Good luck Harry The Owl

Unknown to many, the Grateful Dead operated a very low-key charity to help young kids with musical ambitions. It was called "The Rex Foundation".

Many years ago (must have been) there was a BBC documentary about it (probably BBC2 late night fare) and they interviewed the perma-cheerful Jerry Garcia who twinkly-eyed noted that:

If you have to come to the Grateful Dead for help, boy have you slipped through the cracks in the sidewalk

Reading the Daily Telegraphs defence of free speech evokes a similar reaction in me ... if The Daily Telegraph is cogently fighting your corner, WTF is going on ?

I can hear the gnashing of teeth from Fatman and Bobbin.

Today's D Telegraph article on Harry.

"Why are the police at war with free speech? " Douglas Murray

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/11/21/police-war-free-speech/

First paragraph

"Perhaps it would simplify things if the 999 dialling service was amended. From now on it might say: “Press ‘1’ for ambulance, 2 for police, 3 for fire-service and 4 for thought-police.” Although given current priorities, perhaps the thought-police option should be offered first."

Extract
"Yet even this is not the deepest problem. The deepest problem with the police stepping into these areas is that for a society to make healthy decisions it must have healthy discussions: to do so freely and without fear. In the area of trans we are currently (as with other “phobias”) being bullied away from having such a discussion. By claiming they are “offended”, a small number of activists are trying to force everyone else into agreeing with extraordinarily radical demands. This includes a demand that irreversible medical interventions should be carried out on children.
Well those demands should not be agreed to. And those who are questioning some of the emerging trans orthodoxy will be seen in the future as having provided – at the very least – a useful corrective. They should be free to do so without fearing not just some extremists on their backs but the police at their door."

Great post clitherow.

I OBJECT.

Me too, it seems I'm not safe even in a backwater!

The authorities are clear that a person cannot in law consent to being subjected to actual bodily harm or grievous bodily harm for the purposes of sexual pleasure,

But they can for sport, so the next step will simply be a wrestling match that "went wrong".

YY to all that, clitherow

Most of that list of examples has been discussed at length on mumsnet.

The links between transgender ideology (as distinct from transexualism) and queer theory/transhumanism/neoliberalism/men's rights movements needs to be more widely publicised.

Excellent post, clitherow. Genderism is just one facet of some truly worrying stuff. I OBJECT.

The chilling of public discussion on these matters is counterproductive for all concerned, not least for the majority of trans people who have little in common with the more pugnacious activists who claim to speak on their behalf.

This quote from Andrew Doyle hints at the heart of this whole issue.

That governments all over the world and international corporations seem to be backing the spread of transgender ideology should tell us something. This has a lot less to do with living and breathing transgender people and more to do with sticking a crow bar into popular consciousnes.

Once you can force people, through fear, to deny even a basic biological truth, then you can force them to do and agree to anything:

Sex with children is fine if it does not cause the child 'distress'
Death by sex is an acceptable risk of 'healthy' BDSM
Pornography does not harm the psycho-sexual development of human beings.
Sexual expression is the new god and we should all bow down before and be forced to admire public expressions of paraphilias.
Euthanasia is an acceptable remedy for any self-defined experience of suffering and perhaps a social responsiblity for those who are a burden on society
Genetic engineering is an acceptable means to breed an improved humanity.

These are all waiting, ready to be poured into the public domain on the back of transgender ideology and the bully-boy intimidation in a backwater like Humberside is just a shot across our international bows: accept the brave new world or be trampled underfoot.

Yes that makes sense, OnlyTheTit

Can you also explain Lady Hale and spider brooches please?

I'm not sure I'll be able to articulate what I feel very well, but after the Supreme Court's judgement that Johnson's prorogation of Parliament was illegal, there was something of a 'cult of personality' which sprang up about Lady Hale, much of it focused on her choice of jewellery. I think Lady Hale is a fantastic role model for girls and I have the utmost respect for her intellect and the achievements she has carved out for herself within a bastion of maleness, especially at the time she was embarking on her career in law. So it felt disrespectful to reduce her to a caricature, even where it was meant fondly, of this Machiavellian woman in her bling spinning the webs to stop Brexit, as if she was sending a personal message to Remainers - and I identify as one - rather than having simply done her job which was to consider the facts of the case and come to an impartial judgement. It also completely overlooked the contribution of her eight male and two other female colleagues on the Bench in that case.

