Re: The Bigger, Badder, Even More Serious Thread

[Mrs Figg]

wow defending Galloway and his equally repulsive antisemite mate 'Nosferatu' Williamson who once said, "Israel has forfeited any right to exist", is totally beyond the pale. You must be an extreme Jew hater to endorse those two evil clowns.

[Pettytyrant101]

{{ How do you get to that Figg from me saying- }}

'I don't understand the objection here other than you don't like who won (nor do I, never have liked Galloway'

[Mrs Figg]

The same way as you are accusing me of contributing to anti-Islamic prejudice.

[Pettytyrant101]

{{ No I am accusing you of playing the Tories game for them and doing as they wish, focusing all your attention on the wrong thing, whilst the actual things they are doing, denying a debate and using the anger they have provoked in those such as yourself to justify clamping down further on the right to protest they get away with. }}

[Mrs Figg]

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/galloway-workers-party-condemn-hamas-israel-b2505337.html

says it all really

[Pettytyrant101]

{{ So yesterday evening PM Sunak said he would be addressing the nation, a full podium in front of No 10 job, this is usually reserved for the most serious of matters, that the PM is resigning, that the PM is calling an election or a declaration of war.
But no, it was none of those things, it was in response to the election of Galloway at least that was the excuse for it.

It was mainly window dressing, the first half reiterates the narratives the Tories (aided by Labour I may add) have been sowing of late, the full speech is here-



but to be honest the only relevant bit is 7.09 in, that's when, having laid out the justifications based on the stories they have sown into the media, he says what he is going to do.
For those who are not from Britain, and who therefore through cruel experience might not have learnt to speak Tory, I will translate for you-

'This week I have met with senior police officers and made clear that it is the public's expectation that they will not only manage these protests, but police them.'

I've told them if they don't start cracking heads and dragging people away I'll sack them.

'And I say this to the police, 'We will back you when you take action'

Don't worry about sticking to the actual law we will bend it for you so you can do this.

'this month the government will implement a new robust framework for how it deals with this issue'

We will pass legislation making the worst most severe laws on right to protest in Europe so draconian people won't be able to protest any more at all, unless it's in a field in the middle of nowhere and they don't gather in numbers greater than 4 and no one can see or hear them.

'to ensure we are dealing with the root causes of this problem, and that no extremist organisations or individuals are being leant legitimacy by their actions or interactions with central government'

Even if they do have a point we won't acknowledge it, and if the electorate does what they did again and vote for someone like Galloway we just won't recognise him anyway.

'you cannot be a part of our civic life if your agenda is to tear it down'

Not a translation, just a note, that could technically apply to the SNP and all the nationalist parties in NI and Wales too.

'we will double our support for the Prevent program, to stop young minds being poisoned by extremism'

We will double the money to the Secret Service to expand the existing program of infiltrating groups of young Muslim men, deliberate radicalising them in the hopes they will then connect to, and lead the us to bigger fish we can use to impress the Americans with.

'we will demand universities stop extremist activities on campus'

We've been trying to shut the uni's up for years and now we can!

'we will also act to prevent people entering this country whose aim is to undermine our values'

as there isn't actually a checkbox on the application form asking if the applicant wants to undermine our country and values, what I actually mean is we will use it to unfairly dismiss otherwise legitimate claims to immigration.

'The Home Secretary has been instructed that if those here on visas choose to spew hate, protest, or seek to intimidate people, we will remove their right to be here'

Anyone who is foreign and working here or an overseas student will effectively be banned from the right to protest, and if they try to we can use this as an excuse to kick them out, we only need the word of the MET and even we know how corrupt they are.

'Our Britain must not be a country in which we descend into polarised camps with some communities living parallel lives'

Please think about this and not the fact we have been deliberately polarising politics for 14 years in order to win elections, or the fact we and Labour have systematically moved immigrants into entire streets and tower blocks creating two communities in the first place - look shiny thing!


I have to say its text book Tory playbook this, create the anger and backlash, offer yourself as the saviour of it by doing all the things youve been trying to do already, but couldn't as they were too extreme to get passed, and watch the public lap it up and cheer you on as their rights are diminished or removed altogether.  

