On 26/05/2025 11:43, Roger Hayter wrote:
Those who fear for the safety of transgender individuals may be
pleased to see
a convicted torturer and attempted murderer threatening named women and
Starmer with violence if they do not grant trans women all the
privileges they
wish.
https://x.com/itsMelDaley/status/1926612928095982043
Er, why would any sensible person be pleased to see that?
On the other hand, I reckon JK Rowling would be "pleased" to learn that
the eccentric trans woman in that report cut off her own testicles with
a razor blade in 2017 (according to Wikipedia). Rowling believes that
young people should not be given life changing trans surgery but she
also believes that anyone with male genitalia is to be considered a man,
not a woman.
Those who fear for the safety of transgender individuals may be pleased to see
a convicted torturer and attempted murderer threatening named women and Starmer with violence if they do not grant trans women all the privileges they
wish.
https://x.com/itsMelDaley/status/1926612928095982043
On 26/05/2025 14:22, The Todal wrote:
[quoted text muted]
Come to think of it, we're now told that chemical castration is the
solution to predatory sex offences committed by males. But if the actual castration has evidently not stopped this particular individual (whom I wouldn't want ever to meet) from threatening violence, perhaps the Home Secretary and Justice Secretary need to think again about the efficacy
of castration.
On 26/05/2025 11:43, Roger Hayter wrote:
Those who fear for the safety of transgender individuals may be pleased to see
a convicted torturer and attempted murderer threatening named women and
Starmer with violence if they do not grant trans women all the privileges they
wish.
https://x.com/itsMelDaley/status/1926612928095982043
Er, why would any sensible person be pleased to see that?
On the other hand, I reckon JK Rowling would be "pleased" to learn that
the eccentric trans woman in that report cut off her own testicles with
a razor blade in 2017 (according to Wikipedia). Rowling believes that
young people should not be given life changing trans surgery but she
also believes that anyone with male genitalia is to be considered a man,
not a woman.
Rowling believes that
young people should not be given life changing trans surgery but she
also believes that anyone with male genitalia is to be considered a man,
not a woman.
On 26/05/2025 11:43, Roger Hayter wrote:
Those who fear for the safety of transgender individuals may be pleased to see
a convicted torturer and attempted murderer threatening named women and
Starmer with violence if they do not grant trans women all the privileges they
wish.
https://x.com/itsMelDaley/status/1926612928095982043
Er, why would any sensible person be pleased to see that?
On the other hand, I reckon JK Rowling would be "pleased" to learn that
the eccentric trans woman in that report cut off her own testicles with
a razor blade in 2017 (according to Wikipedia). Rowling believes that
young people should not be given life changing trans surgery but she
also believes that anyone with male genitalia is to be considered a man,
not a woman.
On 26/05/2025 14:22, The Todal wrote:
On 26/05/2025 11:43, Roger Hayter wrote:
Those who fear for the safety of transgender individuals may be
pleased to see
a convicted torturer and attempted murderer threatening named women and
Starmer with violence if they do not grant trans women all the
privileges they
wish.
https://x.com/itsMelDaley/status/1926612928095982043
Er, why would any sensible person be pleased to see that?
On the other hand, I reckon JK Rowling would be "pleased" to learn that
the eccentric trans woman in that report cut off her own testicles with
a razor blade in 2017 (according to Wikipedia). Rowling believes that
young people should not be given life changing trans surgery but she
also believes that anyone with male genitalia is to be considered a man,
not a woman.
Come to think of it, we're now told that chemical castration is the
solution to predatory sex offences committed by males. But if the actual castration has evidently not stopped this particular individual (whom I wouldn't want ever to meet) from threatening violence, perhaps the Home Secretary and Justice Secretary need to think again about the efficacy
of castration.
Is paedophilia caused by testosterone? Is it time to start using the
Ludovico Technique?
On 26 May 2025 at 14:22:49 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 26/05/2025 11:43, Roger Hayter wrote:
Those who fear for the safety of transgender individuals may be
pleased to see a convicted torturer and attempted murderer
threatening named women and Starmer with violence if they do not
grant trans women all the privileges they wish.
https://x.com/itsMelDaley/status/1926612928095982043
Er, why would any sensible person be pleased to see that?
On the other hand, I reckon JK Rowling would be "pleased" to learn that
the eccentric trans woman in that report cut off her own testicles with
a razor blade in 2017 (according to Wikipedia). Rowling believes that
young people should not be given life changing trans surgery but she
also believes that anyone with male genitalia is to be considered a man,
not a woman.
I think (I cannot speak for her) she believes any male child that goes through male puberty to adulthood is a man, whatever the current state
of his genitalia. At least that makes sense to any biologist, or
indeed the UKSC.
On 26/05/2025 14:22, The Todal wrote:
On 26/05/2025 11:43, Roger Hayter wrote:
Those who fear for the safety of transgender individuals may be
pleased to see
a convicted torturer and attempted murderer threatening named women and
Starmer with violence if they do not grant trans women all the
privileges they
wish.
https://x.com/itsMelDaley/status/1926612928095982043
Er, why would any sensible person be pleased to see that?
On the other hand, I reckon JK Rowling would be "pleased" to learn
that the eccentric trans woman in that report cut off her own
testicles with a razor blade in 2017 (according to Wikipedia). Rowling
believes that young people should not be given life changing trans
surgery but she also believes that anyone with male genitalia is to be
considered a man, not a woman.
Come to think of it, we're now told that chemical castration is the
solution to predatory sex offences committed by males.
On 26/05/2025 14:29, The Todal wrote:
On 26/05/2025 14:22, The Todal wrote:
On 26/05/2025 11:43, Roger Hayter wrote:
Those who fear for the safety of transgender individuals may be
pleased to see
a convicted torturer and attempted murderer threatening named women and >>>> Starmer with violence if they do not grant trans women all the
privileges they
wish.
https://x.com/itsMelDaley/status/1926612928095982043
Er, why would any sensible person be pleased to see that?
On the other hand, I reckon JK Rowling would be "pleased" to learn
that the eccentric trans woman in that report cut off her own
testicles with a razor blade in 2017 (according to Wikipedia). Rowling
believes that young people should not be given life changing trans
surgery but she also believes that anyone with male genitalia is to be
considered a man, not a woman.
Come to think of it, we're now told that chemical castration is the
solution to predatory sex offences committed by males.
Apparently it "caused" technoluvie Alan Turing to top himself. To
prevent "predatory" invention of computers. (Or was it his taste for strapping young working class lads?)
On 2025-05-26, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 26 May 2025 at 14:22:49 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote: >>> On 26/05/2025 11:43, Roger Hayter wrote:
Those who fear for the safety of transgender individuals may be
pleased to see a convicted torturer and attempted murderer
threatening named women and Starmer with violence if they do not
grant trans women all the privileges they wish.
https://x.com/itsMelDaley/status/1926612928095982043
Er, why would any sensible person be pleased to see that?
On the other hand, I reckon JK Rowling would be "pleased" to learn that
the eccentric trans woman in that report cut off her own testicles with
a razor blade in 2017 (according to Wikipedia). Rowling believes that
young people should not be given life changing trans surgery but she
also believes that anyone with male genitalia is to be considered a man, >>> not a woman.
I think (I cannot speak for her) she believes any male child that goes
through male puberty to adulthood is a man, whatever the current state
of his genitalia. At least that makes sense to any biologist, or
indeed the UKSC.
I don't think that's right, unless you've seen her say that she believes
that an AMAB child who takes puberty blockers and then, later, hormones,
and hence goes through female puberty and not male puberty, is a woman.
Those who fear for the safety of transgender individuals may be pleased to see
a convicted torturer and attempted murderer threatening named women and Starmer with violence if they do not grant trans women all the privileges they
wish.
https://x.com/itsMelDaley/status/1926612928095982043
On 26 May 2025 at 17:31:41 BST, "Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 26/05/2025 14:29, The Todal wrote:
On 26/05/2025 14:22, The Todal wrote:
On 26/05/2025 11:43, Roger Hayter wrote:
Those who fear for the safety of transgender individuals may be
pleased to see
a convicted torturer and attempted murderer threatening named women and >>>>> Starmer with violence if they do not grant trans women all the
privileges they
wish.
https://x.com/itsMelDaley/status/1926612928095982043
Er, why would any sensible person be pleased to see that?
On the other hand, I reckon JK Rowling would be "pleased" to learn
that the eccentric trans woman in that report cut off her own
testicles with a razor blade in 2017 (according to Wikipedia). Rowling >>>> believes that young people should not be given life changing trans
surgery but she also believes that anyone with male genitalia is to be >>>> considered a man, not a woman.
Come to think of it, we're now told that chemical castration is the
solution to predatory sex offences committed by males.
Apparently it "caused" technoluvie Alan Turing to top himself. To
prevent "predatory" invention of computers. (Or was it his taste for
strapping young working class lads?)
I don't think anyone can say whether it was the drug or public disgrace that led to his suicide. But the drugs do have lots of harmful side-effects. We've got better ones now, I believe. Certainly more expensive.
On 26 May 2025 at 17:03:49 BST, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-05-26, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 26 May 2025 at 14:22:49 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote: >>>> On 26/05/2025 11:43, Roger Hayter wrote:
Those who fear for the safety of transgender individuals may be
pleased to see a convicted torturer and attempted murderer
threatening named women and Starmer with violence if they do not
grant trans women all the privileges they wish.
https://x.com/itsMelDaley/status/1926612928095982043
Er, why would any sensible person be pleased to see that?
On the other hand, I reckon JK Rowling would be "pleased" to learn that >>>> the eccentric trans woman in that report cut off her own testicles with >>>> a razor blade in 2017 (according to Wikipedia). Rowling believes that
young people should not be given life changing trans surgery but she
also believes that anyone with male genitalia is to be considered a man, >>>> not a woman.
I think (I cannot speak for her) she believes any male child that goes
through male puberty to adulthood is a man, whatever the current state
of his genitalia. At least that makes sense to any biologist, or
indeed the UKSC.
I don't think that's right, unless you've seen her say that she believes
that an AMAB child who takes puberty blockers and then, later, hormones,
and hence goes through female puberty and not male puberty, is a woman.
Well they clearly aren't a woman, but probably less of a threat to
women. And probably undectable when clothed. I wouldn't like to
speculate on JKR's view on that, though I expect she'd think it was a
bad idea to do it. Without a convincing controlled trial I'd tend to
suspect she is right.
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 26/05/2025 11:43, Roger Hayter wrote:
Those who fear for the safety of transgender individuals may be pleased to see
a convicted torturer and attempted murderer threatening named women and
Starmer with violence if they do not grant trans women all the privileges they
wish.
https://x.com/itsMelDaley/status/1926612928095982043
Er, why would any sensible person be pleased to see that?
On the other hand, I reckon JK Rowling would be "pleased" to learn that
the eccentric trans woman in that report cut off her own testicles with
a razor blade in 2017 (according to Wikipedia). Rowling believes that
young people should not be given life changing trans surgery but she
also believes that anyone with male genitalia is to be considered a man,
not a woman.
Actual response available at https://x.com/jk_rowling/status/1926971984593686592
Quote
The new trans activist 'Be Afraid' slogan is simply their most honest to date. They've always wanted women scared, which is why they routinely make physical threats. The more interesting point is, why does a violent ex-con feel so untouchable that he can do this in public?
/2
I suspect they believe police don't take violent threats against women seriously. They think police consider the intimidation of women
unimportant, even well-deserved. They believe the police are on their side. And, little though I like saying it, I think they're right.
End quote
On 26/05/2025 11:43, Roger Hayter wrote:
Those who fear for the safety of transgender individuals may be
pleased to see
a convicted torturer and attempted murderer threatening named women and
Starmer with violence if they do not grant trans women all the
privileges they
wish.
https://x.com/itsMelDaley/status/1926612928095982043
Query - is it considered all right for women to walk around topless?
On 26/05/2025 18:11, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 26 May 2025 at 17:31:41 BST, "Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote: >>
On 26/05/2025 14:29, The Todal wrote:
On 26/05/2025 14:22, The Todal wrote:
On 26/05/2025 11:43, Roger Hayter wrote:
Those who fear for the safety of transgender individuals may be
pleased to see
a convicted torturer and attempted murderer threatening named women and >>>>>> Starmer with violence if they do not grant trans women all the
privileges they
wish.
https://x.com/itsMelDaley/status/1926612928095982043
Er, why would any sensible person be pleased to see that?
On the other hand, I reckon JK Rowling would be "pleased" to learn
that the eccentric trans woman in that report cut off her own
testicles with a razor blade in 2017 (according to Wikipedia). Rowling >>>>> believes that young people should not be given life changing trans
surgery but she also believes that anyone with male genitalia is to be >>>>> considered a man, not a woman.
Come to think of it, we're now told that chemical castration is the
solution to predatory sex offences committed by males.
Apparently it "caused" technoluvie Alan Turing to top himself. To
prevent "predatory" invention of computers. (Or was it his taste for
strapping young working class lads?)
I don't think anyone can say whether it was the drug or public disgrace that >> led to his suicide. But the drugs do have lots of harmful side-effects. We've
got better ones now, I believe. Certainly more expensive.
Do you means better chemical castrators? Surely it's the *primary*
effect that did it.
On 2025-05-26, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 26 May 2025 at 17:03:49 BST, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu>
wrote:
On 2025-05-26, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 26 May 2025 at 14:22:49 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote: >>>>> On 26/05/2025 11:43, Roger Hayter wrote:
Those who fear for the safety of transgender individuals may be
pleased to see a convicted torturer and attempted murderer
threatening named women and Starmer with violence if they do not
grant trans women all the privileges they wish.
https://x.com/itsMelDaley/status/1926612928095982043
Er, why would any sensible person be pleased to see that?
On the other hand, I reckon JK Rowling would be "pleased" to learn that >>>>> the eccentric trans woman in that report cut off her own testicles with >>>>> a razor blade in 2017 (according to Wikipedia). Rowling believes that >>>>> young people should not be given life changing trans surgery but she >>>>> also believes that anyone with male genitalia is to be considered a man, >>>>> not a woman.
I think (I cannot speak for her) she believes any male child that goes >>>> through male puberty to adulthood is a man, whatever the current state >>>> of his genitalia. At least that makes sense to any biologist, or
indeed the UKSC.
I don't think that's right, unless you've seen her say that she believes >>> that an AMAB child who takes puberty blockers and then, later, hormones, >>> and hence goes through female puberty and not male puberty, is a woman.
Well they clearly aren't a woman, but probably less of a threat to
women. And probably undectable when clothed. I wouldn't like to
speculate on JKR's view on that, though I expect she'd think it was a
bad idea to do it. Without a convincing controlled trial I'd tend to
suspect she is right.
I'm going to kill-file you now.
On 26/05/2025 18:28, kat wrote:
On 26/05/2025 11:43, Roger Hayter wrote:
Those who fear for the safety of transgender individuals may be
pleased to see a convicted torturer and attempted murderer
threatening named women and Starmer with violence if they do not
grant trans women all the privileges they wish.
https://x.com/itsMelDaley/status/1926612928095982043
Query - is it considered all right for women to walk around topless?
