The Gender Debate

[Wee-Bey]

3 minutes ago, The_Kincardine said:

Absolutely.  Broad movements have their issues.  It's one reason I stopped my Tory subscription.  I didn't feel that, as a one-nation, pro-EU supporter, I was well represented.  I'm now happy to sit on the fence and choose according to who represents my constituency or ward best.

Not touching this bait.

14 minutes ago, The_Kincardine said:

Your problem is that ScotchNattery is as narrow a movement as narrow can get with one single aim:  to partition Britain.  Yet you can't even aim at that without hating each other. 

Schrodinger's Independence movement ? A broad movement with everyone fighting with each other over various aims but also a narrow movement with only one aim ?

15 minutes ago, The_Kincardine said:

You have fucked this up massively.

You sound like my wife. And you get the same answer, it's not my fault.

[itzdrk]

3 hours ago, DeeTillEhDeh said:

The clear consequence of her position is that staff should have been sacked for not cooperating.

That might be legally correct but politically it's a fucking dreadful look.

The only person that should be sacked is whoever it was thought it appropriate to approach her to take part in the event in the first place.  

[Wee-Bey]

18 minutes ago, The_Kincardine said:

How fucked in the head do you have to be to argue with each other about how Scotch you are?

I've just noticed your edit. This is absolutely not what anyone is arguing about here.

[The_Kincardine]

8 minutes ago, Marlo Stanfield said:

I've just noticed your edit. This is absolutely not what anyone is arguing about here.

This, though, is exactly what is happening within the very narrow-focussed - single objective - Nationalist movement.

You are all fighting with each other over how iJock should look.  Meanwhile, ignoring the 55+ percent of ordinary Scots who think you're no more than a thicket of hate-fuelled halfwits who like donning the Glengarry and turning their dugs into unicorns.

Edited May 8, 2023 by The_Kincardine

[Antlion]

20 minutes ago, The_Kincardine said:

 

You are all fighting with each other over how iJock should look.  Meanwhile, ignoring the 55+ percent of ordinary Scots who think you're no more than a thicket of hate-fuelled halfwits who like donning the Glengarry and turning their dugs into unicorns.

You really do seem absolutely consumed by hatred and bitterness. I assume this is part and parcel of the ultra nationalism that drove you into the arms of Twitter’s far-right extremist mob, and led you into such lunacy as demanding that the Irish be forcefully repatriated under London rule. It’s really a shame that there doesn’t seem to be family or friends around to talk you out of these constant invective-filled rants. 

[itzdrk]

1 hour ago, Trogdor said:

It is cut and dry. It's no coincidence that the KC opinion Cherry has sought is from O'Neill. Who represented Graham in the case against the SEC. This won't make it to court though as the Stand will settle it rather than lose and have to pay costs as well.

This is unlawful discrimination on the Stand's part. There is no mitigation irrespective of what their staff think. The principle is the same as if this was a Trans comic whose event had been cancelled. Or a bartender refusing to serve a gay person because of their sexual orientation. It is still discrimination in the eyes of the law. All of these are protected chatacteristics under the EA. 

This really isn't as difficult (from a legal stand point) as those who despise JC are making it out.

Yeah, the Stand fucked it here - legally. 

Morally - spot on, eventually, shouldn't have been booked in the first place.  

Edited May 8, 2023 by itzdrk

[Wee Bully]

4 minutes ago, Antlion said:

You really do seem absolutely consumed by hatred and bitterness. I assume this is part and parcel of the ultra nationalism that drove you into the arms of Twitter’s far-right extremist mob, and led you into such lunacy as demanding that the Irish be forcefully repatriated under London rule. It’s really a shame that there doesn’t seem to be family or friends around to talk you out of these constant invective-filled rants. 

He still hasn’t told us about the “joke” with the apartheid SA flag in his profile at one point.  There is one bottle, hate filled person on this board, and it isn’t any of the tartan gonks. 

[itzdrk]

 

34 minutes ago, The_Kincardine said:

This, though, is exactly what is happening within the very narrow-focussed - single objective - Nationalist movement.

You are all fighting with each other over how iJock should look.  Meanwhile, ignoring the 55+ percent of ordinary Scots who think you're no more than a thicket of hate-fuelled halfwits who like donning the Glengarry and turning their dugs into unicorns.

Bank holidays must be tough man, you'll get to speak to a human in the office tomorrow. 

[Antlion]

3 minutes ago, Wee Bully said:

He still hasn’t told us about the “joke” with the apartheid SA flag in his profile at one point.  There is one bottle, hate filled person on this board, and it isn’t any of the tartan gonks. 

I suspect he knows he went too far in his creation of the persona there, and doesn’t want that mentioned. For the last few years, he seems to have turned his account into an extreme parody of its original hard-nationalist, flag-shagging, Home Counties wannabe Hyacinth Bucket - presumably playing to the imagined gallery, though why anyone would feel the need to deliver up such an odious, hate-filled avatar is anyone’s guess. Presumably it fills the lonely hours.

[The_Kincardine]

2 hours ago, Wee Bully said:

He still hasn’t told us about the “joke” with the apartheid SA flag in his profile at one point.  There is one bottle, hate filled person on this board, and it isn’t any of the tartan gonks. 