And in the meantime, whose talking about Parliamentary accountability? Why have there been no votes? Why is there therefore no record of where any of our elected officials stand on the issue at hand? It's all swept aside by the distraction, by the show, by the wave of anger.
I have to admit Sunak has made Boris' attempts to shut down Parliament and its ability to debate during Brexit seem caveman-like and blunt, this is how you do it. This is Tory evil distilled and deployed as tactics.}}

[Mrs Figg]

yeah, in the meantime British citizens will be beheaded on the streets and children blown up at pop concerts because everyone Tories and especially Labour are shit scared of being called racists. Labour will double down on the antisemitism and allow sharia law and sectarianism to dictate British law. British people have been taken for mugs for far too long, British homeless have been left to rot in shop doorways while illegal economic migrants have been housed in 4 star hotels, just like in New York, where the Democrats have turned the sanctuary cities into hell holes.

[Pettytyrant101]

{{ I somehow doubt the 4.4% of the UK population who are Muslim are going to win so many elections that we have Sharia Law (though I wish we had the bit about no interest on loans, that's a good one - so it's not like there aren't bits worth nicking, Britain has a long and proud tradition of nicking other peoples laws and making them part of British law, half our stuff is French and we acquired a few others from round the Globe during Empire, good idea is a good idea.)

Part of the problem is people mistakenly think there is such a thing as an ideal Britain - what they actually mean is one like they grew up in. But that's not how Britain is, never has been.

There'd have been those among the Mesolithic for whom these new farming types that were turning up ruining the British countryside with their fields and silly monumental stone works was a step too far! And later those Neolithic farmers complaining about these light skinned foreigners coming in with their fancy Beakers and iron, what was wrong with stone its just lying about you don't have to go digging for it, and it's British! Then a bit later there'd have been a Beaker person sitting grumbling about all these tattooed Celts that suddenly seem to be everywhere with their Druids worshipping trees all over the place, what was wrong with a sacred spring, it was good enough for generations and it was British! And then some Celt a few generations later moaning that the place is full of Romans all of a sudden and now it's sandals everywhere and everyone washing together with no regard for morals or British values! And then a togaed Britain in despair at all these Angles and Saxons turning up making towns all over the place when there was nothing wrong with just plonking your round house where you liked, these planned towns were destroying our British freedoms! And the Anglo-Saxons were upset when the Danes came along and started making us, British Anglo-Saxons, obey their foreign laws! And before you know it there's the Vikings to complain about too, nicking land, settling all over the place taking up perfectly good fields that British people could be using (whoever British people are by this point) and well bugger me if the French aren't everywhere now, rewriting our laws, changing the language completely forcing us to eat unBritish cheese so soft you can't even use it as a brick in an emergency!...... and so on until today and into our future.

The only thing true about the population of Britain is that we are mongrels. We are a mongrel nation, we always have been a mongrel nation, we always will be a mongrel nation. It's our best feature. }}

[Pettytyrant101]

British people have been taken for mugs for far too long, British homeless have been left to rot in shop doorways while illegal economic migrants have been housed in 4 star hotels- Figg

{{ Sadly Figg, and I do not mean this to be rude honestly, I think it is you that have been taken for a mug, you and many others, by the very Tory playbook I am trying to show they are currently using again over Israel and protests.

Let's take your statement.

Is it true British homeless has increased and that provisions for them has fallen?

Yes it is it true, homeless numbers are up, as is poverty in general, foodbank use, all those things. Why are they up? Because the Tories as first part of the 10 year 'austerity' plan then excused by the fall out of the banking crisis, then Brexit then Covid, have for 14 years cut finding to helping and supporting the homeless. At the same time the building of new homes, not just affordable homes, but more importantly council housing has fallen to an all time low. And as a further nail in the coffin the failure of wages to keep anywhere near costs means money for charities has also fallen to a low. The reasons for the increase in homeless and the lack of facilities or homes for them lie entirely at the feet of this Tory government. They manufactured the situation themselves.

Now let's look at the other half - have the government at huge taxpayer expense put migrants into hotels?

Yes, they have. But why? Because despite all predictions of immigration globally on the rise, and all predictions more facilities would be required post Brexit, this government chose instead to close down processing centres, remove hundreds of staff and shut down facilities to house migrants in. They quite deliberately created the very conditions you complain about.

