Best Of

Starmer and Trump have phone call and look forward to co-operating going forward

Sensible to dial down the rhetoric

He phoned him and begged for a bone. A throwaway tweet about 'British support'
Our humiliation is almost complere

Not at all. Unless Starmer does capitulate, in which case you would have a point. For the moment at least you don't.

20 minute phone call with Starmer who expressed sympathy for US loses

Will speak again apparently

Ed Davey calls for Charles visit to US to be cancelled

Fair from Starmer. Also fair from Davey.

I wonder if some nasty s**tstirring tw@t has been poisoning the well over dinner at Mar a Lago?

I do not think Charles should go, as he will be exposed to the US media asking him what he knew of AMW and the Epstein scandal

It will or would dominate US airways with the Democrats demanding AMW testifies in US

It will or would be very embarrassing

Oh for goodness sake, visiting a nation where TWO of their heads of state, Clinton AND Trump openly socialised with and knew Epstein, who the King never met, if anything might make him look good by comparison.

Democrats can hardly talk given the Clinton Epstein connection and after Anne Sacoolas Americans are in no position to ask any UK citizen to testify there on anything

I'll say it again, if you disagree with Cyclefree's headers or indeed any other headers including mine. I am happy to publish threads by you that disagree with a header, send me a Vanilla message with your pieces.

I'd be happy to contribute, but is PB really the best forum for it?

Things that interest me: Digital ID, the Online "Safety" Act, trial by jury (as noted above) leasehold reform, income tax, UBI.

I reply to Cyclefree's guff simply because nobody else on this forum bothers to point out that other views, and lived experiences, are available. It's not a topic I'd care to drone on about while literal drones are blowing up oil fields. It's almost like there are more important things going on.

It genuinely mortifies me that my partner's mere existence was something to be debated or argued about. Something that Max the Fash and Richard "Libertarian" Tindall might pontificate on.

Why PB feels the need to publish TERF bilge is byeond me.

Maybe you should get better educated and listen to Cyclefree then?

I assure you that marrying a trans woman was a better education - and a great deal more fun - than you will ever experience, my middle-of-nowhere-dwelling, suburbanite, car-obsessed, bootlicking chum. Don't you have a retail park to be driving to, or an illegal war to be justifying?

I would just say @Cyclefree is well respected and entitiled to publish on a subject she has views on, no matter how controversial

You make a fair and interesting response, and so much better than trying to close down debate

And I am sure we wish @Cyclefree all the best in her serious health battle

It's just an extraordinary yawn, isn't it? "The law says this, therefore we must obey it..."

For most of British history, homosexuality was illegal but slavery was legal - what is *the law* is not the same as what is right or in keeping with societal norms. And an argument that fails to engage with that - repeatedly - is just the boring Sunday afternoon repeat we've heard over and over on this site over and over. For heaven's sake, there are other TERF adjacent sites to publish such (let's say the line) vapid bilge on.

If someone wants to make the case for stripping a bunch of people's rights from them which they have held since the 2004 GRA then make the case for it, morally. Don't just say "it's the law". That is not the locus of political debate.

The law needs to be obeyed but the law can also be an ass, as the Supreme Court came close to conceding when it said, to the effect, our job is to interpret the law - if you don't like it, change the law.

The government clearly has no intention of changing the law - a hornet's nest - but can't provide sensible guidance without changing the law, precisely because it is an ass

On Government definition of islamophobia, I don't see a problem given it has the same for anti-Semitism. But maybe we don't need either?

Starmer and Trump have phone call and look forward to co-operating going forward

Sensible to dial down the rhetoric

He phoned him and begged for a bone. A throwaway tweet about 'British support'
Our humiliation is almost complere

Not at all. Unless Starmer does capitulate, in which case you would have a point. For the moment at least you don't.

20 minute phone call with Starmer who expressed sympathy for US loses

Will speak again apparently

Ed Davey calls for Charles visit to US to be cancelled

Fair from Starmer. Also fair from Davey.

I wonder if some nasty s**tstirring tw@t has been poisoning the well over dinner at Mar a Lago?

I do not think Charles should go, as he will be exposed to the US media asking him what he knew of AMW and the Epstein scandal

It will or would dominate US airways with the Democrats demanding AMW testifies in US

It will or would be very embarrassing

Does the King do question-and-answer sessions at press conferences? Can't say I recall any.