Is it just me or does the copper in this story come across as a complete ****?

[Burney]

Ahh, so she's somehow complicit in her father's "despicable sex crimes against children".

Well at least for consistency, 'they' should now go around the houses of the wider family and tear down photographs of her dad, his parents and grandparents and make Aimee grovel in apology for eternity for her father's acts.

wd the Greens

Well in fact he did know what his dad was charged with when he made him election agent - and there was a conviction for animal cruelty. Equally, having a bloke who rapes little girls while wearing a dress (as this link makes clear https://www.coventrytelegraph.net/ne...-year-15060652 ) going around campaigning for his in-no-way-completely-mental son who wears a dress and advocating that people like that ought to be allowed into female-only changing spaces, toilets, etc is a really fvcking bad look, don't you think?

[IUFG]

Well in fact he did know what his dad was charged with when he made him election agent - and there was a conviction for animal cruelty. Equally, having a bloke who rapes little girls while wearing a dress (as this link makes clear https://www.coventrytelegraph.net/ne...-year-15060652 ) going around campaigning for his in-no-way-completely-mental son who wears a dress and advocating that people like that ought to be allowed into female-only changing spaces, toilets, etc is a really fvcking bad look, don't you think?

Well, that behaviour is in no way normal or acceptable to a civilised society. And quite rightly, he gets called a 'monster', etc and thrown in jail for 22 years.

But!; wearing a dress, pretending to be something your not, believing you are another gender and using non-gender specific utilities is perfectly fine, b.

[Burney]

Well, that behaviour is in no way normal or acceptable to a civilised society. And quite rightly, he gets called a 'monster', etc and thrown in jail for 22 years.

But!; wearing a dress, pretending to be something your not, believing you are another gender and using non-gender specific utilities is perfectly fine, b.

Yes. I'm sure it's just a coincidence that a pervert who likes to dress up as a female has a son who also likes to dress up as a female. I'm sure it's not a dysfunctional family or anything.

[Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult]

I really do think taking public nuisances off the street is within the purview of the police. And beggars are an unsightly, noisome nuisance, aren't they? Personally, I'm always terrified that one might :shudder: touch me. Ick.

You can take a nuisance off the street. It if for Parl to decide what constitutes a nuisance - burglars, rapists etc - and the ordinances against said nuisances are called laws, which the Filth then act on.

If you don't agree with that, you're basically putting yourself in a position where loads of Sperz fans could come into your boozer and claim it was you, not they, who were being a nuisance and demand the Pigs take you away.

Or do you believe that, in the event of two groups calling the other a nuisance, they shouldn't take the largest group's word, they should basically support whoever seems in the socio-economic class closest to a Berni?

If so, you calling for a private police state built around your own personal prejudices.

[Monty92]

Yes. I'm sure it's just a coincidence that a pervert who likes to dress up as a female has a son who also likes to dress up as a female. I'm sure it's not a dysfunctional family or anything.

I'm trying to think what a steel-manning of your argument here would look like.

I guess it would be something along the lines of "This is an isolated case and to describe those involved in such generalising terms - 'people like that' - is to entirely mischaracterise and demonise the entire trans community, which already faces appalling levels of discrimination, persecution and stigmatisation."

[IUFG]

I'm trying to think what a steel-manning of your argument here would look like.

I guess it would be something along the lines of "This is an isolated case and to describe those involved in such generalising terms - 'people like that' - is to entirely mischaracterise and demonise the entire Jewish community, which already faces appalling levels of discrimination, persecution and stigmatisation."

you could change one word in that paragraph to anything imo . . .

[Burney]

I'm trying to think what a steel-manning of your argument here would look like.

I guess it would be something along the lines of "This is an isolated case and to describe those involved in such generalising terms - 'people like that' - is to entirely mischaracterise and demonise the entire trans community, which already faces appalling levels of discrimination, persecution and stigmatisation."

Meh. If you're a bloke and like dressing up as a girl and trying to pretend you actually are a girl, you're a fvcking deviant, probably mental and likely to be a sex case. These things are self-evident, m.

[Burney]

You can take a nuisance off the street. It if for Parl to decide what constitutes a nuisance - burglars, rapists etc - and the ordinances against said nuisances are called laws, which the Filth then act on.

If you don't agree with that, you're basically putting yourself in a position where loads of Sperz fans could come into your boozer and claim it was you, not they, who were being a nuisance and demand the Pigs take you away.

Or do you believe that, in the event of two groups calling the other a nuisance, they shouldn't take the largest group's word, they should basically support whoever seems in the socio-economic class closest to a Berni?

If so, you calling for a private police state built around your own personal prejudices.

It's not about having a vote, though, is it? It's societal norms that have evolved over centuries. The social contract, if you will. If you choose to exist outside that contract, you've got it coming.

[Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult]

It's not about having a vote, though, is it? It's societal norms that have evolved over centuries. The social contract, if you will. If you choose to exist outside that contract, you've got it coming.

Homeless and begging were societal norms since the end of feudalism, and almost certainly before.

We gradually stamped that out for a 40 year period after the second world war, but then your tribe flogged off all the council houses, called them all scroungers, introduced austerity etc etc etc and low and behold, they've come back.

To say the societal norms on average over the last 2-3 (or more) centuries don't involve homelessness and begging is bøllocks.

And societal norms are different for different social groups. I'd imagine you and a group of geordie chavs on a hen night have a different concept of what is acceptable behaviour.

[Sir C]

Homeless and begging were societal norms since the end of feudalism, and almost certainly before.

We gradually stamped that out for a 40 year period after the second world war, but then your tribe flogged off all the council houses, called them all scroungers, introduced austerity etc etc etc and low and behold, they've come back.

To say the societal norms on average over the last 2-3 (or more) centuries don't involve homelessness and begging is bøllocks.

And societal norms are different for different social groups. I'd imagine you and a group of geordie chavs on a hen night have a different concept of what is acceptable behaviour.

Wait, there was no homelessness of begging between 1945 and 1985?

Where do you learn this shít? Is there some special school of leftiness where you leave your brain at the door and get injected with a cranium full of reatrded gibberish?

Forgive my intemperate tone; I have, I fear, become subjected to far too many leftist lies and they have started to grate more than they ought. I must delete Twitter and stop reading The Guardian.