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

[ILikeDungs]

Scroll to 19:07. I love a bit of straightforward Andrew Doyle.

AD: we know that the majority of those people [men who claim to be transwomen] going into women's prisons don't suffer from gender dysphoria, they are saying that they do in order to gain access

SF: they don't, there's no evidence for that

AD: well there is, I'll give you the evidence for that...

And SF did look very flustered by the end of that interview. He is supposed to be a barrister ffs, I despair.

Blimey. A total fucking train wreck from Sam there. At least as bad as Freda Wallace, but without the excuse of being pissed as a newt.All these TRA types must have a filter in their heads which scrambles anything said to them as transphobic.

What a misogynistic tosser - clearly hadn't considered the impact on the women prisoners at all. Or likely doesn't really see them as fully human with human rights.

Andrew Doyle great as usual.

I think I've decided that the existence of the hate crime law itself is creating hate - can I report this?

I'm a bit fed up of the 'yes, yes, we'll deal with all the extreme hate (which often turns into real world violence) against women later' as well. When, exactly? At what point will women have equal rights in Scotland?

I can't believe this bloke's a barrister.

Andrew Doyle saying that of the transwomen in prison, an above average number are there for sex crimes. So either they're more likely to commit sex crimes, or they're faking a trans identity to get into a woman's prison.

And this barrister simply failed to understand what he was saying. Just couldn't grasp it.

Because he was behaving like a trans activist rather than a critical thinker. It's as if he's defending someone who obviously did it.

Such clear questioning. Such evasive answering. (Most of the time interrupting/not hearing the question rather than answering.)

seems to want to write news stories?

"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.

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

As to the underlying reasoning:

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.

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?

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.

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

🙄

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

'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.

Wow. Arse on a plate!

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

Brilliantly done Andrew was very knowledgeable!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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