NUFC Twitter/YouTube

[TheBrownBottle]

Just now, Paulinho said:

But that’s not the equivalent of what she actually expressed. Let’s stay in the realm of reality. 
 

Which of her tweets do you think fall foul of hate speech legislation?

It’s precisely what she expressed.  She called trans people ‘groomers’.  It’s what TERFs refer to trans people as - they all want to ‘groom’ children to join them in their ‘perversion’.  Section 5 of the Public Order Act is where most fall foul with that type of shite. 

[Stifler]

She also and admitted to saying that trans people want to make gay people go away, alluding to trans people want to eradicate gay people.

 

I’m sorry but free speech has fuck all to do with it. Someone who vocalises the thoughts/views that she has can easily be seen as a threat to the trans community. So therefor the club and to a larger extent the Premier League can reasonably believe that she might pose a safety risk to trans members inside SJP and/or other stadiums. It is that simple. She hasn’t been banned for what she has said directly, but banned because what she has said has put her into the camp of being a risk. 

[Paulinho]

 

43 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said:

It’s precisely what she expressed.  She called trans people ‘groomers’.  It’s what TERFs refer to trans people as - they all want to ‘groom’ children to join them in their ‘perversion’.  Section 5 of the Public Order Act is where most fall foul with that type of shite. 

At no point did she express “all trans people are predatory paedophiles”. It’s simply inaccurate to claim that is “precisely what she expressed”. You invented that to bolster your argument.
 

These discussions are basically pointless when one side keeps engaging in rhetorical sleights of hand like that. 

[TheBrownBottle]

18 minutes ago, Paulinho said:

 

At no point did she express “all trans people are predatory paedophiles”. It’s simply inaccurate to claim that is “precisely what she expressed”. You invented that to bolster your argument.
 

These discussions are basically pointless when one side keeps engaging in rhetorical sleights of hand like that. 

She referred to them as ‘groomers’.  This is precisely what is meant by the term by trans-exclusionary radical feminists.  If I have to explain that you can describe the same thing in more than one way or have more than one word for it then I’d advise that you stay away from crosswords, as they will be a frustrating way to spend your free time.

 

edit: an old BBC article describing ‘grooming’ as precisely what I stated.  You can be as selective as you like mate, we’re just going to go round in circles. 

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7758292.stm

 

 

Edited February 3 by TheBrownBottle

[k2]

What ever ones views on the issue of gender identity. This is clearly wrong 

 

https://freespeechunion.org/football-fan-banned-over-gender-critical-posts-after-stasi-premier-league-investigation/?fbclid=IwAR1svPvOUlmxdU9vps84YYbGB_3F_ly9CTZRyRo0B2Xyl5GiUcEAHwki-MY

[Guest]

18 minutes ago, k2 said:

What ever ones views on the issue of gender identity. This is clearly wrong 

 

https://freespeechunion.org/football-fan-banned-over-gender-critical-posts-after-stasi-premier-league-investigation/?fbclid=IwAR1svPvOUlmxdU9vps84YYbGB_3F_ly9CTZRyRo0B2Xyl5GiUcEAHwki-MY

Not a single bit of evidence to support the claim this shadowy intelligence unit exists? Makes you think

[Geordie Ahmed]

I just find it insane that someone has been banned for their views on social media

 

If she was sharing those views in and around the stadium then fair enough 

 

And this isn't even about what side of the fence you sit on this issue.

 

Someone can hate Islam and be vocal against it on social media but I'd not want them banned from the stadium as long as they are not sharing/promoting that view in and around the stadium 

[Guest]

I’m all for their being real world consequences for any dangerous rhetoric you spew online 

[Pancrate1892]

I don't like any of this really because there's no set limit of how far it could go. 

What next, everyone has to have their whole life history investigated to make sure you are fit and proper?? 

Perhaps you laughed at a racist joke once when you'd had a few drinks? How many people of all backgrounds would be guilty of that? 

Sure it was unwise to say what she said, but was she really looking to announce that to the world? Does she really know what she is taking about? Was she joking? 

The trans area is such a thing that some of us can't yet possibly understand, yet it's not possible to educate because it's so ambiguous, at the moment UK clinics are being sued for performing unnecessary surgeries particularly with young people that are full of regret.

