Gary Sobers was my childhood hero, narrowly beating John Lennon. I am the proud possessor of his autograph, gained from him at Headingley - can't remember the precise year, but between 66-68.
I'd rate him as the greatest all-round cricketer ever. He was also a real gentleman. He lived a good life to a good age, though, so no tears.
Sadly Sobers' reputation has held up much better than Lennon's. I say sadly as I was also a great fan of Lennon's
“We are aware of the political message display from Argentina. We understand it’s against the rules but we also know it’s a matter of their nationality and we respect it.
Not sure if this has been mentioned yet but credit to the Free Speech Union for standing by their principles
'The Free Speech Union has said that, should Heather Herbert join the Free Speech Union, we would do our best to help him.
Heather Herbert posted a vile and deeply offensive statement on the social media platform BlueSky about the tragic murder of Ann Widdecombe.
The University of Aberdeen employee has now been arrested and charged over his offensive comments.
While the Free Speech Union does not support Heather’s offensive comments about Ann — a dear late friend of the FSU — it is not an offence, no matter how offensive, to speak ill of the dead.
Ann was a staunch defender of our fundamental right to free speech, and we very much doubt she would have supported Police Scotland’s actions.'
Although I don't think Heather Herbert should be prosecuted, and likely won't be I suspect, Herbert's offence isn't speaking ill of the dead. It's that she celebrated the violent and painful death of Ann Widdecombe
Not sure if this has been mentioned yet but credit to the Free Speech Union for standing by their principles
'The Free Speech Union has said that, should Heather Herbert join the Free Speech Union, we would do our best to help him.
Heather Herbert posted a vile and deeply offensive statement on the social media platform BlueSky about the tragic murder of Ann Widdecombe.
The University of Aberdeen employee has now been arrested and charged over his offensive comments.
While the Free Speech Union does not support Heather’s offensive comments about Ann — a dear late friend of the FSU — it is not an offence, no matter how offensive, to speak ill of the dead.
Ann was a staunch defender of our fundamental right to free speech, and we very much doubt she would have supported Police Scotland’s actions.'
Although I don't think Heather Herbert should be prosecuted, and likely won't be I suspect, Herbert's offence isn't speaking ill of the dead. It's that she celebrated the violent and painful death of Ann Widdecombe
It is sick, but it is not inciting violence, so why should it be unlawful?
It should possibly lead to termination of employment if the employer thinks that is suitable for bringing them into disrepute, but it should not be a criminal matter.
Being sick and offensive and rude should not be a crime.
Only ever saw him live once at Ilkeston where he scores a ton vs Derbyshire in quick time
What a player
Indeed. A great.
But Ilkeston as a place for famous historic cricket encounters? Who knew?
Here's mine from within a couple of miles of where the parents lived.
During Derbyshire’s match against Warwickshire at Blackwell Colliery Cricket ground in 1910, which was to end in a draw, Arnold shared a nine wicket partnership of 283 runs with the Captain, John Chapman. Arnold scoring 123 runs and Chapman 160. This was a world record for first class cricket and has never been beaten. There is a plaque commemorating this event in Blackwell community centre. https://www.spanglefish.com/bmwcc/index.asp?pageid=197865
Not sure if this has been mentioned yet but credit to the Free Speech Union for standing by their principles
'The Free Speech Union has said that, should Heather Herbert join the Free Speech Union, we would do our best to help him.
Heather Herbert posted a vile and deeply offensive statement on the social media platform BlueSky about the tragic murder of Ann Widdecombe.
The University of Aberdeen employee has now been arrested and charged over his offensive comments.
While the Free Speech Union does not support Heather’s offensive comments about Ann — a dear late friend of the FSU — it is not an offence, no matter how offensive, to speak ill of the dead.
Ann was a staunch defender of our fundamental right to free speech, and we very much doubt she would have supported Police Scotland’s actions.'
Although I don't think Heather Herbert should be prosecuted, and likely won't be I suspect, Herbert's offence isn't speaking ill of the dead. It's that she celebrated the violent and painful death of Ann Widdecombe
No difference. Or at least shouldn't be under the law. There was no threat, no incitement. Would the police have taken similar action if the target of the wrath was someone more universally disliked like Trump or Putin?
As I said, all credit to the FSU for not being hypocrites over this.
Not sure if this has been mentioned yet but credit to the Free Speech Union for standing by their principles
'The Free Speech Union has said that, should Heather Herbert join the Free Speech Union, we would do our best to help him.
Heather Herbert posted a vile and deeply offensive statement on the social media platform BlueSky about the tragic murder of Ann Widdecombe.
The University of Aberdeen employee has now been arrested and charged over his offensive comments.
While the Free Speech Union does not support Heather’s offensive comments about Ann — a dear late friend of the FSU — it is not an offence, no matter how offensive, to speak ill of the dead.
Ann was a staunch defender of our fundamental right to free speech, and we very much doubt she would have supported Police Scotland’s actions.'
Although I don't think Heather Herbert should be prosecuted, and likely won't be I suspect, Herbert's offence isn't speaking ill of the dead. It's that she celebrated the violent and painful death of Ann Widdecombe
I thought it was, that, before Widdecombe died, some posts were made that were direct incitement (or viewable as such) ?
Not sure if this has been mentioned yet but credit to the Free Speech Union for standing by their principles
'The Free Speech Union has said that, should Heather Herbert join the Free Speech Union, we would do our best to help him.
Heather Herbert posted a vile and deeply offensive statement on the social media platform BlueSky about the tragic murder of Ann Widdecombe.
The University of Aberdeen employee has now been arrested and charged over his offensive comments.
While the Free Speech Union does not support Heather’s offensive comments about Ann — a dear late friend of the FSU — it is not an offence, no matter how offensive, to speak ill of the dead.
Ann was a staunch defender of our fundamental right to free speech, and we very much doubt she would have supported Police Scotland’s actions.'
Indeed. Preston Byrne (pro bono counsel to the FSU) is particularlly good on this point.
Linehan shouldn't have been arrested for his "kick 'em in the balls" tweet (unless someone did, in fact, commit an s20 assault, in which case he is fair game as an accessory should there be a proven causal link between his tweet and the attacker).
Speaking ill of the dead shouldn't be an offence either. It should also be remembered that Anne Widdecombe believed that trans women (at least those who have had "the op") are women, which is more than can be said for many regulars here.
Since we're on #pbfreespeech, how do we feel about JK Rowling suing amnesty international for calling the 51 gender critical organisations listed in their recent report "anti rights" (Including an org that PB's resident terf is a member of)?
I happen to disagree with the amnesty report and think it's massive overreach, but the correct response is rebuttal rather than trying to silence one's critics with lawfare.
IMHO the UK needs to introduce US-style anti SLAPP legislation to prevent the super-rich from silencing their critics.
I think the problem with the Amnesty comments is that they risked actual financial and reputational damage to the organisations involved based on a series of lies. If Rowling had tried to have Amnesty prosecuted in some way then that would have been overreach but suing to correct false statements seems reasonable to me. That said, since Amnesty have now apologised and withdrawn the comments ( and reported themselves to the Charities Commission) I don't think suing is the correct course.
Not sure if this has been mentioned yet but credit to the Free Speech Union for standing by their principles
'The Free Speech Union has said that, should Heather Herbert join the Free Speech Union, we would do our best to help him.
Heather Herbert posted a vile and deeply offensive statement on the social media platform BlueSky about the tragic murder of Ann Widdecombe.
