• Guest, The HibeesBounce invites you to enter our Monthly Draw...

    Enter our Monthly Draw Here

    GGTTH

  • hibeesbounce

Come and get me Humza

It will. There will be hundreds of them.
The Police probably have a J K Rowling reporting template by now. Change the complainers details and ironically Bobs your aunty.
Maybe they will just have an open incident log and will simply add the names of all the dafties when they report the same thing at different Police stations.
1600 of them by last night. Estimated that around 16 were genuine hate crimes.
 
As you'll know it's not unusual to have girls in boys teams when they are little. I reckon your squad is the last year its viable. I don't know what level these teams are at but div one in boys league are already pretty physical by u14, u15 I just don't think it would be work at all.
I believe it is up to 13 then they split. My laddies fitba team played a girls team who were two years older when he was 10. The girls were bigger and looked fabby in the warm up but the boys were quicker in movement and thought. Even at that age there is a huge difference
 
I believe it is up to 13 then they split. My laddies fitba team played a girls team who were two years older when he was 10. The girls were bigger and looked fabby in the warm up but the boys were quicker in movement and thought. Even at that age there is a huge difference
The girls looked fabby. At 12 years old.

You’re DEFINITELY reported.


Just not by me.

Stones and glass houses etc.

Have to go now.
Someone at the door. With a ram.


No offence to Ryan, it’s not one of his.
 
You knew I meant they looked fabby regards their football skills. Of course you did.
 
You knew I meant they looked fabby regards their football skills. Of course you did.
He did don’t worry. Any potential ‘reinterpretation’ of your words available and you’ll get ‘shrinked’! Don’t worry about it he’s just pulling your leg.
 
The Indian council of Scotland has reported police Scotland to itself, citing the ‘hate monster’ stuff as prejudicial against white working class men. The cops have now taken it down apparently.

Well done the IC but just goes to show farcical it all is.
 
Absolutely spot on Colin. I'm of the same opinion as you amigo.
When egb posted this originally, I googled his first line....'Aussie women’s football team subject of controversy.'
Surprise,surprise the only stuff that came up believe me, was from....
The Daily Mail, The Telegraph, The Express, GB News, Mail on Line,
All Right wing rags. Says it all Colin.


BIG G
Bang on Big G. More in Common conducted polling on the issue in 2022, as they included it in a typically formatted salience question. Of the 16 issues included, "the debate around transgender people" ranked least important. Just 2% of respondents included it as any of their top 3 issues.

This won't come as a surprise to anybody who saw recent census data on the UK's trans population - out of the 45,700,000 people who responded to a question on gender identity, just 262,000 (0.5%) responded that they were trans.

It doesn't take much thought to conclude why the reactionary populist right wing press amplify this issue out of all proportion. What is less obvious is why, decade after decade, a good number of white middle aged people are so ready to endorse such sadly predictable dog whistles.
 
Bang on Big G. More in Common conducted polling on the issue in 2022, as they included it in a typically formatted salience question. Of the 16 issues included, "the debate around transgender people" ranked least important. Just 2% of respondents included it as any of their top 3 issues.

This won't come as a surprise to anybody who saw recent census data on the UK's trans population - out of the 45,700,000 people who responded to a question on gender identity, just 262,000 (0.5%) responded that they were trans.
Yes it is the point. People are not up in arms about a tiny minority but about i) a lunatic authoritarianism and ii) the creepy indoctrination of children a fair few of whom are ending up in life changing situations as a result
It doesn't take much thought to conclude why the reactionary populist right wing press amplify this issue out of all proportion. What is less obvious is why, decade after decade, a good number of white middle aged people are so ready to endorse such sadly predictable dog whistles.
Careful now.
 
Bang on Big G. More in Common conducted polling on the issue in 2022, as they included it in a typically formatted salience question. Of the 16 issues included, "the debate around transgender people" ranked least important. Just 2% of respondents included it as any of their top 3 issues.

This won't come as a surprise to anybody who saw recent census data on the UK's trans population - out of the 45,700,000 people who responded to a question on gender identity, just 262,000 (0.5%) responded that they were trans.

