I've just been Googling "Sadiq Khan" to see what he is actually *doing*
Not much. But a few things. eg He is doing THIS
"Sadiq Khan has unveiled £25,000 grants to help people change street names as part of a diversity campaign launched following Black Lives Matter protests.
"The Mayor of London has announced a £1 million fund that will be shared out among community groups, including those wishing to campaign to alter potentially offensive road names.
"Grants of up to £25,000 will support groups through all aspects of the process of changing street names, which could include enlisting consultants and compensating residents.
"The Untold Stories fund is part of the Commission for Diversity in the Public Realm, which was established following Black Lives Matter protests to diversify artwork and statuary that came under scrutiny for commemorating figures linked to empire and slavery."
Utterly pointless Woke bullshit, which also wastes money. Brilliant
"London mayor Sadiq Khan has urged the government to make face coverings mandatory on public transport as the UK continues to average more than 40,000 confirmed coronavirus cases a day for over a week."
He wants us all to mask up again. That's an inspired and innovative policy. Who saw that coming?
He's just extended the ULEZ zone which at a stroke has stopped me gadding around in my big polluting Merc. Whilst I'm not his greatest fan, eg he comes over to me as a careerist, and as I say he's making me walk everywhere, it has to be noted that much of the more visceral dislike of him is driven by him being Muslim. Not you, of course, but it's undeniably in the mix. Which is disappointing to see.
It is deniably in the mix. He’s just crap.
The only person to bring up his Muslim-ness was the equally crap Zac Goldsmith.
So iyo there are hardly any people whose dislike of him is driven by anti-Muslim prejudice? I think that's an absurdly optimistic notion. Please note I'm not in any way implying that any particular person who thinks he's rubbish is being influenced by this. It's not a smear against anybody to point out that prejudice is in the mix. Neither is it to say he isn't rubbish or some 'lefty comfort blanket' against something or other. It's just a factual comment.
implying that any particular person who thinks he's rubbish is being influenced by this But if you're thinking it, I am too. I doubt we'd be the only ones.
Ah but hang on. Take gardenwalker for eg, I am totally NOT thinking this. I must have read 1000 of his posts and not a trace of anti-muslim prejudice. Not even thinking it about leon where there has been fruitiness sometimes. Tbh it's more about where you see the quite wild-eyed stuff said about him. I think he's testified about it. He gets a lot. There, you have racism rearing its head, no question. What you also get is the slightly brighter and cagey type of racist who keeps a grip on what they say and stays carefully deniable. You know the type.
Ah yes. The people you "just know" are racist, but haven't actually done anything racist.
Bit like the witches. If I wasn't out, 24/7, burning them...
LOL this is the bad old kini.
As I noted several months ago in a post when he was flinging around accusations of racism (amended for his posts today):
"What you have to remember is that because @kinabalu for some unknown reason is very insecure he is invested in belittling views of nationality and what it means to be British and how one should react to people who are not white working class.
He does this because as a white working class lad made good (very good) and now moved away from his roots, he is confused about what he is supposed to think about these things. He feels he should condemn anyone who even mentions nationality or religion but has no views himself on them. He literally has no idea how to approach the idea of criticising someone who is not an "easy" target (ie WWC).
And hence when he bumps into people, like @Leon for example, someone he believes he is far more successful and intelligent than, but someone who is far more confident in their own opinions on such to him delicate and taboo subjects, he has literally no answer."
Holds as true today as it always has done.
Nice couch you have, Topping. Trouble is, I almost nodded off.
Same time next week?
Damn unsolicited diagnoses! He’ll be devising a scoring system to rank people next
Ah, I sense a reference to my simple yet rather sophisticated 'Class Indicator' test that you, almost alone on here, refused to take. And I could never understand why. Still, no point revisiting. The past is another country.
The recent poll falls have not benefitted Labour with the Greens and REFUK gaining votes which does not auger well for Starmer who has had a very good week but seems uninspiring to many
Everyone keeps on saying that the recent poll falls haven't benefited Labour, but that seems to be on the basis of a superficial view of the polls and some observation bias.
The chart on wiki shows that Labour's poll score is improving.
Labour's polling is improving. And Boris has blundered into an issue that gives Labour a chance. So maybe. But I still think Labour are too far behind.
I would worry that the phenomenon of swingback seems to be pretty near universal for what seems like good reasons. Oppositions don't have to do anything, they have to oppose. They should be able to look really attractive to voters, as they can give away free owls, peacocks and unicorns without cost.
Until the election manifesto, that is, when they have to explain how to fund the free owls, peacocks and unicorns. And that inevitably means losing some voters.
Now, maybe this time, it's different .... but usually those are the words of unrealistic optimists.
I'm still holding to my prediction that Johnson will increase his majority at the next election, but making predictions is very different to [unintentionally] misrepresenting the current known facts of the polling.
But with theirs on the way up and ours on the way down.
Thank goodness we resisted the siren call to use masks and other NPIs etc during the summer and autumn.
Theirs have been rising and ours have been falling is fairer. If you want to make predictions about where case numbers are going, that's your business. I won't follow you there.
All you need to remember is that the high number of Covid cases and deaths in the UK is completely immaterial; it's the end of lockdown that counts. But in countries other than the UK, high numbers of cases and deaths are a sign of doom and massive governmental incompetence. That's right, isn't it?
Re: other countries, high numbers of cases and deaths may be an indication of bad decision-making if accompanied by more draconian measures than us. Worst of both worlds sort of thing.
I've just been Googling "Sadiq Khan" to see what he is actually *doing*
Not much. But a few things. eg He is doing THIS
"Sadiq Khan has unveiled £25,000 grants to help people change street names as part of a diversity campaign launched following Black Lives Matter protests.
"The Mayor of London has announced a £1 million fund that will be shared out among community groups, including those wishing to campaign to alter potentially offensive road names.
"Grants of up to £25,000 will support groups through all aspects of the process of changing street names, which could include enlisting consultants and compensating residents.
"The Untold Stories fund is part of the Commission for Diversity in the Public Realm, which was established following Black Lives Matter protests to diversify artwork and statuary that came under scrutiny for commemorating figures linked to empire and slavery."
Utterly pointless Woke bullshit, which also wastes money. Brilliant
"London mayor Sadiq Khan has urged the government to make face coverings mandatory on public transport as the UK continues to average more than 40,000 confirmed coronavirus cases a day for over a week."
He wants us all to mask up again. That's an inspired and innovative policy. Who saw that coming?
He's just extended the ULEZ zone which at a stroke has stopped me gadding around in my big polluting Merc. Whilst I'm not his greatest fan, eg he comes over to me as a careerist, and as I say he's making me walk everywhere, it has to be noted that much of the more visceral dislike of him is driven by him being Muslim. Not you, of course, but it's undeniably in the mix. Which is disappointing to see.
It is deniably in the mix. He’s just crap.
The only person to bring up his Muslim-ness was the equally crap Zac Goldsmith.
So iyo there are hardly any people whose dislike of him is driven by anti-Muslim prejudice? I think that's an absurdly optimistic notion. Please note I'm not in any way implying that any particular person who thinks he's rubbish is being influenced by this. It's not a smear against anybody to point out that prejudice is in the mix. Neither is it to say he isn't rubbish or some 'lefty comfort blanket' against something or other. It's just a factual comment.
implying that any particular person who thinks he's rubbish is being influenced by this But if you're thinking it, I am too. I doubt we'd be the only ones.
Ah but hang on. Take gardenwalker for eg, I am totally NOT thinking this. I must have read 1000 of his posts and not a trace of anti-muslim prejudice. Not even thinking it about leon where there has been fruitiness sometimes. Tbh it's more about where you see the quite wild-eyed stuff said about him. I think he's testified about it. He gets a lot. There, you have racism rearing its head, no question. What you also get is the slightly brighter and cagey type of racist who keeps a grip on what they say and stays carefully deniable. You know the type.
Ah yes. The people you "just know" are racist, but haven't actually done anything racist.
Bit like the witches. If I wasn't out, 24/7, burning them...
LOL this is the bad old kini.
As I noted several months ago in a post when he was flinging around accusations of racism (amended for his posts today):
"What you have to remember is that because @kinabalu for some unknown reason is very insecure he is invested in belittling views of nationality and what it means to be British and how one should react to people who are not white working class.
He does this because as a white working class lad made good (very good) and now moved away from his roots, he is confused about what he is supposed to think about these things. He feels he should condemn anyone who even mentions nationality or religion but has no views himself on them. He literally has no idea how to approach the idea of criticising someone who is not an "easy" target (ie WWC).
And hence when he bumps into people, like @Leon for example, someone he believes he is far more successful and intelligent than, but someone who is far more confident in their own opinions on such to him delicate and taboo subjects, he has literally no answer."
Holds as true today as it always has done.
Nice couch you have, Topping. Trouble is, I almost nodded off.
Same time next week?
Damn unsolicited diagnoses! He’ll be devising a scoring system to rank people next
Ah, I sense a reference to my simple yet rather sophisticated 'Class Indicator' test that you, almost alone on here, refused to take. And I could never understand why. Still, no point revisiting. The past is another country.
It's not dead. It's not even past. What is the test?
The recent poll falls have not benefitted Labour with the Greens and REFUK gaining votes which does not auger well for Starmer who has had a very good week but seems uninspiring to many
Everyone keeps on saying that the recent poll falls haven't benefited Labour, but that seems to be on the basis of a superficial view of the polls and some observation bias.
The chart on wiki shows that Labour's poll score is improving.
Do you know what I think has been the biggest change in politics in recent years? The fact that the left have become so much more censorious and authoritarian than they used to be. 20 or 30 years ago they were significantly less so than people from other parties; now they're probably more so. For instance, when you hear someone calling for a long prison sentence these days, they're almost as likely to be from the left as the right.
I think this is right, up to a point. I think that if you look at opinion surveys you will still find that people on the left are more libertarian than those on the right. But I think you are right that there has been a rise in authoritarianism on the left. It's probably exaggerated by e.g. Twitter. I think in part it is a generational thing, where millenials tend to be quite authoritarian, maybe because they have grown up in a more permissive environment and so haven't had to push back against people telling them what they can and can't do. Incidentally I suspect that millenials will become very right wing like baby boomers have as they age, while gen x will remain instinctively liberal but apathetic. Millenials have the same "it's all about me" attitude as the baby boomers. And they will be able to afford a house eventually.
You're either self-damning or older than I thought - I'm a millenial and I'm almost 40. The youngest millenials are ~25. Do you really think that group is authoritarian? Gen Z maybe (kids today...)
(I'd always assumed I was Gen X until someone on here posted the definitions)
I'd always assume I was post-boomer. But apparently I am not.
Do you still like to think "Gen X will continue to be a beacon of post-modern cynicism, pragmatic centrism and a bastion of gentle apathy"? Or slightly more boomer-sympathetic now?
I've had a lot more time for millenials since I discovered I was one!
There's TimT, and there's TimS. TimS is a late GenXer in his mid 40s living in SE London (but not the same person as OnlyLivingBoy) who considers GenX are beacons of post-modern cynicism. TimT appears to be an early GenXer or late boomer.
Fun fact: the name Tim fell off a cliff of popularity in the mid 90s, coinciding with the prominence of Harry Enfield's Tim Nice but Dim character.
My screen name here used to be "Timothy (likes zebras)".
For as long as I could remember I'd always gone as "Tim", but when I was 23 my mother made a point of telling me that she'd chosen the name Timothy for me and not Tim. I've been trying out Timothy instead, but people will always ask if they can call me Tim, and I don't really care.
I always find it a bit weird when someone uses my full name. I've always been known by the shortened version.
Back when people used to write cheques, it could be a bit of a faff if they used the initial they knew me by rather than my formal initial.
Off topic, Daughter and I were out in London last night. Restaurant and theatre packed. A most enjoyable evening and a much-needed break for Daughter. I am worried about the immense strain she is under.
