He's done it again.

https://www.aol.co.uk/news/graham-linehan-dropped-agent-attacking-070121173.html

>>41143
>The event Linehan was speaking at on Sunday was hosted by the Institute of Economic Affairs and the TaxPayers’ Alliance
I want to pilot an Atlas mech right through Tufton Street.

>>41143
I wish I was so cancelled I'd get platforms at places like the conference for the governing political party.

>>41145
I imagine it's a long way from the privileged position you're implying and there's very little stopping you from organising a panel there. That's certainly the impression mainstream journalists are trying to give by calling it a fringe event.

Not covered in that story is the fact that initially he was denied entry to the conference entirely, allegedly based on police advice, until the party chairman intervened.

>>41145
I'd be careful what you wish for.

>>41147

I should really try going on the pull at a Tory event. I feel like I'd be well above average, purely because I don't look like I'm just about to have a heart attack.

>>41148
All the younger lads are going to be the most horrible kind of Oxbridge scum you can imagine too, so I think you're onto something.

>>41148

Do you reckon Tory birds like a bit of rough, working class northern cock?

I'm sure they'd love a good firm seeing to from a bloke who doesn't even have a degree, to them you're a savage brute, almost more like an animal, and they can't help gushing over it. But in a longer term romance, you've got no hope, unless she really, really wants to get back at daddy.

Sigh. Is a rich posho mummy dom who'll look after me really asking all that much in 2023?

>>41150
I bet if you tighten one door hinge for some of them they'd immediately see you as some kind of sexual Tyrannosaur. You will have to reconcile being a "savage brute" and wanting "mummy to look after you", because those sound like two diametrically opposed desires.

But hey, why can't men marry into money? I bet if we try really hard we could. There's no way Sunak et al eats pussy, half of them probably can't even have sex without crying because of public school trauma.

You two have become so preoccupied with your wank fantasy that you have neglected to consider Lee Anderson.

>>41153

What does The Captain have to do with this?

>>41150>>41152

These theories are accurate, you just need to find a tory bird who hates her parents enough to want to use her trust fund to buy you a brand new transit van.

>>41153

Firmly in the "looks like he's just about to have a heart attack" camp.

>>41155

Yeah, but any Tory bird who hates their parents that much won't be at the party conference - they'll have changed their name to Sunbeam and they'll be finding themselves in Goa or some shit.

>>41146
>Not covered in that story is the fact that initially he was denied entry to the conference entirely, allegedly based on police advice, until the party chairman intervened.
Getting into a conference that the police said you weren't getting into sounds like not a very long way from a very privileged position.

>>41147
She's on stage but doesn't have a mic. She also looks like she doesn't actually know the words to Angels. It's the English equivalent of John Redwood 30 years ago.

>Father Ted co-creator Graham Linehan charged with harassment and criminal damage

https://www.itv.com/news/2025-04-26/father-ted-co-creator-graham-linehan-charged-with-harassment-and-criminal-damage

>>42387

There's absolutely no details on that page whatsoever. Are you farming clicks for ITV?

>>42388
Care to find a more detailed link about it?

>Father Ted co-creator Graham Linehan has been arrested at Heathrow Airport on suspicion of inciting violence in relation to his posts on X. He was arrested after arriving on a flight from the US, and said in an online Substack article that officials then became concerned for his health after taking his blood pressure, and took him to hospital.

>Linehan said in an online article on Substack that his bail condition stipulates he is "not to go on Twitter" and that his arrest related to three posts on X from April, on his views about challenging "a trans-identified male" in "a female-only space". The Irish comedy writer, who also created The IT Crowd and Black Books, said when he stepped off the aircraft, "five armed officers were waiting" to tell him he was under arrest.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c07p7v2nn8mo

Are we going to see a nationwide rash of FREE GLINNER graffiti you reckon?

>>42768
He's been arrested for speaking the truth.