Yeah.  Solicitor-Advocates across Scotland are raging at Humza's interference in the judicial system.  Wee Jo Cherry is taking Tommy - £250K covid money - Sheppard to court.  Humza - again - is whining about how toxic politics in Jockland is.  

The entire north region of Britain is being torn apart by neds, boors and Shinner.  Yet, of course, I'm the hateful one.

"wad some pow'r the giftie gie us..."

[Leith Green]

6 hours ago, Trogdor said:

The letter from her solicitor even includes the KC opinion. I'd advise reading it before bed as it's a bit dry. Edit - The KC opinion is here, it weighs in at 52 pages. https://t.co/ZwKVNLA47Q

I'm no apologist for JC but the law is the law and the Stand's action is unlawful.

I did read it. And you are right of course that JC has rights protected in law.

As I have said, The Stand was happy to host her, but of course they also have legal obligations in order that shows go ahead - Rock and hard place for them imo.

I think what will happen here is - she will get her apology, but I still dont think the show will happen (in that venue). Lets just see what happens?

As I have said before, I dont think Cherry should be silenced (frankly, people should be allowed to hear her pish and heckle her live......) but as a result of this, all thats ultimately going to happen is that promoters and venues will refuse to book anyone except the anodyne Josh Widdicombes of this world.

Thats not a healthy outcome.

 

[Theroadlesstravelled]

Another case of #gowokegobroke

[Wee-Bey]

8 hours ago, The_Kincardine said:

This, though, is exactly what is happening within the very narrow-focussed - single objective - Nationalist movement.

You are all fighting with each other over how iJock should look.  Meanwhile, ignoring the 55+ percent of ordinary Scots who think you're no more than a thicket of hate-fuelled halfwits who like donning the Glengarry and turning their dugs into unicorns.

I would have thought that there was a lot more pressing issues facing the country to get this vexed about than the internecine dramas of the SNP tbh.

[Mr Waldo]

8 hours ago, itzdrk said:

Yeah, the Stand fucked it here - legally. 

Morally - spot on, eventually, shouldn't have been booked in the first place.  

Yep. Freedom of Speech is alive and well, as long as it is saying something I agree with.

For this reason, we've now got a UK government that tells police to arrest people who do not like the Monarchy.

Who is next?

[Salt n Vinegar]

1 hour ago, Mr Waldo said:

Yep. Freedom of Speech is alive and well, as long as it is saying something I agree with.

For this reason, we've now got a UK government that tells police to arrest people who do not like the Monarchy.

Who is next?

Just listening to James O'Brien discussing the police response to the coronation protests. . He seems to sum it up by suggesting that you can now be arrested for planning a peaceful protest. Thank fek laws like that are devolved otherwise they'd probably apply here too. 

Wonder if DRoss will be campaigning for the Scottish Government to introduce similar laws here? 

[itzdrk]

1 hour ago, Mr Waldo said:

Yep. Freedom of Speech is alive and well, as long as it is saying something I agree with.

For this reason, we've now got a UK government that tells police to arrest people who do not like the Monarchy.

Who is next?

That is desperate stuff. Sad. 

[coprolite]

58 minutes ago, Mr Waldo said:

Yep. Freedom of Speech is alive and well, as long as it is saying something I agree with.

For this reason, we've now got a UK government that tells police to arrest people who do not like the Monarchy.

Who is next?

A politician being asked to not turn up to a private venue is very different to someone having their liberty taken from them by the state. 

It's not the thin end of the wedge at all- it's not the same category of thing. 

Personally i think it's unhealthy to de-platform someone at all, except for full on incitement. But for something that's a legitimately debatable issue it's particularly myopic. It can be counterproductive, in making one side of the argument look unreasonable or without the confidence to withstand a challenge. And, what i think you're alluding to, it can normalise venues being ideologically self censoring. 

But what private people can and can't do is a different category from what the state can do.

Private venues can't take away your right to free speech or protest. Only legislation and the apparatus of state can do that.

Only the government can and has reduced the right to free speech. 

They've just used culture wars BS and a half witted  media to make it look like the other side hates free speech. 

 

[welshbairn]

If the Stand had told Fair Pley Ltd, who were organizing the show, that they didn't want the Cherry booking from the start, would that have got them off the hook? Presumably a venue can't be forced to host any particular individual under the Equalities Act. 

[StellarHibee]

31 minutes ago, Salt n Vinegar said:

Wonder if DRoss will be campaigning for the Scottish Government to introduce similar laws here? 

He doesn't need to. That's what the "Scottish" Offices are for. They'll be working on methods to extended their totalitarian agenda in Scotland as we speak.

[Leith Green]

32 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

If the Stand had told Fair Pley Ltd, who were organizing the show, that they didn't want the Cherry booking from the start, would that have got them off the hook? Presumably a venue can't be forced to host any particular individual under the Equalities Act. 

Yes but it didnt actually start off like that - while the BBC and others are enjoying badging this as "2 SNP MPs at loggerheads" they are failing to tell you that Tommy Sheppard actually invited Cherry to do the gig himself in January !

But in answer to your question, no venue can be forced to host a gig.