Anyway, on our way into town (separately from some other appointments) we both noticed one thing which annoyed us and will doubtless be dismissed by many on here as hyper-sensitivity. But here goes anyway.
There is a long corridor on the interchange between the Piccadilly and Jubilee lines. On it there are various Pride posters with stories and photos from individuals. All very lovely. No objection to this at all.
There were 29 posters. Only 7 of them were women and one of these was of a mother of a gay person. So only 6 gay women out of 29. 6 women. 22 men.
Why so few women? Why so few gay women? Are their stories not worth telling?
Daughter pointed out that whenever gay marriage is talked about or discussed it is very often accompanied by illustrations of gay men getting married. Not gay women. It annoyed her.
Then on the Central line at Bond Street a big poster saying how London stands together against hate. Well, yes, who wouldn't be?
The precise words used in the poster are these -
"London stands together against hate directed at someone on our transport network because of race, religion, sexual orientation, disability or gender identity."
All very lovely. But spot what's missing. "Sex" - a protected characteristic and probably one of the single biggest reasons for attacks on women and girls. The Mayor talks a good game about Violence against Women and Girls but he cannot bring himself to mention sex in this poster. He ignores the fact that it is a "protected characteristic" in law. He is happy to include characteristics which aren't. But something which is - and which is of great concern to women, especially in relation to the risks they face when travelling - is ignored.
Why? Deliberate? Or just forgotten?
These may seem like small matters. But this sort of unconscious overlooking of women, of the female experience is all too common, all too pervasive and, ironically, occurs at a time when diversity is trumpeted loudly by all sorts of people keen to promote their progressive credentials.
I rather feel that the more people talk about diversity the less likely they are to listen to actual women or do anything practical to help them.
One day we might have 29 posters with 22 of them of women, a few men and a token father. A 50/50 representation would be a start. And - imagine - those posters, those choices were all, I expect, signed off by lots of people in numerous meeting and none of those preparing and implementing this campaign noticed what two women at both ends of the age spectrum noticed in minutes while travelling through. Or cared about the message it sends.
Grrr.....
Its deliberate because they're trying to write off sex as something that even exists.
"Gender identity" covers "sex" in his eyes so that's the end of the story.
Yup, stonewall have redefined homosexuality as same gender attraction as opposed to same sex. Lesbians need to embrace ‘girldick’ or be labelled ‘TERFS’ if they don’t with all that entails.
Not sure I understand all of that..are you saying the Stonewall position is that have to accept a man transitioning to a waman who still has their tackle.?
That is indeed the position of some trans radicals (not sure about Stonewall). A lesbian who refuses to have sex with an untransitioned trans man in possession of male genitals is not expressing a sexual preference for women, she is being "transphobic"
It is pure madness
Perhaps the trans community will join forces with the incels to demand the right to have sex with persons of their own choosing, regardless of the wishes of the targets of their 'affection'. Those claiming rape are just bigots.
That is exactly what some of the nuttier trans loons are indeed arguing.
It is a rape mentality. It is - I know some of you may not like what I am going to say next - a male mentality. Not that all males think like this. Far from it. But it is overwhelmingly only men who think like this.
And it is why changing language does not change underlying reality. When men attack gay women for not having sex with them, even though they claim to be "women", they are no different in reality from the men of my youth who called women who would not sleep with them lesbians.
Or told lesbians that a good fuck would change their minds about being lesbian.
And bizarrely the CEO of Stonewall is repeating and implicitly endorsing this view, though this time she substitutes the phrase "societal pressures" for "a good fuck".
It is notable that the example raised tends to be lesbian women refusing sex with transgender (but not transexual - i.e. pre-op, is that the best way to put it?) women. There are surely similar issues with gay men rejecting transgender men and staight men rejecting transgender women etc etc, but those don't seem to come up. What's the male equivalent of the TERF?
There's also a conflating of different issues (not by you): 1: Sexual attraction/non-attraction based on sexual characteristics/organs 2: Sexual attraction based on perceived gender
I can only speak for myself, but if I was getting amorous with someone I thought was a woman and then discovered she had a penis, it would end there. I'd rule that out, I think. Penises are just not my thing. A transgender post-op woman? Not necessarily (probably not likely, I've never seen a person that I know to be transgender who I have found attractive, but if I did then I don't think I'd be particularly bothered by the history).
It is, a bit - as you alluded to earlier, I think - similar to a situation in which a gay man complains about straight men not wanting to have sex with him. Or a straight man being offended that lesbians do not want to have sex with him.
Do you know what I think has been the biggest change in politics in recent years? The fact that the left have become so much more censorious and authoritarian than they used to be. 20 or 30 years ago they were significantly less so than people from other parties; now they're probably more so. For instance, when you hear someone calling for a long prison sentence these days, they're almost as likely to be from the left as the right.
I think this is right, up to a point. I think that if you look at opinion surveys you will still find that people on the left are more libertarian than those on the right. But I think you are right that there has been a rise in authoritarianism on the left. It's probably exaggerated by e.g. Twitter. I think in part it is a generational thing, where millenials tend to be quite authoritarian, maybe because they have grown up in a more permissive environment and so haven't had to push back against people telling them what they can and can't do. Incidentally I suspect that millenials will become very right wing like baby boomers have as they age, while gen x will remain instinctively liberal but apathetic. Millenials have the same "it's all about me" attitude as the baby boomers. And they will be able to afford a house eventually.
You're either self-damning or older than I thought - I'm a millenial and I'm almost 40. The youngest millenials are ~25. Do you really think that group is authoritarian? Gen Z maybe (kids today...)
(I'd always assumed I was Gen X until someone on here posted the definitions)
I'd always assume I was post-boomer. But apparently I am not.
Do you still like to think "Gen X will continue to be a beacon of post-modern cynicism, pragmatic centrism and a bastion of gentle apathy"? Or slightly more boomer-sympathetic now?
I've had a lot more time for millenials since I discovered I was one!
There's TimT, and there's TimS. TimS is a late GenXer in his mid 40s living in SE London (but not the same person as OnlyLivingBoy) who considers GenX are beacons of post-modern cynicism. TimT appears to be an early GenXer or late boomer.
Fun fact: the name Tim fell off a cliff of popularity in the mid 90s, coinciding with the prominence of Harry Enfield's Tim Nice but Dim character.
My screen name here used to be "Timothy (likes zebras)".
For as long as I could remember I'd always gone as "Tim", but when I was 23 my mother made a point of telling me that she'd chosen the name Timothy for me and not Tim. I've been trying out Timothy instead, but people will always ask if they can call me Tim, and I don't really care.
My family only call me Timothy when they are annoyed with me. And Martin Timothy when they are really, really annoyed.
This was possibly one of my least subtle twitter threads ever. Though I stand by it. Schools should never, ever have been closed long-term anywhere in the world. That's a hill I'm prepared to die on.
Do you know what I think has been the biggest change in politics in recent years? The fact that the left have become so much more censorious and authoritarian than they used to be. 20 or 30 years ago they were significantly less so than people from other parties; now they're probably more so. For instance, when you hear someone calling for a long prison sentence these days, they're almost as likely to be from the left as the right.
I think this is right, up to a point. I think that if you look at opinion surveys you will still find that people on the left are more libertarian than those on the right. But I think you are right that there has been a rise in authoritarianism on the left. It's probably exaggerated by e.g. Twitter. I think in part it is a generational thing, where millenials tend to be quite authoritarian, maybe because they have grown up in a more permissive environment and so haven't had to push back against people telling them what they can and can't do. Incidentally I suspect that millenials will become very right wing like baby boomers have as they age, while gen x will remain instinctively liberal but apathetic. Millenials have the same "it's all about me" attitude as the baby boomers. And they will be able to afford a house eventually.
You're either self-damning or older than I thought - I'm a millenial and I'm almost 40. The youngest millenials are ~25. Do you really think that group is authoritarian? Gen Z maybe (kids today...)
(I'd always assumed I was Gen X until someone on here posted the definitions)
I'd always assume I was post-boomer. But apparently I am not.
Do you still like to think "Gen X will continue to be a beacon of post-modern cynicism, pragmatic centrism and a bastion of gentle apathy"? Or slightly more boomer-sympathetic now?
I've had a lot more time for millenials since I discovered I was one!
There's TimT, and there's TimS. TimS is a late GenXer in his mid 40s living in SE London (but not the same person as OnlyLivingBoy) who considers GenX are beacons of post-modern cynicism. TimT appears to be an early GenXer or late boomer.
Fun fact: the name Tim fell off a cliff of popularity in the mid 90s, coinciding with the prominence of Harry Enfield's Tim Nice but Dim character.
My screen name here used to be "Timothy (likes zebras)".
For as long as I could remember I'd always gone as "Tim", but when I was 23 my mother made a point of telling me that she'd chosen the name Timothy for me and not Tim. I've been trying out Timothy instead, but people will always ask if they can call me Tim, and I don't really care.
I always find it a bit weird when someone uses my full name. I've always been known by the shortened version.
Back when people used to write cheques, it could be a bit of a faff if they used the initial they knew me by rather than my formal initial.
I’d assume that most people know that Sandy is short for Alexander?
I always find it a bit weird when someone uses my full name. I've always been known by the shortened version.
Back when people used to write cheques, it could be a bit of a faff if they used the initial they knew me by rather than my formal initial.
I've always been called by the shortened form (Tim) of my middle name. Professionally, I am known as Tim. Which was fine until 9/11. Now, if I get to the TSA check with a boarding pass with the name "Tim T" on it, they look at my passport with "Martin Timothy T" on it, and they send me back to the airline desk to get a new boarding pass.
This was possibly one of my least subtle twitter threads ever. Though I stand by it. Schools should never, ever have been closed long-term anywhere in the world. That's a hill I'm prepared to die on.
This was possibly one of my least subtle twitter threads ever. Though I stand by it. Schools should never, ever have been closed long-term anywhere in the world. That's a hill I'm prepared to die on.
This is the critical point. Sweden's excess deaths, I found out yesterday in the course of our discussion of Sweden's Covid approach, are better than most of Europe and worse than all of Scandi (so far!).
But regardless of that, and on the stringency index they sort of came into line or approaching it eventually, the key thing was that they never closed the schools and that, almost alone, justifies everything they did.
Do you know what I think has been the biggest change in politics in recent years? The fact that the left have become so much more censorious and authoritarian than they used to be. 20 or 30 years ago they were significantly less so than people from other parties; now they're probably more so. For instance, when you hear someone calling for a long prison sentence these days, they're almost as likely to be from the left as the right.
I think this is right, up to a point. I think that if you look at opinion surveys you will still find that people on the left are more libertarian than those on the right. But I think you are right that there has been a rise in authoritarianism on the left. It's probably exaggerated by e.g. Twitter. I think in part it is a generational thing, where millenials tend to be quite authoritarian, maybe because they have grown up in a more permissive environment and so haven't had to push back against people telling them what they can and can't do. Incidentally I suspect that millenials will become very right wing like baby boomers have as they age, while gen x will remain instinctively liberal but apathetic. Millenials have the same "it's all about me" attitude as the baby boomers. And they will be able to afford a house eventually.
You're either self-damning or older than I thought - I'm a millenial and I'm almost 40. The youngest millenials are ~25. Do you really think that group is authoritarian? Gen Z maybe (kids today...)
(I'd always assumed I was Gen X until someone on here posted the definitions)
I'd always assume I was post-boomer. But apparently I am not.
Do you still like to think "Gen X will continue to be a beacon of post-modern cynicism, pragmatic centrism and a bastion of gentle apathy"? Or slightly more boomer-sympathetic now?
I've had a lot more time for millenials since I discovered I was one!
There's TimT, and there's TimS. TimS is a late GenXer in his mid 40s living in SE London (but not the same person as OnlyLivingBoy) who considers GenX are beacons of post-modern cynicism. TimT appears to be an early GenXer or late boomer.
