The UK is Now Officially a Joke on Crime - Teenager fined for shouting 'is it a boy or is it a girl?' at transgender PCSO

A teenager has been fined for abusing a transgender police community support officer by yelling: “Is it a boy or is it a girl?”

Declan Armstrong, 19, was ordered to pay £590 at Mold Magistrates’ Court on Wednesday after he was found guilty of making the comments following a trial.

Rhian Jackson, prosecuting, said PCSO Connor Freel had been in uniform on foot patrol in Mold, north Wales, in October 2019 when he passed Armstrong, who was with a friend.

She told the court that Armstrong shouted “very loudly, “is it a boy or is it a girl?” and said that when Mr Freel looked over, Armstrong made the comment loudly again.

Ms Jackson said: “Due to his transgender, when Connor heard Declan say what he said, it left him feeling upset and embarrassed.”

She read out a statement from Mr Freel, who was born female and transitioned, which went over his work to raise awareness of transphobic hate crime, including being part of a victim support campaign and television interviews.

He said he knew there could be repercussions by being in the public eye but had wanted to show vulnerable people that being transgender is not something to be hidden. However, he said that after this incident he was reluctant to patrol alone.

“To have something shouted at him that had such personal connotations whilst he was on his own in the middle of a public place, that was rather busy due to market day footfall, did leave him vulnerable, distressed and embarrassed,” Ms Jackson said.

Armstrong, of Victory Court, Mold, was convicted of a public order offence after a trial but has continued to deny he made the comments, and his defence lawyer Gary Harvey said he “doesn’t hold any prejudice against anyone in society


https://uk.news.yahoo.com/transgender-pcso-wales-court-133507745.html#


What sort of Orwellian society are we walking into? How did this even end up in court. With a person that suffers from Asperger's?

I am still baffled at what kind of hate crime this is meant to be?

Churchill is rolling over in his grave.

"Upset and embarrassed" what sort of snowflakes are this country turning out now !

I can't help but muse. You wouldn't have these kinds of things if free speech wasn't so easily compromised in the UK...and indeed, all of Europe.

Here in the US we have the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, supreme law of the land, which guarantees freedom of speech with only immanent threat exceptions. Here, you are entitled to your opinion, even unpopular opinions, and you can express it, as long as it isn't connected to a higher crime, like espionage or assault.

This would certainly be challenged in the US courts, and it would make front page news. We in the US compete in the free battlefield of ideas, and not by using rules or laws to circumvent and stifle expression.

It used to be like that here once Quill !

nicko wrote:It used to be like that here once Quill !

It's a shame.  It appears that in their rush to prove they no longer tolerate Nazis, Europeans have sought to compromise one of the most fundamental of political values: freedom of speech.

Yes, it is intolerable; yes, you gnash your teeth, listening to extreme voices.  But realize: what you do to them, you do to yourself.  You are making the enemy free speech itself, rather than the content of the message you want to stifle.

If you want to compromise free speech, wait until someone taps you on the shoulder and says you can't defend that innocent person, because to do so would offend public sensitivities! What goes around, comes around. If you do nothing else, learn to distinguish between the content of a message, and the rules by which it comes to you.

Original Quill wrote:

nicko wrote:It used to be like that here once Quill !

It's a shame.  It appears that in their rush to prove they no longer tolerate Nazis, Europeans have sought to compromise one of the most fundamental of political values: freedom of speech.

Yes, it is intolerable; yes, you gnash your teeth, listening to extreme voices.  But realize: what you do to them, you do to yourself.  You are making the enemy free speech itself, rather than the content of the message you want to stifle.

If you want to compromise free speech, wait until someone taps you on the shoulder and says you can't defend that innocent person, because to do so would offend public sensitivities!  What goes around, comes around.  If you do nothing else, learn to distinguish between the content of a message, and the rules by which it comes to you.

Nothing to do with compromising Nazis

What we are seeing ere is something very sinister

That now certain lobby groups have convinced police forces to place their claims of victimisation above all other forms of hate crimes. Hence we see here a view to feel embarrassed and offended warrants the state to convict a person over so innocuous words.

The CPS in the Uk has just released a guidance on to teachers in schools in regards to LGBT groups, except. It says little in regards to LGB, but vastly on the T. That girls are not allowed to complain in regards to privacy in female bathrooms. If a male uses said bathroom. In fact for doing so. any girl will be deemed as hateful and possible reported to the police as a hate incident

I shit you not

https://www.faircop.org.uk/post/cps-schools-hate-crime-guidance-what-parents-need-to-know




Everyone wants to see people have protection in the law, but now Trans rights have superseded all other rights in regards to this guidance in schools. Again everyone wants to see trans people have protection in law from discrimination. However, what we are seeing is their rights now are based on a belief system, where sex based rights are redundant. Now gender a social construct overrules sex based rights. Even worse, a bio female is being forced to accept beliefs they do not align with. The Uk is basically adopting a religious belief system around gender and anyone that does not agree. Will be literally burnt at the stake

This is inherently Orwellian and like Maddog says. Churchill would be turning over in his grave.
What has happened is because a number of online studies have been conducted. Which perceoive to show high rates of suicidal tendencies. People are in fear, that if they do not bow down to demand from trans lobby groups. They will be seen as nazi's

I mean recently a claim was made that puberty blockers saves trans lives. In fact the opposite is the case. In fact it creates suicide tendencies for those without previous mental health issues

https://twitter.com/TwisterFilm/status/1222662619825410051?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1222662619825410051&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fpublish.twitter.com%2F%3Fquery%3Dhttps%253A%252F%252Ftwitter.com%252FTwisterFilm%252Fstatus%252F1222662619825410051%26widget%3DTweet

I would love to hear Eilzels thoughts on this. When penis news (pink news ) and stonewall back a view that bio males with dicks can be lesbians. Eilzel though t this would never gain traction. Its now at the fore front of these groups> These groups that are supposed to support gay people. Are quite simple attempting to eradicate homosexuals as a people, by such warped ideology

phil wrote:Nothing to do with compromising Nazis

It does if you follow the discussion. All of this European censorship started with guilt over Nazis, who predominated in Europe, and a conviction to not let them speak again.

