| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 27 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 43:23:52 |
| Calls: | 631 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 1,187 |
| D/L today: |
24 files (29,813K bytes) |
| Messages: | 175,385 |
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1mx09l5297o
The head of the Metropolitan Police has called on the government to
"change or clarify" the law following the arrest of comedian Graham
Linehan over posts he made online.
"Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote in message news:1099lc3$3s30k$14@dont-email.me...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1mx09l5297o
The head of the Metropolitan Police has called on the government to
"change or clarify" the law following the arrest of comedian Graham
Linehan over posts he made online.
From the current issue of Private Eye 1658 p.18
quote:
why are police pursuing so may doomed cases involving online spats
about gender ? Perhaps because they are afraid of judicial reviews.
...which allow citizens to mount legal challenges to decisions made by
public bodies though in practice they have become a serial litigants
dream
[...]
Linehan has been targeted by an ex-copper and trans woman called
Lynsay Watson ( formerly Alex Horwood) who is particularly adept at
this practice. Linehan believes Watson reported the posts that got
him arrested
[...]
Watson was sacked from the police for gross misconduct in 2023
after sending 1,200 [abusive] messages under various pseudonyms
unquote
bb
On 22/09/2025 19:37, billy bookcase wrote:
"Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote in message
news:1099lc3$3s30k$14@dont-email.me...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1mx09l5297o
The head of the Metropolitan Police has called on the government to
"change or clarify" the law following the arrest of comedian Graham
Linehan over posts he made online.
From the current issue of Private Eye 1658 p.18
quote:
why are police pursuing so may doomed cases involving online spats
about gender ? Perhaps because they are afraid of judicial reviews.
Is the current prosecution of Linehan at Westminster Magistrates Court "doomed" and if
so, was it plainly wrong to prosecute him?
...which allow citizens to mount legal challenges to decisions made by
public bodies though in practice they have become a serial litigants
dream
And nightmare, when costs are awarded against the serial litigants. I think Private Eye
might be pursuing a crusade directed at trans people who dare to complain.
[...]
Linehan has been targeted by an ex-copper and trans woman called
Lynsay Watson ( formerly Alex Horwood) who is particularly adept at
this practice. Linehan believes Watson reported the posts that got
him arrested
00
[...]
Watson was sacked from the police for gross misconduct in 2023
after sending 1,200 [abusive] messages under various pseudonyms
unquote
bb
I think your post was rejected by me or one of the other mods for being potentially
defamatory. Even if Private Eye's report is accurate, reporting the words in ULM could
lead to litigation from the "serial litigant".
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message news:mjkebmF48g3U1@mid.individual.net...
On 22/09/2025 19:37, billy bookcase wrote:
"Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote in message
news:1099lc3$3s30k$14@dont-email.me...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1mx09l5297o
The head of the Metropolitan Police has called on the government to
"change or clarify" the law following the arrest of comedian Graham
Linehan over posts he made online.
From the current issue of Private Eye 1658 p.18
quote:
why are police pursuing so may doomed cases involving online spats
about gender ? Perhaps because they are afraid of judicial reviews.
Is the current prosecution of Linehan at Westminster Magistrates Court "doomed" and if
so, was it plainly wrong to prosecute him?
If you care to check, you'll find that the prosecution of Linehan at Westminster
Magistrates Court is not over an online spat about gender.
>
...which allow citizens to mount legal challenges to decisions made by
public bodies though in practice they have become a serial litigants
dream
And nightmare, when costs are awarded against the serial litigants. I think Private Eye
might be pursuing a crusade directed at trans people who dare to complain.
So Private Eye are lying then ?
And this ex-copper and trans woman called Lynsay Watson ( formerly Alex Horwood) is not particularly adept at seeking judicial reviews ?
As to a crusade.
Can you cite any other articles concerning trans people published in Private Eye ?
On 25/09/2025 11:06, billy bookcase wrote:
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message
news:mjkebmF48g3U1@mid.individual.net...
On 22/09/2025 19:37, billy bookcase wrote:
"Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote in message
news:1099lc3$3s30k$14@dont-email.me...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1mx09l5297o
The head of the Metropolitan Police has called on the government to
"change or clarify" the law following the arrest of comedian Graham
Linehan over posts he made online.
From the current issue of Private Eye 1658 p.18
quote:
why are police pursuing so may doomed cases involving online spats
about gender ? Perhaps because they are afraid of judicial reviews.
Is the current prosecution of Linehan at Westminster Magistrates Court "doomed" and
if
so, was it plainly wrong to prosecute him?
If you care to check, you'll find that the prosecution of Linehan at Westminster
Magistrates Court is not over an online spat about gender.
Why do so many people equate a police interview with a prosecution?
When a national treasure like Linehan declares that if a trans woman refuses to leave a
women's area someone should punch him in the balls, it is plainly an encouragement to
violence and it is reasonable for the police to conduct an interview. Maybe prosecuting
him for that statement would be going too far.
I don't have much patience for the sort of celebrity who regards it as impertinence to
spoil his day by requiring him to explain his stupid online remark. The sort of
celebrity who says "don't you know who I am? I shall speak to your boss and have you
fired".
>
So Private Eye are lying then ?
...which allow citizens to mount legal challenges to decisions made by >>>> public bodies though in practice they have become a serial litigants
dream
And nightmare, when costs are awarded against the serial litigants. I think Private
Eye
might be pursuing a crusade directed at trans people who dare to complain. >>
Oh, do you think so? That's a rather extreme position for you to hold.
Private Eye may be telling the truth, but selectively publishing whatever puts trans
people in a bad light.
And this ex-copper and trans woman called Lynsay Watson ( formerly Alex
Horwood) is not particularly adept at seeking judicial reviews ?
As to a crusade.
Can you cite any other articles concerning trans people published in Private Eye ?
I don't keep my copies for future reference, but throw them away once read.
If it is really important to you, I shall look out for any such articles in the future.
Or you could buy your own copies.
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message news:mjkp5vF5vqoU1@mid.individual.net...
On 25/09/2025 11:06, billy bookcase wrote:
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message
news:mjkebmF48g3U1@mid.individual.net...
On 22/09/2025 19:37, billy bookcase wrote:
"Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote in message
news:1099lc3$3s30k$14@dont-email.me...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1mx09l5297o
The head of the Metropolitan Police has called on the government to >>>>>> "change or clarify" the law following the arrest of comedian Graham >>>>>> Linehan over posts he made online.
From the current issue of Private Eye 1658 p.18
quote:
why are police pursuing so may doomed cases involving online spats
about gender ? Perhaps because they are afraid of judicial reviews.
Is the current prosecution of Linehan at Westminster Magistrates Court "doomed" and
if
so, was it plainly wrong to prosecute him?
If you care to check, you'll find that the prosecution of Linehan at Westminster
Magistrates Court is not over an online spat about gender.
Why do so many people equate a police interview with a prosecution?
When a national treasure like Linehan declares that if a trans woman refuses to leave a
women's area someone should punch him in the balls, it is plainly an encouragement to
violence and it is reasonable for the police to conduct an interview. Maybe prosecuting
him for that statement would be going too far.
I don't have much patience for the sort of celebrity who regards it as impertinence to
spoil his day by requiring him to explain his stupid online remark. The sort of
celebrity who says "don't you know who I am? I shall speak to your boss and have you
fired".
This being the "celebrity" who has effectively destroyed both his career and his
marraige as a result of being relentessly trolled by an ex-copper and trans woman
called Lynsay Watson ( formerly Alex Horwood)
Not that you personally would know anything about relentless trolling of course.
On 25/09/2025 13:36, billy bookcase wrote:
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message
news:mjkp5vF5vqoU1@mid.individual.net...
On 25/09/2025 11:06, billy bookcase wrote:
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message
news:mjkebmF48g3U1@mid.individual.net...
On 22/09/2025 19:37, billy bookcase wrote:
"Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote in messageIs the current prosecution of Linehan at Westminster Magistrates Court "doomed" and
news:1099lc3$3s30k$14@dont-email.me...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1mx09l5297o
The head of the Metropolitan Police has called on the government to >>>>>>> "change or clarify" the law following the arrest of comedian Graham >>>>>>> Linehan over posts he made online.
From the current issue of Private Eye 1658 p.18
quote:
why are police pursuing so may doomed cases involving online spats >>>>>> about gender ? Perhaps because they are afraid of judicial reviews. >>>>>
if
so, was it plainly wrong to prosecute him?
If you care to check, you'll find that the prosecution of Linehan at Westminster
Magistrates Court is not over an online spat about gender.
Why do so many people equate a police interview with a prosecution?
When a national treasure like Linehan declares that if a trans woman refuses to leave
a
women's area someone should punch him in the balls, it is plainly an encouragement to
violence and it is reasonable for the police to conduct an interview. Maybe
prosecuting
him for that statement would be going too far.
I don't have much patience for the sort of celebrity who regards it as impertinence
to
spoil his day by requiring him to explain his stupid online remark. The sort of
celebrity who says "don't you know who I am? I shall speak to your boss and have you
fired".
This being the "celebrity" who has effectively destroyed both his career and his
marraige as a result of being relentessly trolled by an ex-copper and trans woman
called Lynsay Watson ( formerly Alex Horwood)
Either blame a specific person or recognise that maybe Linehan has underlying mental
health problems that need to be addressed. Far more likely.
This being the "celebrity" who has effectively destroyed both his career and his
marraige as a result of being relentessly trolled by an ex-copper and trans woman
called Lynsay Watson ( formerly Alex Horwood)
Either blame a specific person or recognise that maybe Linehan has underlying mental
health problems that need to be addressed. Far more likely.
For refusing to acknowledge that blokes with beards and a full set of wedding tackle
are actually women ?
And he's supposed to be the one with the mental health problems ?
On 9/25/25 21:32, billy bookcase wrote:
This being the "celebrity" who has effectively destroyed both his
career and his marraige as a result of being relentessly trolled by
an ex-copper and trans woman called Lynsay Watson ( formerly Alex
Horwood)
Either blame a specific person or recognise that maybe Linehan has
underlying mental health problems that need to be addressed. Far
more likely.
For refusing to acknowledge that blokes with beards and a full set of
wedding tackle are actually women ?
And he's supposed to be the one with the mental health problems ?
Proponents of religious dogmatic nonsense have always claimed heretics
have mental health problems. How else do you defend nonsense?
We burn heretics for pointing out the truth. Only a mad person would say something that would get them burnt, hence the people pointing out the
truth are mad.
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message news:mjlh4lF9ts9U1@mid.individual.net...
On 25/09/2025 13:36, billy bookcase wrote:
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message
news:mjkp5vF5vqoU1@mid.individual.net...
On 25/09/2025 11:06, billy bookcase wrote:
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message
news:mjkebmF48g3U1@mid.individual.net...
On 22/09/2025 19:37, billy bookcase wrote:
"Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote in messageIs the current prosecution of Linehan at Westminster Magistrates Court "doomed" and
news:1099lc3$3s30k$14@dont-email.me...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1mx09l5297o
The head of the Metropolitan Police has called on the government to >>>>>>>> "change or clarify" the law following the arrest of comedian Graham >>>>>>>> Linehan over posts he made online.