Fun fact: the name Tim fell off a cliff of popularity in the mid 90s, coinciding with the prominence of Harry Enfield's Tim Nice but Dim character.
My screen name here used to be "Timothy (likes zebras)".
For as long as I could remember I'd always gone as "Tim", but when I was 23 my mother made a point of telling me that she'd chosen the name Timothy for me and not Tim. I've been trying out Timothy instead, but people will always ask if they can call me Tim, and I don't really care.
My family only call me Timothy when they are annoyed with me. And Martin Timothy when they are really, really annoyed.
Actually my Dad only ever users Timothy when he is annoyed at me. My theory is that a three-syllable name is ideal for expressing annoyance as you can build up to a higher pitch of emphasis for the final syllable.
I didn't realise this until after I chose a two-syllable name for my daughter though.
But with theirs on the way up and ours on the way down.
Thank goodness we resisted the siren call to use masks and other NPIs etc during the summer and autumn.
Theirs have been rising and ours have been falling is fairer. If you want to make predictions about where case numbers are going, that's your business. I won't follow you there.
All you need to remember is that the high number of Covid cases and deaths in the UK is completely immaterial; it's the end of lockdown that counts. But in countries other than the UK, high numbers of cases and deaths are a sign of doom and massive governmental incompetence. That's right, isn't it?
Re: other countries, high numbers of cases and deaths may be an indication of bad decision-making if accompanied by more draconian measures than us. Worst of both worlds sort of thing.
The recent poll falls have not benefitted Labour with the Greens and REFUK gaining votes which does not auger well for Starmer who has had a very good week but seems uninspiring to many
Everyone keeps on saying that the recent poll falls haven't benefited Labour, but that seems to be on the basis of a superficial view of the polls and some observation bias.
The chart on wiki shows that Labour's poll score is improving.
Labour's polling is improving. And Boris has blundered into an issue that gives Labour a chance. So maybe. But I still think Labour are too far behind.
I would worry that the phenomenon of swingback seems to be pretty near universal for what seems like good reasons. Oppositions don't have to do anything, they have to oppose. They should be able to look really attractive to voters, as they can give away free owls, peacocks and unicorns without cost.
Until the election manifesto, that is, when they have to explain how to fund the free owls, peacocks and unicorns. And that inevitably means losing some voters.
Now, maybe this time, it's different .... but usually those are the words of unrealistic optimists.
I'm still holding to my prediction that Johnson will increase his majority at the next election, but making predictions is very different to [unintentionally] misrepresenting the current known facts of the polling.
I’m convinced Johnson will not be there in 12 months Time.
Off topic, Daughter and I were out in London last night. Restaurant and theatre packed. A most enjoyable evening and a much-needed break for Daughter. I am worried about the immense strain she is under.
Anyway, on our way into town (separately from some other appointments) we both noticed one thing which annoyed us and will doubtless be dismissed by many on here as hyper-sensitivity. But here goes anyway.
There is a long corridor on the interchange between the Piccadilly and Jubilee lines. On it there are various Pride posters with stories and photos from individuals. All very lovely. No objection to this at all.
There were 29 posters. Only 7 of them were women and one of these was of a mother of a gay person. So only 6 gay women out of 29. 6 women. 22 men.
Why so few women? Why so few gay women? Are their stories not worth telling?
Daughter pointed out that whenever gay marriage is talked about or discussed it is very often accompanied by illustrations of gay men getting married. Not gay women. It annoyed her.
Then on the Central line at Bond Street a big poster saying how London stands together against hate. Well, yes, who wouldn't be?
The precise words used in the poster are these -
"London stands together against hate directed at someone on our transport network because of race, religion, sexual orientation, disability or gender identity."
All very lovely. But spot what's missing. "Sex" - a protected characteristic and probably one of the single biggest reasons for attacks on women and girls. The Mayor talks a good game about Violence against Women and Girls but he cannot bring himself to mention sex in this poster. He ignores the fact that it is a "protected characteristic" in law. He is happy to include characteristics which aren't. But something which is - and which is of great concern to women, especially in relation to the risks they face when travelling - is ignored.
Why? Deliberate? Or just forgotten?
These may seem like small matters. But this sort of unconscious overlooking of women, of the female experience is all too common, all too pervasive and, ironically, occurs at a time when diversity is trumpeted loudly by all sorts of people keen to promote their progressive credentials.
I rather feel that the more people talk about diversity the less likely they are to listen to actual women or do anything practical to help them.
One day we might have 29 posters with 22 of them of women, a few men and a token father. A 50/50 representation would be a start. And - imagine - those posters, those choices were all, I expect, signed off by lots of people in numerous meeting and none of those preparing and implementing this campaign noticed what two women at both ends of the age spectrum noticed in minutes while travelling through. Or cared about the message it sends.
Grrr.....
Its deliberate because they're trying to write off sex as something that even exists.
"Gender identity" covers "sex" in his eyes so that's the end of the story.
Yup, stonewall have redefined homosexuality as same gender attraction as opposed to same sex. Lesbians need to embrace ‘girldick’ or be labelled ‘TERFS’ if they don’t with all that entails.
Not sure I understand all of that..are you saying the Stonewall position is that have to accept a man transitioning to a waman who still has their tackle.?
That is indeed the position of some trans radicals (not sure about Stonewall). A lesbian who refuses to have sex with an untransitioned trans man in possession of male genitals is not expressing a sexual preference for women, she is being "transphobic"
It is pure madness
Perhaps the trans community will join forces with the incels to demand the right to have sex with persons of their own choosing, regardless of the wishes of the targets of their 'affection'. Those claiming rape are just bigots.
That is exactly what some of the nuttier trans loons are indeed arguing.
It is a rape mentality. It is - I know some of you may not like what I am going to say next - a male mentality. Not that all males think like this. Far from it. But it is overwhelmingly only men who think like this.
And it is why changing language does not change underlying reality. When men attack gay women for not having sex with them, even though they claim to be "women", they are no different in reality from the men of my youth who called women who would not sleep with them lesbians.
Or told lesbians that a good fuck would change their minds about being lesbian.
And bizarrely the CEO of Stonewall is repeating and implicitly endorsing this view, though this time she substitutes the phrase "societal pressures" for "a good fuck".
The Virginia school loo/trans/rape story was quite eye opening
Yeah, except the guy would did the sexual assault wasn't trans.
But with theirs on the way up and ours on the way down.
Thank goodness we resisted the siren call to use masks and other NPIs etc during the summer and autumn.
Theirs have been rising and ours have been falling is fairer. If you want to make predictions about where case numbers are going, that's your business. I won't follow you there.
All you need to remember is that the high number of Covid cases and deaths in the UK is completely immaterial; it's the end of lockdown that counts. But in countries other than the UK, high numbers of cases and deaths are a sign of doom and massive governmental incompetence. That's right, isn't it?
Re: other countries, high numbers of cases and deaths may be an indication of bad decision-making if accompanied by more draconian measures than us. Worst of both worlds sort of thing.
Off topic, Daughter and I were out in London last night. Restaurant and theatre packed. A most enjoyable evening and a much-needed break for Daughter. I am worried about the immense strain she is under.
Anyway, on our way into town (separately from some other appointments) we both noticed one thing which annoyed us and will doubtless be dismissed by many on here as hyper-sensitivity. But here goes anyway.
There is a long corridor on the interchange between the Piccadilly and Jubilee lines. On it there are various Pride posters with stories and photos from individuals. All very lovely. No objection to this at all.
There were 29 posters. Only 7 of them were women and one of these was of a mother of a gay person. So only 6 gay women out of 29. 6 women. 22 men.
Why so few women? Why so few gay women? Are their stories not worth telling?
Daughter pointed out that whenever gay marriage is talked about or discussed it is very often accompanied by illustrations of gay men getting married. Not gay women. It annoyed her.
Then on the Central line at Bond Street a big poster saying how London stands together against hate. Well, yes, who wouldn't be?
The precise words used in the poster are these -
"London stands together against hate directed at someone on our transport network because of race, religion, sexual orientation, disability or gender identity."
All very lovely. But spot what's missing. "Sex" - a protected characteristic and probably one of the single biggest reasons for attacks on women and girls. The Mayor talks a good game about Violence against Women and Girls but he cannot bring himself to mention sex in this poster. He ignores the fact that it is a "protected characteristic" in law. He is happy to include characteristics which aren't. But something which is - and which is of great concern to women, especially in relation to the risks they face when travelling - is ignored.
Why? Deliberate? Or just forgotten?
These may seem like small matters. But this sort of unconscious overlooking of women, of the female experience is all too common, all too pervasive and, ironically, occurs at a time when diversity is trumpeted loudly by all sorts of people keen to promote their progressive credentials.
I rather feel that the more people talk about diversity the less likely they are to listen to actual women or do anything practical to help them.
One day we might have 29 posters with 22 of them of women, a few men and a token father. A 50/50 representation would be a start. And - imagine - those posters, those choices were all, I expect, signed off by lots of people in numerous meeting and none of those preparing and implementing this campaign noticed what two women at both ends of the age spectrum noticed in minutes while travelling through. Or cared about the message it sends.
Grrr.....
Its deliberate because they're trying to write off sex as something that even exists.
"Gender identity" covers "sex" in his eyes so that's the end of the story.
Yup, stonewall have redefined homosexuality as same gender attraction as opposed to same sex. Lesbians need to embrace ‘girldick’ or be labelled ‘TERFS’ if they don’t with all that entails.
Not sure I understand all of that..are you saying the Stonewall position is that have to accept a man transitioning to a waman who still has their tackle.?
That is indeed the position of some trans radicals (not sure about Stonewall). A lesbian who refuses to have sex with an untransitioned trans man in possession of male genitals is not expressing a sexual preference for women, she is being "transphobic"
It is pure madness
This is indeed Stonewall's position. They want the offence of rape by deception repealed in its entirety.
Also see what Stonewall's CEO said in response to the outcry about the BBC article on some lesbians feeling pressured into sex with men claiming to be women.
"Nobody should ever be pressurised into dating, or pressured into dating people they aren't attracted to. But if you find that when dating, you are writing off entire groups of people, like people of colour, fat people, disabled people or trans people, then it's worth considering how societal prejudices may have shaped your attractions."
"how societal prejudices may have shaped your attractions" .... ?
This from the CEO of a gay charity. When the very essence of being gay is that you are writing off entire groups of people as potential sexual partners. It's as if she has forgotten what being gay, what being a lesbian actually means.
As for the malicious dishonesty in seeking to equate a lesbian not wanting to have sex with a man with someone not wanting to have sex with someone of a different colour because they are a racist, words fail me.
This kind of thinking is spreading. I was berated by a middle aged lefty woke lady friend the other day, for my preference for younger women. I tried to explain to her that it is just the way I am made. I can’t help it. It’s not a choice. In fact if I had a choice I’d go for the opposite - it would be easier if I fancied older women like her. It’s a buyers market
However God made me like this. So be it
That wasn’t good enough for her tho. My inability to fancy her was, she implied, a kind of bigotry. Certainly a moral failing
I'd say with the 'older man chasing much younger woman' scenario there's been something of a shift in sentiment from 'good for him, randy old goat' and 'it's the way of the world innit' to 'urgh, sleazy'. On which topic I'm watching the Clinton/Lewinsky drama atm. Oh dear oh dear. Truly grisly behaviour from Bill. Maybe the smartest, most charismatic politician there has ever been but I think I'd have voted Guilty in his Impeachment. Absolute disgrace how he behaved.
No, this wasn't an opinion on "man with young woman" as an item, this was her opinion that men who fancy younger women are wrong to do so, and they should fancy older women like her. She was denying that sexuality is intrinsic, and instead saying it is a moral choice we make, as to who we desire, which is absurd. I cannot force myself to have an erection with someone who doesn't turn me on
As ever you duck your confused head and so, Whoosh, it goes right over
Off topic, Daughter and I were out in London last night. Restaurant and theatre packed. A most enjoyable evening and a much-needed break for Daughter. I am worried about the immense strain she is under.
