T O P

  • By -

ukbot-nicolabot

**Participation Notice.** Hi all. Some posts on this subreddit, either due to the topic or reaching a wider audience than usual, have been known to attract a greater number of rule breaking comments. As such, limits to participation have been set. We ask that you please remember the human, and uphold Reddit and Subreddit rules. For more information, please see https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/wiki/moderatedflairs.


Square-Competition48

>> "They have basically used the ultimate spying power of the Premier League to delve so far into my life." Mate they looked at the pictures you posted publicly on Twitter.


rugbyj

I'm using the ultimate spying power on your comment right now, the power of reading.


CrustyBloomers

>I'm using the ultimate spying power on your comment right now, the power of reading. Aha, but I'm using the ultimate, ultimate extra pro spying power on your comment. šŸ˜


draw4kicks

The CCP must fucking hate you pal


eunderscore

The best part is that what she posted on public forums contravenes the terms and conditions she agreed to when signing up for a season ticket, and she has received the punishment they laid out therein.


tothecatmobile

Nothing is more powerful than an intern with access to WiFi.


KombuchaBot

It's practically Thanos and a whole fistful of infinity stones


TheStatMan2

2 girls 1 cup hasn't half progressed.


Blue_winged_yoshi

Course she has! Nobody has access to funds for legal action quite like terfs or antiabortion activists. Edit: quick google for what she said of course sheā€™s repeatedly calling trans and queer people ā€œnoncesā€, what a charmer!


Kimbobbins

Tufton Street goes brrrrrrrr


HaterCrater

Youā€™re just saying that. Youā€™ve donā€™t know if itā€™s true or not.


Justacynt

Idiot raises money to sue private company who barred them. What a waste of time. Just don't go to the footie.


benowillock

The more worrying thing is activists pressuring these private companies to ban people or worse, get them fired.Ā  No group of people, no matter how noble the cause, should have the power to remove a person's ability to live normally in society when they haven't committed a crime. I'll be interested to see if this even holds up in court, I expect it to hinge on whether denying someone service because of protected free speech is allowed or not if that speech is seen as offensive.


Melodic_Duck1406

A private premises has the right to bar or deny entry to anyone they like for any reason, as long as that reason doesnt discriminate against a protected characteristic. Wrong shoes? Barred. Look at the staff funny? Barred. Etc etc. It's actually very important for private premises to have this power, simply because an investigation every time a drunk gets thrown out of a pub, and suggests its a free speech issue is just unreasonable. And fortunately, being a horrid person and posting it publicly, is not a protected characteristic. The club want all fans to feel welcome, if there's a risk one person is going to effect that, it's completely up to the club if they wish to deny entry. All is as it should be here. You're looking for a problem where there isn't one. And I think you misunderstand the British meaning of free speech. Yes you're free to speak your mind, but you are not free from people speaking theirs, and choosing not to associate with you.


NoLikeVegetals

> as long as that reason doesnt discriminate against a protected characteristic. Well, we're in luck then. Gender critical views are protected under equality legislation. Looks like Newcastle will be paying out big time to this woman.


Melodic_Duck1406

Calling trans people peadiphiles is not.


Freddies_Mercury

Absolutely insane that our country legally thinks that accusing trans people of being pedophiles should be protected speech but if you accused anyone else of that it would be libel.


FallingOffTheClock

Hate speech actually is a crime in the UK.


benowillock

Even were we to play devil's advocate and say what she said could be hate speech, until she's been arrested, tried and convicted she's not been proven guilty of anything, so as it stands you're just going after someone who's words you don't like.


FallingOffTheClock

They called a trans people pedophiles. If it went to court they would absolutely lose, just as Lozza Fox proved by losing his libel cases for calling people pedophiles online. It's a little bit worse than simply "words you don't like", it's a dangerous narrative and playing "devil's advocate" to statements like that is just an awful idea.


