Re: The Bigger, Badder, Even More Serious Thread

[Mrs Figg]

We have another agency entirely that deals only with natural and man-made disasters. Its called the Protezione Civile. They come out for bridge disasters, floods, fires, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions and avalanches. Mostly staffed by volunteers. Obviously, they call out the fire brigade and ambulances too. But Italy has a load of natural disasters every year, so it makes sense cos if Vesuvius blows, we are all screwed.

[Mrs Figg]

[halfwise]

Incoming Petty in 5,4,3....

[Pettytyrant101]

{{ He's both right and wrong across that piece - the issues around how it will be policed, how it will be recorded are the areas of high dubiousness for me and he is right there. The actual law however does little that's actually new, the police are not so much having a new law as an old law extended. In fact the Hate Law against race, which is has been on UK statute books for over 50 years was called into use and  investigated by the police in 2020- against Scotland's now First Minister Humza over a speech he gave about the lack of minorities at the top levels in Scotland's institutions. The police found nothing to answer then (I recall Figg complaining many times about that speech, I can't seem to recall her, or anyone else opposed to the current Hate Laws, protesting then that Humza was being investigated under the Hate Crime Law as it was, or defending him against it. Funny that. They didn't seem to mind the Hate Laws then when they were being used by white people against a brown Muslim man. Not a single objection made by the people now jumping up and down shouting from the rooftops against it).

JK Rowling spent yesterday tweeting nonstop inflammatory things about trans folk, openly taunting the police to arrest her - they weren't even interested (did give me the biggest laugh of the day though - after an entire day of trying to taunt Police Scotland into arresting her and jumping up and down shouting look at me, look at me and making a big show, at end of the day Police Scotland made a single reply "Police Scotland have received no complaints about you." Talk about the perfect trolling!)

The law has three protections in it protecting free speech, one relating to UK own laws on speech, one relating to the EU Human Rights Court (we are still signed up technically to the Court bit) and the last to international rights of freedom of expression.
The devil will be in the policing. But I'm encouraged by the worlds of the Head of Police Scotland who said the law had to policed correctly as it otherwise had the potential to damage relations with the public, the fact the head of the police is aware of, and acting proportionally to the law is encouraging,

"So there are two ways potentially that we could damage trust and confidence in the police - around whether the police response meets with expectations, and whether have the police exceeded themselves in involving themselves in non-criminal matters."Ch Supt Hay said his primary concern was around resourcing as well as making sure members of the public are clear about the parameters of the law.
He also said the idea that police would target performers "couldn't be further from the truth".
"Not only do the police not have the resource to do something like that, but that is not how we operate around this sort of offense," he said.

When it comes to how the law operates and what it does-

'it states that it is a defence for a person charged with stirring up hatred to show that their actions were "reasonable." It also references the right to freedom of expression in Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which includes protection for "ideas that offend, shock or disturb."
To be convicted of a hate crime, "you have to be really threatening and really abusive, and there has to be reasonable assumption from others that that is the case,"


The law just extends the existing hate crime law to cover other areas than just race. In practise it's the difference of before the law if someone racially abused someone and hit them they would be charged with racially aggravated assault- that's how it's been in the UK for over 50 years. But the same person attacking a trans person, or an old person using derogatory language about them would only be done for assault. Now they would also be done for assault aggravated by (insert whatever it was- age, gender, sex, race here) same for race and get an accordingly stiffer punishment.

'Adam Tomkins, professor of public law at Glasgow University, and a former Conservative MSP, voted against the bill because it could see someone convicted of stirring up hatred for a comment they make in private in their own home, not just in public, "and I just don't think that's where the criminal law belongs."
However, Professor Tomkins said he believed the law only posed a risk to free speech "if it's misunderstood," adding, "if it's properly understood, I think this is a fairly safe piece of legislation now."

