On January 22nd the violent, abusive transgender activist Jack Douglas, who now uses the name Beth and the Twitter username “pickle_bee” (slang for “somebody who likes dick”), threatened that feminist campaigner Kellie-Jay Keen’s imminent “Standing For Women” event in Glasgow was going to be disrupted by the “furry” community, who happen to be hosting a gathering at the Crowne Plaza that same weekend.
“Why? What possible grudge could furries have against women?”, a friend giggled, as I related this news to her. But to answer that we have to know who these people are.
The SNP are a flailing shambles of incompetence, under a leader fast losing her iron grip on her own party as they watch her turning it into a laughing stock with growing horror. More and more disquiet reaches our ears from within her increasingly leaky and nervous Parliamentary groups. Who will be the first to tie their courage to a flagpole and make the move to mutiny? We can only wait and see.
Because as someone else on Twitter mocked, what’s actually laughable is the idea that criminals would never engage in any kind of deception in order to commit crimes, and that someone like Peter Tatchell would be so idiotic as to suggest such a thing.
…by which we mean “IQs in the history of the Scottish Parliament”.
Put a cushion on your desk before you start listening to this, gang, or you might hurt your jaw. Because surely nobody quite as paralysingly, catastrophically thick as this clueless, bumbling, deranged and dangerous imbecile has ever been allowed to make the laws of Scotland before. We wouldn’t let her make orange squash, to be honest.
And yes, we’re including Kezia Dugdale and Jamie Greene in that reckoning.
(Although we’re not sure how “new followers” is being calculated there. We actually have more than 500 extra followers since 8pm – we can only assume that it’s only counting those who right-clicked and followed from that specific tweet.)
And part of the reason is that it’s plain that almost nobody knew about the report, even though it came out three months ago (when Wings was still in retirement). We had to dig deep to find any media coverage of it at all, and what there was was cursory at best, and sometimes a lot worse.
As a journalist, readers, sometimes you want to pep a story up a bit. From time to time, it’s perfectly legitimate to sensationalise a relatively minor aspect of something in order to draw attention to a worthwhile but intrinsically dull subject.
At other times, you find yourself in the strange position of having to talk a subject down as much as you can, because if you simply report the facts calmly and neutrally it’ll sound so outrageous and ridiculous and deranged that everyone will think you’ve gone full-on, tinfoil-hat, pencils-up-the-nose insane.
It’s manifestly obvious to anyone paying any amount of attention to Scottish politics that the current Holyrood chamber is stuffed to the gills with otherwise-unemployable dum-dums. When we recently had cause to go through the entire roster of 129, the number who leapt out as either vaguely honourable or even just halfway-competent didn’t require us to take our shoes off to count.
(Indeed, speaking as a professional Scottish politics website about a thousand times more interested in this stuff than normal people, the number of expenses-guzzling seatwarmers we’d never even heard of was more than a little disturbing.)
So these figures from a Panelbase poll this month – which was conducted BEFORE the grim scenes around the SNP’s Gender Recognition Reform bill – can only be explained in two ways: either people have become accustomed to very low standards, or (more likely) people don’t pay that much attention to politics.
But there’s a much more interesting story in the numbers.
Religious figures normally restrict their political commentary to matters within their obvious remit, such as poverty and inequality, for which they can cite plentiful scripture about rich men and the eyes of needles and whatnot. We’re unaware of any passages in the Bible relating to the constitutional implications of the Scotland Act 1998.
Moderator in the Church Of Scotland is a ceremonial role lasting only 12 months, but Dr Iain Greenshields has attempted to put his stamp on it (one for the folks at home, there) by opining that a UK general election – and he was quite specific about meaning a UK one – is not an appropriate means of achieving Scotland’s independence.
From his quoted comments in the Times piece it’s not clear whether he’s some sort of ecumenical Kenny Farquharson who just wants Scots to shut up and vote Labour again, or a radical Yes supporter attempting to subtly influence the SNP towards a Holyrood plebiscite instead. But either way, for such a traditionally-neutral figure to come out with such an unexpectedly blunt political opinion is perhaps a sign of just what a terrible idea using a Westminster election to decide Scotland’s future is.
The SNP love to indignantly tell everyone how healthy the party’s finances are these days, especially in response to impertinent queries about the infamous “ring-fenced” £600,000 for a second indyref that everyone now knows isn’t going to happen.
