hypochondriac

How so ? In every example I posted above ? Happy to provide further details if you like.

Because transphobia is ridiculous and not something I consider to be a real thing. Certainly not in law. I believe that the process in many cases is the punishment because the act of attending someone's home to seek an apology for something non criminal is intimidating, and courts have admonished the police for engaging in the practice. The police should not be going round people's houses to seek apologies because people have complained about tweets that are not criminal. They should be investigating actual crimes. Like I said, the latest info I saw from police chiefs is that they agree with me.

What evidence is there of a hate crime? In UK law for something to count as a hate crime, there has to be a recognised criminal offence. What is the recognised criminal offence in those cases ?

I think it's quite clear what I was arguing because I wrote it in the post. It is not the job of the police to intimidate people by visiting their homes and seek apologies or check the thinking of individuals for non criminal tweets. I am also challenging the post from earlier who said that police don't visit people for a tweet because they do. After the linehan debacle it seems that those.i charge agree. Oh and lol at transphobic tweets .

What evidence was there for hate crime? The courts established that there were no hate crimes in most of those cases or they were dropped before they got to court. Some of the judgements were highly critical of the police for their overreactions and wasting time. Spme in charge of the police believe there is too much wasted time spent policing tweets which involves visiting people's homes to check their thinking. The claim made by @swannymere was that police had not visited people for tweets or a singular tweet. That's not true they have visited. The latest case, he hadn't visited to check for evidence of hate crimes (something that would have been ludicrous and a complete waste of time given they should have more important things to do), he went seeking an apology. Since when is that good use of police time?

Labour need to massively cut welfare spending. I don't think their MPs will let them though so they're in a bind.

Quiz time. Who said: "It was our government, this government, that restored Britain’s reputation as a beacon of stability by putting the public finances back on a firm footing, getting debt on a downward path".

Brilliant. We haven't had a player like that in ages.

I swear Trump's primary criteria for many of his female government employee picks is how hot they are. I wouldn't mind the UK government doing a bit of that actually.With Kelly Brook as education secretary the education might be poor but at least we'd have something half decent on the telly every week.

If it wasn't happening the.there wouldn't be a desire from the police to clarify the law. It's obviously happening as there are loads of examples, many of them filmed.

Also the case of Harry Miller of course who in 2019 tweeted a trans joke and was visited by,the police in order to check his thinking. This was challenged in court with the judge finding that the police had acted disproportionately. Kate Scottow arrested for social media posts the same year with the court of appeal ruling that the prosecution had been unlawful. Darren Brady for putting up a swastika made of pride flags online was arrested for causing anxiety with the charges eventually being dropped. A teen in 2020 who posted rap lyrics including the N word in tribute to a friend who died was visited by the police who recorded it as a non crime hate incident. There are of course many more examples but the point is simply untrue that police don't visit people for a tweet or tweets unless they incite violence. There's loads of examples I'm afraid. I wish they didn't!

O rly? Although this appears to be more than one post- I did say tweet not tweets although there are other examples of police visits for just the one post- it certainly doesn't seem like this policeman had better things to do with his time than try to get an apology from someone who he didn't arrest. You can 100% disagree with everything this lady says by the way and still find this sort of thing objectionable. This follows hot on the heels of four police feeling it necessary to arrest Graham Lonehan as he stepped off a plane for two tweets that even the government suggested was an overreaction

I just prefer to save cries of free speech loss when it's actually someone losing their freedom of speech and not just being booted off a TV network even if it is in a potentially underhanded manner. That's a more interesting discussion for me than just pages and pages of how evil Trump is. I consider Trump to be a largely clownish cartoony figure but in my opinion the major reason he was elected was due to the problems with the opposition. It really should not have been difficult to keep him out after the last time but amazingly they managed to fuck it up so much of this is on them and a bit of introspection from the Democrats would be a welcome thing if they want to get in next time. Unfortunately I don't have tiktok on my phone so it doesn't open. I listen to a lot of those types of podcasts fairly regularly even though I disagree often with a lot of the presentere because I think it's healthy to listen to what people you disagree with are saying. It's one reason for hanging out in the lounge on here. I disagree with you all the time but you often make decent points that I can appreciate.

Sad. I thought you could see the nuance.

How many times? I don't think he should have been kicked off ABC. I don't think someone should use dodgy dealings to get someone booted off a TV network. I don't believe that someone doing that- even though I disagree with it- is a removal of someone's right to speech. It's a removal of his ability to speak on ABC which isn't the same thing.

So banning Trump on twitter was an infringement of his free speech rights ?

Good news. Hopefully future cases will be resolved in a similarly speedy manner.

I don't disagree. It's quite possible there were elements of this involved. I don't think that's a good thing and I don't support him being kicked off. Even if there are dirty dealings to get him off air, he's not been prevented from speaking has he. He still has freedom to say what he likes, just not on ABC.

It doesn't threaten his free speech. It's not completely the same but Lawrence Fox was kicked off GB news as a contributor because he made a crass comment about not shagging someone. That wasn't a free speech issue either.

If Kimmel were put in jail to prevent what he's saying then I'd wholeheartedly agree his free speech is in jeopardy. He's free to tweet exactly what he said on telly now if he wanted. He could put it on YouTube and probably get multiple millions of eyeballs on him immediately.

The FCC can take you off air for a host of different reasons. If Ofcom uphold complaints from someone on GB news and they are removed from air as a result, in what way are they prevented from speaking ?

Indulge me. Do the FCC rob American citizens of their first amendment rights?

Explain how any of that impinges on free speech ?

I don't think he should be sacked. It's likely though that with his contract ending soon, Disney probably didn't think it was worth the hassle given it's still arguable like I said. He's not valuable enough for them to bother with and he was silly to put himself in that position.

In other news, I saw that Brigitte Macron is prepared to provide proof that she is a woman in her lawsuit against that odious piece of rubbish Candace Owens. Let's hope she rinses her for all she has.