What's got Rowling and her mad cohorts in a twist is that biological sex is not included as a protected group, but as I may have pointed out before she is an idiot, there is an entire other bill in the process that is solely about protecting biological women's rights, as it was felt it needed its own separate bill and not to be lumped in with the rest. }}

[Mrs Figg]

{{  In fact the Hate Law against race, which is has been on UK statute books for over 50 years was called into use and investigated by the police in 2020- against Scotland's now First Minister Humza over a speech he gave about the lack of minorities at the top levels in Scotland's institutions.

Ah you mean the blatant anti-white racist rant he went on against there being too many white people in Scotland. If somebody had said black black black black instead of white white white, it would be you jumping up and down.


JK Rowling spent yesterday tweeting nonstop inflammatory things about trans folk, openly taunting the police to arrest her -

Ah you mean that she wasn't afraid of biological facts? the fact that her tweet thread listed the many male rapists, pedos and dangerous psychos who pretend to be female to game the system and predate on women and children? Its funny that the protection of women and children is seen as trolling isn't it.


When it comes to how the law operates and what it does-

'it states that it is a defence for a person charged with stirring up hatred to show that their actions were "reasonable."

Ah yes the reasonable defence. Its not reasonable to have a private conversation in your own home and someone reporting you to the police. This will be on peoples records and it will lead to injustice on the levels of North Korea.


Now they would also be done for assault aggravated by (insert whatever it was- age, gender, sex, race here) same for race and get an accordingly stiffer punishment.

7 years in prison for a private conversation in your own home. I bet China and other totalitarian states are having a good laugh over the country that began the Enlightenment.

'

What's got Rowling and her mad cohorts in a twist is that biological sex is not included as a protected group, but as I may have pointed out before she is an idiot, there is an entire other bill in the process that is solely about protecting biological women's rights, as it was felt it needed its own separate bill and not to be lumped in with the rest.

Ah you mean the women and lesbians who refuse to bend the knee to aggressive mens cult of misogynists who invade their bathrooms, rape refuges, changing rooms, and sports, by "mad cohorts"? interesting.


}}

[Pettytyrant101]

Ah you mean the blatant anti-white racist rant he went on against there being too many white people in Scotland.- Figg

{{ The speech reported by folk like you Figg, which the police investigated, under the Hate Laws in place for 50 years. You had zero complaints about the Hate Laws then. He was also found not to have broken any laws it was immediately dimissed as not coming close to the bar.

'Ah you mean that she wasn't afraid of biological facts?'

I mean under the law she is entitled to her opinion just as it was before, the bar for proving she was using hate speech as noted elsewhere is high, same as it was for race and always has been, the bar for the law has not changed at all, all that has changed is it now covers more groups than just colour of skin.

'Ah yes the reasonable defence. Its not reasonable to have a private conversation in your own home and someone reporting you to the police...7 years in prison for a private conversation in your own home.'

You havent a clue how this law actually works have you? 'Reasonable defence' has been a central pillar of UK law on many things not least freedom of expression. The only possible circumstances in which that could be the case is if someone, in their home was violently, aggressively and threateningly acting towards people present of a protected group who then reported the person to the police, for that then to meet the criteria, ie not covered by the protections for free speech or those under the Human Rights Convention which is the exact same across all of Europe, then it would have to be meet the police bar for prosecution, then the Prosecutor Fiscal bar for it being serious enough for court, then it would have to be proved before a jury who would then have to deem it serious enough to give the maximum 7 year sentence. No one is afraid to talk in Scotland, nothing has changed since the 1st.
Incidentally if someone were to do exactly the above, in their own home, only it was racism, they could before this law ever existed, at any time in the last 50 years been reported for something they said in their own home. This has been true for decades. It's true in England, Wales and N Ireland right now you can be prosecuted for something said in your own home- but again it would have to meet a high bar for prosecution.

'Ah you mean the women and lesbians who refuse to bend the knee to aggressive mens cult of misogynists who invade their bathrooms, rape refuges, changing rooms, and sports, by "mad cohorts"? interesting.'