It doesn't take much thought to conclude why the reactionary populist right wing press amplify this issue out of all proportion. What is less obvious is why, decade after decade, a good number of white middle aged people are so ready to endorse such sadly predictable dog whistles.
Most folk couldnae gie a toss if somebody wants tae dress in a frock. What annoys folk is them trying to convince everybody they've suddenly changed sex.
They haven't.
If they want to compete in sport but not mens sport they should start their own competitions.
And if they cut their Willie's off they still don't become women they become eunuchs.
My opinion of course.
No scientific research was carried out to back up this statement
 
Most folk couldnae gie a toss if somebody wants tae dress in a frock. What annoys folk is them trying to convince everybody they've suddenly changed sex.
They haven't.
If they want to compete in sport but not mens sport they should start their own competitions.
And if they cut their Willie's off they still don't become women they become eunuchs.
My opinion of course.
No scientific research was carried out to back up this statement
That's the point. It only annoys the angrys. The vast majority of people do not give a flying one.
 
What is less obvious is why, decade after decade, a good number of white middle aged people are so ready to endorse such sadly predictable dog whistles.
That is a remarkably racist comment. You're assuming every other ethnic community goes along with the shite that a vociferous minority are trying to feed us.
Try asking the muslim brotherhood what they think of it all.
Its like you think being white and middle aged is something to be ashamed of
 
Bang on Big G. More in Common conducted polling on the issue in 2022, as they included it in a typically formatted salience question. Of the 16 issues included, "the debate around transgender people" ranked least important. Just 2% of respondents included it as any of their top 3 issues.

This won't come as a surprise to anybody who saw recent census data on the UK's trans population - out of the 45,700,000 people who responded to a question on gender identity, just 262,000 (0.5%) responded that they were trans.

It doesn't take much thought to conclude why the reactionary populist right wing press amplify this issue out of all proportion. What is less obvious is why, decade after decade, a good number of white middle aged people are so ready to endorse such sadly predictable dog whistles.
I think you are missing the point a wee bit where folk are being forced to accept someone's fantasy.

Want to dress as a wummin? Carry on gadgie.

Want me to accept you as a wummin? Eh nope you are a gadgie in a skirt.

Get the thought Stasi involved seems to be the solution according to the dafties in half wit hoose down in Holyrood
 
Yes it is the point. People are not up in arms about a tiny minority but about i) a lunatic authoritarianism and ii) the creepy indoctrination of children a fair few of whom are ending up in life changing situations as a result

Careful now.
I would turn it round and say that the bigger issue is unfettered free speech in an age of unleashed social media and an increasingly capable AI.

Soon enough anyone anywhere will be able convincingly to say that anyone has said any sort of awful bile at any time for no good reason. That gives me the fear, not a wee bill in our wee bit of the blue marble.
 
Like the transexuals who called for JK Rowling to be beheaded?
Aye social media can be lethal.

But saying a geezer in a skirt is exactly that. A geezer in a skirt.

Why should that be seen as a 'non hate hate crime' and recorded?
 
I would turn it round and say that the bigger issue is unfettered free speech in an age of unleashed social media and an increasingly capable AI.

Soon enough anyone anywhere will be able convincingly to say that anyone has said any sort of awful bile at any time for no good reason. That gives me the fear, not a wee bill in our wee bit of the blue marble.
I look at the dog whistles you are responding to and wonder when one of them will be loud enough to wake you up.

You blithely engage in racial profiling, ageism and so on - though the Scottish whistleblowers included class which you have overlooked, and use a different age profile. How, I wonder, did so many people come to dutifully respond to the parps of dividers and exploiters ? How did the chattering classes manage to turn people against the historic working class of the country and pave the way for exploitation as it is today rather than in comfort blanket legends from the past?

Then there is the implied patrician racism that as ever ignores non white people and assumes they are just stooges of the white upper middle class progressive agenda, rather than generally being more socially conservative than white people.

Social media is indeed poison and I’d shut it all down if I could, unfortunately the poisonous fumes you may have inhaled, don’t rely on it, and have a grip of all the power structures.