>>42769
It's obvious stuff, but it's telling how rapidly right-wingers will begin calling their political opponents ugly, smelly, subhumans. I'm allowed on this particular high horse because I do genuinely avoid making remarks about how people I can't fucking stand look. Exceptions are made if it's an open forehead wound or someone like the freshly corpsifying Donald Trump, IE, it's a physical characteristic that reveals something more important. Or shit clothes that are being worn in an attempt to display a superior social status.

>>42770
>a physical characteristic that reveals something more important
Not to have a go at you like but I bet the evangelist christian korean youtuber crowd would say that's the case here.

>>42772
If that is the case I'd say the difference is I'm talking about genuine physical ailments, whereas they're playing at amateur phrenology. Anyone the right has decided is their opposition is a freak. It doesn't matter if they look like Brie Larson in a bikini, or an A&E admission on an especially brutal episode of Casuality, a right-winger will make a point of dehumanising someone based on nominally meaningless physical characteristics. This might sound unusual, but I find baselessly calling people "smelly" particularly unpleasant. In my experience the people I've encountered who've smelt bad have either not known any better, been completely out of it on drugs and/or drink, or just been in a incredibly dark mental state that has long since required professional intervention. That is to say someone who stinks generally needs help, not loathing, and in any case the evidence that that demo smells bad is Glinner being a miserable twat who's never off his phone.

Full disclosure I think I may be misinterpreting what you said because that word filter is blagging my head somewhat.

Have we got our threads crossed somewhere here?

Anyway I was reading other internet places about Glinner's arrest earlier and it is with tedious predictability you see the arguments unforld. "You shouldn't get arrested for a tweet." "Aha, but what about when the tweet is a call for violence!" like they think that's some kind of ultimate trump card.

I realised something with a kind of clarity I've always been unable to quite crystallise before- I don't think "calls for violence" should get you arrested either, actually. So that argument can stop right there. I don't even have to bring up the usual hypocrisy where these people apply a different dtandard when we're talking about "punching a fascist!" or whatever lame fantasies they like to indulge, because just on principle, I think you should be allowed to call for the violent death of whoever you like on the internet.

Did any of you ever have that conversation with a teacher in school? You know when Tom punched James and then when the teacher bollocked him, Tom went "But David told me to!", to which the teacher sternly replied, "And if David told you to jump off a cliff, would you do that too?" The point being, telling somebody to do something doesn't make you culpable for them doing it. People have their own individual agency, and doing violent things is already illegal; so it shouldn't fucking matter if somebody on the internet says you should do violence. That's not an excuse to do it, so if you do, it's on you.

>>42774
>The point being, telling somebody to do something doesn't make you culpable for them doing it

While we may use that logic with children, it tends to fall apart a bit when you have adults operating within systems where they may be addressing the ignorant, suggestible or those with incentives to obey. Should people who hire hitmen to kill their spice be exonerated? Preachers who guarantee followers god will reward them for doing it? Political figures who guarantee a pension and health benefits for it? Outside of the playground I think the informed world has generally accepted that stochastic terrorism is a thing and that leaders may also be punished for not only the crimes they order be committed but also for the crimes they allow their troops to commit.
I'm not arguing that you're wrong exactly but I think the adult world is more complex than playground rules. Bear in mind that we're currently arresting people for opposing genocide.

As far as I'm aware, neither Charles Manson, Anjem Choudary nor Mussolini ever killed anyone themselves. They just told others to. Are they innocent?

>>42783
I imagine Mussolini did more than telling his followers to hit evangelist christian korean youtubers in the balls.

>>42784
It's a different degree of harm but assault is assault. Does that change the logic of responsibility, yes or no?

>>42784

Quite, but I don't think it's just a matter of degrees. I think there's a fundamental difference in principle there.

Mussolini ordering his followers to do something is different, because he had the weight of institutional power behind him, he had authority, those people in a real sense had to do as they were told. That's different than if you just see a tweet. The tweet has no power over you. Somebody ordering a hit on their wife is different, because they are entering into a contract, they are paying for the service to be done and their intention is unambiguously for that to happen. Nobody is, or at least should be, taking tweets as orders.