I suppose she does that to prove that she is a woman. The
steroid-induced breasts are an important part of her self-esteem.
On 26 May 2025 at 17:31:41 BST, "Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 26/05/2025 14:29, The Todal wrote:
On 26/05/2025 14:22, The Todal wrote:
On 26/05/2025 11:43, Roger Hayter wrote:
Those who fear for the safety of transgender individuals may be
pleased to see
a convicted torturer and attempted murderer threatening named women and >>>>> Starmer with violence if they do not grant trans women all the
privileges they
wish.
https://x.com/itsMelDaley/status/1926612928095982043
Er, why would any sensible person be pleased to see that?
On the other hand, I reckon JK Rowling would be "pleased" to learn
that the eccentric trans woman in that report cut off her own
testicles with a razor blade in 2017 (according to Wikipedia). Rowling >>>> believes that young people should not be given life changing trans
surgery but she also believes that anyone with male genitalia is to be >>>> considered a man, not a woman.
Come to think of it, we're now told that chemical castration is the
solution to predatory sex offences committed by males.
Apparently it "caused" technoluvie Alan Turing to top himself. To
prevent "predatory" invention of computers. (Or was it his taste for
strapping young working class lads?)
I don't think anyone can say whether it was the drug or public disgrace that led to his suicide. But the drugs do have lots of harmful side-effects. We've got better ones now, I believe. Certainly more expensive.
https://x.com/itsMelDaley/status/1926612928095982043Aaaaand ... post deleted.
Roger Hayter wrote:
https://x.com/itsMelDaley/status/1926612928095982043Aaaaand ... post deleted.
On 26/05/2025 14:52, Owen Rees wrote:
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 26/05/2025 11:43, Roger Hayter wrote:
Those who fear for the safety of transgender individuals may be pleased to see
a convicted torturer and attempted murderer threatening named women and >>>> Starmer with violence if they do not grant trans women all the privileges they
wish.
https://x.com/itsMelDaley/status/1926612928095982043
Er, why would any sensible person be pleased to see that?
On the other hand, I reckon JK Rowling would be "pleased" to learn that
the eccentric trans woman in that report cut off her own testicles with
a razor blade in 2017 (according to Wikipedia). Rowling believes that
young people should not be given life changing trans surgery but she
also believes that anyone with male genitalia is to be considered a man, >>> not a woman.
Actual response available at
https://x.com/jk_rowling/status/1926971984593686592
Quote
The new trans activist 'Be Afraid' slogan is simply their most honest to
date. They've always wanted women scared, which is why they routinely make >> physical threats. The more interesting point is, why does a violent ex-con >> feel so untouchable that he can do this in public?
/2
I suspect they believe police don't take violent threats against women
seriously. They think police consider the intimidation of women
unimportant, even well-deserved. They believe the police are on their side. >> And, little though I like saying it, I think they're right.
End quote
Rowling's words are inflammatory and she wants her readers to believe
that Sarah Jane Baker, a trans woman with a past history of violence, is typical of trans women. Even a leader of the trans community.
I suspect Rowling believes the police don't take her hateful bigotry
directed at the trans community seriously. She thinks police consider
the intimidation of trans people unimportant, even well-deserved. She
thinks the police are on her side. I think she's right, and being a multi-millionnaire probably helps to intimidate any police who might be tempted to bring her in for questioning.
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 26/05/2025 14:52, Owen Rees wrote:
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 26/05/2025 11:43, Roger Hayter wrote:
Those who fear for the safety of transgender individuals may be pleased to see
a convicted torturer and attempted murderer threatening named women and >>>>> Starmer with violence if they do not grant trans women all the privileges they
wish.
https://x.com/itsMelDaley/status/1926612928095982043
Er, why would any sensible person be pleased to see that?
On the other hand, I reckon JK Rowling would be "pleased" to learn that >>>> the eccentric trans woman in that report cut off her own testicles with >>>> a razor blade in 2017 (according to Wikipedia). Rowling believes that
young people should not be given life changing trans surgery but she
also believes that anyone with male genitalia is to be considered a man, >>>> not a woman.
Actual response available at
https://x.com/jk_rowling/status/1926971984593686592
Quote
The new trans activist 'Be Afraid' slogan is simply their most honest to >>> date. They've always wanted women scared, which is why they routinely make >>> physical threats. The more interesting point is, why does a violent ex-con >>> feel so untouchable that he can do this in public?
/2
I suspect they believe police don't take violent threats against women
seriously. They think police consider the intimidation of women
unimportant, even well-deserved. They believe the police are on their side. >>> And, little though I like saying it, I think they're right.
End quote
Rowling's words are inflammatory and she wants her readers to believe
that Sarah Jane Baker, a trans woman with a past history of violence, is
typical of trans women. Even a leader of the trans community.
I suspect Rowling believes the police don't take her hateful bigotry
directed at the trans community seriously. She thinks police consider
the intimidation of trans people unimportant, even well-deserved. She
thinks the police are on her side. I think she's right, and being a
multi-millionnaire probably helps to intimidate any police who might be
tempted to bring her in for questioning.
I have not seen anything that she has written that supports violence
against transgender people. Can you point to something she has said or written that encourages the intimidation of transgender people?
There appear to be many advocates for transgender rights who call for violence against her, including murder. There are also calls for
non-violent harassment of her and organisations she is involved in.
Which of these is inflammatory?
I have not seen anything that she has written that supports violence
against transgender people. Can you point to something she has said or
written that encourages the intimidation of transgender people?
Her sarcastic and belittling remarks about transgender people are of
course in the public domain and you only have to look at the comments at
the foot of articles in the online newspapers such as the Times, to see
how people interpret her views.
To paraphrase, the readers say "she's absolutely right, these trans
people are mentally ill, their fantasies should not be indulged, they
should not be allowed to dictate to us how we should all run our lives".
On 26/05/2025 22:41, Owen Rees wrote:
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 26/05/2025 14:52, Owen Rees wrote:
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 26/05/2025 11:43, Roger Hayter wrote:
Those who fear for the safety of transgender individuals may be pleased to see
a convicted torturer and attempted murderer threatening named women and >>>>>> Starmer with violence if they do not grant trans women all the privileges they
wish.
https://x.com/itsMelDaley/status/1926612928095982043
Er, why would any sensible person be pleased to see that?
On the other hand, I reckon JK Rowling would be "pleased" to learn that >>>>> the eccentric trans woman in that report cut off her own testicles with >>>>> a razor blade in 2017 (according to Wikipedia). Rowling believes that >>>>> young people should not be given life changing trans surgery but she >>>>> also believes that anyone with male genitalia is to be considered a man, >>>>> not a woman.
Actual response available at
https://x.com/jk_rowling/status/1926971984593686592
Quote
The new trans activist 'Be Afraid' slogan is simply their most honest to >>>> date. They've always wanted women scared, which is why they routinely make >>>> physical threats. The more interesting point is, why does a violent ex-con >>>> feel so untouchable that he can do this in public?
/2
I suspect they believe police don't take violent threats against women >>>> seriously. They think police consider the intimidation of women
unimportant, even well-deserved. They believe the police are on their side.
And, little though I like saying it, I think they're right.
End quote
Rowling's words are inflammatory and she wants her readers to believe
that Sarah Jane Baker, a trans woman with a past history of violence, is >>> typical of trans women. Even a leader of the trans community.
I suspect Rowling believes the police don't take her hateful bigotry
directed at the trans community seriously. She thinks police consider
the intimidation of trans people unimportant, even well-deserved. She
thinks the police are on her side. I think she's right, and being a
multi-millionnaire probably helps to intimidate any police who might be
tempted to bring her in for questioning.
I have not seen anything that she has written that supports violence
against transgender people. Can you point to something she has said or
written that encourages the intimidation of transgender people?
Her sarcastic and belittling remarks about transgender people are of course in the
public domain and you only have to look at the comments at the foot of articles in the
online newspapers such as the Times, to see how people interpret her views.
To paraphrase, the readers say "she's absolutely right, these trans people are mentally
ill, their fantasies should not be indulged, they should not be allowed to dictate to
us how we should all run our lives".
There appear to be many advocates for transgender rights who call for
violence against her, including murder. There are also calls for
non-violent harassment of her and organisations she is involved in.
And once again, I would point out that those who make threats of violence are not
spokesmen or spokeswomen for all trans people, even if they claim to be. Rowling
sometimes gives such people undue prominence, which feeds into her narrative that she
is a heroic figure standing up for womankind.
Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
Roger Hayter wrote:
https://x.com/itsMelDaley/status/1926612928095982043Aaaaand ... post deleted.
Still there when I visited the link just now.
Given the way X is run, I would not be surprised if different people see different things.
On 5/27/25 08:32, The Todal wrote:
I have not seen anything that she has written that supports violence
against transgender people. Can you point to something she has said or
written that encourages the intimidation of transgender people?
Her sarcastic and belittling remarks about transgender people are of
course in the public domain and you only have to look at the comments
at the foot of articles in the online newspapers such as the Times, to
see how people interpret her views.
To paraphrase, the readers say "she's absolutely right, these trans
people are mentally ill, their fantasies should not be indulged, they
should not be allowed to dictate to us how we should all run our lives".
That seems to be a perfectly defensible point of view. A tolerant
society should allow people to have different views to yourself.
Unless there is a direct incitement to criminality, we should permit a diversity of opinion. Claiming that other people's views are
inflammatory or offensive doesn't cut the mustard.
If Rowland were in a position of trust, we might expect her to avoid inflammatory or contentious comments, but she isn't.
On Mon, 26 May 2025 21:45:19 +0000, Owen Rees wrote:
Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
Roger Hayter wrote:
https://x.com/itsMelDaley/status/1926612928095982043Aaaaand ... post deleted.
Still there when I visited the link just now.
Given the way X is run, I would not be surprised if different people see
different things.
That is the entire point of Twitter. Or so I recall. I haven't used it
(not that I ever did, really) for ages.
On 26/05/2025 18:28, kat wrote:
On 26/05/2025 11:43, Roger Hayter wrote:
Those who fear for the safety of transgender individuals may be
pleased to see
a convicted torturer and attempted murderer threatening named women and
Starmer with violence if they do not grant trans women all the
privileges they
wish.
https://x.com/itsMelDaley/status/1926612928095982043
Query - is it considered all right for women to walk around topless?
You can't have it both ways. Either they are topless men, and many men
do take off their tops in hot weather, or they are women, which could be considered indecent exposure.
Which is, I think, pretty much the point they were trying to prove.
On 27/05/2025 09:35, Pancho wrote:
On 5/27/25 08:32, The Todal wrote:
I have not seen anything that she has written that supports violence
against transgender people. Can you point to something she has said or >>>> written that encourages the intimidation of transgender people?
Her sarcastic and belittling remarks about transgender people are of
course in the public domain and you only have to look at the comments
at the foot of articles in the online newspapers such as the Times,
to see how people interpret her views.
To paraphrase, the readers say "she's absolutely right, these trans
people are mentally ill, their fantasies should not be indulged, they
should not be allowed to dictate to us how we should all run our lives". >>>
That seems to be a perfectly defensible point of view. A tolerant
society should allow people to have different views to yourself.
Of course. And it's also perfectly defensible to say that black men tend
to be burglars, rapists and gang members, that Romanians are cheats and thieves, that you wouldn't want your son to be taught by a homosexual teacher.
And to say these things in public helps to rally support to your point
of view. Nothing wrong with that, you'd say? We should permit different points of view. Lucy Connolly was merely expressing her valid point of
view when she called for "mass deportation now" and "set fire to the
hotels". She wasn't a bad person. We should only imprison people who are
bad. Ethnic profiling helps us spot the bad people.
If Rowland were in a position of trust, we might expect her to avoid
inflammatory or contentious comments, but she isn't.
On 26/05/2025 18:28, kat wrote:
On 26/05/2025 11:43, Roger Hayter wrote:
Those who fear for the safety of transgender individuals may be pleased to see
a convicted torturer and attempted murderer threatening named women and
Starmer with violence if they do not grant trans women all the privileges they
wish.
https://x.com/itsMelDaley/status/1926612928095982043
Query - is it considered all right for women to walk around topless?
You can't have it both ways. Either they are topless men, and many men do take
off their tops in hot weather, or they are women, which could be considered indecent exposure.
Which is, I think, pretty much the point they were trying to prove.
On 27/05/2025 10:36, John wrote:
On 26/05/2025 18:28, kat wrote:
On 26/05/2025 11:43, Roger Hayter wrote:
Those who fear for the safety of transgender individuals may be
pleased to see a convicted torturer and attempted murderer
threatening named women and Starmer with violence if they do not
grant trans women all the privileges they wish.
https://x.com/itsMelDaley/status/1926612928095982043
Query - is it considered all right for women to walk around topless?
You can't have it both ways. Either they are topless men, and many men
do take off their tops in hot weather, or they are women, which could be
considered indecent exposure.
Not in our criminal law, though. At least, I don't think so.
Section 66 of the Sexual Offences Act: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/66
So basically this sort of protest is illegal or not depending on the
whim of the magistrate and how they personally view the protestors.
On 2025-05-27, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Mon, 26 May 2025 21:45:19 +0000, Owen Rees wrote:
Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
Roger Hayter wrote:
https://x.com/itsMelDaley/status/1926612928095982043Aaaaand ... post deleted.
Still there when I visited the link just now.
Given the way X is run, I would not be surprised if different people see >>> different things.
That is the entire point of Twitter. Or so I recall. I haven't used it
(not that I ever did, really) for ages.
The "entire point" of Twitter is most certainly not to show some people content when they visit the URL of a specific tweet and to falsely say
to other people that the tweet doesn't exist (which is what Owen's
suggesting is happening).
Given Musk's mismanagement of the site I wouldn't be massively surprised
if that is what it's doing though, although I'd still lean more towards
it being that the tweet is deleted but Owen's browser has data cached.
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-05-27, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Mon, 26 May 2025 21:45:19 +0000, Owen Rees wrote:
Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
Roger Hayter wrote:
https://x.com/itsMelDaley/status/1926612928095982043Aaaaand ... post deleted.
Still there when I visited the link just now.
Given the way X is run, I would not be surprised if different people see >>>> different things.
That is the entire point of Twitter. Or so I recall. I haven't used it
(not that I ever did, really) for ages.
The "entire point" of Twitter is most certainly not to show some people
content when they visit the URL of a specific tweet and to falsely say
to other people that the tweet doesn't exist (which is what Owen's
suggesting is happening).
If you have not heard of shadowbanning you should look it up.
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
[quoted text muted]
If you have not heard of shadowbanning you should look it up.
On Tue, 27 May 2025 13:03:17 +0000, Owen Rees wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
[quoted text muted]
If you have not heard of shadowbanning you should look it up.
Obviously the very first application for anything sold as "AI" will be to maximise the effect of every single pixel delivered to the end user as possible.
This will obviously mean removing any screen real estate that would be
wasted with content that "does nothing".
I find it odd that any rational person would think otherwise.
Someone, somewhere is trying to collate (if they haven't already) a
"magic spell" that can be waved over every single electron from a browser
and divine what the most profitable way of utilising the return channel
could be. In real time.
