here as I have the other poster who is also finding it difficult to find the humour. I'm confident that common sense will prevail and this will end as it should, a lessons learnt exercise for the police and those who find edgy humour a touch too much. It's not humour to say what he said.. If I say to your neighbour I'm going to punch him next door and then do, how hilarious do you think that will be..? That could be the rabbit hole you have fallen in. He wasn't aiming at anyone person in particular but you are making it so in your example. The legal test here is whether a reasonable person would consider the tweet as a genuine call to violence or as satire. I know where my money would be placed, and those in power are seemingly siding with satire." Yet not one of them mentioned satire.. Rowley spoke about the punching part specifically.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If someone thinks his tweet was “incitement to violence,” they have lost their sense of humour and all sense of proportion. It was satire, a play on words to underline the point that men born male remain men regardless of how they identify. People don’t have to like the joke, but treating it as a criminal act is absurd. Comedy has historically pushed boundaries, and that is uncomfortable for some, particularly on the far left, who often act as if their right to be offended outweighs, freedom of speech. But jokes, even offensive ones, are not crimes, it is not against the law to offend someone, for now... Oh yeah, the "just joking bro" defence, in the context of a completely straight-faced controversy where a number of influential people spend a lot of time accusing a vulnerable minority of being theoretical r*pists to deny them the right to experience their identity because it offends homophobes. How positively hilarious to suggest to a lot of people who explicitly fear and hate the trans community that they should go ahead and physically harm members of the trans community. I get the joke, by the way. It's "some trans women are pre-op". What a fucking side-splitter. What a fucking laugh riot. Thank you for proving my point, you being offended is only your problem, it is not a police matter. It's literally illegal to tell people to hurt other people. You can feel free to disagree with whether or not it should be, but your defence that it was an extremely unfunny joke really has no bearing on whether the police had legal cause to feel his collar. And you're presumably not sixteen so feel free to drop the whole "triggered" thing. I'm going to leave it here as I have the other poster who is also finding it difficult to find the humour. I'm confident that common sense will prevail and this will end as it should, a lessons learnt exercise for the police and those who find edgy humour a touch too much. It's not humour to say what he said.. If I say to your neighbour I'm going to punch him next door and then do, how hilarious do you think that will be..? That could be the rabbit hole you have fallen in. He wasn't aiming at anyone person in particular but you are making it so in your example. The legal test here is whether a reasonable person would consider the tweet as a genuine call to violence or as satire. I know where my money would be placed, and those in power are seemingly siding with satire. Yet not one of them mentioned satire.. Rowley spoke about the punching part specifically.." Rowley wouldn’t comment directly on the offence, that would risk prejudicing the case. But the fact he is calling for a review shows where his thinking is. The authorities know this looks more like a clumsy joke than a genuine call to violence, and it’s wasting police time while making both the police and the country look bad. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If someone thinks his tweet was “incitement to violence,” they have lost their sense of humour and all sense of proportion. It was satire, a play on words to underline the point that men born male remain men regardless of how they identify. People don’t have to like the joke, but treating it as a criminal act is absurd. Comedy has historically pushed boundaries, and that is uncomfortable for some, particularly on the far left, who often act as if their right to be offended outweighs, freedom of speech. But jokes, even offensive ones, are not crimes, it is not against the law to offend someone, for now... It's not about left or right or even your constant need to put that 'particularly on the left' whenever you sense an opportunity to make a dig in this case very spuriously.. It's not even about comedy in the context he said it.. The ones who think and act upon the law don't tend to factor in if their sense of humour is relevant or even necessary.. He's a great satirist yes but he didn't say it satirically which he's more than well capable of doing .. He just didn't need to add it in order to make what many across all political leanings see as a issue for some women.. To try and say that protection of women in public spaces is a left or right thing is nonsense.. Isn’t you missing the satire kind of proving exactly what I was saying about humour being the blind spot here? No .. As usual you've made an assumption about someone.. I love satire, it's one of the great comedic elements of that genre but he didn't word it in a satirical way.. He could have and so can you with a bit of thought, a reference about a trans woman who is still intact so to speak is an easy one to make a point about them having a pair of bollocks and being in a women's toilets.. His point would have been a stronger one from his perspective but he literally diminished it by saying what he was arrested for .. Almost like he wants the story to be about poor him.. It is because of his arrest, that the government are speaking about a review and why the chief constable of the met has stated that his officers are in a rock and a hard place so to speak. Wes Streeting states M.p's make the laws and if theses laws have made policing harder then M.P's need to look at what they can do. The legislation has been passed by the last three governments I think, back to 88 and added to it amended as parliament struggles to play catch up with the tech and social media aspects of life .. Im not sure his intent when saying it was to get the reaction we've seen today from those you mentioned.. I posted a link to Rowan Atkinson speech or section 5 which threatened free speech. In a quote he states there should be more offensive comments more hate speech more of the stuff that makes us angry as the more we hear it the more we get use to it, the more absurd the persons saying it looks, and the more we will think of other pressing issues we need to sort out. Slippery slope from him saying that to someone else saying burn the whatever down with them inside.. Offence fine yes but hate? No because we have people who have an agenda and as we've seen some are so angry they will riot based upon false tweets .. " When the person said burn them etc, who agreed? The backlash was serious, a prison sentence was handed out. We all know that wasn't acceptable we didn't need telling. That is not satire. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If someone thinks his tweet was “incitement to violence,” they have lost their sense of humour and all sense of proportion. It was satire, a play on words to underline the point that men born male remain men regardless of how they identify. People don’t have to like the joke, but treating it as a criminal act is absurd. Comedy has historically pushed boundaries, and that is uncomfortable for some, particularly on the far left, who often act as if their right to be offended outweighs, freedom of speech. But jokes, even offensive ones, are not crimes, it is not against the law to offend someone, for now... Oh yeah, the "just joking bro" defence, in the context of a completely straight-faced controversy where a number of influential people spend a lot of time accusing a vulnerable minority of being theoretical r*pists to deny them the right to experience their identity because it offends homophobes. How positively hilarious to suggest to a lot of people who explicitly fear and hate the trans community that they should go ahead and physically harm members of the trans community. I get the joke, by the way. It's "some trans women are pre-op". What a fucking side-splitter. What a fucking laugh riot. Thank you for proving my point, you being offended is only your problem, it is not a police matter. It's literally illegal to tell people to hurt other people. You can feel free to disagree with whether or not it should be, but your defence that it was an extremely unfunny joke really has no bearing on whether the police had legal cause to feel his collar. And you're presumably not sixteen so feel free to drop the whole "triggered" thing. I'm going to leave it here as I have the other poster who is also finding it difficult to find the humour. I'm confident that common sense will prevail and this will end as it should, a lessons learnt exercise for the police and those who find edgy humour a touch too much. It's not humour to say what he said.. If I say to your neighbour I'm going to punch him next door and then do, how hilarious do you think that will be..? That could be the rabbit hole you have fallen in. He wasn't aiming at anyone person in particular but you are making it so in your example. The legal test here is whether a reasonable person would consider the tweet as a genuine call to violence or as satire. I know where my money would be placed, and those in power are seemingly siding with satire. Yet not one of them mentioned satire.. Rowley spoke about the punching part specifically.. Rowley wouldn’t comment directly on the offence, that would risk prejudicing the case. But the fact he is calling for a review shows where his thinking is. The authorities know this looks more like a clumsy joke than a genuine call to violence, and it’s wasting police time while making both the police and the country look bad. " No they think the law which has been amended several times needs revision and that's fine.. Clarity with the law and application is all welcome but in it's intended format incitement to violence should still be part of it and I believe won't be removed.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If someone thinks his tweet was “incitement to violence,” they have lost their sense of humour and all sense of proportion. It was satire, a play on words to underline the point that men born male remain men regardless of how they identify. People don’t have to like the joke, but treating it as a criminal act is absurd. Comedy has historically pushed boundaries, and that is uncomfortable for some, particularly on the far left, who often act as if their right to be offended outweighs, freedom of speech. But jokes, even offensive ones, are not crimes, it is not against the law to offend someone, for now... It's not about left or right or even your constant need to put that 'particularly on the left' whenever you sense an opportunity to make a dig in this case very spuriously.. It's not even about comedy in the context he said it.. The ones who think and act upon the law don't tend to factor in if their sense of humour is relevant or even necessary.. He's a great satirist yes but he didn't say it satirically which he's more than well capable of doing .. He just didn't need to add it in order to make what many across all political leanings see as a issue for some women.. To try and say that protection of women in public spaces is a left or right thing is nonsense.. Isn’t you missing the satire kind of proving exactly what I was saying about humour being the blind spot here? No .. As usual you've made an assumption about someone.. I love satire, it's one of the great comedic elements of that genre but he didn't word it in a satirical way.. He could have and so can you with a bit of thought, a reference about a trans woman who is still intact so to speak is an easy one to make a point about them having a pair of bollocks and being in a women's toilets.. His point would have been a stronger one from his perspective but he literally diminished it by saying what he was arrested for .. Almost like he wants the story to be about poor him.. It is because of his arrest, that the government are speaking about a review and why the chief constable of the met has stated that his officers are in a rock and a hard place so to speak. Wes Streeting states M.p's make the laws and if theses laws have made policing harder then M.P's need to look at what they can do. The legislation has been passed by the last three governments I think, back to 88 and added to it amended as parliament struggles to play catch up with the tech and social media aspects of life .. Im not sure his intent when saying it was to get the reaction we've seen today from those you mentioned.. I posted a link to Rowan Atkinson speech or section 5 which threatened free speech. In a quote he states there should be more offensive comments more hate speech more of the stuff that makes us angry as the more we hear it the more we get use to it, the more absurd the persons saying it looks, and the more we will think of other pressing issues we need to sort out. Slippery slope from him saying that to someone else saying burn the whatever down with them inside.. Offence fine yes but hate? No because we have people who have an agenda and as we've seen some are so angry they will riot based upon false tweets .. When the person said burn them etc, who agreed? The backlash was serious, a prison sentence was handed out. We all know that wasn't acceptable we didn't need telling. That is not satire." There was more than one person convicted for spreading some of the hatred and calling for violence, that also happened to some in the Muslim community.. You and I don't but clearly there is a need to have a line rather than assume everyone else (and as we've seen some clearly don't know what is acceptable) and with any sentence be that for drink driving, murder etc there is a deterrent element to the population.. It's why they used to hold public executions.. Not saying in any way even satirically that such things are acceptable nowadays.