Charles Manson is a more interesting case to bring up, because I can see the argument there, perhaps. If you want to say that these online groups have a cult like dynamic and that a figure like Glinner has the rank and status of authority and leader in those circles, which makes it more likely somebody would interpret his tweets as commandments, maybe. I'm not sure I fully buy it, because again, I feel like a more general "call for violence" like this is substantially different than specifically directing someone to do something.

If I'm not mistaken, that's how old hook hand the daft wog preacher was allowed to preach daft woggery for so long, was it not? He was preaching death to the infidels in a general sense, but not telling anyone specifically to go and blow themselves up. Which, on principle, I sort of have to say I am fine with, in the spirit of maximal freedom of speech.

TL;DR If Glinner had said "I'll give you £50 if you go up to a trans person and punch them in the bollocks" this would be a different matter. It's the distinction of intent for that violence to actually take place. In this case he even couched it clearly as a hypothetical self defence situation, and I while don't agree with his position there, I don't think he said anything that is or should be criminal.

>>42786
>In this case he even couched it clearly as a hypothetical self defence situation
No different from hypothetically defending the white race by attacking non-whites or hypothetically defending your god by attacking unbelievers, in all three cases the 'hypothetical self-defence' is attacking someone who is not attacking you. That is a very weaselly argument.

The AMAB HSTS truscum need to join Graham, to bring down their mutual enemies the AMAB AGP tucutes and theyFAB tucutes, and restore trans rights' reputation to 'Good' again.

AMAB AGP tucutes and theyFAB tucutes are the most visible, vocal, and cringe groups within the T umbrella.

If all MtFs were HSTS, and theyFABs weren't a thing, it would go back to how it was ~17 years ago when trans were considered weird and occasionally got transbashed, but there weren't huge swathes of the country trying to eliminate their prescence.

Truscum FtMs are largely irrelevant.

>>42787

I agree, that's why I said I don't agree with his position to try and frame it that way. It's just that if you want to go in that direction, and arguing that "they said X but what they really meant was Y" and calling everything some kind of dogwhistle etc, then anybody can accuse anyone of anything. For me that's where it really starts slipping off the edge of the slope into Orwellian thought policing realms.

>>42788

Could you please repeat that in a language normal humans (and furlad) can understand? I sense you might actually be spot on underneath a veneer of facetiousness, but I can't be sure.

>Healthy Secretary Wes Streeting has said ministers may need to "look at" laws concerning online speech, following the arrest of comedian Graham Linehan. The health secretary said such laws had put "more expectation on police" and "diluted the focus and priorities of the public", adding "that's obviously something we need to look at".
>"As the prime minister and home secretary have been clear, we want the police to focus on policing streets rather than tweets, but the thing we are mindful of, as a government that backs the police to keep us safe, is that police are there to enforce the laws that we as Parliament legislate for. So if over the years, with good intentions, Parliament has layered more and more expectation on police, and diluted the focus and priorities of the public, that's obviously something we need to look at." Pressed on whether the law should be changed, Streeting said: "When it comes to speech, context is king. We do have to, as legislators, tread really carefully when it comes to boundaries of free speech." Streeting said it was "hard for the police sometimes, because they have to apply the law as written, not the law as it was intended". He also said "we are all - let's be honest - quite anxious" about some of the arrests and prosecutions over comments online.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2922w73e1o

If you think about it this is a dishonest argument. The police regularly do exercise their discretion in enforcing the law, their job is social control and they don't have the resources to be locking up every shoplifter or doing all the paperwork that arrests involve.

>>42789
Transwomen who are attracted to men, and who think that one must have experienced gender dysphoria to be considered trans, need to join Graham. They must oppose autogynephilic transwomen and biological females who identify as non-binary, as these groups often believe it is possible to be trans just because you think you are (without the need for dysphoria).

The autogynephilic transwomen are the ones that fit the negative stereotype of a man in a dress going into women's bathrooms and trying to pursue women. Literally have a fetish for existing as a woman, rather than genuine dysphoria. Also probably politically very active.

