Scottish Hate Crime Bill: Andrew Doyle asks all the right questions of Barrister Sam Fowles

Maybe it was the studio lights. Like with Nixon.

I don't think Sam is going to do many more appearances, somehow. No one likes to sweat like that

SF certainly doesn't perspire like that on Scots TV (or not the items I've seen). Does Scots TV have better MUA than GB News? Or was it under pressure from AD who was being polite, firm, appropriately challenging and not letting SF off the hook?

I think it's probably covered in:

14. Women have all the rights they need: The right to remain silent.
15. Men are the default human. Women are strange subhuman others.

He's obviously swallowed the cool aid.

Totally. It's not something you expect from a barrister.

Or someone who's gone to the trouble of writing an article, and then gone on GB news.

He had no idea about the MoJ statistics. Thought that the actual number of transwomen sex offenders was a number that Andrew was trying to 'extrapolate' for other reasons.

Even TRA barristers like RMW, haven't actually swallowed the Kool-Aid, in my opinion. It's perfectly obvious when they talk.

I don't think Sam is going to do many more appearances, somehow. No one likes to sweat like that 😄

Is this sufficiently covered in the Rules of Misogyny or do we need an additional one to cover ignoring women's opinions if inconvenient to men?

Rules of misogyny.

1. Women are responsible for what men do.
2. Women saying no to men is a hate crime.
3. Women speaking for themselves are exclusionary and selfish.
4. Women’s opinions are violence against men, thus male violence against women is justified.
5. Women and Feminism must be useful to men or they are worthless.
6. Women who go around being female AT men by menstruating and breastfeeding babies deserve punishment.
7. Women should always be grateful to men for everything.
8. Men are whatever men say they are and women are whatever men say they are.
9. Men always know the “real reasons” for everything women do and say.
10. The worst thing about male violence is that it makes men look bad.
11. Whatever women suffer from, it is worse when it happens to men.
12. Women’s ability to recognize male behavior patterns is misandry.
13. Angry women are crazy. Angry men have trouble expressing themselves.
14. Women have all the rights they need: The right to remain silent.
15. Men are the default human. Women are strange subhuman others.

I really hope that Fowles looks back on that interview and sees the total disregard that he has for female people in bright lights.

I suspect though, that he will double down and make all the excuses under the sun.

Silly, women don't count! We shoudl of course respect the individual choice of every man. But we can ignore the opinions of women if they are inconvenient to any men.

If the group it's creating hate against are women, then no, you can't report it.

Archive version of his truly terrible article for the New European, as posted on that thread. archive.is/lchN6

I was thinking, "Why does what the general trans population matter, the stats for prisoners are what are relevant"

As for, "assessing the threat to the prisoner from other prisoners" well the threat is always going to be less ina women's prison.

He's obviously swallowed the cool aid, 'most vulnerable' and the subjected to 'violence' - wee that's because TRA's claim hurty words are 'litteral violence'.

I like the thing about teachers being subject to checks and balances.

I seriously dented an OU tutor's views by saying that, "We know abusers will abuse, they will go to great lengths to abuse, they will marry, have children, start a relationship with a single mother, become a teacher, scout leader or priest to abuse. It's not about trans people it is about abusers using opportunities to abuse".

Oh and I also had back up from my medical background, when you are doing lung function tests you need to know the sex, not the gender, of the patient.

If you are going down the individual route Sam, then surely from your fairness point of view you should ask every women the man will be in prison with, whether they ‘mind’? After all it’s a double punishment for many more women than the one man. And yes, there is evidence for that too.

Good link, thanks. It was brave of the barrister to go on the show but a good thing - we need all views (even those with which I disagree - I am a free speech supporter too). I hope the new Scottish law has helped people understand how awful the English hate crime laws are already as I would like them removed or toned down.

SF: <bluster, fluster, strawman>
AD: I hope you'll come back on the show because we've only scratched the surface here.

However, SF should accept the invitation as it would up SF's professional game both in courts and on TV.

Andrew was very knowledgeable!

Yes, he'd plainly done his prep and SF was relying on attractiveness and charm rather than due diligence. I feel it would do SF the world of good to have better fact-checkers and editors for SF's written work as well. It feels as if SF has been charming SF's way through without scrutiny because of TV attractiveness and connections. SF could learn from this.

Brilliantly done Andrew was very knowledgeable!

I love him. I think he should be on all the time. Talks absolute pish, of course, but it's entertaining!

Wow. Arse on a plate!

'I can see how women would get there'

Well yes mate, you can see it because it is blatantly fucking obvious. But you just don't care, that's the issue.

SF has been a regular and popular pundit on Scots TV so may well be looking to extend SF's reach. SF must be hardened to criticism of SF's partisanship as the article discussed here was a prime example of both that and SF's lack of grasp of numbers.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5005216-how-a-loophole-in-uk-law-helps-out-anti-trans-activists

Best not double punish those poor men. Let's overlook the fact the women will be double punished instead. No harm done.

🙄

That was a case study in blustering defensiveness - and from a barrister! Such a contrast to Andrew who knows his stuff and is the model of informed rationality. He's also unflappable, well informed and persistently respectful - just allows his interviewees to speak, expose their lack of knowledge while occasionally calmly responding to inaccuracies with information / feedback.

It was #OperationLetTheSpeak and yet another example of how trying to defend this ideology renders people sounding like utter fools.

Oh, of course - but if you've decided to go down the TRA route and be a Fearless Defender of the Most Vulnerable (see also, the Foxbotherer), you can't really go back or ever admit weakness. Not with the way that group treats heretics.

And I'm just speculating here, but if you're from a profession that's traditionally considered prestigious - law, medicine - and demands that you sound very sure of yourself at all times, maybe there's a bit of Dunning Krueger effect thrown into the mix?

One of my favourite aphorisms there - but I'm not sure why its true in Sam's case. One can surely be a successful barrister without writing articles and going on telly to venerate trans.

Brilliant, incisive summary of why apparently intelligent individuals humiliate themselves by taking such positions, if I may say so.

As to the underlying reasoning:

"TW over represented amongst jailed sex offenders"
"That study has been debunked"
"It's not a study, it's MoJ data"
"Then the sample numbers are too small"

And this man is a barrister?? I'd pay him NOT to defend me.

Sam can't admit that men play the system to get into women's jails because if he did he'd have to admit that self ID doesn't work. If he did that, all he'd be left with to determine who is trans is medical evidence, and there isn't any.

I often wonder what the motivation is for seemingly otherwise intelligent professional men like Sam to defend the clearly indefensible.