I hope that makes sense.

Late to this thread (work got in the way). I just want to shout Harry the Owl, you are an absolute .

behaviour which isn’t a crime but which is perceived by the victim, or anybody else, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice based on the five protected characteristics’ (race, religion, sexual orientation, transgender identity and disability). Note the use of the word ‘victim’ rather than ‘complainant’ – the presumption of innocence so casually dismissed through rhetorical sleight-of-hand

Great article by Andrew Doyle. Good that he cites the absurd case of Karl Beech, which was amplified and legitimized in the HOC by the partisan, politically motivated actions of Tom Watson.

Well done Andrew Doyle, good article.

Would very much like to see the argument that T**f is a harmless and factual descriptive label without any associated slur that is perfectly appropriate to coercively assign to others put forth in court. It's one of many of points of incoherence that need a great deal of evidenced discussion in full public gaze.

"The people trying to push back against Harry Miller's case are likely to be the same people pushing all the sex positive stuff that got us into a position where the law thinks women can consent to being sexually tortured to death"

Works as a tweet, just checked that it fits within the character limit.

The people trying to push back against Harry's case are likely to be the same people pushing all the sex positive stuff that got us into a position where the law thinks women can consent to being sexually tortured to death

Excellent point TheProdigalKittensReturn. Let us never forget the self avowed interest in extreme porn that can be found in the timelines of so many of the opponents to women's sex based rights. All evident in plain sight.

The people trying to push back against Harry's case are likely to be the same people pushing all the sex positive stuff that got us into a position where the law thinks women can consent to being sexually tortured to death.

I agree. I hadn’t heard of the Natalie Connolly case before and reading that link was shocking. It’s absolutely bloody appalling

Just saw this brilliant article on this case by Andrew Doyle (Titania McGrath is his creation)

www.spiked-online.com/2019/11/22/putting-the-thoughtpolice-on-trial/

The people trying to push back against Harry's case are likely to be the same people pushing all the sex positive stuff that got us into a position where the law thinks women can consent to being sexually tortured to death

God yes, this ^^

If she had a blood alcohol level of almost five times the legal limit, how could she have given consent?

Yes, exactly.

Autumn, I have just read your link. As you say, it makes horrendous reading. I have thought for a long time that sentencing in the UK is woefully inadequate and this case is yet another grim illustration of this inadequacy. It makes me very angry that this young woman died in such a manner and her killer has received what I consider to be a grotesquely lenient sentence. Another thing occurs to me about this case. If she had a blood alcohol level of almost five times the legal limit, how could she have given consent?

I don't agree with the sentence passed in the Natalie Connelly case. I think it's symptomatic of a wider problem though.

The people trying to push back against Harry's case are likely to be the same people pushing all the sex positive stuff that got us into a position where the law thinks women can consent to being sexually tortured to death.

This.

I have cross-posted with nauticant

There have been lots of threads on MN about Natalie Connolly where other websites and SM platforms weren't bothered. This one,

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/petitions_noticeboard/3459253-To-ask-you-to-sign-these-petitions-Natalie-Connellys-murder?msgid=83558464

contains links to other threads and a link to the Judge's sentencing remarks

www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/broadhurst-sentencing-remarks.pdf

It is a grim and heartbreaking read, but I read it this morning to understand the detail. It was the Crown Prosecution Service who accepted the manslaughter plea and dropped the murder and unlawful penetration charges. The Judge then outlines his sentencing rationale within the sentencing guidelines. I do not agree with his sureness on many points, particularly the injuries to Natalie Connolly's vagina and eye socket. However his reasoning is laid out for inspection.