Nope, I meant none of those things, you just made that all up. I mean the deliberate misrepresenting, promoting of lies and deliberate falsehoods in a way that seeks to undermine protections for minority groups often the victims of abuse or violence. You know like the way Rowling went on a mad rant over the gender recognition act and how it would make it illegal in Scotland to have a biological only women's refuge- whilst funding a perfectly legal under the law biological women's only refuge in Edinburgh that would be uneffected by the law. That sort of deliberate lying and distortion of truth she regularly indulges in for her attention seeking needs.}}

[Mrs Figg]

[quote="Pettytyrant101"]Ah you mean the blatant anti-white racist rant he went on against there being too many white people in Scotland.- Figg

{{ The speech reported by folk like you Figg, which the police investigated, under the Hate Laws in place for 50 years. You had zero complaints about the Hate Laws then. He was also found not to have broken any laws it was immediately dimissed as not coming close to the bar.

'Ah you mean that she wasn't afraid of biological facts?'

I mean under the law she is entitled to her opinion just as it was before, the bar for proving she was using hate speech as noted elsewhere is high, same as it was for race and always has been, the bar for the law has not changed at all, all that has changed is it now covers more groups than just colour of skin.

More groups that include a notoriously offended group who enjoy vexatious reporting to the police. On April 1st they banged off thousands of complaints against a woman who represents everything they most hate. First off that she won't back down when bullied and sent rape and death threats, and secondly, she is financially untouchable. They hate her for that. There exist laws that protect the other groups such as age, disability or religion. But everyone knows this was just done to give all the power to biological men over women.


'Ah yes the reasonable defence. Its not reasonable to have a private conversation in your own home and someone reporting you to the police...7 years in prison for a private conversation in your own home.'

You havent a clue how this law actually works have you? 'Reasonable defence' has been a central pillar of UK law on many things not least freedom of expression. The only possible circumstances in which that could be the case is if someone, in their home was violently, aggressively and threateningly acting towards people present of a protected group who then reported the person to the police, for that then to meet the criteria, ie not covered by the protections for free speech or those under the Human Rights Convention which is the exact same across all of Europe, then it would have to be meet the police bar for prosecution, then the Prosecutor Fiscal bar for it being serious enough for court, then it would have to be proved before a jury who would then have to deem it serious enough to give the maximum 7 year sentence. No one is afraid to talk in Scotland, nothing has changed since the 1st.

Nope, this is a Bullies Charter based on subjective 'feelings' with zero proof needed. This is all about perceived offence and not only is it impossible to police, but it will also open the floodgates for nasty vexatious grievances. The SNP are flirting with 17th century witch trials. They did this to women hundreds of years ago, and it's always against women who refuse to accept male gynephilia cults who will be prosecuted the most. That is why JKR flung down the gauntlet to Police Scotland.


Incidentally if someone were to do exactly the above, in their own home, only it was racism, they could before this law ever existed, at any time in the last 50 years been reported for something they said in their own home. This has been true for decades. It's true in England, Wales and N Ireland right now you can be prosecuted for something said in your own home- but again it would have to meet a high bar for prosecution.

Nope, not in the privacy of your own home.

Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 - Stirring Up Religious Hatred
"The Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 came into force on 1 October 2007. It created new offences of stirring up religious hatred, which are significantly different from the race hate offences contained within Part III of the Public Order Act 1986. The Act defines “religious hatred” as hatred against a group of persons defined by reference to religious belief or lack of religious belief.

The offence is committed if a person uses threatening words or behaviour, or displays any written material, which is threatening, if he intends thereby to stir up religious hatred. Threatening is the operative word, not abusive or insulting. Possession, publication, or distribution of inflammatory material is also an offence. The offence can be committed in a public or private place, but not within a dwelling, unless the offending words and behaviour were heard outside the dwelling, and were intended to be heard. The defendant must intend to stir up religious hatred; recklessness is not enough.

There is a freedom of expression defence contained in Section 29J, which confirms that nothing in the Act "... prohibits or restricts discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult, or abuse of particular religions, or the beliefs or practices of its adherents."

[Pettytyrant101]

On April 1st they banged off thousands of complaints against a woman who represents everything they most hate.

