Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Ever wanted to address Parliament but can't because you're a murderer? watch

Announcements
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Well, here's your chance. Come out as a woman and be invited to speak for being so brave.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...use-Lords.html

    Five days after being released early on licence in 2002, Jones brutally assaulted a female shop assistant after gagging her mouth with a lemon and trying to rape her. She was sentenced to life in prison.
    She said the attack was as a cry for help so that she could go back to prison and have the sex change operation she had needed all her life.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    If it is in the Daily Fail, it must be true.
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ByEeek)
    If it is in the Daily Fail, it must be true.
    Funny, I thought about commenting that the link is DM because inevitable someone was going to dismiss this because it's from the DM.

    So you think none of this is 'true'? The tweet with a photo at Parliament saying "can't believe I will speak here" is made up by the DM? The public record of the murder and attempted rape are made up?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    I am trying to understand what the issue is. That a murder has been invited to speak in the House of Lords? That a trans-woman has been invited to speak in the House of Lords, or that a trans-woman murder has been invited to speak in the House of Lords. I mean - which is it?

    Obviously, if you are a classic Mail Reader, you are going to be incensed that someone convicted of murder but who has done their time might have something thoughtful and meaningful and say, and simply adding the fact that they are also trans-gender simply pours fuel on the flames of hatred.

    This is a hate piece. Nothing more, nothing less. It is what the Daily Mail does best.
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ByEeek)
    I am trying to understand what the issue is. That a murder has been invited to speak in the House of Lords? That a trans-woman has been invited to speak in the House of Lords, or that a trans-woman murder has been invited to speak in the House of Lords. I mean - which is it?

    Obviously, if you are a classic Mail Reader, you are going to be incensed that someone convicted of murder but who has done their time might have something thoughtful and meaningful and say, and simply adding the fact that they are also trans-gender simply pours fuel on the flames of hatred.

    This is a hate piece. Nothing more, nothing less. It is what the Daily Mail does best.
    So first you questioned the veracity, now it's true but the truth doesn't matter, because it's just "hate"?

    Obviously, if you weren't such a bigot, you wouldn't assume everyone who ever linked to a DM article is a "classic Mail Reader".

    The trans part is very relevant to the current debate, in particular about the reforms around the GRA. About male sex offenders claiming to be women in order to be sent to women's prisons. "Done their time"? Her initial sentence was reduced to manslaughter in the first place because "she was so confused about her gender", and even then released after only serving half the time. And within five days of release tried to brutally rape a shop assistant. Is out again and despite being such a violent human, is given a platform to speak on trans issues. As if there aren't enough non-violent trans in the prison system?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    So first you questioned the veracity, now it's true but the truth doesn't matter, because it's just "hate"?

    Obviously, if you weren't such a bigot, you wouldn't assume everyone who ever linked to a DM article is a "classic Mail Reader".

    The trans part is very relevant to the current debate, in particular about the reforms around the GRA. About male sex offenders claiming to be women in order to be sent to women's prisons. "Done their time"? Her initial sentence was reduced to manslaughter in the first place because "she was so confused about her gender", and even then released after only serving half the time. And within five days of release tried to brutally rape a shop assistant. Is out again and despite being such a violent human, is given a platform to speak on trans issues. As if there aren't enough non-violent trans in the prison system?
    Has she been violent since 2003? She’s been asked to speak about how the criminal justice system can help transgender offenders, so it makes sense to have a trans ex-con speak about that. I don’t condone what she did, but I don’t see an issue with her speaking about this issue when asked. :dontknow:
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cat_mac)
    Has she been violent since 2003? She’s been asked to speak about how the criminal justice system can help transgender offenders, so it makes sense to have a trans ex-con speak about that. I don’t condone what she did, but I don’t see an issue with her speaking about this issue when asked. :dontknow:
    They had no other trans prisoners or ex prisoners available?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    They had no other trans prisoners or ex prisoners available?
    I doubt there are high numbers of them, is your point that it shouldn’t be her speaking based on the crimes she committed? If they’re talking about what it’s like being trans in prison, they’d need someone with a good amount of time in.

    I disagree with the way some people use her as a role model, but I don’t think this instance is doing that. I can’t comment on if there are ‘better’ trans ex-cons to speak since I have no clue, but I don’t see why she wouldn’t be right to speak about this topic.
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cat_mac)
    I doubt there are high numbers of them, is your point that it shouldn’t be her speaking based on the crimes she committed? If they’re talking about what it’s like being trans in prison, they’d need someone with a good amount of time in.

