I'd need to see the posts to form a judgement, can't arrest someone for being a dick...if he has broken the threshold for hate speech or incitement then of course, if he has merely offended people, then absolutely not.
Replies
According to this thread by @kenwhite.bsky.social this could potentially have resulted in prosecution even in the US. bsky.app/profile/kenw...
sep 2, 2025, 7:04 pm • 1 0 • view
Yeah I saw it, the OP shared it, vile, should be arrested and charged for incitement.
sep 2, 2025, 7:02 pm • 1 0 • view
i won’t make trans people read these again, but you should www.lgbtqnation.com/2025/09/jk-r...
sep 2, 2025, 11:54 pm • 1 0 • view
I want to be very clear here - I have issues with the UK policy on hate speech. But it is the law. And it shouldn’t be applied differently if someone says something about trans people people than Muslims or black people. And deciding to put yourself out to defend anti-trans speech is indefensible.
sep 2, 2025, 5:16 pm • 46 2 • view
Oh I agree, but like I said, I would need to see the specific text in question before leaping to a conclusion based on my opinion of him, which is currently in the gutter region. If its hate, then he has to be arrested and charged, but we can't sanction arrests for offending people.
sep 2, 2025, 5:19 pm • 0 0 • view
I mean I’m familiar with his work. If it wasn’t hate this time it’s 100% true that he routinely engages in hate speech. I have no more or less issue with him being arrested and questioned than I do anyone who routinely engages in hate speech.
sep 2, 2025, 5:27 pm • 15 0 • view
That's perhaps where we disagree because that is condoning the arrest of someone simply because you oppose their views, as I do, but you can't argue that this is acceptable and then criticise, say, Trump or MAGA for doing the same. The law must remain as calculated and unambiguous for everyone, no?
sep 2, 2025, 5:30 pm • 1 0 • view
No, I’m sorry. I think you’re wrong. As I’ve said, I do think UK laws on free speech are dubious right now. I think banning Palestine action and arresting anyone who says they support them is insane. It’s fully draconian.
sep 2, 2025, 5:36 pm • 14 0 • view
But again there a distinction between thinking UK hate speech laws are draconian and thinking that it’s okay that those laws aren’t applied equally. He *does* engage in hate speech. He just does. It’s pretty easy to do a search to see the kinds of things he’s said in public.
sep 2, 2025, 5:37 pm • 16 0 • view
And *if* he does and *if* we think that the law should applied the same if someone is inciting anti-Semitic hate or Islamophobic hate or homophobic hate or anti-trans hate, then *even we think the law is overly restrictive* we should he *horrified* that the PM is arguing it should only be applied…
sep 2, 2025, 5:39 pm • 13 0 • view
… if he happens to agree with it, or if he thinks it’s politically expedient to shut it down. Arguing that hate speech is appalling unless its victims are trans is absolutely 100% unacceptable. Same with arguing that you should face legal sanctions for hate speech unless its victims are trans.
sep 2, 2025, 5:40 pm • 11 0 • view
I think that should be indisputable whether or not you *also* think those legal sanctions are too broad, censorious and severe, which often I do.
sep 2, 2025, 5:41 pm • 7 0 • view
I agree with almost everything you have said here, and I want to reiterate my general loathing of the subject here. Having said that, you seem to be ignoring my point. This is about specific messages, you cannot make a judgement based on anything other than their content. Else the law is corrupted.
sep 2, 2025, 6:14 pm • 0 0 • view
He literally said people should assault trans women in public restrooms.
sep 2, 2025, 6:32 pm • 19 0 • view
Yeah I got it now, he should be arrested on incitement, no doubt.
sep 2, 2025, 6:40 pm • 0 0 • view
Took 2 seconds to look up what he said. Now that you don't have "I'd need to see what he said" to hide behind, can you admit that this is a threat?
sep 2, 2025, 6:34 pm • 21 0 • view
Fucking white knighting for a transphobe. Very gross.
sep 2, 2025, 6:35 pm • 15 0 • view
Linehan wrote, “If a trans-identified male is in a female-only space, he is committing a violent, abusive act. Make a scene, call the cops and if all else fails, punch him in the balls.” He was arrested on suspicion of inciting violence, and as far as I can see, it’s a fair cop.