Now it has spread to other causes, and consumed the whole of free expression.

Thorin wrote:I would love to hear Eilzels thoughts on this. When penis news (pink news ) and stonewall back a view that bio males with dicks can be lesbians. Eilzel though t this would never gain traction. Its now at the fore front of these groups> These groups that are supposed to support gay people. Are quite simple attempting to eradicate homosexuals as a people, by such warped ideology

I don't care much for the idea of pre-op trans women being lesbians, sure after the op they can be, but this isn't something that matters to me.

I don't think anyone is knowingly attempting erradicate any group honestly, I think this is an example of bad results coming from good intentions. I feel Quill is right, in attempt to oppose bigotry we sometimes swing too far the wrong way.

In the case of the OP, I think a warning should've been enough. Deliberately insulting a police officer is not something I think should be tolerated though, and that was clearly the intent here.

Eilzel wrote:

Thorin wrote:I would love to hear Eilzels thoughts on this. When penis news (pink news ) and stonewall back a view that bio males with dicks can be lesbians. Eilzel though t this would never gain traction. Its now at the fore front of these groups> These groups that are supposed to support gay people. Are quite simple attempting to eradicate homosexuals as a people, by such warped ideology

I don't care much for the idea of pre-op trans women being lesbians, sure after the op they can be, but this isn't something that matters to me.

I don't think anyone is knowingly attempting erradicate any group honestly, I think this is an example of bad results coming from good intentions. I feel Quill is right, in attempt to oppose bigotry we sometimes swing too far the wrong way.

In the case of the OP, I think a warning should've been enough. Deliberately insulting a police officer is not something I think should be tolerated though, and that was clearly the intent here.

Well for a start its effecting many females. Where these lobby groups are acting against the equality act
Which does allow them to discriminate in law in protected females spaces
Hence the lobby groups are effecting people
More so when they are trying to replace sex a a protected characteristic
You still do not see the danger to homosexuality mate

Why do you think homosexuals are forced to change sex in countries where homosexuality is criminal

You will in time come to see the danger of this ideological movement

These groups are already pushing as seen to make it a hate incident if a lesbian rejects a male with bollocks who identifies as a woman. You cannot force people to date, be attracted to or like someone. I mean imagine you were castigated for a claimed hate incident. For not wanting to associate with some religious radical who hated homosexuals?

We are entering a new age of religious creationism, being created into law, based on made up genders.
The simplest thing to have been done here would have been to create gender identities in law, separate and alongside sex.
These very beliefs are eradicating what it means to be female and male. Which is not only nonsense its completely unscientific. Its why we have seen the new LGB group, that does not want to be a part of the gender religion ideology

In reality these gender radicals are creating far more problems for trans people, that people who actually hate trans people.
You simple cannot change sex psychically and to entertain such a delusion. Goes against any sound scientific reasoning.

Thorin wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Thorin wrote:I would love to hear Eilzels thoughts on this. When penis news (pink news ) and stonewall back a view that bio males with dicks can be lesbians. Eilzel though t this would never gain traction. Its now at the fore front of these groups> These groups that are supposed to support gay people. Are quite simple attempting to eradicate homosexuals as a people, by such warped ideology

I don't care much for the idea of pre-op trans women being lesbians, sure after the op they can be, but this isn't something that matters to me.

I don't think anyone is knowingly attempting erradicate any group honestly, I think this is an example of bad results coming from good intentions. I feel Quill is right, in attempt to oppose bigotry we sometimes swing too far the wrong way.

In the case of the OP, I think a warning should've been enough. Deliberately insulting a police officer is not something I think should be tolerated though, and that was clearly the intent here.

Well for a start its effecting many females. Where these lobby groups are acting against the equality act
Which does allow them to discriminate in law in protected females spaces
Hence the lobby groups are effecting people
More so when they are trying to replace sex a a protected characteristic
You still do not see the danger to homosexuality mate

Why do you think homosexuals are forced to change sex in countries where homosexuality is criminal

You will in time come to see the danger of this ideological movement

These groups are already pushing as seen to make it a hate incident if a lesbian rejects a male with bollocks who identifies as a woman. You cannot force people to date, be attracted to or like someone. I mean imagine you were castigated for a claimed hate incident. For not wanting to associate with some religious radical who hated homosexuals?

We are entering a new age of religious creationism, being created into law, based on made up genders.
The simplest thing to have been done here would have been to create gender identities in law, separate and alongside sex.
These very beliefs are eradicating what it means to be female and male. Which is not only nonsense its completely unscientific. Its why we have seen the new LGB group, that does not want to be a part of the gender religion ideology

In reality these gender radicals are creating far more problems for trans people, that people who actually hate trans people.
You simple cannot change sex psychically and to entertain such a delusion. Goes against any sound scientific reasoning.

This story is about a person being arrested for being deliberately offensive. I personally don't think he should have been fined for doing this on one occasion, but I do think people should have more respect for the police.

This is a million miles, however, from discriminating against females or posing a danger to gay people.

If there was EVER a real threat of that in the UK, I'd oppose it absolutely. (For instance, the ridiculous allowing of trans women to compete against biological women is sports, as is happening in parts of the USA).