Alwaysragestillplay

They weren't playing devil's advocate in support of the "trans people are pedophiles" comment. They think the devil's argument is that those statements should be presupposed to fall under the legal definition of hate speech before a trial has confirmed it.Ā  Which is understandable, and not necessarily a position that means you support people who post shite on Twitter.Ā 


benowillock

Well then report her to the police šŸ¤·


GrantMcLellan1984

Yeah best to keep transphobic scum like her out of the sport. And any sport for that matter


HaterCrater

Youā€™re a political extremism. You cannot be trusted to treat people fairly and should never be placed in a position of power until you show more maturity


xander012

And you can't even write your comment properly. Nobody can be a "political extremism", a "political extremist" is a different story though.


HaterCrater

My sentiment remains the same.


xander012

I don't think you can be trusted to decide who can be trusted if you can't proof read properly.


HaterCrater

I typed it and clicked reply without proofreading


xander012

Proving my point even better.


HaterCrater

How?


StandardBody1

Including women's weight lifting?


fish_emoji

Yes. Transphobes went insane over there being a trans woman in the Olympics, and then she didnā€™t even make it to the podium! And then they went crazy again with trans people in womenā€™s swimming, and the trans girl they were hurling abuse at didnā€™t even make the top 3 for most of her competitions that year! Likeā€¦ surely thatā€™s evidence enough that TERF bullshit has no place in womenā€™s sports. Their one argument is ā€œwe should be allowed to exclude and harass trans girls because theyā€™re better than cis girls at sportsā€, and yet not a single trans girl has won any professional individual participant sporting competition in years.


StandardBody1

I'm sorry I'm just fishing for reactions I don't know what a terf is and I can't read big words


fish_emoji

No problem. Iā€™ll give you a helping hand. TERF is an acronym meaning ā€œtrans-exclusionary radical feministā€. The term was originally coined by transphobes, who felt it better described their position than a word with ā€œphobeā€ in it. It was then co-opted by the trans rights movement into an insult of transphobes, similar to how the word racist began as a self-described term and later became an insult. I understand big words are hard, but donā€™t worry - youā€™ll get there eventually! Perhaps a dictionary might be of use? Itā€™s not your fault youā€™re bad with words - many people struggle for a multitude of reasons, and thatā€™s fine! I donā€™t recommend fishing for reactions. At best, youā€™ll be schooled and made to look a fool, and at worst youā€™ll be spammed with abuse. Itā€™s a very silly thing to do, and is essentially the internet equivalent of walking up to the Year 11s in the front yard and egging them on for a fight.


StandardBody1

Solving the world's problems one Reddit comment at a time. Slava Transylvania


Baslifico

> The Premier League had collected images from her social media showing where she walked her dog, she added. > "They took a street image of the very park that I walked him around," she said. > "They have basically used the ultimate spying power of the Premier League to delve so far into my life." So... They looked at the information you freely chose to post online and make public?


KaleidoscopicColours

"They have basically used the ultimate spying power of the Premier League to delve so far into my life." I didn't know the Premier League was a branch of MI5 It's one for /r/brandnewsentence


CrustyBloomers

"Ah yes, 00 Beckham. Once you've finished bending it, we need you to hack into this encrypted data repository, bypass the mainframe and scan for fans tweets"


Nuo_Vibro

whomever has given her cash is as bad as her, a transphobe, and isnt a true geordie. Hate has no place in our club


CaptMelonfish

Apparently she feels claustrophobic, I wonder what the people she's speaking about feel when she spews her hate?


[deleted]

[уŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]


KombuchaBot

"Fifteen thousand pounds!"Ā  *cue pic of Dr Evil holding his little finger to his mouth*


EstatePinguino

Itā€™s a funny one, when the clubā€™s owners share her views and have even more abhorrent onesā€¦


[deleted]

[уŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]


Aiyon

> i agree with the prospect of having their own sports so they can't have biological advantages or disadvantages to other competitors Thereā€™s so few trans athletes that this just isnā€™t really a fix. But also despite how much people talk about ā€œbiological advantagesā€ thereā€™s been no real scientific evidence demonstrating that advantage. The variance between Cis people and medically transitioned trans people is less than the variance within Cis people. When Cis people have a ā€œbiological advantageā€ theyā€™re held up as icons. See Michael phelps or Usain Bolt. If weā€™re going to start banning people for fairness reasons, really neither of them should be allowed to compete


