Harrop MPTS thread 2

[Personwithrage]

Starting the new thread

@EgoSumFeminaNaturalis

I don't find the image of a woman being burned to death amusing.

Don't laugh then.

BaronessWrongCrowdRex

In the UK, faggot Isn’t an insult nor slur. It is never been used in that way.

Are you very young? I can’t think that anyone under the age of 35 who would not have heard the word used against gay men. I hope AH is struck off, but if a tweet was directed at him containing that word, it is not unreasonable he found it highly offensive.

if a tweet was directed at him containing that word, it is not unreasonable he found it highly offensive

The tweet was clearly using the word to mean "bundles of wood" not "slur for gay people". There's no other reasonable or rational interpretation. Therefore AH is being totally unreasonable, disingenuous, and I'd go so far as to say outright lying.

I don't think that ''faggot' would have been used by my mother like that. More like a little bundle of cheekiness. My parents never really cursed. Never heard words like bitch, sexual slurs or scatological references from their mouths. Sometimes a 'go bhfóire dia orainn' (god help us), 'god give me strength' or a 'you'd try the patience of St Peter'. I have no idea if the alleged St Peter was patient or not. Lots of religious references, really.

So faggot was not used in an insulting or sexual way. Definitely archaic usages and they also used the word queer as in 'I'm feeling queer'. Or that is queer (as in odd).

They were of their time and place, though.

@beastlyslumber

if a tweet was directed at him containing that word, it is not unreasonable he found it highly offensive

The tweet was clearly using the word to mean "bundles of wood" not "slur for gay people". There's no other reasonable or rational interpretation. Therefore AH is being totally unreasonable, disingenuous, and I'd go so far as to say outright lying.

It also wasn’t aimed at him.

The burning witch tweet wasn't addressed to AH LizzieSiddal.

It’s similar to “slut” isn’t it? I remember my mum calling me a “slut” when I was teenager and being instantly mega offended, as amongst my peers it was derogatory towards a woman “being easy”, but she meant I hadn’t tidied my room and was living in a huge mess, which was actually fair comment.

So, Wednesday then.

@Cailleach1 that’s exactly how my grandmother used the word faggot. It could be affectionate, like. Cheeky monkey or not like entitled brat.

Is it not perjury?

Also agreeing with others that both "faggot" and "slut" were used in my house when I was growing up, the former meaning, little tyke or something like that, and the latter meaning messy. "Slattern" was another.

Anyway, it's all irrelevant, because no one sane could believe or expect others to believe that tweet was in any way homophobic.

The burning witch tweet wasn't addressed to AH LizzieSiddal.

I’m pleased to hear it wasn’t.

Sorry if i missed it, but was AH ever challenged on his misreading (likely disingenuous)of the word 'faggot' which E used in the sense of 'logs for the fire on which they intend to burn a witch'

Anyway, it's all irrelevant, because no one sane could believe or expect others to believe that tweet was in any way homophobic

Just catching up with this thread and the “faggot” debate. FFS. Obviously the tweet in question was not homophobic.

Pretty outrageous that AH’s representative was allowed to engage in obvious DARVO with no comeback. I would seriously hope that the panel can see through all that.

Well I can see now why the defence declined to cross-examine the witnesses.
I can only hope that the Chair’s questioning around the faggot tweet was more nuanced than could be captured in the quick tweets from the Tribunal, more along the lines of “if you found this offensive/discriminatory, why didn’t you take it up with Twitter?”

My father still uses 'gay' in its original meaning of cheery/happy/carefree

@LitCrit

Sorry if i missed it, but was AH ever challenged on his misreading (likely disingenuous)of the word 'faggot' which E used in the sense of 'logs for the fire on which they intend to burn a witch'

Sadly not

@Lovelyricepudding

My father still uses 'gay' in its original meaning of cheery/happy/carefree

That's nice. That makes me feel a bit gay to hear it

@LizzieSiddal

BaronessWrongCrowdRex

In the UK, faggot Isn’t an insult nor slur. It is never been used in that way.

Are you very young? I can’t think that anyone under the age of 35 who would not have heard the word used against gay men. I hope AH is struck off, but if a tweet was directed at him containing that word, it is not unreasonable he found it highly offensive.

As far as I am aware the tweet was not directed at him - rather AH picked up on it.

Secondly, context is everything and the meaning was perfectly clear in that tweet.

The fact that someone might not have understood the (older and more long standing) meaning of a word in the U.K. is not the fault of the author.

Thirdly, the issue at hand is even if the tweet was offensive (and I disagree that it was) AH had a choice on how to respond to it. He could have reported it to Twitter (maybe he did to be fair). He could have responded that he found the use of that word offensive. He could have chosen not to engage.

What we see in AH's tweets is a sustained pattern of escalation/accusations and even threats towards people he disagreed with.

Personally I can't fathom this defence of "they made me do it". Even if his cause was just as he claims, l can't see how that mitigates his behaviour.

Instead it says that's he's a person who hasn't appropriately reflected on his behaviour, his choices. He's still in denial by placing the blame for his conduct elsewhere.

Nobody forced him to post what he did or to ignore multiple warnings about his online behaviour.

He didn't have to post in his own name or use his professional title.

His choices, his consequences and arguing over the wording of ONE tweet by ONE witness is exactly the sort of derail AH is depending on to get him out of the hole he has dug for himself with his own bloody shovel.

Most important is how, according to this tweet, the meaning of the burning witch tweet and its intent were interpreted by the tribunal:

twitter.com/tribunaltweets/status/1461658000465215492

It wasn't pit to him that when E called him a 'faggot' why didn't he take it to twitter

Earlier on, AH had said this:

twitter.com/tribunaltweets/status/1461339301371858945

I wish I was ‘very young’, alas I am not. I know full well what way that faggot is used in America. However, I am English and in England it is not a slur. If someone uses it I would think of sticks and a animal product before I would the word being used as an insult.

I would be absolutely fucking fuming (and very upset) if I was C. He's been allowed to get away with abusing and doxing her, he's indicated he's pm'ed naked photos of her, he's retweeted obviously doctored tweets, he's encouraged another person to follow her around on twitter and in real life (including turning up on her doorstep), he's posted details about her place of work, her home, her husband (and his place of work and job) and her children. He's encouraged his lawyer to infer she wanted to harass transpeople out of existence, and he's told the tribunal that her tweets, in particular the witch one, were homophobic.

And in return she's had to just sit and watch and wait.

Now I know why witnesses weren't called. I'm fucking furious, and it's nothing to do with me

This is part of what he was allowed to say, seemingly unchallenged:

"The fact that E found it acceptable or tolerable to get on that platform and announce to the world she's been persecuted by 'faggots' I can't stand by and let someone behave that way. Persecutory language..."

It's bollocks.

x-post with nauticant, sorry. I'm so cross I've had to open the wine at 6 6.15