Obviously we are far too educated to believe in such piffle as magic
spells. So the name got changed to "algorithm".
On 27 May 2025 at 14:48:44 BST, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com>
wrote:
[quoted text muted]
I believe it may be inaccurate to describe what AIs do as following algorithms.
On 26 May 2025 at 18:46:44 BST, "Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 26/05/2025 18:11, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 26 May 2025 at 17:31:41 BST, "Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 26/05/2025 14:29, The Todal wrote:
On 26/05/2025 14:22, The Todal wrote:
On 26/05/2025 11:43, Roger Hayter wrote:
Those who fear for the safety of transgender individuals may be
pleased to see
a convicted torturer and attempted murderer threatening named women and >>>>>>> Starmer with violence if they do not grant trans women all the
privileges they
wish.
https://x.com/itsMelDaley/status/1926612928095982043
Er, why would any sensible person be pleased to see that?
On the other hand, I reckon JK Rowling would be "pleased" to learn >>>>>> that the eccentric trans woman in that report cut off her own
testicles with a razor blade in 2017 (according to Wikipedia). Rowling >>>>>> believes that young people should not be given life changing trans >>>>>> surgery but she also believes that anyone with male genitalia is to be >>>>>> considered a man, not a woman.
Come to think of it, we're now told that chemical castration is the
solution to predatory sex offences committed by males.
Apparently it "caused" technoluvie Alan Turing to top himself. To
prevent "predatory" invention of computers. (Or was it his taste for
strapping young working class lads?)
I don't think anyone can say whether it was the drug or public disgrace that
led to his suicide. But the drugs do have lots of harmful side-effects. We've
got better ones now, I believe. Certainly more expensive.
Do you means better chemical castrators? Surely it's the *primary*
effect that did it.
Did what? I am talking about fatal clotting and heart attacks (etc) as side effects.
On 26/05/2025 22:41, Owen Rees wrote:
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 26/05/2025 14:52, Owen Rees wrote:
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 26/05/2025 11:43, Roger Hayter wrote:
Those who fear for the safety of transgender individuals may be pleased to see
a convicted torturer and attempted murderer threatening named women and >>>>>> Starmer with violence if they do not grant trans women all the privileges they
wish.
https://x.com/itsMelDaley/status/1926612928095982043
Er, why would any sensible person be pleased to see that?
On the other hand, I reckon JK Rowling would be "pleased" to learn that >>>>> the eccentric trans woman in that report cut off her own testicles with >>>>> a razor blade in 2017 (according to Wikipedia). Rowling believes that >>>>> young people should not be given life changing trans surgery but she >>>>> also believes that anyone with male genitalia is to be considered a man, >>>>> not a woman.
Actual response available at
https://x.com/jk_rowling/status/1926971984593686592
Quote
The new trans activist 'Be Afraid' slogan is simply their most honest to >>>> date. They've always wanted women scared, which is why they routinely make >>>> physical threats. The more interesting point is, why does a violent ex-con >>>> feel so untouchable that he can do this in public?
/2
I suspect they believe police don't take violent threats against women >>>> seriously. They think police consider the intimidation of women
unimportant, even well-deserved. They believe the police are on their side.
And, little though I like saying it, I think they're right.
End quote
Rowling's words are inflammatory and she wants her readers to believe
that Sarah Jane Baker, a trans woman with a past history of violence, is >>> typical of trans women. Even a leader of the trans community.
I suspect Rowling believes the police don't take her hateful bigotry
directed at the trans community seriously. She thinks police consider
the intimidation of trans people unimportant, even well-deserved. She
thinks the police are on her side. I think she's right, and being a
multi-millionnaire probably helps to intimidate any police who might be
tempted to bring her in for questioning.
I have not seen anything that she has written that supports violence
against transgender people. Can you point to something she has said or
written that encourages the intimidation of transgender people?
Her sarcastic and belittling remarks about transgender people are of
course in the public domain and you only have to look at the comments at
the foot of articles in the online newspapers such as the Times, to see
how people interpret her views.
To paraphrase, the readers say "she's absolutely right, these trans
people are mentally ill, their fantasies should not be indulged, they
should not be allowed to dictate to us how we should all run our lives".
There appear to be many advocates for transgender rights who call for
violence against her, including murder. There are also calls for
non-violent harassment of her and organisations she is involved in.
And once again, I would point out that those who make threats of
violence are not spokesmen or spokeswomen for all trans people, even if
they claim to be. Rowling sometimes gives such people undue prominence,
which feeds into her narrative that she is a heroic figure standing up
for womankind.
Which of these is inflammatory?
All.
On 27/05/2025 10:33, The Todal wrote:
On 27/05/2025 09:35, Pancho wrote:
On 5/27/25 08:32, The Todal wrote:
I have not seen anything that she has written that supports violence >>>>> against transgender people. Can you point to something she has said or >>>>> written that encourages the intimidation of transgender people?
Her sarcastic and belittling remarks about transgender people are of
course in the public domain and you only have to look at the comments
at the foot of articles in the online newspapers such as the Times,
to see how people interpret her views.
To paraphrase, the readers say "she's absolutely right, these trans
people are mentally ill, their fantasies should not be indulged, they
should not be allowed to dictate to us how we should all run our lives". >>>>
That seems to be a perfectly defensible point of view. A tolerant
society should allow people to have different views to yourself.
Of course. And it's also perfectly defensible to say that black men tend
to be burglars, rapists and gang members, that Romanians are cheats and
thieves, that you wouldn't want your son to be taught by a homosexual
teacher.
All very good points. Why do you think it's become such a heinous crime
to make statements like these based on statistical data?
Rowling's words are inflammatory and she wants her readers to believe
that Sarah Jane Baker, a trans woman with a past history of violence, is typical of trans women. Even a leader of the trans community.
Roger Hayter wrote:
https://x.com/itsMelDaley/status/1926612928095982043Aaaaand ... post deleted.
Op 26/05/2025 om 19:25 schreef The Todal:
Rowling's words are inflammatory and she wants her readers to believe
that Sarah Jane Baker, a trans woman with a past history of violence,
is typical of trans women. Even a leader of the trans community.
You're missing the point. Why wasn't this person arrested and
prosecuted?
better). I am sure that I went shouting "Trans people, be afraid" in New Street in Birmingham, the WMP would have arrested me immediately.
Some time ago I suggested that trans rights activists were doing more harm than good to the cause of addressing the issues that transgender people
face. Perhaps those who responded may understand it better in the light of these activists calling for violence.
Op 26/05/2025 om 19:25 schreef The Todal:
Rowling's words are inflammatory and she wants her readers to believe
that Sarah Jane Baker, a trans woman with a past history of violence, is
typical of trans women. Even a leader of the trans community.
You're missing the point. Why wasn't this person arrested and
prosecuted? (She actually was arrested in the past, so she should know better). I am sure that I went shouting "Trans people, be afraid" in New Street in Birmingham, the WMP would have arrested me immediately.
On 27/05/2025 14:10, Owen Rees wrote:
Some time ago I suggested that trans rights activists were doing more harm >> than good to the cause of addressing the issues that transgender people
face. Perhaps those who responded may understand it better in the light of >> these activists calling for violence.
The self-appointed activists are not the appointed representatives of
the trans community (if there even is one such community) and if the
violent activists are doing more harm than good, it can only be because ignorant bigots choose to portray them as typical campaigners for trans rights.
I daresay you could claim that the IRA was doing more harm than good to
the cause of rectifying injustices to the Catholic community. But in
saying that, you do not solve anything. If anything, you encourage
people to ignore the injustices suffered by the Irish Catholics because
they become conflated with IRA terrorists.
On 27 May 2025 at 11:15:58 BST, "Fredxx" <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 27/05/2025 10:33, The Todal wrote:
On 27/05/2025 09:35, Pancho wrote:
On 5/27/25 08:32, The Todal wrote:
I have not seen anything that she has written that supports violence >>>>>> against transgender people. Can you point to something she has said or >>>>>> written that encourages the intimidation of transgender people?
Her sarcastic and belittling remarks about transgender people are of >>>>> course in the public domain and you only have to look at the comments >>>>> at the foot of articles in the online newspapers such as the Times,
to see how people interpret her views.
To paraphrase, the readers say "she's absolutely right, these trans
people are mentally ill, their fantasies should not be indulged, they >>>>> should not be allowed to dictate to us how we should all run our lives". >>>>>
That seems to be a perfectly defensible point of view. A tolerant
society should allow people to have different views to yourself.
Of course. And it's also perfectly defensible to say that black men tend >>> to be burglars, rapists and gang members, that Romanians are cheats and
thieves, that you wouldn't want your son to be taught by a homosexual
teacher.
All very good points. Why do you think it's become such a heinous crime
to make statements like these based on statistical data?
Largely because the effects of acting on these statements may be exceedingly unfair to inividuals members of these groups who do not share the statistical properties of those groups. Secondarily, because such assessments often do not
account for confounding economic and social factors which sometimes mean that the groups with higher incidence of wrongdoing are no different from members of other groups who happen to share the same social and economic disadvantage.
On 2025-05-27, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 27/05/2025 10:36, John wrote:
On 26/05/2025 18:28, kat wrote:
On 26/05/2025 11:43, Roger Hayter wrote:
Those who fear for the safety of transgender individuals may be
pleased to see a convicted torturer and attempted murderer
threatening named women and Starmer with violence if they do not
grant trans women all the privileges they wish.
https://x.com/itsMelDaley/status/1926612928095982043
Query - is it considered all right for women to walk around topless?
You can't have it both ways. Either they are topless men, and many men >>> do take off their tops in hot weather, or they are women, which could be >>> considered indecent exposure.
Not in our criminal law, though. At least, I don't think so.
Section 66 of the Sexual Offences Act:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/66
Indeed. Even being completely naked is not, generally speaking, illegal
in this country - except in Scotland, as Stephen Gough discovered.
Although having said that, Richard Collins was prosecuted for
"disorderly behaviour" under the Public Order Act 1986 s5 due to cycling naked in public. Which mostly goes to show how inconsistent magistrates courts can be I suppose.
https://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/9082100.nude-cyclist-slams-waste-of-money-trial/
So basically this sort of protest is illegal or not depending on the
whim of the magistrate and how they personally view the protestors.
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-05-27, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 27/05/2025 10:36, John wrote:
On 26/05/2025 18:28, kat wrote:
On 26/05/2025 11:43, Roger Hayter wrote:
Those who fear for the safety of transgender individuals may be
pleased to see a convicted torturer and attempted murderer
threatening named women and Starmer with violence if they do not
grant trans women all the privileges they wish.
https://x.com/itsMelDaley/status/1926612928095982043
Query - is it considered all right for women to walk around topless?
You can't have it both ways. Either they are topless men, and many men >>>> do take off their tops in hot weather, or they are women, which could be >>>> considered indecent exposure.
Not in our criminal law, though. At least, I don't think so.
Section 66 of the Sexual Offences Act:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/66
Indeed. Even being completely naked is not, generally speaking, illegal
in this country - except in Scotland, as Stephen Gough discovered.
Although having said that, Richard Collins was prosecuted for
"disorderly behaviour" under the Public Order Act 1986 s5 due to cycling
naked in public. Which mostly goes to show how inconsistent magistrates
courts can be I suppose.
https://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/9082100.nude-cyclist-slams-waste-of-money-trial/
So basically this sort of protest is illegal or not depending on the
whim of the magistrate and how they personally view the protestors.
Well, there is this view of naked bicycling:
Quote:
The World Naked Bike Ride is a popular, peaceful public protest where more than 1,000 people are expected to shed their clothes and sit uncomfortably
on their saddles for a ride around the capital.
The idea behind the ride is to draw attention to the benefits of a cleaner environment, healthier lifestyles, safer roads, and to demonstrate the vulnerability of cyclists against cars. It aims to curb car culture and obtain better rights for cyclists.
[…]
Is the bike ride legal?
Parental guidance is advised to ensure the beneficial intent of the ride is well-understood by everyone taking part, and you should definitely make yourself aware of the various rules (and the law) before attending and
taking part.
The event organisers work closely with the Metropolitan Police so there is almost no chance of being arrested, but you should be aware that it is not completely without risk.
You can read their documentation here: wnbrlondon.uk.
Unquote
<https://londondrum.com/events/?p=47731>
On 2025-05-27, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-05-27, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 27/05/2025 10:36, John wrote:
On 26/05/2025 18:28, kat wrote:
On 26/05/2025 11:43, Roger Hayter wrote:
Those who fear for the safety of transgender individuals may be
pleased to see a convicted torturer and attempted murderer
threatening named women and Starmer with violence if they do not >>>>>>> grant trans women all the privileges they wish.
https://x.com/itsMelDaley/status/1926612928095982043
Query - is it considered all right for women to walk around
topless?
You can't have it both ways. Either they are topless men, and many >>>>> men do take off their tops in hot weather, or they are women, which
could be considered indecent exposure.
Not in our criminal law, though. At least, I don't think so.
Section 66 of the Sexual Offences Act:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/66
Indeed. Even being completely naked is not, generally speaking,
illegal in this country - except in Scotland, as Stephen Gough
discovered.
Although having said that, Richard Collins was prosecuted for
"disorderly behaviour" under the Public Order Act 1986 s5 due to
cycling naked in public. Which mostly goes to show how inconsistent
magistrates courts can be I suppose.
https://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/9082100.nude-cyclist-slams- waste-of-money-trial/
So basically this sort of protest is illegal or not depending on the
whim of the magistrate and how they personally view the protestors.
Well, there is this view of naked bicycling:
Quote:
The World Naked Bike Ride is a popular, peaceful public protest where
more than 1,000 people are expected to shed their clothes and sit
uncomfortably on their saddles for a ride around the capital.
The idea behind the ride is to draw attention to the benefits of a
cleaner environment, healthier lifestyles, safer roads, and to
demonstrate the vulnerability of cyclists against cars. It aims to curb
car culture and obtain better rights for cyclists.
[…]
Is the bike ride legal?
Parental guidance is advised to ensure the beneficial intent of the
ride is well-understood by everyone taking part, and you should
definitely make yourself aware of the various rules (and the law)
before attending and taking part.
The event organisers work closely with the Metropolitan Police so there
is almost no chance of being arrested, but you should be aware that it
is not completely without risk.
You can read their documentation here: wnbrlondon.uk.
Unquote
<https://londondrum.com/events/?p=47731>
Exactly - as I said, whether you get arrested and/or prosecuted is about
how the establishment views you rather than the law.
On Wed, 28 May 2025 00:18:12 +0000, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-05-27, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:waste-of-money-trial/
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-05-27, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 27/05/2025 10:36, John wrote:
On 26/05/2025 18:28, kat wrote:
On 26/05/2025 11:43, Roger Hayter wrote:
Those who fear for the safety of transgender individuals may be >>>>>>>> pleased to see a convicted torturer and attempted murderer
threatening named women and Starmer with violence if they do not >>>>>>>> grant trans women all the privileges they wish.
https://x.com/itsMelDaley/status/1926612928095982043
Query - is it considered all right for women to walk around
topless?
You can't have it both ways. Either they are topless men, and many >>>>>> men do take off their tops in hot weather, or they are women, which >>>>>> could be considered indecent exposure.