As a result people are angry, as they are supposed to be, and as a result of that anger this government can then pass legislation of a type that would never normally get passed the House, but can with enough public anger behind it. The sort that sends people on planes to Rwanda, the sort that stops lawful protests, the sort that bends and breaks Parliament to silence debate and dissenting voices. The sort that takes all the countries resources and channels them towards the top few percent leaving the homeless, disabled, those dependent on benefits or on minimum wage work behind in abject poverty.

That's the Tory game, create the crisis, blame those who cannot answer back, stoke the anger, use the anger to justify the actions. They've been doing it since Thatcher conceived of it for using against the Unions and striking workers.}}

[Mrs Figg]

Of course all this is the Tories fault, they have facilitated all of this mess. You are under the misapprehension that I dont think its the Tories fault. But its all Labours fault and the SNPs and Lib Dems fault too. Its a fault of our useless MPs in general. All these terrible things have happened because they have taken us for mugs. For example, voting for Brexit (although it was the dumbest disaster the British people ever did) they promised to control immigration and now it is ten times worse and they seem like rabbits in the headlights when the thousands of military age men in dinghies start kicking off, pretending to be children or 'converting to Christianity' all of a sudden. The homeless crisis and austerity is all the Tories fault, obviously. The mugs who voted for Brexit and Tory have reaped the whirlwind, but it doesn't mean its right that means we live under the Islamic cosh, have to live under a new apartheid, and have the fabric of thousands of years of history be tossed off because of diversity and inclusion, which always seems to work one way.

As for the whatever have the Romans done for us excuse, the immigrants then were European not third world. They didn't import grooming gangs, Islamic fundamentalism, the bombing of children, female genital mutilation, acid attacks, violent drill rapper gangs, stabbings with zombie knives, forced marriages, honour killings, child marriage, violent misogyny, bride burning, stoning for adulterers, stoning for homosexuals, pakistan style violence during voting, vote rigging, drug gangs using children, no-go ghettos, burkahs, anti-white hatred, sexual attacks on racial lines (we all saw what happened to women in European capitals during New Years day festivities), and general squalor such as public defecating, urinating and littering. great.

[Mrs Figg]

quite long but interesting talk

[Pettytyrant101]

{{ The leader of the Scottish Conservatives is called Douglas Ross, he is better known in Scotland as Douglas Dross. And he is singly the worst politician I have ever seen, his political radar is not only non-existent, it has an uncanny knack for pointing in exactly the wrong direction at crucial times to hilarious effect, if you're not a Tory.

Today was another Dross classic.
You see the Scottish Tories have been trying to position themselves, particularly in the NE of Scotland, as the protectors of Scottish oil and gas. As such Dross has been running his campaign based on attacking Labour plans to extend the windfall tax on oil by another year, claiming it will cost thousands of jobs and be a disaster for investment and only a Conservative government at Westminster, advised by the Scottish Tories can save the industry.
He even organised a debate in the Scottish Parliament today, of all days, warning of the economic harms of extending the windfall tax.

Meanwhile in the realm of political reality, his fellow Tory the Chancellor was in the Commons to deliver the UK's annual budget, which included as one of its headlines- extending the windfall tax on oil companies.

As the BBC commentator put it-

'what does this say about their leader's ability to influence the top levels of the UK party? He went public with his pleas. They fell on deaf ears....to top it off, within hours of Jeremy Hunt's announcement, the Scottish Conservatives were debating their own motion at Holyrood which warned of the economic harms of…extending the windfall tax. You couldn't make it up.'

Dross, you continue to impress with just how unimpressive a politician you are. The only thing that is truly remarkable about him is the utter mystery of how he ever got to be leader of the Scottish Tories.


edit add to fully appreciate his uncanny ability to shoot himself in the foot through sheer ineptitude here he is supposedly grilling Alex Salmond two weeks ago in a Committee, starts at 6.53-

}}

[Mrs Figg]

Scotland, from April Fool's day, has now got the stasi thought police in your own home. You can literally snitch on anyone under this law and the police will investigate without any burden of proof. This is North Korea level of interference. This will cause a great deal of harm, both to families and communities. Its batshit crazy.