Eilzel wrote:

Thorin wrote:

Well for a start its effecting many females. Where these lobby groups are acting against the equality act
Which does allow them to discriminate in law in protected females spaces
Hence the lobby groups are effecting people
More so when they are trying to replace sex a a protected characteristic
You still do not see the danger to homosexuality mate

Why do you think homosexuals are forced to change sex in countries where homosexuality is criminal

You will in time come to see the danger of this ideological movement

These groups are already pushing as seen to make it a hate incident if a lesbian rejects a male with bollocks who identifies as a woman. You cannot force people to date, be attracted to or like someone. I mean imagine you were castigated for a claimed hate incident. For not wanting to associate with some religious radical who hated homosexuals?

We are entering a new age of religious creationism, being created into law, based on made up genders.
The simplest thing to have been done here would have been to create gender identities in law, separate and alongside sex.
These very beliefs are eradicating what it means to be female and male. Which is not only nonsense its completely unscientific. Its why we have seen the new LGB group, that does not want to be a part of the gender religion ideology

In reality these gender radicals are creating far more problems for trans people, that people who actually hate trans people.
You simple cannot change sex psychically and to entertain such a delusion. Goes against any sound scientific reasoning.

This story is about a person being arrested for being deliberately offensive. I personally don't think he should have been fined for doing this on one occasion, but I do think people should have more respect for the police.

This is a million miles, however, from discriminating against females or posing a danger to gay people.

If there was EVER a real threat of that in the UK, I'd oppose it absolutely. (For instance, the ridiculous allowing of trans women to compete against biological women is sports, as is happening in parts of the USA).

Its not a million miles from effecting females?

As seen hate incidents can include a female questioning why a male is in the Toilets. Which conflicts with the equality act. Only those with GRC's are allowed in female protected spaces. So claiming a female girl cannot uphold her right under the law. Is trying to undermine this law. No 11 year olds have a GRC. Let alone no teacher should ever be using said bathrooms. This is opening up girls to potential abuse. Its also incorrectly claiming this as a hate incident, which would be reported to the police under these guidelines

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/01/19/third-girls-say-have-sexually-harassed-school-charity-survey/

Offensive?

Is this the reality we are entering?
A new form of Blasphemy?
Where we enact laws on the hurt feelings of people?
I think you need reminding of what Hitchins said mate

Also, before the method of "gender affirming" for kids with gender dysphoria. The vast majority of kids as they grew older desisted and came to understand they were simple gay. All studies point to this

http://www.sexologytoday.org/2016/01/do-trans-kids-stay-trans-when-they-grow_99.html

Yet now with "gender affirming", which leads to puberty blockers and then hormone treatment and potentially life changing surgery, unable to have children etc. Is very disconcerting. When before this, many would have desisted and come to understand they are gay Eilzel. That is literally a form of gay conversion therapy. Medicating children on a path, where they then only desist in their 20's. As their brains fully develop, after the damage has been done to their bodies by such treatment. Hence its a massive safeguarding issue regarding especially gay kids. Who its clear a number are being made to wrongly believe they are the wrong sex.

Hence a gay boy, is medicated to change to a girl gender and believes they are heterosexual. This is exactly what happens in countries to homosexuals, where homosexuality is illegal.

Now I am all for helping those with gender dysphoria and trans people being able to identify by what ever gender they like. But no treatment should be allowed on children. When as seen before the previous treatment saw the majority desist before any medication. Now this is leading to life changing surgery, as kids are fast tracked through the system.

So maybe you should research more and actually start being concerned, as the trans lobbies have already shut down attempts for new studies on detranisitoning. Its easy to see why, because they want to push through gender affirming on children. With no care or view to safeguard confused gay children

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7916945/Woman-given-puberty-blockers-joins-High-Court-fight-stop-drugs-prescribed-children.html

Thorin wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Thorin wrote:

Well for a start its effecting many females. Where these lobby groups are acting against the equality act
Which does allow them to discriminate in law in protected females spaces
Hence the lobby groups are effecting people
More so when they are trying to replace sex a a protected characteristic
You still do not see the danger to homosexuality mate

Why do you think homosexuals are forced to change sex in countries where homosexuality is criminal

You will in time come to see the danger of this ideological movement

These groups are already pushing as seen to make it a hate incident if a lesbian rejects a male with bollocks who identifies as a woman. You cannot force people to date, be attracted to or like someone. I mean imagine you were castigated for a claimed hate incident. For not wanting to associate with some religious radical who hated homosexuals?

We are entering a new age of religious creationism, being created into law, based on made up genders.
The simplest thing to have been done here would have been to create gender identities in law, separate and alongside sex.
These very beliefs are eradicating what it means to be female and male. Which is not only nonsense its completely unscientific. Its why we have seen the new LGB group, that does not want to be a part of the gender religion ideology

In reality these gender radicals are creating far more problems for trans people, that people who actually hate trans people.
You simple cannot change sex psychically and to entertain such a delusion. Goes against any sound scientific reasoning.

This story is about a person being arrested for being deliberately offensive. I personally don't think he should have been fined for doing this on one occasion, but I do think people should have more respect for the police.

This is a million miles, however, from discriminating against females or posing a danger to gay people.

If there was EVER a real threat of that in the UK, I'd oppose it absolutely. (For instance, the ridiculous allowing of trans women to compete against biological women is sports, as is happening in parts of the USA).

Its not a million miles from effecting females?

As seen hate incidents can include a female questioning why a male is in the Toilets. Which conflicts with the equality act. Only those with GRC's are allowed in female protected spaces. So claiming a female girl cannot uphold her right under the law. Is trying to undermine this law. No 11 year olds have a GRC. Let alone no teacher should ever be using said bathrooms. This is opening up girls to potential abuse. Its also incorrectly claiming this as a hate incident, which would be reported to the police under these guidelines

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/01/19/third-girls-say-have-sexually-harassed-school-charity-survey/

Offensive?