The University of Aberdeen employee has now been arrested and charged over his offensive comments.
While the Free Speech Union does not support Heather’s offensive comments about Ann — a dear late friend of the FSU — it is not an offence, no matter how offensive, to speak ill of the dead.
Ann was a staunch defender of our fundamental right to free speech, and we very much doubt she would have supported Police Scotland’s actions.'
Indeed. Preston Byrne (pro bono counsel to the FSU) is particularlly good on this point.
Linehan shouldn't have been arrested for his "kick 'em in the balls" tweet (unless someone did, in fact, commit an s20 assault, in which case he is fair game as an accessory should there be a proven causal link between his tweet and the attacker).
Speaking ill of the dead shouldn't be an offence either. It should also be remembered that Anne Widdecombe believed that trans women (at least those who have had "the op") are women, which is more than can be said for many regulars here.
Since we're on #pbfreespeech, how do we feel about JK Rowling suing amnesty international for calling the 51 gender critical organisations listed in their recent report "anti rights" (Including an org that PB's resident terf is a member of)?
I happen to disagree with the amnesty report and think it's massive overreach, but the correct response is rebuttal rather than trying to silence one's critics with lawfare.
IMHO the UK needs to introduce US-style anti SLAPP legislation to prevent the super-rich from silencing their critics.
If they had used the phrase "anti-gender" (the European term) instead of "anti-rights", they would have been well within their, er, rights (sorry).
As for the SLAPPing, well yes, but the phrase "don't argue with somebody who buys their ink by the ton" predates JKR by decades. Britain doesn't really have free speech in the way the Americans understand it and the chance of any British government implementing anything to stop rich people using lawyers to make their enemies STFU is nil.
Not sure if this has been mentioned yet but credit to the Free Speech Union for standing by their principles
'The Free Speech Union has said that, should Heather Herbert join the Free Speech Union, we would do our best to help him.
Heather Herbert posted a vile and deeply offensive statement on the social media platform BlueSky about the tragic murder of Ann Widdecombe.
The University of Aberdeen employee has now been arrested and charged over his offensive comments.
While the Free Speech Union does not support Heather’s offensive comments about Ann — a dear late friend of the FSU — it is not an offence, no matter how offensive, to speak ill of the dead.
Ann was a staunch defender of our fundamental right to free speech, and we very much doubt she would have supported Police Scotland’s actions.'
Indeed. Preston Byrne (pro bono counsel to the FSU) is particularlly good on this point.
Linehan shouldn't have been arrested for his "kick 'em in the balls" tweet (unless someone did, in fact, commit an s20 assault, in which case he is fair game as an accessory should there be a proven causal link between his tweet and the attacker).
Speaking ill of the dead shouldn't be an offence either. It should also be remembered that Anne Widdecombe believed that trans women (at least those who have had "the op") are women, which is more than can be said for many regulars here.
Since we're on #pbfreespeech, how do we feel about JK Rowling suing amnesty international for calling the 51 gender critical organisations listed in their recent report "anti rights" (Including an org that PB's resident terf is a member of)?
I happen to disagree with the amnesty report and think it's massive overreach, but the correct response is rebuttal rather than trying to silence one's critics with lawfare.
IMHO the UK needs to introduce US-style anti SLAPP legislation to prevent the super-rich from silencing their critics.
If they had used the phrase "anti-gender" (the European term) instead of "anti-rights", they would have been well within their, er, rights (sorry).
As for the SLAPPing, well yes, but the phrase "don't argue with somebody who buys their ink by the ton" predates JKR by decades. Britain doesn't really have free speech in the way the Americans understand it and the chance of any British government implementing anything to stop rich people using lawyers to make their enemies STFU is nil.
America is such a strange country. You can own a submachine gun or turn up to scream abuse at someone's funeral but you can't hang your washing up in your garden or buy a haggis.
Not sure if this has been mentioned yet but credit to the Free Speech Union for standing by their principles
'The Free Speech Union has said that, should Heather Herbert join the Free Speech Union, we would do our best to help him.
Heather Herbert posted a vile and deeply offensive statement on the social media platform BlueSky about the tragic murder of Ann Widdecombe.
The University of Aberdeen employee has now been arrested and charged over his offensive comments.
While the Free Speech Union does not support Heather’s offensive comments about Ann — a dear late friend of the FSU — it is not an offence, no matter how offensive, to speak ill of the dead.
Ann was a staunch defender of our fundamental right to free speech, and we very much doubt she would have supported Police Scotland’s actions.'
Indeed. Preston Byrne (pro bono counsel to the FSU) is particularlly good on this point.
Linehan shouldn't have been arrested for his "kick 'em in the balls" tweet (unless someone did, in fact, commit an s20 assault, in which case he is fair game as an accessory should there be a proven causal link between his tweet and the attacker).
Speaking ill of the dead shouldn't be an offence either. It should also be remembered that Anne Widdecombe believed that trans women (at least those who have had "the op") are women, which is more than can be said for many regulars here.
Since we're on #pbfreespeech, how do we feel about JK Rowling suing amnesty international for calling the 51 gender critical organisations listed in their recent report "anti rights" (Including an org that PB's resident terf is a member of)?
I happen to disagree with the amnesty report and think it's massive overreach, but the correct response is rebuttal rather than trying to silence one's critics with lawfare.
IMHO the UK needs to introduce US-style anti SLAPP legislation to prevent the super-rich from silencing their critics.
You are allowed to believe that men can be women, but I can also believe that they cannot. I think science is on my side of the argument but I also think we will never agree.
Not sure if this has been mentioned yet but credit to the Free Speech Union for standing by their principles
'The Free Speech Union has said that, should Heather Herbert join the Free Speech Union, we would do our best to help him.
Heather Herbert posted a vile and deeply offensive statement on the social media platform BlueSky about the tragic murder of Ann Widdecombe.
The University of Aberdeen employee has now been arrested and charged over his offensive comments.
While the Free Speech Union does not support Heather’s offensive comments about Ann — a dear late friend of the FSU — it is not an offence, no matter how offensive, to speak ill of the dead.
Ann was a staunch defender of our fundamental right to free speech, and we very much doubt she would have supported Police Scotland’s actions.'
Indeed. Preston Byrne (pro bono counsel to the FSU) is particularlly good on this point.
Linehan shouldn't have been arrested for his "kick 'em in the balls" tweet (unless someone did, in fact, commit an s20 assault, in which case he is fair game as an accessory should there be a proven causal link between his tweet and the attacker).
Speaking ill of the dead shouldn't be an offence either. It should also be remembered that Anne Widdecombe believed that trans women (at least those who have had "the op") are women, which is more than can be said for many regulars here.
Since we're on #pbfreespeech, how do we feel about JK Rowling suing amnesty international for calling the 51 gender critical organisations listed in their recent report "anti rights" (Including an org that PB's resident terf is a member of)?
I happen to disagree with the amnesty report and think it's massive overreach, but the correct response is rebuttal rather than trying to silence one's critics with lawfare.
IMHO the UK needs to introduce US-style anti SLAPP legislation to prevent the super-rich from silencing their critics.
If they had used the phrase "anti-gender" (the European term) instead of "anti-rights", they would have been well within their, er, rights (sorry).
As for the SLAPPing, well yes, but the phrase "don't argue with somebody who buys their ink by the ton" predates JKR by decades. Britain doesn't really have free speech in the way the Americans understand it and the chance of any British government implementing anything to stop rich people using lawyers to make their enemies STFU is nil.