[Pettytyrant101]

{{ You've been at the right wing Kool-Aid again Figg- this law is way better than the one just passed in England with zero scrutiny, or the one just passed in Ireland and the upcoming one in Wales. Why is it better? It alone has had years of debate, it's been amended numerous times by other parties, it's had almost ten years now of public consultation and as a result it has the right to free speech and freedom of expression embedded in it at the very roots of its wording - unlike its counterparts in the other parts of the UK
If I were you Figg I'd worry much more about those other Hate Crime laws than Scotland's which has had almost a decade of debate and consultation. What you are getting in England, hasn't. }}.

[Mrs Figg]

Ah here it is again, the old 'far-right' trope. I guess that you are ok with less free speech as long as its the SNP taking it away?



from paralegals Lyndsays,

"Lawyers on Scotland’s hate speech bill: “An astonishing attack on freedom of expression”

Senior lawyers have expressed dismay about the threat to free speech posed by Scotland’s proposed new hate crime law.

“This is an astonishing attack on freedom of expression which, read as I read it, threatens the publication of nearly all books published before the twentieth century”, says Francis Hoar, a barrister practising in public law and human rights, based in London.

Hoar cites Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice and Penguin’s publication of Mein Kampf – designed for educational and historical use – as examples of texts which could fall under the Bill’s provisions.

Public consultation closed last week on the new Hate Crime Public Order (Scotland) bill. Legal and religious groups have said the proposed law could represent an unprecedented government incursion into private life and basic freedoms.

Scotland’s Justice Minister, Humza Yusaf, told the BBC: “Free speech in itself is never an unfettered right.” It must be balanced, he argued, with the need to protect vulnerable communities from discrimination.

The Scottish government says it is designed to make hate crime law “fit for the 21st century”. Scottish, English and European lawyers speaking to Reaction believe the bill provides for an alarming expansion of state power, however.

Crucially, the bill removes the need for the perpetrator to have shown an intention to “hate” in order to be indicted. “The only exception is if there is a ‘reasonable excuse’ – but no one can know how a court would interpret that”, Hoar said.

The proposed changes go well beyond works of literature. They threaten to criminalise speech which is now considered part of public debate. The bill makes two major modifications to the provisions of the Public Order Act of 1986: expanding the number of protected characteristics to include age and “variations in sexual characteristics”; and changing the test of a crime against these groups from “where there is an intention to stir up hatred” to “where it is likely that hatred would be stirred up.”

This change places an unprecedented power, and burden, in the hands of the police and courts to determine the criteria of a hate crime.

“As framed this proposed new law has the potential to be used politically in a climate of increasing virtue signalling”, he notes. “It goes beyond the recommendations of Lord Bracadale, because it seems to be based not on what you do or believe, but on how you are perceived.”

More alarmingly still, it undermines the distinction between public and private settings, meaning statements made in private conversations could criminalizedsed.

Lorcán Price, a barrister specialising in European and human rights law, explained the problem: “Say your friend made a joke in private that you found offensive. The possibility would be there to prosecute.” This may seem an unlikely outcome, but only one source is required to verify a hate crime – the supposed victim.

The powers this offers to the state – and potentially to individuals who may seek to weaponise the law to settle personal grievances – is clear.

Haywood explains that all criminal complaints must be followed up, creating an unprecedented new case load for the police founded on nothing more than the subjective feeling of offended individuals. The reach of such complaints would now extend into the household – a change without precedent in Bracadale’s report.

This isn’t the first time the Scottish government has tried to change hate crime laws. In 2012 the SNP pushed through the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications Act (Scotland) without any cross-party support. After campaigning by football fans, MSPs and lawyers it was repealed in 2018.

“What we’re talking about is the problem of legislation that’s arbitrary, difficult to enforce, or has unintended consequences”, argued Haywood, writing in The Scotsman in the year of its repeal.

The wording of the Football Act may have been sloppy, but at least its intentions were specific and historically focused. Sectarian violence at football grounds is a real problem in Scotland. The legislation this time is much more wide-ranging, encompassing various situations and identities, including works of art and speech-acts in person and online. It certainly updates the law for the 21st century, but could have a counter-productive effect for social harmony.

Price agrees that it goes “much further” than the law in England and Wales. He emphasises, however, that “who gets to protect the rights of others is always determined by the country in question”, and that “maximising social cohesion according to historical contexts of discrimination is a perfectly legitimate legal argument”.