Free speech should be unfettered btw, there are long standing and time tested established limits surrounding incitement of hatred. They don’t need improved upon and they are not a license for race baiters or aspiring totalitarians who are stirring up hatred and division everywhere.

Finally, and to restate and expand a little; no one gives a fuck about men who want to put on a dress. They care about authoritarian loons, a war on women (and a little recognised war on gays), indoctrination of children and subversion of reality (everything from maths to reason itself waiting in the wings to be denounced, and already being declared racist by the vanguard). Those who think a bit further ahead are also concerned about the impact of swathes of the population being exploited and demonised, and the alternative dark forces they are then meat for. There is going to be hell to pay for all this (the wider direction not Humza’s wee Soviet experiment) if we’re not lucky.
 
That is a remarkably racist comment. You're assuming every other ethnic community goes along with the shite that a vociferous minority are trying to feed us.
Try asking the muslim brotherhood what they think of it all.
Its like you think being white and middle aged is something to be ashamed of
That feels a remarkably snowflake comment.

The only assumption I'm making is that the readership of a rag like the Telegraph is predominantly white, and I feel pretty comfortable with that. The interesting/sad thing is why people feel the need to wave the rascist comment placard around.
 
That feels a remarkably snowflake comment.

The only assumption I'm making is that the readership of a rag like the Telegraph is predominantly white, and I feel pretty comfortable with that. The interesting/sad thing is why people feel the need to wave the rascist comment placard around.
Are you able to make an argument without resorting to racism ? Seriously ?
 
I look at the dog whistles you are responding to and wonder when one of them will be loud enough to wake you up.

You blithely engage in racial profiling, ageism and so on - though the Scottish whistleblowers included class which you have overlooked, and use a different age profile. How, I wonder, did so many people come to dutifully respond to the parps of dividers and exploiters ? How did the chattering classes manage to turn people against the historic working class of the country and pave the way for exploitation as it is today rather than in comfort blanket legends from the past?

Then there is the implied patrician racism that as ever ignores non white people and assumes they are just stooges of the white upper middle class progressive agenda, rather than generally being more socially conservative than white people.

Social media is indeed poison and I’d shut it all down if I could, unfortunately the poisonous fumes you may have inhaled, don’t rely on it, and have a grip of all the power structures.

Free speech should be unfettered btw, there are long standing and time tested established limits surrounding incitement of hatred. They don’t need improved upon and they are not a license for race baiters or aspiring totalitarians who are stirring up hatred and division everywhere.

Finally, and to restate and expand a little; no one gives a fuck about men who want to put on a dress. They care about authoritarian loons, a war on women (and a little recognised war on gays), indoctrination of children and subversion of reality (everything from maths to reason itself waiting in the wings to be denounced, and already being declared racist by the vanguard). Those who think a bit further ahead are also concerned about the impact of swathes of the population being exploited and demonised, and the alternative dark forces they are then meat for. There is going to be hell to pay for all this (the wider direction not Humza’s wee Soviet experiment) if we’re not lucky.

I'm not blithely engaging in anything. I was responding to a comment from BiG regarding sources of rhetoric, as you probably noted but quite clearly choose to ignore. The demographics of a rag like the Telegraph are easy enough to check and I am quite comfortable in saying that its readership is predominantly white and aged.

I agree totally about the ongoing war against women - it is shameful. I am assume that you will agree that the war is being waged by men?
 
Are you able to make an argument without resorting to racism ? Seriously ?

I'm very surprised that you take offence at a statement that the readership of the Telegraph is predominantly white. But hey ho, each to their own.
 
I think you are missing the point a wee bit where folk are being forced to accept someone's fantasy.

Want to dress as a wummin? Carry on gadgie.

Want me to accept you as a wummin? Eh nope you are a gadgie in a skirt.

Get the thought Stasi involved seems to be the solution according to the dafties in half wit hoose down in Holyrood
The law doesn't stop you from accepting whatever you like. What it does do is make it illegal to stir up hatred based on prejudice towards the following characteristics:

• age
• disability
• religion
• sexual orientation
• transgender identity
• variations in sex characteristics.