{ Police Scotland posted, they said today they received nearly 3000 complaints in total - all most all of them against Humza and his speech put in by idiots on the right. And that they have no intention of charging JK as she hasnt broken the law, despite her pathetic attempts to try to for controversy’s sake, she is possibly so deluded and ignorant at this point she thought that's how the law actually worked, having spoken so much misinformation and rubbish about it, that she actually thought those tweets would get her arrested and she could martyr herself.
In other words clowns flooded the police with spurious complaints about Humza to try to screw up the system. None of which are even going to be investigated as they already checked Humza speech at the time when folk complained and found nothing to answer to.
They also said they had no intention of charging JK with anything.
The evidence so far is not that it's being used against women, it's being used by women against a brown Muslim man to try to persecute and prosecute him. Ironic really but not surprising. The opposition to this like Rowling bang on and on for months what a terrible bill it is, what a terrible law, how it's an infringement without ever having read it, watched or listened to the debates or the committee meeting evidence in the development of it, nor know a single amendment to it, then they are first to use it, and they only use it to try to harm and hurt someone. Evil hypocrites if you ask me.

'this is a Bullies Charter based on subjective 'feelings' with zero proof needed. '

Rubbish. The Crown needs to prove that, 'To be a crime it has to be threatening and abusive with the intent to a stir up hatred toward an individual and this would cause that individual to have fear or alarm.'


You are still in the privacy of our own home if your overhead- my old neighbour used to stick sectarian music on and sing the sash and other controversial anti-catholic songs, and you could hear it in the street outside- he got reported and done almost every other month for the music he chose to listen to. These sort of laws are nothing new. Freedom to rubbish religions and such is protected by the Human Rights Convention which this law succumbs to.

How you can say its anti-women when women are getting an entire bill all to themselves to protect biological women and their rights is beyond me. Women in England will receive no such protection - maybe your concern should lie there and not in my country, where women I can tell you are not shaking in their boots about this or curbing their views and where legislation is not passed until its been debated, scrutinised, publicly debated and gone through several years of refinement before becoming law, rather than in England where the 'extremist' language bill, designed to shut down freedom of expression and speech passed within week sof being announced without even a vote in the House. This bill in no way stops someone from saying a trans women is a biological man - JK spent all day trying to get arrested saying just that and failed pathetically but hysterically in doing so.}}

[Pettytyrant101]

{{ BBC have a solid, concise piece on what the law actually says and does here-

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cyxzz5ynxvlo

when you read it, then read what the right wing press and anti-SNP folk are saying about it you can clearly see just how ridiculous and hysterical thy are over it, and how either misinformed they or, or they more likely are deliberately lying about it knowing how it actually works for their own reasons. }}

[Mrs Figg]

Lets face it, if the English government had done this, you would have been hopping mad.

[Pettytyrant101]

{{ What the English government has done is far more chilling and dangerous, not to mention anti-democratic and downright sneaky - they got a legal change to the definition of 'extremism' in order to shut down pro-Palestinian protests and more broadly the right to protest at all. And evil Gove got it by doing a runaround of the Commons, as it wasn't technically a change of law and so managed to alter the definition, effectively change entirely how the law operates as the definition of a key word has changed, and he did it all in a matter of days without a single parliamentary debate and not a single vote cast.

The Scottish law took 4 years, had many, many public consultations as well as hearing from panels of experts in many fields, and then it was debated extensively in the Scottish Parliament for 2 years, was amended many times, and finally was voted through into law- and bear in mind the SNP is a minority government in a proportional representation system, they can't pass anything unless members of other parties support and vote for it too, as was the case here, with only the Tories voting against on mass, joined by a smattering of labour some SNP and independents, the bill passed on SNP, Labour and Lib Dem, Greens and some independent votes (and 1 Tory).
That is democracy, what has happened in England is not. I'd look to the state of your own doorstep before you complain about mine Figg. }}

[Mrs Figg]

Yet oddly there are pro-Palestine protests every week. Odd that.

It is also a lie that all groups have consented to this bill.

