Jedi2 Posted January 10 Share Posted January 10 The Guardian also carries an article about it. I suppose you will find the same 'moon howlers' on there. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carpetmonster Posted January 10 Share Posted January 10 13 minutes ago, Jedi2 said: Where am I either taking the Telegraph at 'face value' or indeed which part of the article do you believe to be disingenuous or dishonest? The one where the only ‘expert’ they consulted was the woman who pals about with the Scottish Family Party, as I stated prior. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carpetmonster Posted January 10 Share Posted January 10 3 minutes ago, Jedi2 said: The Guardian also carries an article about it. I suppose you will find the same 'moon howlers' on there. The Graun is also a shitrag bar a very few columnists IMO. And yeah, you will find the same moonhowlers there. Why aren’t you tagging me BTW, you’ve had two usernames to get used to this place? Again, if someone could put me right here I’d appreciate it - I haven’t lived in the UK for a decade, but I did hear of the SNP introducing a ‘hate crime’ or ‘hate speech’ bill where lurid claims were made that if you said something defamatory in the confines of your own home you’d be carted off to re-education camp. I haven’t read of that happening. So why should I think that parents will be jailed for gently advising their kids that their being gay or trans might just be a phase? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jedi2 Posted January 10 Share Posted January 10 18 minutes ago, carpetmonster said: The Graun is also a shitrag bar a very few columnists IMO. And yeah, you will find the same moonhowlers there. Why aren’t you tagging me BTW, you’ve had two usernames to get used to this place? Again, if someone could put me right here I’d appreciate it - I haven’t lived in the UK for a decade, but I did hear of the SNP introducing a ‘hate crime’ or ‘hate speech’ bill where lurid claims were made that if you said something defamatory in the confines of your own home you’d be carted off to re-education camp. I haven’t read of that happening. So why should I think that parents will be jailed for gently advising their kids that their being gay or trans might just be a phase? The Hate Speech Bill is indeed law, and does make provision for 'conversations in your own home' to be reported for potential prosecution, and no, nobody has been carted off to a 're-education' camp yet. What the 'Consulation' appears to be doing, is lumping together 'Conversion Therapy' which yes, the vast majority of people would oppose, all well and good, with a lot of grey areas around what constitutes 'challenging' someone's choice to transition. The two are totally different, but when you have ambiguity, and a 'potential' for legislating against 'questioning' of transitioning, it leads to said grey areas arising, and the possibility of litigation being brought against (some) parents. Whereas if the proposal/consultation stuck exclusively to Conversion Therapy, without mention of these other areas left open to interpretation, it would be an uncontentious process. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carpetmonster Posted January 10 Share Posted January 10 Just now, Jedi2 said: The Hate Speech Bill is indeed law, and does make provision for 'conversations in your own home' to be reported for potential prosecution, and no, nobody has been carted off to a 're-education' camp yet. What the 'Consulation' appears to be doing, is lumping together 'Conversion Therapy' which yes, the vast majority of people would oppose, all well and good, with a lot of grey areas around what constitutes 'challenging' someone's choice to transition. The two are totally different, but when you have ambiguity, and a 'potential' for legislating against 'questioning' of transitioning, it leads to said grey areas arising, and the possibility of litigation being brought against (some) parents. Whereas if the proposal/consultation stuck exclusively to Conversion Therapy, without mention of these other areas left open to interpretation, it would be an uncontentious process. I mean, you could just read the consultation. Parts 8 and 9 deal with those bits for the most part. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Waldo Posted January 10 Share Posted January 10 17 minutes ago, carpetmonster said: Again, if someone could put me right here I’d appreciate it - I haven’t lived in the UK for a decade, but I did hear of the SNP introducing a ‘hate crime’ or ‘hate speech’ bill where lurid claims were made that if you said something defamatory in the confines of your own home you’d be carted off to re-education camp. I haven’t read of that happening. Because the 'hate speech bill' is not being enforced yet. The anti-sectarian law did come into being but got binned. Because it was a bit pish. So, maybe some folks have doubts because of two previous pish 'hate' laws? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jedi2 Posted January 10 Share Posted January 10 2 minutes ago, Mr Waldo said: So, maybe some folks have doubts because of two previous pish 'hate' laws? Exactly. 