Anyway, on our way into town (separately from some other appointments) we both noticed one thing which annoyed us and will doubtless be dismissed by many on here as hyper-sensitivity. But here goes anyway.
There is a long corridor on the interchange between the Piccadilly and Jubilee lines. On it there are various Pride posters with stories and photos from individuals. All very lovely. No objection to this at all.
There were 29 posters. Only 7 of them were women and one of these was of a mother of a gay person. So only 6 gay women out of 29. 6 women. 22 men.
Why so few women? Why so few gay women? Are their stories not worth telling?
Daughter pointed out that whenever gay marriage is talked about or discussed it is very often accompanied by illustrations of gay men getting married. Not gay women. It annoyed her.
Then on the Central line at Bond Street a big poster saying how London stands together against hate. Well, yes, who wouldn't be?
The precise words used in the poster are these -
"London stands together against hate directed at someone on our transport network because of race, religion, sexual orientation, disability or gender identity."
All very lovely. But spot what's missing. "Sex" - a protected characteristic and probably one of the single biggest reasons for attacks on women and girls. The Mayor talks a good game about Violence against Women and Girls but he cannot bring himself to mention sex in this poster. He ignores the fact that it is a "protected characteristic" in law. He is happy to include characteristics which aren't. But something which is - and which is of great concern to women, especially in relation to the risks they face when travelling - is ignored.
Why? Deliberate? Or just forgotten?
These may seem like small matters. But this sort of unconscious overlooking of women, of the female experience is all too common, all too pervasive and, ironically, occurs at a time when diversity is trumpeted loudly by all sorts of people keen to promote their progressive credentials.
I rather feel that the more people talk about diversity the less likely they are to listen to actual women or do anything practical to help them.
One day we might have 29 posters with 22 of them of women, a few men and a token father. A 50/50 representation would be a start. And - imagine - those posters, those choices were all, I expect, signed off by lots of people in numerous meeting and none of those preparing and implementing this campaign noticed what two women at both ends of the age spectrum noticed in minutes while travelling through. Or cared about the message it sends.
Grrr.....
Its deliberate because they're trying to write off sex as something that even exists.
"Gender identity" covers "sex" in his eyes so that's the end of the story.
Yup, stonewall have redefined homosexuality as same gender attraction as opposed to same sex. Lesbians need to embrace ‘girldick’ or be labelled ‘TERFS’ if they don’t with all that entails.
Not sure I understand all of that..are you saying the Stonewall position is that have to accept a man transitioning to a waman who still has their tackle.?
That is indeed the position of some trans radicals (not sure about Stonewall). A lesbian who refuses to have sex with an untransitioned trans man in possession of male genitals is not expressing a sexual preference for women, she is being "transphobic"
It is pure madness
Perhaps the trans community will join forces with the incels to demand the right to have sex with persons of their own choosing, regardless of the wishes of the targets of their 'affection'. Those claiming rape are just bigots.
That is exactly what some of the nuttier trans loons are indeed arguing.
It is a rape mentality. It is - I know some of you may not like what I am going to say next - a male mentality. Not that all males think like this. Far from it. But it is overwhelmingly only men who think like this.
And it is why changing language does not change underlying reality. When men attack gay women for not having sex with them, even though they claim to be "women", they are no different in reality from the men of my youth who called women who would not sleep with them lesbians.
Or told lesbians that a good fuck would change their minds about being lesbian.
And bizarrely the CEO of Stonewall is repeating and implicitly endorsing this view, though this time she substitutes the phrase "societal pressures" for "a good fuck".
It is notable that the example raised tends to be lesbian women refusing sex with transgender (but not transexual - i.e. pre-op, is that the best way to put it?) women. There are surely similar issues with gay men rejecting transgender men and staight men rejecting transgender women etc etc, but those don't seem to come up. What's the male equivalent of the TERF?
There isn't one. Almost all of the shouting matches over trans inclusion concern natal women, their rights and their exclusive spaces, because at root they're about power relationships. In short, men don't typically give trans men any thought, and most wouldn't feel at all threatened by them if they did.
I've just been Googling "Sadiq Khan" to see what he is actually *doing*
Not much. But a few things. eg He is doing THIS
"Sadiq Khan has unveiled £25,000 grants to help people change street names as part of a diversity campaign launched following Black Lives Matter protests.
"The Mayor of London has announced a £1 million fund that will be shared out among community groups, including those wishing to campaign to alter potentially offensive road names.
"Grants of up to £25,000 will support groups through all aspects of the process of changing street names, which could include enlisting consultants and compensating residents.
"The Untold Stories fund is part of the Commission for Diversity in the Public Realm, which was established following Black Lives Matter protests to diversify artwork and statuary that came under scrutiny for commemorating figures linked to empire and slavery."
Utterly pointless Woke bullshit, which also wastes money. Brilliant
"London mayor Sadiq Khan has urged the government to make face coverings mandatory on public transport as the UK continues to average more than 40,000 confirmed coronavirus cases a day for over a week."
He wants us all to mask up again. That's an inspired and innovative policy. Who saw that coming?
He's just extended the ULEZ zone which at a stroke has stopped me gadding around in my big polluting Merc. Whilst I'm not his greatest fan, eg he comes over to me as a careerist, and as I say he's making me walk everywhere, it has to be noted that much of the more visceral dislike of him is driven by him being Muslim. Not you, of course, but it's undeniably in the mix. Which is disappointing to see.
It is deniably in the mix. He’s just crap.
The only person to bring up his Muslim-ness was the equally crap Zac Goldsmith.
So iyo there are hardly any people whose dislike of him is driven by anti-Muslim prejudice? I think that's an absurdly optimistic notion. Please note I'm not in any way implying that any particular person who thinks he's rubbish is being influenced by this. It's not a smear against anybody to point out that prejudice is in the mix. Neither is it to say he isn't rubbish or some 'lefty comfort blanket' against something or other. It's just a factual comment.
implying that any particular person who thinks he's rubbish is being influenced by this But if you're thinking it, I am too. I doubt we'd be the only ones.
Ah but hang on. Take gardenwalker for eg, I am totally NOT thinking this. I must have read 1000 of his posts and not a trace of anti-muslim prejudice. Not even thinking it about leon where there has been fruitiness sometimes. Tbh it's more about where you see the quite wild-eyed stuff said about him. I think he's testified about it. He gets a lot. There, you have racism rearing its head, no question. What you also get is the slightly brighter and cagey type of racist who keeps a grip on what they say and stays carefully deniable. You know the type.
Ah yes. The people you "just know" are racist, but haven't actually done anything racist.
Bit like the witches. If I wasn't out, 24/7, burning them...
LOL this is the bad old kini.
As I noted several months ago in a post when he was flinging around accusations of racism (amended for his posts today):
"What you have to remember is that because @kinabalu for some unknown reason is very insecure he is invested in belittling views of nationality and what it means to be British and how one should react to people who are not white working class.
He does this because as a white working class lad made good (very good) and now moved away from his roots, he is confused about what he is supposed to think about these things. He feels he should condemn anyone who even mentions nationality or religion but has no views himself on them. He literally has no idea how to approach the idea of criticising someone who is not an "easy" target (ie WWC).
And hence when he bumps into people, like @Leon for example, someone he believes he is far more successful and intelligent than, but someone who is far more confident in their own opinions on such to him delicate and taboo subjects, he has literally no answer."
Holds as true today as it always has done.
Nice couch you have, Topping. Trouble is, I almost nodded off.
Same time next week?
Damn unsolicited diagnoses! He’ll be devising a scoring system to rank people next
Ah, I sense a reference to my simple yet rather sophisticated 'Class Indicator' test that you, almost alone on here, refused to take. And I could never understand why. Still, no point revisiting. The past is another country.
Doing those kind of tests then broadcasting the results is a kind of needy vanity that I’d like to avoid. Not that I always do I suppose
Off topic, Daughter and I were out in London last night. Restaurant and theatre packed. A most enjoyable evening and a much-needed break for Daughter. I am worried about the immense strain she is under.
Anyway, on our way into town (separately from some other appointments) we both noticed one thing which annoyed us and will doubtless be dismissed by many on here as hyper-sensitivity. But here goes anyway.
There is a long corridor on the interchange between the Piccadilly and Jubilee lines. On it there are various Pride posters with stories and photos from individuals. All very lovely. No objection to this at all.
There were 29 posters. Only 7 of them were women and one of these was of a mother of a gay person. So only 6 gay women out of 29. 6 women. 22 men.
Why so few women? Why so few gay women? Are their stories not worth telling?
Daughter pointed out that whenever gay marriage is talked about or discussed it is very often accompanied by illustrations of gay men getting married. Not gay women. It annoyed her.
Then on the Central line at Bond Street a big poster saying how London stands together against hate. Well, yes, who wouldn't be?
The precise words used in the poster are these -
"London stands together against hate directed at someone on our transport network because of race, religion, sexual orientation, disability or gender identity."
All very lovely. But spot what's missing. "Sex" - a protected characteristic and probably one of the single biggest reasons for attacks on women and girls. The Mayor talks a good game about Violence against Women and Girls but he cannot bring himself to mention sex in this poster. He ignores the fact that it is a "protected characteristic" in law. He is happy to include characteristics which aren't. But something which is - and which is of great concern to women, especially in relation to the risks they face when travelling - is ignored.
Why? Deliberate? Or just forgotten?
These may seem like small matters. But this sort of unconscious overlooking of women, of the female experience is all too common, all too pervasive and, ironically, occurs at a time when diversity is trumpeted loudly by all sorts of people keen to promote their progressive credentials.
I rather feel that the more people talk about diversity the less likely they are to listen to actual women or do anything practical to help them.
One day we might have 29 posters with 22 of them of women, a few men and a token father. A 50/50 representation would be a start. And - imagine - those posters, those choices were all, I expect, signed off by lots of people in numerous meeting and none of those preparing and implementing this campaign noticed what two women at both ends of the age spectrum noticed in minutes while travelling through. Or cared about the message it sends.
Grrr.....
Its deliberate because they're trying to write off sex as something that even exists.
"Gender identity" covers "sex" in his eyes so that's the end of the story.
Yup, stonewall have redefined homosexuality as same gender attraction as opposed to same sex. Lesbians need to embrace ‘girldick’ or be labelled ‘TERFS’ if they don’t with all that entails.
Not sure I understand all of that..are you saying the Stonewall position is that have to accept a man transitioning to a waman who still has their tackle.?
That is indeed the position of some trans radicals (not sure about Stonewall). A lesbian who refuses to have sex with an untransitioned trans man in possession of male genitals is not expressing a sexual preference for women, she is being "transphobic"
It is pure madness
This is indeed Stonewall's position. They want the offence of rape by deception repealed in its entirety.
Also see what Stonewall's CEO said in response to the outcry about the BBC article on some lesbians feeling pressured into sex with men claiming to be women.
"Nobody should ever be pressurised into dating, or pressured into dating people they aren't attracted to. But if you find that when dating, you are writing off entire groups of people, like people of colour, fat people, disabled people or trans people, then it's worth considering how societal prejudices may have shaped your attractions."
"how societal prejudices may have shaped your attractions" .... ?
This from the CEO of a gay charity. When the very essence of being gay is that you are writing off entire groups of people as potential sexual partners. It's as if she has forgotten what being gay, what being a lesbian actually means.
As for the malicious dishonesty in seeking to equate a lesbian not wanting to have sex with a man with someone not wanting to have sex with someone of a different colour because they are a racist, words fail me.
