Then make some predictions about the practical effect of these laws. How many people will be prosecuted without having done something wrong?
The worst thing is that because of the crappy law system in the UK, with 16 times more arrests being made for internet comments than in Russia, I can't even assert that these laws will not be abused.
Never should have elected someone who had a woman holding their wealth.
His wealth. Stop saying 'their'.
And it's a mistake to 'elect' rich people, insofar as you think these people are elected.
How many people will be prosecuted without having done something wrong?
That's the whole point of these kinds of laws. They'll only be selectively enforced. The number of people affected will be small; the chilling effects will be large. And they'll be politically useful.
Let's go by what the bill and the law it intends to amend says (obvious disclaimer that this is not legal advice).
The bill intends to add a new section based on Section 4A called section 4B which makes it an offence to do or say anything that causes harassment, alarm or distress based on the relevant person's sex. Which carries a maximum two year sentence.
And Section 4A states if someone intends to cause harassment, alarm or distress based on threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or an individual who displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting. An offence carries a maximum of a six month sentence (but only if someone is found not gulity of an offence under 4B).
The problem is with the wording of what could cause someone to fall foul of the law, it is vaguely worded and could easily be interpreted to capture a wide range of behaviours, speech and language. There is also the prospect of the law being applied unequally based on pre-suppositions, bias and ideology regarding men and women.
This is why I get annoyed with the press who merely mention cat-calling and wolf-whistling as if they are the only things being targeted.
And we haven't even got to the prospect of a new Scottish Misogyny Bill being proposed after the SNP leadership contest which is likely to be repeated across the rest of the UK. There is the prospect of criminalising involuntary celibacy as a proposal for that bill.
It is retarded enough without you exaggerating.
I'm not exaggerating.
Never should have elected someone who had a woman holding their wealth. Huge fucking mistake.
The #1 issue in the UK now must be to put this sick cult back in their box and lock it.
Then make some predictions about the practical effect of these laws. How many people will be prosecuted without having done something wrong?
The worst thing is that because of the crappy law system in the UK, with 16 times more arrests being made for internet comments than in Russia, I can't even assert that these laws will not be abused.
His wealth. Stop saying 'their'.
And it's a mistake to 'elect' rich people, insofar as you think these people are elected.
That's the whole point of these kinds of laws. They'll only be selectively enforced. The number of people affected will be small; the chilling effects will be large. And they'll be politically useful.
Let's go by what the bill and the law it intends to amend says (obvious disclaimer that this is not legal advice).
The bill intends to add a new section based on Section 4A called section 4B which makes it an offence to do or say anything that causes harassment, alarm or distress based on the relevant person's sex. Which carries a maximum two year sentence.
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/58-03/0252/220252.pdf
And Section 4A states if someone intends to cause harassment, alarm or distress based on threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or an individual who displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting. An offence carries a maximum of a six month sentence (but only if someone is found not gulity of an offence under 4B).
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/64/section/4A
The problem is with the wording of what could cause someone to fall foul of the law, it is vaguely worded and could easily be interpreted to capture a wide range of behaviours, speech and language. There is also the prospect of the law being applied unequally based on pre-suppositions, bias and ideology regarding men and women.
This is why I get annoyed with the press who merely mention cat-calling and wolf-whistling as if they are the only things being targeted.
And we haven't even got to the prospect of a new Scottish Misogyny Bill being proposed after the SNP leadership contest which is likely to be repeated across the rest of the UK. There is the prospect of criminalising involuntary celibacy as a proposal for that bill.
Depends on two things :
How deep the Everard Inquisition into the police ends up going.
How sick women's heads actually are.
My bet for the former is pretty far, it will get to a point where women's non-issues pass burglary and theft as priorities.
My prediction for women's sadism...I'll leave that one blank.
It's not women torturing you, it's yourself. They are not sadists, you are a masochist.
Actually you are, and again it's through editorialising your titles as you've been called out on before by others.
Your title:
Second line of the article:
For someone who claims to be from the UK you really don't seem to know what the UK is.
United Kingdom:
This article doesn't involve Scotland or Northern Ireland yet you've titled this thread in a way that suggests it does.
I'm sure that the very feminist government of Scotland will pass something worse and nobody gives a shit about Northern Ireland.