Sherrif John Bunnell Posted April 4 Share Posted April 4 Murdo Fraser is just your standard Rangers da from Inverness who somehow ended up being an MSP. 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sparky88 Posted April 4 Share Posted April 4 (edited) 15 hours ago, GordonS said: No, that's not "tbf". It's anything but fair. Underrepresentation of women and minorities in senior roles in the public and private sectors is well-documented and can only have one of two possible causes: white men are better than everyone else or there are institutional and systemic barriers. Which is it? Underrepresentation of women is definitely present. I'd suggest it's almost completely down to the effects of maternity leave on careers. But lumping 'minorities' together is not helpful at all. Particularly in a country as ethnically homogenous as Scotland. Edited April 4 by sparky88 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted April 4 Share Posted April 4 Does anyone know why religious views are ‘protected’ by this Act yet political views are not? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salt n Vinegar Posted April 4 Share Posted April 4 2 minutes ago, Granny Danger said: Does anyone know why religious views are ‘protected’ by this Act yet political views are not? If I was being cynical I'd suggest that politicians fear the votes of "the religious" therefore are wary of upsetting them. We're not quite as bad as parts of the USA...yet. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted April 4 Share Posted April 4 (edited) 27 minutes ago, Granny Danger said: Does anyone know why religious views are ‘protected’ by this Act yet political views are not? Religion is often used as code for race, so Muslim is often used interchangeably with South Asian. You often get racists claiming they can't be because Islam/Judaism/Catholicism isn't a race. Political opinion isn't used the same way. P.S. The Act specifically rules out criticism of religious ideas and practices as an offence, it also abolishes the offense of blasphemy. Edited April 4 by welshbairn 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Diamond For Me Posted April 4 Share Posted April 4 I would trust the legal expertise of JK Rowling (or Ali McCoist) about as much as I would trust the epidemiological expertise of Right Said Fred. These are not serious people, we don't need to treat them seriously and its a sign of a deeply unserious media culture that everyone pretends that we do. 11 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alta-pete Posted April 4 Share Posted April 4 Just now, A Diamond For Me said: I would trust the legal expertise of JK Rowling (or Ali McCoist) about as much as I would trust the epidemiological expertise of Right Said Fred. These are not serious people, we don't need to treat them seriously and its a sign of a deeply unserious media culture that everyone pretends that we do. Yet we are to take the current incumbents at Holyrood as serious people? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leith Green Posted April 4 Share Posted April 4 7 minutes ago, alta-pete said: Yet we are to take the current incumbents at Holyrood as serious people? Do you think they drafted the bill all by themselves? With no legal input? Answer below - Spoiler No, no they didn't......... 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alta-pete Posted April 4 Share Posted April 4 12 minutes ago, Leith Green said: Do you think they drafted the bill all by themselves? With no legal input? Answer below - Reveal hidden contents No, no they didn't......... Help me out a wee bit here - what's your point caller? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HTG Posted April 4 Share Posted April 4 5 minutes ago, alta-pete said: Help me out a wee bit here - what's your point caller? Sigh ... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted April 4 Share Posted April 4 33 minutes ago, Salt n Vinegar said: If I was being cynical I'd suggest that politicians fear the votes of "the religious" therefore are wary of upsetting them. We're not quite as bad as parts of the USA...yet. I don’t accept that explanation. The U.K. as a whole, and Scotland slightly more so, is increasingly secular. Religious views are (thankfully) playing a lesser rather than a greater role in our society. 24 minutes ago, welshbairn said: Religion is often used as code for race, so Muslim is often used interchangeably with South Asian. You often get racists claiming they can't be because Islam/Judaism/Catholicism isn't a race. Political opinion isn't used the same way. P.S. The Act specifically rules out criticism of religious ideas and practices as an offence, it also abolishes the offense of blasphemy. Doesn’t fully explain it. I get that racists often hide behind criticism of religion but doesn’t explain why political views are not being offered the same ‘protection’ as religious views. Shouting ‘little Tory b*****d’ at WDR as he runs the line on Saturday would not be prohibited under this Act. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
itzdrk Posted April 4 Share Posted April 4 14 hours ago, The Golden God said: Imagine spending so much time being raging that you can’t say nasty stuff online without the possibly of consequences. Imagine telling everyone proudly that your Da was a bigot. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J_Stewart Posted April 4 Share Posted April 4 13 minutes ago, alta-pete said: Help me out a wee bit here - what's your point caller? The point is that in addition to the elected Ministers involved who you've highlighted, the bill will also have been drafted by legal experts. It will also have been read and re-drafted countless times, both within the Government and their advisors and legal counsel, and with members of affected groups (religious heads, LGBTQ leaders, racism activists, police scotland, etc, etc) until the point that the legality of the bill and the understanding of its enactment and the subsequent effects were considered, risk assessed, understood and accepted, so yes, I would suggest that there were serious people involved in the drafting and placement of this Bill. I would also suggest that Rowling and McCoist do not fall in to that category, especially as neither of the fucking idiots actually understands it. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salvo Montalbano Posted April 4 Share Posted April 4 3 hours ago, velo army said: It's often shortened to tink and is generally used to describe that family on the street whose children are frequently unkempt and whose garden looks like it suffered a very localised hurricane. Also interchangeable with traveller families. I can feel my chest tighten as I write that as I don't like how that word is used at all. Gyppo I've only ever heard referring to Clyde supporters, but I dare say that's a Jags thing. I'm deepest, darkest Fife growning up a "tink" just meant a bit dirty. Your mum or dad would say "wash your face, you're a tink" or similar. I think "mink" was also used - not sure if it was a rhyming slang type situation or a combination of tink and manky? A tinker was someone who dealt in second hand goods, often but not exclusively door to door. Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy. Rich Man, Poor Man, Beggar Man, Thief. Never heard either refer to a traveller though - they were usually "gypsies" (which of course is mostly ignorance as some but not all travellers were romany gypsies). Incidentally, when I lived in Southampton, travellers were called "diddicois" (might be/probably spelling that wrong). No idea of the origins of that or if it was/is deemed offensive though. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salt n Vinegar Posted April 4 Share Posted April 4 (edited) 19 minutes ago, Granny Danger said: I don’t accept that explanation. The U.K. as a whole, and Scotland slightly more so, is increasingly secular. Religious views are (thankfully) playing a lesser rather than a greater role in our society. Doesn’t fully explain it. I get that racists often hide behind criticism of religion but doesn’t explain why political views are not being offered the same ‘protection’ as religious views. Shouting ‘little Tory b*****d’ at WDR as he runs the line on Saturday would not be prohibited under this Act. I agree with much of what you say, however I can imagine the "tears and snotters" that would erupt (that would not be a pretty sight, I grant you!) if a Scottish political party was to even consider having in its manifesto a commitment to abolish having different schools for different sects of the same religion. Edited April 4 by Salt n Vinegar 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D Angelo Barksdale Posted April 4 Share Posted April 4 If a post on here is reported as a hate crime will @Div and the mods have to supply Johnny Law with the poster's email address and IP ? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sherrif John Bunnell Posted April 4 Share Posted April 4 1 hour ago, alta-pete said: Yet we are to take the current incumbents at Holyrood as serious people? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
velo army Posted April 4 Share Posted April 4 41 minutes ago, Salvo Montalbano said: I'm deepest, darkest Fife growning up a "tink" just meant a bit dirty. Your mum or dad would say "wash your face, you're a tink" or similar. I think "mink" was also used - not sure if it was a rhyming slang type situation or a combination of tink and manky? A tinker was someone who dealt in second hand goods, often but not exclusively door to door. Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy. Rich Man, Poor Man, Beggar Man, Thief. Never heard either refer to a traveller though - they were usually "gypsies" (which of course is mostly ignorance as some but not all travellers were romany gypsies). Incidentally, when I lived in Southampton, travellers were called "diddicois" (might be/probably spelling that wrong). No idea of the origins of that or if it was/is deemed offensive though. I first heard this word on Peaky Blinders and it was always a loaded word. Whenever it was uttered I knew that violence to the tune of some noughties indy rock was imminent. Aye I've heard tink used interchangeably with travellers and general underclass folk from somewhat chaotic houses. Nae nice looking back on it tbh. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GHF-23 Posted April 4 Share Posted April 4 1 hour ago, A Diamond For Me said: I would trust the legal expertise of JK Rowling (or Ali McCoist) about as much as I would trust the epidemiological expertise of Right Said Fred. These are not serious people, we don't need to treat them seriously and its a sign of a deeply unserious media culture that everyone pretends that we do. 1 hour ago, alta-pete said: Yet we are to take the current incumbents at Holyrood as serious people? 1 hour ago, Leith Green said: Do you think they drafted the bill all by themselves? With no legal input? Answer below - Reveal hidden contents No, no they didn't......... 1 hour ago, alta-pete said: Help me out a wee bit here - what's your point caller? This is what I mean when I talk about people pretending to be stupid. Maybe I'm giving too much credit but is it not embarrassing to pretend that you don't understand the difference between the views of random celebs and the work of the elected representatives of the people with the support of the civil service, qualified and experienced legal professionals and stakeholders from across civil society? I'm not even all that keen on the bill, and can't stand this Scottish Government, but to see people act as if they've suffered a serious brain injury and react to people calmly and simply explaining this bill and the reasoning behind it by making your eyes glaze over and saying "oh by golly I can't possibly understand this" as we've seen throughout the last pages is just weird. 12 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coprolite Posted April 4 Share Posted April 4 1 hour ago, Granny Danger said: I don’t accept that explanation. The U.K. as a whole, and Scotland slightly more so, is increasingly secular. Religious views are (thankfully) playing a lesser rather than a greater role in our society. Doesn’t fully explain it. I get that racists often hide behind criticism of religion but doesn’t explain why political views are not being offered the same ‘protection’ as religious views. Shouting ‘little Tory b*****d’ at WDR as he runs the line on Saturday would not be prohibited under this Act. Political views aren't a protected characteristic under the equalities acts so you'd have the whole rigmarole of defining and delineating the realm of the political. That's a lot of effort for a headline and could well have taken this past an election year. Politics is protected in NI. But society deems that it's ok to incite hatred for some reasons and not others. Alongside champagne socialists like yourself, it's still ok to incite hate against gingers, fat people (so long as they're not disabled by being so fat) and people whose names you dislike. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.