America is such a strange country. You can own a submachine gun or turn up to scream abuse at someone's funeral but you can't hang your washing up in your garden or buy a haggis.
You can't actually own a submachine gun - easily.
America actually has gun control. To own a fully automatic weapon (such as a submachine gun), you need an FFL - Federal Firearms License. These take a background check and all the other things that firearms license around the world have. IIRC they are a bit stricter than the UK firearms certificate.
Fully automatic weapons are highly controlled, expensive and quite rare. Using one for a crime gets additional, heavy penalties. A number of states also ban ownership of full auto weapons.
As a result, basically no legally held automatic weapons are used in crimes. A small number of fully automatic weapons are stolen and used in crimes - generally from the military or the vast array of heavily armed federal agencies. There is an issue with people converting semi-automatics. But the numbers for these are not very large, either.
Legally owned automatic weapons are basically never used in crime, in the US.
Gun control that works in the US - and no-one talks about it.
Not sure if this has been mentioned yet but credit to the Free Speech Union for standing by their principles
'The Free Speech Union has said that, should Heather Herbert join the Free Speech Union, we would do our best to help him.
Heather Herbert posted a vile and deeply offensive statement on the social media platform BlueSky about the tragic murder of Ann Widdecombe.
The University of Aberdeen employee has now been arrested and charged over his offensive comments.
While the Free Speech Union does not support Heather’s offensive comments about Ann — a dear late friend of the FSU — it is not an offence, no matter how offensive, to speak ill of the dead.
Ann was a staunch defender of our fundamental right to free speech, and we very much doubt she would have supported Police Scotland’s actions.'
Although I don't think Heather Herbert should be prosecuted, and likely won't be I suspect, Herbert's offence isn't speaking ill of the dead. It's that she celebrated the violent and painful death of Ann Widdecombe
It is sick, but it is not inciting violence, so why should it be unlawful?
It should possibly lead to termination of employment if the employer thinks that is suitable for bringing them into disrepute, but it should not be a criminal matter.
Being sick and offensive and rude should not be a crime.
I agree with you! Keep prosecutions for those that carry out and incite violence, not those that celebrate it after the fact. But I'm not rushing to barricades for Heather Herbert either. No-one should be subject to a violent death.
Not sure if this has been mentioned yet but credit to the Free Speech Union for standing by their principles
'The Free Speech Union has said that, should Heather Herbert join the Free Speech Union, we would do our best to help him.
Heather Herbert posted a vile and deeply offensive statement on the social media platform BlueSky about the tragic murder of Ann Widdecombe.
The University of Aberdeen employee has now been arrested and charged over his offensive comments.
While the Free Speech Union does not support Heather’s offensive comments about Ann — a dear late friend of the FSU — it is not an offence, no matter how offensive, to speak ill of the dead.
Ann was a staunch defender of our fundamental right to free speech, and we very much doubt she would have supported Police Scotland’s actions.'
Indeed. Preston Byrne (pro bono counsel to the FSU) is particularlly good on this point.
Linehan shouldn't have been arrested for his "kick 'em in the balls" tweet (unless someone did, in fact, commit an s20 assault, in which case he is fair game as an accessory should there be a proven causal link between his tweet and the attacker).
Speaking ill of the dead shouldn't be an offence either. It should also be remembered that Anne Widdecombe believed that trans women (at least those who have had "the op") are women, which is more than can be said for many regulars here.
Since we're on #pbfreespeech, how do we feel about JK Rowling suing amnesty international for calling the 51 gender critical organisations listed in their recent report "anti rights" (Including an org that PB's resident terf is a member of)?
I happen to disagree with the amnesty report and think it's massive overreach, but the correct response is rebuttal rather than trying to silence one's critics with lawfare.
IMHO the UK needs to introduce US-style anti SLAPP legislation to prevent the super-rich from silencing their critics.
If they had used the phrase "anti-gender" (the European term) instead of "anti-rights", they would have been well within their, er, rights (sorry).
As for the SLAPPing, well yes, but the phrase "don't argue with somebody who buys their ink by the ton" predates JKR by decades. Britain doesn't really have free speech in the way the Americans understand it and the chance of any British government implementing anything to stop rich people using lawyers to make their enemies STFU is nil.
America is such a strange country. You can own a submachine gun or turn up to scream abuse at someone's funeral but you can't hang your washing up in your garden or buy a haggis.
The country that banned Kinder Surprise eggs because of a choking hazard but ignored countless mass gun murders of children !
Not sure if this has been mentioned yet but credit to the Free Speech Union for standing by their principles
'The Free Speech Union has said that, should Heather Herbert join the Free Speech Union, we would do our best to help him.
Heather Herbert posted a vile and deeply offensive statement on the social media platform BlueSky about the tragic murder of Ann Widdecombe.
The University of Aberdeen employee has now been arrested and charged over his offensive comments.
While the Free Speech Union does not support Heather’s offensive comments about Ann — a dear late friend of the FSU — it is not an offence, no matter how offensive, to speak ill of the dead.
Ann was a staunch defender of our fundamental right to free speech, and we very much doubt she would have supported Police Scotland’s actions.'
Although I don't think Heather Herbert should be prosecuted, and likely won't be I suspect, Herbert's offence isn't speaking ill of the dead. It's that she celebrated the violent and painful death of Ann Widdecombe
I thought it was, that, before Widdecombe died, some posts were made that were direct incitement (or viewable as such) ?
If that's the case she should be considered for prosecution.
Not sure if this has been mentioned yet but credit to the Free Speech Union for standing by their principles
'The Free Speech Union has said that, should Heather Herbert join the Free Speech Union, we would do our best to help him.
Heather Herbert posted a vile and deeply offensive statement on the social media platform BlueSky about the tragic murder of Ann Widdecombe.
The University of Aberdeen employee has now been arrested and charged over his offensive comments.
While the Free Speech Union does not support Heather’s offensive comments about Ann — a dear late friend of the FSU — it is not an offence, no matter how offensive, to speak ill of the dead.
Ann was a staunch defender of our fundamental right to free speech, and we very much doubt she would have supported Police Scotland’s actions.'
Indeed. Preston Byrne (pro bono counsel to the FSU) is particularlly good on this point.
Linehan shouldn't have been arrested for his "kick 'em in the balls" tweet (unless someone did, in fact, commit an s20 assault, in which case he is fair game as an accessory should there be a proven causal link between his tweet and the attacker).
Speaking ill of the dead shouldn't be an offence either. It should also be remembered that Anne Widdecombe believed that trans women (at least those who have had "the op") are women, which is more than can be said for many regulars here.
Since we're on #pbfreespeech, how do we feel about JK Rowling suing amnesty international for calling the 51 gender critical organisations listed in their recent report "anti rights" (Including an org that PB's resident terf is a member of)?
I happen to disagree with the amnesty report and think it's massive overreach, but the correct response is rebuttal rather than trying to silence one's critics with lawfare.
IMHO the UK needs to introduce US-style anti SLAPP legislation to prevent the super-rich from silencing their critics.
I think the problem with the Amnesty comments is that they risked actual financial and reputational damage to the organisations involved based on a series of lies. If Rowling had tried to have Amnesty prosecuted in some way then that would have been overreach but suing to correct false statements seems reasonable to me. That said, since Amnesty have now apologised and withdrawn the comments ( and reported themselves to the Charities Commission) I don't think suing is the correct course.
I don't think they lied at all.