    I disagree with the way some people use her as a role model, but I don’t think this instance is doing that. I can’t comment on if there are ‘better’ trans ex-cons to speak since I have no clue, but I don’t see why she wouldn’t be right to speak about this topic.
    Surely it is an honour to address parliament. A murderer and rapist shouldn't get that honour. Ever.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    So first you questioned the veracity, now it's true but the truth doesn't matter, because it's just "hate"?

    Obviously, if you weren't such a bigot, you wouldn't assume everyone who ever linked to a DM article is a "classic Mail Reader".

    The trans part is very relevant to the current debate, in particular about the reforms around the GRA. About male sex offenders claiming to be women in order to be sent to women's prisons. "Done their time"? Her initial sentence was reduced to manslaughter in the first place because "she was so confused about her gender", and even then released after only serving half the time. And within five days of release tried to brutally rape a shop assistant. Is out again and despite being such a violent human, is given a platform to speak on trans issues. As if there aren't enough non-violent trans in the prison system?
    Bigot? Really? Let's look at the meat (what tiny shreds of it there are) of the story. A person who was convicted of murder has been invited to speak in the House of Lords. The article doesn't really say much about the content of the speech other than it is about trans-gender people in prison nor does it explain or detail the issue that is to be reviewed. Now to me, that is important stuff. If you are going to review this issue - and it is an issue, surely it makes sense to speak to those in the know i.e. trans people who have been in prison.

    However, the article doesn't really address that. It does however go into great detail about the murder. They have quoted someone as saying that this person has done their time. They have also found, for the purpose of faux balance, another organisation who are concerned about safety assessments, forgetting of course that the fact they have been released back into the public means that hurdle was probably crossed long ago. And that is it. It is a total non-story.

    Yet, in true DM style one is left feeling that some weirdo-psycho-murderer has been allowed to come to the House of Lords and will almost certainly kill them all.

    It plays on people's discrimination against convicted criminals who in the eyes of the DM shall remain guilty for their entire lives and can never repent or make good. It then adds petrol to that vitriol by stirring the trans-gender pot.

    It is tabloid sensationalist drivel at its worse.

    And you accuse me of being a bigot. If calling a bigot a bigot makes me a bigot then bring it on!
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ByEeek)
    Bigot? Really? Let's look at the meat (what tiny shreds of it there are) of the story. A person who was convicted of murder has been invited to speak in the House of Lords. The article doesn't really say much about the content of the speech other than it is about trans-gender people in prison nor does it explain or detail the issue that is to be reviewed. Now to me, that is important stuff. If you are going to review this issue - and it is an issue, surely it makes sense to speak to those in the know i.e. trans people who have been in prison.

    However, the article doesn't really address that. It does however go into great detail about the murder. They have quoted someone as saying that this person has done their time. They have also found, for the purpose of faux balance, another organisation who are concerned about safety assessments, forgetting of course that the fact they have been released back into the public means that hurdle was probably crossed long ago. And that is it. It is a total non-story.

    Yet, in true DM style one is left feeling that some weirdo-psycho-murderer has been allowed to come to the House of Lords and will almost certainly kill them all.

    It plays on people's discrimination against convicted criminals who in the eyes of the DM shall remain guilty for their entire lives and can never repent or make good. It then adds petrol to that vitriol by stirring the trans-gender pot.

    It is tabloid sensationalist drivel at its worse.

    And you accuse me of being a bigot. If calling a bigot a bigot makes me a bigot then bring it on!
    Your initial questioning of the veracity of the story simply cuz "muh Daily Fail" is bigoted.

    And it makes sense to give that honor to a murderer and rapists? Such a person has given up all honor for life. And what about inviting a woman alongside, to hear stories of how female prisoners feel having to have males who say they're women in their prisons. Or female wardens who have to deal with these males? You accuse this story of being one-sided when your blatant bias and bigotry show you to be nothing but tunnel visioning.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    Your initial questioning of the veracity of the story simply cuz "muh Daily Fail" is bigoted.
    Tell me, which of the following is acceptable?

    A transgender activist jailed for manslaughter and attempted rape was invited to give a speech in the House of Lords, MailOnline can reveal.

    A backstabbing smarmy, never-had-a-proper-job, white, male heterosexual will today will announce the government's latest policy on the environment, MailOnline can reveal.


    The answer is, the second on was made up. They would simply say, Michael Gove will announce the latest policy. Yet for some reason anyone worth bashing because it makes good copy gets the full treatment.
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ByEeek)
    Tell me, which of the following is acceptable?