TheyFABs are the stereotype of the acrobat teenage/early 20s biological who thinks getting a short haircut and changing their name to Rain or River makes them trans - basically transmen without the effort, commitment, or dysphoria. There are also theyFABs who look and act and present as women in all ways, yet claim to be under the trans umbrella because they prefer xie/xir pronouns. Done out of trendiness.

These two groups are often the ones you'll see interviewed by right wing media at protests and such. Terrible optics for the wider trans community.

Transmen who believe dysphoria is necessary to be trans are often attracted to women, so they don't really fit the mainstream anti trans narratives.

TL;DR - the sort of trans who have been the norm for decades, are being tarred with the same brush as the trans people that a lot of the country now has a visceral hatred of because of their prominence in media. People who want just want to live their authentic self, vs fetishists and trendchasers.

I don't know if it's too late to recover now though.

I went on 4chan /lgbt/ everyday for a few months, so I've interacted with hundreds of trans people and threads and this is the conclusion I drew. Could be off the mark and I don't know if I'm being transphobic. I know 4chan isn't the best sample group, but I don't where else I'd talk to trans people.

>>42790

The government currently holds the position that it's illegal for a trans woman to be in the ladies bogs, but it's also illegal to say that if a trans woman is in the ladies bogs you should kick them out by force. I've said this before, but British governments have a compulsive urge to ban things, regardless of whether banning them is sensible or practical.

They're trying to control everything through the single lever of legislation, but it just makes them look weak and ineffectual. They don't have the courage to say "this isn't a matter for government", so all of their bandwidth gets used up on constant dithering over these dilemmas. They think that signing a law will just make their problems go away, but it just boots the issue down the road for a bit until there's a completely unforced controversy over someone being arrested or not being arrested for something that never used to be a matter for the police. I think that your average flag-loving voter understands this on an instinctual level - if the people in power are spending all this time and energy agonising over the definition of a woman or what's acceptable to say on Twitter, they aren't spending their time dealing with the complicated and boring business of actually running the country.

>>42792

In that case I agree with your assessment of the groups involved. But I disagree that they can ally at all with the Glinner/Rowling turf cult, and besides that, I think when you start trying to distance yourself from sub-factions and sub-groups that give your overall group a bad look, you are at risk of purity spiral internecine conflict that causes just as much trouble. I totally get it in as much as I am always at pains to distance myself from the most cringeworthy daiper-fur wierdos and so on, but it is a hard one to solve.

But back to Glinner- As I have probably said before, the problem with that lot is far more the RF part than the TE part. TE RF is a redundant term because being TE is an inevitable result of being RF. They are radically anti-trans not simply because they oppose gender ideology on any grounds of common sense or offended morals, but because they are essentially a dogmatic cult of fisherperson supremacy. Their bigotry is a completely logical and rational extension of their most foundational belief that masculinity is evil, and the penis is an instrument of violence. I ascribe Glinner's weird male ally role here as some form of deep repressed Catholic original sin self-flagellation.

Either way. These people were extremists already before trans issues became more mainstream, we just politely accepted their form of extremism because we hadn't really seen their true colours.

>>42793
The government do what the press tell them to. They're the government because the press gave them an easy ride (and their opponents a hellish one) to make sure they became the government. The government spends all day talking about stupid shite that would be undignified for a MSP to comment on directly instead of bouncing to a spokesperson who says nothing because that gives the press the story they want.
The whole anti-evangelist christian korean youtuber policy turn is the product of the press suddenly developing an obsession - whether you think it good or bad, that's simply how it worked here. This is a deeply stupid way to govern a country.

>>42786
>in the spirit of maximal freedom of speech
The inherent problem of free speech maximalism is that it is fundamentally selfish. In almost any case, when you cut through a "X maximalist" argument, at its core you almost invariably find "I want to do X without consequence and I don't care who gets hurt, because I should be able to do what I want". It's a wholesale denial that consequences even exist. It is the Leopards Eating Faces pattern.

Any maximalist argument is, without exception, subject to the "no atheists in foxholes" principle. I have never, ever, not even once, seen someone who was on the receiving end of some consequential harm say "but this is okay actually because I wouldn't want to lose my right to do the same thing to someone else". There are no free speech maximalists among the queerbashed. There are no age of consent maximalists among CSA victims. "If only my brother had had his own gun, then he could have fought back" said literally nobody who lost a relative in a mass shooting.