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Actually, I think it's both. I think Linehan was genuinely trying and failing to make a funny while simultaneously - and obviously, given his track record - genuinely inviting people to attack trans women who go into women's bathrooms. He sees himself as an activist for women's rights, on that journey he has by all accounts been rather offensive. By putting himself out into the public domain as an activist he will no doubt have his supporters and detractors. From my point of view I knew nothing about his activism, until I started to look him up in detail after the news of his arrest. Before that point I had read his tweet and considered it to be satire. The legal test being, would a reasonable person consider it a call to incite violence. I had no bias, I considered it to be satire. Your argument will no doubt be am I reasonable, park it "As much as I appreciate you telling me what my argument will be and telling me to shut up, you have this habit of declaring your position objective when it's anything but. Lineham destroyed his career and his marriage going after trans people (or "activism" if you like), and being that this is what has defined his public personality for the past decade-plus, a reasonable person would assume this is yet another unhinged anti-trans diatribe, this one even more aggressive than most. And while people familiar with Linehan's work will infer from his track record that his tweet contained more violence than it did humour, anyone not conversant with the former funny-man's career would I imagine also not pick up on the satirical intent of his comment given that it's both anatomically niche and also about as funny as pancreatic cancer. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If the transcript of his tweet I have seen is correct, it contains a direct instruction to his followers that they should assault people. So, you know, not really a freedom of speech issue. I'm aware he's saying it was a joke. It's not clear it was a joke, and since his career in comedy ended long ago in favour of his career in persecution of the trans community, it can be safely assumed that the people reading this particular tweet aren't doing so for the LOLs. Don't talk ridiculous. So can we have the cast of Little Britain arrested then please for their comedy sketches, along with the BBC for airing it. Total bullshit and a pathetic insightment of the law. Mr F. Well done for demonstrating that you don't understand the meaning of the word "context"." You're welcome, just like you talking nonsense! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If the transcript of his tweet I have seen is correct, it contains a direct instruction to his followers that they should assault people. So, you know, not really a freedom of speech issue. I'm aware he's saying it was a joke. It's not clear it was a joke, and since his career in comedy ended long ago in favour of his career in persecution of the trans community, it can be safely assumed that the people reading this particular tweet aren't doing so for the LOLs. Don't talk ridiculous. So can we have the cast of Little Britain arrested then please for their comedy sketches, along with the BBC for airing it. Total bullshit and a pathetic insightment of the law. Mr F. Well done for demonstrating that you don't understand the meaning of the word "context". You're welcome, just like you talking nonsense! " I do enjoy being accused of talking nonsense by people who don't know the difference between what people say in real life and what actors playing characters say on a TV show. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If the transcript of his tweet I have seen is correct, it contains a direct instruction to his followers that they should assault people. So, you know, not really a freedom of speech issue. I'm aware he's saying it was a joke. It's not clear it was a joke, and since his career in comedy ended long ago in favour of his career in persecution of the trans community, it can be safely assumed that the people reading this particular tweet aren't doing so for the LOLs." Wait! I thought you are a freedom of speech "absolutist". Weren't you claiming in another thread that students calling for genocide of Jews shouldn't be arrested because you are a freedom of speech absolutist? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If the transcript of his tweet I have seen is correct, it contains a direct instruction to his followers that they should assault people. So, you know, not really a freedom of speech issue. I'm aware he's saying it was a joke. It's not clear it was a joke, and since his career in comedy ended long ago in favour of his career in persecution of the trans community, it can be safely assumed that the people reading this particular tweet aren't doing so for the LOLs. Wait! I thought you are a freedom of speech "absolutist". Weren't you claiming in another thread that students calling for genocide of Jews shouldn't be arrested because you are a freedom of speech absolutist? " That's right, but you didn't understand it when I explained it last time so I doubt you'd understand it if I explained it again. You don't seem to grasp the specificity of language, is the problem. It's okay, it's a knack. Keep trying though, one day you might be able to join in a debate without wasting everyone's time. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If the transcript of his tweet I have seen is correct, it contains a direct instruction to his followers that they should assault people. So, you know, not really a freedom of speech issue. I'm aware he's saying it was a joke. It's not clear it was a joke, and since his career in comedy ended long ago in favour of his career in persecution of the trans community, it can be safely assumed that the people reading this particular tweet aren't doing so for the LOLs. Don't talk ridiculous. So can we have the cast of Little Britain arrested then please for their comedy sketches, along with the BBC for airing it. Total bullshit and a pathetic insightment of the law. Mr F. Well done for demonstrating that you don't understand the meaning of the word "context". You're welcome, just like you talking nonsense! I do enjoy being accused of talking nonsense by people who don't know the difference between what people say in real life and what actors playing characters say on a TV show." Really? He made a funny joke, so all comedy is now an arrestable offence according to your logic, so no I wasn't talking nonsense, you were. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If the transcript of his tweet I have seen is correct, it contains a direct instruction to his followers that they should assault people. So, you know, not really a freedom of speech issue. I'm aware he's saying it was a joke. It's not clear it was a joke, and since his career in comedy ended long ago in favour of his career in persecution of the trans community, it can be safely assumed that the people reading this particular tweet aren't doing so for the LOLs. Wait! I thought you are a freedom of speech "absolutist". Weren't you claiming in another thread that students calling for genocide of Jews shouldn't be arrested because you are a freedom of speech absolutist? That's right, but you didn't understand it when I explained it last time so I doubt you'd understand it if I explained it again. You don't seem to grasp the specificity of language, is the problem. It's okay, it's a knack. Keep trying though, one day you might be able to join in a debate without wasting everyone's time." So according to you, people calling for genocide of Jews shouldn't be arrested, because freedom of speech. But Graham Linehan should be arrested for the tweet he posted?