What led you to think that the law would affect what you accept or don't accept?
 
Last edited:
I'm very surprised that you take offence at a statement that the readership of the Telegraph is predominantly white. But hey ho, each to their own.
I don’t give a fuck what colour they are. I’m more disappointed in your view that race is a valid basis for establishing false divisions in this area and others.

As has already been explained by others - which should be superfluous given how obvious it is - this stuff is not so much covered by the telegraph as not covered by the left wing press, for ideological reasons, which have less than zero to do with the interests of the working class. That is not what left wing means these days, if it ever did.
 
I agree totally about the ongoing war against women - it is shameful. I am assume that you will agree that the war is being waged by men?
Right now the most active participants appear to me to be men in frocks and the left of every genital configuration. In future I expect we might expect to see Islamists join the mix; another cohort the left seem happy to ally with.

Perhaps I am paying to much attention to feminists rather than viewing them as ciphers, in the manner of non white people - a blank canvas onto which the progressive doctrine Is projected?
 
That feels a remarkably snowflake comment.
😂😂 guys on here have called me a lot of things,some nice some not so nice, but snowflake ??? never.
 
😂😂 guys on here have called me a lot of things,some nice some not so nice, but snowflake ??? never.
It’s another dog whistle response, chap. This is the vogue now; the ideology that has crippled a fair ratio of young people and turned them into a brittle mess, think it’s a right wheeze to use a description of this phenomenon against complaints about the phenomenon (and related). It’s probably preferable to contemplating what’s been done, I guess.

I think this is where Bossie is picking up his rhetorical armoury.
 
The law doesn't stop you from accepting whatever you like. What it does do is make it illegal to "stir up hatred" based on prejudice towards the following characteristics:

• age
• disability
• religion
• sexual orientation
• transgender identity
• variations in sex characteristics.
Are you ok with the police recording 'hate incidents' against someone's name where it's established that no criminality has taken place?
 
"Ally McCoist has revealed he won't be at Ibrox for Sunday's Rangers vs Celtic match following his remarks on new hate crime legislation.

The former footballer previously said he could 'guarantee' he would breach the new bill at Sunday's match."

 
The law doesn't stop you from accepting whatever you like. What it does do is make it illegal to "stir up hatred" based on prejudice towards the following characteristics:

• age
• disability
• religion
• sexual orientation
• transgender identity
• variations in sex characteristics.
And how is not buying into someone's delusion 'stirring up hatred'?
 
Are you ok with the police recording 'hate incidents' against someone's name where it's established that no criminality has taken place?
No I'm not. Does that negate the value of a law against hate speech? Not for me. Does it mean that the law is likely to evolve based on practical implementation? Most surely.
 
And how is not buying into someone's delusion 'stirring up hatred'?
The law is not based on the victim's delusion, only their personal characteristics. Instead, the test is that of a 'reasonable person'.

A person commits an offence if they communicate material, or behave in a manner, "that a reasonable person would consider to be threatening or abusive," with the intention of stirring up hatred based on the protected characteristics.
 
"Ally McCoist has revealed he won't be at Ibrox for Sunday's Rangers vs Celtic match following his remarks on new hate crime legislation.

The former footballer previously said he could 'guarantee' he would breach the new bill at Sunday's match."

Aaaaargh!

I clicked on that link without actually noticing where it would take me!!

I feel unclean now.
:eek:
 
That's the point. It only annoys the angrys. The vast majority of people do not give a flying one.
So it doesn't bother you that some creepy male can 'change' his sex and have the right to hang about female toilets, changing rooms and any or other 'spaces for women' that women had to fight for, for many many years is being given up?

It doesn't bother you that it has now become almost impossible for public health messages can't be tailored specifically for the female sex?

It doesn't bother you that many women feel that what and who they are is being systematically eliminated?

And you couldn't give a flying one that a male can 'change' his sex to gain unfair advantage in say a sporting context?

None of that bothers you?
 
Aaaaargh!

I clicked on that link without actually noticing where it would take me!!

I feel unclean now.
:eek:
Apologies.

This is the Facebook link I followed so I've no idea how I ended up with that link.