Not in our criminal law, though. At least, I don't think so.
Section 66 of the Sexual Offences Act:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/66
Indeed. Even being completely naked is not, generally speaking,
illegal in this country - except in Scotland, as Stephen Gough
discovered.
Although having said that, Richard Collins was prosecuted for
"disorderly behaviour" under the Public Order Act 1986 s5 due to
cycling naked in public. Which mostly goes to show how inconsistent
magistrates courts can be I suppose.
https://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/9082100.nude-cyclist-slams-
So basically this sort of protest is illegal or not depending on the
whim of the magistrate and how they personally view the protestors.
Well, there is this view of naked bicycling:
Quote:
The World Naked Bike Ride is a popular, peaceful public protest where
more than 1,000 people are expected to shed their clothes and sit
uncomfortably on their saddles for a ride around the capital.
The idea behind the ride is to draw attention to the benefits of a
cleaner environment, healthier lifestyles, safer roads, and to
demonstrate the vulnerability of cyclists against cars. It aims to curb
car culture and obtain better rights for cyclists.
[…]
Is the bike ride legal?
Parental guidance is advised to ensure the beneficial intent of the
ride is well-understood by everyone taking part, and you should
definitely make yourself aware of the various rules (and the law)
before attending and taking part.
The event organisers work closely with the Metropolitan Police so there
is almost no chance of being arrested, but you should be aware that it
is not completely without risk.
You can read their documentation here: wnbrlondon.uk.
Unquote
<https://londondrum.com/events/?p=47731>
Exactly - as I said, whether you get arrested and/or prosecuted is about
how the establishment views you rather than the law.
Isn't it the other way around ? The law is framed to accommodate the situation ? So something clearly organised and with no intent to shock or distress is outside the law.
On 27 May 2025 at 11:15:58 BST, "Fredxx" <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 27/05/2025 10:33, The Todal wrote:
Of course. And it's also perfectly defensible to say that black men tend >>> to be burglars, rapists and gang members, that Romanians are cheats and
thieves, that you wouldn't want your son to be taught by a homosexual
teacher.
All very good points. Why do you think it's become such a heinous crime
to make statements like these based on statistical data?
Largely because the effects of acting on these statements may be exceedingly unfair to inividuals members of these groups who do not share the statistical properties of those groups. Secondarily, because such assessments often do not
account for confounding economic and social factors which sometimes mean that the groups with higher incidence of wrongdoing are no different from members of other groups who happen to share the same social and economic disadvantage.
On 27 May 2025 at 18:57:05 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 27/05/2025 14:10, Owen Rees wrote:
Some time ago I suggested that trans rights activists were doing more harm >>> than good to the cause of addressing the issues that transgender people
face. Perhaps those who responded may understand it better in the light of >>> these activists calling for violence.
The self-appointed activists are not the appointed representatives of
the trans community (if there even is one such community) and if the
violent activists are doing more harm than good, it can only be because
ignorant bigots choose to portray them as typical campaigners for trans
rights.
I daresay you could claim that the IRA was doing more harm than good to
the cause of rectifying injustices to the Catholic community. But in
saying that, you do not solve anything. If anything, you encourage
people to ignore the injustices suffered by the Irish Catholics because
they become conflated with IRA terrorists.
Unfortunately for the narrative, I really doubt whether the IRA were doing more harm than good. I do accept that they were acting immorally.
On 27/05/2025 14:42, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 27 May 2025 at 11:15:58 BST, "Fredxx" <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 27/05/2025 10:33, The Todal wrote:
Of course. And it's also perfectly defensible to say that black men tend >>>> to be burglars, rapists and gang members, that Romanians are cheats and >>>> thieves, that you wouldn't want your son to be taught by a homosexual
teacher.
All very good points. Why do you think it's become such a heinous crime
to make statements like these based on statistical data?
Largely because the effects of acting on these statements may be exceedingly >> unfair to inividuals members of these groups who do not share the statistical
properties of those groups. Secondarily, because such assessments often do not
account for confounding economic and social factors which sometimes mean that
the groups with higher incidence of wrongdoing are no different from members >> of other groups who happen to share the same social and economic disadvantage.
No-one seems to object that when it is said that Japanese are, on
average, shorter than other ethnic groups, in a statistically
significant way.
Not sure the same would apply to Japanese penile length.
On 27 May 2025 at 15:24:50 BST, "Ottavio Caruso" <ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> wrote:
Op 26/05/2025 om 19:25 schreef The Todal:
Rowling's words are inflammatory and she wants her readers to believe
that Sarah Jane Baker, a trans woman with a past history of violence, is >>> typical of trans women. Even a leader of the trans community.
You're missing the point. Why wasn't this person arrested and
prosecuted? (She actually was arrested in the past, so she should know
better). I am sure that I went shouting "Trans people, be afraid" in New
Street in Birmingham, the WMP would have arrested me immediately.
She was arrested in the recent past for calling on her followers to "decapitate TERFs" and given no substantial punishment; in particular she could have been recalled to prison (she is out on licence for violent offences) but wasn't. Perhaps she, quite reasonably, feels that nothing bad will happen to her if she is arrested again.
On 27 May 2025 at 18:57:05 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 27/05/2025 14:10, Owen Rees wrote:
Some time ago I suggested that trans rights activists were doing more harm >>> than good to the cause of addressing the issues that transgender people
face. Perhaps those who responded may understand it better in the light of >>> these activists calling for violence.
The self-appointed activists are not the appointed representatives of
the trans community (if there even is one such community) and if the
violent activists are doing more harm than good, it can only be because
ignorant bigots choose to portray them as typical campaigners for trans
rights.
I daresay you could claim that the IRA was doing more harm than good to
the cause of rectifying injustices to the Catholic community. But in
saying that, you do not solve anything. If anything, you encourage
people to ignore the injustices suffered by the Irish Catholics because
they become conflated with IRA terrorists.
Unfortunately for the narrative, I really doubt whether the IRA were doing more harm than good. I do accept that they were acting immorally.
Or did you consider the IRA to be freedom fighters, a bit like Lehi and
Stern Gang or Hamas?
On Tue, 27 May 2025 08:32:39 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
On 26/05/2025 22:41, Owen Rees wrote:
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 26/05/2025 14:52, Owen Rees wrote:
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 26/05/2025 11:43, Roger Hayter wrote:
Those who fear for the safety of transgender individuals may be pleased to see
a convicted torturer and attempted murderer threatening named women and >>>>>>> Starmer with violence if they do not grant trans women all the privileges they
wish.
https://x.com/itsMelDaley/status/1926612928095982043
Er, why would any sensible person be pleased to see that?
On the other hand, I reckon JK Rowling would be "pleased" to learn that >>>>>> the eccentric trans woman in that report cut off her own testicles with >>>>>> a razor blade in 2017 (according to Wikipedia). Rowling believes that >>>>>> young people should not be given life changing trans surgery but she >>>>>> also believes that anyone with male genitalia is to be considered a man, >>>>>> not a woman.
Actual response available at
https://x.com/jk_rowling/status/1926971984593686592
Quote
The new trans activist 'Be Afraid' slogan is simply their most honest to >>>>> date. They've always wanted women scared, which is why they routinely make
physical threats. The more interesting point is, why does a violent ex-con
feel so untouchable that he can do this in public?
/2
I suspect they believe police don't take violent threats against women >>>>> seriously. They think police consider the intimidation of women
unimportant, even well-deserved. They believe the police are on their side.
And, little though I like saying it, I think they're right.
End quote
Rowling's words are inflammatory and she wants her readers to believe
that Sarah Jane Baker, a trans woman with a past history of violence, is >>>> typical of trans women. Even a leader of the trans community.
I suspect Rowling believes the police don't take her hateful bigotry
directed at the trans community seriously. She thinks police consider
the intimidation of trans people unimportant, even well-deserved. She
thinks the police are on her side. I think she's right, and being a
multi-millionnaire probably helps to intimidate any police who might be >>>> tempted to bring her in for questioning.
I have not seen anything that she has written that supports violence
against transgender people. Can you point to something she has said or
written that encourages the intimidation of transgender people?
Her sarcastic and belittling remarks about transgender people are of
course in the public domain and you only have to look at the comments at
the foot of articles in the online newspapers such as the Times, to see
how people interpret her views.
To paraphrase, the readers say "she's absolutely right, these trans
people are mentally ill, their fantasies should not be indulged, they
should not be allowed to dictate to us how we should all run our lives".
There appear to be many advocates for transgender rights who call for
violence against her, including murder. There are also calls for
non-violent harassment of her and organisations she is involved in.
And once again, I would point out that those who make threats of
violence are not spokesmen or spokeswomen for all trans people, even if
they claim to be.
So why do you persistently make Rowling out to somehow represent all
people who have worries about the impact of transition?
Rowling sometimes gives such people undue prominence,
which feeds into her narrative that she is a heroic figure standing up
for womankind.
Which of these is inflammatory?
All.
On 28 May 2025 at 14:18:32 BST, "Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 27/05/2025 14:42, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 27 May 2025 at 11:15:58 BST, "Fredxx" <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 27/05/2025 10:33, The Todal wrote:
Of course. And it's also perfectly defensible to say that black men tend >>>>> to be burglars, rapists and gang members, that Romanians are cheats and >>>>> thieves, that you wouldn't want your son to be taught by a homosexual >>>>> teacher.
All very good points. Why do you think it's become such a heinous crime >>>> to make statements like these based on statistical data?
Largely because the effects of acting on these statements may be exceedingly
unfair to inividuals members of these groups who do not share the statistical
properties of those groups. Secondarily, because such assessments often do not
account for confounding economic and social factors which sometimes mean that
the groups with higher incidence of wrongdoing are no different from members
of other groups who happen to share the same social and economic disadvantage.
No-one seems to object that when it is said that Japanese are, on
average, shorter than other ethnic groups, in a statistically
significant way.
Not sure the same would apply to Japanese penile length.
What disadvantage to an individual Japanese person do you think could result from that being said?
On 5/27/25 10:33, The Todal wrote:
And to say these things in public helps to rally support to your point
of view. Nothing wrong with that, you'd say? We should permit
different points of view. Lucy Connolly was merely expressing her
valid point of view when she called for "mass deportation now" and
"set fire to the hotels". She wasn't a bad person. We should only
imprison people who are bad. Ethnic profiling helps us spot the bad
people.
No, ""set fire to the hotels" is incitement to commit a criminal
offence.
Calling for "mass deportations now" is more nuanced, context
dependent. I would allow it, unless context suggested it was incitement
to riot/disorder.
I don't follow JK Rowling, but AIUI she hasn't written anything like that.
[snip]
If Rowland were in a position of trust, we might expect her to avoid
inflammatory or contentious comments, but she isn't.
I meant JK Rowling, sorry Rowland.
On 2025-05-27, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 27/05/2025 10:36, John wrote:
On 26/05/2025 18:28, kat wrote:
On 26/05/2025 11:43, Roger Hayter wrote:
Those who fear for the safety of transgender individuals may be
pleased to see a convicted torturer and attempted murderer
threatening named women and Starmer with violence if they do not
grant trans women all the privileges they wish.
https://x.com/itsMelDaley/status/1926612928095982043
Query - is it considered all right for women to walk around topless?
You can't have it both ways. Either they are topless men, and many men >>> do take off their tops in hot weather, or they are women, which could be >>> considered indecent exposure.
Not in our criminal law, though. At least, I don't think so.
Section 66 of the Sexual Offences Act:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/66
Indeed. Even being completely naked is not, generally speaking, illegal
in this country - except in Scotland, as Stephen Gough discovered.
Although having said that, Richard Collins was prosecuted for
"disorderly behaviour" under the Public Order Act 1986 s5 due to cycling naked in public. Which mostly goes to show how inconsistent magistrates courts can be I suppose.
https://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/9082100.nude-cyclist-slams-waste-of-money-trial/
So basically this sort of protest is illegal or not depending on the
whim of the magistrate and how they personally view the protestors.
On 27/05/2025 12:19, Pancho wrote:
On 5/27/25 10:33, The Todal wrote:
And to say these things in public helps to rally support to your point
of view. Nothing wrong with that, you'd say? We should permit
different points of view. Lucy Connolly was merely expressing her
valid point of view when she called for "mass deportation now" and
"set fire to the hotels". She wasn't a bad person. We should only
imprison people who are bad. Ethnic profiling helps us spot the bad
people.
No, ""set fire to the hotels" is incitement to commit a criminal
offence.
Good job she didn't actually "call" for that, then, innit?
Calling for "mass deportations now" is more nuanced, context
dependent. I would allow it, unless context suggested it was incitement
to riot/disorder.
I don't follow JK Rowling, but AIUI she hasn't written anything like that. >>
[snip]
If Rowland were in a position of trust, we might expect her to avoid
inflammatory or contentious comments, but she isn't.
I meant JK Rowling, sorry Rowland.
On 30 May 2025 at 09:54:34 BST, "JNugent" <jnugent73@mail.com> wrote:
[quoted text muted]
Sophistry. Saying you wouldn't mind if it happened is calling for it to
my understanding.
On 30 May 2025 at 09:54:34 BST, "JNugent" <jnugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 27/05/2025 12:19, Pancho wrote:
On 5/27/25 10:33, The Todal wrote:
And to say these things in public helps to rally support to your point >>>> of view. Nothing wrong with that, you'd say? We should permit
different points of view. Lucy Connolly was merely expressing her
valid point of view when she called for "mass deportation now" and
"set fire to the hotels". She wasn't a bad person. We should only
imprison people who are bad. Ethnic profiling helps us spot the bad
people.
No, ""set fire to the hotels" is incitement to commit a criminal
offence.
Good job she didn't actually "call" for that, then, innit?
Sophistry. Saying you wouldn't mind if it happened is calling for it to my understanding. Sure you'd agree if it was your house mentioned!
On 30/05/2025 14:41, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 30 May 2025 at 09:54:34 BST, "JNugent" <jnugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 27/05/2025 12:19, Pancho wrote:
On 5/27/25 10:33, The Todal wrote:
And to say these things in public helps to rally support to your point >>>>> of view. Nothing wrong with that, you'd say? We should permit
different points of view. Lucy Connolly was merely expressing her
valid point of view when she called for "mass deportation now" and
"set fire to the hotels". She wasn't a bad person. We should only
imprison people who are bad. Ethnic profiling helps us spot the bad
people.
No, ""set fire to the hotels" is incitement to commit a criminal
offence.
Good job she didn't actually "call" for that, then, innit?
Sophistry. Saying you wouldn't mind if it happened is calling for it
to my
understanding. Sure you'd agree if it was your house mentioned!
It is anything but sophistry.
She simply didn't ask or encourage anyone to burn down anything at all. Unless she knew people who were planning to do that (or something
similar), it's hard to know whom she was supposed to be inciting.
Would you have been moved to commit arson as a result of what she said?
If not, what makes you think that anybody would have?
On 5/30/25 21:47, JNugent wrote:
Would you have been moved to commit arson as a result of what she said?
If not, what makes you think that anybody would have?
Apparently, her tweet was viewed 310,000 times. Although if that was
before she was arrested, I don't know.