So, no, I don't think she should be banned because everyone is guilty of prejudice in some form and trying to police it is a ridiculous precedent that has no limits 

[PRL]

Just now, Jack27 said:

I’m all for their being real world consequences for any dangerous rhetoric you spew online 

Who defines ‘dangerous’? A football club may be a private company but it’s also a community entity. If you have a police force saying that no crime has been committed but punishments being enforced based on other interpretations of what constitutes ‘hate’ or ‘danger’ you rapidly descend into allowing an individual’s personal takes on controversial matters impacting broader society, which I don’t think is a good place to go.
 

With that said we are already way too far down the path with the politics of those managing social and traditional media outlets defining the views that are promoted within them, this just shows a further permeation through society as a whole opting to ban rather than engage with a voice it disagrees with. 

[Stifler]

9 minutes ago, Geordie Ahmed said:

I just find it insane that someone has been banned for their views on social media

 

If she was sharing those views in and around the stadium then fair enough 

 

And this isn't even about what side of the fence you sit on this issue.

 

Someone can hate Islam and be vocal against it on social media but I'd not want them banned from the stadium as long as they are not sharing/promoting that view in and around the stadium 

Why not?

I’d like to think that if Tommy Robinson turns up today, then we will refuse him entry. He’s not said anything in a stadium before, but you know.

[Geordie Ahmed]

2 minutes ago, Stifler said:

Why not?

I’d like to think that if Tommy Robinson turns up today, then we will refuse him entry. He’s not said anything in a stadium before, but you know.

 

I think that's slightly different and you know

 

Firstly, he isn't a fan but secondly and more importantly he's actively went up and down the UK spouting hate speech and has numerous criminal convictions

 

 

[k2]

10 minutes ago, Jack27 said:

I’m all for their being real world consequences for any dangerous rhetoric you spew online 

The views she expressed are what the majority of the UK population believe (check any opinion poll) and are shared by the Prime Minister and Kier Starmer. It's an appalling violation of her rights a and freedom of speech

[k2]

18 minutes ago, Jack27 said:

Not a single bit of evidence to support the claim this shadowy intelligence unit exists? Makes you think

There is, watch the video, the PL and the Northumbria Police.

[Pancrate1892]

5 minutes ago, PRL said:

Who defines ‘dangerous’? A football club may be a private company but it’s also a community entity. If you have a police force saying that no crime has been committed but punishments being enforced based on other interpretations of what constitutes ‘hate’ or ‘danger’ you rapidly descend into allowing an individual’s personal takes on controversial matters impacting broader society, which I don’t think is a good place to go.
 

With that said we are already way too far down the path with the politics of those managing social and traditional media outlets defining the views that are promoted within them, this just shows a further permeation through society as a whole opting to ban rather than engage with a voice it disagrees with. 

100% agree. She should at least been invited for a conversation and it could have been really positive.

That's how we move forward 

[Wullie]

Fortunately such "dangerous rhetoric" has already been in front of several UK courts and constitutes a protected belief under the Equality Act. She has been discriminated against and God knows who is giving the club legal advice because they haven't got a cat in hell's chance of winning a case in court.

 

The Premier League were monitoring where she walked her dog ffs. She's going to take them to the cleaners.

[Pancrate1892]

16 minutes ago, Jack27 said:

I’m all for their being real world consequences for any dangerous rhetoric you spew online 

Think your opening the gates for hell with that theory. 

That can't be policed. 

In this ideal world your looking at, everyone is going to be frightened about what they are going to say due to consequence even though they might actually be right.

There will be no debate, no learning, just obedience. 

 

Sometimes it's nice to be proved wrong if you believe in right and wrong, let that process take place instead of silencing people and punishing people 

 

 

[k2]

11 minutes ago, Wullie said:

Fortunately such "dangerous rhetoric" has already been in front of several UK courts and constitutes a protected belief under the Equality Act. She has been discriminated against and God knows who is giving the club legal advice because they haven't got a cat in hell's chance of winning a case in court.

 

The Premier League were monitoring where she walked her dog ffs. She's going to take them to the cleaners.

Hopefully the supporters association will take up her case. as someone earlier said, if not challenged, once established, the scope of this is limitless

[Pancrate1892]

24 minutes ago, Stifler said:

Why not?

I’d like to think that if Tommy Robinson turns up today, then we will refuse him entry. He’s not said anything in a stadium before, but you know.

What if he wanted a burger from the burger van? You going to refuse him a burger?

Is he allowed to travel on the metro? It might be upsetting for people?

