J.K. Rowling has said she would happily do a spell in jail if a future Labour Government makes it a hate crime to deliberately call someone by the ‘wrong’ (i.e., biologically correct) pronouns. The Mail has the story.
The Harry Potter author said she would rather do time for misgendering than submit to “compelled speech”. She spoke out after the Mail on Sunday revealed that Labour plans to introduce stricter sentences for abuse targeted at transgender people.
Deliberately misgendering someone is already a hate crime if it is motivated by hostility to the victim’s transgender identity, the Government said last year, but Labour’s policy would mean tougher penalties for perpetrators.
If it becomes an ‘aggravated offence’ such as race hate attacks, harassment based on someone’s gender identity could result in a prison sentence of up to two years.
But because of the police’s heavy-handed intervention in previous online spats, critics fear the move could see gender-critical campaigners prosecuted for refusing to use a transgender person’s preferred pronouns and referring to them by their birth sex [sic].
Ms. Rowling joined the row last night after posting on social media the word “no” above an image of the slogan “trans women are women”.
Told by a user on X, formerly Twitter, that voting Labour would mean two years in jail, she replied: “I’ll happily do two years if the alternative is compelled speech and forced denial of the reality and importance of sex.
“Bring on the court case, I say. It’ll be more fun than I’ve ever had on a red carpet.”
Worth reading in full.
If the Government really wanted to fight this ‘war on woke’, of course, it would introduce a statutory right to use biologically correct pronouns and ban discrimination against anyone who elects to do so. Similarly, we hear that Ministers are going to “tell” the General Medical Council that “women are women” and stress “the importance of the use of correct language” after the medical regulator removed the word ‘mother’ from maternity guidance. Or the Government could pass legislation requiring that all maternity guidance use the word mother. It’s the Government, for goodness sake, not a think tank. Why aren’t Ministers coming up with laws to counter all the nonsense? If the people pushing this stuff were susceptible to pleas to be sensible we wouldn’t be in this mess.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Again :
“ … the success of Britain’s vaccine rollout”
What ‘success’? A ~1% ARR isn’t much of an achievement, is it?
P.S. Why does this exaggeration matter?
… Because it opens the door to perpetuating all the ills that accrue from a mythical dependence on an injection as a condition of normal life : such as vaccine passports and ‘boosters’ in perpetuity.
Liberty is not conditional.
Nobody care what you say Rick, they must know you’re a fool. “The uptake of the vaccine has been astonishingly high. For all over-50s, uptake is 94%.”
“Enthusiasm among those in their late 40s was so high that when we opened up the booking system last week they briefly overloaded the website.” Sore Loser? Yep, that’s it.
Reference please for those figures. I smell fake news. And looks like uptake for second injection is considerably lower.
I totally agree with what you say – the uptake of the ‘vaccines’ has been high … …
… for an undertested concoction of little benefit and extaordinarily high level of harms when compared with other medicines.
But, of course, what people do in this climate of power propaganda and deliberately induced fear is totally outside the realm of sense and evidence. That has been true for over a year in every aspect of government policy – including vaccines, which a desperate public has held onto like a leaking lifeboat.Whether people en masse are ‘stupid’ is a moot point; but they are certainly behaving ‘stupidly’ – in the sense of avoiding rationality and the bleedin’ obvious. I have no doubt than many would swallow cyanide pills if told they were nectar.
It’s not what I ‘say’ which is the issue. Everything is based on evidence from trials that I have explicitly presented. Hard numbers. I note that you haven’t even tried to debate those numbers and when they mean, or even show an understanding of the statistical concepts that they embody.
So … in terms of ‘fool’ – the cap and bells are worn by you. I conclude that you have no argument to present (forget the ambiguity of your favourite parotted line-graph). I’m talking the numbers related to treatment and control groups.
As to your comment about being a ‘sore loser’ : well, firstly, how can you be a ‘loser’ when your opponent just runs off in a random direction asserting nonsense. And secondly, the accusation shows a petty mind merely stamping a foot when it can’t get its own way – the mentality of the playground.
Absolute Risk isn’t 1%.
That’s a calculation based on numbers from an early end point.
I think he means absolute risk reduction.
Precisely.
RickH does mean that , but it’s a bad measure on several counts, most notable is that is it is hard to gauge in a trial, since the baseline risk varies for every person. Relative risk reduction is superior in every way, esp since it obviates the need to know the baseline risk, which is so volatile. It tells you, independently of the baseline risk, what the risk is if you do something, versus the risk if you do not do it, which is what you really need to know.
With some of the vaccines there is relative risk reduction of 95%, i.e. you are twenty times less likely to get covid19, since 95% is 19/20ths of the risk of getting covid is eliminated, leaving you with 5%, i.e 1/20th of the risk remaining.
It’s a far superior metric, much easier to calculate and understand than the useless and inaccurate ARR. RickH is biased so he wants to cast the vaccine in a poor light, despite their success in driving infections very low, as the plot shows; the vaccine works great.
he’s far too ignorant to know what he means.
Early endpoint? It’s numbers based on comparison of treatment and control groups. I’ve previously quoted sources and detail.
yes, because the trials end when there are sufficient numbers to get the relative risk reduction, the important number that tells you the value of doing something versus not doing it. Pay no heed whatsoever to RickH, he’s ignorant.
The trials are not designed to measure absolute risk reduction, RickH is too think to know about that.
