Also in the News - Part 2

[leicsmac]

2 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

I find it odd that this is your go to slap down whenever someone opposes anything regarding trans rights tbh. 

 

In Britain right now, what exactly other aspects of women's welfare aren't being addressed? Or even championed by the vast majority of people both on here and in the country as a whole? 

 

Not sure where you are expecting other people to contribute tbh, especially on here. Can't remember the last time I saw a thread about women's welfare. Probably about that scumbag copper who raped and killed that young woman, and iirc he was wiiiiiiiiidely comdemned by all colours of the spectrum. 

At your request, I'll DM you with a response to this rather than risk continuing political discussion here, for the reasons above.

[Scotch]

42 minutes ago, Tommy G said:

Following their statement the Police are seemingly no further down the track in solving the Nicola Bulley case. 

Hopefully, it's similar to the Idaho murders where they are criticised for not doing anything whilst creating an air tight investigation on a suspect behind the scenes.

[bovril]

44 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

At your request, I'll DM you with a response to this rather than risk continuing political discussion here, for the reasons above.

please post here as I had a similar thought to Innovindil and would be interested to read your response

[FoyleFox]

17 minutes ago, Scotch said:

Hopefully, it's similar to the Idaho murders where they are criticised for not doing anything whilst creating an air tight investigation on a suspect behind the scenes.

In that incident they knew a crime had been committed, and sadly, had bodies. It was an investigation into who did it. Likewise, cases where they declare foul play but can't find the victim, Susie Lamplugh, Claudia Laurence. Obviously some investigations require very limited details being shared, Shannon Matthews or Mick Philpot, but they have a known crime to investigate.

 

With this case, they are saying there is no evidence of foul play, no sight of her leaving the area and no evidence of her going in the river.

 

It's incomprehensible what the family and friends must be going through. I've literally just had the same normal conversation, the other half has just taken the dog out over the woods for a walk. If they're not back in a couple of hours, I'd be alarmed. I can't imagine sitting here 3 weeks later not knowing where they are, with no indication of what may have happened.

[Izzy]

1 hour ago, foxy boxing said:

They said she had vulnerabilities and was "high risk". Are they trying to suggest she commited suicide!. Do they think she went into the river voluntarily.

I'm not sure what benefit it is to anyone by the Police disclosing this.

 

People are only going to speculate more about what these vulnerabilities were and what "high risk" means.

 

Either give everyone the full details or keep it to yourselves. Giving out half arsed information just adds more confusion IMO

[ClaphamFox]

5 hours ago, leicsmac said:

... it's rather darkly ironically amusing how this particular issue is a lightning rod for a lot of people concerning women's rights... but when other examples concerning that particular matter arise, nary a peep from the same people.

 

It's almost as if (and I'm just spitballing here) the thoughts are almost entirely performative self-gratifying dunking on a demographic considered somehow inferior for whatever debunked reason and has nothing actually to do with the welfare of women at all.

This is the point at which this discussion so often ends, for the simple reason that it is so difficult to move past. Judging from their comments on social media etc, it is clear that most of the leading trans rights activists believe those who disagree with them are acting in bad faith - ie, any claim they make to be primarily concerned with women’s safety is merely a convenient fig leaf to disguise a rampant hidden bigotry. I’ve seen people attempt make a respectful and coherent case for why they don’t believe men should be in spaces where women are vulnerable, only to be met with comments such as, “You won’t rest until all trans people killed!” It’s tedious and exhausting, but it happens over and over again. I suppose it just makes life a bit simpler if believe your opponent is an unreformed bigot acting in bad faith than if you admit the possibility that they might be a decent person with genuinely-held concerns. 

 

This issue clearly is not going to blow over, but I don’t see how it ends either. Sturgeon adopted a clear position and it seems to have cost her, although there were probably other reasons behind her resignation too. I look forward to the day when the heat is taken out of this discussion and we can finally establish policies that are sensitive to the needs of both transgdender people and women who do not want to share their spaces with biological males, but right now that seems a distant prospect.

[FoyleFox]

2 hours ago, Izzy said:

I'm not sure what benefit it is to anyone by the Police disclosing this.

 

People are only going to speculate more about what these vulnerabilities were and what "high risk" means.

 

Either give everyone the full details or keep it to yourselves. Giving out half arsed information just adds more confusion IMO

Perhaps it's just due to the constant questioning and speculation regarding why this particular case has been given a lot of focus. High risk is just a category, a danger to themselves or others.

 

BBC have just issued a news update stating that the family told police, she had "some significant issues with alcohol".

[tom27111]

15 minutes ago, FoyleFox said:

Perhaps it's just due to the constant questioning and speculation regarding why this particular case has been given a lot of focus. High risk is just a category, a danger to themselves or others.

 

BBC have just issued a news update stating that the family told police, she had "some significant issues with alcohol".

 

Police mentioning the alcohol issue appears to me that they're taking some of the attention away from themselves for having no idea what's happened.

[SpacedX]

4 hours ago, leicsmac said:

At your request, I'll DM you with a response to this rather than risk continuing political discussion here, for the reasons above.

It's a terrible shame that this erratic and draconian moderation threatens to stymie genuine debate. 

[FoyleFox]

5 minutes ago, tom27111 said:

 

Police mentioning the alcohol issue appears to me that they're taking some of the attention away from themselves for having no idea what's happened.

Adds weight to the fallen in the river scenario, though.  If there's no evidence to support foul play or having walked off of her own volition, the only other scenario is the river. It must be difficult for them to have any idea, without any evidence.

[Otis]

37 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said:

This is the point at which this discussion so often ends, for the simple reason that it is so difficult to move past. Judging from their comments on social media etc, it is clear that most of the leading trans rights activists believe those who disagree with them are acting in bad faith - ie, any claim they make to be primarily concerned with women’s safety is merely a convenient fig leaf to disguise a rampant hidden bigotry. I’ve seen people attempt make a respectful and coherent case for why they don’t believe men should be in spaces where women are vulnerable, only to be met with comments such as, “You won’t rest until all trans people killed!” It’s tedious and exhausting, but it happens over and over again. I suppose it just makes life a bit simpler if believe your opponent is an unreformed bigot acting in bad faith than if you admit the possibility that they might be a decent person with genuinely-held concerns. 

 

This issue clearly is not going to blow over, but I don’t see how it ends either. Sturgeon adopted a clear position and it seems to have cost her, although there were probably other reasons behind her resignation too. I look forward to the day when the heat is taken out of this discussion and we can finally establish policies that are sensitive to the needs of both transgdender people and women who do not want to share their spaces with biological males, but right now that seems a distant prospect.

Quite so. It's far easier to call me a bigot (in not so many words) because I haven't previously made 100s of post defending women's rights. 

When my main point was to the poster who stated NS human rights record was good is actually baffling, when part of NS downfall was her opinion on human/female rights that caused so much outrage she had to completely back-track.

 

[Legend_in_blue]

19 minutes ago, tom27111 said:

 

Police mentioning the alcohol issue appears to me that they're taking some of the attention away from themselves for having no idea what's happened.

 

For me the river theory is even more far fetched than it was before now that this has come to light.  I think she has intentionally disappeared.

[urban.spaceman]

Strong rumours around Holyrood that Sturgeon is preparing to hold a second resignation if this one doesn’t work. 

[Izzy]

9 minutes ago, Legend_in_blue said:

 

For me the river theory is even more far fetched than it was before now that this has come to light.  I think she has intentionally disappeared.

I know we shouldn't really speculate, but that's my guess too FWIW 

[Free Falling Foxes]

The lady that has gone missing certainly took a few selfies didn't she? I think every pic I've seen seems to be one.

 

[Parafox]

25 minutes ago, Legend_in_blue said:

 

For me the river theory is even more far fetched than it was before now that this has come to light.  I think she has intentionally disappeared.

I'm of a similar opinion..

 

She'll likely be found some way away from her immediate area to avoid being found.

[FoyleFox]

15 minutes ago, Legend_in_blue said:

 

For me the river theory is even more far fetched than it was before now that this has come to light.  I think she has intentionally disappeared.

Equally feasible. How do you support yourself, food and drink wise, for 3 weeks, though. Without using your bank card, she has no phone payment app - unless it was planned and has another phone and bank account. And without anyone seeing you when your face is all over the national news? Although a wig and a pair of glasses could do the trick, I guess. If it was properly planned, a false passport and go off abroad is an option too. I might be over thinking it now...

[urban.spaceman]

10 minutes ago, Parafox said:

I'm of a similar opinion..

 

She'll likely be found some way away from her immediate area to avoid being found.

If you follow the river upstream there's an airfield not far. Just saying.

[Super_horns]

Sounds like she had a few demons in her life - poor lady.

 

And sad it’s had to be made public due to media speculation.

 

Edited 15 February 2023 by Super_horns

[LiberalFox]

8 hours ago, foxy boxing said:

She was the best of all the political leaders but like all politicians they want their cake and to eat it! 

She wanted independence yet wanted to keep the pound. 

She wanted a independent Scotland yet wanted to remain shackled to the EU.

She's let the whole trans rights destroy her. 

It was incredibly dangerous having a trans rapist inside a female prison. 

 

Thing is it wasn't dangerous at all and had absolutely nothing to do with the Scottish GRA reform. Scottish prisons had their policy in line with the equality act and what was considered best practice. To send trans prisoners to a prison matching their acquired gender for an initial assessment. In the case of Isla Bryson(who is quite probably not actually trans) she would have been isolated from the prison general population and was always going to be deemed unsafe and therefore transferred to the male prison which deals with dangerous criminals.

 

All that has happened is that in order to avoid tabloid headlines saying 'rapist sent to women's prison' the Scottish prison service has reversed their existing policy and all trans prisoners are going to have to go to a prison matching their birth sex until assessed. So a trans woman who presents as female, has no penis and owns a GRC convicted of a white collar crime is going to get sent to a male prison and a trans man who presents more masculine than I do will be sent to a female prison. This is both unjust and nonsensical and isn't in anyone's interest aside from possibly making it harder for a tabloid to whip up a moral panic.

 

So essentially a rapist has put on a wig and called themselves a woman and despite the existing protocols making it impossible for them to harm a woman, it's all trans people who might end up in the prison system that are now losing their rights. 

 

And the real location of the vast majority of rapists isn't in any prison. The conviction rate for rape is extremely low, so most rapists are either housed with their victims or freely roaming in society looking for their next victim. 

 

I care about trans rights so this whole thing upsets me but it also shows just how much power the British press has to destroy someone who is considered a threat. 

[Otis]

1 hour ago, LiberalFox said:

In the case of Isla Bryson(who is quite probably not actually trans)

You're shiting me... you really think so.

🤣🤣🤣🤭

[nnfox]

4 hours ago, tom27111 said:

 

Police mentioning the alcohol issue appears to me that they're taking some of the attention away from themselves for having no idea what's happened.

The police will be doing loads of things in order to gather evidence in a methodical way.  They'll either find evidence of what happened or they won't.  Whilst I'm sure there might be aspects of the investigation that they would do differently if they had their time again, I haven't seen or heard about massive criticism of the police that would want them to play the media to protect their reputation.  They have to follow the evidence and unfortunately, from what's been released, everything points towards it being likely that she has gone into the river.  There are plenty of examples throughout history where missing person investigations involving suspected drownings in rivers can take months to resolve.

 

4 hours ago, Legend_in_blue said:

 

For me the river theory is even more far fetched than it was before now that this has come to light.  I think she has intentionally disappeared.

Intentionally disappeared? As in walked off, completely undetected on her own volition? Nonsense.

 

No money, no phone, no transport, no sightings.

 

Unfortunately the river (and by now possibly the sea) appear the overwhelming likely explanation.

