Isn’t there a blocking function?

A transgender lawyer is trying to stop a Catholic journalist sending tweets to her by seeking an anti-harrassment injunction through the High Court.

Stephanie Hayden, a commentator and activist who is legally female, alleges that Caroline Farrow sent her hundreds of tweets over the course of several days.

Mrs Farrow is a mother of five with strong religious views who has previously made headlines for a separate clash with the transgender community.

I know you can stop someone from seeing your tweets. Can’t you stop someone from sending to you?

36 thoughts on “Isn’t there a blocking function?”

  1. No, but if someone you have blocked mentions you in a tweet, it doesn’t show up in your notifications tab.

    I believe Twitter’s TOCs forbid harassment, and you could probably argue that constantly mentioning someone who has blocked you falls into that category. Certainly easier to go that route than via the HC.

  2. You can’t stop *them* from sending, but you can stop *yourself* from seeing. The only way to stop *them* from sending is to go round their house and break their fingers.

  3. Stephanie Hayden, a commentator and activist who is legally female

    It doesn’t matter how many tweets one person sends to another, that sentence indicates that the country is fucked.

  4. Legally A Mars Bar

    I heard about this one.

    Caroline Farrow is a Catholic mother-of-five whose very existence seems to drive the tranzis nuts (y’know… more than usual). She’s been subjected to a long campaign of harassment and gaslighting from the extremely online trans gestapo. But we’ll get back to that in a sec.

    “Stephanie” Hayden, also previously known as Steven Hayden, also previously known as Anthony George Halliday and various other names, is a middle-aged “woman” (as of 2018) who looks like a rugby union forward who fell into a vat of clown makeup and emerged with an unaccountably smug look on xer face.

    Hayden has a notorious history of abusing the justice system to harass anyone who triggers his narcissistic rage hurts xer precious womanly fee-fees. Graham Linehan of FATHER TED fame was given some sort of bullshit “harassment warning” by Plod for pointing out that Anthony is a man. (Remember Theodore Dalrymple tried to warn us about the function of left-wing propaganda?)

    In February, a woman was actually arrested in front of her children and stuck in a police cell for 7 hours after disagreeing with Hayden on Twatter. This is what your taxes pay for under this Conservative (lol) government.

    These are just a couple of lowlights from Hayden’s extremely busy internet career of nuisance lawsuits, crying to cops about being “misgendered”, trying to get people sacked for arguing with xim on social media, etc. Xe also previously found the time to be convicted for threatening someone with a golf club irl.

    Back to Farrow. Hayden and xer homosexual friend, Dr Adrian Harrop, have been needling her for months via social media, hinting at how they’re going to stop by her home for “golf” (geddit?).

    By an amazing coincidence, she’s also, over the same timeframe, been subjected to a sustained campaign of harassment against her and her family: pizzas being delivered to her home, threatening and pornographic emails sent to her from anonymous accounts, fake Grindr (a gay sex app) accounts set up using her husband’s details, false accusations of paedophilia against her, etc. etc. Seems to be happening daily.

    Obviously, the ongoing abuse of a mother of five is slightly less important to the police than arresting people for “misgendering” or whatever.

    But in news that will shock noone who has ever dealt with a malignant narcissist, “legally woman” Hayden is claiming that this woman is harassing xim.

    After xe and Harrop repeatedly taunted Farrow with “tick tock” style messages, Hayden turned up at Farrow’s home yesterday (when her husband wasn’t around) and tried to serve court papers on her.

    Because that’s what you do when you’re the poor, innocent victim of harassment, right? Turn up on your alleged abuser’s front doorstep. There’s something very Cape Fear about whole thing.

    The girls over at Mumsnet have documented this saga, and if the responses from the Mum mafia are anything to go by, the British public as a whole is rapidly approaching “peak trans”.

  5. “I heard about this one.”

    Yeah. Me too.