This time it seems unlikely that Scotland’s proposals will be imitated in the rest of the UK. For Haywood, the invasion on private space reveals “a much greater willingness to engage in social engineering” on behalf of the SNP. “How on earth the state come inside my house not even to look into my heart, but to simply judge my words, is beyond me. What sort of evidence would they even need?”.

"The Hate Crime Bill saga points to a disturbing disconnect. The government of Scotland has, not for the first time, acted wholly against the views and priorities of the public at large. Polling and public consultations found that the vast majority of Scots oppose the stirring up hatred offences. Of course we condemn hate and prejudice. But we’re alarmed at the threat to free speech and family privacy. And women across Scotland have expressed fear that their ability to agitate for sex-based rights will be curbed. Social harmony could, ironically, be further undermined by this new law. But the public’s protestations were dismissed".

"You may think this won't affect you. But you never know when the next culture war is coming along – and what side your opinions will land you on. Humza Yousaf has repeatedly said the bill won't prevent you expressing controversial or offensive views – as long as you "don't do it in a threatening or abusive way that is likely or intended to stir up hatred".

But who decides what is "abusive" or "likely" to stir up hatred?

Some have argued that the courts can be relied upon to strike the right balance for freedom of expression. But these reassurances that we won't be convicted – which are dubious in their own right – ignore the chilling effect of legislation. For most people, the fear that speaking your mind could result in brush with the law at all would be enough to self-censor and withdraw from the debate.

Scotland's hate crime bill would be a gift to professional offence takers and a nightmare for those expected to investigate claims of hatred being 'stirred up'.

In its submission to the Scottish parliament's justice committee, the Scottish Police Federation warned the bill would "devastate the legitimacy of the police in the eyes of the public".

[Pettytyrant101]

{{ I wonder a) where you got this information from, and more importantly when it was written? Its seems wildly out of date to sum up shorter-

'MSPs made significant amendments to the current hate crime legislation when they were scrutinising the bill in parliament after lawyers, journalists and comedians raised concerns that it impinged on free speech.
Roddy Dunlop KC said the actual law was much improved from its original draft, in particular because freedom of expression was now "baked-in" to it.- BBC Scotland politics 3 days ago on their in-depth look into the bill and how it works.

Now there are concerns remaining, those mainly are what exactly will be retained by police as counting as 'hate or malicious' in records, how it will in practise be enforced as it stands police don't have the numbers for it, so it's actually unlikely to be so much enforced as more a statement of intent, and if it will lead to a swamping of trivial complaints.

Those are the main concerns around it now, its implementation. The free speech aspects of it have been gone over and over for 4 years, been debated, had public consultations and more than a dozen amendments put forward by Labour, Tories and Lib Dems, making it almost as much at this stage their bill as an SNP one. As compared to the original draft it's a different beast now.
Your post however seems to think it has not been amended and most, if not all of it, appears out of date with the current legislation.

Once it's implemented, hopefully any obvious issues will come up fairly quickly.

edit add- I found the article much of your post comes from - it was published in 2020 before any debate or amendments! on a Scottish private law firm site Lindsay's.co.uk

For the record I also opposed it in its original form back then, as it was obviously way too broad in scope and lacking in significant protections for free speech and freedom of expression. I don't oppose it now (save in that I don't think it's the most practical law from the enforcement perspective and I have concerns it will simply waste police time) because worries about free speech have been directly addressed in amendments and the law itself now has, as the lawyer for the BBC stated, freedom of speech and expression 'baked into it'.

And another thing when discussing any Scottish laws is how it works in practise, I don't know how it works in England at this level as our laws are different, but here any case before it can go to court goes before the Prosecutor Fiscal - his job, as the name implies, is to decide if the case is worth taking to court versus the cost to the taxpayer of taking it to court. This works well at weeding out poor cases the Crown has little chance of winning and trivial crimes from ever going to court.}}

[Mrs Figg]

I bet the office bullies and bitches will be wetting their pants over this. I mean, all they have to do to get revenge is Just drop into their local sex shop, dob in their enemy, without any proof, and Bobs Your uncle, the victim is investigated by the police for a hate crime. This will lead to many people losing their jobs, having a black name and create suspicion and fear. It's appalling, and I cannot imagine why anyone could be ok with this. It's like a mediaeval witch hunt.

