Free speech

[AuroraSaab]

Linehan is a bit of a bull in a china shop but his current court case is the result of organised efforts by activists to have him arrested.

As with previous complaints to the police about gender critical comments on X, the initial complaint was judged not worthy of action. Only when threatened by a judicial review did the police act.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.da...e-officer-Graham-Linehan-Heathrow-arrest.html

There's nothing in his 3 tweets that was worthy of arrest.

 

[AndyRM]

If only it was just about those three tweets with him.

 

[Ian H]

Linehan is a bit of a bull in a china shop but his current court case is the result of organised efforts by activists to have him arrested.

View attachment 10088
As with previous complaints to the police about gender critical comments on X, the initial complaint was judged not worthy of action. Only when threatened by a judicial review did the police act.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.da...e-officer-Graham-Linehan-Heathrow-arrest.html

There's nothing in his 3 tweets that was worthy of arrest.

See also a friend of mine who was mown down and seriously injured by a driver. The police were going to send him on an awareness course. She got CyclingUK involved, and legal friends, and pushed until they agreed to prosecute. Organised effort!

 

[monkers]

Linehan is a bit of a bull in a china shop but his current court case is the result of organised efforts by activists to have him arrested.

View attachment 10088
As with previous complaints to the police about gender critical comments on X, the initial complaint was judged not worthy of action. Only when threatened by a judicial review did the police act.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.da...e-officer-Graham-Linehan-Heathrow-arrest.html

There's nothing in his 3 tweets that was worthy of arrest.

A helpful hint from Copilot ...

''Hey, just a friendly tip on reading tone online—especially when it comes to sarcasm.

Sarcasm often works by saying the opposite of what’s meant, but with clues that signal it’s not serious. In this case, the phrase “I love it when a plan comes together” is a huge giveaway. It’s a pop culture reference (The A-Team), but it was also famously used by JK Rowling earlier this year to celebrate a legal win she helped fund—one that disadvantaged trans people.

So when someone uses that same phrase in a tweet about Graham Linehan’s arrest and thanks the “Underground Trans Mafia,” they’re not confessing to a conspiracy. They’re mocking the idea that one exists. It’s satire—pointing out how absurd it is that people think trans activists are secretly orchestrating arrests.

A good rule of thumb: if a post sounds too on-the-nose to be real, and it uses exaggerated language or known catchphrases, it’s probably not meant to be taken literally. Especially when it’s referencing something that’s already been used sarcastically in the same cultural debate.

Hope that helps sharpen your sarcasm radar—it’s a useful skill in today’s internet jungle.''

 

[AuroraSaab]

Your endless use of AI is tiresome.

Might be more believable if the same person hadn't previously encouraged people to report Linehan to the police and wasn't currently using the Good Law Project to complain to Bar Standards because a woman lawyer called him a man.

 

[monkers]

Your endless use of AI is tiresome.

Might be more believable if the same person hadn't previously encouraged people to report Linehan to the police and wasn't currently using the Good Law Project to complain to Bar Standards because a woman lawyer called him a man.

Anyone might make a similar complaint about your own posts. If even a bot can spot your obvious failures, I can understand why you are irked - but maybe that means you should try harder to be honest.

I have no idea who this Sophie person is or where she posted, but it took me about five milliseconds or less to understand what she had posted and why she had posted it. I doubt that you misunderstood it either, but you thought it important to try to make it stick for the edification of the gullible.

If the ''legitimate concerns'' are indeed ''legitimate concerns'', there'd be no need to rely on falsehoods.

Now that the post is set out as obvious in it's nature, you should see that you posted a post that is mocking you and others like you, but you think my use of Copilot is responsible for it?

 

[AuroraSaab]

You've been lazily getting your answers from CoPilot since May.

I'm sure you know who Sophie Molly is. You managed to comment at length when he made an appearance in the Gender thread.

You can reopen that thread if you like. I'm sure CoPilot has some new thoughts on the Supreme Court ruling you can enlighten us with.

 

[Shortfall]

I sort of agree with you on this one. I say sort of, because Linehan has repeatedly gone far too far with his personal attacks. It is possible to take a different view re trans without being cancelled. See JK Rowling and James Dreyfuss for details.

If you think JK Rowling has come out of the Trans debate smelling of roses then I think you're being wilfully naive. Unlike Graham Linehan however she has a billion quid in the bank to ameliorate some of the backlash she's suffered because of her views on the subject.

 

[icowden]

If you think JK Rowling has come out of the Trans debate smelling of roses then I think you're being wilfully naive.

No, what I said was that she has not had the same concerted effort to get her to court for "hate crimes".

 

[Shortfall]

No, what I said was that she has not had the same concerted effort to get her to court for "hate crimes".

Well you didn't say that actually unless it was further back in the thread and I've missed it in which case apologies. If you're now implying this however, all I can say is that maybe people are less inclined to take someone to court if they have limitless funds and the best legal advice at their disposal to fight with?

 

[matticus]

If you think JK Rowling has come out of the Trans debate smelling of roses then I think you're being wilfully naive. Unlike Graham Linehan however she has a billion quid in the bank to ameliorate some of the backlash she's suffered because of her views on the subject.

Sorry, I'm losing track a bit here:
does this mean Free Speech is, or is NOT, being allowed in trans/terf/Rowling/Linehan et al world?

 

[Ian H]

Well you didn't say that actually unless it was further back in the thread and I've missed it in which case apologies. If you're now implying this however, all I can say is that maybe people are less inclined to take someone to court if they have limitless funds and the best legal advice at their disposal to fight with?

The meaning was pretty clear. And who would assume that a famous and successful TV producer/writer wasn't wealthy enough to defend himself in court?

 

[Ian H]

Sorry, I'm losing track a bit here:
does this mean Free Speech is, or is NOT, being allowed in trans/terf/Rowling/Linehan et al world?

I think harassment and doxing tend to be frowned upon in some quarters.

 

[matticus]

I think harassment and doxing tend to be frowned upon in some quarters.

You're free to say what you actually mean here Ian. Or does "frowned upon" have some specific legal meaning?

 

[Ian H]

You're free to say what you actually mean here Ian. Or does "frowned upon" have some specific legal meaning?

If you don't understand ironic understatement then I suspect you must be one of those foreign types.