From the current issue of Private Eye 1658 p.18
quote:
why are police pursuing so may doomed cases involving online spats >>>>>>> about gender ? Perhaps because they are afraid of judicial reviews. >>>>>>
if
so, was it plainly wrong to prosecute him?
If you care to check, you'll find that the prosecution of Linehan at Westminster
Magistrates Court is not over an online spat about gender.
Why do so many people equate a police interview with a prosecution?
When a national treasure like Linehan declares that if a trans woman refuses to leave
a
women's area someone should punch him in the balls, it is plainly an encouragement to
violence and it is reasonable for the police to conduct an interview. Maybe
prosecuting
him for that statement would be going too far.
I don't have much patience for the sort of celebrity who regards it as impertinence
to
spoil his day by requiring him to explain his stupid online remark. The sort of
celebrity who says "don't you know who I am? I shall speak to your boss and have you
fired".
This being the "celebrity" who has effectively destroyed both his career and his
marraige as a result of being relentessly trolled by an ex-copper and trans woman
called Lynsay Watson ( formerly Alex Horwood)
Either blame a specific person or recognise that maybe Linehan has underlying mental
health problems that need to be addressed. Far more likely.
For refusing to acknowledge that blokes with beards and a full set of wedding tackle
are actually women ?
And he's supposed to be the one with the mental health problems ?
bb
For refusing to acknowledge that blokes with beards and a full set of
wedding tackle
are actually women ?
No, for behaving like a cunt. Being a nasty person, intimidating and belittling those who have gender identity issues or, if you prefer to
look at it differently, mental health problems.
On 2025-09-26, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
On 9/25/25 21:32, billy bookcase wrote:
This being the "celebrity" who has effectively destroyed both his
career and his marraige as a result of being relentessly trolled by
an ex-copper and trans woman called Lynsay Watson ( formerly Alex
Horwood)
Either blame a specific person or recognise that maybe Linehan has
underlying mental health problems that need to be addressed. Far
more likely.
For refusing to acknowledge that blokes with beards and a full set of
wedding tackle are actually women ?
And he's supposed to be the one with the mental health problems ?
Proponents of religious dogmatic nonsense have always claimed heretics
have mental health problems. How else do you defend nonsense?
We burn heretics for pointing out the truth. Only a mad person would say
something that would get them burnt, hence the people pointing out the
truth are mad.
This is called the "they laughed at Einstein" fallacy.
On 9/26/25 10:24, The Todal wrote:
For refusing to acknowledge that blokes with beards and a full set of
wedding tackle
are actually women ?
No, for behaving like a cunt. Being a nasty person, intimidating and
belittling those who have gender identity issues or, if you prefer to
look at it differently, mental health problems.
Well the thing is, some of us value science, objectivity, we don't value post-modernism, we don't value social constructs that contradict
observable facts. You can get emotional, categorise us as cunts, with
mental health problems, if you like, but it doesn't convince us that we
are wrong, and I doubt it sways the undecided.
The undecided don't stop and think The Todal has made a compelling
point, they just notice that you are getting angry.
On 25/09/2025 21:32, billy bookcase wrote:
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message
news:mjlh4lF9ts9U1@mid.individual.net...
On 25/09/2025 13:36, billy bookcase wrote:
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message
news:mjkp5vF5vqoU1@mid.individual.net...
On 25/09/2025 11:06, billy bookcase wrote:
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message
news:mjkebmF48g3U1@mid.individual.net...
On 22/09/2025 19:37, billy bookcase wrote:
"Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote in messageIs the current prosecution of Linehan at Westminster Magistrates Court >>>>>>> "doomed" and
news:1099lc3$3s30k$14@dont-email.me...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1mx09l5297o
The head of the Metropolitan Police has called on the government to >>>>>>>>> "change or clarify" the law following the arrest of comedian Graham >>>>>>>>> Linehan over posts he made online.
From the current issue of Private Eye 1658 p.18
quote:
why are police pursuing so may doomed cases involving online spats >>>>>>>> about gender ? Perhaps because they are afraid of judicial reviews. >>>>>>>
if
so, was it plainly wrong to prosecute him?
If you care to check, you'll find that the prosecution of Linehan at >>>>>> Westminster
Magistrates Court is not over an online spat about gender.
Why do so many people equate a police interview with a prosecution?
When a national treasure like Linehan declares that if a trans woman >>>>> refuses to leave
a
women's area someone should punch him in the balls, it is plainly an >>>>> encouragement to
violence and it is reasonable for the police to conduct an interview. Maybe
prosecuting
him for that statement would be going too far.
I don't have much patience for the sort of celebrity who regards it as >>>>> impertinence
to
spoil his day by requiring him to explain his stupid online remark. The sort of
celebrity who says "don't you know who I am? I shall speak to your boss >>>>> and have you
fired".
This being the "celebrity" who has effectively destroyed both his career >>>> and his
marraige as a result of being relentessly trolled by an ex-copper and trans
woman
called Lynsay Watson ( formerly Alex Horwood)
Either blame a specific person or recognise that maybe Linehan has
underlying mental
health problems that need to be addressed. Far more likely.
For refusing to acknowledge that blokes with beards and a full set of wedding
tackle
are actually women ?
No, for behaving like a cunt. Being a nasty person, intimidating and belittling those who have gender identity issues or, if you prefer to
look at it differently, mental health problems.
--
And he's supposed to be the one with the mental health problems ?
bb
They notice that Linehan is getting angry and urging people to punch trans women in the
balls.
What is not clear to me is whether he has ever attacked someone who has not been rude to him first. Don't necessarily disagree with you, but most of the people he is arguing with seem to be equally unpleasant characters.
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message news:8243204469.04fe0cff@uninhabited.net...
What is not clear to me is whether he has ever attacked someone who has not >> been rude to him first. Don't necessarily disagree with you, but most of the >> people he is arguing with seem to be equally unpleasant characters.
Linehans' own account is given in an article in tne Guardian publicising his book on the subject
quote:
It was as he was lying on a hospital trolley, after surgery to treat testicular
cancer in 2018, that Graham Linehan picked up his phone and first definitively
waded into the issue of trans rights.
According to his memoir, Tough Crowd: How I Made and Lost a Career in Comedy, and subsequent media interviews, the Irish-born comedian could not remember quite
what he wrote in those groggy early tweets but it nailed "my colours to the gender-critical mast".
He did recall the response of one of his readers: "I wish the cancer had won".
"My ordeal had begun," Linehan wrote. "Cast adrift, I was about to lose everything
- my career, my marriage, my reputation." The explanation as to how Linehan went
from a nasty Twitter (now X) spat seven years ago to career and personal armageddon
lies in a peculiar metamorphosis.
unquote
https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2025/sep/03/how-graham-linehan-gender-activism-led-to-comedian-career-and-personal-armageddon
What Linehan didn't seem to realise at the time and maybe doesn't even now, is
that the whole trans issue is classic trolling territory.
And even the possibility that all these trans women with a full set of wedding
tackle and beards, with all their sensitive feelings, not to say mental health
issues, have only ever existed on-line.
bb
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 25/09/2025 21:32, billy bookcase wrote:
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message
On 25/09/2025 13:36, billy bookcase wrote:
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message
On 25/09/2025 11:06, billy bookcase wrote:
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message
On 22/09/2025 19:37, billy bookcase wrote:
"Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote in message
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1mx09l5297o
The head of the Metropolitan Police has called on the government to >>>>>>>>>> "change or clarify" the law following the arrest of comedian Graham >>>>>>>>>> Linehan over posts he made online.
From the current issue of Private Eye 1658 p.18
quote:
why are police pursuing so may doomed cases involving online spats >>>>>>>>> about gender ? Perhaps because they are afraid of judicial reviews.
Is the current prosecution of Linehan at Westminster Magistrates Court >>>>>>>> "doomed" and if so, was it plainly wrong to prosecute him?
If you care to check, you'll find that the prosecution of Linehan at >>>>>>> Westminster Magistrates Court is not over an online spat about gender.
Why do so many people equate a police interview with a prosecution? >>>>>> When a national treasure like Linehan declares that if a trans woman >>>>>> refuses to leave a women's area someone should punch him in the balls, >>>>>> it is plainly an encouragement to violence and it is reasonable for >>>>>> the police to conduct an interview. Maybe prosecuting him for that >>>>>> statement would be going too far.
I don't have much patience for the sort of celebrity who regards it as >>>>>> impertinence to spoil his day by requiring him to explain his stupid >>>>>> online remark. The sort of celebrity who says "don't you know who I >>>>>> am? I shall speak to your boss and have you fired".
This being the "celebrity" who has effectively destroyed both his career >>>>> and his marraige as a result of being relentessly trolled by an ex-copper and trans
and trans woman called Lynsay Watson ( formerly Alex Horwood)
Either blame a specific person or recognise that maybe Linehan has
underlying mental health problems that need to be addressed. Far more likely.
For refusing to acknowledge that blokes with beards and a full set of wedding
tackle are actually women ?
No, for behaving like a cunt. Being a nasty person, intimidating and
belittling those who have gender identity issues or, if you prefer to
look at it differently, mental health problems.
What is not clear to me is whether he has ever attacked someone who has not been rude to him first. Don't necessarily disagree with you, but most of the people he is arguing with seem to be equally unpleasant characters.
I'm not a fan of "national treasure" (!!) Linehan. I could never forgive the utter
garbage that is "Mrs Brown's Boys".
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:mjnhb8Fk6thU1@mid.individual.net...
I'm not a fan of "national treasure" (!!) Linehan. I could never forgive the utter
garbage that is "Mrs Brown's Boys".
Graham Linehan has never had any connection with "Mrs Brown's Boys";
Which is the creation and solely the work of Brendan Carroll.
All five series plus; the innumerable Christmas Specails
bb
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:mjnhb8Fk6thU1@mid.individual.net...
I'm not a fan of "national treasure" (!!) Linehan. I could never forgive the utter
garbage that is "Mrs Brown's Boys".
Graham Linehan has never had any connection with "Mrs Brown's Boys";
Which is the creation and solely the work of Brendan Carroll.
All five series plus; the innumerable Christmas Specails
Or even Brendan O'Carroll
"billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> wrote in message news:10b666h$11b3h$1@dont-email.me...
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mjnhb8Fk6thU1@mid.individual.net...
I'm not a fan of "national treasure" (!!) Linehan. I could never forgive the utter
garbage that is "Mrs Brown's Boys".
Graham Linehan has never had any connection with "Mrs Brown's Boys";
Which is the creation and solely the work of Brendan Carroll.
All five series plus; the innumerable Christmas Specails
bb
On 26/09/2025 02:58 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in messageMany thanks for the kind correction.
news:mjnhb8Fk6thU1@mid.individual.net...
I'm not a fan of "national treasure" (!!) Linehan. I could never forgive the utter
garbage that is "Mrs Brown's Boys".
Graham Linehan has never had any connection with "Mrs Brown's Boys";
Which is the creation and solely the work of Brendan Carroll.