 

 

[ClaphamFox]

11 minutes ago, nnfox said:

The police will be doing loads of things in order to gather evidence in a methodical way.  They'll either find evidence of what happened or they won't.  Whilst I'm sure there might be aspects of the investigation that they would do differently if they had their time again, I haven't seen or heard about massive criticism of the police that would want them to play the media to protect their reputation.  They have to follow the evidence and unfortunately, from what's been released, everything points towards it being likely that she has gone into the river.  There are plenty of examples throughout history where missing person investigations involving suspected drownings in rivers can take months to resolve.

 

Intentionally disappeared? As in walked off, completely undetected on her own volition? Nonsense.

 

No money, no phone, no transport, no sightings.

 

Unfortunately the river (and by now possibly the sea) appear the overwhelming likely explanation.

 

 

If it was suicide, it also means she could have left her phone on the bench and wandered down to a different part of the river before entering it. So the river searches near the bench that didn’t locate her may now mean nothing. 

Edited 15 February 2023 by ClaphamFox

[Jon the Hat]

6 hours ago, ClaphamFox said:

This is the point at which this discussion so often ends, for the simple reason that it is so difficult to move past. Judging from their comments on social media etc, it is clear that most of the leading trans rights activists believe those who disagree with them are acting in bad faith - ie, any claim they make to be primarily concerned with women’s safety is merely a convenient fig leaf to disguise a rampant hidden bigotry. I’ve seen people attempt make a respectful and coherent case for why they don’t believe men should be in spaces where women are vulnerable, only to be met with comments such as, “You won’t rest until all trans people killed!” It’s tedious and exhausting, but it happens over and over again. I suppose it just makes life a bit simpler if believe your opponent is an unreformed bigot acting in bad faith than if you admit the possibility that they might be a decent person with genuinely-held concerns. 

 

This issue clearly is not going to blow over, but I don’t see how it ends either. Sturgeon adopted a clear position and it seems to have cost her, although there were probably other reasons behind her resignation too. I look forward to the day when the heat is taken out of this discussion and we can finally establish policies that are sensitive to the needs of both transgdender people and women who do not want to share their spaces with biological males, but right now that seems a distant prospect.

This is exactly right, and while liberal fox does it in a much nicer way, he still implies we are bigots to question the insanity, to point out the very real risks to women, and indeed to kids unfortunate enough to find themselves encouraged into this nonsense who end up irreparably damaged and medicated for life.

[leicsmac]

7 hours ago, ClaphamFox said:

This is the point at which this discussion so often ends, for the simple reason that it is so difficult to move past. Judging from their comments on social media etc, it is clear that most of the leading trans rights activists believe those who disagree with them are acting in bad faith - ie, any claim they make to be primarily concerned with women’s safety is merely a convenient fig leaf to disguise a rampant hidden bigotry. I’ve seen people attempt make a respectful and coherent case for why they don’t believe men should be in spaces where women are vulnerable, only to be met with comments such as, “You won’t rest until all trans people killed!” It’s tedious and exhausting, but it happens over and over again. I suppose it just makes life a bit simpler if believe your opponent is an unreformed bigot acting in bad faith than if you admit the possibility that they might be a decent person with genuinely-held concerns. 

 

This issue clearly is not going to blow over, but I don’t see how it ends either. Sturgeon adopted a clear position and it seems to have cost her, although there were probably other reasons behind her resignation too. I look forward to the day when the heat is taken out of this discussion and we can finally establish policies that are sensitive to the needs of both transgdender people and women who do not want to share their spaces with biological males, but right now that seems a distant prospect.

I would extend the same offer to you as I made to Inno above.

 

6 hours ago, Line-X said:

It's a terrible shame that this erratic and draconian moderation threatens to stymie genuine debate. 

So it goes. I can see why Mark decided to take the measure.

 

45 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

This is exactly right, and while liberal fox does it in a much nicer way, he still implies we are bigots to question the insanity, to point out the very real risks to women, and indeed to kids unfortunate enough to find themselves encouraged into this nonsense who end up irreparably damaged and medicated for life.

...that's a point of view, certainly.