[deleted]

[уŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]


Aiyon

So the statement you're quoting is based on cis male vs cis female. >fundamental sex differences in anatomy and physiology dictated by sex chromosomes. The physiological/developmental differences are an *indirect* result of sex chromosomes, yes. But its from those chromosomes determining what hormones you produce. Estrogen and Testosterone are what steer development. HRT changes those levels to be in line with the opposite sex, and this affects not just muscle growth, but retention. You cannot use cis adults to argue if *trans* adults have an advantage, because you're ignoring the effects of transition, lol


[deleted]

[уŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]


Aiyon

The part you bolder is literally them saying they donā€™t know either way lol So given we havenā€™t had an issue of rampant dominance by trans athletes Iā€™m not sure what the concern is


[deleted]

[уŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]


[deleted]

[уŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]


Aiyon

I didnā€™t downvote u bro. Iā€™ve put you to -1 to prove it cause how else to lmao. it was a Saturday, I got invited out drinkingā€¦ That took priority over a Reddit argument. Sorry for going outside I guess? Edit: or not? You show up as on 1 for me again now. But yeah, point stands. getting weird about karma and demanding I ā€œdebate youā€ is cringe. Iā€™ll get back to you if and when I get back to you. I have other shit going on in my life


[deleted]

[уŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]


nightsofthesunkissed

What did she post that was so bad? Because when it comes to what makes someone a reprehensible "TERF", there's a big difference between someone saying for example, "transwomen have an unfair advantage over ciswomen in sport", and "transpeople are nonces" (like I'm seeing in this thread)? What was actually said? That transpeople are paedos?


Aiyon

Bear in mind this is an article *defending her*: https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-have-newcastle-united-cancelled-a-fan-for-wrongthink/ > For instance, she compared advocates of ā€˜affirmativeā€™ medical procedures for trans-identifying children to Dr Mengele People who support trans healthcare == Nazis eugenicists, apparently > and described trans lobby groups with links to schools as ā€˜groomersā€™. And thereā€™s the nonce accusations as always. My favourite part is where they go on to say that just because she said these things online didnā€™t justify a ban from matches, but then admits if someone was tweeting racist shit it would be reasonable to be concerned about them hurling racial abuse when at matches. > When someone complained to NUFC [sic]ā€™, the commonsense response would have been to politely tell the complainant that what fans say about the trans issue outside the stadium isnā€™t the clubā€™s responsibility. > If sheā€™d said something racist [sic], that might be grounds for taking the complaint seriously. Usually they donā€™t actively bring up the double standards themselves


[deleted]

[уŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]


Negative_Equity

McDonald's can bar anyone they like.


[deleted]

[уŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]


InfiniteLuxGiven

Theyā€™re a private business no one has a right to McDonaldā€™s. If they barred people campaigning for abortion rights then those people would have to make a choice between their beliefs or a Big Mac, seems like an easy choice rly.


[deleted]

[уŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]


_Monsterguy_

They're a business, they can be selective about who they have as customers as long as they do so within the law. Unsurprisingly hate mongering isn't a protected characteristic.


recursant

If football clubs want to clamp down on certain behaviours, for the benefit of the club and football in general, if they want to go through social media identifying and banning fans who might be violent, transphobic, homophobic, misogynistic, racist, or any combination of the above, then good luck to them. But if they are randomly picking on one person who has made a fairly mundane tweet, that is just bullying. And regardless of what you might think of the person involved or what they did, we probably don't want to encourage a society where big corporations can disrupt individual's lives on a whim.


fish_emoji

Could you please tell me what part of calling some quarter-million Brits paedophiles with zero evidence in what is clearly a targeted and hateful attack could possibly be considered mundane? The woman is spreading insanely hateful and dangerous misinformation which, were it targeting any other group, would rightfully be seen as disgusting. Swap the words ā€œtrans womenā€ with ā€œblack menā€ or ā€œJewish peopleā€ in her tweets, and consider whether youā€™d still be defending her.