'Laws' which are left so deliberately vague as to create a minefield. Nobody objects to the overarching intention behind them eg to crack down on sectarianism and hate crime (racism, sexism, homophobia etc) and indeed 'if' the current idea was to challenge Conversion Therapy. As you say, the record on bringing them into action hasn't exactly gone well. Is this the SNP keeping the Greens on side (again)? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carpetmonster Posted January 10 Share Posted January 10 1 minute ago, Jedi2 said: Exactly. 'Laws' which are left so deliberately vague as to create a minefield. Nobody objects to the overarching intention behind them eg to crack down on sectarianism and hate crime (racism, sexism, homophobia etc) and indeed 'if' the current idea was to challenge Conversion Therapy. While it’ll quite obviously never be enough for you, I’m not sure how much clearer they could have made it that the consultation is to ban conversion therapy. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leith Green Posted January 11 Share Posted January 11 Its wild that wee dougie ross and anas sarwar are today laying the blame for the Post Office scandal at <checks notes> the Scottish Govt........................ 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alta-pete Posted January 11 Share Posted January 11 Humza is a wee shitebag. Pass it on... https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/24042425.snp-mp-calls-humza-yousaf-snub-commons-committee-disappointing/ Quote SNP MP calls Humza Yousaf snub to Commons committee 'disappointing' 3 hrs ago Alex Salmond Humza Yousaf Pete Wishart National government Politics Scotland By Tom Gordon @htscotpol Political Editor Share 18 Comments Pete Wishart and Humza Yousaf (Image: PA) Humza Yousaf has been chided by the SNP’s longest serving MP after repeatedly snubbing a request to appear before the Commons Scottish Affairs Committee. Committee chair Pete Wishart said it was “disappointing” Mr Yousaf was the only living first minister to have declined to give evidence on relations with the UK Government. This was despite Mr Yousaf being urged to “reconsider” a previous refusal and being offered any date “which might be convenient” for him. It emerged earlier this week that Alex Salmond will discuss the subject on February 19, with MPs hearing from Nicola Sturgeon, Lord Jack McConnell and Henry McLeish later this year. READ MORE: SNP indyref2 policy a 'total mess' says longest serving MP The six former prime ministers since the start of devolution 25 years ago have also been invited to appear, with Lord Cameron and Sir Tony Blair already giving written evidence. The cross-party committee, which includes Scottish Tory leader Douglas Ross, launched its inquiry into intergovernmental relations last July. In a letter to Mr Yousaf on December 18, Mr Wishart said that further to a letter sent on July 3, the committee wanted to “reiterate its open invitation to you to give evidence to the Committee at a date which might be convenient to you”. He went on: “This would be an opportunity to discuss policy areas related to recent inquiries and your priorities as First Minister. “It would also be a chance for you to comment on current intergovernmental relations between the UK and Scottish governments, which is the focus of the Committee’s current inquiry on Intergovernmental relations: 25 years since the Scotland Act 1998. “We hope you will re-consider our invitation, and we look forward to hearing from you.” But on January 4, Mr Yousaf again refused to appear, citing a full diary. The first minister, who launches the SNP’s general election campaign tomorrow despite no election date being set, said Constitution Secretary Angus Robertson would go instead. READ MORE: Post Office Horizon victim wants bosses to face justice Mr Yousaf wrote: “Unfortunately, due to my extensive commitments as First Minister, I am unable to accept the invitation to appear before the Committee. “As the Committee is aware, I am accountable to the Scottish Parliament for the decisions and actions of the Scottish Government. “Sessions such as weekly First Minister’s Questions and my evidence sessions with the Scottish Parliament Conveners Group are an important feature of my commitment to ensuring that the Parliament can fully discharge its essential scrutiny function. “I understand that the Cabinet Secretary for Constitution, External Affairs and Culture, Angus Robertson, has accepted an invitation to discuss the Scottish Government’s written evidence to your inquiry… in early March. “I am sure the Committee will welcome the opportunity to discuss these important matters with Angus.” Mr Wishart said: “It’s disappointing that the First Minister isn’t able to give evidence to the Committee, citing a similar outlook to previous serving First Ministers - that his primary responsibility, while in office, is to the Scottish Parliament. “The invitation remains open if Mr Yousaf’s availability changes.” 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leith Green Posted January 11 Share Posted January 11 Pete Wishart in an article in the Herald. I wonder if he is supporting "his" party in it........................... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billy Jean King Posted January 11 Share Posted January 11 2 hours ago, alta-pete said: Humza is a wee shitebag. Pass it on... https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/24042425.snp-mp-calls-humza-yousaf-snub-commons-committee-disappointing/ Surely the fact that the previous incumbents appearances brought zero tangible benefits is a perfect reason to give it a swerve ? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Left Back Posted January 11 Share Posted January 11 1 hour ago, Billy Jean King said: Surely the fact that the previous incumbents appearances brought zero tangible benefits is a perfect reason to give it a swerve ? Appearances at FMQ’s bring zero tangible benefits either. It still happens though. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jedi2 Posted January 11 Share Posted January 11 (edited) So from Wishart's article there 'is' a 'strategy' in place, if the SNP win a majority of seats this year, and Westminster says no...they are off to the UN and EHRC. Edited January 11 by Jedi2 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikingTON Posted January 11 Share Posted January 11 It's government by Daily Record editorial right now, as clueless Yousaf bends in the wind to avoid any perceived negative story from further burying his personal approval even deeper into the mud. Wednesday's editorial had a Helen Lovejoy piece on banning 'devil dogs' - cue the SG back-tracking almost immediately yet again. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted January 11 Share Posted January 11 41 minutes ago, Jedi2 said: So from Wishart's article there 'is' a 'strategy' in place, if the SNP win a majority of seats this year, and Westminster says no...they are off to the UN and EHRC. The same UN that has managed to help countries that are seriously oppressed? I am sure that the UK will listen to the UN. There is history of this, just ask the people from the Chagos Islands. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jedi2 Posted January 11 Share Posted January 11 44 minutes ago, strichener said: The same UN that has managed to help countries that are seriously oppressed? I am sure that the UK will listen to the UN. There is history of this, just ask the people from the Chagos Islands. Exactly...so in short-SNP win a majority of seats at the GE..go to Westminster 'right, that's us Independent now'...Westminster 'er naw'. 'Off to the UN...'so it was a Referendum on Independence? 'No, a General Election for the UK govt' 'We see, so what percentage of the vote did you get to give you Independence? '..it was about 37%, but its first past the post so we got most seats' 'Was it agreed in advance that this would could as a Referendum?' 'Well...no' 'Okay, see you in 2 years time' 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacDonald Jardine Posted January 11 Share Posted January 11 9 hours ago, Leith Green said: Its wild that wee dougie ross and anas sarwar are today laying the blame for the Post Office scandal at <checks notes> the Scottish Govt........................ I'm sure they're not. They're pointing out the flagrant hypocrisy of criticising the Westminster government for the scandal when the Crown Office decided to prosecute the same thing in Scotland while having the same information. Under an SNP government by the way. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leith Green Posted January 11 Share Posted January 11 4 minutes ago, MacDonald Jardine said: I'm sure they're not. They're pointing out the flagrant hypocrisy of criticising the Westminster government for the scandal when the Crown Office decided to prosecute the same thing in Scotland while having the same information. Under an SNP government by the way. You do understand that the evidence, as presented by the PO, passed the test for going ahead with prosecution? Hence the PFS/CO went ahead, in the same way as their equivalents did down south? Subsequently, it has become apparent that the IT system was flawed so the key evidence was no longer trustworthy. You do know all this, yes? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Left Back Posted January 12 Share Posted January 12 37 minutes ago, Leith Green said: You do understand that the evidence, as presented by the PO, passed the test for going ahead with prosecution? Hence the PFS/CO went ahead, in the same way as their equivalents did down south? Subsequently, it has become apparent that the IT system was flawed so the key evidence was no longer trustworthy. You do know all this, yes? That isn’t strictly true. There was no real test down south. The Post Office was investigator and prosecutor (and victim as well). Clearly a conflict of interest. Up here the COPFS was prosecutor and to me has not effectively scrutinised the evidence put before them and bashed on with prosecutions anyway, Even once concerns were raised by prosecutors up here they still carried on regardless, in a similar manner to how the PO did down south. There is a question to answer. Possibly a harder one than down south seeing as there was no obvious conflict of interest up here. 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.