This kind of thinking is spreading. I was berated by a middle aged lefty woke lady friend the other day, for my preference for younger women. I tried to explain to her that it is just the way I am made. I can’t help it. It’s not a choice. In fact if I had a choice I’d go for the opposite - it would be easier if I fancied older women like her. It’s a buyers market
However God made me like this. So be it
That wasn’t good enough for her tho. My inability to fancy her was, she implied, a kind of bigotry. Certainly a moral failing
I'd say with the 'older man chasing much younger woman' scenario there's been something of a shift in sentiment from 'good for him, randy old goat' and 'it's the way of the world innit' to 'urgh, sleazy'. On which topic I'm watching the Clinton/Lewinsky drama atm. Oh dear oh dear. Truly grisly behaviour from Bill. Maybe the smartest, most charismatic politician there has ever been but I think I'd have voted Guilty in his Impeachment. Absolute disgrace how he behaved.
No, this wasn't an opinion on "man with young woman" as an item, this was her opinion that men who fancy younger women are wrong to do so, and they should fancy older women like her. She was denying that sexuality is intrinsic, and instead saying it is a moral choice we make, as to who we desire, which is absurd. I cannot force myself to have an erection with someone who doesn't turn me on
As ever you duck your confused head and so, Whoosh, it goes right over
I get your point - but you've ended up making a very pro-paedo argument.
Do you know what I think has been the biggest change in politics in recent years? The fact that the left have become so much more censorious and authoritarian than they used to be. 20 or 30 years ago they were significantly less so than people from other parties; now they're probably more so. For instance, when you hear someone calling for a long prison sentence these days, they're almost as likely to be from the left as the right.
I think this is right, up to a point. I think that if you look at opinion surveys you will still find that people on the left are more libertarian than those on the right. But I think you are right that there has been a rise in authoritarianism on the left. It's probably exaggerated by e.g. Twitter. I think in part it is a generational thing, where millenials tend to be quite authoritarian, maybe because they have grown up in a more permissive environment and so haven't had to push back against people telling them what they can and can't do. Incidentally I suspect that millenials will become very right wing like baby boomers have as they age, while gen x will remain instinctively liberal but apathetic. Millenials have the same "it's all about me" attitude as the baby boomers. And they will be able to afford a house eventually.
You're either self-damning or older than I thought - I'm a millenial and I'm almost 40. The youngest millenials are ~25. Do you really think that group is authoritarian? Gen Z maybe (kids today...)
(I'd always assumed I was Gen X until someone on here posted the definitions)
I'd always assume I was post-boomer. But apparently I am not.
Do you still like to think "Gen X will continue to be a beacon of post-modern cynicism, pragmatic centrism and a bastion of gentle apathy"? Or slightly more boomer-sympathetic now?
I've had a lot more time for millenials since I discovered I was one!
There's TimT, and there's TimS. TimS is a late GenXer in his mid 40s living in SE London (but not the same person as OnlyLivingBoy) who considers GenX are beacons of post-modern cynicism. TimT appears to be an early GenXer or late boomer.
Fun fact: the name Tim fell off a cliff of popularity in the mid 90s, coinciding with the prominence of Harry Enfield's Tim Nice but Dim character.
My screen name here used to be "Timothy (likes zebras)".
For as long as I could remember I'd always gone as "Tim", but when I was 23 my mother made a point of telling me that she'd chosen the name Timothy for me and not Tim. I've been trying out Timothy instead, but people will always ask if they can call me Tim, and I don't really care.
My family only call me Timothy when they are annoyed with me. And Martin Timothy when they are really, really annoyed.
Actually my Dad only ever users Timothy when he is annoyed at me. My theory is that a three-syllable name is ideal for expressing annoyance as you can build up to a higher pitch of emphasis for the final syllable.
I didn't realise this until after I chose a two-syllable name for my daughter though.
Our daughter's name is monosyllabic. Most unsatisfactory ...
Off topic, Daughter and I were out in London last night. Restaurant and theatre packed. A most enjoyable evening and a much-needed break for Daughter. I am worried about the immense strain she is under.
Anyway, on our way into town (separately from some other appointments) we both noticed one thing which annoyed us and will doubtless be dismissed by many on here as hyper-sensitivity. But here goes anyway.
There is a long corridor on the interchange between the Piccadilly and Jubilee lines. On it there are various Pride posters with stories and photos from individuals. All very lovely. No objection to this at all.
There were 29 posters. Only 7 of them were women and one of these was of a mother of a gay person. So only 6 gay women out of 29. 6 women. 22 men.
Why so few women? Why so few gay women? Are their stories not worth telling?
Daughter pointed out that whenever gay marriage is talked about or discussed it is very often accompanied by illustrations of gay men getting married. Not gay women. It annoyed her.
Then on the Central line at Bond Street a big poster saying how London stands together against hate. Well, yes, who wouldn't be?
The precise words used in the poster are these -
"London stands together against hate directed at someone on our transport network because of race, religion, sexual orientation, disability or gender identity."
All very lovely. But spot what's missing. "Sex" - a protected characteristic and probably one of the single biggest reasons for attacks on women and girls. The Mayor talks a good game about Violence against Women and Girls but he cannot bring himself to mention sex in this poster. He ignores the fact that it is a "protected characteristic" in law. He is happy to include characteristics which aren't. But something which is - and which is of great concern to women, especially in relation to the risks they face when travelling - is ignored.
Why? Deliberate? Or just forgotten?
These may seem like small matters. But this sort of unconscious overlooking of women, of the female experience is all too common, all too pervasive and, ironically, occurs at a time when diversity is trumpeted loudly by all sorts of people keen to promote their progressive credentials.
I rather feel that the more people talk about diversity the less likely they are to listen to actual women or do anything practical to help them.
One day we might have 29 posters with 22 of them of women, a few men and a token father. A 50/50 representation would be a start. And - imagine - those posters, those choices were all, I expect, signed off by lots of people in numerous meeting and none of those preparing and implementing this campaign noticed what two women at both ends of the age spectrum noticed in minutes while travelling through. Or cared about the message it sends.
Grrr.....
Its deliberate because they're trying to write off sex as something that even exists.
"Gender identity" covers "sex" in his eyes so that's the end of the story.
Yup, stonewall have redefined homosexuality as same gender attraction as opposed to same sex. Lesbians need to embrace ‘girldick’ or be labelled ‘TERFS’ if they don’t with all that entails.
Not sure I understand all of that..are you saying the Stonewall position is that have to accept a man transitioning to a waman who still has their tackle.?
That is indeed the position of some trans radicals (not sure about Stonewall). A lesbian who refuses to have sex with an untransitioned trans man in possession of male genitals is not expressing a sexual preference for women, she is being "transphobic"
It is pure madness
This is indeed Stonewall's position. They want the offence of rape by deception repealed in its entirety.
Also see what Stonewall's CEO said in response to the outcry about the BBC article on some lesbians feeling pressured into sex with men claiming to be women.
"Nobody should ever be pressurised into dating, or pressured into dating people they aren't attracted to. But if you find that when dating, you are writing off entire groups of people, like people of colour, fat people, disabled people or trans people, then it's worth considering how societal prejudices may have shaped your attractions."
"how societal prejudices may have shaped your attractions" .... ?
This from the CEO of a gay charity. When the very essence of being gay is that you are writing off entire groups of people as potential sexual partners. It's as if she has forgotten what being gay, what being a lesbian actually means.
As for the malicious dishonesty in seeking to equate a lesbian not wanting to have sex with a man with someone not wanting to have sex with someone of a different colour because they are a racist, words fail me.
This kind of thinking is spreading. I was berated by a middle aged lefty woke lady friend the other day, for my preference for younger women. I tried to explain to her that it is just the way I am made. I can’t help it. It’s not a choice. In fact if I had a choice I’d go for the opposite - it would be easier if I fancied older women like her. It’s a buyers market
However God made me like this. So be it
That wasn’t good enough for her tho. My inability to fancy her was, she implied, a kind of bigotry. Certainly a moral failing
I'd say with the 'older man chasing much younger woman' scenario there's been something of a shift in sentiment from 'good for him, randy old goat' and 'it's the way of the world innit' to 'urgh, sleazy'. On which topic I'm watching the Clinton/Lewinsky drama atm. Oh dear oh dear. Truly grisly behaviour from Bill. Maybe the smartest, most charismatic politician there has ever been but I think I'd have voted Guilty in his Impeachment. Absolute disgrace how he behaved.
No, this wasn't an opinion on "man with young woman" as an item, this was her opinion that men who fancy younger women are wrong to do so, and they should fancy older women like her. She was denying that sexuality is intrinsic, and instead saying it is a moral choice we make, as to who we desire, which is absurd. I cannot force myself to have an erection with someone who doesn't turn me on
As ever you duck your confused head and so, Whoosh, it goes right over
I tend to agree with your first para here. There is something over-simplistic and dogmatic about the currently fashionable idea that all sexuality is socially determined.
Off topic, Daughter and I were out in London last night. Restaurant and theatre packed. A most enjoyable evening and a much-needed break for Daughter. I am worried about the immense strain she is under.
Anyway, on our way into town (separately from some other appointments) we both noticed one thing which annoyed us and will doubtless be dismissed by many on here as hyper-sensitivity. But here goes anyway.
There is a long corridor on the interchange between the Piccadilly and Jubilee lines. On it there are various Pride posters with stories and photos from individuals. All very lovely. No objection to this at all.
There were 29 posters. Only 7 of them were women and one of these was of a mother of a gay person. So only 6 gay women out of 29. 6 women. 22 men.
Why so few women? Why so few gay women? Are their stories not worth telling?
Daughter pointed out that whenever gay marriage is talked about or discussed it is very often accompanied by illustrations of gay men getting married. Not gay women. It annoyed her.
Then on the Central line at Bond Street a big poster saying how London stands together against hate. Well, yes, who wouldn't be?
The precise words used in the poster are these -
"London stands together against hate directed at someone on our transport network because of race, religion, sexual orientation, disability or gender identity."
All very lovely. But spot what's missing. "Sex" - a protected characteristic and probably one of the single biggest reasons for attacks on women and girls. The Mayor talks a good game about Violence against Women and Girls but he cannot bring himself to mention sex in this poster. He ignores the fact that it is a "protected characteristic" in law. He is happy to include characteristics which aren't. But something which is - and which is of great concern to women, especially in relation to the risks they face when travelling - is ignored.
Why? Deliberate? Or just forgotten?
These may seem like small matters. But this sort of unconscious overlooking of women, of the female experience is all too common, all too pervasive and, ironically, occurs at a time when diversity is trumpeted loudly by all sorts of people keen to promote their progressive credentials.
I rather feel that the more people talk about diversity the less likely they are to listen to actual women or do anything practical to help them.
One day we might have 29 posters with 22 of them of women, a few men and a token father. A 50/50 representation would be a start. And - imagine - those posters, those choices were all, I expect, signed off by lots of people in numerous meeting and none of those preparing and implementing this campaign noticed what two women at both ends of the age spectrum noticed in minutes while travelling through. Or cared about the message it sends.
Grrr.....
Its deliberate because they're trying to write off sex as something that even exists.
"Gender identity" covers "sex" in his eyes so that's the end of the story.
Yup, stonewall have redefined homosexuality as same gender attraction as opposed to same sex. Lesbians need to embrace ‘girldick’ or be labelled ‘TERFS’ if they don’t with all that entails.
Not sure I understand all of that..are you saying the Stonewall position is that have to accept a man transitioning to a waman who still has their tackle.?
That is indeed the position of some trans radicals (not sure about Stonewall). A lesbian who refuses to have sex with an untransitioned trans man in possession of male genitals is not expressing a sexual preference for women, she is being "transphobic"
It is pure madness
Perhaps the trans community will join forces with the incels to demand the right to have sex with persons of their own choosing, regardless of the wishes of the targets of their 'affection'. Those claiming rape are just bigots.
That is exactly what some of the nuttier trans loons are indeed arguing.