>>42792
Are these "autogynephilic transwomen" and "fetishists and trendchasers" in the room with us right now?

>>42798

The logical leap your are making is that saying things directly and always leads to harm, which it doesn't. You characterise my argument as a denial that consequences exist, but your argument is based on the assumption that the worst consequences always automatically happen, and that they are always causally linked directly to the words somebody said, and for that reason nobody should be allowed to say things.

I could apply the LAMF argument back at you in that people who advocate restrictions of free speech never expect their speech to be curtailed, they never account for the setting of precedent that when the shoe is on the other foot and your doubleplusgood bellyfeels are the ones being suppressed, you will be left wishing you hadn't advocated the laws and regulations that now gag you.

Your second paragraph is pretty much just the bias of victimhood, like sure you get the families of somebody who got murdered say that nobody should be allowed to have a knife or that men shouldn't be allowed within fifty feet of schools or kids shouldn't be allowed to buy Monster energy drink. Because of course they would say that. They're not exactly going to be impartial on the matter are they.

>>42800
>The logical leap your are making is that saying things directly and always leads to harm
No, that's the logical leap you are making in reaching the opposite conclusion. The need to consider harmful consequences only arises in the first place if and when, and because, some things have very clear and demonstrable harmful consequences. People who say "you shouldn't be arrested over a [discriminatory] tweet" are fundamentally either just denying the possibility that anyone could be harmed as a consequence or seeking to reserve for themselves the right to do it without consequence to themselves.

>Your second paragraph is pretty much just the bias of victimhood
Well, no. This line of argument is just denying the victim entirely. It places personal comfort and convenience above very real harms. Iy's basically saying "well, yes, it's awful when people go around queerbashing, but if I have to face consequences for saying things that deny the reality and existence of queer people it would really hurt my feelings".

Freedom of speech for me but not for thee.

Nigel Farage wasn't at Prime Minister's Questions today, because he's in America at some investigation relating to freedom of speech. They were asking him about this story. But why? It's nothing to do with him, it's nothing to do with America, and why would Americans invite a foreign politician to their investigation? It makes no sense.

>>42803
As always, the short answer to any Farage-related query is 'because he's a cunt'.

I'm watching the latest video one Lindsey Ellis has uploaded to YouTube. I've been adjusting my glasses all day, and about half-an-hour into the video I had them off, in order to stretch them a bit. Anyway, I got properly jump scared when I put them back on and one of tits in a clip with Jordan Peterson was Ireland's very own answer to a question no one asked.

Speaking of which, can't we deport him? He's a foreign criminal, after all.

>>42803
Right-wingers are not patriots. They are insidious devils who would sell their fellow Britons to slavers, just "for a laugh".

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/sep/04/graham-linehan-trans-teenager-court
>Brooks subsequently called out to Linehan outside the venue and asked him why he had called her a “domestic unabummer”.
>Julia Faure Walker, for the prosecution, said: “At this point Mr Linehan could’ve explained why he had called her a domestic unabummer, if indeed he had an explanation, or even ignored her … rather he responded in a way which is indicative of his extreme personal animosity towards her.
>“He said ‘go away groomer’, ‘go away you disgusting chronic masturbator’. He called her a ‘sissy porn-watching scumbag’ … He deliberately whacked the phone out of Ms Brooks’s hand.”

>Linehan denies one count of harassing the activist on social media between 11 and 27 October last year and a further charge of criminal damage of her mobile phone on 19 October last year.
I was arrested for tweets! Just for tweets!! Well, and for harassing a specific person and physically damaging their property, but imagine if it has been tweets!
(Nice of our press to report the lie as front page news and the truth as an afterthought, eh?)

>>42807
Bane and antidote, innit.

Does anyone else get the feeling that Glinner has a very specific humiliation kink?

>>42809
I think more than anything he cant understand why Joanne says this stuff and gets to be rich and adored, whereas he says it and loses everything.