All five series plus; the innumerable Christmas Specails
I should, of course, have cited "Father Ted".
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:mjnljvFkt0iU1@mid.individual.net...
On 26/09/2025 02:58 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in messageMany thanks for the kind correction.
news:mjnhb8Fk6thU1@mid.individual.net...
I'm not a fan of "national treasure" (!!) Linehan. I could never forgive the utter
garbage that is "Mrs Brown's Boys".
Graham Linehan has never had any connection with "Mrs Brown's Boys";
Which is the creation and solely the work of Brendan Carroll.
All five series plus; the innumerable Christmas Specails
I should, of course, have cited "Father Ted".
"Down with this sort of thing !"
On 26/09/2025 02:58 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in messageMany thanks for the kind correction.
news:mjnhb8Fk6thU1@mid.individual.net...
I'm not a fan of "national treasure" (!!) Linehan. I could never forgive the
utter
garbage that is "Mrs Brown's Boys".
Graham Linehan has never had any connection with "Mrs Brown's Boys";
Which is the creation and solely the work of Brendan Carroll.
All five series plus; the innumerable Christmas Specails
I should, of course, have cited "Father Ted".
Mea culpa.
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
I'm not a fan of "national treasure" (!!) Linehan. I could never forgive the
utter garbage that is "Mrs Brown's Boys".
Graham Linehan has never had any connection with "Mrs Brown's Boys";
Which is the creation and solely the work of Brendan Carroll.
All five series plus; the innumerable Christmas Specails
Many thanks for the kind correction.
I should, of course, have cited "Father Ted".
Mea culpa.
Unlike Mrs Brown's Boys, I reckon Father Ted is actually very funny.
Father Ted is not, in my opinion, Linehan's best comedy. In my opinion, his best comedy is The IT Crowd. But then, I would say that, having worked most of my life in IT. I appreciate the fact that, with a few fairly minor exceptions, which I am willing to overlook, the show gets both the ethos of its setting and (disregarding deliberate exaggeration for comic effect) the technology of its setting bang on.
On 26/09/2025 04:52 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
I'm not a fan of "national treasure" (!!) Linehan. I could never forgive the
utter garbage that is "Mrs Brown's Boys".
Graham Linehan has never had any connection with "Mrs Brown's Boys";
Which is the creation and solely the work of Brendan Carroll.
All five series plus; the innumerable Christmas Specails
Many thanks for the kind correction.
I should, of course, have cited "Father Ted".
Mea culpa.
Unlike Mrs Brown's Boys, I reckon Father Ted is actually very funny.
As is so often said, it takes all sorts...
On Fri, 26 Sep 2025 15:35:39 +0100, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:mjnljvFkt0iU1@mid.individual.net...
On 26/09/2025 02:58 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in messageMany thanks for the kind correction.
news:mjnhb8Fk6thU1@mid.individual.net...
I'm not a fan of "national treasure" (!!) Linehan. I could never forgive the utter
garbage that is "Mrs Brown's Boys".
Graham Linehan has never had any connection with "Mrs Brown's Boys";
Which is the creation and solely the work of Brendan Carroll.
All five series plus; the innumerable Christmas Specails
I should, of course, have cited "Father Ted".
"Down with this sort of thing !"
Father Ted is not, in my opinion, Linehan's best comedy. In my opinion, his best comedy is The IT Crowd. But then, I would say that, having worked most of my life in IT. I appreciate the fact that, with a few fairly minor exceptions, which I am willing to overlook, the show gets both the ethos of its setting and (disregarding deliberate exaggeration for comic effect) the technology of its setting bang on.
Mark
On 2025-09-26, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
Father Ted is not, in my opinion, Linehan's best comedy. In my opinion, his >> best comedy is The IT Crowd. But then, I would say that, having worked most >> of my life in IT. I appreciate the fact that, with a few fairly minor
exceptions, which I am willing to overlook, the show gets both the ethos of >> its setting and (disregarding deliberate exaggeration for comic effect) the >> technology of its setting bang on.
It's also allegedly the cause of his anti-trans obsession. There was an episode with a trans woman. Someone on Twitter criticised her portrayal.
Linehan did not take the criticism well and appears to have permanently snapped as a result and decided the approprite response was to throw
away his family, his career, and everything else in his life.
On 26/09/2025 16:12, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Fri, 26 Sep 2025 15:35:39 +0100, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com>
wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mjnljvFkt0iU1@mid.individual.net...
On 26/09/2025 02:58 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in messageMany thanks for the kind correction.
news:mjnhb8Fk6thU1@mid.individual.net...
I'm not a fan of "national treasure" (!!) Linehan. I could never
forgive the utter
garbage that is "Mrs Brown's Boys".
Graham Linehan has never had any connection with "Mrs Brown's Boys"; >>>>>
Which is the creation and solely the work of Brendan Carroll.
All five series plus; the innumerable Christmas Specails
I should, of course, have cited "Father Ted".
"Down with this sort of thing !"
Father Ted is not, in my opinion, Linehan's best comedy. In my
opinion, his
best comedy is The IT Crowd. But then, I would say that, having worked
most
of my life in IT. I appreciate the fact that, with a few fairly minor
exceptions, which I am willing to overlook, the show gets both the
ethos of
its setting and (disregarding deliberate exaggeration for comic
effect) the
technology of its setting bang on.
Mark
The IT Crowd is in my opinion more entertaining than Father Ted. I
haven't seen many episodes of the latter but the characters seem rather wooden and the comedy often slapstick.
The IT Crowd benefits from having an excellent cast who could probably
get a laugh from an average script.
Currently, it is possible to watch the stage version of Fawlty Towers on U&Gold, available on Sky. An excellent script by John Cleese, of course,
but I feel that the cast who now perform on stage are not as funny as
Cleese, Booth and Sachs. Is it really worth watching the stage version?
On 26/09/2025 16:12, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Fri, 26 Sep 2025 15:35:39 +0100, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> wrote: >>
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mjnljvFkt0iU1@mid.individual.net...
On 26/09/2025 02:58 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in messageMany thanks for the kind correction.
news:mjnhb8Fk6thU1@mid.individual.net...
I'm not a fan of "national treasure" (!!) Linehan. I could never forgive
the utter
garbage that is "Mrs Brown's Boys".
Graham Linehan has never had any connection with "Mrs Brown's Boys"; >>>>>
Which is the creation and solely the work of Brendan Carroll.
All five series plus; the innumerable Christmas Specails
I should, of course, have cited "Father Ted".
"Down with this sort of thing !"
Father Ted is not, in my opinion, Linehan's best comedy. In my opinion, his >> best comedy is The IT Crowd. But then, I would say that, having worked most >> of my life in IT. I appreciate the fact that, with a few fairly minor
exceptions, which I am willing to overlook, the show gets both the ethos of >> its setting and (disregarding deliberate exaggeration for comic effect) the >> technology of its setting bang on.
Mark
The IT Crowd is in my opinion more entertaining than Father Ted. I haven't seen
many episodes of the latter but the characters seem rather wooden and the comedy
often slapstick.
The IT Crowd benefits from having an excellent cast who could probably get a laugh from an average script.
Currently, it is possible to watch the stage version of Fawlty Towers on U&Gold,
available on Sky. An excellent script by John Cleese, of course, but I feel that
the cast who now perform on stage are not as funny as Cleese, Booth and Sachs.
Is it really worth watching the stage version?
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message >news:slrn10dde01.47m.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
aka " Ribbens by Gaslight"
On 2025-09-26, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
Father Ted is not, in my opinion, Linehan's best comedy. In my opinion, his >>> best comedy is The IT Crowd. But then, I would say that, having worked most >>> of my life in IT. I appreciate the fact that, with a few fairly minor
exceptions, which I am willing to overlook, the show gets both the ethos of >>> its setting and (disregarding deliberate exaggeration for comic effect) the >>> technology of its setting bang on.
It's also allegedly the cause of his anti-trans obsession. There was an
episode with a trans woman. Someone on Twitter criticised her portrayal.
12 years later in 2020. Which led to Channel 4 removing that episode from its >streaming platform. Which is what Linehan initially objected to.
On Fri, 26 Sep 2025 19:57:49 +0100, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrn10dde01.47m.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
aka " Ribbens by Gaslight"
On 2025-09-26, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
Father Ted is not, in my opinion, Linehan's best comedy. In my opinion, his
best comedy is The IT Crowd. But then, I would say that, having worked most
of my life in IT. I appreciate the fact that, with a few fairly minor
exceptions, which I am willing to overlook, the show gets both the ethos of
its setting and (disregarding deliberate exaggeration for comic effect) the
technology of its setting bang on.
It's also allegedly the cause of his anti-trans obsession. There was an
episode with a trans woman. Someone on Twitter criticised her portrayal.
12 years later in 2020. Which led to Channel 4 removing that episode from its
streaming platform. Which is what Linehan initially objected to.
And what makes that worse is that that episode, the trans controversy notwithstanding, contains the absolute best bit from the entire series.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDbyYGrswtg
Interesting episode. There is a funny plotline about Jen thinking she has "the
internet" in a box. There is a rather appalling plotline about how it's okay to beat up
a trans woman because actually it's a man, so fair game. And presumably Linehan feels
the same today.
On 27/09/2025 22:46, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Fri, 26 Sep 2025 19:57:49 +0100, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> wrote: >>
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrn10dde01.47m.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
aka " Ribbens by Gaslight"
On 2025-09-26, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:12 years later in 2020. Which led to Channel 4 removing that episode from its
Father Ted is not, in my opinion, Linehan's best comedy. In my opinion, his
best comedy is The IT Crowd. But then, I would say that, having worked most
of my life in IT. I appreciate the fact that, with a few fairly minor >>>>> exceptions, which I am willing to overlook, the show gets both the ethos of
its setting and (disregarding deliberate exaggeration for comic effect) the
technology of its setting bang on.
It's also allegedly the cause of his anti-trans obsession. There was an >>>> episode with a trans woman. Someone on Twitter criticised her portrayal. >>>
streaming platform. Which is what Linehan initially objected to.
And what makes that worse is that that episode, the trans controversy
notwithstanding, contains the absolute best bit from the entire series.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDbyYGrswtg
Interesting episode. There is a funny plotline about Jen thinking she
has "the internet" in a box. There is a rather appalling plotline about
how it's okay to beat up a trans woman because actually it's a man, so
fair game. And presumably Linehan feels the same today.
It's funny like Spike Milligan in "Curry And Chips".
On 28 Sep 2025 at 09:48:26 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 27/09/2025 22:46, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Fri, 26 Sep 2025 19:57:49 +0100, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrn10dde01.47m.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
aka " Ribbens by Gaslight"
On 2025-09-26, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote: >>>>>> Father Ted is not, in my opinion, Linehan's best comedy. In my opinion, his12 years later in 2020. Which led to Channel 4 removing that episode from its
best comedy is The IT Crowd. But then, I would say that, having worked most
of my life in IT. I appreciate the fact that, with a few fairly minor >>>>>> exceptions, which I am willing to overlook, the show gets both the ethos of
its setting and (disregarding deliberate exaggeration for comic effect) the
technology of its setting bang on.