It is a rape mentality. It is - I know some of you may not like what I am going to say next - a male mentality. Not that all males think like this. Far from it. But it is overwhelmingly only men who think like this.
And it is why changing language does not change underlying reality. When men attack gay women for not having sex with them, even though they claim to be "women", they are no different in reality from the men of my youth who called women who would not sleep with them lesbians.
Or told lesbians that a good fuck would change their minds about being lesbian.
And bizarrely the CEO of Stonewall is repeating and implicitly endorsing this view, though this time she substitutes the phrase "societal pressures" for "a good fuck".
Hello cyclefree,
There's no way any person should be pressurized into having sex with any other person. So, if lesbians are being hassled for sex by trans women on any sort of scale this is a big problem. Nothing like as big a problem as the one of women generally being hassled by men generally, but still a big problem.
But are they? I truly don't know and given my links to the lesbian dating scene are sparse these days I'm not sure how to find out.
The BBC might help maybe? Well you'd have thought so. In fact they recently published a long piece implying this WAS a widespread problem. But on examination of the small print it was based mainly on a small response Twitter poll performed by a vigorous anti-trans activist, then burnished by anecdote from a single named source - who turned out to be an unhinged individual with a criminal record who had in print called for the 'extermination' of all trans people.
I offer this to show that the nonsense is not all on one side - not by a long chalk - and that the notion of 'moral panic' and transphobia becoming an acceptable mainstream prejudice isn't without merit.
Do you know what I think has been the biggest change in politics in recent years? The fact that the left have become so much more censorious and authoritarian than they used to be. 20 or 30 years ago they were significantly less so than people from other parties; now they're probably more so. For instance, when you hear someone calling for a long prison sentence these days, they're almost as likely to be from the left as the right.
I think this is right, up to a point. I think that if you look at opinion surveys you will still find that people on the left are more libertarian than those on the right. But I think you are right that there has been a rise in authoritarianism on the left. It's probably exaggerated by e.g. Twitter. I think in part it is a generational thing, where millenials tend to be quite authoritarian, maybe because they have grown up in a more permissive environment and so haven't had to push back against people telling them what they can and can't do. Incidentally I suspect that millenials will become very right wing like baby boomers have as they age, while gen x will remain instinctively liberal but apathetic. Millenials have the same "it's all about me" attitude as the baby boomers. And they will be able to afford a house eventually.
You're either self-damning or older than I thought - I'm a millenial and I'm almost 40. The youngest millenials are ~25. Do you really think that group is authoritarian? Gen Z maybe (kids today...)
(I'd always assumed I was Gen X until someone on here posted the definitions)
I'd always assume I was post-boomer. But apparently I am not.
Do you still like to think "Gen X will continue to be a beacon of post-modern cynicism, pragmatic centrism and a bastion of gentle apathy"? Or slightly more boomer-sympathetic now?
I've had a lot more time for millenials since I discovered I was one!
There's TimT, and there's TimS. TimS is a late GenXer in his mid 40s living in SE London (but not the same person as OnlyLivingBoy) who considers GenX are beacons of post-modern cynicism. TimT appears to be an early GenXer or late boomer.
Fun fact: the name Tim fell off a cliff of popularity in the mid 90s, coinciding with the prominence of Harry Enfield's Tim Nice but Dim character.
My screen name here used to be "Timothy (likes zebras)".
For as long as I could remember I'd always gone as "Tim", but when I was 23 my mother made a point of telling me that she'd chosen the name Timothy for me and not Tim. I've been trying out Timothy instead, but people will always ask if they can call me Tim, and I don't really care.
My family only call me Timothy when they are annoyed with me. And Martin Timothy when they are really, really annoyed.
Actually my Dad only ever users Timothy when he is annoyed at me. My theory is that a three-syllable name is ideal for expressing annoyance as you can build up to a higher pitch of emphasis for the final syllable.
I didn't realise this until after I chose a two-syllable name for my daughter though.
Off topic, Daughter and I were out in London last night. Restaurant and theatre packed. A most enjoyable evening and a much-needed break for Daughter. I am worried about the immense strain she is under.
Anyway, on our way into town (separately from some other appointments) we both noticed one thing which annoyed us and will doubtless be dismissed by many on here as hyper-sensitivity. But here goes anyway.
There is a long corridor on the interchange between the Piccadilly and Jubilee lines. On it there are various Pride posters with stories and photos from individuals. All very lovely. No objection to this at all.
There were 29 posters. Only 7 of them were women and one of these was of a mother of a gay person. So only 6 gay women out of 29. 6 women. 22 men.
Why so few women? Why so few gay women? Are their stories not worth telling?
Daughter pointed out that whenever gay marriage is talked about or discussed it is very often accompanied by illustrations of gay men getting married. Not gay women. It annoyed her.
Then on the Central line at Bond Street a big poster saying how London stands together against hate. Well, yes, who wouldn't be?
The precise words used in the poster are these -
"London stands together against hate directed at someone on our transport network because of race, religion, sexual orientation, disability or gender identity."
All very lovely. But spot what's missing. "Sex" - a protected characteristic and probably one of the single biggest reasons for attacks on women and girls. The Mayor talks a good game about Violence against Women and Girls but he cannot bring himself to mention sex in this poster. He ignores the fact that it is a "protected characteristic" in law. He is happy to include characteristics which aren't. But something which is - and which is of great concern to women, especially in relation to the risks they face when travelling - is ignored.
Why? Deliberate? Or just forgotten?
These may seem like small matters. But this sort of unconscious overlooking of women, of the female experience is all too common, all too pervasive and, ironically, occurs at a time when diversity is trumpeted loudly by all sorts of people keen to promote their progressive credentials.
I rather feel that the more people talk about diversity the less likely they are to listen to actual women or do anything practical to help them.
One day we might have 29 posters with 22 of them of women, a few men and a token father. A 50/50 representation would be a start. And - imagine - those posters, those choices were all, I expect, signed off by lots of people in numerous meeting and none of those preparing and implementing this campaign noticed what two women at both ends of the age spectrum noticed in minutes while travelling through. Or cared about the message it sends.
Grrr.....
Its deliberate because they're trying to write off sex as something that even exists.
"Gender identity" covers "sex" in his eyes so that's the end of the story.
Yup, stonewall have redefined homosexuality as same gender attraction as opposed to same sex. Lesbians need to embrace ‘girldick’ or be labelled ‘TERFS’ if they don’t with all that entails.
Not sure I understand all of that..are you saying the Stonewall position is that have to accept a man transitioning to a waman who still has their tackle.?
That is indeed the position of some trans radicals (not sure about Stonewall). A lesbian who refuses to have sex with an untransitioned trans man in possession of male genitals is not expressing a sexual preference for women, she is being "transphobic"
It is pure madness
Perhaps the trans community will join forces with the incels to demand the right to have sex with persons of their own choosing, regardless of the wishes of the targets of their 'affection'. Those claiming rape are just bigots.
That is exactly what some of the nuttier trans loons are indeed arguing.
It is a rape mentality. It is - I know some of you may not like what I am going to say next - a male mentality. Not that all males think like this. Far from it. But it is overwhelmingly only men who think like this.
And it is why changing language does not change underlying reality. When men attack gay women for not having sex with them, even though they claim to be "women", they are no different in reality from the men of my youth who called women who would not sleep with them lesbians.
Or told lesbians that a good fuck would change their minds about being lesbian.
And bizarrely the CEO of Stonewall is repeating and implicitly endorsing this view, though this time she substitutes the phrase "societal pressures" for "a good fuck".
It is notable that the example raised tends to be lesbian women refusing sex with transgender (but not transexual - i.e. pre-op, is that the best way to put it?) women. There are surely similar issues with gay men rejecting transgender men and staight men rejecting transgender women etc etc, but those don't seem to come up. What's the male equivalent of the TERF?
There's also a conflating of different issues (not by you): 1: Sexual attraction/non-attraction based on sexual characteristics/organs 2: Sexual attraction based on perceived gender
I can only speak for myself, but if I was getting amorous with someone I thought was a woman and then discovered she had a penis, it would end there. I'd rule that out, I think. Penises are just not my thing. A transgender post-op woman? Not necessarily (probably not likely, I've never seen a person that I know to be transgender who I have found attractive, but if I did then I don't think I'd be particularly bothered by the history).
It is, a bit - as you alluded to earlier, I think - similar to a situation in which a gay man complains about straight men not wanting to have sex with him. Or a straight man being offended that lesbians do not want to have sex with him.
The idea of a pre-op lesbian puts me in mind of Nursey in Blackadder 2 initially identifying the baby Elizabeth as a boy born without a winkle. It's a miracle!
Do you know what I think has been the biggest change in politics in recent years? The fact that the left have become so much more censorious and authoritarian than they used to be. 20 or 30 years ago they were significantly less so than people from other parties; now they're probably more so. For instance, when you hear someone calling for a long prison sentence these days, they're almost as likely to be from the left as the right.
I think this is right, up to a point. I think that if you look at opinion surveys you will still find that people on the left are more libertarian than those on the right. But I think you are right that there has been a rise in authoritarianism on the left. It's probably exaggerated by e.g. Twitter. I think in part it is a generational thing, where millenials tend to be quite authoritarian, maybe because they have grown up in a more permissive environment and so haven't had to push back against people telling them what they can and can't do. Incidentally I suspect that millenials will become very right wing like baby boomers have as they age, while gen x will remain instinctively liberal but apathetic. Millenials have the same "it's all about me" attitude as the baby boomers. And they will be able to afford a house eventually.
You're either self-damning or older than I thought - I'm a millenial and I'm almost 40. The youngest millenials are ~25. Do you really think that group is authoritarian? Gen Z maybe (kids today...)
(I'd always assumed I was Gen X until someone on here posted the definitions)
I'd always assume I was post-boomer. But apparently I am not.
Do you still like to think "Gen X will continue to be a beacon of post-modern cynicism, pragmatic centrism and a bastion of gentle apathy"? Or slightly more boomer-sympathetic now?
I've had a lot more time for millenials since I discovered I was one!
There's TimT, and there's TimS. TimS is a late GenXer in his mid 40s living in SE London (but not the same person as OnlyLivingBoy) who considers GenX are beacons of post-modern cynicism. TimT appears to be an early GenXer or late boomer.
Fun fact: the name Tim fell off a cliff of popularity in the mid 90s, coinciding with the prominence of Harry Enfield's Tim Nice but Dim character.
My screen name here used to be "Timothy (likes zebras)".
For as long as I could remember I'd always gone as "Tim", but when I was 23 my mother made a point of telling me that she'd chosen the name Timothy for me and not Tim. I've been trying out Timothy instead, but people will always ask if they can call me Tim, and I don't really care.
My family only call me Timothy when they are annoyed with me. And Martin Timothy when they are really, really annoyed.
Actually my Dad only ever users Timothy when he is annoyed at me. My theory is that a three-syllable name is ideal for expressing annoyance as you can build up to a higher pitch of emphasis for the final syllable.
I didn't realise this until after I chose a two-syllable name for my daughter though.
Our daughter's name is monosyllabic. Most unsatisfactory ...
Isn't that what surnames are then for?
Call your child by their forename and surname and they know they're in trouble.
Off topic, Daughter and I were out in London last night. Restaurant and theatre packed. A most enjoyable evening and a much-needed break for Daughter. I am worried about the immense strain she is under.
Anyway, on our way into town (separately from some other appointments) we both noticed one thing which annoyed us and will doubtless be dismissed by many on here as hyper-sensitivity. But here goes anyway.
There is a long corridor on the interchange between the Piccadilly and Jubilee lines. On it there are various Pride posters with stories and photos from individuals. All very lovely. No objection to this at all.
There were 29 posters. Only 7 of them were women and one of these was of a mother of a gay person. So only 6 gay women out of 29. 6 women. 22 men.
Why so few women? Why so few gay women? Are their stories not worth telling?