That there is a debate between those who think trans rights and the rights of women are in competition, and those who believe they are not mutually exclusive, is evident. However it is also true that the organisations listed are "anti rights", specificially anti trans rights, treating those rights as subordinate or lesser than those of cis people.
The problem is Amnesty didn't retract their report because of any admission of inaccuracy, but rather because the cost of defending those views against a litigious billionaire is too great.
Not sure if this has been mentioned yet but credit to the Free Speech Union for standing by their principles
'The Free Speech Union has said that, should Heather Herbert join the Free Speech Union, we would do our best to help him.
Heather Herbert posted a vile and deeply offensive statement on the social media platform BlueSky about the tragic murder of Ann Widdecombe.
The University of Aberdeen employee has now been arrested and charged over his offensive comments.
While the Free Speech Union does not support Heather’s offensive comments about Ann — a dear late friend of the FSU — it is not an offence, no matter how offensive, to speak ill of the dead.
Ann was a staunch defender of our fundamental right to free speech, and we very much doubt she would have supported Police Scotland’s actions.'
The FSU are very good here.
Bad speech should be condemned, but shouldn’t be criminalised.
Not sure if this has been mentioned yet but credit to the Free Speech Union for standing by their principles
'The Free Speech Union has said that, should Heather Herbert join the Free Speech Union, we would do our best to help him.
Heather Herbert posted a vile and deeply offensive statement on the social media platform BlueSky about the tragic murder of Ann Widdecombe.
The University of Aberdeen employee has now been arrested and charged over his offensive comments.
While the Free Speech Union does not support Heather’s offensive comments about Ann — a dear late friend of the FSU — it is not an offence, no matter how offensive, to speak ill of the dead.
Ann was a staunch defender of our fundamental right to free speech, and we very much doubt she would have supported Police Scotland’s actions.'
Indeed. Preston Byrne (pro bono counsel to the FSU) is particularlly good on this point.
Linehan shouldn't have been arrested for his "kick 'em in the balls" tweet (unless someone did, in fact, commit an s20 assault, in which case he is fair game as an accessory should there be a proven causal link between his tweet and the attacker).
Speaking ill of the dead shouldn't be an offence either. It should also be remembered that Anne Widdecombe believed that trans women (at least those who have had "the op") are women, which is more than can be said for many regulars here.
Since we're on #pbfreespeech, how do we feel about JK Rowling suing amnesty international for calling the 51 gender critical organisations listed in their recent report "anti rights" (Including an org that PB's resident terf is a member of)?
I happen to disagree with the amnesty report and think it's massive overreach, but the correct response is rebuttal rather than trying to silence one's critics with lawfare.
IMHO the UK needs to introduce US-style anti SLAPP legislation to prevent the super-rich from silencing their critics.
You are allowed to believe that men can be women, but I can also believe that they cannot. I think science is on my side of the argument but I also think we will never agree.
Fair enough.
So using your logic, let's say - purely hypothetically - you were caught in flagrante sucking the post-op penis of a hairy, muscly, bearded trans man. But it's not gay, because "she" was technically a woman?
Or can we agree that a threshold is reached where a person is functionally and practically - one might say "for all purposes" - the gender in which they present?
Not sure if this has been mentioned yet but credit to the Free Speech Union for standing by their principles
'The Free Speech Union has said that, should Heather Herbert join the Free Speech Union, we would do our best to help him.
Heather Herbert posted a vile and deeply offensive statement on the social media platform BlueSky about the tragic murder of Ann Widdecombe.
The University of Aberdeen employee has now been arrested and charged over his offensive comments.
While the Free Speech Union does not support Heather’s offensive comments about Ann — a dear late friend of the FSU — it is not an offence, no matter how offensive, to speak ill of the dead.
Ann was a staunch defender of our fundamental right to free speech, and we very much doubt she would have supported Police Scotland’s actions.'
Indeed. Preston Byrne (pro bono counsel to the FSU) is particularlly good on this point.
Linehan shouldn't have been arrested for his "kick 'em in the balls" tweet (unless someone did, in fact, commit an s20 assault, in which case he is fair game as an accessory should there be a proven causal link between his tweet and the attacker).
Speaking ill of the dead shouldn't be an offence either. It should also be remembered that Anne Widdecombe believed that trans women (at least those who have had "the op") are women, which is more than can be said for many regulars here.
Since we're on #pbfreespeech, how do we feel about JK Rowling suing amnesty international for calling the 51 gender critical organisations listed in their recent report "anti rights" (Including an org that PB's resident terf is a member of)?
I happen to disagree with the amnesty report and think it's massive overreach, but the correct response is rebuttal rather than trying to silence one's critics with lawfare.
IMHO the UK needs to introduce US-style anti SLAPP legislation to prevent the super-rich from silencing their critics.
I think the problem with the Amnesty comments is that they risked actual financial and reputational damage to the organisations involved based on a series of lies. If Rowling had tried to have Amnesty prosecuted in some way then that would have been overreach but suing to correct false statements seems reasonable to me. That said, since Amnesty have now apologised and withdrawn the comments ( and reported themselves to the Charities Commission) I don't think suing is the correct course.
I don't think they lied at all.
That there is a debate between those who think trans rights and the rights of women are in competition, and those who believe they are not mutually exclusive, is evident. However it is also true that the organisations listed are "anti rights", specificially anti trans rights, treating those rights as subordinate or lesser than those of cis people.
The problem is Amnesty didn't retract their report because of any admission of inaccuracy, but rather because the cost of defending those views against a litigious billionaire is too great.
The law is open to all, like the Ritz hotel...
But what is a trans right? The right to declare that, contrary to biology, you are not a man but are in fact a woman who possesses a cock and balls and women should just accept that? They have the same human rights as everyone else.
Not sure if this has been mentioned yet but credit to the Free Speech Union for standing by their principles
'The Free Speech Union has said that, should Heather Herbert join the Free Speech Union, we would do our best to help him.
Heather Herbert posted a vile and deeply offensive statement on the social media platform BlueSky about the tragic murder of Ann Widdecombe.
The University of Aberdeen employee has now been arrested and charged over his offensive comments.
While the Free Speech Union does not support Heather’s offensive comments about Ann — a dear late friend of the FSU — it is not an offence, no matter how offensive, to speak ill of the dead.
Ann was a staunch defender of our fundamental right to free speech, and we very much doubt she would have supported Police Scotland’s actions.'
Indeed. Preston Byrne (pro bono counsel to the FSU) is particularlly good on this point.
Linehan shouldn't have been arrested for his "kick 'em in the balls" tweet (unless someone did, in fact, commit an s20 assault, in which case he is fair game as an accessory should there be a proven causal link between his tweet and the attacker).
Speaking ill of the dead shouldn't be an offence either. It should also be remembered that Anne Widdecombe believed that trans women (at least those who have had "the op") are women, which is more than can be said for many regulars here.
Since we're on #pbfreespeech, how do we feel about JK Rowling suing amnesty international for calling the 51 gender critical organisations listed in their recent report "anti rights" (Including an org that PB's resident terf is a member of)?
I happen to disagree with the amnesty report and think it's massive overreach, but the correct response is rebuttal rather than trying to silence one's critics with lawfare.
IMHO the UK needs to introduce US-style anti SLAPP legislation to prevent the super-rich from silencing their critics.
You are allowed to believe that men can be women, but I can also believe that they cannot. I think science is on my side of the argument but I also think we will never agree.
Fair enough.