It's also allegedly the cause of his anti-trans obsession. There was an >>>>> episode with a trans woman. Someone on Twitter criticised her portrayal. >>>>
streaming platform. Which is what Linehan initially objected to.
And what makes that worse is that that episode, the trans controversy
notwithstanding, contains the absolute best bit from the entire series.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDbyYGrswtg
Interesting episode. There is a funny plotline about Jen thinking she
has "the internet" in a box. There is a rather appalling plotline about
how it's okay to beat up a trans woman because actually it's a man, so
fair game. And presumably Linehan feels the same today.
It's funny like Spike Milligan in "Curry And Chips".
I glanced at a couple of episodes (not the offending one which seems hard to find) and I am not sure how funny I find slapstick. But every kind of person in the episodes I saw seems to be subject to random acts of comedic violence.
Why are trans women so pure, delicate and angelic that subjecting them to exactly the same type of comedic violence is suddenly a crime against humanity? Are they actually on a plane above ordinary people where they can only be worshipped from afar?
On 28 Sep 2025 at 09:48:26 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 27/09/2025 22:46, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Fri, 26 Sep 2025 19:57:49 +0100, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrn10dde01.47m.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
aka " Ribbens by Gaslight"
On 2025-09-26, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote: >>>>>> Father Ted is not, in my opinion, Linehan's best comedy. In my opinion, his12 years later in 2020. Which led to Channel 4 removing that episode from its
best comedy is The IT Crowd. But then, I would say that, having worked most
of my life in IT. I appreciate the fact that, with a few fairly minor >>>>>> exceptions, which I am willing to overlook, the show gets both the ethos of
its setting and (disregarding deliberate exaggeration for comic effect) the
technology of its setting bang on.
It's also allegedly the cause of his anti-trans obsession. There was an >>>>> episode with a trans woman. Someone on Twitter criticised her portrayal. >>>>
streaming platform. Which is what Linehan initially objected to.
And what makes that worse is that that episode, the trans controversy
notwithstanding, contains the absolute best bit from the entire series.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDbyYGrswtg
Interesting episode. There is a funny plotline about Jen thinking she
has "the internet" in a box. There is a rather appalling plotline about
how it's okay to beat up a trans woman because actually it's a man, so
fair game. And presumably Linehan feels the same today.
It's funny like Spike Milligan in "Curry And Chips".
I glanced at a couple of episodes (not the offending one which seems hard to find) and I am not sure how funny I find slapstick. But every kind of person in the episodes I saw seems to be subject to random acts of comedic violence.
Why are trans women so pure, delicate and angelic that subjecting them to exactly the same type of comedic violence is suddenly a crime against humanity? Are they actually on a plane above ordinary people where they can only be worshipped from afar?
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message news:mjsb2sFebdbU1@mid.individual.net...
Interesting episode. There is a funny plotline about Jen thinking she has "the
internet" in a box. There is a rather appalling plotline about how it's okay to beat up
a trans woman because actually it's a man, so fair game. And presumably Linehan feels
the same today.
While here's what Linehan himself has to say on the subject
quote:
I don't want my daughter to go into college and have a male-bodied person whose story she doesn't know in the toilet with her. She cannot object to it, so
I had to take that fight on for her."
:unquote
On 28/09/2025 10:42, billy bookcase wrote:
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
Interesting episode. There is a funny plotline about Jen thinking she
has "the internet" in a box. There is a rather appalling plotline about
how it's okay to beat up a trans woman because actually it's a man, so
fair game. And presumably Linehan feels the same today.
While here's what Linehan himself has to say on the subject
quote:
I don't want my daughter to go into college and have a male-bodied person
whose story she doesn't know in the toilet with her. She cannot object
to it, so I had to take that fight on for her."
:unquote
I daresay he has lots of feelings about his beloved daughter. He would probably prefer her not to have sex without his express permission, either. Maybe he should stop attributing feelings and anxieties to her, let her
speak for herself, and stop behaving like a cunt?
On 28/09/2025 11:26, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 28 Sep 2025 at 09:48:26 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 27/09/2025 22:46, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Fri, 26 Sep 2025 19:57:49 +0100, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrn10dde01.47m.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
aka " Ribbens by Gaslight"
On 2025-09-26, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote: >>>>>>> Father Ted is not, in my opinion, Linehan's best comedy. In my opinion, his12 years later in 2020. Which led to Channel 4 removing that episode from its
best comedy is The IT Crowd. But then, I would say that, having worked most
of my life in IT. I appreciate the fact that, with a few fairly minor >>>>>>> exceptions, which I am willing to overlook, the show gets both the ethos of
its setting and (disregarding deliberate exaggeration for comic effect) the
technology of its setting bang on.
It's also allegedly the cause of his anti-trans obsession. There was an >>>>>> episode with a trans woman. Someone on Twitter criticised her portrayal. >>>>>
streaming platform. Which is what Linehan initially objected to.
And what makes that worse is that that episode, the trans controversy
notwithstanding, contains the absolute best bit from the entire series. >>>>
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDbyYGrswtg
Interesting episode. There is a funny plotline about Jen thinking she
has "the internet" in a box. There is a rather appalling plotline about
how it's okay to beat up a trans woman because actually it's a man, so
fair game. And presumably Linehan feels the same today.
It's funny like Spike Milligan in "Curry And Chips".
I glanced at a couple of episodes (not the offending one which seems hard to >> find) and I am not sure how funny I find slapstick. But every kind of person >> in the episodes I saw seems to be subject to random acts of comedic violence.
Why are trans women so pure, delicate and angelic that subjecting them to >> exactly the same type of comedic violence is suddenly a crime against
humanity? Are they actually on a plane above ordinary people where they can >> only be worshipped from afar?
No, surely not. Why are *any* women so pure, delicate and angelic that society frowns on people punching them in the face, pulling out their
hair or glassing them? Lots of women are strong and as fearless as men.
If a woman is disrespectful to you, surely you must be free to react in exactly the same way as if it was a man. We're regularly exposed to gory depictions of violence against men, in our crime dramas. The nation
would like to watch more women being beaten to a bloody pulp.
Yet here's a case.
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/R-v-Mark-Weatherley.pdf
quote
You punched PC Parmenter in the face. She stumbled backwards onto the
floor. You then turned your attention to PC Gregasz who was already
unsteady on her feet having stumbled backwards when you assaulted her colleague. You also punched her to the face, causing her to fall
backwards onto the floor.
15. You then returned again to PC Parmenter who had not yet been able to stand; you continued punching her and then kicked her to the face with a
shod foot.
16. You then turned back to PC Gregasz. She had managed to get to her
feet, but you pinned her to the wall and repeatedly punched her in the
face and head until she fell to the floor, unconscious.
17. Once again, you returned to PC Parmenter who, by this point, was
bleeding profusely from her nose and mouth. As she tried to stand, you
then hit her again with such force that she ended up face down on the
sofa. You then continued to punch her. She managed to stand but you hit
her again with such force that she ended up on the floor.
unquote
If police officers can't stand the heat they should get out of the
kitchen, right?
The sentencing judge was, of course, absolutely right when he said:
I do not consider that, when drafting the guideline, its authors had in
mind that police officers, of whatever sex or size, were to be
considered rCLobviously vulnerablerCY when dealing with situations like the one I have described. The fact that they were police officers acting in
the exercise of their functions is, of course, highly relevant as a
statutory aggravating factor but I do not agree that, for the purposes
of culpability, the officers were obviously vulnerable.
On 28/09/2025 10:42, billy bookcase wrote:
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message
news:mjsb2sFebdbU1@mid.individual.net...
Interesting episode. There is a funny plotline about Jen thinking she has "the
internet" in a box. There is a rather appalling plotline about how it's okay to beat
up
a trans woman because actually it's a man, so fair game. And presumably Linehan feels
the same today.
While here's what Linehan himself has to say on the subject
quote:
I don't want my daughter to go into college and have a male-bodied person
whose story she doesn't know in the toilet with her. She cannot object to it, so
I had to take that fight on for her."
:unquote
I daresay he has lots of feelings about his beloved daughter. He would probably prefer
her not to have sex without his express permission, either.
Maybe he should stop attributing feelings and anxieties to her, let her speak for
herself, and stop behaving like a cunt?
On 28/09/2025 11:26, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 28 Sep 2025 at 09:48:26 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 27/09/2025 22:46, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Fri, 26 Sep 2025 19:57:49 +0100, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrn10dde01.47m.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
aka " Ribbens by Gaslight"
On 2025-09-26, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote: >>>>>>> Father Ted is not, in my opinion, Linehan's best comedy. In my opinion, his12 years later in 2020. Which led to Channel 4 removing that episode from its
best comedy is The IT Crowd. But then, I would say that, having worked most
of my life in IT. I appreciate the fact that, with a few fairly minor >>>>>>> exceptions, which I am willing to overlook, the show gets both the ethos of
its setting and (disregarding deliberate exaggeration for comic effect) the
technology of its setting bang on.
It's also allegedly the cause of his anti-trans obsession. There was an >>>>>> episode with a trans woman. Someone on Twitter criticised her portrayal. >>>>>
streaming platform. Which is what Linehan initially objected to.
And what makes that worse is that that episode, the trans controversy
notwithstanding, contains the absolute best bit from the entire series. >>>>
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDbyYGrswtg
Interesting episode. There is a funny plotline about Jen thinking she
has "the internet" in a box. There is a rather appalling plotline about
how it's okay to beat up a trans woman because actually it's a man, so
fair game. And presumably Linehan feels the same today.
It's funny like Spike Milligan in "Curry And Chips".
I glanced at a couple of episodes (not the offending one which seems hard to >> find) and I am not sure how funny I find slapstick. But every kind of person >> in the episodes I saw seems to be subject to random acts of comedic violence.
Why are trans women so pure, delicate and angelic that subjecting them to >> exactly the same type of comedic violence is suddenly a crime against
humanity? Are they actually on a plane above ordinary people where they can >> only be worshipped from afar?
No, surely not. Why are *any* women so pure, delicate and angelic that society frowns on people punching them in the face, pulling out their
hair or glassing them? Lots of women are strong and as fearless as men.
If a woman is disrespectful to you, surely you must be free to react in exactly the same way as if it was a man. We're regularly exposed to gory depictions of violence against men, in our crime dramas. The nation
would like to watch more women being beaten to a bloody pulp.
Yet here's a case.
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/R-v-Mark-Weatherley.pdf
quote
You punched PC Parmenter in the face. She stumbled backwards onto the
floor. You then turned your attention to PC Gregasz who was already
unsteady on her feet having stumbled backwards when you assaulted her colleague. You also punched her to the face, causing her to fall
backwards onto the floor.
15. You then returned again to PC Parmenter who had not yet been able to stand; you continued punching her and then kicked her to the face with a
shod foot.
16. You then turned back to PC Gregasz. She had managed to get to her
feet, but you pinned her to the wall and repeatedly punched her in the
face and head until she fell to the floor, unconscious.
17. Once again, you returned to PC Parmenter who, by this point, was
bleeding profusely from her nose and mouth. As she tried to stand, you
then hit her again with such force that she ended up face down on the
sofa. You then continued to punch her. She managed to stand but you hit
her again with such force that she ended up on the floor.
unquote
If police officers can't stand the heat they should get out of the
kitchen, right?
The sentencing judge was, of course, absolutely right when he said:
I do not consider that, when drafting the guideline, its authors had in
mind that police officers, of whatever sex or size, were to be
considered rCLobviously vulnerablerCY when dealing with situations like the one I have described. The fact that they were police officers acting in
the exercise of their functions is, of course, highly relevant as a
statutory aggravating factor but I do not agree that, for the purposes
of culpability, the officers were obviously vulnerable.
On 28/09/2025 12:53 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 28/09/2025 10:42, billy bookcase wrote:
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
Interesting episode. There is a funny plotline about Jen thinking she
has "the internet" in a box. There is a rather appalling plotline about >>>> how it's okay to beat up a trans woman because actually it's a man, so >>>> fair game. And presumably Linehan feels the same today.
While here's what Linehan himself has to say on the subject
quote:
I don't want my daughter to go into college and have a male-bodied
person
whose story she doesn't know in the toilet with her. She cannot object
to it, so I had to take that fight on for her."
:unquote
I daresay he has lots of feelings about his beloved daughter. He would
probably prefer her not to have sex without his express permission,
either.
Maybe he should stop attributing feelings and anxieties to her, let her
speak for herself, and stop behaving like a cunt?
What "feelings and anxieties" was he attributing to his daughter?
The quotation above shows that he was expressing his *own* feelings and anxieties. The material quoted does not mention what his daughter might think or feel about the subject.
If there is any attribution going on, it is being perpetrated by er... others...
On 28 Sep 2025 at 12:49:18 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 28/09/2025 11:26, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 28 Sep 2025 at 09:48:26 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote: >>>
On 27/09/2025 22:46, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Fri, 26 Sep 2025 19:57:49 +0100, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrn10dde01.47m.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
aka " Ribbens by Gaslight"
On 2025-09-26, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote: >>>>>>>> Father Ted is not, in my opinion, Linehan's best comedy. In my opinion, his
best comedy is The IT Crowd. But then, I would say that, having worked most
of my life in IT. I appreciate the fact that, with a few fairly minor >>>>>>>> exceptions, which I am willing to overlook, the show gets both the ethos of
its setting and (disregarding deliberate exaggeration for comic effect) the
technology of its setting bang on.
It's also allegedly the cause of his anti-trans obsession. There was an >>>>>>> episode with a trans woman. Someone on Twitter criticised her portrayal.
12 years later in 2020. Which led to Channel 4 removing that episode from its
streaming platform. Which is what Linehan initially objected to.
And what makes that worse is that that episode, the trans controversy >>>>> notwithstanding, contains the absolute best bit from the entire series. >>>>>
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDbyYGrswtg
Interesting episode. There is a funny plotline about Jen thinking she
has "the internet" in a box. There is a rather appalling plotline about >>>> how it's okay to beat up a trans woman because actually it's a man, so >>>> fair game. And presumably Linehan feels the same today.
It's funny like Spike Milligan in "Curry And Chips".
I glanced at a couple of episodes (not the offending one which seems hard to
find) and I am not sure how funny I find slapstick. But every kind of person
in the episodes I saw seems to be subject to random acts of comedic violence.
Why are trans women so pure, delicate and angelic that subjecting them to
exactly the same type of comedic violence is suddenly a crime against
humanity? Are they actually on a plane above ordinary people where they can >>> only be worshipped from afar?
No, surely not. Why are *any* women so pure, delicate and angelic that
society frowns on people punching them in the face, pulling out their
hair or glassing them? Lots of women are strong and as fearless as men.
If a woman is disrespectful to you, surely you must be free to react in
exactly the same way as if it was a man. We're regularly exposed to gory
depictions of violence against men, in our crime dramas. The nation
would like to watch more women being beaten to a bloody pulp.
Yet here's a case.
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/R-v-Mark-Weatherley.pdf >>
quote
You punched PC Parmenter in the face. She stumbled backwards onto the
floor. You then turned your attention to PC Gregasz who was already
unsteady on her feet having stumbled backwards when you assaulted her
colleague. You also punched her to the face, causing her to fall
backwards onto the floor.
15. You then returned again to PC Parmenter who had not yet been able to
stand; you continued punching her and then kicked her to the face with a
shod foot.
16. You then turned back to PC Gregasz. She had managed to get to her
feet, but you pinned her to the wall and repeatedly punched her in the
face and head until she fell to the floor, unconscious.
17. Once again, you returned to PC Parmenter who, by this point, was
bleeding profusely from her nose and mouth. As she tried to stand, you
then hit her again with such force that she ended up face down on the
sofa. You then continued to punch her. She managed to stand but you hit
her again with such force that she ended up on the floor.
unquote
If police officers can't stand the heat they should get out of the
kitchen, right?
The sentencing judge was, of course, absolutely right when he said:
I do not consider that, when drafting the guideline, its authors had in
mind that police officers, of whatever sex or size, were to be
considered rCLobviously vulnerablerCY when dealing with situations like the >> one I have described. The fact that they were police officers acting in
the exercise of their functions is, of course, highly relevant as a
statutory aggravating factor but I do not agree that, for the purposes
of culpability, the officers were obviously vulnerable.
You have a valid point about the police women. But this needs thinking through. On the face of it, part of our social contract should be that if criminals do not want to be shot on sight from twenty feet away they should really not try to injure police officers. And almost all women are much more physically vulnerable than most men; an anecdote, I worked as a temporary porter in my teens at a maternity hospital on three floors which had the lifts
out of action for several months. Lifting one end of a stretcher with a 10 stone woman on it up the stairs was something I could barely do. One of the regular porters was about five foot two (in old money) and very slightly built, and he could not do it at all. (The other porters said it was because he was Jewish he wouldn't carry patients upstairs, but that's Leeds for you.)
That chap would be just as vulnerable in a fight as most women. But, contrary to popular suggestion, trans women are not actually women, they are men with, apparently, the psychology of women. So, while some of them may be as physically vulnerable as women, the great majority are not. So I don't think the popular and reasonable idea that women are usually much more physically vulnerable than men does actually apply to most trans women.
I say that while abhorring violence of any kind, but I still don't believe that most transwomen do need the extra consideration from the judge that he so
crassly did not grant the police women. That extra consideration is fundamentally not because of their gender but because they were smaller, weaker and more susceptible to injury than most men. But some men would be equally vulnerable, most not.
On 28/09/2025 13:43, JNugent wrote:
On 28/09/2025 12:53 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 28/09/2025 10:42, billy bookcase wrote:
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
Interesting episode. There is a funny plotline about Jen thinking she >>>>> has "the internet" in a box. There is a rather appalling plotline
about how it's okay to beat up a trans woman because actually it's a >>>>> man, so fair game. And presumably Linehan feels the same today.
While here's what Linehan himself has to say on the subject
quote:
I don't want my daughter to go into college and have a male-bodied
person whose story she doesn't know in the toilet with her.
cannot object to it, so I had to take that fight on for her."
:unquote
I daresay he has lots of feelings about his beloved daughter. He would
probably prefer her not to have sex without his express permission,
either.
Maybe he should stop attributing feelings and anxieties to her, let her
speak for herself, and stop behaving like a cunt?
What "feelings and anxieties" was he attributing to his daughter?
He thinks she would naturally object to the situation and would be
inhibited about complaining. His little princess needs her protective
dad to speak for her.
Woe betide any chum of hers who touches her private parts without
daddy's permission.
The quotation above shows that he was expressing his *own* feelings
and anxieties. The material quoted does not mention what his daughter
might think or feel about the subject.
His own feelings and anxieties are those of a bigot.
If there is any attribution going on, it is being perpetrated by er...
others...
On 28/09/2025 19:44, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 28 Sep 2025 at 12:49:18 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 28/09/2025 11:26, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 28 Sep 2025 at 09:48:26 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
On 27/09/2025 22:46, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Fri, 26 Sep 2025 19:57:49 +0100, "billy bookcase"
<billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrn10dde01.47m.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
aka " Ribbens by Gaslight"
On 2025-09-26, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> >>>>>>>> wrote:
Father Ted is not, in my opinion, Linehan's best comedy. In my >>>>>>>>> opinion, his
best comedy is The IT Crowd. But then, I would say that, having >>>>>>>>> worked most
of my life in IT. I appreciate the fact that, with a few fairly >>>>>>>>> minor
exceptions, which I am willing to overlook, the show gets both >>>>>>>>> the ethos of
its setting and (disregarding deliberate exaggeration for comic >>>>>>>>> effect) the
technology of its setting bang on.
It's also allegedly the cause of his anti-trans obsession. There >>>>>>>> was an
episode with a trans woman. Someone on Twitter criticised her >>>>>>>> portrayal.
12 years later in 2020. Which led to Channel 4 removing that
episode from its
streaming platform. Which is what Linehan initially objected to.
And what makes that worse is that that episode, the trans controversy >>>>>> notwithstanding, contains the absolute best bit from the entire
series.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDbyYGrswtg
Interesting episode. There is a funny plotline about Jen thinking she >>>>> has "the internet" in a box. There is a rather appalling plotline
about
how it's okay to beat up a trans woman because actually it's a man, so >>>>> fair game. And presumably Linehan feels the same today.
It's funny like Spike Milligan in "Curry And Chips".
I glanced at a couple of episodes (not the offending one which seems
hard to
find) and I am not sure how funny I find slapstick. But every kind
of person
in the episodes I saw seems to be subject to random acts of comedic
violence.
-a-a Why are trans women so pure, delicate and angelic that subjecting >>>> them to
exactly the same type of comedic violence is suddenly a crime against
humanity? Are they actually on a plane above ordinary people where
they can
only be worshipped from afar?
No, surely not. Why are *any* women so pure, delicate and angelic that
society frowns on people punching them in the face, pulling out their
hair or glassing them? Lots of women are strong and as fearless as men.
If a woman is disrespectful to you, surely you must be free to react in
exactly the same way as if it was a man. We're regularly exposed to gory >>> depictions of violence against men, in our crime dramas. The nation
would like to watch more women being beaten to a bloody pulp.
Yet here's a case.
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/R-v-Mark-
Weatherley.pdf
quote
You punched PC Parmenter in the face. She stumbled backwards onto the
floor. You then turned your attention to PC Gregasz who was already
unsteady on her feet having stumbled backwards when you assaulted her
colleague. You also punched her to the face, causing her to fall
backwards onto the floor.
15. You then returned again to PC Parmenter who had not yet been able to >>> stand; you continued punching her and then kicked her to the face with a >>> shod foot.
16. You then turned back to PC Gregasz. She had managed to get to her
feet, but you pinned her to the wall and repeatedly punched her in the
face and head until she fell to the floor, unconscious.
17. Once again, you returned to PC Parmenter who, by this point, was
bleeding profusely from her nose and mouth. As she tried to stand, you
then hit her again with such force that she ended up face down on the
sofa. You then continued to punch her. She managed to stand but you hit
her again with such force that she ended up on the floor.
unquote
If police officers can't stand the heat they should get out of the
kitchen, right?
The sentencing judge was, of course, absolutely right when he said:
I do not consider that, when drafting the guideline, its authors had in
mind that police officers, of whatever sex or size, were to be
considered rCLobviously vulnerablerCY when dealing with situations like the >>> one I have described. The fact that they were police officers acting in
the exercise of their functions is, of course, highly relevant as a
statutory aggravating factor but I do not agree that, for the purposes
of culpability, the officers were obviously vulnerable.
You have a valid point about the police women. But this needs thinking
through. On the face of it, part of our social contract should be that if
criminals do not want to be shot on sight from twenty feet away they
should
really not try to injure police officers. And almost all women are
much more
physically vulnerable than most men; an anecdote, I worked as a temporary
porter in my teens at a maternity hospital on three floors which had
the lifts
out of action for several months. Lifting one end of a stretcher with
a 10
stone woman on it up the stairs was something I could barely do. One
of the
regular porters was about five foot two (in old money) and very slightly
built, and he could not do it at all. (The other porters said it was
because
he was Jewish he wouldn't carry patients upstairs, but that's Leeds
for you.)
-a That chap would be just as vulnerable in a fight as most women.-a But,
contrary to popular suggestion, trans women are not actually women,
they are
men with, apparently, the psychology of women. So, while some of them
may be
as physically vulnerable as women, the great majority are not. So I don't
think the popular and reasonable idea that women are usually much more
physically vulnerable than men does actually apply to most trans women.
I say that while abhorring violence of any kind, but I still don't
believe
that most transwomen do need the extra consideration from the judge
that he so
crassly did not grant the police women.-a That extra consideration is
fundamentally not because of their gender but because they were smaller,
weaker and more susceptible to injury than most men. But some men
would be
equally vulnerable, most not.
I understand your point of view.
I think it ought to be an aggravating circumstance if a powerful man
hits a female police officer rather than a male one, and I'm surprised
if the guidelines say otherwise.
I don't think it is right to generalise about trans women and to see
them all as more powerful, more assertive and more domineering than biological (for want of a better word - I don't like "cis") women.
Some are. Some biological women are strong enough and aggressive enough
to cause serious injury to other people.-a For example, My Wife My
Abuser: Captured On Camera (on Netflix). Possibly this is an extremely
rare scenario. More likely, men don't like to reveal the fact that they
are victims of domestic violence perpetrated by angel-faced nubile wives.
And there are trans female campaigners who are an absolute disgrace to
their cause, trying to intimidate and threaten those who in all
sincerity believe that there should be protected women's spaces.
On 29/09/2025 11:07 am, The Todal wrote:
What "feelings and anxieties" was he attributing to his daughter?
He thinks she would naturally object to the situation and would be
inhibited about complaining. His little princess needs her protective
dad to speak for her.
So he was projecting rather than attributing?
On 29/09/2025 11:15 am, The Todal wrote:
On 28/09/2025 19:44, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 28 Sep 2025 at 12:49:18 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
On 28/09/2025 11:26, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 28 Sep 2025 at 09:48:26 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
On 27/09/2025 22:46, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Fri, 26 Sep 2025 19:57:49 +0100, "billy bookcase"
<billy@anon.com> wrote:
And what makes that worse is that that episode, the trans
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrn10dde01.47m.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
aka " Ribbens by Gaslight"
On 2025-09-26, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
Father Ted is not, in my opinion, Linehan's best comedy. In my >>>>>>>>>> opinion, his
best comedy is The IT Crowd. But then, I would say that,
having worked most
of my life in IT. I appreciate the fact that, with a few
fairly minor
exceptions, which I am willing to overlook, the show gets both >>>>>>>>>> the ethos of
its setting and (disregarding deliberate exaggeration for >>>>>>>>>> comic effect) the
technology of its setting bang on.
It's also allegedly the cause of his anti-trans obsession.
There was an
episode with a trans woman. Someone on Twitter criticised her >>>>>>>>> portrayal.
12 years later in 2020. Which led to Channel 4 removing that
episode from its
streaming platform. Which is what Linehan initially objected to. >>>>>>>
controversy
notwithstanding, contains the absolute best bit from the entire >>>>>>> series.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDbyYGrswtg
Interesting episode. There is a funny plotline about Jen thinking she >>>>>> has "the internet" in a box. There is a rather appalling plotline >>>>>> about
how it's okay to beat up a trans woman because actually it's a
man, so
fair game. And presumably Linehan feels the same today.
It's funny like Spike Milligan in "Curry And Chips".
I glanced at a couple of episodes (not the offending one which
seems hard to
find) and I am not sure how funny I find slapstick. But every kind
of person
in the episodes I saw seems to be subject to random acts of comedic >>>>> violence.
-a-a Why are trans women so pure, delicate and angelic that
subjecting them to
exactly the same type of comedic violence is suddenly a crime against >>>>> humanity? Are they actually on a plane above ordinary people where
they can
only be worshipped from afar?
No, surely not. Why are *any* women so pure, delicate and angelic that >>>> society frowns on people punching them in the face, pulling out their
hair or glassing them? Lots of women are strong and as fearless as men. >>>> If a woman is disrespectful to you, surely you must be free to react in >>>> exactly the same way as if it was a man. We're regularly exposed to
gory
depictions of violence against men, in our crime dramas. The nation
would like to watch more women being beaten to a bloody pulp.
Yet here's a case.
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/R-v-Mark-
Weatherley.pdf
quote
You punched PC Parmenter in the face. She stumbled backwards onto the
floor. You then turned your attention to PC Gregasz who was already
unsteady on her feet having stumbled backwards when you assaulted her
colleague. You also punched her to the face, causing her to fall
backwards onto the floor.
15. You then returned again to PC Parmenter who had not yet been
able to
stand; you continued punching her and then kicked her to the face
with a
shod foot.
16. You then turned back to PC Gregasz. She had managed to get to her
feet, but you pinned her to the wall and repeatedly punched her in the >>>> face and head until she fell to the floor, unconscious.
17. Once again, you returned to PC Parmenter who, by this point, was
bleeding profusely from her nose and mouth. As she tried to stand, you >>>> then hit her again with such force that she ended up face down on the
sofa. You then continued to punch her. She managed to stand but you hit >>>> her again with such force that she ended up on the floor.
unquote
If police officers can't stand the heat they should get out of the
kitchen, right?
The sentencing judge was, of course, absolutely right when he said:
I do not consider that, when drafting the guideline, its authors had in >>>> mind that police officers, of whatever sex or size, were to be
considered rCLobviously vulnerablerCY when dealing with situations like the
one I have described. The fact that they were police officers acting in >>>> the exercise of their functions is, of course, highly relevant as a
statutory aggravating factor but I do not agree that, for the purposes >>>> of culpability, the officers were obviously vulnerable.
You have a valid point about the police women. But this needs thinking
through. On the face of it, part of our social contract should be
that if
criminals do not want to be shot on sight from twenty feet away they
should
really not try to injure police officers. And almost all women are
much more
physically vulnerable than most men; an anecdote, I worked as a
temporary
porter in my teens at a maternity hospital on three floors which had
the lifts
out of action for several months. Lifting one end of a stretcher with
a 10
stone woman on it up the stairs was something I could barely do. One
of the
regular porters was about five foot two (in old money) and very slightly >>> built, and he could not do it at all. (The other porters said it was
because
he was Jewish he wouldn't carry patients upstairs, but that's Leeds
for you.)
-a That chap would be just as vulnerable in a fight as most women.-a But, >>> contrary to popular suggestion, trans women are not actually women,
they are
men with, apparently, the psychology of women. So, while some of them
may be
as physically vulnerable as women, the great majority are not. So I
don't
think the popular and reasonable idea that women are usually much more
physically vulnerable than men does actually apply to most trans women.
I say that while abhorring violence of any kind, but I still don't
believe
that most transwomen do need the extra consideration from the judge
that he so
crassly did not grant the police women.-a That extra consideration is
fundamentally not because of their gender but because they were smaller, >>> weaker and more susceptible to injury than most men. But some men
would be
equally vulnerable, most not.
I understand your point of view.
I think it ought to be an aggravating circumstance if a powerful man
hits a female police officer rather than a male one, and I'm surprised
if the guidelines say otherwise.
I don't think it is right to generalise about trans women and to see
them all as more powerful, more assertive and more domineering than
biological (for want of a better word - I don't like "cis") women.
Some are. Some biological women are strong enough and aggressive
enough to cause serious injury to other people.-a For example, My Wife
My Abuser: Captured On Camera (on Netflix). Possibly this is an
extremely rare scenario. More likely, men don't like to reveal the
fact that they are victims of domestic violence perpetrated by angel-
faced nubile wives.
And there are trans female campaigners who are an absolute disgrace to
their cause, trying to intimidate and threaten those who in all
sincerity believe that there should be protected women's spaces.
People such as Linehan?
On 29/09/2025 11:15 am, The Todal wrote:
On 28/09/2025 19:44, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 28 Sep 2025 at 12:49:18 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote: >>>
On 28/09/2025 11:26, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 28 Sep 2025 at 09:48:26 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote: >>>>>
On 27/09/2025 22:46, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Fri, 26 Sep 2025 19:57:49 +0100, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
And what makes that worse is that that episode, the trans controversy >>>>>>> notwithstanding, contains the absolute best bit from the entire series. >>>>>>>
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrn10dde01.47m.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
aka " Ribbens by Gaslight"
On 2025-09-26, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Father Ted is not, in my opinion, Linehan's best comedy. In my opinion, his
best comedy is The IT Crowd. But then, I would say that, having worked most
of my life in IT. I appreciate the fact that, with a few fairly minor
exceptions, which I am willing to overlook, the show gets both the ethos of
its setting and (disregarding deliberate exaggeration for comic effect) the
technology of its setting bang on.
It's also allegedly the cause of his anti-trans obsession. There was an
episode with a trans woman. Someone on Twitter criticised her portrayal.
12 years later in 2020. Which led to Channel 4 removing that episode from its
streaming platform. Which is what Linehan initially objected to. >>>>>>>
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDbyYGrswtg
Interesting episode. There is a funny plotline about Jen thinking she >>>>>> has "the internet" in a box. There is a rather appalling plotline about >>>>>> how it's okay to beat up a trans woman because actually it's a man, so >>>>>> fair game. And presumably Linehan feels the same today.
It's funny like Spike Milligan in "Curry And Chips".
I glanced at a couple of episodes (not the offending one which seems hard to
find) and I am not sure how funny I find slapstick. But every kind of person
in the episodes I saw seems to be subject to random acts of comedic violence.
Why are trans women so pure, delicate and angelic that subjecting them to >>>>> exactly the same type of comedic violence is suddenly a crime against >>>>> humanity? Are they actually on a plane above ordinary people where they can
only be worshipped from afar?
No, surely not. Why are *any* women so pure, delicate and angelic that >>>> society frowns on people punching them in the face, pulling out their
hair or glassing them? Lots of women are strong and as fearless as men. >>>> If a woman is disrespectful to you, surely you must be free to react in >>>> exactly the same way as if it was a man. We're regularly exposed to gory >>>> depictions of violence against men, in our crime dramas. The nation
would like to watch more women being beaten to a bloody pulp.
Yet here's a case.
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/R-v-Mark- Weatherley.pdf
quote
You punched PC Parmenter in the face. She stumbled backwards onto the
floor. You then turned your attention to PC Gregasz who was already
unsteady on her feet having stumbled backwards when you assaulted her
colleague. You also punched her to the face, causing her to fall
backwards onto the floor.
15. You then returned again to PC Parmenter who had not yet been able to >>>> stand; you continued punching her and then kicked her to the face with a >>>> shod foot.
16. You then turned back to PC Gregasz. She had managed to get to her
feet, but you pinned her to the wall and repeatedly punched her in the >>>> face and head until she fell to the floor, unconscious.
17. Once again, you returned to PC Parmenter who, by this point, was
bleeding profusely from her nose and mouth. As she tried to stand, you >>>> then hit her again with such force that she ended up face down on the
sofa. You then continued to punch her. She managed to stand but you hit >>>> her again with such force that she ended up on the floor.
unquote
If police officers can't stand the heat they should get out of the
kitchen, right?
The sentencing judge was, of course, absolutely right when he said:
I do not consider that, when drafting the guideline, its authors had in >>>> mind that police officers, of whatever sex or size, were to be
considered "obviously vulnerable" when dealing with situations like the >>>> one I have described. The fact that they were police officers acting in >>>> the exercise of their functions is, of course, highly relevant as a
statutory aggravating factor but I do not agree that, for the purposes >>>> of culpability, the officers were obviously vulnerable.
You have a valid point about the police women. But this needs thinking
through. On the face of it, part of our social contract should be that if >>> criminals do not want to be shot on sight from twenty feet away they should >>> really not try to injure police officers. And almost all women are much more
physically vulnerable than most men; an anecdote, I worked as a temporary >>> porter in my teens at a maternity hospital on three floors which had the lifts
out of action for several months. Lifting one end of a stretcher with a 10 >>> stone woman on it up the stairs was something I could barely do. One of the >>> regular porters was about five foot two (in old money) and very slightly >>> built, and he could not do it at all. (The other porters said it was because
he was Jewish he wouldn't carry patients upstairs, but that's Leeds for you.)
That chap would be just as vulnerable in a fight as most women. But,
contrary to popular suggestion, trans women are not actually women, they are
men with, apparently, the psychology of women. So, while some of them may be
as physically vulnerable as women, the great majority are not. So I don't >>> think the popular and reasonable idea that women are usually much more
physically vulnerable than men does actually apply to most trans women.
I say that while abhorring violence of any kind, but I still don't believe >>> that most transwomen do need the extra consideration from the judge that he so
crassly did not grant the police women. That extra consideration is
fundamentally not because of their gender but because they were smaller, >>> weaker and more susceptible to injury than most men. But some men would be >>> equally vulnerable, most not.
I understand your point of view.
I think it ought to be an aggravating circumstance if a powerful man hits a female
police officer rather than a male one, and I'm surprised if the guidelines say
otherwise.
I don't think it is right to generalise about trans women and to see them all as more
powerful, more assertive and more domineering than biological (for want of a better
word - I don't like "cis") women.
Some are. Some biological women are strong enough and aggressive enough to cause
serious injury to other people. For example, My Wife My Abuser: Captured On Camera (on
Netflix). Possibly this is an extremely rare scenario. More likely, men don't like to
reveal the fact that they are victims of domestic violence perpetrated by angel-faced
nubile wives.
And there are trans female campaigners who are an absolute disgrace to their cause,
trying to intimidate and threaten those who in all sincerity believe that there should
be protected women's spaces.
People such as Linehan?
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:mjvhm5F4obU3@mid.individual.net...
On 29/09/2025 11:15 am, The Todal wrote:
On 28/09/2025 19:44, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 28 Sep 2025 at 12:49:18 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote: >>>>
On 28/09/2025 11:26, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 28 Sep 2025 at 09:48:26 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 27/09/2025 22:46, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Fri, 26 Sep 2025 19:57:49 +0100, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
And what makes that worse is that that episode, the trans controversy >>>>>>>> notwithstanding, contains the absolute best bit from the entire series.
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrn10dde01.47m.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
aka " Ribbens by Gaslight"
On 2025-09-26, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Father Ted is not, in my opinion, Linehan's best comedy. In my opinion, his
best comedy is The IT Crowd. But then, I would say that, having worked most
of my life in IT. I appreciate the fact that, with a few fairly minor
exceptions, which I am willing to overlook, the show gets both the ethos of
its setting and (disregarding deliberate exaggeration for comic effect) the
technology of its setting bang on.
It's also allegedly the cause of his anti-trans obsession. There was an
episode with a trans woman. Someone on Twitter criticised her portrayal.
12 years later in 2020. Which led to Channel 4 removing that episode from its
streaming platform. Which is what Linehan initially objected to. >>>>>>>>
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDbyYGrswtg
Interesting episode. There is a funny plotline about Jen thinking she >>>>>>> has "the internet" in a box. There is a rather appalling plotline about >>>>>>> how it's okay to beat up a trans woman because actually it's a man, so >>>>>>> fair game. And presumably Linehan feels the same today.
It's funny like Spike Milligan in "Curry And Chips".
I glanced at a couple of episodes (not the offending one which seems hard to
find) and I am not sure how funny I find slapstick. But every kind of person
in the episodes I saw seems to be subject to random acts of comedic violence.
Why are trans women so pure, delicate and angelic that subjecting them to
exactly the same type of comedic violence is suddenly a crime against >>>>>> humanity? Are they actually on a plane above ordinary people where they can
only be worshipped from afar?
No, surely not. Why are *any* women so pure, delicate and angelic that >>>>> society frowns on people punching them in the face, pulling out their >>>>> hair or glassing them? Lots of women are strong and as fearless as men. >>>>> If a woman is disrespectful to you, surely you must be free to react in >>>>> exactly the same way as if it was a man. We're regularly exposed to gory >>>>> depictions of violence against men, in our crime dramas. The nation
would like to watch more women being beaten to a bloody pulp.
Yet here's a case.
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/R-v-Mark- Weatherley.pdf
quote
You punched PC Parmenter in the face. She stumbled backwards onto the >>>>> floor. You then turned your attention to PC Gregasz who was already
unsteady on her feet having stumbled backwards when you assaulted her >>>>> colleague. You also punched her to the face, causing her to fall
backwards onto the floor.
15. You then returned again to PC Parmenter who had not yet been able to >>>>> stand; you continued punching her and then kicked her to the face with a >>>>> shod foot.
16. You then turned back to PC Gregasz. She had managed to get to her >>>>> feet, but you pinned her to the wall and repeatedly punched her in the >>>>> face and head until she fell to the floor, unconscious.
17. Once again, you returned to PC Parmenter who, by this point, was >>>>> bleeding profusely from her nose and mouth. As she tried to stand, you >>>>> then hit her again with such force that she ended up face down on the >>>>> sofa. You then continued to punch her. She managed to stand but you hit >>>>> her again with such force that she ended up on the floor.
unquote
If police officers can't stand the heat they should get out of the
kitchen, right?
The sentencing judge was, of course, absolutely right when he said:
I do not consider that, when drafting the guideline, its authors had in >>>>> mind that police officers, of whatever sex or size, were to be
considered "obviously vulnerable" when dealing with situations like the >>>>> one I have described. The fact that they were police officers acting in >>>>> the exercise of their functions is, of course, highly relevant as a
statutory aggravating factor but I do not agree that, for the purposes >>>>> of culpability, the officers were obviously vulnerable.
You have a valid point about the police women. But this needs thinking >>>> through. On the face of it, part of our social contract should be that if >>>> criminals do not want to be shot on sight from twenty feet away they should
really not try to injure police officers. And almost all women are much more
physically vulnerable than most men; an anecdote, I worked as a temporary >>>> porter in my teens at a maternity hospital on three floors which had the lifts
out of action for several months. Lifting one end of a stretcher with a 10 >>>> stone woman on it up the stairs was something I could barely do. One of the
regular porters was about five foot two (in old money) and very slightly >>>> built, and he could not do it at all. (The other porters said it was because
he was Jewish he wouldn't carry patients upstairs, but that's Leeds for you.)
That chap would be just as vulnerable in a fight as most women. But,
contrary to popular suggestion, trans women are not actually women, they are
men with, apparently, the psychology of women. So, while some of them may be
as physically vulnerable as women, the great majority are not. So I don't >>>> think the popular and reasonable idea that women are usually much more >>>> physically vulnerable than men does actually apply to most trans women. >>>>
I say that while abhorring violence of any kind, but I still don't believe >>>> that most transwomen do need the extra consideration from the judge that he so
crassly did not grant the police women. That extra consideration is
fundamentally not because of their gender but because they were smaller, >>>> weaker and more susceptible to injury than most men. But some men would be >>>> equally vulnerable, most not.
I understand your point of view.
I think it ought to be an aggravating circumstance if a powerful man hits a female
police officer rather than a male one, and I'm surprised if the guidelines say
otherwise.
I don't think it is right to generalise about trans women and to see them all as more
powerful, more assertive and more domineering than biological (for want of a better
word - I don't like "cis") women.
Some are. Some biological women are strong enough and aggressive enough to cause
serious injury to other people. For example, My Wife My Abuser: Captured On Camera (on
Netflix). Possibly this is an extremely rare scenario. More likely, men don't like to
reveal the fact that they are victims of domestic violence perpetrated by angel-faced
nubile wives.
And there are trans female campaigners who are an absolute disgrace to their cause,
trying to intimidate and threaten those who in all sincerity believe that there should
be protected women's spaces.
People such as Linehan?
quote:
His 17-year marriage to Helen Serafinowicz ended in March, the strain of harassment
by his online enemies apparently bringing it down.
He's faced vexatious legal actions, police visits, magazine articles misrepresenting
his positions, threatening letters hand-delivered to his home. A production of Father
Ted, the musical, has been in the works for five years,
[...]
"All I can do is keep ringing the bell because, as far as I'm concerned, this is second
only to climate change as being the most important thing happening today. It's an
absolute onslaught on women's rights, they're actually returning them to the pre-suffragette era."
:unquote
< https://web.archive.org/web/20250830042707mp_/https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/graham-linehan-interview-gender-row-is-an-onslaught-on-rights-returning-women-to-pre-suffragette-era-wfjcdc07w >
The Father Ted musical was cancelled.
Linehan was offered N++200,000 by Jimmy Mulville for his name to be removed from the
credits; which he refused. As JM feared a backlash if the show went ahead with Linehan's
name on it.
<
https://web.archive.org/web/20250830042707mp_/https://
www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/graham-linehan-interview-gender-
row-is-an-onslaught-on-rights-returning-women-to-pre-suffragette-era-
wfjcdc07w >
The Father Ted musical was cancelled.