"A variety of groups have suggested the bill could stifle free speech."

The Scottish Police Federation said it “appears to paralyse freedom of speech in Scotland” and “could lead to police officers determining free speech and thereby devastate the legitimacy of the police service” and that it had regulations “too vague to be implemented”.

"The Law Society of Scotland said that with its imprecision, the bill “presents a significant threat to freedom of expression, with the potential for what may be abusive or insulting to become criminalized”.

In their submission on the bill, Scottish bishops noted that pronouncements of Catholic teaching on sex and gender “might be perceived by others as an abuse of their own, personal worldview and likely to stir up hatred.” The bishops also noted that recently public figures have been accused of “transphobia” for arguing that men cannot become women and vice versa.
“Many have also been accused of hate for using pronouns corresponding with an individual’s biological or birth sex. The freedom to express these arguments and beliefs must be protected,”

so that's already 3 important groups who have not had their doubts listened to. Not to mention gender critical feminists and other womens groups. They just got ignored by the zealots.

[Pettytyrant101]

Yet oddly there are pro-Palestine protests every week. Odd that. - Figg

{{Because the change has not taken effect yet.

'It is also a lie that all groups have consented to this bill.'

I dont recall claiming they had. I did say it was made law with a cross-party vote of support, even including one conservative. The SNp cannot pass any laws on their own, they are a minority government they are reliant on others being persuaded to vote with them.

'The Scottish Police Federation said it “appears to paralyse freedom of speech in Scotland” and “could lead to police officers determining free speech and thereby devastate the legitimacy of the police service” and that it had regulations “too vague to be implemented”.

That quote comes originally form the Catholic News agency, the article is dated 2020. $ years ago, 4 years of debate, 4 years of amendments. I opposed the original bill for being too vague and not having enough safeguards, now it its not vague, its explicit in the bar for criminality, and it's got a triple lock of safeguards for freedom of speech and expression.

To quote the FM today in response to the police not arresting JK for her tweets-

"Anybody who read the act will not have been surprised at all that there's no arrests made. JK Rowling's tweets may well be offensive, upsetting and insulting to trans people.
But it doesn't mean that they meet a threshold of criminality of being threatening or abusive and intending to stir up hatred."

The current head of the police I quoted above discussing the actual law, you know the one just made a law not the proposals for a law from 4 years ago, said he is very aware of the sensitives around it and that it needs proper implementation, and has no objection to it save concerns over manpower - which I share.

"The Law Society of Scotland said that with its imprecision, the bill “presents a significant threat to freedom of expression, with the potential for what may be abusive or insulting to become criminalized”.

Again a quote made in 2020 that is irrelevant to the actual law on the books today as they are barely alike save in aims.

As to the Bishops, again the quotes are 4 years out of date, and clearly you never bothered reading the BBC link above explaining what the law actually does, or you would have seen this entire section-

For religion, the law is slightly different.

'Behaviour or material is not to be taken to be threatening or abusive solely on the basis that it involves or includes discussion or criticism relating to, or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule or insult towards -

(i) religion, whether religions generally or a particular religion,

(ii) religious beliefs or practices, whether religious beliefs or practices generally or a particular religious belief or practice,

(iii) the position of not holding religious beliefs, whether religious beliefs generally or a particular religious belief,

(c) proselytising, or

(d) urging of persons to cease practising their religions.

This is important, say some campaigners, because it extends more protection to criticism of religion that it does to, say, criticism of some transgender activism.'

Religion is the most protected area, as it always has had in Scottish law it occupies its own space. }}

[Mrs Figg]

Ah yes, the BBC, that bastion of unbiased reporting. No ta.

[Lancebloke]

You could look at the details of the law yourself and not take any media interpretation of it.

On another note... this whole Russia situation. A lot of Eastern Europe and other countries around the world seem to really be getting themselves in to gear for another big punch up. Even the Japanese and French.

I really don't fancy being involved in war. I don't think it will go very well for anyone.