    Farrow is a foaming nutter who spends her days writing reams of Ecksian hate mail directed at trans people, accusing them of being child abusers and whatnot to an audience of thousands, who also all pile on. Hayden is a trans person who gets reams of hate mail, got pissed off with it, and decided to fight back throught the courts. Farrow goes “Boo! Hoo! They’re being mean to me! I’m totally innocent and didn’t totally ask for this in any way whatsoever!”

    Hayden is no believer in free speech, and I’m no supporter of hate speech laws. But Farrow has been doing the equivalent of following someone round the pub peppering them with a constant stream of vile insults and slimy accusations, and then when they eventually get pissed off and turn round and deck her, blubbering to the media. It’s wrong, but it’s hardly a surprise.

    Tim, Will you ever get bored with trolling for transgender debates?

  6. Bloke in North Dorset

    “The law is an ass.” – Mr. Bumble, Oliver Twist

    At the risk of falling for one of the iron laws about grammar on the Internet – FTFY

  7. Quelle surprise, Nonsense in Verbosity turns up to cheer on the tranny nutjobs.

    Although not at the usual length, so I guess we should be thankful.

  8. “A transgender lawyer is trying to stop a Catholic journalist …”

    Aw, c’mon, that should be a Roman Catholic journalist. Vide supra.

  9. Stephanie Hayden, a commentator and activist who is legally female

    How long before the phrase “illegally female” is used? Given that we have allowed the country to be ruled by a small group of psychopathic totalitarians, not long – five years, tops.

  10. How long before the phrase “illegally female” is used?

    Mrs Steve reckons there’s something very Buffalo Bill going on with these chaps, a lot of them seem to hate women while at the same time trying to claim “womanhood” for themselves. Sort of a Stepford Wives scenario, if the Stepford Wives had five o’clock shadow and winkies.

    Maybe Freud had a point?

  11. “Although not at the usual length, so I guess we should be thankful.”

    Shorter than yours…

    “Aw, c’mon, that should be a Roman Catholic journalist. Vide supra.”

    That should be “A Roman Catholic transgender lawyer is trying to stop a Roman Catholic journalist…”. If it’s relevant for one, it’s relevant for the other.

  12. I know it’s something of a stereotype but the most misogynistic men I’ve met have been gay, much more so than the straight guys

  13. Dennis the Peasant

    How long before the phrase “illegally female” is used?

    In Britain? Probably not too long.

  14. Has it been independently established that Farrow writes hate mails accusing trans persons of child abuse?

  15. “That should be “A Roman Catholic transgender lawyer …”

    Do we accept the term ‘transgender’ around here. I know I don’t. Geezer in a frock seems to serve perfectly adequately for one lot. Other lot are best ignored. Transgender is an impossibility…

  16. I marvel, in a slightly disappointed way, that folks around here are on twatter. It seems explicitly to have been designed to start fights.

    Not that I’m the happiest bloke in the world, but I think I’d be even unhappier were I on twatter. Or faceborg, or any of the other plug-in mogodon sites.

    Even if I see various of the comments here, I can always skirt over their words because they’re not addressed personally to me or to my online persona.

    But twatter and the rest are highly personal.

    It’s nuts, as the intersectional, activist TG lawyer said to the over-sharing barman as she got hiself another tatt on the eyeball.

  17. It’s the online equivalent of 2 people having an argument over the garden fence, both shouting at each other

  18. When presented with a bloke in a frock, how are we supposed to know if he is your traditional and much-loved British transvestite – your Eddie Izzard, Danny la Rue, or the cast of Monty Python in drag – or if he is pretending/claiming to be an actual woman? I mean, there’s nothing to tell, is there.

    I shouldn’t like to be shouted at by an angry Izzard for innocently calling him a woman, but at the same time someone still less pretty might shout at me for not calling them a woman.

    Perhaps they could wear a badge or something, to let people know? Or dress to the left if a woman?

  19. And ‘a idiot.’

    You are correct, BiND. I cut and paste from a corrected source. Imagine, correcting Dickens.

