Judge to send anti-feminist twitter abusers to prison

Scroll to see replies

Reply 20

So Instinct

Original post by thunder_chunky

People kept on saying this but clearly the campaigners are talking about non-royalty.

Why are we excluding royalty? I'm sure they wont have that tone once we have male royalty on the note.

Reply 21

uktotalgamer

Original post by thunder_chunky

People kept on saying this but clearly the campaigners are talking about non-royalty.

So does this mean that we should classify our royalty as genderless?

Reply 22

Fullofsurprises

Original post by So Instinct

Why are we excluding royalty? I'm sure they wont have that tone once we have male royalty on the note.

I think people kind of take it as a given that the face of the monarch is on the notes. :rolleyes:

Reply 23

thunder_chunky

Original post by uktotalgamer

So does this mean that we should classify our royalty as genderless?

Original post by So Instinct

Why are we excluding royalty? I'm sure they wont have that tone once we have male royalty on the note.

Of course we aren't going to regard the royal family as genderless but clearly when the campaigners are talking about female role models or a lack of them on notes they are clearly talking about people who are famous for academic or literary accomplishments and are not on the notes purely because of birthright.

Reply 24

Birkenhead

Original post by thunder_chunky

You seem to be suggesting that because Queen Elizabeth is on the throne because of birthright she isn't a legitimate role model. This is patent nonsense.

Reply 25

So Instinct

Original post by Fullofsurprises

I think people kind of take it as a given that the face of the monarch is on the notes. :rolleyes:

I think most people don't really care who is on the note anyway :rolleyes:

Bar pedantic feminists ofc.

In fact I bet most people don't even know who is on most notes bar the royal family.

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 26

Ripper-Roo

Jailed for saying something? LOL. Overreaction is an understatement

Reply 27

FlavaFavourFruit

Original post by Huskaris

Whenever someone campaigns on the basis of sex they campaign against the basis of merit.

And this is why I strongly dislike feminists.

Reply 28

thunder_chunky

Original post by Birkenhead

You seem to be suggesting that because Queen Elizabeth is on the throne because of birthright she isn't a legitimate role model. This is patent nonsense.

I'm actually suggesting that she is on the money because of her birthright and not because she earned her place on it. I'm actually not denying she does things that might earn the title of rolemodel, but none of those things is what got her face on our money. My point is that the campaigners are clearly looking for other women who can also be on the money and that simply saying "oh but the Queen is on it" is just weak sauce, because it isn't the same.

Reply 29

Snagprophet

There wasn't any indication that Jane Austin or another woman was going to not be on a bank note, they merely replaced £5's with Churchill. They hadn't even finished announcing the rollout yet.

It's nice to know that the law spends time on this rather than cases like Jamie Bulger's torture and execution as a toddler. We were all expecting Jane Austin or another woman on the tenner, there's no evidence her 'protest' actually changed the minds of the BoE and that the BoE were intending an all male list of notes. The only issue was the transition between Churchill coming in and Austin coming in was they weren't happening simultaneously. Only an arrogant feminist **** would care there was no women due to a transition phase than people hating women in general.

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 30

Ripper-Roo

Original post by uktotalgamer

I wish people would just calm down. I didn't agree with what she did. I didn't tell her to go top herself. How carried away do some people get, both male and female. If everyone just calmed the **** down this world would be a much better place. Talk, not war. What these two did is simply un-defendable.

hugz not drugz 2k14

Reply 31

InnerTemple

Original post by Birkenhead

You seem to be suggesting that because Queen Elizabeth is on the throne because of birthright she isn't a legitimate role model. This is patent nonsense.

I think that the point people are making is that some notes should feature women who had done well through brilliance in some way or another. Maybe through discovering something great, or being an intellectual - you get the idea.

The above is distinct from being great through a random biological process which occurred when two people, one of whom happening to be the King, had a bit of fun in bed.

Reply 32

InnerTemple

Original post by Snagprophet

It's nice to know that the law spends time on this rather than cases like Jamie Bulger's torture and execution as a toddler.

That happened over 20 years ago.

No matter where a crime falls in terms of seriousness, it has to be dealt with. We can't all just wait around allowing people to get away with breaking the law, in anticipation for the next child murder case.

Reply 33

awe

Original post by Jordooooom

Surely it's purely for the threats? Has nothing to do with being feminist. If they threatened to rape any one they would probably be punished

^ This!

Everyone else, stop focusing on the fact that this originally was a feminist issue and just for a moment consider what was said. That's abuse and those are serious, harmful threats. For this reason they deserve prison punishment, regardless of the context.

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 34

Snagprophet

Original post by InnerTemple

I mean, this sort of harassment is simple to solve, simply block them. I don't understand why people care so much about 'online abuse' it's frankly laughable people take them seriously.

Reply 35

Birkenhead

Original post by InnerTemple

I understand that, I was just clarifying that the mere fact that EII is where she is because of genes doesn't discount the immense contribution she has made and the value she is as a rolemodel, as they seemed to imply.

Do you yourself believe that we should feature women primarily for the sake of featuring women? Of course there have been several women who have contributed to humanity but if we're truly going to be meritocratic (which is surely better than judging based on genitalia) and truly honest with ourselves there are quite a few men who deserve to be on the £10 in place of the author of a few satirical romances.

The above is distinct from being great through a random biological process which occurred when two people, one of whom happening to be the King, had a bit of fun in bed.

To say EII is great simply through where she was born in society drastically undervalues her. Plenty of more selfish and less hard-working individuals would have done an Edward VIII long before 60 years of endless dedication had passed. The fact that she was given her societal position through birthright does not exclude her from the possibility of achieving brilliance in it.

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 36

Lady Comstock

Original post by Quantex

Good.

They've been plenty of silly incidents of people saying offensive but ultimately harmless things on twitter and getting arrested or visited by the police. But the level of abuse and threats in this case should be no more acceptable online than it would be in the street, particularly given how threatened she felt.

The difference being that you cannot make a person vanish in an instant by clicking a "block" button in the street.

Reply 37

TimmonaPortella

I wonder if the spelling and grammar qualifies as an aggravating factor.

Original post by Snagprophet

It's nice to know that the law spends time on this rather than cases like Jamie Bulger's torture and execution as a toddler.

I'm pretty sure that the law has time to deal with more than one case at once.

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 38

516359

Original post by awe

^

Stop focusing on the fact that this originally was a feminist issue and just for a moment consider what was said. That's abuse and those are serious, harmful threats. For this reason they deserve prison punishment, regardless of the context.

I second this - its extremely worrying that there are people on this site who think its fine to make death or rape threats to anyone. It IS a punishable offence.

The reason being very simple - no one knows whether its an empty threat or you're being serious and the police shouldn't have to waste resources protecting every person at risk. I was so annoyed police resources were wasted protecting her instead of dealing with more serious crimes.

Which is why i hope they give these idiots and anymore that hid behind the anonymity of the internet, a really harsh sentence to teach trolling has consequences.

Reply 39

username1221160

Original post by Lady Comstock

The difference being that you cannot make a person vanish in an instant by clicking a "block" button in the street.

I'm not an expert on law, but I suspect that if someone says "i'm going to rape you", be it via twitter, the phone or the street, then that threat has be made regardless of whether a person chooses to block it out or not. Surely the emphasis lies with the perpetrator who made the threat and not the victim to opt to ignore it?