So using your logic, let's say - purely hypothetically - you were caught in flagrante sucking the post-op penis of a hairy, muscly, bearded trans man. But it's not gay, because "she" was technically a woman?
Or can we agree that a threshold is reached where a person is functionally and practically - one might say "for all purposes" - the gender in which they present?
A trans man does not have a penis and you are deluded if you think shaping some arm flash onto a tube makes one.
I simply do not accept the concept of gender being different from chromosomal biology.
Which will no doubt lead on to the rare people who do not match the xx or xy reality, but that's just a distraction.
Not sure if this has been mentioned yet but credit to the Free Speech Union for standing by their principles
'The Free Speech Union has said that, should Heather Herbert join the Free Speech Union, we would do our best to help him.
Heather Herbert posted a vile and deeply offensive statement on the social media platform BlueSky about the tragic murder of Ann Widdecombe.
The University of Aberdeen employee has now been arrested and charged over his offensive comments.
While the Free Speech Union does not support Heather’s offensive comments about Ann — a dear late friend of the FSU — it is not an offence, no matter how offensive, to speak ill of the dead.
Ann was a staunch defender of our fundamental right to free speech, and we very much doubt she would have supported Police Scotland’s actions.'
Although I don't think Heather Herbert should be prosecuted, and likely won't be I suspect, Herbert's offence isn't speaking ill of the dead. It's that she celebrated the violent and painful death of Ann Widdecombe
I thought it was, that, before Widdecombe died, some posts were made that were direct incitement (or viewable as such) ?
If that's the case she should be considered for prosecution.
Not sure if this has been mentioned yet but credit to the Free Speech Union for standing by their principles
'The Free Speech Union has said that, should Heather Herbert join the Free Speech Union, we would do our best to help him.
Heather Herbert posted a vile and deeply offensive statement on the social media platform BlueSky about the tragic murder of Ann Widdecombe.
The University of Aberdeen employee has now been arrested and charged over his offensive comments.
While the Free Speech Union does not support Heather’s offensive comments about Ann — a dear late friend of the FSU — it is not an offence, no matter how offensive, to speak ill of the dead.
Ann was a staunch defender of our fundamental right to free speech, and we very much doubt she would have supported Police Scotland’s actions.'
Although I don't think Heather Herbert should be prosecuted, and likely won't be I suspect, Herbert's offence isn't speaking ill of the dead. It's that she celebrated the violent and painful death of Ann Widdecombe
The mouth speaks what the heart is full of (Matthew 12:34)
I couldn’t post on the last thread as I’ve been at work
The first thing that Starmer did as LOTO was a field trip to John Lewis to get photographed pointing at wallpaper
He did this to show what a bad man Johnson was for accepting a gift from a rich supporter
The first thing he did as PM was to accept gifts from a rich supporter
But, but, but.. FARAGE TOOK MILLIONS
Doesn’t make me think “Oh, Starmer isn’t a hypocrite after all”
You believe Starmer is more guilty than Johnson and Farage because you despise the man. Nevertheless the statistics don't back up your analysis.
The Lord Ali business is not dissimilar to Daylesfordgate and the curtains. PB Tories were quite comfortable with both of those issues. Other than the Lulu Lytle comedy value that didn't particularly worry me in the way PPE and Farage's millions do.
If you want hypocrisy look no further than Johnson's two EU letters.
Not sure if this has been mentioned yet but credit to the Free Speech Union for standing by their principles
'The Free Speech Union has said that, should Heather Herbert join the Free Speech Union, we would do our best to help him.
Heather Herbert posted a vile and deeply offensive statement on the social media platform BlueSky about the tragic murder of Ann Widdecombe.
The University of Aberdeen employee has now been arrested and charged over his offensive comments.
While the Free Speech Union does not support Heather’s offensive comments about Ann — a dear late friend of the FSU — it is not an offence, no matter how offensive, to speak ill of the dead.
Ann was a staunch defender of our fundamental right to free speech, and we very much doubt she would have supported Police Scotland’s actions.'
Indeed. Preston Byrne (pro bono counsel to the FSU) is particularlly good on this point.
Linehan shouldn't have been arrested for his "kick 'em in the balls" tweet (unless someone did, in fact, commit an s20 assault, in which case he is fair game as an accessory should there be a proven causal link between his tweet and the attacker).
Speaking ill of the dead shouldn't be an offence either. It should also be remembered that Anne Widdecombe believed that trans women (at least those who have had "the op") are women, which is more than can be said for many regulars here.
Since we're on #pbfreespeech, how do we feel about JK Rowling suing amnesty international for calling the 51 gender critical organisations listed in their recent report "anti rights" (Including an org that PB's resident terf is a member of)?
I happen to disagree with the amnesty report and think it's massive overreach, but the correct response is rebuttal rather than trying to silence one's critics with lawfare.
IMHO the UK needs to introduce US-style anti SLAPP legislation to prevent the super-rich from silencing their critics.
You are allowed to believe that men can be women, but I can also believe that they cannot. I think science is on my side of the argument but I also think we will never agree.
Fair enough.
So using your logic, let's say - purely hypothetically - you were caught in flagrante sucking the post-op penis of a hairy, muscly, bearded trans man. But it's not gay, because "she" was technically a woman?
Or can we agree that a threshold is reached where a person is functionally and practically - one might say "for all purposes" - the gender in which they present?
A trans man does not have a penis and you are deluded if you think shaping some arm flash onto a tube makes one.
I simply do not accept the concept of gender being different from chromosomal biology.
Which will no doubt lead on to the rare people who do not match the xx or xy reality, but that's just a distraction.
I couldn’t post on the last thread as I’ve been at work
The first thing that Starmer did as LOTO was a field trip to John Lewis to get photographed pointing at wallpaper
He did this to show what a bad man Johnson was for accepting a gift from a rich supporter
The first thing he did as PM was to accept gifts from a rich supporter
But, but, but.. FARAGE TOOK MILLIONS
Doesn’t make me think “Oh, Starmer isn’t a hypocrite after all”
You believe Starmer is more guilty than Johnson and Farage because you despise the man. Nevertheless the statistics don't back up your analysis.
The Lord Ali business is not dissimilar to Daylesfordgate and the curtains. PB Tories were quite comfortable with both of those issues. Other than the Lulu Lytle comedy value that didn't particularly worry me in the way PPE and Farage's millions do.
If you want hypocrisy look no further than Johnson's two EU letters.
Are you still complaining about the PPE even though the inquiry found no evidence of personal gain or malfeasance among ministers. No doubt we wasted billions but I suspect that was the system, not the Tory government per se.
I couldn’t post on the last thread as I’ve been at work
The first thing that Starmer did as LOTO was a field trip to John Lewis to get photographed pointing at wallpaper
He did this to show what a bad man Johnson was for accepting a gift from a rich supporter
The first thing he did as PM was to accept gifts from a rich supporter
But, but, but.. FARAGE TOOK MILLIONS
Doesn’t make me think “Oh, Starmer isn’t a hypocrite after all”
You believe Starmer is more guilty than Johnson and Farage because you despise the man. Nevertheless the statistics don't back up your analysis.
The Lord Ali business is not dissimilar to Daylesfordgate and the curtains. PB Tories were quite comfortable with both of those issues. Other than the Lulu Lytle comedy value that didn't particularly worry me in the way PPE and Farage's millions do.
If you want hypocrisy look no further than Johnson's two EU letters.