  20. Thinking back to 1980s when New Romantics, Punk, Metal, Boy George, Marilyn, androgyny etc were in fashion; everyone got along fine.

    Why has 1980s tolerance gone? imo because Gov’t has meddled and forced people to accept/like rather than allow the free-choice that worked.

    Example, parent’s hotel had a stand alone public bar frequented by quarry & farm workers, Rangers fans and bikers (Nomads). One Bar manager was gay and nobody cared.

  21. “Why has 1980s tolerance gone? imo because Gov’t has meddled and forced people to accept/like rather than allow the free-choice that worked.”

    It does make you wonder how anybody even noticed the changes, doesn’t it? Since everyone freely chose to fully accept LGBT people, nobody would be able to get into trouble for not doing. It would be like bringing in a law requiring that everyone breathe air.

    Unless of course you’re imagining it and it didn’t happen that way?

    “One Bar manager was gay and nobody cared.”

    Most people don’t care now, either. Only you lot keep on moaning on and on and on about it.

  22. NiV
    Since everyone freely chose to fully accept LGBT people

    No, we freely choose to accept people, as they are, warts and all sans the labels. It is the LGBT-ers that set themselves apart from everyone else under the faux banner of equality/acceptance and it is all “Boo hoo hoo, I’m a victim”.

    It’s not equality nor acceptance they want. It’s privilege.

    This is the essence of identity politics – judging people by what they are rather than who they are. I don’t care what a person is, if he/she is a twat then I avoid having anything to do with them on a personal level.

  23. “No, we freely choose to accept people, as they are, warts and all sans the labels.”

    Good! I look forward to seeing any evidence of that.

    “This is the essence of identity politics – judging people by what they are rather than who they are.”

    I agree totally!

  24. @Henry Crun May 1, 2019 at 7:55 am

    We freely choose to accept people, as they are, warts and all sans the labels.

    +1

    I & most did, a few didn’t; but no Gov’t usurping freedom of choice by compelling acceptance and thus entrenching & exacerbating non-acceptance.

    I, not Gov’t, decide who I love, like, accept, tolerate, avoid, dislike or loathe.

    Gov’t telling me “I must like & accept all LGBTxyz” makes me rebel and view the product negatively.

  25. @ NiV
    You, or the government, or the Pope can tell me what I “must” like. I should listen to the Pope because, though I sometimes disagree with him, I accept that he truly believes that he has a *duty* to tell me; anyone else who tells me what to *like* is barking mad.
    The government can force me to *do* (more often *not* do) some things but not to like.

  26. “You, or the government, or the Pope can tell me what I “must” like.”

    I believe in freedom of belief. As far as I’m concerned, you can believe what you want. (And *I* can believe what *I* want, and can argue with you. But only argue – not force you.) The legislation is aimed only at stopping people forcing others, including by verbal bullying. Social norms enforced outside the law are another matter, of course, but then they always have been.

    “I should listen to the Pope because, though I sometimes disagree with him, I accept that he truly believes that he has a *duty* to tell me; anyone else who tells me what to *like* is barking mad.”

    The Pope is no different to anyone else. Almost everyone thinks they have a duty to tell other people what to do and what to like. It’s just that the Popes used to have the power to enforce it, and remnants of some of those beliefs the church imposed on society linger on. But the medieval Church’s attitude to heresy/blasphemy is no different to the modern attitude to political incorrectness. It’s the same principle at work. It’s wired into human nature.

    And I’d have thought it went without saying that the Pope is barking mad. Objectively, most religious beliefs are bonkers. But that’s exactly what freedom of belief was created to protect.

    I’m all in favour of the sentiments: “No, we freely choose to accept people, as they are, warts and all sans the labels.” and “This is the essence of identity politics – judging people by what they are rather than who they are.” Judging people harshly for being LGBT and slapping the labels on them at every opportunity is exactly judging people by what they are rather than who they are. But I don’t believe for one second that the only reason for the hostility is that you don’t like being forced. The same legislation protects other categories that don’t evoke anything like the same hostile reaction here.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *