Skip to content

Seems sensible

The first victim of Isla Bryson, and the mother of one of his children, say it is “impossible” not to say the transgender rapist is a man and should not have been allowed in a women’s prison.

Father, penis, we’ve got several of the attributes of a man there…..

15 thoughts on “Seems sensible”

  1. I cannot understand how a tiny minority has managed to so capture the establishment that newspapers, courts, civil service, etc are all claiming that black is white and threatening people with ‘consequences’ should they disagree…

  2. The police are more than worthy of an individual mention in your list. They’re well placed to do a lot of threatening.

  3. That’s the point. It is impossible to say he’s not a man, so that is what they are forcing you to say. The specifics don’t matter, the fact you are made to say something you know to be false is the point.

  4. I cannot understand how a tiny minority has managed to so capture the establishment that newspapers, courts, civil service, etc are all claiming that black is white and threatening people with ‘consequences’ should they disagree…

    But it is exactly that, especially in Scotland, establishment capture. Not only do they have the Police in their pocket to do the threatening if other avenues fail, but they also have controls of the prosecutorial aspect, which is under far greater direct control from the politicians in Scotland than elsewhere in the UK.

    The farcical prosecution of Alex Salmond being a prime example of how the SNP (and Nicola Sturgeon in particular) deals with those that they consider a threat. Even though the prosecution failed and was seen to be inadequate, the punishment is the process.

    Truth be told, I’m surprised about the vocality of Scottish opposition to the Tranny Delusion, given the Scottish Governments way of dealing with dissent, all I can say is that Scottish TERF’s have got more balls than the rest of us.


  5. Never mind Scotland, the alleged right of centre rag the Terriblegraph consistently refers to males, including rapists, as ‘she’. Same for other media. Against the beliefs and wishes of the vast majority, these delusions are entrenched.

  6. Actually, never mind “against the beliefs and wishes of the vast majority”, against reality! FFS, it is infectious.

  7. Well put, JG. Much of the trouble is that the model for “devolution” was hastily cobbled together on (by some accounts quite literally) the back of a fag packet back in 1976 and, despite taking over thirty years to be put into practice, and all the play-acting of the ludicrous “Constitutional Convention” in the early ’90s, never properly debated or thought-through. You can’t simply bolt a unicameral legislature on to an already bodged executive* without serious reform. But, to all intents and purposes, that’s what they did. It confers a ridiculous level of power not simply to the elected representatives of the day (which might be defensible), but to the person of HM First Minister herself.

    *The Scottish Office only dates to 1885. And was, arguably, a bad idea in the first place.

  8. @Sam Duncan – You’re a native and I’m a foreign interloper (Manx/Irish not quite meeting the requirements of “Sassenach”), but still we understand and acknowledge that the fundamental issues raised in the devolution debates of the 1970’s, not least of which is the West Lothian question, remain unanswered and while they do so devolution will remain a thorn in Westminster’s side, a thorn of their own manufacture and creation.

    If the answer to this is English Devolution, then I would argue that is the wrong answer, since it would only detract and further weaken the power of the government at Westminster.

    My view, as a resident foreigner, is that devolution has failed even on it’s own terms and the Scots should be given a referendum on a fully costed move to independence (not the fudged financials produced for the 2014 Referendum) or the abandonment of Scottish Government in its entirety and a return to “status quo ante” of pre-devolutionary Scotland.

    “Shit or get off the pot” is the only answer that the SNP can or will ever understand.

    The SNP will no doubt grasp their hands with glee, right up until the point where they lose the referendum. Again.

    Long past time to shit or get off the pot.

  9. I think there is a third option, but the problem is how to get there from where we are. I mentioned the hasty cobbling-together of the present system in the mid-’70s. You see, the problem back then was that Labour was suffering a pincer movement on constitutional reform. The Tories had long recognised that the existing arrangement of having the Lord Advocate as both chief legal advisor to the government on Scottish matters and the chief prosecutor was a classic British “doesn’t-work-in-theory-but-kind-of-works-in-practice” fudge, and there were other aspects of Scots Law which needed reform (as I say, even the existence of the Scottish Office was a bit of a bodge). As long as it was just the Tories worrying about this, Labour felt it could be ignored.

    But the surprise success of the SNP in the October ’74 election spooked them. A bone needed to be thrown, and thrown quickly. So, swipe the Tories’ ideas for legal reform (wihout really understanding them) and bolt on an elected aspect. Job done. That was what was presented in the 1979 referendum (and why the Tories “changed their minds” between then and ’97). It’s often said that the SNP campaigned for a “No” vote back then because the proposal didn’t go far enough, but – while it certainly didn’t for them – their real objection was that the Assembly’s primary function was to be, in effect, reforming Scots Law to make it work better in the context of the Union.

    Over the years, of course, as the SNP became the bigger threat to Labour, the legal reform aspect fell further and further on to the back-burner and the Assembly became a “Parliament”. Nominally, it’s still one of the devolved powers, but in over twenty years, nothing at all has been done about what was originally the most glaring problem, that of the Lord Advocate. And under “devolution”, it’s actually more pressing: Whitehall wasn’t particularly interested in individual prosecutions among a tenth of the population (i.e., the bodge “works in practice”), but now the LA is a direct appointment of the First Minister.

    So if we could get a sensible “self-denying” majority into Holyrood, it might be possible to fix it, do what originally needed doing, and actually strengthen the Union. But how? I’m not sure even the current Scottish Tories remember the original question.

    Tear it down.

  10. @Jimmers

    I think Mr George Orwell covered it rather well in his increasingly prescient MO

    Doublethink and wrongthink

  11. Suppose a party – let’s call them The Cuntservative Party – were to put protecting real women from all these becocked “women” as the first item in its manifesto. Since women form just over half the electorate, and since many males would vote for such protection for their mothers, wives, sisters, and daughters, that party would sweep to power, wouldn’t it?

    If not, why not? Could it be that many people don’t really give a hoot? If so, why?

  12. @starfish

    Even Mr Orwell had insufficient imagination to come up with utterwankthink.

    I have to say Sunak showed political skill in manoeuvring the porridge wogs to fight the Battle of Gender Buggerage with themselves. The skirmishes and retreat over the Isle of Bryson are hilarious. The Scots know what a wifey is; a face-tattooed multiple rapist (or Nicola Sturgeon for that matter) fails to fit the bill.

    Enjoy dying on that hill, SNP twats.

Leave a Reply

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