Is this the reality we are entering?
A new form of Blasphemy?
Where we enact laws on the hurt feelings of people?
I think you need reminding of what Hitchins said mate

From the Telegraph article you linked:

"They spoke of feeling unheard on issues like Brexit, being bullied for identifying as feminists, and are "worryingly put off politics" by the toxic abuse received by prominent female MPs, the study found."

None of that speaks of women feeling harassed in toilets - though I'm not saying such a thing doesn't happen in the UK.

And I don't think being offensive should be a crime, I said deliberately insulting a police officer shouldn't happen.

Eilzel wrote:

Thorin wrote:

Its not a million miles from effecting females?

As seen hate incidents can include a female questioning why a male is in the Toilets. Which conflicts with the equality act. Only those with GRC's are allowed in female protected spaces. So claiming a female girl cannot uphold her right under the law. Is trying to undermine this law. No 11 year olds have a GRC. Let alone no teacher should ever be using said bathrooms. This is opening up girls to potential abuse. Its also incorrectly claiming this as a hate incident, which would be reported to the police under these guidelines

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/01/19/third-girls-say-have-sexually-harassed-school-charity-survey/

Offensive?

Is this the reality we are entering?
A new form of Blasphemy?
Where we enact laws on the hurt feelings of people?
I think you need reminding of what Hitchins said mate

From the Telegraph article you linked:

"They spoke of feeling unheard on issues like Brexit, being bullied for identifying as feminists, and are "worryingly put off politics" by the toxic abuse received by prominent female MPs, the study found."

None of that speaks of women feeling harassed in toilets - though I'm not saying such a thing doesn't happen in the UK.

And I don't think being offensive should be a crime, I said deliberately insulting a police officer shouldn't happen.

But its absolutely arbitrary to say it was deliberately insulting the officer

Is it now an insult to question the gender of someone, when unsure?

As that is the reality of this charge. This will be Orwellian to say people are compelled to believe someone is the opposite sex. Its basically a legal fiction.

What next. Can I get someone criminally charged, for calling me a wanker?

That is the reality of the road this is leading down, where near anything can become a criminal offense.

Of course its happening in toilets, stop being so naïve Eilzel

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/women/sexual-assault-unisex-changing-rooms-sunday-times-women-risk-a8519086.html

As seen a third of girls suffer sexual abuse and harassment. no criminal charges there by the way. Which is why females in law, are allowed to have segregated spaces. In reality to resolve this whole issue. Schools, Universities etc should change to locked single room bathroom/changing shower facilities. Which provide privacy and safety for everyone. As seen Stonewall is literally trying to undermine this act by claiming that a female is not allowed to challenge male bodied people entering female protected spaces

You never answered the following

Also, before the method of "gender affirming" for kids with gender dysphoria. The vast majority of kids as they grew older desisted and came to understand they were simple gay. All studies point to this

http://www.sexologytoday.org/2016/01/do-trans-kids-stay-trans-when-they-grow_99.html

Yet now with "gender affirming", which leads to puberty blockers and then hormone treatment and potentially life changing surgery, unable to have children etc. Is very disconcerting. When before this, many would have desisted and come to understand they are gay Eilzel. That is literally a form of gay conversion therapy. Medicating children on a path, where they then only desist in their 20's. As their brains fully develop, after the damage has been done to their bodies by such treatment. Hence its a massive safeguarding issue regarding especially gay kids. Who its clear a number are being made to wrongly believe they are the wrong sex.

Hence a gay boy, is medicated to change to a girl gender and believes they are heterosexual. This is exactly what happens in countries to homosexuals, where homosexuality is illegal.

Now I am all for helping those with gender dysphoria and trans people being able to identify by what ever gender they like. But no treatment should be allowed on children. When as seen before the previous treatment saw the majority desist before any medication. Now this is leading to life changing surgery, as kids are fast tracked through the system.

So maybe you should research more and actually start being concerned, as the trans lobbies have already shut down attempts for new studies on detranisitoning. Its easy to see why, because they want to push through gender affirming on children. With no care or view to safeguard confused gay children

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7916945/Woman-given-puberty-blockers-joins-High-Court-fight-stop-drugs-prescribed-children.html

Thorin wrote:  ………...

What sort of Orwellian society are we walking into? How did this even end up in court. With a person that suffers from Asperger's?

I am still baffled at what kind of hate crime this is meant to be?

So is it OK for innocent people going about their normal business or serving the community, to have insults lobbed at them in the street? What the hell  is wrong with you?


A rude kid who behaves like this, was not 'brought up' to be a decent person, he was dragged up by the scruff of the neck to become a lout instead.

You do realise that the same kid who does this will also yell "oi, slaphead" at all baldies who walk past him, he would also yell ''mongo, spacko''  etc,  at people in wheelchairs. If someone with a limp walked past him and his gang, he would say something humiliating to the person. No one needs to shout anything at random strangers in the street.

As he is young his solicitor could appeal for a more lenient sentence - and maybe also appeal to wipe the conviction so it does not affect his future employment prospects - I'd agree with that bit.
But you being outraged that he is being punished at all for his crime, is ludicrous, I don't understand your attitude, Thorin.

JulesV wrote:

Thorin wrote:  ………...

What sort of Orwellian society are we walking into? How did this even end up in court. With a person that suffers from Asperger's?

I am still baffled at what kind of hate crime this is meant to be?

So is it OK for innocent people going about their normal business or serving the community, to have insults lobbed at them in the street? What the hell  is wrong with you?


A rude kid who behaves like this, was not 'brought up' to be a decent person, he was dragged up by the scruff of the neck to become a lout instead.