    A transgender activist jailed for manslaughter and attempted rape was invited to give a speech in the House of Lords, MailOnline can reveal.

    A backstabbing smarmy, never-had-a-proper-job, white, male heterosexual will today will announce the government's latest policy on the environment, MailOnline can reveal.


    The answer is, the second on was made up. They would simply say, Michael Gove will announce the latest policy. Yet for some reason anyone worth bashing because it makes good copy gets the full treatment.
    Bashing Michael Gove isn't worth it? I mean sure, you don't even need a tabloid for that, I just need to browse my Facebook feed to get that, but still.

    Who they choose to bash, should have no bearing on the veracity of it. Same way when MRA cry "but muh what about da menz" or intersectional morons "ur white so ur feminism is exclusive" is nothing but smoke. If I say something about animal abuse, does that negate human abuse? No.

    Your argument is nothing but bigotry, because you don't like what they bash, and those you want to see bash, aren't.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)

    Your argument is nothing but bigotry, because you don't like what they bash, and those you want to see bash, aren't.
    No. My argument is the way this story is framed. The noble and learned Lords who made the invitation presumably did so because they felt this person had something of value to add to their enquiry.

    The Mail's article is clearly of the opinion that trans-gender people and former criminals, regardless of the sentences they have served should either be hung from the nearest lamp post or put on the first ship to Australia. And the comments section of this article would seem to back that view point up.

    I have no more to say.
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ByEeek)
    No. My argument is the way this story is framed. The noble and learned Lords who made the invitation presumably did so because they felt this person had something of value to add to their enquiry.

    The Mail's article is clearly of the opinion that trans-gender people and former criminals, regardless of the sentences they have served should either be hung from the nearest lamp post or put on the first ship to Australia. And the comments section of this article would seem to back that view point up.

    I have no more to say.
    How is it framed? You object to a murderer and rapist being framed as a murderer and rapist?

    Yea, I got nothing more to say to someone like you either.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    How is it framed? You object to a murderer and rapist being framed as a murderer and rapist?

    Yea, I got nothing more to say to someone like you either.
    No. I object to the fact that the emphasis is on the fact that this person was a murderer over and above, by a country mile, the fact that they are assisting in a government enquiry.

    This person has done their time. They have served their punishment and by all accounts have turned their life around to something positive and worthwhile. The fact that this person is trans, in my view is irrelevant. Had it been a cis, straight person, these details would not have been noted in the article. That is my point. This is sensational because there is a perceived wrong and a sense of injustice that the Mail is capitalising on. However, in the eyes of the law, this person is free to go about their lawful business. Can you tell me why they should not be allowed to speak in the House of Lords? Which law states they are not permitted?
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ByEeek)
    No. I object to the fact that the emphasis is on the fact that this person was a murderer over and above, by a country mile, the fact that they are assisting in a government enquiry.

    This person has done their time. They have served their punishment and by all accounts have turned their life around to something positive and worthwhile. The fact that this person is trans, in my view is irrelevant. Had it been a cis, straight person, these details would not have been noted in the article. That is my point. This is sensational because there is a perceived wrong and a sense of injustice that the Mail is capitalising on. However, in the eyes of the law, this person is free to go about their lawful business. Can you tell me why they should not be allowed to speak in the House of Lords? Which law states they are not permitted?
    As I said above, this man killed his gf and violently tried to rape another woman. He should have lost all privileges forever.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    How is it framed? You object to a murderer and rapist being framed as a murderer and rapist?

    Yea, I got nothing more to say to someone like you either.
    Cherl Cole has address Parliament and she nothing more and a good looking thug with a criminal record

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...vy-Cheryl.html

    A lot of people address Parliament who you would not like to meet.
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by looloo2134)
    Cherl Cole has address Parliament and she nothing more and a good looking thug with a criminal record

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...vy-Cheryl.html

    A lot of people address Parliament who you would not like to meet.
    Did she kill and rape someone?

    Btw, read upthread, I explicitly asked if there weren't any non-violent trans women (or trans men, you never hear anything about trans men) available.

    I also questioned why there were no women invited to talk, too, prisoners or wardens, who are being forced to have to deal with men in women's prisons. Because this is the problem with the trans agenda, it's all about accommodating and validating them. How this affects everyone else is ignored, even silenced (with shouts of TERF or transphobia all the way to abuse and death threats).
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    How utterly vile man. Why is convicted murderer and attempted rapict being given this privilege?
    Surely there are better transexuals than this sorry excuse for a person?
 
 
 
Poll
Do you like carrot cake?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.