Is “The Student Law Review” the “body” for this particular case? What exactly is it? I just read up on it briefly so don’t know too much. But I was also shocked when I heard this and couldn’t quite believe that it was real. I think the opponents did mention that it could be triggering and disturbing/transphobic for trans law students. And I thought, well SORRY, but SO WHAT? What next? Rapists being let off with rape because a jury member finds the mention of it triggering and so it’s decided it shouldn’t be brought up? Racially abusive words that were used being discounted from an attack against a victim because someone found the word “******” uncomfortable to hear even though it is literally a fact that it was said and used?
- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
Almost - it was Hodder Education's A-Level Law Review magazine. The Chair, Ian Yule, had written an article on the Harry Miller case, where police visited him at his place of work to tell him some of his tweets about transgender issues would be recorded as a 'non-crime hate incident'. Although the piece was mostly factual with very little in the way of personal opinions from Mr Yule, Hodder's management first removed about two-thirds of it and then sent what remained to Mermaids, asking them to suggest “examples we can use to counteract the tone and opinions in the piece” and to suggest changes to “anything you feel is untrue, unfair and/or offensive”. Mermaids sent back a four-page reply, saying the article didn't come over as balanced and Ian Yule resigned in disgust.
The article in the Times is here: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...legal-article-on-free-speech-ruling-2dl7t5g9q
The article in the Times is here: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...legal-article-on-free-speech-ruling-2dl7t5g9q
I love the Films To Be Buried With podcast! I have deliberately skipped her episodes. Does she have good taste in filmsDid anyone listen to her on the recent films to be buried with podcast?
She was bad enough on the first one but this one she just exceeds herself with her need to be so unique and one of a kind.
i don't know how anyone can listen to her talk for more than 5 minutes and even then she will have only talked about herself and how great she is for changing the world
I skipped her eps but got desperate for something to listen too. She defo just chooses films for effect.
On the recent one she says she's never watched a Harry Potter film and I think she expects Brett to be like 'what? Omg how are you so unique? How have you managed such a thing?' And he just breezes on by it without caring. Its proper cringy but amazing stuff.
So... by this logic, court cases and jury and judges and evidence etc mean and stand for what, exactly, if factuality can be redacted now? Can people found guilty self identify to being found innocent?
oh god. Classic I’m-not-like-other-girls nonsense. Brett seems like such a lovely chap, I’m sure he wouldn’t buy into that crap (I hope not anyway!).
maybe I’ll have to have a listen through gritted teeth. I’ve just relistened to James Acaster’s episodes because I think I’m in love with him
Are you black?
Mixed race black/white actually. Why are you asking? Was it the use of the word ****** in my previous post? I was going to censor it but it would have gone against the exact point I was making, so decided not to.
Using it doesn't support your point in any way, shape or form. You were talking in hypotheticals, not about a specific instance, and even if you had been it's still not necessary: journalists don't use the word when they're reporting on crimes or court cases where it was a key detail (apart from one notable recent exception which has gained significant backlash in the black community), and jury members would be selected based on their suitability - if a potential jury member found discussion of rape triggering, it's likely they will have been a victim themselves and they wouldn't be selected. I'd be interested to hear of a case in which a rapist has been "let off" with rape because a jury member has "decided" it shouldn't be brought up. That all seems like dangerous conjecture.
Please read my post back as you don’t seem to have gotten it.
I’ll also ask your own question to me back at you: are you black? Just wondering.
The point I was making was that if a judge or jury thought it would be upsetting or feel it might be triggering to certain people to hear the racist word used and therefore decided that it couldn’t be said or used as evidence despite the fact it was said when used in a racially motivated attack then yes, it is necessary. It’s very necessary.
To give you an example: about seven months ago, someone drove past in a car whilst I was walking and shouted to me out the window as they drove past me: “bleeping ******”. Had I had taken it to court I wouldn’t have cared if people on the case found it uncomfortable because people’s uncomfortableness doesn’t change the fact that it happened.
No, journalists don’t use the word because the general public are not expected to be subjected to stuff that could cause distress. Just like journalists and media don’t show pictures of murdered victims covered in blood or children’s injuries from sexual abuse. Courts are shown that because it is relevant to the case.
Yes, I said my points were hypothetical. I never need pretended or tried to make out they weren’t. I specifically asked that if facts could be redacted could other facts also be redacted.
I’m not sure what point it is you’re trying to make?
I really hope so. I boycotted Starbucks because of those fuckers
Yes, I understood your point. The point I'm making is you're talking about a hypothetical situation on a public forum, you're not in a court of law describing a racially motivated attack, so your didn't need to use the word for the same reason you've just given that journalists don't use the word. I think that's pretty straightforward.
Are you black? Did the use of the word I use offend you because of that and that’s why you’ve jumped on my comment using it? All I can repeat is: read it back in the context I originally used it. I was using it in a reply against something that factually happened, that was redacted before presenting the case to law students to study in case anyone was triggered. So I said, if someone was called a racist word during an attack that was argued for being racially motivated but it was unsure whether it was too triggering and questioned whether it should be included, would it be removed even though it was a main part of the case argued as being racially motivated as that could potentially affect the outcome of a case.
I hadnt been into Starbucks for ages, so I was surprised when I saw those Mermaids cookies advertised. they had a big 'currently unavailable' sign over them, so I did wonder if they had been quietly withdrawn from sale.
Isnt there stuff about Mermaids recommendating reading lists with peadophilic undertones or that go against safeguarding guidelines or sonething... Swear i've seen something somewhere...
I’m not sure about the paedophilic undertones but their whole existence is a safeguarding issue. One example, (WTTE) the advice they gave to children via their website: Fill out a form and give us your phone number and a safe time when your parents aren’t around and a person (adult) from our team will ring you back on a withheld number. This is to protect your privacy”. I mean... what? Seriously? Nobody looked at that and thought...something isn’t quite right here...?
off topic, but I think this was a book that was recommended in an LGBTQ+ learning pack for kids, promoted by Asda for Pride (think it was Asda? It was a supermarket).
To be fair, the supermarket in question acted very quickly and removed all mention of it, apologised and promised to look more closely at these things in the future.
Back to Jameela, I just don’t understand why she needed to delete ALL her tweets to make her account “more focused” on activism. Most of her Twitter was her rambling on about various causes. It makes no sense to me.
When describing what the act of a racially motivated section 4a public order is in court you will have to present the evidence which would include the word used. If you don’t - you don’t have the offence. They don’t ‘censor’ offensive/potentially triggering words. Same in rape cases.
Could be that or if we were being really cynical, she was angling to bring on the JK Rowling/trans discussion.
- Status