You do realise that the same kid who does this will also yell "oi, slaphead" at all baldies who walk past him, he would also yell ''mongo, spacko''  etc,  at people in wheelchairs. If someone with a limp walked past him and his gang, he would say something humiliating to the person. No one needs to shout anything at random strangers in the street.

As he is young his solicitor could appeal for a more lenient sentence - and maybe also appeal to wipe the conviction so it does not affect his future employment prospects - I'd agree with that bit.
But you being outraged that he is being punished at all for his crime, is ludicrous, I don't understand your attitude, Thorin.

Should you be allowed to yell "fuck the popo" at the cops?

How about make a song about that?

nicko wrote: "Upset and embarrassed"  what sort of snowflakes are this country turning out now !

There is a new law now that if a case ends up in court, the victim is invited to make an ''impact statement'' to say how the crime affected them. Hence why the guy commented how he felt. Otherwise he probably wouldn't have commented.

I think it's a good law. People who are burgled or assaulted or their relatives are murdered, can make a 'victim impact statement' telling the court how the crime damaged their lives, and the judge takes this into account when sentencing. It's good to hear things from the victim's perspective and this is encouraged.

Maddog wrote:

JulesV wrote:


So is it OK for innocent people going about their normal business or serving the community, to have insults lobbed at them in the street? What the hell  is wrong with you?


A rude kid who behaves like this, was not 'brought up' to be a decent person, he was dragged up by the scruff of the neck to become a lout instead.

You do realise that the same kid who does this will also yell "oi, slaphead" at all baldies who walk past him, he would also yell ''mongo, spacko''  etc,  at people in wheelchairs. If someone with a limp walked past him and his gang, he would say something humiliating to the person. No one needs to shout anything at random strangers in the street.

As he is young his solicitor could appeal for a more lenient sentence - and maybe also appeal to wipe the conviction so it does not affect his future employment prospects - I'd agree with that bit.
But you being outraged that he is being punished at all for his crime, is ludicrous, I don't understand your attitude, Thorin.

Should younger allowed to yell "fuck the popo" at the cops?
How about make a song about that?

The popo are thickskinned and they are used to anti-police comments from juveniles and drunks, they know that such hostility is against the whole police force so they don't take it personally.  But in this instance it was very personal.

JulesV wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Should younger allowed to yell "fuck the popo" at the cops?
How about make a song about that?

The popo are thickskinned and they are used to anti-police comments from juveniles and drunks, they know that such hostility is against the whole police force so they don't take it personally.  But in this instance it was very personal.

Apparently not thick skinned enough. Imagine the distress a fat cop might feel getting called a pig.

JulesV wrote:

Thorin wrote:  ………...

What sort of Orwellian society are we walking into? How did this even end up in court. With a person that suffers from Asperger's?

I am still baffled at what kind of hate crime this is meant to be?

As he is young his solicitor could appeal for a more lenient sentence - and maybe also appeal to wipe the conviction so it does not affect his future employment prospects - I'd agree with that bit.
But you being outraged that he is being punished at all for his crime, is ludicrous, I don't understand your attitude, Thorin.

Attitude? I am not outraged but sick and tired of where the Uk has literally become a nanny state

No laws should be created based on how offended someone feels. We have progressed away from blasphemy laws. To bring about new ones and off an idiotic ideology, not born from any science but simple made up bullshit. Is again not progression, but regression

Thorin wrote:

JulesV wrote:



As he is young his solicitor could appeal for a more lenient sentence - and maybe also appeal to wipe the conviction so it does not affect his future employment prospects - I'd agree with that bit.
But you being outraged that he is being punished at all for his crime, is ludicrous, I don't understand your attitude, Thorin.

Attitude? I am not outraged but sick and tired of where the Uk has literally become a nanny state

No laws should be created based on how offended someone feels. We have progressed away from blasphemy laws. To bring about new ones and off an idiotic ideology, not born from any science but simple made up bullshit. Is again not progression, but regression

These laws also create different classes of people. Certain attributes or lifestyles are more protected than others.

Maddog wrote:

Thorin wrote:

Attitude? I am not outraged but sick and tired of where the Uk has literally become a nanny state

No laws should be created based on how offended someone feels. We have progressed away from blasphemy laws. To bring about new ones and off an idiotic ideology, not born from any science but simple made up bullshit. Is again not progression, but regression

These laws also create different classes of people. Certain attributes or lifestyles are more protected than others.  

So does money. I think the point is drifting a bit.

Maddog wrote:

Thorin wrote:

Attitude? I am not outraged but sick and tired of where the Uk has literally become a nanny state

No laws should be created based on how offended someone feels. We have progressed away from blasphemy laws. To bring about new ones and off an idiotic ideology, not born from any science but simple made up bullshit. Is again not progression, but regression

These laws also create different classes of people. Certain attributes or lifestyles are more protected than others.  

+1

“Sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me”

What happened to that way of thinking?

In America, if this even got to court, a judge would determine whether this taunt was a call for violence against the officer. And even if the judge found the comment utterly repugnant, he or she would be bound by the law to say that it was protected, free speech.

This case is indeed a joke. Everyone has to endure verbal abuse from time to time; you learn to deal with it. Trying to eradicate it is like trying to exterminate the whole world for cockroaches.

Ben Reilly wrote:In America, if this even got to court, a judge would determine whether this taunt was a call for violence against the officer. And even if the judge found the comment utterly repugnant, he or she would be bound by the law to say that it was protected, free speech.

This case is indeed a joke. Everyone has to endure verbal abuse from time to time; you learn to deal with it. Trying to eradicate it is like trying to exterminate the whole world for cockroaches.

One correction: a judge would not even consider it under the First Amendment, unless the judge found the violence (eg, assault) first. Then s/he would treat it in sentencing, as an aggravating circumstance. Only in rare occasions can speech be the crime in itself.