Daughter pointed out that whenever gay marriage is talked about or discussed it is very often accompanied by illustrations of gay men getting married. Not gay women. It annoyed her.
Then on the Central line at Bond Street a big poster saying how London stands together against hate. Well, yes, who wouldn't be?
The precise words used in the poster are these -
"London stands together against hate directed at someone on our transport network because of race, religion, sexual orientation, disability or gender identity."
All very lovely. But spot what's missing. "Sex" - a protected characteristic and probably one of the single biggest reasons for attacks on women and girls. The Mayor talks a good game about Violence against Women and Girls but he cannot bring himself to mention sex in this poster. He ignores the fact that it is a "protected characteristic" in law. He is happy to include characteristics which aren't. But something which is - and which is of great concern to women, especially in relation to the risks they face when travelling - is ignored.
Why? Deliberate? Or just forgotten?
These may seem like small matters. But this sort of unconscious overlooking of women, of the female experience is all too common, all too pervasive and, ironically, occurs at a time when diversity is trumpeted loudly by all sorts of people keen to promote their progressive credentials.
I rather feel that the more people talk about diversity the less likely they are to listen to actual women or do anything practical to help them.
One day we might have 29 posters with 22 of them of women, a few men and a token father. A 50/50 representation would be a start. And - imagine - those posters, those choices were all, I expect, signed off by lots of people in numerous meeting and none of those preparing and implementing this campaign noticed what two women at both ends of the age spectrum noticed in minutes while travelling through. Or cared about the message it sends.
Grrr.....
Its deliberate because they're trying to write off sex as something that even exists.
"Gender identity" covers "sex" in his eyes so that's the end of the story.
Yup, stonewall have redefined homosexuality as same gender attraction as opposed to same sex. Lesbians need to embrace ‘girldick’ or be labelled ‘TERFS’ if they don’t with all that entails.
Not sure I understand all of that..are you saying the Stonewall position is that have to accept a man transitioning to a waman who still has their tackle.?
That is indeed the position of some trans radicals (not sure about Stonewall). A lesbian who refuses to have sex with an untransitioned trans man in possession of male genitals is not expressing a sexual preference for women, she is being "transphobic"
It is pure madness
Perhaps the trans community will join forces with the incels to demand the right to have sex with persons of their own choosing, regardless of the wishes of the targets of their 'affection'. Those claiming rape are just bigots.
That is exactly what some of the nuttier trans loons are indeed arguing.
It is a rape mentality. It is - I know some of you may not like what I am going to say next - a male mentality. Not that all males think like this. Far from it. But it is overwhelmingly only men who think like this.
And it is why changing language does not change underlying reality. When men attack gay women for not having sex with them, even though they claim to be "women", they are no different in reality from the men of my youth who called women who would not sleep with them lesbians.
Or told lesbians that a good fuck would change their minds about being lesbian.
And bizarrely the CEO of Stonewall is repeating and implicitly endorsing this view, though this time she substitutes the phrase "societal pressures" for "a good fuck".
It is notable that the example raised tends to be lesbian women refusing sex with transgender (but not transexual - i.e. pre-op, is that the best way to put it?) women. There are surely similar issues with gay men rejecting transgender men and staight men rejecting transgender women etc etc, but those don't seem to come up. What's the male equivalent of the TERF?
There isn't one. Almost all of the shouting matches over trans inclusion concern natal women, their rights and their exclusive spaces, because at root they're about power relationships. In short, men don't typically give trans men any thought, and most wouldn't feel at all threatened by them if they did.
They are also much less noticeable. Testosterone quickly leads to facial hair. Many trans men pass for being short, beardy blokes with small hands quite easily. Whether pre or post op. Although I take your broader point.
I've just been Googling "Sadiq Khan" to see what he is actually *doing*
Not much. But a few things. eg He is doing THIS
"Sadiq Khan has unveiled £25,000 grants to help people change street names as part of a diversity campaign launched following Black Lives Matter protests.
"The Mayor of London has announced a £1 million fund that will be shared out among community groups, including those wishing to campaign to alter potentially offensive road names.
"Grants of up to £25,000 will support groups through all aspects of the process of changing street names, which could include enlisting consultants and compensating residents.
"The Untold Stories fund is part of the Commission for Diversity in the Public Realm, which was established following Black Lives Matter protests to diversify artwork and statuary that came under scrutiny for commemorating figures linked to empire and slavery."
Utterly pointless Woke bullshit, which also wastes money. Brilliant
"London mayor Sadiq Khan has urged the government to make face coverings mandatory on public transport as the UK continues to average more than 40,000 confirmed coronavirus cases a day for over a week."
He wants us all to mask up again. That's an inspired and innovative policy. Who saw that coming?
He's just extended the ULEZ zone which at a stroke has stopped me gadding around in my big polluting Merc. Whilst I'm not his greatest fan, eg he comes over to me as a careerist, and as I say he's making me walk everywhere, it has to be noted that much of the more visceral dislike of him is driven by him being Muslim. Not you, of course, but it's undeniably in the mix. Which is disappointing to see.
It is deniably in the mix. He’s just crap.
The only person to bring up his Muslim-ness was the equally crap Zac Goldsmith.
So iyo there are hardly any people whose dislike of him is driven by anti-Muslim prejudice? I think that's an absurdly optimistic notion. Please note I'm not in any way implying that any particular person who thinks he's rubbish is being influenced by this. It's not a smear against anybody to point out that prejudice is in the mix. Neither is it to say he isn't rubbish or some 'lefty comfort blanket' against something or other. It's just a factual comment.
implying that any particular person who thinks he's rubbish is being influenced by this But if you're thinking it, I am too. I doubt we'd be the only ones.
Ah but hang on. Take gardenwalker for eg, I am totally NOT thinking this. I must have read 1000 of his posts and not a trace of anti-muslim prejudice. Not even thinking it about leon where there has been fruitiness sometimes. Tbh it's more about where you see the quite wild-eyed stuff said about him. I think he's testified about it. He gets a lot. There, you have racism rearing its head, no question. What you also get is the slightly brighter and cagey type of racist who keeps a grip on what they say and stays carefully deniable. You know the type.
Ah yes. The people you "just know" are racist, but haven't actually done anything racist.
Bit like the witches. If I wasn't out, 24/7, burning them...
LOL this is the bad old kini.
As I noted several months ago in a post when he was flinging around accusations of racism (amended for his posts today):
"What you have to remember is that because @kinabalu for some unknown reason is very insecure he is invested in belittling views of nationality and what it means to be British and how one should react to people who are not white working class.
He does this because as a white working class lad made good (very good) and now moved away from his roots, he is confused about what he is supposed to think about these things. He feels he should condemn anyone who even mentions nationality or religion but has no views himself on them. He literally has no idea how to approach the idea of criticising someone who is not an "easy" target (ie WWC).
And hence when he bumps into people, like @Leon for example, someone he believes he is far more successful and intelligent than, but someone who is far more confident in their own opinions on such to him delicate and taboo subjects, he has literally no answer."
Holds as true today as it always has done.
Nice couch you have, Topping. Trouble is, I almost nodded off.
Same time next week?
Damn unsolicited diagnoses! He’ll be devising a scoring system to rank people next
Ah, I sense a reference to my simple yet rather sophisticated 'Class Indicator' test that you, almost alone on here, refused to take. And I could never understand why. Still, no point revisiting. The past is another country.
It's not dead. It's not even past. What is the test?
I'd have to dig it out. Which I will and we'll give it another float. Excellent!
Do you know what I think has been the biggest change in politics in recent years? The fact that the left have become so much more censorious and authoritarian than they used to be. 20 or 30 years ago they were significantly less so than people from other parties; now they're probably more so. For instance, when you hear someone calling for a long prison sentence these days, they're almost as likely to be from the left as the right.
I think this is right, up to a point. I think that if you look at opinion surveys you will still find that people on the left are more libertarian than those on the right. But I think you are right that there has been a rise in authoritarianism on the left. It's probably exaggerated by e.g. Twitter. I think in part it is a generational thing, where millenials tend to be quite authoritarian, maybe because they have grown up in a more permissive environment and so haven't had to push back against people telling them what they can and can't do. Incidentally I suspect that millenials will become very right wing like baby boomers have as they age, while gen x will remain instinctively liberal but apathetic. Millenials have the same "it's all about me" attitude as the baby boomers. And they will be able to afford a house eventually.
You're either self-damning or older than I thought - I'm a millenial and I'm almost 40. The youngest millenials are ~25. Do you really think that group is authoritarian? Gen Z maybe (kids today...)
(I'd always assumed I was Gen X until someone on here posted the definitions)
I'd always assume I was post-boomer. But apparently I am not.
Do you still like to think "Gen X will continue to be a beacon of post-modern cynicism, pragmatic centrism and a bastion of gentle apathy"? Or slightly more boomer-sympathetic now?
I've had a lot more time for millenials since I discovered I was one!
There's TimT, and there's TimS. TimS is a late GenXer in his mid 40s living in SE London (but not the same person as OnlyLivingBoy) who considers GenX are beacons of post-modern cynicism. TimT appears to be an early GenXer or late boomer.
Fun fact: the name Tim fell off a cliff of popularity in the mid 90s, coinciding with the prominence of Harry Enfield's Tim Nice but Dim character.
My screen name here used to be "Timothy (likes zebras)".
For as long as I could remember I'd always gone as "Tim", but when I was 23 my mother made a point of telling me that she'd chosen the name Timothy for me and not Tim. I've been trying out Timothy instead, but people will always ask if they can call me Tim, and I don't really care.
My family only call me Timothy when they are annoyed with me. And Martin Timothy when they are really, really annoyed.
It seems surprisingly common as a parental tactic. I know a childwhose parents always call them Benjy, except when they are in trouble. And the parents get pretty shirty if someone should call them Ben.
But with theirs on the way up and ours on the way down.
Thank goodness we resisted the siren call to use masks and other NPIs etc during the summer and autumn.
Theirs have been rising and ours have been falling is fairer. If you want to make predictions about where case numbers are going, that's your business. I won't follow you there.
All you need to remember is that the high number of Covid cases and deaths in the UK is completely immaterial; it's the end of lockdown that counts. But in countries other than the UK, high numbers of cases and deaths are a sign of doom and massive governmental incompetence. That's right, isn't it?
Re: other countries, high numbers of cases and deaths may be an indication of bad decision-making if accompanied by more draconian measures than us. Worst of both worlds sort of thing.
Do you believe that the UK is currently 60% more restricted than Denmark?
I had a look at the Bloomberg index today that was posted here a few days ago. Some of the measures are a bit ridiculous, like proportion of international flight traffic vs 2019.
As I said yesterday, the UK having no real restrictions is seemingly being completely ignored by the whole world as it defies the idea that only lockdown measures can bring cases down.
I suspect there will be more of a reaction if Boris Johnson is questioned under caution or if his aides are.
Well when that happens I am sure you will let us know
Until then, #shrugs#
I'm not expecting to go anywhere but I don't think Boris Johnson is as talented as answering police questions as Tony Blair, I know that's an unfair comparison as one is an eminent QC whilst the other isn't.
I think that's the inherent problem for Boris Johnson in this.
Off topic, Daughter and I were out in London last night. Restaurant and theatre packed. A most enjoyable evening and a much-needed break for Daughter. I am worried about the immense strain she is under.
Anyway, on our way into town (separately from some other appointments) we both noticed one thing which annoyed us and will doubtless be dismissed by many on here as hyper-sensitivity. But here goes anyway.
There is a long corridor on the interchange between the Piccadilly and Jubilee lines. On it there are various Pride posters with stories and photos from individuals. All very lovely. No objection to this at all.
There were 29 posters. Only 7 of them were women and one of these was of a mother of a gay person. So only 6 gay women out of 29. 6 women. 22 men.
Why so few women? Why so few gay women? Are their stories not worth telling?