Is he going to be allowed to go for a pint?

In fact as soon as he comes off the train at central station should he be lynched then chopped up into small pieces and then fed to the pigs?

What are the limits? 

 

 

Edited February 3 by Pancrate1892
Spelling

[Minhosa]

Haven't followed the rights or the wrongs of this case but I do know she's a right annoying cunt who should be banned for them terrible songs ahead of anything else.

 

Whilst I'm at it, they wanna ban that fucking prick from Brizzle an'all with the hammed up geordie accent. Another cunt.

 

And fuck it, Pearson too.

 

In fact, any cunt producing video content for hits. Cunts. There's not a fucking likeable one amongst them. Pack of gimps.

[Pancrate1892]

1 minute ago, Minhosa said:

Haven't followed the rights or the wrongs of this case but I do know she's a right annoying cunt who should be banned for them terrible songs ahead of anything else.

 

Whilst I'm at it, they wanna ban that fucking prick from Brizzle an'all with the hammed up geordie accent. Another cunt.

 

And fuck it, Pearson too.

 

In fact, any cunt producing video content for hits. Cunts. There's not a fucking likeable one amongst them. Pack of gimps.

You had me at Pearson.

Tyneside life, he can fuck off with leazers terrace too. 

In fact if we get rid of all these cunts then we'll be able to get tickets 

[Lazarus]

4 minutes ago, Minhosa said:

Haven't followed the rights or the wrongs of this case but I do know she's a right annoying cunt who should be banned for them terrible songs ahead of anything else.

 

Whilst I'm at it, they wanna ban that fucking prick from Brizzle an'all with the hammed up geordie accent. Another cunt.

 

And fuck it, Pearson too.

 

In fact, any cunt producing video content for hits. Cunts. There's not a fucking likeable one amongst them. Pack of gimps.

 

[Pancrate1892]

6 minutes ago, Minhosa said:

Haven't followed the rights or the wrongs of this case but I do know she's a right annoying cunt who should be banned for them terrible songs ahead of anything else.

 

Whilst I'm at it, they wanna ban that fucking prick from Brizzle an'all with the hammed up geordie accent. Another cunt.

 

And fuck it, Pearson too.

 

In fact, any cunt producing video content for hits. Cunts. There's not a fucking likeable one amongst them. Pack of gimps.

Can we ban selfie sticks?

Personally they should be stoned to death if they are seen recording shit especially with the stick

I find them offensive and causes me great distress 

[Wullie]

4 minutes ago, Pancrate1892 said:

What if he wanted a burger from the burger van? You going to refuse him a burger?

Is he allowed to travel on the metro? It might be upsetting for people?

Is he going to be allowed to go for a pint?

In fact as soon as he comes off the train at central station should he be lynched then chopped up into small pieces and then fed to the pigs?

What are the limits? 

 

I've never heard anyone argue that a burglar, or a rapist, or a murderer, or a shoplifter should be broadly refused goods and services outside of the legal framework created to sentence them. There's an expectation that once they've served their sentence they will generally be able to participate in society like everyone else. I have no doubt whatsoever that there are at least hundreds of people at SJP every matchday who hold a criminal conviction. You might end up sat next to the bloke who nicked your granny's jewellery but you have no more right to demand his ejection from the ground than he has to demand yours.

 

But post views online that don't fit a particular prevailing orthodoxy at a particular time? Some people seem to think that's a much worse thing to do and should effectively be used to bar people who don't think the right things from public life. 

 

Very strange times we live in.

[Pancrate1892]

5 minutes ago, Wullie said:

 

I've never heard anyone argue that a burglar, or a rapist, or a murderer, or a shoplifter should be broadly refused goods and services outside of the legal framework created to sentence them. There's an expectation that once they've served their sentence they will generally be able to participate in society like everyone else. I have no doubt whatsoever that there are at least hundreds of people at SJP every matchday who hold a criminal conviction. You might end up sat next to the bloke who nicked your granny's jewellery but you have no more right to demand his ejection from the ground than he has to demand yours.

 

But post views online that don't fit a particular prevailing orthodoxy at a particular time? Some people seem to think that's a much worse thing to do and should effectively be used to bar people who don't think the right things from public life. 

 

Very strange times we live in.

Aye, granny was attached to that jewellery as well.

However, It makes up for when I set fire to his house for letting his dog shit on my lawn