I’ve only said that Starmer was guilty of hypocrisy. You’ve inferred “more guilty” all on your own
Boris, I believe, did pay for all the work himself in the end
Not sure if this has been mentioned yet but credit to the Free Speech Union for standing by their principles
'The Free Speech Union has said that, should Heather Herbert join the Free Speech Union, we would do our best to help him.
Heather Herbert posted a vile and deeply offensive statement on the social media platform BlueSky about the tragic murder of Ann Widdecombe.
The University of Aberdeen employee has now been arrested and charged over his offensive comments.
While the Free Speech Union does not support Heather’s offensive comments about Ann — a dear late friend of the FSU — it is not an offence, no matter how offensive, to speak ill of the dead.
Ann was a staunch defender of our fundamental right to free speech, and we very much doubt she would have supported Police Scotland’s actions.'
Indeed. Preston Byrne (pro bono counsel to the FSU) is particularlly good on this point.
Linehan shouldn't have been arrested for his "kick 'em in the balls" tweet (unless someone did, in fact, commit an s20 assault, in which case he is fair game as an accessory should there be a proven causal link between his tweet and the attacker).
Speaking ill of the dead shouldn't be an offence either. It should also be remembered that Anne Widdecombe believed that trans women (at least those who have had "the op") are women, which is more than can be said for many regulars here.
Since we're on #pbfreespeech, how do we feel about JK Rowling suing amnesty international for calling the 51 gender critical organisations listed in their recent report "anti rights" (Including an org that PB's resident terf is a member of)?
I happen to disagree with the amnesty report and think it's massive overreach, but the correct response is rebuttal rather than trying to silence one's critics with lawfare.
IMHO the UK needs to introduce US-style anti SLAPP legislation to prevent the super-rich from silencing their critics.
I think the problem with the Amnesty comments is that they risked actual financial and reputational damage to the organisations involved based on a series of lies. If Rowling had tried to have Amnesty prosecuted in some way then that would have been overreach but suing to correct false statements seems reasonable to me. That said, since Amnesty have now apologised and withdrawn the comments ( and reported themselves to the Charities Commission) I don't think suing is the correct course.
I don't think they lied at all.
That there is a debate between those who think trans rights and the rights of women are in competition, and those who believe they are not mutually exclusive, is evident. However it is also true that the organisations listed are "anti rights", specificially anti trans rights, treating those rights as subordinate or lesser than those of cis people.
The problem is Amnesty didn't retract their report because of any admission of inaccuracy, but rather because the cost of defending those views against a litigious billionaire is too great.
The law is open to all, like the Ritz hotel...
And reporting themselves to the Charity Commission. I presume if they decide Amnesty broke the rules you will add them to the anti-rights list as well.
Thatcher the great enemy. If that's all he's got....
From my side of the divide I believe Mrs Thatcher has a lot to answer for. However she remains a seminal figure, probably the seminal figure of post war British politics.
I couldn’t post on the last thread as I’ve been at work
The first thing that Starmer did as LOTO was a field trip to John Lewis to get photographed pointing at wallpaper
He did this to show what a bad man Johnson was for accepting a gift from a rich supporter
The first thing he did as PM was to accept gifts from a rich supporter
But, but, but.. FARAGE TOOK MILLIONS
Doesn’t make me think “Oh, Starmer isn’t a hypocrite after all”
You believe Starmer is more guilty than Johnson and Farage because you despise the man. Nevertheless the statistics don't back up your analysis.
The Lord Ali business is not dissimilar to Daylesfordgate and the curtains. PB Tories were quite comfortable with both of those issues. Other than the Lulu Lytle comedy value that didn't particularly worry me in the way PPE and Farage's millions do.
If you want hypocrisy look no further than Johnson's two EU letters.
Are you still complaining about the PPE even though the inquiry found no evidence of personal gain or malfeasance among ministers. No doubt we wasted billions but I suspect that was the system, not the Tory government per se.
I think your reading of the £10b spaffed up the wall on dodgy PPE is not entirely the conclusion reached. You would be quite rightly outraged if a Labour figure had overseen such absolute corruption. In fact three or four times each year someone hijacks a thread with Brown selling all the gold.
Anyway, back to business. I have a £63m invisible garden bridge I believe I can sell you.
I couldn’t post on the last thread as I’ve been at work
The first thing that Starmer did as LOTO was a field trip to John Lewis to get photographed pointing at wallpaper
He did this to show what a bad man Johnson was for accepting a gift from a rich supporter
The first thing he did as PM was to accept gifts from a rich supporter
But, but, but.. FARAGE TOOK MILLIONS
Doesn’t make me think “Oh, Starmer isn’t a hypocrite after all”
You believe Starmer is more guilty than Johnson and Farage because you despise the man. Nevertheless the statistics don't back up your analysis.
The Lord Ali business is not dissimilar to Daylesfordgate and the curtains. PB Tories were quite comfortable with both of those issues. Other than the Lulu Lytle comedy value that didn't particularly worry me in the way PPE and Farage's millions do.
If you want hypocrisy look no further than Johnson's two EU letters.
I’ve only said that Starmer was guilty of hypocrisy. You’ve inferred “more guilty” all on your own
Boris, I believe, did pay for all the work himself in the end
Did Saint Keir stump up for his Lady’s knickers?
I thought the wallpaper stopped with Lord Brownlow. I don't know if Starmer paid for his spectacles. If I were him I would have.
I couldn’t post on the last thread as I’ve been at work
The first thing that Starmer did as LOTO was a field trip to John Lewis to get photographed pointing at wallpaper
He did this to show what a bad man Johnson was for accepting a gift from a rich supporter
The first thing he did as PM was to accept gifts from a rich supporter
But, but, but.. FARAGE TOOK MILLIONS
Doesn’t make me think “Oh, Starmer isn’t a hypocrite after all”
You believe Starmer is more guilty than Johnson and Farage because you despise the man. Nevertheless the statistics don't back up your analysis.
The Lord Ali business is not dissimilar to Daylesfordgate and the curtains. PB Tories were quite comfortable with both of those issues. Other than the Lulu Lytle comedy value that didn't particularly worry me in the way PPE and Farage's millions do.
If you want hypocrisy look no further than Johnson's two EU letters.
I’ve only said that Starmer was guilty of hypocrisy. You’ve inferred “more guilty” all on your own
Boris, I believe, did pay for all the work himself in the end
Did Saint Keir stump up for his Lady’s knickers?
I thought the wallpaper stopped with Lord Brownlow. I don't know if Starmer paid for his spectacles. If I were him I would have.
Did Boris ever promise not to do resignation honours?
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 16m Six months ago Reform were claiming they were on the cusp of winning an outright majority and forming the next government. Now they're reduced to frantically hyping the Norfolk PCC result.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 16m Six months ago Reform were claiming they were on the cusp of winning an outright majority and forming the next government. Now they're reduced to frantically hyping the Norfolk PCC result.
Not sure if this has been mentioned yet but credit to the Free Speech Union for standing by their principles
'The Free Speech Union has said that, should Heather Herbert join the Free Speech Union, we would do our best to help him.
Heather Herbert posted a vile and deeply offensive statement on the social media platform BlueSky about the tragic murder of Ann Widdecombe.
The University of Aberdeen employee has now been arrested and charged over his offensive comments.
While the Free Speech Union does not support Heather’s offensive comments about Ann — a dear late friend of the FSU — it is not an offence, no matter how offensive, to speak ill of the dead.
Ann was a staunch defender of our fundamental right to free speech, and we very much doubt she would have supported Police Scotland’s actions.'