Thorin wrote:

JulesV wrote:



As he is young his solicitor could appeal for a more lenient sentence - and maybe also appeal to wipe the conviction so it does not affect his future employment prospects - I'd agree with that bit.
But you being outraged that he is being punished at all for his crime, is ludicrous, I don't understand your attitude, Thorin.

Attitude? I am not outraged but sick and tired of where the Uk has literally become a nanny state

No laws should be created based on how offended someone feels. We have progressed away from blasphemy laws. To bring about new ones and off an idiotic ideology, not born from any science but simple made up bullshit. Is again not progression, but regression

My grievance here is not about the gender issues of this guy, I could not care less about trans-this or trans-that, I don't have much patience with the extremists in the LGBQT community.

My grievance is simply  about the lad being provocatively rude to strangers in the street. I would probably faint with shock if I heard that my son had been yelling random insults at people in the street, he wasn't raised that way.

JulesV wrote:

Thorin wrote:

Attitude? I am not outraged but sick and tired of where the Uk has literally become a nanny state

No laws should be created based on how offended someone feels. We have progressed away from blasphemy laws. To bring about new ones and off an idiotic ideology, not born from any science but simple made up bullshit. Is again not progression, but regression

My grievance here is not about the gender issues of this guy, I could not care less about trans-this or trans-that, I don't have much patience with the extremists in the LGBQT community.

My grievance is simply  about the lad being provocatively rude to strangers in the street. I would probably faint with shock if I heard that my son had been yelling random insults at people in the street, he wasn't raised that way.

People are rude to strangers all the time. Its not a crime and never should be
I have to say people here are hard pressed to even find what sort of offence this was?
It certainly was not hateful and more down the road of piss take
This was never hateful, it was naive and insensitive, but that does mean people should face criminal charges for.

Its completely over the top. An apology was all that was needed. We cannot now criminalise every time someone gets upset over something said to them.

Even Ben thinks rightly this is a joke, as it is. We simple cannot police a society, based on the arbitrary hurt feelings of people. As 99.9% would constantly be up on charges for this.

And Thorin, you really need to make up your mind.

You once lambasted me for the heinous crime of me giggling at some people were hesitant to enter a coffee shop full of cops.

I had to endure a patronising lecture from you about how my laughter was disrespectful to the authority of the cops. You made a ten course meal out of nothing cos i did nothing wrong, I was only laughing cos i thought you were posting it as a funny story.

You lectured me about disrespect - but when it suits you, it's suddenly ok for people to yell stuff at uniformed cops.

JulesV wrote:And Thorin, you really need to make up your mind.

You once lambasted me for the heinous crime of me giggling at some people were hesitant to  enter  a coffee shop full of cops.

I had to endure a patronising lecture from you about how my laughter was disrespectful to the authority of the cops.  You made a ten course meal out of nothing cos i did nothing wrong, I was only laughing cos i thought you were posting it as a funny story.

You lectured me about disrespect - but when it suits you, it's  suddenly ok for people to yell stuff at uniformed cops.

Eh?

Nobody said people cannot lambast people for stupid things they do. Happy that you do so with this case with the boy and his actions. Which has bugger all to do with anything being related to you

You never went up in front of a judge for your giggling and rightly so. As its not a crime, but that does not mean I or others are then barred from being critical. Its so absurd your point, its not even near the same page, let alone book

Do you understand the clear difference here?

I dont have any respect for the cops in this country. Especially after many turned a blind eye to grooming gangs. So why do you think the Police be given respect? What makes them any more special than anyone else in the country?

Hmmm, didge has a point here, actually....

I don't think anyone says the comment wasn't rude. The question is what to do about rude comments. Making them a legal issue is silly.

Thorin wrote:

JulesV wrote:And Thorin, you really need to make up your mind.

You once lambasted me for the heinous crime of me giggling at some people were hesitant to  enter  a coffee shop full of cops.

I had to endure a patronising lecture from you about how my laughter was disrespectful to the authority of the cops.  You made a ten course meal out of nothing cos i did nothing wrong, I was only laughing cos i thought you were posting it as a funny story.

You lectured me about disrespect - but when it suits you, it's  suddenly ok for people to yell stuff at uniformed cops.

Eh?

Nobody said people cannot lambast people for stupid things they do. Happy that you do so with this case with the boy and his actions. Which has bugger all to do with anything being related to you

You never went up in front of a judge for your giggling and rightly so. As its not a crime, but that does not mean I or others are then barred from being critical. Its so absurd your point, its not even near the same page, let alone book

Do you understand the clear difference here?

I dont have any respect for the cops in this country. Especially after many turned a blind eye to grooming gangs. So why do you think the Police be given respect? What makes them any more special than anyone else in the country?

Do you understand how to be more consistent and less fickle? One day you lecture members about disrespect towards police and the next day you say it's suddenly ok to be rude to them.

If you have no respect for UK police you should declare it at the start of your threads, then people like me won't waste our time trying to reason with someone whose level of prejudice against the ENTIRE police force is so enormous.

JulesV wrote:

Thorin wrote:

Eh?

Nobody said people cannot lambast people for stupid things they do. Happy that you do so with this case with the boy and his actions. Which has bugger all to do with anything being related to you

You never went up in front of a judge for your giggling and rightly so. As its not a crime, but that does not mean I or others are then barred from being critical. Its so absurd your point, its not even near the same page, let alone book

Do you understand the clear difference here?

I dont have any respect for the cops in this country. Especially after many turned a blind eye to grooming gangs. So why do you think the Police be given respect? What makes them any more special than anyone else in the country?

Do you understand how to be more consistent and less fickle? One day you lecture members about disrespect towards police and the next day you say it's suddenly ok to be rude to them.