sep 2, 2025, 6:37 pm • 7 0 • view
I mean it makes sense to me. But even if we didn’t have that insight, I’d still think it was weird if someone was arrested by the police for an alleged hate crime and the government belittled the charge, implying it was a waste of time, on the basis the group it targeted wasn’t of the right type.
sep 2, 2025, 6:38 pm • 4 0 • view
Deeply weird! “The prime minister and home secretary have been clear about where their priorities for crime and policing are, and that's tackling anti-social behaviour, shoplifting, street crime, as well as reducing serious violent crimes like knife crime and violence against women." If you ask me…
sep 2, 2025, 6:43 pm • 1 0 • view
…sending out tweets encouraging Britons to “punch [people] in the balls” IS anti-social behaviour, and the Met seems to be handling its operational matters in an appropriate manner by bringing the guy who did it in for questioning, to assess what threat he poses to the community.
sep 2, 2025, 6:43 pm • 2 0 • view
it was instructing people to punch trans women if they encountered one in a bathroom
sep 2, 2025, 5:44 pm • 6 0 • view
Well if it was, then the law should be applied and he should be arrested and charge for inciting violence and hate speech. Period.
sep 2, 2025, 6:15 pm • 1 0 • view
You can find his direct incitement of violence if you look for it. If you can’t be bothered to look, you should probably accept what the victims of his cissupremacism tell you.
sep 2, 2025, 5:34 pm • 8 0 • view
I am well aware of his history and I condemn it completely, however this is about specific posts, so I would need to see them before I judge whether the decision to drop it was correct or not. That is just basic application of the law, isn't it?
sep 2, 2025, 6:11 pm • 0 0 • view
Again, then the obvious thing to do here is do some of the research yourself? My position is he clearly engages in hate speech. Thats bad. It should be investigated. Yours appears to be, “I believe he has in the past, I don’t know about the present, I do not wish to check”?
sep 2, 2025, 6:16 pm • 8 0 • view
He told his followers that if they saw a trans person in the bathroom, they should harass them, call the police, and punch them in the genitals. This isn't too hard to find, but there you go, now you know.
sep 2, 2025, 6:39 pm • 2 0 • view
Yeah OP was kind enough to post it, so yeah, he should be arrested for incitement without question.
sep 2, 2025, 6:42 pm • 1 0 • view
No, that’s cissupremacist, misogynist defaulting to not believing the victim, and unsurprisingly being unwilling to do the work to check.
sep 2, 2025, 6:13 pm • 3 0 • view
And please, lay off the labels, I am neither a supremacist or a misogynist, can you not argue a point about the application of law without resorting to this kind of communication that serves no purpose?
sep 2, 2025, 6:21 pm • 0 0 • view
…why did you feel compelled to say anything, when you couldn’t be bothered to engage in the bare minimum of effort to find out why he’d been detained? You can simply choose not to post.
sep 2, 2025, 6:54 pm • 1 0 • view
Okay, look, I think you’re digging yourself into a bigger and bigger hole here and the right thing to do is to back out quickly. My strong recommendation would be to either quickly apologize (I didn’t see the posts and I misunderstood the context) or delete some of your previous posts…
sep 2, 2025, 6:41 pm • 1 0 • view
… all of which because otherwise I think you’ll get some pushback which is probably more than you’re expecting and more than you deserve *even if* I think you’ve sort of tried to appear reasonable and impartial while not really entirely getting the full context and tension over what’s going on.
sep 2, 2025, 6:42 pm • 2 0 • view
I don’t blame you for maybe not parsing this thing properly or for your attempt to be fair and balanced. I just think you’ve missed the mark on this one and that now you’re doubling and tripling down on a mistake you’ve made and that it’s not going to end brilliantly.
sep 2, 2025, 6:44 pm • 2 0 • view
Doing down by refusing to be called a misogynist and supremacist for arguing that the law should be applied equally to all....really? Once I had seen the post I totally agreed with you...now you think I should succumb to insults and delete my posts...honestly bizarre.
sep 2, 2025, 6:46 pm • 0 0 • view
I think you will get a torrent of abuse that I think you partly deserve for being clumsy and ill-informed, but will be disproportionate. And I am suggesting that to avoid getting it, deleting the posts would be the best solution as it will allow you to get on with your day and avoid all the tension.