Indeed. Preston Byrne (pro bono counsel to the FSU) is particularlly good on this point.
Linehan shouldn't have been arrested for his "kick 'em in the balls" tweet (unless someone did, in fact, commit an s20 assault, in which case he is fair game as an accessory should there be a proven causal link between his tweet and the attacker).
Speaking ill of the dead shouldn't be an offence either. It should also be remembered that Anne Widdecombe believed that trans women (at least those who have had "the op") are women, which is more than can be said for many regulars here.
Since we're on #pbfreespeech, how do we feel about JK Rowling suing amnesty international for calling the 51 gender critical organisations listed in their recent report "anti rights" (Including an org that PB's resident terf is a member of)?
I happen to disagree with the amnesty report and think it's massive overreach, but the correct response is rebuttal rather than trying to silence one's critics with lawfare.
IMHO the UK needs to introduce US-style anti SLAPP legislation to prevent the super-rich from silencing their critics.
I think the problem with the Amnesty comments is that they risked actual financial and reputational damage to the organisations involved based on a series of lies. If Rowling had tried to have Amnesty prosecuted in some way then that would have been overreach but suing to correct false statements seems reasonable to me. That said, since Amnesty have now apologised and withdrawn the comments ( and reported themselves to the Charities Commission) I don't think suing is the correct course.
I don't think they lied at all.
That there is a debate between those who think trans rights and the rights of women are in competition, and those who believe they are not mutually exclusive, is evident. However it is also true that the organisations listed are "anti rights", specificially anti trans rights, treating those rights as subordinate or lesser than those of cis people.
The problem is Amnesty didn't retract their report because of any admission of inaccuracy, but rather because the cost of defending those views against a litigious billionaire is too great.
The law is open to all, like the Ritz hotel...
And reporting themselves to the Charity Commission. I presume if they decide Amnesty broke the rules you will add them to the anti-rights list as well.
The self-reporting thing is a necessary mechanism for retaining charitable status, it is not an admission of guilt. It is also notable that Amnesty have withdrawn the report but not apologised or said they were wrong, merely that "their internal standards were not upheld", i.e. we put something out that is going to get us sued by a vindictive, monomaniacal billionaire, and our fiduciary duty is to minimise that risk. But this is by the by.
What is interesting for me is that you are not a free speech absolutist at all, only when it suits you.
I'm quite consistent. Linehan shouldn't have been arrested, as noted above. The woman who tweeted mean things about Anne Widdecombe should not have been arrested.
And Amnesty should not be sued into the ground by a mad, genital-obsessed billionaire for daring to suggest that the organizations listed in their report are campaigning against a marginalised group's human rights.
I also point out I happen to disagree with the Amnesty report and think it's overreach. But the correct response is rebuttal, not legal action.
Thank you for pointing out your hypocrisy in this matter and demonstrating your limited commitment to freedom of speech.
He has been chosen for persona/electoral not policy reasons. People with their own agendas will say he has to go this way or that way but he doesn't. He simply (although it's no simple matter) has to generate/sustain a clear poll lead for Labour. If he does this he will have delivered his side of the bargain.
But I hope he is more than this. Specifically that in addition to waxing lyrical about improving the morale/prospects of struggling working class communities (ten a penny talk from all sides of politics) he actually does (big) things in that vein. Levelling up in other words. For real not as a platitude (tory) or tied up with white identity politics (reform).
A more accurate description for levelling up, if it's going to be for real, is a significant reduction in inequalities of wealth, income and opportunity. Savvy pols on the left (which AB is) avoid that phrasing because it acknowledges there are losers and thus invites a load of superficially appealing 'rising tide lifts all boats' waffle in response.
I'm not blindly optimistic (money is tight and powerful forces will oppose him if he's serious) but I do feel energised and positive. Let's see how it pans out.
Not sure if this has been mentioned yet but credit to the Free Speech Union for standing by their principles
'The Free Speech Union has said that, should Heather Herbert join the Free Speech Union, we would do our best to help him.
Heather Herbert posted a vile and deeply offensive statement on the social media platform BlueSky about the tragic murder of Ann Widdecombe.
The University of Aberdeen employee has now been arrested and charged over his offensive comments.
While the Free Speech Union does not support Heather’s offensive comments about Ann — a dear late friend of the FSU — it is not an offence, no matter how offensive, to speak ill of the dead.
Ann was a staunch defender of our fundamental right to free speech, and we very much doubt she would have supported Police Scotland’s actions.'
And yet the arseholes couldn’t resist a snidey wee gender dig.
What are principled Toby & co doing about supporting the ‘I support Palestine Action’ people?
He has been chosen for persona/electoral not policy reasons. People with their own agendas will say he has to go this way or that way but he doesn't. He simply (although it's no simple matter) has to generate/sustain a clear poll lead for Labour. If he does this he will have delivered his side of the bargain.
But I hope he is more than this. Specifically that in addition to waxing lyrical about improving the morale/prospects of struggling working class communities (ten a penny talk from all sides of politics) he actually does (big) things in that vein. Levelling up in other words. For real not as a platitude (tory) or tied up with white identity politics (reform).
A more accurate description for levelling up, if it's going to be for real, is a significant reduction in inequalities of wealth, income and opportunity. Savvy pols on the left (which AB is) avoid that phrasing because it acknowledges there are losers and thus invites a load of superficially appealing 'rising tide lifts all boats' waffle in response.
I'm not blindly optimistic (money is tight and powerful forces will oppose him if he's serious) but I do feel energised and positive. Let's see how it pans out.
Not sure if this has been mentioned yet but credit to the Free Speech Union for standing by their principles
'The Free Speech Union has said that, should Heather Herbert join the Free Speech Union, we would do our best to help him.
Heather Herbert posted a vile and deeply offensive statement on the social media platform BlueSky about the tragic murder of Ann Widdecombe.
The University of Aberdeen employee has now been arrested and charged over his offensive comments.
While the Free Speech Union does not support Heather’s offensive comments about Ann — a dear late friend of the FSU — it is not an offence, no matter how offensive, to speak ill of the dead.
Ann was a staunch defender of our fundamental right to free speech, and we very much doubt she would have supported Police Scotland’s actions.'
And yet the arseholes couldn’t resist a snidey wee gender dig.
What are principled Toby & co doing about supporting the ‘I support Palestine Action’ people?
That is illegal speech, which they don't defend. And PA has lost its appeal against proscription.
He has been chosen for persona/electoral not policy reasons. People with their own agendas will say he has to go this way or that way but he doesn't. He simply (although it's no simple matter) has to generate/sustain a clear poll lead for Labour. If he does this he will have delivered his side of the bargain.
But I hope he is more than this. Specifically that in addition to waxing lyrical about improving the morale/prospects of struggling working class communities (ten a penny talk from all sides of politics) he actually does (big) things in that vein. Levelling up in other words. For real not as a platitude (tory) or tied up with white identity politics (reform).
A more accurate description for levelling up, if it's going to be for real, is a significant reduction in inequalities of wealth, income and opportunity. Savvy pols on the left (which AB is) avoid that phrasing because it acknowledges there are losers and thus invites a load of superficially appealing 'rising tide lifts all boats' waffle in response.
I'm not blindly optimistic (money is tight and powerful forces will oppose him if he's serious) but I do feel energised and positive. Let's see how it pans out.