[Pettytyrant101]

{{ The important bit there is 'investigated', or not more importantly. It's entirely within the scope of the police to decide if a claim warrants an investigation, whether it even amounts to hate speech or falls under the protections in the bill of freedom of expression, and then even if the police decide its worth pursuing they have to find substantial enough evidence of an actual crime for the Prosecutor Fiscal to think it worth the Crowns time to pursue it any further or not.
If I were you I'd worry a lot more about Goves Extremist bill which has had zero debate, zero amendments and like all Tory legislation shoved through Westminster on a nod and a wink.
The Scottish Bill has had 4 years of public scrutiny, enquiries, debates, public consultations and more before it even got to the amendments stage, of which there were many, and finally into the finished bill. And it will be scrutinised closely in action and how it operates by everyone in politics and out of it. }}

[Mrs Figg]

It's going to be really awkward in pubs/offices/football matches and dinner parties with everyone minding their manners in case they get a visit from plod. talk about 1984.

[Pettytyrant101]

{{ I'll let you know by secret code if they come to get me Figg. And I'll try to see if everyone has clammed up at dinner parties, well if anyone is actually mad enough to invite me to an actual dinner party that is. Especially not after the incident with the haggis, the bagpiper, my sporran and an inappropriately placed bottle of buckie. I did apologise once the hospital had got most of it back. And it's not everyone has an accompanying drone when they walk. }}

[Pettytyrant101]

{{ I've been watching the awful tragedy of the Baltimore bridge collapse, but question for US folks. Why is the Fire Department seemingly in charge of responses? In all the reports and all the interviews and official press conferences it's the Fire Department (now I think about it was same after 9/11 but that made more sense for it to be Fire Dept), does America not have Coast Guard, rescue at sea helicopters and such? Surely this requires emergency services trained in rescue from water. What are the Fire Dept. going to do, add more water?!}}

[halfwise]

Bridge in Baltimore. Multiple agencies are involved.  I assume you've only seen spokespeople from the fire department because reporters can't get out on the water to interview the Coast Guard.  Ambulances and rescue equipment are associated with fire departments, which is why they are there.

Funny thing about fire departments: when an ambulance is called and the fire department's is the closest one, you'll invariably get a full fire truck showing up as well, festooned with lads in their full gear and such.  Not sure why, perhaps it's just to keep them in training, perhaps it's because they're bored.  But it's funny to have some kid suffering from asthma who just needs a shot of oxygen to follow up the epi pen, and all of a sudden there's a roar of several sirens and huge vehicles with flashing lights and ladders and men in helmets and boots show up tramping all over.  Must embarass the poor kid like to death.

[Pettytyrant101]

Ambulances and rescue equipment is associated with fire departments- Halfy

{{ Ah, those would be entirely separate here. Though usually you'd get all three at a big event of course, police, fire and ambulances, and if it were at sea you'd get the Coast Guard and for something like this I would expect military sea rescue to pitch in a hand too.

I was working this morning, care, and TV was on news in background, and every time they went to speak to someone or went to an official press announcement it was the Fire Chief, which just seemed odd in such an incident for them to seemingly be in charge. }}

[halfwise]

I should add that rescue equipment and vehicles are not associated with the police department. Their only job in an emergency is to handle spectators and do traffic control.

Helicopter pilots are such a rare commodity that I wonder if each agency has their own or if it's a shared pool. You can't have such highly trained pilots just sitting around waiting for the rare rescue at sea or tracking a break-in suspect by spotlight (sort of amazing how often helicopters are used for tracking criminals). I think anyone who can fly a copter must wear multiple hats.

[Pettytyrant101]

{{ I suppose an advantage to both a small country size and being an island, I live in an isolated rural peninsula often cut off for large parts of the year by weather by both road and sea, and so rescue helicopters and a decent sized Coastguard are maintained at all times in Scotland, and getting emergency helicopters and such in from the closest major city, Glasgow, as the crow or helicopter flies, is less than 30 miles away. And of course we have three big Naval Bases with all their specialists and equipment within that same radius. Our waters are, in theory, well protected in case of major incident, at least around here they are anyway.
I just assumed any State on the coast would, in the world's richest nation, have a robust coastguard and emergency at sea teams at all times.}}