Yawn.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kato
Printable View
Yawn.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kato
The truth can be boring.Quote:
Originally Posted by James310
Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk
I have zero evidence but because I stand alone with the Conservative Party something must be wrong?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Well come back at me with how I am wrong and some opinions of your own on the topic the thread is about. Can't be that hard?Quote:
Originally Posted by Kato
The first poll on this will be interesting, I suspect you will be in the minority yet again. Most people are against this Bill.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
I’ve been caught-out going on one of my obsessive non-substantiated rants yet again, but on this occasion I’m still right.Quote:
Originally Posted by James310
Have you? What do you mean?Quote:
Originally Posted by WeeRussell
My opinion is that you don't give a monkeys about trans rights or the women who might be affected by the law. Its all about your parochial vendetta against the SNP and "wee nicky".Quote:
Originally Posted by James310
The country as whole is in the **** but oh look, a wedge issue!
Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk
No, you’ve got it all wrong. It’s all about protecting women. That’s why they are all over the other thread about protecting women on the board. It’s a real passion. They are so passionate about it they are now attacking women’s charities and wanting them defunded.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kato
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
See that wasn't that hard was it. My opinion is you are wrong, I disagree with allowing 16 year old children to self ID as a female or male at such a young age and I disagree with the fact convicted sex offenders can also self ID and potentially use it for committing yet further crimes. I also disagree with the path it's taking and the Greens talking about 8 year old children being able to self ID and be given puberty blockers. But if you support that kind of thing that's your right.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kato
Maybe you just support it because like others you support everything the SNP do? Works both ways you know.
Do you support 16 year olds self IDing? If you do why? I have given my reasons why I don't.
I don't have any strong views on culture war issues and think a lot of equalities/rights legislation is flawed. I doubt you've noticed but I'm not the strongest supporter of the SNP.Quote:
Originally Posted by James310
I'm also reluctant to argue each and every issue with someone who's views are always going to be transparently biased, every day, in every post, on every issue.
Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk
I support the SNP in their aim to make the lives of trans people easier, I just don't support some aspects of the Bill that I mentioned above like allowing 16 year olds to self ID and convicted sex offenders to do the same. I think you will find my views on these issues will actually be the majority position and I am not out of line with the majority of the public.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kato
Yeah, yeah.Quote:
Originally Posted by James310
Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk
Yeah yeah?Quote:
Originally Posted by Kato
Yeah, yeah as in being sarcastic.
As in - I don't believe you are posting on certain issues in good faith and that the only reason for your participation on most threads is because you hate the SNP.
I might be wrong of course and if I am, ah well its only a forum.
Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk
As I said I think my position on allowing 16 year old and convicted sex offenders to self ID is probably the majority position with the public. I have big concerns around what is next, when people like Maggie Chapman have such influence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kato
The police are to be informed if a convicted sex offender applies for a GRC, no? That was one of the later amendments IIRC.Quote:
Originally Posted by James310
And what can the police do? How do they prove the person applying is doing so under false pretences?Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...e_iOSApp_Other
Guardian editorial.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
What other rights do you want to take away from people convicted of offences? The right to get a job? The right to access public housing? Bus passes? The right to vote?Quote:
Originally Posted by James310
Slippery slope is it not?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
That's their job:)Quote:
Originally Posted by James310
In this case I don't think it is, it is referred to a Sheriff to review it and make a judgment, again though how on earth do you judge if someone is making a false or true application when you can self ID yourself.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
No, just the right to self ID after 3 months, that's all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Flipping it round why do you support a convicted child molester or rapist being allowed to declare themselves the opposite sex after 3 months and self IDing this change themselves?
Hold on a minute. Society takes lots of rights away from people who commit offences. In some western societies the state is enabled to kill people. Fortunately we don't do that here, but the idea that restrictions on rights of offenders is somehow odd is just bizarre. Indeed we restrict the rights of people who haven't been convicted. Have you heard of remand? So the level and nature of restrictions on offenders is up for debate. Personally I think it is legitimate to restrict access to the process when a person is accused or convicted of sex crimesQuote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
So how does it work? I'm not clear.Quote:
Originally Posted by James310
It doesn’t matter so long as he can keep saying sex offenders and trans in the same sentence so that people begin to associate them together. That’s all that matters here.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
This is from a blog which is run by people concerned with the legislation, but it does walk through the issues and process (so far as it is understood) https://murrayblackburnmackenzie.org...tin-amendment/Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Just like the 'rape clause'?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
You are the one who keeps bringing up trans people and sex offenders and linking them. I am not concerned at all about trans people, I am concerned about sex offenders though. Shouldn't we all be?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
I am intrigued as to why you support this part of the Bill though?
The registered sex offender has to notify the police themselves they are applying for a GRC. Now call me naive but why would a registered sex offender notify the police if they are planning to obtain a GRC if they have bad intentions. Another example of poor legislation.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
I don't see why a safeguarding amendment to stop convicted sex offenders applying was voted down, or at the very least some stronger safeguarding was not put in place.
And no I never mentioned trans people once, it's not trans people that are the problem here, it's sex offenders. (For Oz)