I couldn’t post on the last thread as I’ve been at work
The first thing that Starmer did as LOTO was a field trip to John Lewis to get photographed pointing at wallpaper
He did this to show what a bad man Johnson was for accepting a gift from a rich supporter
The first thing he did as PM was to accept gifts from a rich supporter
But, but, but.. FARAGE TOOK MILLIONS
Doesn’t make me think “Oh, Starmer isn’t a hypocrite after all”
You believe Starmer is more guilty than Johnson and Farage because you despise the man. Nevertheless the statistics don't back up your analysis.
The Lord Ali business is not dissimilar to Daylesfordgate and the curtains. PB Tories were quite comfortable with both of those issues. Other than the Lulu Lytle comedy value that didn't particularly worry me in the way PPE and Farage's millions do.
If you want hypocrisy look no further than Johnson's two EU letters.
Are you still complaining about the PPE even though the inquiry found no evidence of personal gain or malfeasance among ministers. No doubt we wasted billions but I suspect that was the system, not the Tory government per se.
I think your reading of the £10b spaffed up the wall on dodgy PPE is not entirely the conclusion reached. You would be quite rightly outraged if a Labour figure had overseen such absolute corruption. In fact three or four times each year someone hijacks a thread with Brown selling all the gold.
Anyway, back to business. I have a £63m invisible garden bridge I believe I can sell you.
If you have evidence of corruption why have you not reported to the police? The inquiry did not find corruption among ministers. It did criticise the fast track VIP lane, which was something Starmerv was rying to indulge in to with his list he produced in the house.
People really fucking despise a moralising, holier-than-thou hypocrite
SKS and Angela Rayner to name two.
I always tend to believe that Labour politicians assume they are the good guys, on the right side of history etc and that when they take a freebie it's ok because they are the good guys. But woe betide a story for taking a freebie.
Comments
https://x.com/PolitlcsUK/status/2078104969266319844?s=20
https://x.com/JLMelenchon/status/2078135571948372474?s=20
It should possibly lead to termination of employment if the employer thinks that is suitable for bringing them into disrepute, but it should not be a criminal matter.
Being sick and offensive and rude should not be a crime.
As I said, all credit to the FSU for not being hypocrites over this.
As for the SLAPPing, well yes, but the phrase "don't argue with somebody who buys their ink by the ton" predates JKR by decades. Britain doesn't really have free speech in the way the Americans understand it and the chance of any British government implementing anything to stop rich people using lawyers to make their enemies STFU is nil.
America actually has gun control. To own a fully automatic weapon (such as a submachine gun), you need an FFL - Federal Firearms License. These take a background check and all the other things that firearms license around the world have. IIRC they are a bit stricter than the UK firearms certificate.
Fully automatic weapons are highly controlled, expensive and quite rare. Using one for a crime gets additional, heavy penalties. A number of states also ban ownership of full auto weapons.
As a result, basically no legally held automatic weapons are used in crimes. A small number of fully automatic weapons are stolen and used in crimes - generally from the military or the vast array of heavily armed federal agencies. There is an issue with people converting semi-automatics. But the numbers for these are not very large, either.
Legally owned automatic weapons are basically never used in crime, in the US.
Gun control that works in the US - and no-one talks about it.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/czdm14jyl3ro
That there is a debate between those who think trans rights and the rights of women are in competition, and those who believe they are not mutually exclusive, is evident. However it is also true that the organisations listed are "anti rights", specificially anti trans rights, treating those rights as subordinate or lesser than those of cis people.
The problem is Amnesty didn't retract their report because of any admission of inaccuracy, but rather because the cost of defending those views against a litigious billionaire is too great.
The law is open to all, like the Ritz hotel...
Bad speech should be condemned, but shouldn’t be criminalised.
So using your logic, let's say - purely hypothetically - you were caught in flagrante sucking the post-op penis of a hairy, muscly, bearded trans man. But it's not gay, because "she" was technically a woman?
Or can we agree that a threshold is reached where a person is functionally and practically - one might say "for all purposes" - the gender in which they present?
The first thing that Starmer did as LOTO was a field trip to John Lewis to get photographed pointing at wallpaper
He did this to show what a bad man Johnson was for accepting a gift from a rich supporter
The first thing he did as PM was to accept gifts from a rich supporter
But, but, but.. FARAGE TOOK MILLIONS
Doesn’t make me think “Oh, Starmer isn’t a hypocrite after all”
I simply do not accept the concept of gender being different from chromosomal biology.
Which will no doubt lead on to the rare people who do not match the xx or xy reality, but that's just a distraction.
But Starmer is bad bad hypocrite for declaring gifts that were a fraction of Johnsons and Starmer. Never change PB.
The Lord Ali business is not dissimilar to Daylesfordgate and the curtains. PB Tories were quite comfortable with both of those issues. Other than the Lulu Lytle comedy value that didn't particularly worry me in the way PPE and Farage's millions do.
If you want hypocrisy look no further than Johnson's two EU letters.
Which why I agree with AOC - claiming you are morally pure because you got gifted stock options at a strike if 1% of market, is bollocks.
Boris, I believe, did pay for all the work himself in the end
Did Saint Keir stump up for his Lady’s knickers?
Anyway, back to business. I have a £63m invisible garden bridge I believe I can sell you.
He wants to tickle the erogenous zones of the Labour base first.
@DPJHodges
·
16m
Six months ago Reform were claiming they were on the cusp of winning an outright majority and forming the next government. Now they're reduced to frantically hyping the Norfolk PCC result.
https://x.com/DPJHodges/status/2078180534434365783
@DPJHodges
·
16m
Six months ago Reform were claiming they were on the cusp of winning an outright majority and forming the next government. Now they're reduced to frantically hyping the Norfolk PCC result.
https://x.com/DPJHodges/status/2078180534434365783
What is interesting for me is that you are not a free speech absolutist at all, only when it suits you.
I'm quite consistent. Linehan shouldn't have been arrested, as noted above. The woman who tweeted mean things about Anne Widdecombe should not have been arrested.
And Amnesty should not be sued into the ground by a mad, genital-obsessed billionaire for daring to suggest that the organizations listed in their report are campaigning against a marginalised group's human rights.
I also point out I happen to disagree with the Amnesty report and think it's overreach. But the correct response is rebuttal, not legal action.
Thank you for pointing out your hypocrisy in this matter and demonstrating your limited commitment to freedom of speech.
He has been chosen for persona/electoral not policy reasons. People with their own agendas will say he has to go this way or that way but he doesn't. He simply (although it's no simple matter) has to generate/sustain a clear poll lead for Labour. If he does this he will have delivered his side of the bargain.
But I hope he is more than this. Specifically that in addition to waxing lyrical about improving the morale/prospects of struggling working class communities (ten a penny talk from all sides of politics) he actually does (big) things in that vein. Levelling up in other words. For real not as a platitude (tory) or tied up with white identity politics (reform).
A more accurate description for levelling up, if it's going to be for real, is a significant reduction in inequalities of wealth, income and opportunity. Savvy pols on the left (which AB is) avoid that phrasing because it acknowledges there are losers and thus invites a load of superficially appealing 'rising tide lifts all boats' waffle in response.
I'm not blindly optimistic (money is tight and powerful forces will oppose him if he's serious) but I do feel energised and positive. Let's see how it pans out.
What are principled Toby & co doing about supporting the ‘I support Palestine Action’ people?
People really fucking despise a moralising, holier-than-thou hypocrite
Also 'Supermanc' is tremendous.
But it did make me think that hypocrisy is a moral U turn