On 30/05/2025 14:41, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 30 May 2025 at 09:54:34 BST, "JNugent" <jnugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 27/05/2025 12:19, Pancho wrote:
On 5/27/25 10:33, The Todal wrote:
And to say these things in public helps to rally support to your point >>>>> of view. Nothing wrong with that, you'd say? We should permit
different points of view. Lucy Connolly was merely expressing her
valid point of view when she called for "mass deportation now" and
"set fire to the hotels". She wasn't a bad person. We should only
imprison people who are bad. Ethnic profiling helps us spot the bad
people.
No, ""set fire to the hotels" is incitement to commit a criminal
offence.
Good job she didn't actually "call" for that, then, innit?
Sophistry. Saying you wouldn't mind if it happened is calling for it
to my
understanding. Sure you'd agree if it was your house mentioned!
It is anything but sophistry.
She simply didn't ask or encourage anyone to burn down anything at all. Unless she knew people who were planning to do that (or something
similar), it's hard to know whom she was supposed to be inciting.
Would you have been moved to commit arson as a result of what she said?
If not, what makes you think that anybody would have?
Of course, it wasn't the only thing she was alleged to have done.
On 30/05/2025 21:47, JNugent wrote:
On 30/05/2025 14:41, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 30 May 2025 at 09:54:34 BST, "JNugent" <jnugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 27/05/2025 12:19, Pancho wrote:
On 5/27/25 10:33, The Todal wrote:
And to say these things in public helps to rally support to your point >>>>>> of view. Nothing wrong with that, you'd say? We should permit
different points of view. Lucy Connolly was merely expressing her
valid point of view when she called for "mass deportation now" and >>>>>> "set fire to the hotels". She wasn't a bad person. We should only
imprison people who are bad. Ethnic profiling helps us spot the bad >>>>>> people.
No, ""set fire to the hotels" is incitement to commit a criminal
offence.
Good job she didn't actually "call" for that, then, innit?
Sophistry. Saying you wouldn't mind if it happened is calling for it
to my
understanding. Sure you'd agree if it was your house mentioned!
It is anything but sophistry.
She simply didn't ask or encourage anyone to burn down anything at all.
Unless she knew people who were planning to do that (or something
similar), it's hard to know whom she was supposed to be inciting.
Would you have been moved to commit arson as a result of what she said?
What an irrelevant question!
If not, what makes you think that anybody would have?
We all know what sort of knuckle-dragging bigots we're dealing with.
They resemble the American rioters who invaded the Capitol, confident
that they were part of a civilian majority and would be immune from any consequences.
But this dimwitted woman had the full support of Boris Johnson in one of
his asinine Daily Mail opinion pieces.
Of course, it wasn't the only thing she was alleged to have done.
Her tweet was this:
"Mass deportation now, set fire to all the fucking hotels full of the bastards for all I care, while you’re at it take the treacherous
government and politicians with them. I feel physically sick knowing
what these families will now have to endure. If that makes me racist so
be it”
On 5/30/25 21:47, JNugent wrote:
On 30/05/2025 14:41, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 30 May 2025 at 09:54:34 BST, "JNugent" <jnugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 27/05/2025 12:19, Pancho wrote:
On 5/27/25 10:33, The Todal wrote:
And to say these things in public helps to rally support to your
point
of view. Nothing wrong with that, you'd say? We should permit
different points of view. Lucy Connolly was merely expressing her
valid point of view when she called for "mass deportation now" and >>>>>> "set fire to the hotels". She wasn't a bad person. We should only
imprison people who are bad. Ethnic profiling helps us spot the bad >>>>>> people.
No, ""set fire to the hotels" is incitement to commit a criminal
offence.
Good job she didn't actually "call" for that, then, innit?
Sophistry. Saying you wouldn't mind if it happened is calling for it
to my understanding. Sure you'd agree if it was your house mentioned!
It is anything but sophistry.
She simply didn't ask or encourage anyone to burn down anything at
all. Unless she knew people who were planning to do that (or something
similar), it's hard to know whom she was supposed to be inciting.
Ok, I'd be inclined to agree, I took Todal's words literally, to mean
she was inciting people to set fire to hotels. In fact, it appears she
was a comma away from directing people to burn hotels.
A quick look at her charge and it appears to have been "distributing
material with the intention of stirring up racial hatred." So don't read
too much into my incitement claim.
Would you have been moved to commit arson as a result of what she said?
If not, what makes you think that anybody would have?
Apparently, her tweet was viewed 310,000 times.
Although if that was
before she was arrested, I don't know.
On 2025-05-30, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
On 5/30/25 21:47, JNugent wrote:
Would you have been moved to commit arson as a result of what she said?
If not, what makes you think that anybody would have?
Apparently, her tweet was viewed 310,000 times. Although if that was
before she was arrested, I don't know.
I love the idea that if we wouldn't commit arson they nobody would.
Makes it a bit of a mystery how serious crime exists at all, though.
On 31/05/2025 01:59 AM, Jon Ribbens wrote:
[quoted text muted]
The point was whether a PARTICULAR message would incite you to commit
crime.
It would not incite me. Would it you?
And if not, why anyone?
On Sun, 01 Jun 2025 09:22:58 +0100, JNugent wrote:
On 31/05/2025 01:59 AM, Jon Ribbens wrote:
[quoted text muted]
The point was whether a PARTICULAR message would incite you to commit
crime.
It would not incite me. Would it you?
And if not, why anyone?
Are we not circling around the "FIRE !!!" in a crowded theatre theory ?
On 30/05/2025 21:47, JNugent wrote:
On 30/05/2025 14:41, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 30 May 2025 at 09:54:34 BST, "JNugent" <jnugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 27/05/2025 12:19, Pancho wrote:
On 5/27/25 10:33, The Todal wrote:
And to say these things in public helps to rally support to your
point of view. Nothing wrong with that, you'd say? We should permit >>>>>> different points of view. Lucy Connolly was merely expressing her
valid point of view when she called for "mass deportation now" and >>>>>> "set fire to the hotels". She wasn't a bad person. We should only
imprison people who are bad. Ethnic profiling helps us spot the bad >>>>>> people.
No, ""set fire to the hotels" is incitement to commit a criminal
offence.
Good job she didn't actually "call" for that, then, innit?
Sophistry. Saying you wouldn't mind if it happened is calling for it
to my understanding. Sure you'd agree if it was your house mentioned!
It is anything but sophistry.
She simply didn't ask or encourage anyone to burn down anything at
all. Unless she knew people who were planning to do that (or something
similar), it's hard to know whom she was supposed to be inciting.
Would you have been moved to commit arson as a result of what she said?
What an irrelevant question!
If not, what makes you think that anybody would have?
We all know what sort of knuckle-dragging bigots we're dealing with.
They resemble the American rioters who invaded the Capitol, confident
that they were part of a civilian majority and would be immune from any consequences.
But this dimwitted woman had the full support of Boris Johnson in one of
his asinine Daily Mail opinion pieces.
Of course, it wasn't the only thing she was alleged to have done.
Her tweet was this:
"Mass deportation now, set fire to all the fucking hotels full of the bastards for all I care, while you’re at it take the treacherous
government and politicians with them. I feel physically sick knowing
what these families will now have to endure. If that makes me racist so
be it”
It is obvious that any of the many bigots reading her tweet would be
incited to set fire to hostels or hotels containing migrants. And there
were several instances of hostels/hotels being set alight.
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/R-v-Birley-6th-Spetember-2024.pdf
R. v Thomas Birley
It appears you hold views which, to put it mildly, are antipathetic to
those who are seeking refuge in the United Kingdom. It appears you
follow social media sites which peddle racist propaganda. You told the probation officer that you went to the hotel to protest and “voice your opinion”. You also made observations critical of the police in
Lancashire surrounding the events in that town.
You were part of the group that smashed the ground floor windows of
the hotel, shouting towards the Police. The police were heavily
outnumbered at this stage. The disorder was grotesque. A short while
later one of the mob set fire to a large industrial bin. It was placed
in front of the fire door of the hotel. You added fuel to that fire by picking up a large sheet of chipboard and adding it to the fire. You
then climbed onto a railing next to the bin which was on fire and added further wooden planks to the fire. With others you manoeuvred another
large industrial bin on top of the fire.
On 31/05/2025 10:49 AM, The Todal wrote:
We all know what sort of knuckle-dragging bigots we're dealing with.
They resemble the American rioters who invaded the Capitol, confident
that they were part of a civilian majority and would be immune from any
consequences.
Is that supposed to be incisive sociological and political analysis?
Bizarrely, it is now reported that Lord Hermer as Attorney General isAnyone being persecuted should have the support of reasonable people.
But this dimwitted woman had the full support of Boris Johnson in one of
his asinine Daily Mail opinion pieces.
The desperate attempts by two mediocre politicians to summon up support
for their unpopular Tory Party, then. You'd think they would understand
that it was necessary to deter people from rioting again, and that
sentences are the responsibility of our courts, whose judgement should
be trusted in preference to the judgement of crowd-pleasing politicians.
On 01/06/2025 10:33 AM, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Sun, 01 Jun 2025 09:22:58 +0100, JNugent wrote:
On 31/05/2025 01:59 AM, Jon Ribbens wrote:
[quoted text muted]
The point was whether a PARTICULAR message would incite you to commit
crime.
It would not incite me. Would it you?
And if not, why anyone?
Are we not circling around the "FIRE !!!" in a crowded theatre theory ?
Not at all. That would not be incitement.
On Sun, 01 Jun 2025 11:25:58 +0100, JNugent wrote:
On 01/06/2025 10:33 AM, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Sun, 01 Jun 2025 09:22:58 +0100, JNugent wrote:
On 31/05/2025 01:59 AM, Jon Ribbens wrote:
[quoted text muted]
The point was whether a PARTICULAR message would incite you to commit
crime.
It would not incite me. Would it you?
And if not, why anyone?
Are we not circling around the "FIRE !!!" in a crowded theatre theory ?
Not at all. That would not be incitement.
But is still an example where a person can be held responsible for the outcome of their speech. Free or not.
And just to hone the analogy a bit, what of someone who *deliberately*
shouts "FIRE!!!" in a crowded theatre when they know there is no fire,
and as a result of the panic, people die ? Would they have no, some or
full culpability ?
It's possible we might need to create some sort of process whereby the
facts of an incident can be weighed against the laws of the land to
determine the answer to such questions.
On 1 Jun 2025 at 14:49:40 BST, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com>
wrote:
On Sun, 01 Jun 2025 11:25:58 +0100, JNugent wrote:
On 01/06/2025 10:33 AM, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Sun, 01 Jun 2025 09:22:58 +0100, JNugent wrote:
On 31/05/2025 01:59 AM, Jon Ribbens wrote:
[quoted text muted]
The point was whether a PARTICULAR message would incite you to
commit crime.
It would not incite me. Would it you?
And if not, why anyone?
Are we not circling around the "FIRE !!!" in a crowded theatre theory
?
Not at all. That would not be incitement.
But is still an example where a person can be held responsible for the
outcome of their speech. Free or not.
And just to hone the analogy a bit, what of someone who *deliberately*
shouts "FIRE!!!" in a crowded theatre when they know there is no fire,
and as a result of the panic, people die ? Would they have no, some or
full culpability ?
It's possible we might need to create some sort of process whereby the
facts of an incident can be weighed against the laws of the land to
determine the answer to such questions.
Don't forget that this is not America (where the theatre analogy comes
from) and there is no constitutional right to free speech. Any law or regulation can directly or indirectly criminalise speech and there is no special bar it has to overcome to do so. Incitement is judged purely on
the facts of the case, no lower limit of jurisdiction because it would infringe a right we don't have.
On Sun, 01 Jun 2025 11:25:58 +0100, JNugent wrote:
On 01/06/2025 10:33 AM, Jethro_uk wrote:
Are we not circling around the "FIRE !!!" in a crowded theatre theory ?
Not at all. That would not be incitement.
But is still an example where a person can be held responsible for the outcome of their speech. Free or not.
And just to hone the analogy a bit, what of someone who *deliberately*
shouts "FIRE!!!" in a crowded theatre when they know there is no fire,
and as a result of the panic, people die ? Would they have no, some or
full culpability ?
On 01/06/2025 14:49, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Sun, 01 Jun 2025 11:25:58 +0100, JNugent wrote:
On 01/06/2025 10:33 AM, Jethro_uk wrote:
Are we not circling around the "FIRE !!!" in a crowded theatre theory
?
Not at all. That would not be incitement.
But is still an example where a person can be held responsible for the
outcome of their speech. Free or not.
And just to hone the analogy a bit, what of someone who *deliberately*
shouts "FIRE!!!" in a crowded theatre when they know there is no fire,
and as a result of the panic, people die ? Would they have no, some or
full culpability ?
What if someone cries "Fire!" and there *is* a fire? Would people
trample over each other? No, of course they wouldn't. They'd leave in an orderly fashion.
And the same if there isn't a fire. The only difference
is that the audience would (needlessly) miss the remainder of the play,
which they might not be enjoying in any case.
On Sun, 01 Jun 2025 17:13:18 +0100, Max Demian wrote:
On 01/06/2025 14:49, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Sun, 01 Jun 2025 11:25:58 +0100, JNugent wrote:
On 01/06/2025 10:33 AM, Jethro_uk wrote:
Are we not circling around the "FIRE !!!" in a crowded theatre theory >>>>> ?
Not at all. That would not be incitement.
But is still an example where a person can be held responsible for the
outcome of their speech. Free or not.
And just to hone the analogy a bit, what of someone who *deliberately*
shouts "FIRE!!!" in a crowded theatre when they know there is no fire,
and as a result of the panic, people die ? Would they have no, some or
full culpability ?
What if someone cries "Fire!" and there *is* a fire? Would people
trample over each other? No, of course they wouldn't. They'd leave in an
orderly fashion.
Hillsborough
And the same if there isn't a fire. The only difference
is that the audience would (needlessly) miss the remainder of the play,
which they might not be enjoying in any case.
You could just as easily have admitted you've never been to a theatre. There's no shame these days.
On Sun, 01 Jun 2025 17:13:18 +0100, Max Demian wrote:
On 01/06/2025 14:49, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Sun, 01 Jun 2025 11:25:58 +0100, JNugent wrote:
On 01/06/2025 10:33 AM, Jethro_uk wrote:
Are we not circling around the "FIRE !!!" in a crowded theatre theory >>>>> ?
Not at all. That would not be incitement.
But is still an example where a person can be held responsible for the
outcome of their speech. Free or not.
And just to hone the analogy a bit, what of someone who *deliberately*
shouts "FIRE!!!" in a crowded theatre when they know there is no fire,
and as a result of the panic, people die ? Would they have no, some or
full culpability ?
What if someone cries "Fire!" and there *is* a fire? Would people
trample over each other? No, of course they wouldn't. They'd leave in an
orderly fashion.
Hillsborough
And the same if there isn't a fire. The only difference
is that the audience would (needlessly) miss the remainder of the play,
which they might not be enjoying in any case.
You could just as easily have admitted you've never been to a theatre. There's no shame these days.