IMG_20240403_111803.jpg
 
My missus would go absolutely mental if some bloke was wandering about a female changing room when she was there, and displaying his dangly bits to the world.
Firstly she would realise that they come in different sizes, and secondly that she'd chosen poorly in selecting a husband.
 
The law is not based on the victim's delusion, only their personal characteristics. Instead, the test is that of a 'reasonable person'.

A person commits an offence if they communicate material, or behave in a manner, "that a reasonable person would consider to be threatening or abusive," with the intention of stirring up hatred based on the protected characteristics.
Abusive is an extraordinarily loose definition. It's much broader than comparable elsewhere.
 
No I'm not. Does that negate the value of a law against hate speech? Not for me. Does it mean that the law is likely to evolve based on practical implementation? Most surely.
It's an added oppressive factor. The critique of the legislation is multi faceted. It's broad scope, it's vagueness, the anti women bias in structuring the legislation and the potential to overreach. The non criminal hate crime recording is an example. A black mark against your name with no due process. It's not a direct result of the legislation but has been brought into sharp focus by it. i don't think the legislation is as benign as you do. I think it's well meaning (though the Bill precess wasn't). But it shows the difficulty in crafting legislation to deal with these issues
 
Abusive is an extraordinarily loose definition. It's much broader than comparable elsewhere.
The whole reasonable person test is on thin ice I think.

It kind of presupposes the coherent society from which it emerged. Different sections of society will now have entirely different views of what reasonable is.

There are profound questions lurking ahead of us; here I'm not talking of Humza's code but the bigger picture.

(I mean it's out the window already really - no reasonable person from a few years ago would have attributed validity to some of the claims of identity politics and few would today - but I don't think that is recognised in associated lawmaking.)
 
I don’t give a fuck what colour they are.

As has already been explained by others - which should be superfluous given how obvious it is - this stuff is not so much covered by the telegraph as not covered by the left wing press, for ideological reasons, which have less than zero to do with the interests of the working class. That is not what left wing means these days, if it ever did.
Not so. Transphobia is indeed a class question. The 'I don't mind men in frocks' chat on here are thinly veiled Transphobic tropes in my opinion.
The articles in the Telegraph, Mail, Express and *u* are in the same vein.

When America sneezes, the World catches the cold....


BIG G
 
Not so. Transphobia is indeed a class question. The 'I don't mind men in frocks' chat on here are thinly veiled Transphobic tropes in my opinion.
The articles in the Telegraph, Mail, Express and *u* are in the same vein.

When America sneezes, the World catches the cold....


BIG G
Is this more to your tastes?


The problem with using the term 'transphobic' is that it reduces any critique to a phobia. Far from being a helpful explanation it's a not so subtle attempt to shut down debate.
 
Is this more to your tastes?


The problem with using the term 'transphobic' is that it reduces any critique to a phobia. Far from being a helpful explanation it's a not so subtle attempt to shut down debate.
Is there anything you disagree with in the U.S. article Archie. Have you read it?

BIG G
 
Not so. Transphobia is indeed a class question.
only in 'everything's a class issue' contortions G.

The 'I don't mind men in frocks' chat on here are thinly veiled Transphobic tropes in my opinion.
The articles in the Telegraph, Mail, Express and *u* are in the same vein.
sorry for being insufficiently polite about the people I was talking about - remember the context was the war on women. I'm talking about odd jobs threatening rape and decapitation, not people with sexual dysphoria generally.

When America sneezes, the World catches the cold....
the whole thing is one of many pathologies springing from affluent enfants terrible in US Universities
A somewhat upside down article. The whole thing is indeed used as a distraction from economic politics but not principally by the religious right - they barely exist outside the US for a kick off. Its used first and foremost by the progressive left for these purposes, to excuse the abandonment of inconvenient deplorables (or the 'backward' as this article would have it).

You'd never get this stuff under a socialist regime, that's for sure. Nor any other expression of individualism.
 
Last edited:

This thread has been viewed 8249 times.

Your donation helps pay for our dedicated server and software support renewals. We really do appreciate it!
Goal
£100.00
Earned
£47.50