Linehan was offered-a N++200,000 by Jimmy Mulville for his name to be
removed-a from the
credits; which he refused. As JM feared a backlash if the show went
ahead with Linehan's
name on it.
How did the world ever get to this?
On 9/30/25 02:04, JNugent wrote:...
Linehan was offered-a N++200,000 by Jimmy Mulville for his name to be
removed-a from the credits; which he refused. As JM feared a backlash
if the show went ahead with Linehan's name on it.
How did the world ever get to this?
The world has always been this way. It is very similar to religious intolerance. If you advocate tolerance, freedom of speech, and good
manners, you will be met with accusations of siding with the enemy.
The problem is that one of the sides will be lying, but the media
will pretend that they aren't.
On Tue, 30 Sep 2025 09:55:45 -0000 (UTC)
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
The problem is that one of the sides will be lying, but the media
will pretend that they aren't.
Both sides will be lying, but different media groupings will pretend
that their side isn't.
On 2025-09-30, Brian Morrison <news@fenrir.org.uk> wrote:
On Tue, 30 Sep 2025 09:55:45 -0000 (UTC)
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
The problem is that one of the sides will be lying, but the media
will pretend that they aren't.
Both sides will be lying, but different media groupings will pretend
that their side isn't.
No.
On 2025-09-30, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
On 9/30/25 02:04, JNugent wrote:...
Linehan was offered-a N++200,000 by Jimmy Mulville for his name to be
removed-a from the credits; which he refused. As JM feared a backlash
if the show went ahead with Linehan's name on it.
How did the world ever get to this?
The world has always been this way. It is very similar to religious
intolerance. If you advocate tolerance, freedom of speech, and good
manners, you will be met with accusations of siding with the enemy.
The thing these days is that both sides will claim they are advocating tolerance, freedom of speech, and good manners. Take the democrats and
the republicans in the US, for example. The problem is that one of the
sides will be lying, but the media will pretend that they aren't.
On 9/30/25 10:55, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-09-30, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
On 9/30/25 02:04, JNugent wrote:...
Linehan was offered-a N++200,000 by Jimmy Mulville for his name to be >>>>> removed-a from the credits; which he refused. As JM feared a backlash >>>>> if the show went ahead with Linehan's name on it.
How did the world ever get to this?
The world has always been this way. It is very similar to religious
intolerance. If you advocate tolerance, freedom of speech, and good
manners, you will be met with accusations of siding with the enemy.
The thing these days is that both sides will claim they are advocating
tolerance, freedom of speech, and good manners. Take the democrats and
the republicans in the US, for example. The problem is that one of the
sides will be lying, but the media will pretend that they aren't.
Yebbut, I don't have a dog in the race. To me, feminism and trans
promotion seem to cover similar ground. It is like asking me to comment
on football, the merits of Liverpool or Man U. I understand other people
are interested, but I'm not. I'm not significantly partisan.
Earlier in this thread, I suggested Linehan should be able to observe
that there are differences between men and women, and he should be able
to make his case using flippant remarks. I can't comment on the merits
of Father Ted or The IT Crowd because I never watched either. I really
know very little about him. However, I make the comment that Linehan shouldn't be arrested for an abstract "punch them in the balls" joke,
and I'm expected to defend him?
On 9/30/25 02:04, JNugent wrote:
<
https://web.archive.org/web/20250830042707mp_/https://
www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/graham-linehan-interview-gender-
row-is-an-onslaught-on-rights-returning-women-to-pre-suffragette-era-
wfjcdc07w >
The Father Ted musical was cancelled.
Linehan was offered-a N++200,000 by Jimmy Mulville for his name to be
removed-a from the
credits; which he refused. As JM feared a backlash if the show went
ahead with Linehan's
name on it.
How did the world ever get to this?
The world has always been this way. It is very similar to religious intolerance. If you advocate tolerance, freedom of speech, and good
manners, you will be met with accusations of siding with the enemy.
Witch hunts seem to be a standard human behaviour.
On 2025-09-30, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
On 9/30/25 10:55, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-09-30, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
On 9/30/25 02:04, JNugent wrote:...
Linehan was offered-a N++200,000 by Jimmy Mulville for his name to be >>>>>> removed-a from the credits; which he refused. As JM feared a backlash >>>>>> if the show went ahead with Linehan's name on it.
How did the world ever get to this?
The world has always been this way. It is very similar to religious
intolerance. If you advocate tolerance, freedom of speech, and good
manners, you will be met with accusations of siding with the enemy.
The thing these days is that both sides will claim they are advocating
tolerance, freedom of speech, and good manners. Take the democrats and
the republicans in the US, for example. The problem is that one of the
sides will be lying, but the media will pretend that they aren't.
Yebbut, I don't have a dog in the race. To me, feminism and trans
promotion seem to cover similar ground. It is like asking me to comment
on football, the merits of Liverpool or Man U. I understand other people
are interested, but I'm not. I'm not significantly partisan.
Earlier in this thread, I suggested Linehan should be able to observe
that there are differences between men and women, and he should be able
to make his case using flippant remarks. I can't comment on the merits
of Father Ted or The IT Crowd because I never watched either. I really
know very little about him. However, I make the comment that Linehan
shouldn't be arrested for an abstract "punch them in the balls" joke,
and I'm expected to defend him?
I don't know, are you?
The problem here is that, as you say, you know very little about what's
going on. You don't know that Linehan has said and done a very great
many things; the summary someone quoted above was completely one-sided. Nobody really believes that when he says "punch them in the balls" it's
"a joke".
People actually have been punched. People have been murdered. And
every time someone prominent makes "a joke" like that, they increase
the number of people who are in future going to get punched and/or
murdered. Linehan *should* be arrested for his comments, and he
*should* be convicted, because they are incitement to violence.
One of the sides in this "debate" is trying to be allowed to live their
lives free from fear with dignity and respect. The other side is trying
to wipe them out of existence. Guess which side claims to be "victims"
and gets all the media praise and attention.
One of the sides in this "debate" is trying to be allowed to live their
lives free from fear with dignity and respect.
The other side is trying to wipe them out of existence.
Guess which side claims to be "victims"
and gets all the media praise and attention.
On 2025-09-30, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
On 9/30/25 10:55, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-09-30, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
On 9/30/25 02:04, JNugent wrote:...
Linehan was offered-a N++200,000 by Jimmy Mulville for his name to be >>>>>> removed-a from the credits; which he refused. As JM feared a backlash >>>>>> if the show went ahead with Linehan's name on it.
How did the world ever get to this?
The world has always been this way. It is very similar to religious
intolerance. If you advocate tolerance, freedom of speech, and good
manners, you will be met with accusations of siding with the enemy.
The thing these days is that both sides will claim they are advocating
tolerance, freedom of speech, and good manners. Take the democrats and
the republicans in the US, for example. The problem is that one of the
sides will be lying, but the media will pretend that they aren't.
Yebbut, I don't have a dog in the race. To me, feminism and trans
promotion seem to cover similar ground. It is like asking me to comment
on football, the merits of Liverpool or Man U. I understand other people
are interested, but I'm not. I'm not significantly partisan.
Earlier in this thread, I suggested Linehan should be able to observe
that there are differences between men and women, and he should be able
to make his case using flippant remarks. I can't comment on the merits
of Father Ted or The IT Crowd because I never watched either. I really
know very little about him. However, I make the comment that Linehan
shouldn't be arrested for an abstract "punch them in the balls" joke,
and I'm expected to defend him?
I don't know, are you?
The problem here is that, as you say, you know very little about what's
going on. You don't know that Linehan has said and done a very great
many things; the summary someone quoted above was completely one-sided. Nobody really believes that when he says "punch them in the balls" it's
"a joke".
People actually have been punched. People have been murdered. And
every time someone prominent makes "a joke" like that, they increase
the number of people who are in future going to get punched and/or
murdered. Linehan *should* be arrested for his comments, and he
*should* be convicted, because they are incitement to violence.
One of the sides in this "debate" is trying to be allowed to live their
lives free from fear with dignity and respect. The other side is trying
to wipe them out of existence. Guess which side claims to be "victims"
and gets all the media praise and attention.
On 9/30/25 12:20, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-09-30, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
On 9/30/25 10:55, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-09-30, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
On 9/30/25 02:04, JNugent wrote:...
Linehan was offered-a N++200,000 by Jimmy Mulville for his name to be >>>>>>> removed-a from the credits; which he refused. As JM feared a backlash >>>>>>> if the show went ahead with Linehan's name on it.
How did the world ever get to this?
The world has always been this way. It is very similar to religious
intolerance. If you advocate tolerance, freedom of speech, and good
manners, you will be met with accusations of siding with the enemy.
The thing these days is that both sides will claim they are advocating >>>> tolerance, freedom of speech, and good manners. Take the democrats and >>>> the republicans in the US, for example. The problem is that one of the >>>> sides will be lying, but the media will pretend that they aren't.
Yebbut, I don't have a dog in the race. To me, feminism and trans
promotion seem to cover similar ground. It is like asking me to comment
on football, the merits of Liverpool or Man U. I understand other people >>> are interested, but I'm not. I'm not significantly partisan.
Earlier in this thread, I suggested Linehan should be able to observe
that there are differences between men and women, and he should be able
to make his case using flippant remarks. I can't comment on the merits
of Father Ted or The IT Crowd because I never watched either. I really
know very little about him. However, I make the comment that Linehan
shouldn't be arrested for an abstract "punch them in the balls" joke,
and I'm expected to defend him?
I don't know, are you?
Yes, that is the way it goes. If I make an observation that Linehan shouldn't be arrested for making a flippant remark, his whole character
is cited as justification for the arrest. That isn't the way the law
should work.
The problem here is that, as you say, you know very little about what's
going on. You don't know that Linehan has said and done a very great
many things; the summary someone quoted above was completely one-sided.
Nobody really believes that when he says "punch them in the balls" it's
"a joke".
People actually have been punched. People have been murdered. And
every time someone prominent makes "a joke" like that, they increase
the number of people who are in future going to get punched and/or
murdered. Linehan *should* be arrested for his comments, and he
*should* be convicted, because they are incitement to violence.
No, people have always been murdered. Before we punish people for incitement, there should be a significant probability that their words
will cause people to commit actual criminal acts. The vast majority of comments similar to Linehan's do not lead to crime, they are not meant literally, they are not punished, they are just everyday hyperbole. It
is not reasonable to cherry-pick hyperbole from political opponents and
seek to punish them for it, while ignoring everyone else.
One of the sides in this "debate" is trying to be allowed to live their
lives free from fear with dignity and respect. The other side is trying
to wipe them out of existence. Guess which side claims to be "victims"
and gets all the media praise and attention.
This is nonsense, Linehan doesn't seem to be trying to wipe trans out of existence, just seeking to prevent teenage sex changes, and to limit
some trans behaviour. Largely his arguments are reasonable, not
necessarily right, but the type of thing people should be able to say without fear of cancellation.
https://www.doughtystreet.co.uk/news/high-court-finds-defamatory-paedophile-meanings-paisley-v-linehan-judgment
Linehan knows full well that what he says can and does result in
real-world consequences.)