If you have no respect for UK police you should declare it at the start of your threads, then people like me won't waste our time trying to reason with someone whose level of prejudice against the ENTIRE police force is so enormous.

I do not have to declare anything. What you need to understand is everyone is open to criticism, including me  and you
Its not even in the same ball park to go off this when someone else has been charged for the upset feelings of someone.

For you to go off now your own hurt feelings. Shows that up to be problematic. In that you are trying to make your hurt feelings an equivalent act of hate speech? Of which this case was based on hate speech.

Are you seriously that unable to let go of something? That you hold on to past bouts with anger and resentment. That you bottle this up, instead of moving on?

Grow up Jules eh

Maddog wrote:I don't think anyone says the comment wasn't rude. The question is what to do about rude comments. Making them a legal issue is silly.  

I agree.

Thorin wrote:
I dont have any respect for the cops in this country.  

Thorin wrote:I do not have to declare anything.

You do.
A big universal prejudice like that should be declared so that people who try to reason with you know what they are up against and they can decide if they should even bother.

Yes Thorin the authorities were very wrong to turn a blind eye towards sex abuse by grooming gangs.
But remember that they equally turned a blind eye to sex abuse in every other sphere - in children's homes, in politics,  in showbiz and among sport coaches. Saville & co carried out assaults with impunity for decades while everyone looked the other way.

ALL sex abuse is wrong, wherever it happened, it's hypocritical to pick & choose which ones you want to be outraged about.

JulesV wrote:

Thorin wrote:
I dont have any respect for the cops in this country.  

Thorin wrote:I do not have to declare anything.

You do.
A big universal prejudice like that should be declared so that people who try to reason with you know what they are up against and they can decide if they should even bother.

Yes Thorin the authorities were very wrong to turn a blind eye towards sex abuse of grooming gangs.
But remember that they equally turned a blind eye to sex abuse in every other sphere - in children's homes, in politics,  in showbiz and among sport coaches. Saville & co carried out assaults with impunity for decades while everyone looked the other way.

ALL sex abuse is wrong, wherever it happened, it's hypocritical to pick & choose which ones you want to be outraged about.

I do, do I?
Because you said so Jules. Sounds very Orwellian and totalitarian

I do not have to do anything

Trust is something earned. Its not something you automatically give someone based on their status. By going off status, you are elevating a group above others. Never based on the wrongs done in the force, but by the heroic acts of a minor few members of the Police

When the force failed to act not only with celebrities or the grooming cases. Then the whole force Has to take on that shame for their inaction.

So tell me again why I should automatically respect someone simple based on them wearing a uniform?

Thorin wrote:
........ So tell me again why I should automatically respect someone simple based on them wearing a uniform?

As you are chucking questions around, I have two for you.
1. Why do you disrespect ALL police officers based on the action (or rather inaction) of a few? Some current officers were not yet even born at the height of the grooming scandal.

2. Is the opinion in the title yours or is it a quote?


Tbh Thorin,  I think you are a bit fed up with the way some of the LGBTQ community overly imposes itself on society and demands rights all the time, and I know that some of their extreme/fringe members are quite unreasonable in their demands so I share your concerns. Seen you grumbling about them in other threads.


However your dislike of them is seeping into other topics. You are influenced by your feelings towards some transgender people ....... whereas with me, I am more concerned about the wider issue of bad behaviour in juveniles. I don't think the zero tolerance shown here was "Orwellian", it's just the authorities firmly trying to draw some lines in the sand as to what they are willing to tolerate.

I've had my say. Thanks for a thought-provoking and interesting topic anyway. Off now.

JulesV wrote:

Thorin wrote:
........ So tell me again why I should automatically respect someone simple based on them wearing a uniform?

As you are chucking questions around, I have two for you.
1. Why do you disrespect ALL police officers based on the action (or rather inaction) of a few? Some current officers were not yet even born at the height of the grooming scandal.

2. Is the opinion in the title yours or is it a quote?


Tbh Thorin,  I think you are a bit fed up with the way some of the LGBTQ community overly imposes itself on society and demands rights all the time, and I know that some of their extreme/fringe members are quite unreasonable in their demands so I share your concerns. Seen you grumbling about them in other threads.


However your dislike of them is seeping into other topics. You are influenced by your feelings towards some transgender people   ....... whereas with me, I am more concerned about the wider issue of bad behaviour in juveniles.  I don't think the zero tolerance shown here was "Orwellian", it's just the  authorities firmly trying to draw some lines in the sand as to what they are willing to tolerate.

I've had my say. Thanks for a thought-provoking and interesting topic anyway. Off now.

lol "my dislike of the LGBT"?

Typical misdirection card applied, when Jules is left flapping like a fish out of the water

So you dodged my questions and then invented a load of bullshit on top of this

I will repeat again for clearly someone so dumb, its hard for them to understand.

Respect is earned. Its not given based on a uniform. That means everyone has to earn that respect. That means Officers have to earn that respect.

Side track again with yet more bullshit and you will on permanent ignore dipshit

Your choice

see, back in the day, if a kid was rude and disrespectful they would be hauled back to their parents who would give them (the kid) a good telling off,,,,,doesn't happen any more. the parents are more likely to laugh or have a go at said copper

Thorin wrote:

JulesV wrote:

As you are chucking questions around, I have two for you.
1. Why do you disrespect ALL police officers based on the action (or rather inaction) of a few? Some current officers were not yet even born at the height of the grooming scandal.

2. Is the opinion in the title yours or is it a quote?


Tbh Thorin,  I think you are a bit fed up with the way some of the LGBTQ community overly imposes itself on society and demands rights all the time, and I know that some of their extreme/fringe members are quite unreasonable in their demands so I share your concerns. Seen you grumbling about them in other threads.