[Pettytyrant101]

Ah yes, the BBC, that bastion of unbiased reporting. No ta.- Figg

{{ They are directly reporting the wording of the bill Figg- that is what is in the law, its not an opinion piece it's just the facts. I know you aren't too keen on facts getting in the way of a good SNP-bashing narrative but they are rather important. And as Lance says you could just read the actual bill instead of throwing up all this out of date, irrelevant 4 year old rubbish over and over. And the BBC are no friends of the SNP they are Unionist through and through, clues in the name BRITISH Broadcasting Service.


Lance- yes the appetite and mood for war seem to be growing across Europe. Can't say I'm too happy about the notion either, especially as I live smack bang in the centre of a triangle of death in terms of targets!  Best thing could happen is for Putin to have a fatal heart attack or something and moderates to make a coup, but I don't see that happening any time soon sadly.}}

[Lancebloke]

It seems to be across the world, not just Europe.

And it seems the likely aggressors in such a war are already a year or two ahead of the rest of us in getting ready for it all.

I am not sure what to make of the China/Taiwan situation but there seems to be some very real evidence that will all kick off in the next 5 years. And what better time for them to do it with Europe distracted by Russia and what better time for Russia with the US caught up in Asia.

Israel and Iran look like they are about to have a go soon enough too!

And as for the 'triangle of death'... of it comes to that you are probably in the place you want to be. I hope I am in Central London that day as I don't fancy surviving it.

[halfwise]

And in the midst of this silly discussion about the Scottish hate speech law the Israelis appear to have deliberately targetted Central Kitchen: a worldwide aid group that serves meals to civilians in disaster areas. They had given Israel a detailed schedule of vehicle movements, were moving in marked vehicles, and yet 3 of the vehicles were hit by missiles.

This is slightly personal for me because I'm a big fan of the man who started it: a Spanish chef who brought the idea of the Tapas restaurant to the US. I used to time my visits to washington DC around happy hour so I could hit his restaurant right off the bus. When Trump began attacking immigrants he pulled out of a deal with the new Trump hotel in downtown DC because most of his staff were immigrants (I'm guessing all were legal at the time but likely some did not cross the border legally).

A decade ago when the US was hit by multiple hurricanes he formed Central Kitchen, with the rational that nobody would know how to feed large numbers of people better than professional cooks, and many line cooks and chefs staffed his quick response units from Houston, to Puerto Rico, to Syria and now Gaza.

[Pettytyrant101]

{{ I stopped commenting on it as the horrors inflicted by Israel, the war crimes, the evil they are doing is off the charts, it's beyond words.
Today 600 of the UK top lawyers, including 3 former Supreme Judges wrote an open letter to the Uk government to stop selling Israel arms are we are at risk of being culpable in genocide, it's unbelievable.
And I see when not content with shutting down every hospital, cutting off aid and supplies, herding millions into a tiny patch of land to starve them, murdering 10's of thousands of innocent people and targeting aid workers and all their facilities, they are now trying to prevent the world from hearing what they are doing by passing a law which allows Netanyahu to ban foreign journalists- starting with Al-Jazeera, which has been globally applauded throughout the conflict for its high quality reporting.
They are utterly a rogue state embarked on a course of genocide. And we cannot stand by them, help them, or supply them with support of any kind or we too are culpable of genocide. }}

[Mrs Figg]

{{ They are directly reporting the wording of the bill Figg- that is what is in the law, its not an opinion piece it's just the facts. I know you aren't too keen on facts getting in the way of a good SNP-bashing narrative but they are rather important. And as Lance says you could just read the actual bill instead of throwing up all this out of date, irrelevant 4 year old rubbish over and over. And the BBC are no friends of the SNP they are Unionist through and through, clues in the name BRITISH Broadcasting Service.
.}}

I read the 'actual Bill' and it looks like Useless, the proven anti-white racist, is banging in anti-blasphemy laws through the back door.

That doesn't make me anti-SNP, which is just a rather obvious tactic to shut down debate because you know deep down that i am right. Actually, I dont have much of an opinion of the SNP at all, they dont interest me enough.