On 30/05/2025 10:42 PM, Pancho wrote:
On 5/30/25 21:47, JNugent wrote:
On 30/05/2025 14:41, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 30 May 2025 at 09:54:34 BST, "JNugent" <jnugent73@mail.com> wrote: >>>>> On 27/05/2025 12:19, Pancho wrote:
On 5/27/25 10:33, The Todal wrote:
And to say these things in public helps to rally support to your >>>>>>> point
of view. Nothing wrong with that, you'd say? We should permit
different points of view. Lucy Connolly was merely expressing her >>>>>>> valid point of view when she called for "mass deportation now" and >>>>>>> "set fire to the hotels". She wasn't a bad person. We should only >>>>>>> imprison people who are bad. Ethnic profiling helps us spot the bad >>>>>>> people.
No, ""set fire to the hotels" is incitement to commit a criminal >>>>>> offence.
Good job she didn't actually "call" for that, then, innit?
Sophistry. Saying you wouldn't mind if it happened is calling for it
to my understanding. Sure you'd agree if it was your house mentioned!
It is anything but sophistry.
She simply didn't ask or encourage anyone to burn down anything at
all. Unless she knew people who were planning to do that (or something
similar), it's hard to know whom she was supposed to be inciting.
Ok, I'd be inclined to agree, I took Todal's words literally, to mean
she was inciting people to set fire to hotels. In fact, it appears she
was a comma away from directing people to burn hotels.
A quick look at her charge and it appears to have been "distributing
material with the intention of stirring up racial hatred." So don't read
too much into my incitement claim.
Would you have been moved to commit arson as a result of what she said?
If not, what makes you think that anybody would have?
Apparently, her tweet was viewed 310,000 times.
So what?
Are hoi polloi who saw it some sort of lesser breed, easily encouraged
to criminality by a misunderstood phrase?
On 2025-06-01, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
The desperate attempts by two mediocre politicians to summon up support
for their unpopular Tory Party, then. You'd think they would understand
that it was necessary to deter people from rioting again, and that
sentences are the responsibility of our courts, whose judgement should
be trusted in preference to the judgement of crowd-pleasing
politicians.
I'd say "of course they understand this, they are just pretending they
don't so that they can play political games", but the quality of Tory
MPs is so low these days that it's entirely possible they actually are
as stupid as they appear to be.
On 6/1/25 09:20, JNugent wrote:
On 30/05/2025 10:42 PM, Pancho wrote:
On 5/30/25 21:47, JNugent wrote:
On 30/05/2025 14:41, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 30 May 2025 at 09:54:34 BST, "JNugent" <jnugent73@mail.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 27/05/2025 12:19, Pancho wrote:
On 5/27/25 10:33, The Todal wrote:
And to say these things in public helps to rally support to your >>>>>>>> point of view. Nothing wrong with that, you'd say? We should permit >>>>>>>> different points of view. Lucy Connolly was merely expressing her >>>>>>>> valid point of view when she called for "mass deportation now" and >>>>>>>> "set fire to the hotels". She wasn't a bad person. We should only >>>>>>>> imprison people who are bad. Ethnic profiling helps us spot the bad >>>>>>>> people.
No, ""set fire to the hotels" is incitement to commit a criminal >>>>>>> offence.
Good job she didn't actually "call" for that, then, innit?
Sophistry. Saying you wouldn't mind if it happened is calling for it >>>>> to my understanding. Sure you'd agree if it was your house mentioned!
It is anything but sophistry.
She simply didn't ask or encourage anyone to burn down anything at
all. Unless she knew people who were planning to do that (or something >>>> similar), it's hard to know whom she was supposed to be inciting.
Ok, I'd be inclined to agree, I took Todal's words literally, to mean
she was inciting people to set fire to hotels. In fact, it appears she
was a comma away from directing people to burn hotels.
A quick look at her charge and it appears to have been "distributing
material with the intention of stirring up racial hatred." So don't read >>> too much into my incitement claim.
Would you have been moved to commit arson as a result of what she said? >>>> If not, what makes you think that anybody would have?
Apparently, her tweet was viewed 310,000 times.
So what?
Are hoi polloi who saw it some sort of lesser breed, easily encouraged
to criminality by a misunderstood phrase?
No, that is a strawman,
I made no comment on the type who might be
influenced. The issue is that some people are suggestible. Even if these suggestible people are rare, mass publication raises the risk that one
or more suggestible people may found and influenced.
Someone intending to publish to 330,000 people should be more cautious
than someone publishing to a readership of a handful of people.
On Sun, 01 Jun 2025 11:25:58 +0100, JNugent wrote:
On 01/06/2025 10:33 AM, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Sun, 01 Jun 2025 09:22:58 +0100, JNugent wrote:
On 31/05/2025 01:59 AM, Jon Ribbens wrote:
[quoted text muted]
The point was whether a PARTICULAR message would incite you to commit
crime.
It would not incite me. Would it you?
And if not, why anyone?
Are we not circling around the "FIRE !!!" in a crowded theatre theory ?
Not at all. That would not be incitement.
But is still an example where a person can be held responsible for the outcome of their speech. Free or not.
And just to hone the analogy a bit, what of someone who *deliberately*
shouts "FIRE!!!" in a crowded theatre when they know there is no fire,
and as a result of the panic, people die ? Would they have no, some or
full culpability ?
It's possible we might need to create some sort of process whereby the
facts of an incident can be weighed against the laws of the land to
determine the answer to such questions.
On Sun, 01 Jun 2025 17:13:18 +0100, Max Demian wrote:
On 01/06/2025 14:49, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Sun, 01 Jun 2025 11:25:58 +0100, JNugent wrote:
On 01/06/2025 10:33 AM, Jethro_uk wrote:
Are we not circling around the "FIRE !!!" in a crowded theatre theory >>>>> ?
Not at all. That would not be incitement.
But is still an example where a person can be held responsible for the
outcome of their speech. Free or not.
And just to hone the analogy a bit, what of someone who *deliberately*
shouts "FIRE!!!" in a crowded theatre when they know there is no fire,
and as a result of the panic, people die ? Would they have no, some or
full culpability ?
What if someone cries "Fire!" and there *is* a fire? Would people
trample over each other? No, of course they wouldn't. They'd leave in an
orderly fashion.
Hillsborough
And the same if there isn't a fire. The only difference
is that the audience would (needlessly) miss the remainder of the play,
which they might not be enjoying in any case.
You could just as easily have admitted you've never been to a theatre. There's no shame these days.
On 01/06/2025 07:15 PM, Pancho wrote:
On 6/1/25 09:20, JNugent wrote:
On 30/05/2025 10:42 PM, Pancho wrote:
On 5/30/25 21:47, JNugent wrote:
On 30/05/2025 14:41, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 30 May 2025 at 09:54:34 BST, "JNugent" <jnugent73@mail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On 27/05/2025 12:19, Pancho wrote:
On 5/27/25 10:33, The Todal wrote:
And to say these things in public helps to rally support to your >>>>>>>>> point of view. Nothing wrong with that, you'd say? We should >>>>>>>>> permit
different points of view. Lucy Connolly was merely expressing her >>>>>>>>> valid point of view when she called for "mass deportation now" and >>>>>>>>> "set fire to the hotels". She wasn't a bad person. We should only >>>>>>>>> imprison people who are bad. Ethnic profiling helps us spot the >>>>>>>>> bad
people.
No, ""set fire to the hotels" is incitement to commit a criminal >>>>>>>> offence.
Good job she didn't actually "call" for that, then, innit?
Sophistry. Saying you wouldn't mind if it happened is calling for it >>>>>> to my understanding. Sure you'd agree if it was your house mentioned!
It is anything but sophistry.
She simply didn't ask or encourage anyone to burn down anything at
all. Unless she knew people who were planning to do that (or something >>>>> similar), it's hard to know whom she was supposed to be inciting.
Ok, I'd be inclined to agree, I took Todal's words literally, to mean
she was inciting people to set fire to hotels. In fact, it appears she >>>> was a comma away from directing people to burn hotels.
A quick look at her charge and it appears to have been "distributing
material with the intention of stirring up racial hatred." So don't
read
too much into my incitement claim.
Would you have been moved to commit arson as a result of what she
said?
If not, what makes you think that anybody would have?
Apparently, her tweet was viewed 310,000 times.
So what?
Are hoi polloi who saw it some sort of lesser breed, easily encouraged
to criminality by a misunderstood phrase?
No, that is a strawman,
Is it?
I made no comment on the type who might be
influenced. The issue is that some people are suggestible. Even if these
suggestible people are rare, mass publication raises the risk that one
or more suggestible people may found and influenced.
Someone intending to publish to 330,000 people should be more cautious
than someone publishing to a readership of a handful of people.
Was it you who snipped my comment to the effect that it can more or less
be guaranteed that the vast majority of the 330,000 looked her tweet
AFTER she was arrested and charged and that she had no intention or
prospect of that happening simply in response to what she wrote?
On 6/2/25 16:27, JNugent wrote:
On 01/06/2025 07:15 PM, Pancho wrote:
On 6/1/25 09:20, JNugent wrote:
On 30/05/2025 10:42 PM, Pancho wrote:
On 5/30/25 21:47, JNugent wrote:
On 30/05/2025 14:41, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 30 May 2025 at 09:54:34 BST, "JNugent" <jnugent73@mail.com>
wrote:
On 27/05/2025 12:19, Pancho wrote:
On 5/27/25 10:33, The Todal wrote:
And to say these things in public helps to rally support to your >>>>>>>>>> point of view. Nothing wrong with that, you'd say? We should >>>>>>>>>> permit
different points of view. Lucy Connolly was merely expressing her >>>>>>>>>> valid point of view when she called for "mass deportation now" >>>>>>>>>> and
"set fire to the hotels". She wasn't a bad person. We should only >>>>>>>>>> imprison people who are bad. Ethnic profiling helps us spot >>>>>>>>>> the bad
people.
No, ""set fire to the hotels" is incitement to commit a criminal >>>>>>>>> offence.
Good job she didn't actually "call" for that, then, innit?
Sophistry. Saying you wouldn't mind if it happened is calling for it >>>>>>> to my understanding. Sure you'd agree if it was your house
mentioned!
It is anything but sophistry.
She simply didn't ask or encourage anyone to burn down anything at >>>>>> all. Unless she knew people who were planning to do that (or
something
similar), it's hard to know whom she was supposed to be inciting.
Ok, I'd be inclined to agree, I took Todal's words literally, to mean >>>>> she was inciting people to set fire to hotels. In fact, it appears she >>>>> was a comma away from directing people to burn hotels.
A quick look at her charge and it appears to have been "distributing >>>>> material with the intention of stirring up racial hatred." So don't
read
too much into my incitement claim.
Would you have been moved to commit arson as a result of what she
said?
If not, what makes you think that anybody would have?
Apparently, her tweet was viewed 310,000 times.
So what?
Are hoi polloi who saw it some sort of lesser breed, easily encouraged >>>> to criminality by a misunderstood phrase?
No, that is a strawman,
Is it?
I made no comment on the type who might be
influenced. The issue is that some people are suggestible. Even if these >>> suggestible people are rare, mass publication raises the risk that one
or more suggestible people may found and influenced.
Someone intending to publish to 330,000 people should be more cautious
than someone publishing to a readership of a handful of people.
Was it you who snipped my comment to the effect that it can more or
less be guaranteed that the vast majority of the 330,000 looked her
tweet AFTER she was arrested and charged and that she had no intention
or prospect of that happening simply in response to what she wrote?
I was making a general point about why size of readership was important.
I don't know the specifics of this case. I don't know why so many people
read her tweet. I don't know when they read her tweet. I don't know if
any of the rioters claim to have been influenced by it.
In general, I favour freedom of speech. I'm quite willing to believe
Conolloy has been harshly treated. I would prioritise protecting
journalistic free speech over protecting the public from armchair
warriors, or even from a few episodes of minor civil insurrection.
I'm pretty much totally opposed to the recent anti hate speech laws. I'm opposed to most of the recent support of terrorism laws. These appear to
be tools for oppression by authoritarian government.
I don't know the specifics of this case. I don't know why so many people
read her tweet. I don't know when they read her tweet. I don't know if
any of the rioters claim to have been influenced by it.
In general, I favour freedom of speech. I'm quite willing to believe
Conolloy has been harshly treated. I would prioritise protecting
journalistic free speech over protecting the public from armchair
warriors, or even from a few episodes of minor civil insurrection.
I'm pretty much totally opposed to the recent anti hate speech laws. I'm opposed to most of the recent support of terrorism laws. These appear to
be tools for oppression by authoritarian government.
On 2025-06-02, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
I don't know the specifics of this case. I don't know why so many people
read her tweet. I don't know when they read her tweet. I don't know if
any of the rioters claim to have been influenced by it.
In general, I favour freedom of speech. I'm quite willing to believe
Conolloy has been harshly treated. I would prioritise protecting
journalistic free speech over protecting the public from armchair
warriors, or even from a few episodes of minor civil insurrection.
I'm pretty much totally opposed to the recent anti hate speech laws. I'm
opposed to most of the recent support of terrorism laws. These appear to
be tools for oppression by authoritarian government.
You should perhaps bear in mind that Lucy Connolly was not prosecuted
under any such "recent" laws.
Also bear in mind that if your objection is to the sentence rather than
the verdict, then this is not really a "free speech" issue. Recall the
2011 riots - people who committed what would normally be considered minor shoplifting offences deserving of community service instead received
years in prison. When there is serious disorder that threatens peaceable society, society and its legal system hits back *hard*. Punishments are greatly magnified. You may of course consider this reasonable or unreasonable, but regardless it isn't specifically to do with free
speech.
On 2025-06-02, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:with the distinction between sentence and verdict. And there has to come
I don't know the specifics of this case. I don't know why so many
people read her tweet. I don't know when they read her tweet. I don't
know if any of the rioters claim to have been influenced by it.
In general, I favour freedom of speech. I'm quite willing to believe
Conolloy has been harshly treated. I would prioritise protecting
journalistic free speech over protecting the public from armchair
warriors, or even from a few episodes of minor civil insurrection.
I'm pretty much totally opposed to the recent anti hate speech laws.
I'm opposed to most of the recent support of terrorism laws. These
appear to be tools for oppression by authoritarian government.
You should perhaps bear in mind that Lucy Connolly was not prosecuted
under any such "recent" laws. She was prosecuted under the Public Order
Act 1986 s19(1), a nearly 40-year-old law, which itself merely updated
the Race Relations Act 1976 s70(2), a nearly 50-year-old law, which yet
again updated the Public Order Act 1936 s(5), a nearly 90-year-old law.
You may view this as simply meaning the that tools of oppression have a
long history, but either way they are not new.
Also bear in mind that if your objection is to the sentence rather than
the verdict, then this is not really a "free speech" issue. Recall the
2011 riots - people who committed what would normally be considered
minor shoplifting offences deserving of community service instead
received years in prison. When there is serious disorder that threatens peaceable society, society and its legal system hits back *hard*.
Punishments are greatly magnified. You may of course consider this
reasonable or unreasonable, but regardless it isn't specifically to do
with free speech.
From what I have seen in various fora, a lot of people seem to struggle
On 02/06/2025 18:35, Pancho wrote:
On 6/2/25 16:27, JNugent wrote:
On 01/06/2025 07:15 PM, Pancho wrote:
On 6/1/25 09:20, JNugent wrote:
On 30/05/2025 10:42 PM, Pancho wrote:
On 5/30/25 21:47, JNugent wrote:
On 30/05/2025 14:41, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 30 May 2025 at 09:54:34 BST, "JNugent" <jnugent73@mail.com> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On 27/05/2025 12:19, Pancho wrote:
On 5/27/25 10:33, The Todal wrote:
And to say these things in public helps to rally support to your >>>>>>>>>>> point of view. Nothing wrong with that, you'd say? We should >>>>>>>>>>> permit
different points of view. Lucy Connolly was merely expressing >>>>>>>>>>> her
valid point of view when she called for "mass deportation >>>>>>>>>>> now" and
"set fire to the hotels". She wasn't a bad person. We should >>>>>>>>>>> only
imprison people who are bad. Ethnic profiling helps us spot >>>>>>>>>>> the bad
people.
No, ""set fire to the hotels" is incitement to commit a criminal >>>>>>>>>> offence.
Good job she didn't actually "call" for that, then, innit?
Sophistry. Saying you wouldn't mind if it happened is calling
for it
to my understanding. Sure you'd agree if it was your house
mentioned!
It is anything but sophistry.
She simply didn't ask or encourage anyone to burn down anything at >>>>>>> all. Unless she knew people who were planning to do that (or
something
similar), it's hard to know whom she was supposed to be inciting.
Ok, I'd be inclined to agree, I took Todal's words literally, to mean >>>>>> she was inciting people to set fire to hotels. In fact, it appears >>>>>> she
was a comma away from directing people to burn hotels.
A quick look at her charge and it appears to have been "distributing >>>>>> material with the intention of stirring up racial hatred." So
don't read
too much into my incitement claim.
Would you have been moved to commit arson as a result of what she >>>>>>> said?
If not, what makes you think that anybody would have?
Apparently, her tweet was viewed 310,000 times.
So what?
Are hoi polloi who saw it some sort of lesser breed, easily encouraged >>>>> to criminality by a misunderstood phrase?
No, that is a strawman,
Is it?
I made no comment on the type who might be
influenced. The issue is that some people are suggestible. Even if
these
suggestible people are rare, mass publication raises the risk that one >>>> or more suggestible people may found and influenced.
Someone intending to publish to 330,000 people should be more cautious >>>> than someone publishing to a readership of a handful of people.
Was it you who snipped my comment to the effect that it can more or
less be guaranteed that the vast majority of the 330,000 looked her
tweet AFTER she was arrested and charged and that she had no
intention or prospect of that happening simply in response to what
she wrote?
I was making a general point about why size of readership was important.
I don't know the specifics of this case. I don't know why so many
people read her tweet. I don't know when they read her tweet. I don't
know if any of the rioters claim to have been influenced by it.
I suppose a good starting point is to read the sentencing remarks of the judge. And it makes little difference whether or not you can find an
arsonist who was inspired by Lucy's brilliant insight into the cause of
the Southport murders.
Note that she pleaded guilty.
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/R-v-Lucy-Connolly.pdf
My objection is mainly to the verdict. However, if she had been given a
slap on the wrist, I wouldn't have cared.
Yes I take that point, the courts have always been harsh on rioters, but
I think Lucy is quite far removed from the riot, and she didn't actually
tell people to burn hotels, she just expressed ambivalence.
On 6/3/25 01:09, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-06-02, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
I don't know the specifics of this case. I don't know why so many people >>> read her tweet. I don't know when they read her tweet. I don't know if
any of the rioters claim to have been influenced by it.
In general, I favour freedom of speech. I'm quite willing to believe
Conolloy has been harshly treated. I would prioritise protecting
journalistic free speech over protecting the public from armchair
warriors, or even from a few episodes of minor civil insurrection.
I'm pretty much totally opposed to the recent anti hate speech laws. I'm >>> opposed to most of the recent support of terrorism laws. These appear to >>> be tools for oppression by authoritarian government.
You should perhaps bear in mind that Lucy Connolly was not prosecuted
under any such "recent" laws.
I was just explaining to JNugent that I was strongly in favour of free speech.
I don't think the laws you mention are objective, what happens in the
court is a subjective interpretation. The interpretation is very much a contemporary thing.
Also bear in mind that if your objection is to the sentence rather than
the verdict, then this is not really a "free speech" issue. Recall the
2011 riots - people who committed what would normally be considered minor
shoplifting offences deserving of community service instead received
years in prison. When there is serious disorder that threatens peaceable
society, society and its legal system hits back *hard*. Punishments are
greatly magnified. You may of course consider this reasonable or
unreasonable, but regardless it isn't specifically to do with free
speech.
My objection is mainly to the verdict. However, if she had been given a
slap on the wrist, I wouldn't have cared.
Yes I take that point, the courts have always been harsh on rioters, but
I think Lucy is quite far removed from the riot, and she didn't actually
tell people to burn hotels, she just expressed ambivalence.
Connolly might not be the sharpest tool in the box, but years ago the
legal system decided not to punish the village idiot for spouting
nonsense in the village square, Speakers corner in Hyde Park. We allowed
it, society survived.
The authorities clearly have a problem with social media. Is it like the traditional MSM, or is it like the village idiot in the town square?
On 03/06/2025 05:04 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 03/06/2025 15:39, Pancho wrote:
My objection is mainly to the verdict. However, if she had been given
a slap on the wrist, I wouldn't have cared.
Yes I take that point, the courts have always been harsh on rioters,
but I think Lucy is quite far removed from the riot, and she didn't
actually tell people to burn hotels, she just expressed ambivalence.
Ambivalence?
"Set fire to all the fucking hotels full of the bastards for all I care"
- you call that ambivalent?
In any other colloquial context, "You can [xxxx xxx xxx xxx] for all I
care" would not be taken as support for the action proposed.
It would be seen as indifference, though not insouciance.
On 03/06/2025 15:39, Pancho wrote:
On 6/3/25 01:09, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-06-02, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
I don't know the specifics of this case. I don't know why so many
people
read her tweet. I don't know when they read her tweet. I don't know if >>>> any of the rioters claim to have been influenced by it.
In general, I favour freedom of speech. I'm quite willing to believe
Conolloy has been harshly treated. I would prioritise protecting
journalistic free speech over protecting the public from armchair
warriors, or even from a few episodes of minor civil insurrection.
I'm pretty much totally opposed to the recent anti hate speech laws.
I'm
opposed to most of the recent support of terrorism laws. These
appear to
be tools for oppression by authoritarian government.
You should perhaps bear in mind that Lucy Connolly was not prosecuted
under any such "recent" laws.
I was just explaining to JNugent that I was strongly in favour of free
speech.
I don't think the laws you mention are objective, what happens in the
court is a subjective interpretation. The interpretation is very much
a contemporary thing.
Also bear in mind that if your objection is to the sentence rather than
the verdict, then this is not really a "free speech" issue. Recall the
2011 riots - people who committed what would normally be considered
minor shoplifting offences deserving of community service instead received >>> years in prison.
When there is serious disorder that threatens peaceable
society, society and its legal system hits back *hard*. Punishments are
greatly magnified. You may of course consider this reasonable or
unreasonable, but regardless it isn't specifically to do with free
speech.
My objection is mainly to the verdict. However, if she had been given
a slap on the wrist, I wouldn't have cared.
Yes I take that point, the courts have always been harsh on rioters,
but I think Lucy is quite far removed from the riot, and she didn't
actually tell people to burn hotels, she just expressed ambivalence.
Ambivalence?
"Set fire to all the fucking hotels full of the bastards for all I care"
- you call that ambivalent?
On 03/06/2025 05:04 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 03/06/2025 15:39, Pancho wrote:
On 6/3/25 01:09, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-06-02, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
I don't know the specifics of this case. I don't know why so many
people
read her tweet. I don't know when they read her tweet. I don't know if >>>>> any of the rioters claim to have been influenced by it.
In general, I favour freedom of speech. I'm quite willing to believe >>>>> Conolloy has been harshly treated. I would prioritise protecting
journalistic free speech over protecting the public from armchair
warriors, or even from a few episodes of minor civil insurrection.
I'm pretty much totally opposed to the recent anti hate speech laws. >>>>> I'm
opposed to most of the recent support of terrorism laws. These
appear to
be tools for oppression by authoritarian government.
You should perhaps bear in mind that Lucy Connolly was not prosecuted
under any such "recent" laws.
I was just explaining to JNugent that I was strongly in favour of free
speech.
I don't think the laws you mention are objective, what happens in the
court is a subjective interpretation. The interpretation is very much
a contemporary thing.
Also bear in mind that if your objection is to the sentence rather than >>>> the verdict, then this is not really a "free speech" issue. Recall the >>>> 2011 riots - people who committed what would normally be considered
minor shoplifting offences deserving of community service instead received >>>> years in prison.
There's a difference between shoplifting (all but legal nowadays, AIUI)
and burglary.
When there is serious disorder that threatens peaceable
society, society and its legal system hits back *hard*. Punishments are >>>> greatly magnified. You may of course consider this reasonable or
unreasonable, but regardless it isn't specifically to do with free
speech.
My objection is mainly to the verdict. However, if she had been given
a slap on the wrist, I wouldn't have cared.
Yes I take that point, the courts have always been harsh on rioters,
but I think Lucy is quite far removed from the riot, and she didn't
actually tell people to burn hotels, she just expressed ambivalence.
Ambivalence?
"Set fire to all the fucking hotels full of the bastards for all I care"
- you call that ambivalent?
In any other colloquial context, "You can [xxxx xxx xxx xxx] for all I
care" would not be taken as support for the action proposed.
It would be seen as indifference, though not insouciance.
On 03/06/2025 17:17, JNugent wrote:
On 03/06/2025 05:04 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 03/06/2025 15:39, Pancho wrote:
My objection is mainly to the verdict. However, if she had been given
a slap on the wrist, I wouldn't have cared.
Yes I take that point, the courts have always been harsh on rioters,
but I think Lucy is quite far removed from the riot, and she didn't
actually tell people to burn hotels, she just expressed ambivalence.
Ambivalence?
"Set fire to all the fucking hotels full of the bastards for all I care" >>> - you call that ambivalent?
In any other colloquial context, "You can [xxxx xxx xxx xxx] for all I
care" would not be taken as support for the action proposed.
It would be seen as indifference, though not insouciance.
Interesting, but I wonder how many people would agree with you. I would paraphrase the remark as "I see nothing wrong with setting fire to the
hotels and burning the migrants alive".
Maybe you'd see it slightly differently if it was "You can set fire to
the local ex-servicemen's club full of retired squaddies for all I care".
On 03/06/2025 17:17, JNugent wrote:
On 03/06/2025 05:04 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 03/06/2025 15:39, Pancho wrote:
My objection is mainly to the verdict. However, if she had been given
a slap on the wrist, I wouldn't have cared.
Yes I take that point, the courts have always been harsh on rioters,
but I think Lucy is quite far removed from the riot, and she didn't
actually tell people to burn hotels, she just expressed ambivalence.
Ambivalence?
"Set fire to all the fucking hotels full of the bastards for all I care" >>> - you call that ambivalent?
In any other colloquial context, "You can [xxxx xxx xxx xxx] for all I
care" would not be taken as support for the action proposed.
It would be seen as indifference, though not insouciance.
Interesting, but I wonder how many people would agree with you. I would paraphrase the remark as "I see nothing wrong with setting fire to the
hotels and burning the migrants alive".
Maybe you'd see it slightly differently if it was "You can set fire to
the local ex-servicemen's club full of retired squaddies for all I care".
A rather contrived interpretation! It might have been possible to argue that without the associated invective. And especially if "not minding" doing the same to politicians hadn't been added. I think your position would have been a
completely hopeless defence. As she was clearly advised.
On 2025-06-03, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
Connolly might not be the sharpest tool in the box, but years ago the
legal system decided not to punish the village idiot for spouting
nonsense in the village square, Speakers corner in Hyde Park. We allowed
it, society survived.
The authorities clearly have a problem with social media. Is it like the
traditional MSM, or is it like the village idiot in the town square?
It's like the village idiot in the town square, if there were 300,000
people assembled in the square listening to what the idiot said.
The authorities clearly have a problem with social media.
My objection is mainly to the verdict. However, if she had been
given a slap on the wrist, I wouldn't have cared.
On 6/3/25 17:59, Roger Hayter wrote:
A rather contrived interpretation! It might have been possible to
argue that without the associated invective. And especially if "not
minding" doing the same to politicians hadn't been added. I think
your position would have been a completely hopeless defence. As she
was clearly advised.
It's not so long ago that it was common to hear "all politicians should
be strung up". People weren't prosecuted, civilisation survived.
As a general comment, I don't think the justice system has learnt to
deal with social media. In the past, the justice system could ignore a similar spoken comment, saying perhaps someone misheard, or not enough evidence. Now we have cast iron evidence, so something has to be done,
even if everyone knows it would be better ignored.
I think the legal system needs to reduce the significance of some social media comments to the level of something said down the pub.
On 6/3/25 17:11, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-06-03, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
Connolly might not be the sharpest tool in the box, but years ago the
legal system decided not to punish the village idiot for spouting
nonsense in the village square, Speakers corner in Hyde Park. We allowed >>> it, society survived.
The authorities clearly have a problem with social media. Is it like the >>> traditional MSM, or is it like the village idiot in the town square?
It's like the village idiot in the town square, if there were 300,000
people assembled in the square listening to what the idiot said.
Well, yes. If she regularly had an audience of 300,000 she would be more
like the MSM. However, if she expected only a few people to read it, and
it went viral, her responsibility is much less.
I don't know. I don't trust the courts to represent these figures
fairly. Maybe people only read her comments after she was arrested? Or
after some newspaper complained about it?
It's not so long ago that it was common to hear "all politicians should be strung up".
People weren't prosecuted, civilisation survived.
As a general comment, I don't think the justice system has learnt to deal with social
media. In the past, the justice system could ignore a similar spoken comment, saying
perhaps someone misheard, or not enough evidence. Now we have cast iron evidence, so
something has to be done, even if everyone knows it would be better ignored.
I think the legal system needs to reduce the significance of some social media comments
to the level of something said down the pub.
"Pancho" <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote in message news:101n1fu$1s95$1@dont-email.me...
My objection is mainly to the verdict. However, if she had been
given a slap on the wrist, I wouldn't have cared.
Mrs Connolly pleaded guilty
As she was presumably advised to do, no based on the following.
On 03/06/2025 17:17, JNugent wrote:
On 03/06/2025 05:04 PM, The Todal wrote:
Ambivalence?
"Set fire to all the fucking hotels full of the bastards for all I care" >>> - you call that ambivalent?
In any other colloquial context, "You can [xxxx xxx xxx xxx] for all I
care" would not be taken as support for the action proposed.
It would be seen as indifference, though not insouciance.
Interesting, but I wonder how many people would agree with you. I would paraphrase the remark as "I see nothing wrong with setting fire to the
hotels and burning the migrants alive".
