Surely I cannot be the only person utterly bemused by Scotland’s new hate crime act and all the controversy surrounding it?
Less than a fortnight has passed since the law came into effect and yet debate is already raging about when, and by whom, it will be repealed.
It is, if opponents are to be believed, the death of free speech as we know it.
The reality, I suspect, will be vastly different and once the initial hullabaloo has dissipated the law and its provisions will fade into the background as commonsense and pragmatism replace hysteria.
Leaving aside the depressing fact that modern society necessitated legislation preventing people from stirring up hatred against some of the most marginalised people, it appears to me that the law basically extends the number and types of people legally protected from some of the more extreme, obnoxious individuals who ply their vitriol through social media websites, often hidden behind a pseudonym to afford themselves the kind of freedom from abuse they routinely deny others.
Author J K Rowling has already tested the water by challenging Police Scotland to arrest her for repeating her often-expressed view that women are defined by biology and that such definition is non-negotiable however much the trans community and its cheerleaders protest otherwise.
Much as I agree with that sentiment (excuse me while I go and answer a knock at my door), I do feel it unhelpful to have placed the force in such a difficult position while the law is in its infancy.
Admittedly, Police Scotland could be said to have invited such a challenge by declaring from the outset that every complaint under the new Hate Crime Act would be investigated, a commitment which infuriated the growing number of people who complain of other serious crimes being ignored.
What is abundantly clear is that it is far too early to judge whether the Scottish government has created a monster or simply applied a little more consistency to the existing legislation protecting the vulnerable. As such, it is time for cool heads and for those on all sides of the argument to take a breath and let the dust settle.
Angela Rayner criticism rooted in misogyny
Labour deputy leader Angela Rayner rarely misses an opportunity to display her working-class roots and hold herself up as an example of how even those with the most unfortunate start in life can achieve great things if they work hard.
She is viewed by many in the party, particularly those on the left, as an ideal foil for leader Sir Keir Starmer, who cannot shake off the perception that he is closer to the Tory view of life than traditional Labour supporters would like.
She has underpinned her left-leaning credentials by referring to Tories as “scum” and happily leading the attack on them, both inside and outside the Commons.
By assuming this “rough diamond” persona, she has been on the receiving end of innuendo and gossip, some of it justified, but much of it rooted in misogyny.
The current controversy over the sale of her former council house, which she bought by taking advantage of Margaret Thatcher’s right-to-buy policy, has a whiff of something unpleasant about it, despite her and her colleagues’ protestations that everything was in order.
The allegation bandied about is that she should have paid capital gains tax on the huge profit she made because the house in question was not her primary residence once she married her husband, Mark, in 2010.
Ms Rayner denies that she moved into her husband’s home, but rather split her time between their two houses, meaning she was not liable for tax. She claims to have received legal advice confirming that but refuses to publish such advice.
The problem she faces is this: any advice she received about liability for tax would, presumably, be based on the information she herself provided, and the only way to resolve the issue once and for all would be to publish the advice in full, something she, quite rightly, argues is a private matter. In the meantime, she is caught between a rock and a hard place and will remain there until either she bows to pressure or her accusers move on to a fresh target.
Conversation