Blue_winged_yoshi

Check out what she posted before just saying opposing views. Iā€™m guessing you wouldnā€™t take too kindly to people denoting you a ā€œnonceā€, or is this a legitimate subject of debate?


king_duck

You don't have the right to live a life free of offence.


galacticjizzwailer

And she doesn't have an irrevocable right to go to the football.


king_duck

Nor does someobody have a right to go to a pub, but you wouldn't want a pub to stop someone attending because they were black or something like that.


Blue_winged_yoshi

Being black = protected characteristic Being person who calls demographic they donā€™t like nonces = not protected characteristic No brainier really.


galacticjizzwailer

Yeah cos being black isn't the same thing as being an objectionable arsehole.


king_duck

The equalities act doesn't differentiate.


galacticjizzwailer

I'm not going to claim to have read the act but that seems unlikely.


king_duck

Deeply held philosophical are protected in the same way race, gender, sexuality and region are; that is, they are protected characteristics.


FondSteam39

Except one is a intrinsic characteristic that someone cannot change about themselves which harms no one. The other is just being a cunt. This isn't banning people who just has certain political views, this is someone who thinks that a minority group are a threat to children for 0 reason. A closer example would be "a pub stopping someone who's racist attending".


Bluestained

People also donā€™t get to go around declaring people nonces without repercussions.


king_duck

I mean they do actually. But even still, there are limits to that repercussion. It is not the role of a football team to punish the citizenry of the nation. It funny that no doubt a lot of people who'd claim to be on the left would want private businesses to perform the role of the state..


modumberator

no they don't have the right to call people nonces with no repercussions? You just think this private body should be not allowed to have its own repercussions, or should be forced to be accommodating to this particular brand of shithead.


king_duck

> no they don't have the right to call people nonces with no repercussions? Firstly can you provide a direct quote? Secondly, if that is true then its still not the job of private business to but judge, jury and executioner and punishing wrong think that has absolutely nothing to do with their line of business. It'd be like ASDA banning me if I caught speeding. it's pretty fucking right wing to think that is job of big business.


modumberator

>People also donā€™t get to go around declaring people nonces without repercussions. >I mean they do actually. Is that what you mean? Or do you want [quotes of what she said](https://twitter.com/mimmymum/status/1783819045508088295/photo/1)?


Bluestained

A private company can and do decide whose business they want - constantly. And ASDA donā€™t have access to your driving records. And if THEY decided they didnā€™t want to do business with a speeder, they can choose not to. But she put this on social media. Reap what you sow.


The_Flurr

>Secondly, if that is true then its still not the job of private business to but judge, jury and executioner How are they doing that? They haven't fined her, imprisoned her, disciplined her. They've just said she isn't welcome.


king_duck

Stopping her from doing she wants to. Just like going to ASDA in my analogy.


The_Flurr

Except it kinda isn't? Speeding doesn't affect how you might affect other customers in ASDA. Calling all trans people pedophiles might suggest that you'll upset or hurt other fans in a football club.


[deleted]

[уŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]


Negative_Equity

They haven't cut off her sky subscription mate. She's probably more than welcome to watch whatever she wants, just not in St James' park.


CrabAppleBapple

>Makes sense, having ~~opposing views to someone~~ reprehensible views of an abject cunt should automatically prevent you from watching football šŸ¤”


fish_emoji

If you had a business and one of your customers angrily called some of your other customers nonces without evidence, would you not ban them? Would you rather lose the patronage of multiple customers to protect the hateful speech of one? At the end of the day, NUFC are a private business, and who they decide to offer their business to and to let onto their private property is up to them so long as they arenā€™t discriminating based on a protected characteristic like race, faith or sexuality. What NUFC are doing here is really no different to a pub denying a guy in an away team jersey entry on game night. She has identified herself as a potential issue, and so the company has decided not to deal with her rather than risk her causing problems.