And do try to make an effort to debate the question rather than insulting the person.

[Pettytyrant101]

{{ If you have read the bill Figg then you know that everything you have recently posted about it is utter nonsense and four years out of date, from when the bill was proposed, I assume you therefore withdraw it. And you should be especially pleased Scotland is getting a law solely dedicated to the protection of biological women's rights, which forms the other half of this law in its totality. }}

[Mrs Figg]

Please let me know how the facts about the consultations are 'utter nonsense' and how the police, the lawyers and bishops have changed their opinions in the intervening years. Are they all happy bunnies now? Because I doubt it.

How about this from 2 days ago.

"Moreover, enforcement authorities, particularly the Scottish Police, have expressed apprehensions regarding the Act’s implementation. The Scottish Police Federation (SPF) has pointed out shortcomings in the training provided to police officers tasked with enforcing the new laws. Similarly, Rob Hay, Chief Superintendent and President of the Association of Scottish Police Superintendents (ASPS), has voiced anxieties over the potential misuse of the legislation, fearing it could be “weaponized” for political purposes, thus complicating police work and affecting their impartiality."

https://www.jurist.org/features/2024/04/02/explainer-why-is-scotlands-new-hate-crime-legislation-so-controversial/

from last month

"Katharina Kasper, chairwoman of the Scottish Police Authority’s complaints and conduct committee, said at a Police Authority meeting that: “The concerns that have been expressed are that by the time an allegation is made and an investigation starts, the process itself can become a punishment which may have a chilling effect on the freedom of expression”.

She told Chief Constable of Police Scotland, Jo Farrell, that “credible voices across the judicial sector and human rights organisations” do not believe that sufficient safeguards have been put in place to protect freedom of speech, according to a report in The Times."

https://gript.ie/scottish-police-watchdog-hate-speech-law-may-have-chilling-effect-on-free-speech/

so NOT outof date and NOT nonsense.

[Pettytyrant101]

{{ Rather than choice quotes you should research where they come from first and read the full thing, its much more enlightening Figg.
For example your link, if you google for where the quote you note comes from you get the full interview, which is not as the out of context quote makes it seem-

'He said ASPS was supportive of the objectives of the Act in tackling hatred against protected groups, but they had concerns around police resourcing.
The senior officer also said the “febrile” context of online debate could affect the way the law is seen.
Mr Hay said: “Our concern is that could impact through a huge uplift, potentially, in reports – some of those potentially made in good faith but perhaps not meeting the threshold of the legislation.
“So there are two ways potentially that we could damage trust and confidence in the police, around whether the police response meets with expectations, and whether have the police exceeded themselves in involving themselves in non-criminal matters.”

I quoted this before as an example of how the police are perfectly aware of the sensibilities around the law and how important it is to apply it correctly. This is not a bad thing, it's a good thing the police are on board with the aims are cognitive of how the law operates, they have concerns over resourcing (which I share) and they have concerns over how material is recorded (which I share), and they have concerns over the hysterical misreporting of what it does in the UK media, as repeated by you here. They have no concerns over freedom of speech or expression, in the same interview the head of the police calls the idea they would arrest for that as  'utter nonsense'. }}

[Mrs Figg]

Let's talk in a year after the mass demonstrations, lawsuits and miscarriages of justice, and breakdowns in families, relationships and communities. It won'tt be pretty.

[Pettytyrant101]

{{ I see the US is finally at least hinting that they might consider threatening Israel with withholding arms if they dont do something about civilian deaths and suffering in Gaza. I won't hold my breath for the US to actually do anything, I believe the Jewish lobby in US politics is way too strong (a problem in itself) and there is too much money flowing into Senators pockets both from those Jewish groups, their supporters in business and the arms industry. It's America, when has morality ever played a part in their foreign policy save in lip-service to it? Looking to America for moral guidance is like looking to me for tips on sobriety. They are after all the country to have committed one of the worst atrocities in human history, as the only country to have ever used nuclear weapons against civilian populations.}}