What exactly is that knack? I would love to understand it  Because last time, your argument was burning Quran in public was an "act" and not a matter of freedom of speech. You don't have that excuse here. Curious to hear why a freedom of speech "absolutist" would want people arrested over a tweet. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Really? He made a funny joke, so all comedy is now an arrestable offence according to your logic, so no I wasn't talking nonsense, you were. " That's your interpretation of my argument, is it? That's your summary of my contribution? You read my posts and that's what you took from them? Seriously? Not kidding, I genuinely want to know if that's what you think my position is. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If the transcript of his tweet I have seen is correct, it contains a direct instruction to his followers that they should assault people. So, you know, not really a freedom of speech issue. I'm aware he's saying it was a joke. It's not clear it was a joke, and since his career in comedy ended long ago in favour of his career in persecution of the trans community, it can be safely assumed that the people reading this particular tweet aren't doing so for the LOLs. Wait! I thought you are a freedom of speech "absolutist". Weren't you claiming in another thread that students calling for genocide of Jews shouldn't be arrested because you are a freedom of speech absolutist? That's right, but you didn't understand it when I explained it last time so I doubt you'd understand it if I explained it again. You don't seem to grasp the specificity of language, is the problem. It's okay, it's a knack. Keep trying though, one day you might be able to join in a debate without wasting everyone's time. So according to you, people calling for genocide of Jews shouldn't be arrested, because freedom of speech. But Graham Linehan should be arrested for the tweet he posted?
What exactly is that knack? I would love to understand it Because last time, your argument was burning Quran in public was an "act" and not a matter of freedom of speech. You don't have that excuse here. Curious to hear why a freedom of speech "absolutist" would want people arrested over a tweet."I know you'd love to understand it, but the combination of your bad faith and your poor comprehension makes it way too unlikely for me to feel it's worth spending any more time on it. Never mind, eh? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If the transcript of his tweet I have seen is correct, it contains a direct instruction to his followers that they should assault people. So, you know, not really a freedom of speech issue. I'm aware he's saying it was a joke. It's not clear it was a joke, and since his career in comedy ended long ago in favour of his career in persecution of the trans community, it can be safely assumed that the people reading this particular tweet aren't doing so for the LOLs. Don't talk ridiculous. So can we have the cast of Little Britain arrested then please for their comedy sketches, along with the BBC for airing it. Total bullshit and a pathetic insightment of the law. Mr F. Well done for demonstrating that you don't understand the meaning of the word "context". You're welcome, just like you talking nonsense! I do enjoy being accused of talking nonsense by people who don't know the difference between what people say in real life and what actors playing characters say on a TV show. Really? He made a funny joke, so all comedy is now an arrestable offence according to your logic, so no I wasn't talking nonsense, you were. " The question is who made it into a crime. Was it police monitoring social media or was it a trans group who made a complaint that the police had to investigate ? To me that makes a huge difference to what has happened. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I know you'd love to understand it, but the combination of your bad faith and your poor comprehension makes it way too unlikely for me to feel it's worth spending any more time on it. Never mind, eh?" You carry on. But I think it's my duty to point out your mental gymnastics in the other thread, so that other people can see your ideological integrity: https://m.fabswingers.com/forum/politics/1539431 Your quote from that thread: " I, as a free-speech absolutist, do not believe it should be illegal or in any way not permitted for people to express any view, however unpalatable. That does not mean I agree with their views, merely that I believe they should not be stopped from expressing them. So I believe it should be permitted for people to, for example, call for genocide. I do not, however, want genocide. The people calling for genocide obviously do want genocide, but merely talking about wanting genocide is in my view not a crime. " And here you are arguing that Graham Linehan should be arrested for that tweet about trans people. It looks like you become a freedom of speech "absolutist" just to defend people calling for genocide of Jews. I wonder why. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If the transcript of his tweet I have seen is correct, it contains a direct instruction to his followers that they should assault people. So, you know, not really a freedom of speech issue. I'm aware he's saying it was a joke. It's not clear it was a joke, and since his career in comedy ended long ago in favour of his career in persecution of the trans community, it can be safely assumed that the people reading this particular tweet aren't doing so for the LOLs. Don't talk ridiculous. So can we have the cast of Little Britain arrested then please for their comedy sketches, along with the BBC for airing it. Total bullshit and a pathetic insightment of the law. Mr F. Well done for demonstrating that you don't understand the meaning of the word "context". You're welcome, just like you talking nonsense! I do enjoy being accused of talking nonsense by people who don't know the difference between what people say in real life and what actors playing characters say on a TV show. Really? He made a funny joke, so all comedy is now an arrestable offence according to your logic, so no I wasn't talking nonsense, you were. The question is who made it into a crime. Was it police monitoring social media or was it a trans group who made a complaint that the police had to investigate ? To me that makes a huge difference to what has happened." or was it AI monitoring social media on behalf of the police, just like AI monitors their facial recognition system. guess we'll find out if things get as far as the courts. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Actually, I think it's both. I think Linehan was genuinely trying and failing to make a funny while simultaneously - and obviously, given his track record - genuinely inviting people to attack trans women who go into women's bathrooms. He sees himself as an activist for women's rights, on that journey he has by all accounts been rather offensive. By putting himself out into the public domain as an activist he will no doubt have his supporters and detractors. From my point of view I knew nothing about his activism, until I started to look him up in detail after the news of his arrest. Before that point I had read his tweet and considered it to be satire. The legal test being, would a reasonable person consider it a call to incite violence. I had no bias, I considered it to be satire. Your argument will no doubt be am I reasonable, park it
As much as I appreciate you telling me what my argument will be and telling me to shut up, you have this habit of declaring your position objective when it's anything but.
