The Student Room Group
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>

Labour party councillor calls trangender tory councillor a " man "

Scroll to see replies

Original post by joecphillips
So you are happy for the police to crack down on thought crime, it isn't tricky if they actually did something other than say something that offends someone fine but freedom of speech is there for a reason.

What happened here isn't a criminal offence that is why it is not being treated as such and is instead being called a hate incident so why are police getting involved when nothing criminal illegal has happen?


Don't worry. The police aren't treating this criminally (they have more sense than some people on this thread).
They are using restorative justice i.e mediation. They get the community bobby to sit them both down and say stuff like, "Consider each others feelings".
Original post by !!mentor!!
Don't worry. The police aren't treating this criminally (they have more sense than some people on this thread).
They are using restorative justice i.e mediation. They get the community bobby to sit them both down and say stuff like, "Consider each others feelings".


Even if it's not criminal, what we're seeing here is the state getting involved where one person has arguably been not very nice to another person. There is no threat to anyone's person or property. There's no suggestion anywhere that the parties would escalate this in any way beyond exchanging not very nice words. This is not only an improper intrusion into a person's phraseology but also a ridiculous waste of police resources.
Reply 82
Avatar for Joep95
Joep95
19
Original post by BaconandSauce
it's not a thought crime

he can think what he like but when words are used towards someone it crosses the line from thought to action

trans phobic abuse is still abuse


So you only accept freedom of expression as long as you agree with what they are expressing?

What illegal action has taken place? It is the belief being expressed that you are wanting punished, he has the right to express his thoughts.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by joecphillips
So you only accept freedom of expression as long as you agree with what they are expressing?

What illegal action has taken place? It is the belief being expressed that you are wanting punished, he has the right to express his thoughts.


No.

trans-phobic bullying is the same as racism

but so now you've gone form thought crime to 'he should be allowed to express his views'

Should a person be allowed to stand on the side of the road shouting 'n igger' at black people passing by?
Original post by TimmonaPortella
Even if it's not criminal, what we're seeing here is the state getting involved where one person has arguably been not very nice to another person. There is no threat to anyone's person or property. There's no suggestion anywhere that the parties would escalate this in any way beyond exchanging not very nice words. This is not only an improper intrusion into a person's phraseology but also a ridiculous waste of police resources.


ethical issues aside

reminds me of the old chubby brown joke

'it's pc gone mad I can't even go into my local paper shop anymore and say 'where's my paper you 'pa-ki' bastard'

thankfully those days are over.
Original post by TimmonaPortella
Even if it's not criminal, what we're seeing here is the state getting involved where one person has arguably been not very nice to another person. There is no threat to anyone's person or property. There's no suggestion anywhere that the parties would escalate this in any way beyond exchanging not very nice words. This is not only an improper intrusion into a person's phraseology but also a ridiculous waste of police resources.


I completely agree. The SJWs are claiming a criminal offence has occurred and i'm pointing out that is not true. The police have better things to do than dealing with a man who was 'shockingly' referred to as he.
I'm now waiting for the transsexual man to claim he now has PTSD.
Original post by BaconandSauce
ethical issues aside

reminds me of the old chubby brown joke

'it's pc gone mad I can't even go into my local paper shop anymore and say 'where's my paper you 'pa-ki' bastard'

thankfully those days are over.


Well that's a good contribution, thanks.

I'm glad you're enjoying the days where the state will come for you because it disapproves of your grammar.
Original post by TimmonaPortella
Well that's a good contribution, thanks.

I'm glad you're enjoying the days where the state will come for you because it disapproves of your grammar.


just a reminder what it is your are trying to excuse
Original post by BaconandSauce
just a reminder what it is your are trying to excuse


I'm not trying to excuse anything or anyone. I'm arguing that this is not a matter for state involvement, one way or the other.

This isn't a difficult distinction. I am capable of disapproving of someone's conduct whilst also disapproving of state involvement in the matter because I'm not a simpleton.
Original post by BaconandSauce
just a reminder what it is you are trying to excuse


How dare you assume his gender/species by using 'you'. I now have PTSD. SOMEONE CALL THE POLICE, QUICK.
Reply 90
Avatar for Joep95
Joep95
19
Original post by BaconandSauce
No.

trans-phobic bullying is the same as racism

but so now you've gone form thought crime to 'he should be allowed to express his views'

Should a person be allowed to stand on the side of the road shouting 'n igger' at black people passing by?


Legally yes, you are trying to criminalise differing opinions, the state should not be deciding what opinions are acceptable.

Why do you want to censor people you disagree with?

The only speech that should be stopped is incitement to violence and that has not happened here.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by joecphillips
Legally yes, you are trying to criminalise differing opinions, the state should not be deciding what opinions are acceptable.

Why do you want to censor people you disagree with?

The only speech that should be stopped is incitement to violence and that has not happened here.


I asked a question do you think it's OK for someone to stand at the side of the road shouting n igger at passing black people

It's a yes or no
Original post by BaconandSauce
I asked a question do you think it's OK for someone to stand at the side of the road shouting n igger at passing black people

It's a yes or no


That isn't, and shouldn't be, illegal. Black people can do it, so others must be allowed to as well, as long as there is no incitement involved, of course.
Original post by TimmonaPortella
I'm not a simpleton.


sooner or later people revert to form.....
Original post by Good bloke
That isn't, and shouldn't be, illegal. Black people can do it, so others must be allowed to as well, as long as there is no incitement involved, of course.


then I'll have to disagree

as does the law....................
Original post by BaconandSauce
sooner or later people revert to form.....


Well if you don't want people to get frustrated with you then you shouldn't say stupid ****.
lol
Reply 97
Avatar for Joep95
Joep95
19
Original post by BaconandSauce
I asked a question do you think it's OK for someone to stand at the side of the road shouting n igger at passing black people

It's a yes or no


And I answered for you legally yes, you have stated you believe the state should punish him for this that is the thing I disagree with.

I'm not talking about socially here i am talking about the state's power in this scenario.
Original post by TimmonaPortella
Well if you don't want people to get frustrated with you then you shouldn't say stupid ****.


LOL if you don't want people to challenge your acceptance of trans phobic and racist bullying don't defend it
Original post by joecphillips


I'm not talking about socially here i am talking about the state's power in this scenario.


rather the state than a mob....

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you