sep 2, 2025, 6:57 pm • 2 0 • view
Genuinely, I am trying to help here.
sep 2, 2025, 6:57 pm • 2 0 • view
I'll just ignore it. Deleting and blocking aren't really my thing, I just didn't really like being insulted with those specific labels as I had evidently done absolutely nothing to suggest I was even remotely either. But thanks for the advice, appreciate it.
sep 2, 2025, 7:00 pm • 0 0 • view
No, I hadn't seen the original posts, now that I have I agree, he should be arrested and charged. Can you point out what posts I should delete? I mean this is nuts, I was having a convo about the law and start getting insults...and you imply I deserve it?
sep 2, 2025, 6:44 pm • 0 0 • view
I think I’m suggesting you made a well intentioned but under informed comment and that people criticized you for it, and you sort of doubled and tripled down on it and as a result people are getting frustrated with you and calling you out on not really doing the work or having the insight to comment
sep 2, 2025, 6:48 pm • 0 0 • view
Do I think you deserve all of the comments you’re getting? No. Some are very unfair. Do I think you sort of walked into a highly charged area without doing the prep, stepped on a lot of sensitive areas without noticing and that was inevitably going to cause some friction? Yes. 100%.
sep 2, 2025, 6:50 pm • 2 0 • view
When these things go off you really have three choices - think you’re right and fight for your viewpoint, think you’re wrong and back away quickly, or suspect you might be wrong but keep fighting defensively even as you’re backed into the corner. My only advice is don’t do the last one.
sep 2, 2025, 6:51 pm • 0 0 • view
OK, advice noted. Thanks.
sep 2, 2025, 6:53 pm • 1 0 • view
OK. But I have done nothing wrong, I won't apologise and I certainly won't delete posts. I will concede that I did not pick up on the general intention of your post and missed the wider point about political interference.
sep 2, 2025, 6:51 pm • 0 0 • view
Okay, well that’s up to you. Hope things turn out okay.
sep 2, 2025, 7:00 pm • 0 0 • view
The point remains I did not need to see the evidence of the crime to make the point that the evidence of the crime is what will determine a reasonable arrest. That is a basic legal premise...the fact that making this point and not simply shouting "hang the bastard" makes me a target is not on me.
sep 2, 2025, 6:50 pm • 0 0 • view
The responses to that, as you know, were: * it took five seconds to do a search to find the evidence and you didn’t do it * it’s not normally appropriate for government to make statements dismissing a police response to a hate crime, whether or not there was evidence for it
sep 2, 2025, 6:54 pm • 0 0 • view
No it isn't. If the content of his posts, these specific ones, not historical ones, are breaking the law, then throw the book at the hateful bastard, what you are arguing for is that law applies differently to different people and some do not deserve due process. A slippery slope.
sep 2, 2025, 6:18 pm • 0 0 • view
I think this is missing the point a bit. Let’s walk through this quickly; (1) Linehan has engaged in pretty clear anti-trans hate speech for years - you don’t dispute that (2) In this story, a representative of the PM has commented that him being arrested for hate speech is a waste of their time
sep 2, 2025, 6:27 pm • 4 0 • view
The discussion is whether or not it’s appropriate for the office of the PM to intervene and make a statement about this. My opinion is that given his history, it is unusual and probably inappropriate for the PM’s office to opine about this being a waste of time.
sep 2, 2025, 6:29 pm • 4 0 • view
Your position appears to be about whether or not it was right for him to be arrested. I would contend this is another issue, and have made an argument that whether or not I think the British state is overly censorious in this case all I want is for the law to be applied equally
sep 2, 2025, 6:31 pm • 4 0 • view
If you do care about the facts of the case they do seem to be pretty easily available. This is from the BBC article on the subject which I found in five seconds.
sep 2, 2025, 6:32 pm • 4 0 • view
But I think what we’re trying to articulate to you is that whatever the particulars of the current case, the government intervening to make a statement saying that going after someone for alleged anti-trans hate speech is *weird as hell* and deeply troubling!
sep 2, 2025, 6:33 pm • 4 0 • view
That’s not their job! Thats not their role! Generally the police does their job based on the law and the courts decide if they did it appropriately.
sep 2, 2025, 6:34 pm • 5 0 • view