Lineham destroyed his career and his marriage going after trans people (or "activism" if you like), and being that this is what has defined his public personality for the past decade-plus, a reasonable person would assume this is yet another unhinged anti-trans diatribe, this one even more aggressive than most.
And while people familiar with Linehan's work will infer from his track record that his tweet contained more violence than it did humour, anyone not conversant with the former funny-man's career would I imagine also not pick up on the satirical intent of his comment given that it's both anatomically niche and also about as funny as pancreatic cancer."You know the comment I made about the hard left not liking or understanding comedy, you have once again proved that point so wonderfully. My comment even ended with a grin to ensure you could get it was said with humour.... My god it must be tough being left wing.... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
". I wonder why." I know. Maybe one day you'll figure it out. Perhaps start by trying to figure out simpler things, though, because this is I feel all a bit too nuanced for someone with your outlook. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
". You know the comment I made about the hard left not liking or understanding comedy, you have once again proved that point so wonderfully. My comment even ended with a grin to ensure you could get it was said with humour.... My god it must be tough being left wing...." "Comedy". I mean, okay dude, if that's what gets you rolling in the aisles, then you do you. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
". I wonder why. I know. Maybe one day you'll figure it out. Perhaps start by trying to figure out simpler things, though, because this is I feel all a bit too nuanced for someone with your outlook." Too nuanced that you wrote so many paragraphs to just tell me that I don't understand nuance, instead of explaining why you believe that calling for genocide of Jews shouldn't result in arrest but Graham Linehan should be arrested. You are up there with Elon Musk when it comes to pretending like freedom of speech "absolutist" only in cases you have strong opinions on. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
". I wonder why. I know. Maybe one day you'll figure it out. Perhaps start by trying to figure out simpler things, though, because this is I feel all a bit too nuanced for someone with your outlook. Too nuanced that you wrote so many paragraphs to just tell me that I don't understand nuance, instead of explaining why you believe that calling for genocide of Jews shouldn't result in arrest but Graham Linehan should be arrested. You are up there with Elon Musk when it comes to pretending like freedom of speech "absolutist" only in cases you have strong opinions on." Okay dude, whatever you say. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If the transcript of his tweet I have seen is correct, it contains a direct instruction to his followers that they should assault people. So, you know, not really a freedom of speech issue. I'm aware he's saying it was a joke. It's not clear it was a joke, and since his career in comedy ended long ago in favour of his career in persecution of the trans community, it can be safely assumed that the people reading this particular tweet aren't doing so for the LOLs. Don't talk ridiculous. So can we have the cast of Little Britain arrested then please for their comedy sketches, along with the BBC for airing it. Total bullshit and a pathetic insightment of the law. Mr F. Well done for demonstrating that you don't understand the meaning of the word "context". You're welcome, just like you talking nonsense! I do enjoy being accused of talking nonsense by people who don't know the difference between what people say in real life and what actors playing characters say on a TV show. Really? He made a funny joke, so all comedy is now an arrestable offence according to your logic, so no I wasn't talking nonsense, you were. The question is who made it into a crime. Was it police monitoring social media or was it a trans group who made a complaint that the police had to investigate ? To me that makes a huge difference to what has happened. or was it AI monitoring social media on behalf of the police, just like AI monitors their facial recognition system. guess we'll find out if things get as far as the courts." I honestly doubt it, I'd put money on a complaint being put in by someone. Maybe someone with a grudge against him but possibly a waste of police time in this particular instance. I'm not against policing social media in some of its extreme forms or investigation of complaints though | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If the transcript of his tweet I have seen is correct, it contains a direct instruction to his followers that they should assault people. So, you know, not really a freedom of speech issue. I'm aware he's saying it was a joke. It's not clear it was a joke, and since his career in comedy ended long ago in favour of his career in persecution of the trans community, it can be safely assumed that the people reading this particular tweet aren't doing so for the LOLs. Don't talk ridiculous. So can we have the cast of Little Britain arrested then please for their comedy sketches, along with the BBC for airing it. Total bullshit and a pathetic insightment of the law. Mr F. Well done for demonstrating that you don't understand the meaning of the word "context". You're welcome, just like you talking nonsense! I do enjoy being accused of talking nonsense by people who don't know the difference between what people say in real life and what actors playing characters say on a TV show. Really? He made a funny joke, so all comedy is now an arrestable offence according to your logic, so no I wasn't talking nonsense, you were. The question is who made it into a crime. Was it police monitoring social media or was it a trans group who made a complaint that the police had to investigate ? To me that makes a huge difference to what has happened. or was it AI monitoring social media on behalf of the police, just like AI monitors their facial recognition system. guess we'll find out if things get as far as the courts. I honestly doubt it, I'd put money on a complaint being put in by someone. Maybe someone with a grudge against him but possibly a waste of police time in this particular instance. I'm not against policing social media in some of its extreme forms or investigation of complaints though " like i say i guess we'll find out if it gets to court. saying that, when it comes to AI trawling stuff, the algorithms generally look across multiple posts or activity searching for patterns that are repeated and so forth, and this sad bastard has pumped out thousands of garbage posts and general abuse over a long period of time and on countless platforms from what i've seen. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