This success:
Yes we’ve seen that meaningless graph many times now, thanks.
it’s a great shape asymptotically plunging to zero due to vaccine.
You see that big peak in cases in January 2021?
That was caused by your vaccines. Massive increase in infections in the first few days following the first dose. Identical pattern seen everywhere else around the world where a big vaccine programme was launched.
Similarly the peak in deaths. Caused by your vaccines. Pushing frail elderly people in care homes over the edge.
Your vaccines are duds.
> Massive increase in infections in the first few days
yeah right so the dead vaccine gives old people covid19! I thought I’d heard it all, but that just takes the cake! You need help.
The vaccine causes the immune system to be depressed for the first week or so after the first dose, allowing viruses including SARS-COV-2 to strike. Particularly dumb idea to launch a vaccine in the middle of the respiratory virus season whilst the luve virus is still circulating.
The flu vaccine is always given out well in advance of the winter flu season, for this reason.
Or it should be. Last year, they extended the age range for ‘flu jabs, and I received a promotional letter about it, rather late in the season. I ignored it, as by the time it was done it would have been a waste of time, given the absence of situations where there could have been a ‘flu risk. There wasn’t much of it around anyway, if you believe the stats. I wouldn’t be surprised if there was a lot of surplus ‘flu products that will be out of date. Always a bit of guess work about what to offer each year, with ‘flu mutating regularly.
Silly question probably, but has someone invented an actual vaccination against this Chinese Wuhan Flu?
The only treatment which Bill Gates and the Communist WHO recommend is Gene Therapy. Correct me if I am wrong.
You need to get to grips with basic statistical concepts – such as correlation, causation – and time. I understand that you’ve not yet got to grips with risk calculations, either.
As said , on your impressionistic basis, you can make as good a case for increased mortality/culling of the vulnerable after the introduction of the ‘vaccines’.
sore loser? I got _your_ number.
fon – You haven’t got any numbers – or even a basic knowledge of what they mean.
This fon guy, his posts read like he uses words he doesn’t understand.
I think we know after all this time that he hasn’t a clue about basic statistical concepts or experimental procedure. He hasn’t engaged with anything of substance. On reflection, probably not 77th Brigade – I don’t think their recruitment procedures would be quite that flawed
Yes, agreed, I suspect either English isn’t his first language, in which case he should bugger off and bother the people in his own country, or he’s a computer programme!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHkGShmees4
so can I go outside now?
Hazmattaboy!
“data, not dates” – only data when it gets worse, he means; data getting better is ignored.
One must remember to define what ‘Covid deaths’ means. The current newspeak now omits to to say whether death WITH or FROM Covid19, and in either case false positives in the test have been inflating this figure by a factor of 4 (even at the lower end of the scale) since the onset of mass testing.
Now onto the meaningless graph being provided by Fon. Let us go to the possible source of the graph, but include all info (below):
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-reported-sars-cov-2-deaths-in-england/covid-19-confirmed-deaths-in-england-report
OK. Fon claims his single red line as vaxx success, but it is simply the usual seasonal peak of flus in January. It happens every year so nothing to see.
Crucially, when divided into separate age groups one can see the mortality figures follow precisely the same trend independently of whether that age group had been jabbed or not.
The main difference is that the over 80s mortality curve incline becomes dramatically steeper than all other age groups as soon as the vaxxes are rolled out (mainly for that age group) in early December.
In mid Jan 2021 it peaks at 12,000 deaths per 100,000 for this 80+ age group, whereas the 70-79 age group peaks simultaneously at around 2,000 deaths per 100,000.
Clearly flu deaths always hit the elderly harder, the 80+ group are more vulnerable, and the usual caveat applies that coincidence is not causation, but one must question if that that mortality multiplier of 6x over the lower age 70-79 group has ever been as marked on previous year’s flu stats? From what I can so far find it has not, but I have yet to see a directly comparable graph for seasonal flu. Maybe someone can provide a link?
Figure 3.a. Seven-day rolling average mortality rates (per 100,000 population) in laboratory-confirmed cases of COVID-19 by age group, from week 27 onwards
Why is the government relying on the threat of variants? Ferguson’s models have always predicted deaths an order of magnitude above reality. Why do they believe them now, when surges in death due to respiratory causes in the summer is unheard of? And why the extra testing now that the ‘covid deaths’ and ‘covid cases’ are subsiding?
Maybe they know something about upcoming fatalities? What could that be? Pathogenic priming from the jabs, the probabilities increasing as the victims become younger? The regular tests can be used to misattribute these deaths. The playing down of the efficacy of the jabs prepares the way to remove them from the narrative.
It is a frightening scenario, but there are few plausible alternatives that fit all these things together so well.
They need variants because they know that Ferguson’s models are increasingly losing credibility.
Absolutely. Most of us have noted the constant pattern of the Scary Fairy being given a blood transfusion every time the underlying anaemia shows.
What is so terrifying is the lack of such obvious perception amongst swathes of the public.
Rather like climate change modellers not taking into account the quantity of water in the atmosphere, could the reduction be due to the respiratory infection cycle coming to a close? Or is that too much of a stretch?
Is “fon” worth the effort of engaging with. Unlike Mayo, who challenged with some good points, he seems to bring nothing useful to the party.
One thing that concerns me about repeating articles focused around a day’s figures – this unscientific data is also subject to the reverse spin if figures briefly increase.