However your dislike of them is seeping into other topics. You are influenced by your feelings towards some transgender people   ....... whereas with me, I am more concerned about the wider issue of bad behaviour in juveniles.  I don't think the zero tolerance shown here was "Orwellian", it's just the  authorities firmly trying to draw some lines in the sand as to what they are willing to tolerate.

I've had my say. Thanks for a thought-provoking and interesting topic anyway. Off now.

lol "my dislike of the LGBT"?

Typical misdirection card applied, when Jules is left flapping like a fish out of the water

So you dodged my questions and then invented a load of bullshit on top of this

I will repeat again for clearly someone so dumb, its hard for them to understand.

Respect is earned. Its not given based on a uniform. That means everyone has to earn that respect. That means Officers have to earn that respect.

Side track again with yet more bullshit and you will on permanent ignore dipshit

Your choice

why you gotta be so damn rude?

jules's post to you wasn't rude at all, in fact her last line was really nice

and YOU have the chutzpah to call HER a dipshit?

check yourself out

gelico wrote:

Thorin wrote:

lol "my dislike of the LGBT"?

Typical misdirection card applied, when Jules is left flapping like a fish out of the water

So you dodged my questions and then invented a load of bullshit on top of this

I will repeat again for clearly someone so dumb, its hard for them to understand.

Respect is earned. Its not given based on a uniform. That means everyone has to earn that respect. That means Officers have to earn that respect.

Side track again with yet more bullshit and you will on permanent ignore dipshit

Your choice

why you gotta be so damn rude?

jules's post to you wasn't rude at all, in fact her last line was really nice

and YOU have the chutzpah to call HER a dipshit?

check yourself out

Not rude by making up crap claiming i dislike the LGBT?

So when people make false accusations, they certainly are dipshits

I do not tolerate people lying and making false accusations

Sorry if that bothers your precious sensitivities

Maybe you should call the Police Gelico and have me arrested for a hate incident lol

So frankly Gelico, get stuffed. You want to defend a dipshit that makes up lies about me. Then that makes you also a dipshit

Thorin wrote:

gelico wrote:


why you gotta be so damn rude?

jules's post to you wasn't rude at all, in fact her last line was really nice

and YOU have the chutzpah to call HER a dipshit?

check yourself out

Not rude by making up crap claiming i dislike the LGBT?

So when people make false accusations, they certainly are dipshits

I do not tolerate people lying and making false accusations

Sorry if that bothers your precious sensitivities

Maybe you should call the Police Gelico and have me arrested for a hate incident lol

So frankly Gelico, get stuffed. You want to defend a dipshit that makes up lies about me. Then that makes you also a dipshit

she didn't say that at all. perhaps you should try to read posts more carefully and then try to understand them before you go flying off the handle half cocked as per usual



I think you are a bit fed up with the way some of the LGBTQ community overly imposes itself on society and demands rights all the time,


she even agreed with you

Still if all your capable of is misreading posts and replying in a rude manner that's your own problem


as you were then

gelico wrote:

Thorin wrote:

Not rude by making up crap claiming i dislike the LGBT?

So when people make false accusations, they certainly are dipshits

I do not tolerate people lying and making false accusations

Sorry if that bothers your precious sensitivities

Maybe you should call the Police Gelico and have me arrested for a hate incident lol

So frankly Gelico, get stuffed. You want to defend a dipshit that makes up lies about me. Then that makes you also a dipshit

she didn't say that at all.  perhaps you should try to read posts more carefully and then try to understand them before you go flying off the handle half cocked as per usual



I think you are a bit fed up with the way some of the LGBTQ community overly imposes itself on society and demands rights all the time,


she even agreed with you

Still if all your capable of is misreading posts and replying in a rude manner that's your own problem


as you were then

You need to go to specsavers

"However your dislike of them is seeping into other topics"

Either you are as blind as a bat or dishonest by not posting what Jules said

Next time you jump in with both feet in your mouth Gelico, I suggest you actually read what has been said

Thorin wrote:

gelico wrote:



she didn't say that at all.  perhaps you should try to read posts more carefully and then try to understand them before you go flying off the handle half cocked as per usual



I think you are a bit fed up with the way some of the LGBTQ community overly imposes itself on society and demands rights all the time,


she even agreed with you

Still if all your capable of is misreading posts and replying in a rude manner that's your own problem


as you were then

You need to go to specsavers

"However your dislike of them is seeping into other topics"

Either you are as blind as a bat or dishonest by not posting what Jules said

Next time you jump in with both feet in your mouth Gelico, I suggest you actually read what has been said

''them'' clearly referring to the over zealous ones mentioned in the previous sentence

I think you are a bit fed up with the way some of the LGBTQ community overly imposes itself on society and demands rights all the time,


like i said she was agreeing with you if you bothered to look

Now you are just making crap up Gelico, to fit your warped reasoning

Again I do not dislike anyone from the LGBT, no matter if some have views are at odds with mine

Has that point sunk in your head yet?

For fuck sake

Didge cool it. Gelico is right, Jules referred to 'some' in the community and 'them' referred back to that 'some'. This is clear as say.

So there was no reason to insult Jules OR Geli whatsoever. Just try and respond without insults, you might find your discussions last longer

Eilzel wrote:Didge cool it. Gelico is right, Jules referred to 'some' in the community and 'them' referred back to that 'some'. This is clear as say.

So there was no reason to insult Jules OR Geli whatsoever. Just try and respond without insults, you might find your discussions last longer

Whether the word is some or all. I do not dislike anyone of them
That is a false accusation, for the hundredth time

So my view were warranted to both dipshits

So both you and Gelico are backing a false claim made onto me

So I am not going to have false claims made on me and you are defending a liar.

Both deserved everything they got and really not bothered that the conversation was over.