""If a trans-identified male is in a female-only space, he is committing a violent, abusive act. Make a scene, call the cops and if all else fails, punch him in the balls." If you think this is comedy then I advise you against telling jokes at parties. His explanation... "The ‘punch in the bollocks’ bit was about the height difference between men and women... and certainly not a call to violence.” So apparently he wasn't calling for violence against trans people he was just pointing out the height difference between men and women. Does anyone here believe this excuse? " Question: Do you know what satire is? This understanding is what seems to be missing. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Question: Do you know what satire is? This understanding is what seems to be missing. " This whole stance of yours is nonsense. There's nothing in his tweet that people aren't getting. Sure, it's also a shit joke about the reality that some trans women haven't, for whatever reason, undergone reassignment surgery. Everyone can see that. But a shit joke at the expense of the people he's also telling his followers to assault doesn't reframe the whole thing as harmless bants, no matter how much you wish it did. If this gets walked back it'll be in penance over the Connolly arrest, to try to claw back some of the more ham-flavoured Labour base who are flocking to Nige and his bigot brigade. In no way will it make Linehan's sinister obsession with the persecution of a vulnerable minority acceptable, and if a law gets changed to accommodate his latest call for violence, I hope everybody who wished for it is prepared to shut up when people you don't like start calling for attacks against people you do like. Will you be like "it's just a joke, bro" if Islamic extremists are cracking wise while instructing their followers to commit FGM? Will you be telling people they don't understand satire if hardline pro-Palestinians chuck in a few puns while tweeting that it's okay to attack Jews in the street? Will you be telling people they shouldn't be offended as long as Bahar Mustafa chucks in a bit of pithy sarcasm while promoting her next #KillAllWhiteMen event? I guess we'll see, won't we. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Question: Do you know what satire is? This understanding is what seems to be missing. This whole stance of yours is nonsense. There's nothing in his tweet that people aren't getting. Sure, it's also a shit joke about the reality that some trans women haven't, for whatever reason, undergone reassignment surgery. Everyone can see that. But a shit joke at the expense of the people he's also telling his followers to assault doesn't reframe the whole thing as harmless bants, no matter how much you wish it did. If this gets walked back it'll be in penance over the Connolly arrest, to try to claw back some of the more ham-flavoured Labour base who are flocking to Nige and his bigot brigade. In no way will it make Linehan's sinister obsession with the persecution of a vulnerable minority acceptable, and if a law gets changed to accommodate his latest call for violence, I hope everybody who wished for it is prepared to shut up when people you don't like start calling for attacks against people you do like. Will you be like "it's just a joke, bro" if Islamic extremists are cracking wise while instructing their followers to commit FGM? Will you be telling people they don't understand satire if hardline pro-Palestinians chuck in a few puns while tweeting that it's okay to attack Jews in the street? Will you be telling people they shouldn't be offended as long as Bahar Mustafa chucks in a bit of pithy sarcasm while promoting her next #KillAllWhiteMen event? I guess we'll see, won't we." You have admitted yourself it’s a joke, it is obvious you are offended by it, you "ignore" the satire, add your extreme analogies, and suddenly it is a crime. Being offended doesn’t turn a satire into a crime, because you want it to. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I guess we'll see, won't we. You have admitted yourself it’s a joke, it is obvious you are offended by it, you "ignore" the satire, add your extreme analogies, and suddenly it is a crime. Being offended doesn’t turn a satire into a crime, because you want it to. " The laws that Linehan broke are: - The Public Order Act (1986) - Section 127 of the Communications Act (2003) - The Malicious Communications Act (1988) It's for the CPS to decide what he gets charged with, obviously, but let's not pretend this is just libtards getting triggered, yeah? By the way, none of those laws allow exceptions for shit jokes about tranny balls that some people reckon qualify as "satire". | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I guess we'll see, won't we. You have admitted yourself it’s a joke, it is obvious you are offended by it, you "ignore" the satire, add your extreme analogies, and suddenly it is a crime. Being offended doesn’t turn a satire into a crime, because you want it to. The laws that Linehan broke are: - The Public Order Act (1986) - Section 127 of the Communications Act (2003) - The Malicious Communications Act (1988) It's for the CPS to decide what he gets charged with, obviously, but let's not pretend this is just libtards getting triggered, yeah? By the way, none of those laws allow exceptions for shit jokes about tranny balls that some people reckon qualify as "satire"." But are 'shit jokes' a Police matter? Even the Chief Commissioner doesn't appear to think so. The Police are spread thinly, and the public have a right to set policing priorities. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The laws that Linehan broke are: - The Public Order Act (1986) - Section 127 of the Communications Act (2003) - The Malicious Communications Act (1988)" You mean the laws that Linehan was arrested under. We can't know if he broke them until there's been a trial. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I guess we'll see, won't we. You have admitted yourself it’s a joke, it is obvious you are offended by it, you "ignore" the satire, add your extreme analogies, and suddenly it is a crime. Being offended doesn’t turn a satire into a crime, because you want it to. The laws that Linehan broke are: - The Public Order Act (1986) - Section 127 of the Communications Act (2003) - The Malicious Communications Act (1988) It's for the CPS to decide what he gets charged with, obviously, but let's not pretend this is just libtards getting triggered, yeah? By the way, none of those laws allow exceptions for shit jokes about tranny balls that some people reckon qualify as "satire"." In your opinion... Do you remember I said it can only be incitement if a reasonable person would consider it to be that? Google: Chambers v DPP 2012 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I guess we'll see, won't we. You have admitted yourself it’s a joke, it is obvious you are offended by it, you "ignore" the satire, add your extreme analogies, and suddenly it is a crime. Being offended doesn’t turn a satire into a crime, because you want it to. The laws that Linehan broke are: - The Public Order Act (1986) - Section 127 of the Communications Act (2003) - The Malicious Communications Act (1988) It's for the CPS to decide what he gets charged with, obviously, but let's not pretend this is just libtards getting triggered, yeah? By the way, none of those laws allow exceptions for shit jokes about tranny balls that some people reckon qualify as "satire". But are 'shit jokes' a Police matter? Even the Chief Commissioner doesn't appear to think so. The Police are spread thinly, and the public have a right to set policing priorities." I literally just said that the shit joke isn't the police matter. The instruction to his followers to punch trans women that the shit joke was shoehorned into is the police matter. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I guess we'll see, won't we. You have admitted yourself it’s a joke, it is obvious you are offended by it, you "ignore" the satire, add your extreme analogies, and suddenly it is a crime. Being offended doesn’t turn a satire into a crime, because you want it to. The laws that Linehan broke are: - The Public Order Act (1986) - Section 127 of the Communications Act (2003) - The Malicious Communications Act (1988) It's for the CPS to decide what he gets charged with, obviously, but let's not pretend this is just libtards getting triggered, yeah? By the way, none of those laws allow exceptions for shit jokes about tranny balls that some people reckon qualify as "satire". In your opinion... Do you remember I said it can only be incitement if a reasonable person would consider it to be that? Google: Chambers v DPP 2012" None of us can know in advance what the courts will decide. But the case of Chambers vs. DPP it was a lone idiot with barely any followers making an isolated imbecilic comment, the very definition of "error of judgment". Linehan has spent many years and sacrificed numerous professional and personal relationships in favour of his sustained public campaign against trans rights. There is reason to believe that he personally has extreme ill-will towards the subjects of his tweet, as well as reason to believe that even a small percentage of his plethora of followers would be committed enough to the beliefs they share with him to enact his instructions. While Linehan is historically a professional comic writer, the extent and substance of his anti-trans rhetoric is generally straight-faced and he evidently considers it a deeply serious matter. So while we can all agree that he was making a joke (regardless of how successful the joke was), the question of whether a reasonable person would think he was ONLY joking is a lot less self-evident than you seem to think. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I guess we'll see, won't we. You have admitted yourself it’s a joke, it is obvious you are offended by it, you "ignore" the satire, add your extreme analogies, and suddenly it is a crime. Being offended doesn’t turn a satire into a crime, because you want it to. The laws that Linehan broke are: - The Public Order Act (1986) - Section 127 of the Communications Act (2003) - The Malicious Communications Act (1988) It's for the CPS to decide what he gets charged with, obviously, but let's not pretend this is just libtards getting triggered, yeah? By the way, none of those laws allow exceptions for shit jokes about tranny balls that some people reckon qualify as "satire". In your opinion... Do you remember I said it can only be incitement if a reasonable person would consider it to be that? Google: Chambers v DPP 2012 None of us can know in advance what the courts will decide. But the case of Chambers vs. DPP it was a lone idiot with barely any followers making an isolated imbecilic comment, the very definition of "error of judgment". Linehan has spent many years and sacrificed numerous professional and personal relationships in favour of his sustained public campaign against trans rights. There is reason to believe that he personally has extreme ill-will towards the subjects of his tweet, as well as reason to believe that even a small percentage of his plethora of followers would be committed enough to the beliefs they share with him to enact his instructions. While Linehan is historically a professional comic writer, the extent and substance of his anti-trans rhetoric is generally straight-faced and he evidently considers it a deeply serious matter. So while we can all agree that he was making a joke (regardless of how successful the joke was), the question of whether a reasonable person would think he was ONLY joking is a lot less self-evident than you seem to think." The reasonable person is not someone who has immense background knowledge, or has followed him over years. It is an ordinary person who would look at that tweet in isolation. I had no idea of his background until after I read his tweet, I considered the tweet to be satire and not incitement. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" None of us can know in advance what the courts will decide. But the case of Chambers vs. DPP it was a lone idiot with barely any followers making an isolated imbecilic comment, the very definition of "error of judgment". Linehan has spent many years and sacrificed numerous professional and personal relationships in favour of his sustained public campaign against trans rights. There is reason to believe that he personally has extreme ill-will towards the subjects of his tweet, as well as reason to believe that even a small percentage of his plethora of followers would be committed enough to the beliefs they share with him to enact his instructions. While Linehan is historically a professional comic writer, the extent and substance of his anti-trans rhetoric is generally straight-faced and he evidently considers it a deeply serious matter. So while we can all agree that he was making a joke (regardless of how successful the joke was), the question of whether a reasonable person would think he was ONLY joking is a lot less self-evident than you seem to think. The reasonable person is not someone who has immense background knowledge, or has followed him over years. It is an ordinary person who would look at that tweet in isolation. I had no idea of his background until after I read his tweet, I considered the tweet to be satire and not incitement. " The text of the ruling is this: "A message which does not create fear or apprehension in those to whom it is communicated, or who may reasonably be expected to see it, falls outside this provision." Graham Linehan has around 600k followers. It's just my opinion that some trans people will see it and at least a few of them will conclude that, hilarious joke or no, the tweet is a cause for fear and apprehension since it increases the likelihood of a trans person being physically assaulted, not to mention contributing to the ambient atmosphere of anti-trans hatred. But again, we'll see what the ruling is. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I guess we'll see, won't we. You have admitted yourself it’s a joke, it is obvious you are offended by it, you "ignore" the satire, add your extreme analogies, and suddenly it is a crime. Being offended doesn’t turn a satire into a crime, because you want it to. The laws that Linehan broke are: - The Public Order Act (1986) - Section 127 of the Communications Act (2003) - The Malicious Communications Act (1988) It's for the CPS to decide what he gets charged with, obviously, but let's not pretend this is just libtards getting triggered, yeah? By the way, none of those laws allow exceptions for shit jokes about tranny balls that some people reckon qualify as "satire". In your opinion... Do you remember I said it can only be incitement if a reasonable person would consider it to be that? Google: Chambers v DPP 2012 None of us can know in advance what the courts will decide. But the case of Chambers vs. DPP it was a lone idiot with barely any followers making an isolated imbecilic comment, the very definition of "error of judgment". Linehan has spent many years and sacrificed numerous professional and personal relationships in favour of his sustained public campaign against trans rights. There is reason to believe that he personally has extreme ill-will towards the subjects of his tweet, as well as reason to believe that even a small percentage of his plethora of followers would be committed enough to the beliefs they share with him to enact his instructions. While Linehan is historically a professional comic writer, the extent and substance of his anti-trans rhetoric is generally straight-faced and he evidently considers it a deeply serious matter. So while we can all agree that he was making a joke (regardless of how successful the joke was), the question of whether a reasonable person would think he was ONLY joking is a lot less self-evident than you seem to think." Satire is not a joke, satire is an observation explained with irony. it is the observation portrayed through the eyes of the observer, a diabolical situation explained through the wrong or right of it all. It is neither left or right or centre everything is up for grabs. Now I can understand the irritation when certain groups are observed, but I understand my group could be next. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Graham Linehan, co creator of Father Ted and The IT Crowd has been arrested by armed police at Heathrow Airport for some tweets he wrote. Seems that Starmer’s government is determined to make the UK an international laughing stock. The decline into Third World despotism continues. Regrettably UK citizens are now almost entirely dependent on interventions from the US government to protect their rights." I read your post at night, makes me sleepy. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What exactly did Graham Linehan post?" I daren’t repeat it in case it elicits an immediate visit from the armed constabulary. If you find the posts online I suggest you don’t read them aloud to yourself. The walls have ears! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What exactly did Graham Linehan post?" It's already been posted here and despite the tinfoil hat brigade being scared witless, it seems nobody has been ruffed up by the law for typing it 🤣😂 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The country is on its arse and the police are wasting money on bullshit like this, and visiting people's houses over social media posts And meanwhile they claim they are under resourced to investigate burglary and vehicle crime
offer to pay extra tax to the police then if you're that concerned
What would be the purpose of more funding?
They already arrest thirty people a day for stuff they spout on social media.
More funding would just lead to more wasted taxpayer money and zero reduction in actual crimes.
Those 30 people a day include people posting threats, sharing pedo porn etc
Is this something you'd rather the police didn't look into ?
That is a weird twist, you went straight to 11 to make a point that supports policing tweets. I'm not sure why reading the mood of the nation is this difficult, Streeting has said we need to be policing the streets not tweets, today, and No10 said "the PM wants focus on tackling antisocial behaviour, shoplifting, street crime, as well as reducing serious violent crimes like knife crime and violence against women".
It's politicians' jobs to read the mood of the nation. And to make the appropriate noises.
It's the police's job to enforce the current laws. Those laws currently include monitoring mass online communication for stuff that passes the criteria for criminal. Which Linehan's tweet does.
There may come a time in the future where Linehan's online instruction to his fans that they should physically assault trans people does not constitute a crime in British law. At that point it will be valid for people to want the police to ignore it.
Until such time, any bitching about the cops arresting Linehan but not catching the guy who broke your car window is whataboutery.
Good to see that Linehan is suing the police for wrongful arrest, false imprisonment, and breach of his free speech rights.
Hopefully he will take them to the cleaners and heads will roll. It’s the only way these people will learn."He will lose as he broke the law so I hope he wastes loads of money. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