Maybe you'd see it slightly differently if it was "You can set fire to
the local ex-servicemen's club full of retired squaddies for all I care".
On 03/06/2025 17:57, billy bookcase wrote:
"Pancho" <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote in message
news:101n1fu$1s95$1@dont-email.me...
My objection is mainly to the verdict. However, if she had been given
a slap on the wrist, I wouldn't have cared.
Mrs Connolly pleaded guilty
As she was presumably advised to do, no based on the following.
In the US, people plead guilty to serious offences to avoid The Chair.
On 03/06/2025 17:17, JNugent wrote:
On 03/06/2025 05:04 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 03/06/2025 15:39, Pancho wrote:
My objection is mainly to the verdict. However, if she had been given
a slap on the wrist, I wouldn't have cared.
Yes I take that point, the courts have always been harsh on rioters,
but I think Lucy is quite far removed from the riot, and she didn't
actually tell people to burn hotels, she just expressed ambivalence.
Ambivalence?
"Set fire to all the fucking hotels full of the bastards for all I care" >>> - you call that ambivalent?
In any other colloquial context, "You can [xxxx xxx xxx xxx] for all I
care" would not be taken as support for the action proposed.
It would be seen as indifference, though not insouciance.
Interesting, but I wonder how many people would agree with you. I would paraphrase the remark as "I see nothing wrong with setting fire to the
hotels and burning the migrants alive".
Maybe you'd see it slightly differently if it was "You can set fire to
the local ex-servicemen's club full of retired squaddies for all I care".
On 03/06/2025 17:17, JNugent wrote:
On 03/06/2025 05:04 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 03/06/2025 15:39, Pancho wrote:
My objection is mainly to the verdict. However, if she had been given
a slap on the wrist, I wouldn't have cared.
Yes I take that point, the courts have always been harsh on rioters,
but I think Lucy is quite far removed from the riot, and she didn't
actually tell people to burn hotels, she just expressed ambivalence.
Ambivalence?
"Set fire to all the fucking hotels full of the bastards for all I care" >>> - you call that ambivalent?
In any other colloquial context, "You can [xxxx xxx xxx xxx] for all I
care" would not be taken as support for the action proposed.
It would be seen as indifference, though not insouciance.
Interesting, but I wonder how many people would agree with you. I would paraphrase the remark as "I see nothing wrong with setting fire to the
hotels and burning the migrants alive".
Maybe you'd see it slightly differently if it was "You can set fire to
the local ex-servicemen's club full of retired squaddies for all I care".
On 3 Jun 2025 at 17:17:43 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 03/06/2025 05:04 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 03/06/2025 15:39, Pancho wrote:
On 6/3/25 01:09, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-06-02, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
I don't know the specifics of this case. I don't know why so many
people
read her tweet. I don't know when they read her tweet. I don't know if >>>>>> any of the rioters claim to have been influenced by it.
In general, I favour freedom of speech. I'm quite willing to believe >>>>>> Conolloy has been harshly treated. I would prioritise protecting
journalistic free speech over protecting the public from armchair
warriors, or even from a few episodes of minor civil insurrection. >>>>>>
I'm pretty much totally opposed to the recent anti hate speech laws. >>>>>> I'm
opposed to most of the recent support of terrorism laws. These
appear to
be tools for oppression by authoritarian government.
You should perhaps bear in mind that Lucy Connolly was not prosecuted >>>>> under any such "recent" laws.
I was just explaining to JNugent that I was strongly in favour of free >>>> speech.
I don't think the laws you mention are objective, what happens in the
court is a subjective interpretation. The interpretation is very much
a contemporary thing.
Also bear in mind that if your objection is to the sentence rather than >>>>> the verdict, then this is not really a "free speech" issue. Recall the >>>>> 2011 riots - people who committed what would normally be considered
minor shoplifting offences deserving of community service instead received
years in prison.
There's a difference between shoplifting (all but legal nowadays, AIUI)
and burglary.
When there is serious disorder that threatens peaceable
society, society and its legal system hits back *hard*. Punishments are >>>>> greatly magnified. You may of course consider this reasonable or
unreasonable, but regardless it isn't specifically to do with free
speech.
My objection is mainly to the verdict. However, if she had been given
a slap on the wrist, I wouldn't have cared.
Yes I take that point, the courts have always been harsh on rioters,
but I think Lucy is quite far removed from the riot, and she didn't
actually tell people to burn hotels, she just expressed ambivalence.
Ambivalence?
"Set fire to all the fucking hotels full of the bastards for all I care" >>> - you call that ambivalent?
In any other colloquial context, "You can [xxxx xxx xxx xxx] for all I
care" would not be taken as support for the action proposed.
It would be seen as indifference, though not insouciance.
A rather contrived interpretation!
It might have been possible to argue that
without the associated invective. And especially if "not minding" doing the same to politicians hadn't been added. I think your position would have been a
completely hopeless defence. As she was clearly advised.
On 03/06/2025 05:51 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 03/06/2025 17:17, JNugent wrote:
On 03/06/2025 05:04 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 03/06/2025 15:39, Pancho wrote:
My objection is mainly to the verdict. However, if she had been given >>>>> a slap on the wrist, I wouldn't have cared.
Yes I take that point, the courts have always been harsh on rioters, >>>>> but I think Lucy is quite far removed from the riot, and she didn't
actually tell people to burn hotels, she just expressed ambivalence.
Ambivalence?
"Set fire to all the fucking hotels full of the bastards for all I
care"
- you call that ambivalent?
In any other colloquial context, "You can [xxxx xxx xxx xxx] for all I
care" would not be taken as support for the action proposed.
It would be seen as indifference, though not insouciance.
Interesting, but I wonder how many people would agree with you. I would
paraphrase the remark as "I see nothing wrong with setting fire to the
hotels and burning the migrants alive".
Maybe you'd see it slightly differently if it was "You can set fire to
the local ex-servicemen's club full of retired squaddies for all I care".
How about the more basic "You can go and fuck yourself for all I care"?
Would you regard that as an exhortation to do it, or as an expression of indifference as to whether it happens or not?
I believe that I have as acute a familiarity with, and understanding of, colloquial English as anyone.
On 03/06/2025 05:51 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 03/06/2025 17:17, JNugent wrote:
It would be seen as indifference, though not insouciance.
Interesting, but I wonder how many people would agree with you. I would
paraphrase the remark as "I see nothing wrong with setting fire to the
hotels and burning the migrants alive".
Would you?
It isn't what was said, though. Is it?
I would paraphrase it (more validly, I think) as: "I couldn't care less
what they/you do".
Or perhaps the "down with the kids" version: "Knock yourself out".
Maybe you'd see it slightly differently if it was "You can set fire to
the local ex-servicemen's club full of retired squaddies for all I care".
Where does that come from?
But silly Lucy wasn't responding to someone else's suggestion of burning hostels and the people in them, wasn't responding with "I couldn't care less". She was actually putting an idea in people's heads.
On 04/06/2025 11:11, JNugent wrote:
On 03/06/2025 05:51 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 03/06/2025 17:17, JNugent wrote:
On 03/06/2025 05:04 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 03/06/2025 15:39, Pancho wrote:
My objection is mainly to the verdict. However, if she had been given >>>>>> a slap on the wrist, I wouldn't have cared.
Yes I take that point, the courts have always been harsh on rioters, >>>>>> but I think Lucy is quite far removed from the riot, and she didn't >>>>>> actually tell people to burn hotels, she just expressed ambivalence.
Ambivalence?
"Set fire to all the fucking hotels full of the bastards for all I
care"
- you call that ambivalent?
In any other colloquial context, "You can [xxxx xxx xxx xxx] for all I >>>> care" would not be taken as support for the action proposed.
It would be seen as indifference, though not insouciance.
Interesting, but I wonder how many people would agree with you. I would
paraphrase the remark as "I see nothing wrong with setting fire to the
hotels and burning the migrants alive".
Maybe you'd see it slightly differently if it was "You can set fire to
the local ex-servicemen's club full of retired squaddies for all I
care".
How about the more basic "You can go and fuck yourself for all I care"?
I'm sure that exhorting the reader to masturbate (which I think is the meaning of the phrase) does not break any laws.
Would you regard that as an exhortation to do it, or as an expression
of indifference as to whether it happens or not?
I think it can only be read as an expression of hostility, even hate. Certainly not indifference.
If your mum asked you if you wanted to join
her on a trip to the garden centre and you weren't bothered either way,
would you say "go and fuck yourself for all I care"?
I believe that I have as acute a familiarity with, and understanding
of, colloquial English as anyone.
Belief and faith are not necessarily reliable.
On 04/06/2025 12:02, JNugent wrote:
On 03/06/2025 05:51 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 03/06/2025 17:17, JNugent wrote:
It would be seen as indifference, though not insouciance.
Interesting, but I wonder how many people would agree with you. I would
paraphrase the remark as "I see nothing wrong with setting fire to the
hotels and burning the migrants alive".
Would you?
It isn't what was said, though. Is it?
I would paraphrase it (more validly, I think) as: "I couldn't care
less what they/you do".
Or perhaps the "down with the kids" version: "Knock yourself out".
I think the phrase "knock yourself out" generally means "go ahead, and
enjoy yourself". Does anyone want to eat the last two eclairs? Not me
- knock yourself out.
Maybe you'd see it slightly differently if it was "You can set fire to
the local ex-servicemen's club full of retired squaddies for all I
care".
Where does that come from?
Oh, it comes from my imagination. I don't think I have to give examples
from real news reports.
But silly Lucy wasn't responding to someone else's suggestion of burning hostels and the people in them, wasn't responding with "I couldn't care less". She was actually putting an idea in people's heads. I think you
know that, really, even if you feel impelled to defend your original interpretation.
On 04/06/2025 13:12, The Todal wrote:
But silly Lucy wasn't responding to someone else's suggestion of
burning hostels and the people in them, wasn't responding with "I
couldn't care less". She was actually putting an idea in people's heads.
And you think Thoughtcrime warrants 31 months in prison?
On 04/06/2025 14:28, Norman Wells wrote:
On 04/06/2025 13:12, The Todal wrote:
But silly Lucy wasn't responding to someone else's suggestion of
burning hostels and the people in them, wasn't responding with "I
couldn't care less". She was actually putting an idea in people's heads.
And you think Thoughtcrime warrants 31 months in prison?
In Orwell's novel, yes very likely. But we're in the UK.
On 04/06/2025 16:36, The Todal wrote:
On 04/06/2025 14:28, Norman Wells wrote:
On 04/06/2025 13:12, The Todal wrote:
But silly Lucy wasn't responding to someone else's suggestion of
burning hostels and the people in them, wasn't responding with "I
couldn't care less". She was actually putting an idea in people's
heads.
And you think Thoughtcrime warrants 31 months in prison?
In Orwell's novel, yes very likely. But we're in the UK.
Yes, we are. And it's here Lucy Connolly was given that sentence. For posting a hurty Tweet.
On 04/06/2025 18:43, Norman Wells wrote:
On 04/06/2025 16:36, The Todal wrote:
On 04/06/2025 14:28, Norman Wells wrote:
On 04/06/2025 13:12, The Todal wrote:
But silly Lucy wasn't responding to someone else's suggestion of
burning hostels and the people in them, wasn't responding with "I
couldn't care less". She was actually putting an idea in people's
heads.
And you think Thoughtcrime warrants 31 months in prison?
In Orwell's novel, yes very likely. But we're in the UK.
Yes, we are. And it's here Lucy Connolly was given that sentence.
For posting a hurty Tweet.
Do you really believe that Lucy Connolly should never have been
prosecuted or should have been given a non-custodial sentence? Is that
your genuine belief?
On 04/06/2025 20:20, The Todal wrote:
On 04/06/2025 18:43, Norman Wells wrote:
On 04/06/2025 16:36, The Todal wrote:
On 04/06/2025 14:28, Norman Wells wrote:
On 04/06/2025 13:12, The Todal wrote:
But silly Lucy wasn't responding to someone else's suggestion of
burning hostels and the people in them, wasn't responding with "I
couldn't care less". She was actually putting an idea in people's
heads.
And you think Thoughtcrime warrants 31 months in prison?
In Orwell's novel, yes very likely. But we're in the UK.
Yes, we are. And it's here Lucy Connolly was given that sentence.
For posting a hurty Tweet.
Do you really believe that Lucy Connolly should never have been
prosecuted or should have been given a non-custodial sentence? Is that
your genuine belief?
Yes, of course. Freedom of speech is the freedom to offend others. And
I firmly believe in it.
Her expressed views were of course over the top, but were frankly
unlikely to have influenced anyone to do anything like she was
suggesting. She was in no real position of influence to start with,
nothing became of what she posted, and she cancelled it very shortly
after posting it when others, quite properly, shouted her down, just as
they would have done in a pub for example. It's how reasonable society deals with such things. By robust disagreement.
Her case was an absolute storm in a teacup, and should never have been escalated, as it was, out of all proportion I think it shames society
that she should now be serving a sentence that is commensurate with far greater crimes than posting a hurty Tweet.
On 04/06/2025 21:19, Norman Wells wrote:
On 04/06/2025 20:20, The Todal wrote:
On 04/06/2025 18:43, Norman Wells wrote:
On 04/06/2025 16:36, The Todal wrote:
On 04/06/2025 14:28, Norman Wells wrote:
On 04/06/2025 13:12, The Todal wrote:
But silly Lucy wasn't responding to someone else's suggestion of >>>>>>> burning hostels and the people in them, wasn't responding with "I >>>>>>> couldn't care less". She was actually putting an idea in people's >>>>>>> heads.
And you think Thoughtcrime warrants 31 months in prison?
In Orwell's novel, yes very likely. But we're in the UK.
Yes, we are. And it's here Lucy Connolly was given that sentence.
For posting a hurty Tweet.
Do you really believe that Lucy Connolly should never have been
prosecuted or should have been given a non-custodial sentence? Is
that your genuine belief?
Yes, of course. Freedom of speech is the freedom to offend others.
And I firmly believe in it.
Her expressed views were of course over the top, but were frankly
unlikely to have influenced anyone to do anything like she was
suggesting. She was in no real position of influence to start with,
nothing became of what she posted, and she cancelled it very shortly
after posting it when others, quite properly, shouted her down, just
as they would have done in a pub for example. It's how reasonable
society deals with such things. By robust disagreement.
So you imagine you know better than the excellent trial judge who heard
all the evidence. You think you can substitute your own opinion.
We must agree to robustly disagree. She was addressing a huge online
audience and you have absolutely no reason to believe that she had no influence. Every wannabe Tommy Robinson has plenty of enthusiastic
followers.
She deserved everything she got from the criminal justice system and the
real scandal is that dimwit Tory politicians hope to curry favour with
the knuckle-dragging morons by pretending that Lucy was a martyr to the
cause of free speech.
Her case was an absolute storm in a teacup, and should never have been
escalated, as it was, out of all proportion I think it shames society
that she should now be serving a sentence that is commensurate with
far greater crimes than posting a hurty Tweet.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 17:35:29 |
| Calls: | 10,389 |
| Files: | 14,061 |
| Messages: | 6,416,953 |