Daughter pointed out that whenever gay marriage is talked about or discussed it is very often accompanied by illustrations of gay men getting married. Not gay women. It annoyed her.
Then on the Central line at Bond Street a big poster saying how London stands together against hate. Well, yes, who wouldn't be?
The precise words used in the poster are these -
"London stands together against hate directed at someone on our transport network because of race, religion, sexual orientation, disability or gender identity."
All very lovely. But spot what's missing. "Sex" - a protected characteristic and probably one of the single biggest reasons for attacks on women and girls. The Mayor talks a good game about Violence against Women and Girls but he cannot bring himself to mention sex in this poster. He ignores the fact that it is a "protected characteristic" in law. He is happy to include characteristics which aren't. But something which is - and which is of great concern to women, especially in relation to the risks they face when travelling - is ignored.
Why? Deliberate? Or just forgotten?
These may seem like small matters. But this sort of unconscious overlooking of women, of the female experience is all too common, all too pervasive and, ironically, occurs at a time when diversity is trumpeted loudly by all sorts of people keen to promote their progressive credentials.
I rather feel that the more people talk about diversity the less likely they are to listen to actual women or do anything practical to help them.
One day we might have 29 posters with 22 of them of women, a few men and a token father. A 50/50 representation would be a start. And - imagine - those posters, those choices were all, I expect, signed off by lots of people in numerous meeting and none of those preparing and implementing this campaign noticed what two women at both ends of the age spectrum noticed in minutes while travelling through. Or cared about the message it sends.
Grrr.....
Its deliberate because they're trying to write off sex as something that even exists.
"Gender identity" covers "sex" in his eyes so that's the end of the story.
Yup, stonewall have redefined homosexuality as same gender attraction as opposed to same sex. Lesbians need to embrace ‘girldick’ or be labelled ‘TERFS’ if they don’t with all that entails.
Not sure I understand all of that..are you saying the Stonewall position is that have to accept a man transitioning to a waman who still has their tackle.?
That is indeed the position of some trans radicals (not sure about Stonewall). A lesbian who refuses to have sex with an untransitioned trans man in possession of male genitals is not expressing a sexual preference for women, she is being "transphobic"
It is pure madness
This is indeed Stonewall's position. They want the offence of rape by deception repealed in its entirety.
Also see what Stonewall's CEO said in response to the outcry about the BBC article on some lesbians feeling pressured into sex with men claiming to be women.
"Nobody should ever be pressurised into dating, or pressured into dating people they aren't attracted to. But if you find that when dating, you are writing off entire groups of people, like people of colour, fat people, disabled people or trans people, then it's worth considering how societal prejudices may have shaped your attractions."
"how societal prejudices may have shaped your attractions" .... ?
This from the CEO of a gay charity. When the very essence of being gay is that you are writing off entire groups of people as potential sexual partners. It's as if she has forgotten what being gay, what being a lesbian actually means.
As for the malicious dishonesty in seeking to equate a lesbian not wanting to have sex with a man with someone not wanting to have sex with someone of a different colour because they are a racist, words fail me.
This kind of thinking is spreading. I was berated by a middle aged lefty woke lady friend the other day, for my preference for younger women. I tried to explain to her that it is just the way I am made. I can’t help it. It’s not a choice. In fact if I had a choice I’d go for the opposite - it would be easier if I fancied older women like her. It’s a buyers market
However God made me like this. So be it
That wasn’t good enough for her tho. My inability to fancy her was, she implied, a kind of bigotry. Certainly a moral failing
I'd say with the 'older man chasing much younger woman' scenario there's been something of a shift in sentiment from 'good for him, randy old goat' and 'it's the way of the world innit' to 'urgh, sleazy'. On which topic I'm watching the Clinton/Lewinsky drama atm. Oh dear oh dear. Truly grisly behaviour from Bill. Maybe the smartest, most charismatic politician there has ever been but I think I'd have voted Guilty in his Impeachment. Absolute disgrace how he behaved.
No, this wasn't an opinion on "man with young woman" as an item, this was her opinion that men who fancy younger women are wrong to do so, and they should fancy older women like her. She was denying that sexuality is intrinsic, and instead saying it is a moral choice we make, as to who we desire, which is absurd. I cannot force myself to have an erection with someone who doesn't turn me on
As ever you duck your confused head and so, Whoosh, it goes right over
I get your point - but you've ended up making a very pro-paedo argument.
I really really REALLY haven't. And I strongly object
I am saying that sexuality is innate, we are born gay or bi or straight or whatever. We don't get to choose. This leads to much misery, but it is better to accept it.
This is absolutely not pro-Pedo, FFS. Pedophilia is a crime, and a vile, despicable crime at that. It ruins lives.
But is a pedophile born a pedophile? Almost certainly. And it is this which makes them so dangerous. They cannot be "cured". It never goes away. Once discovered, they have to be watched for the rest of their lives.
I am actually making the opposite argument to the one you think
I've just been Googling "Sadiq Khan" to see what he is actually *doing*
Not much. But a few things. eg He is doing THIS
"Sadiq Khan has unveiled £25,000 grants to help people change street names as part of a diversity campaign launched following Black Lives Matter protests.
"The Mayor of London has announced a £1 million fund that will be shared out among community groups, including those wishing to campaign to alter potentially offensive road names.
"Grants of up to £25,000 will support groups through all aspects of the process of changing street names, which could include enlisting consultants and compensating residents.
"The Untold Stories fund is part of the Commission for Diversity in the Public Realm, which was established following Black Lives Matter protests to diversify artwork and statuary that came under scrutiny for commemorating figures linked to empire and slavery."
Utterly pointless Woke bullshit, which also wastes money. Brilliant
"London mayor Sadiq Khan has urged the government to make face coverings mandatory on public transport as the UK continues to average more than 40,000 confirmed coronavirus cases a day for over a week."
He wants us all to mask up again. That's an inspired and innovative policy. Who saw that coming?
He's just extended the ULEZ zone which at a stroke has stopped me gadding around in my big polluting Merc. Whilst I'm not his greatest fan, eg he comes over to me as a careerist, and as I say he's making me walk everywhere, it has to be noted that much of the more visceral dislike of him is driven by him being Muslim. Not you, of course, but it's undeniably in the mix. Which is disappointing to see.
It is deniably in the mix. He’s just crap.
The only person to bring up his Muslim-ness was the equally crap Zac Goldsmith.
So iyo there are hardly any people whose dislike of him is driven by anti-Muslim prejudice? I think that's an absurdly optimistic notion. Please note I'm not in any way implying that any particular person who thinks he's rubbish is being influenced by this. It's not a smear against anybody to point out that prejudice is in the mix. Neither is it to say he isn't rubbish or some 'lefty comfort blanket' against something or other. It's just a factual comment.
implying that any particular person who thinks he's rubbish is being influenced by this But if you're thinking it, I am too. I doubt we'd be the only ones.
Ah but hang on. Take gardenwalker for eg, I am totally NOT thinking this. I must have read 1000 of his posts and not a trace of anti-muslim prejudice. Not even thinking it about leon where there has been fruitiness sometimes. Tbh it's more about where you see the quite wild-eyed stuff said about him. I think he's testified about it. He gets a lot. There, you have racism rearing its head, no question. What you also get is the slightly brighter and cagey type of racist who keeps a grip on what they say and stays carefully deniable. You know the type.
Ah yes. The people you "just know" are racist, but haven't actually done anything racist.
Bit like the witches. If I wasn't out, 24/7, burning them...
LOL this is the bad old kini.
As I noted several months ago in a post when he was flinging around accusations of racism (amended for his posts today):
"What you have to remember is that because @kinabalu for some unknown reason is very insecure he is invested in belittling views of nationality and what it means to be British and how one should react to people who are not white working class.
He does this because as a white working class lad made good (very good) and now moved away from his roots, he is confused about what he is supposed to think about these things. He feels he should condemn anyone who even mentions nationality or religion but has no views himself on them. He literally has no idea how to approach the idea of criticising someone who is not an "easy" target (ie WWC).
And hence when he bumps into people, like @Leon for example, someone he believes he is far more successful and intelligent than, but someone who is far more confident in their own opinions on such to him delicate and taboo subjects, he has literally no answer."
Holds as true today as it always has done.
Nice couch you have, Topping. Trouble is, I almost nodded off.
Same time next week?
Damn unsolicited diagnoses! He’ll be devising a scoring system to rank people next
Ah, I sense a reference to my simple yet rather sophisticated 'Class Indicator' test that you, almost alone on here, refused to take. And I could never understand why. Still, no point revisiting. The past is another country.
I must have missed it or forgotten it - what was the class indicator test?
Off topic, Daughter and I were out in London last night. Restaurant and theatre packed. A most enjoyable evening and a much-needed break for Daughter. I am worried about the immense strain she is under.
Anyway, on our way into town (separately from some other appointments) we both noticed one thing which annoyed us and will doubtless be dismissed by many on here as hyper-sensitivity. But here goes anyway.
There is a long corridor on the interchange between the Piccadilly and Jubilee lines. On it there are various Pride posters with stories and photos from individuals. All very lovely. No objection to this at all.
There were 29 posters. Only 7 of them were women and one of these was of a mother of a gay person. So only 6 gay women out of 29. 6 women. 22 men.
Why so few women? Why so few gay women? Are their stories not worth telling?
Daughter pointed out that whenever gay marriage is talked about or discussed it is very often accompanied by illustrations of gay men getting married. Not gay women. It annoyed her.
Then on the Central line at Bond Street a big poster saying how London stands together against hate. Well, yes, who wouldn't be?
The precise words used in the poster are these -
"London stands together against hate directed at someone on our transport network because of race, religion, sexual orientation, disability or gender identity."
All very lovely. But spot what's missing. "Sex" - a protected characteristic and probably one of the single biggest reasons for attacks on women and girls. The Mayor talks a good game about Violence against Women and Girls but he cannot bring himself to mention sex in this poster. He ignores the fact that it is a "protected characteristic" in law. He is happy to include characteristics which aren't. But something which is - and which is of great concern to women, especially in relation to the risks they face when travelling - is ignored.
Why? Deliberate? Or just forgotten?
These may seem like small matters. But this sort of unconscious overlooking of women, of the female experience is all too common, all too pervasive and, ironically, occurs at a time when diversity is trumpeted loudly by all sorts of people keen to promote their progressive credentials.
I rather feel that the more people talk about diversity the less likely they are to listen to actual women or do anything practical to help them.
One day we might have 29 posters with 22 of them of women, a few men and a token father. A 50/50 representation would be a start. And - imagine - those posters, those choices were all, I expect, signed off by lots of people in numerous meeting and none of those preparing and implementing this campaign noticed what two women at both ends of the age spectrum noticed in minutes while travelling through. Or cared about the message it sends.
Grrr.....
Its deliberate because they're trying to write off sex as something that even exists.
"Gender identity" covers "sex" in his eyes so that's the end of the story.
Yup, stonewall have redefined homosexuality as same gender attraction as opposed to same sex. Lesbians need to embrace ‘girldick’ or be labelled ‘TERFS’ if they don’t with all that entails.
Not sure I understand all of that..are you saying the Stonewall position is that have to accept a man transitioning to a waman who still has their tackle.?
That is indeed the position of some trans radicals (not sure about Stonewall). A lesbian who refuses to have sex with an untransitioned trans man in possession of male genitals is not expressing a sexual preference for women, she is being "transphobic"
It is pure madness
This is indeed Stonewall's position. They want the offence of rape by deception repealed in its entirety.
Also see what Stonewall's CEO said in response to the outcry about the BBC article on some lesbians feeling pressured into sex with men claiming to be women.
"Nobody should ever be pressurised into dating, or pressured into dating people they aren't attracted to. But if you find that when dating, you are writing off entire groups of people, like people of colour, fat people, disabled people or trans people, then it's worth considering how societal prejudices may have shaped your attractions."
"how societal prejudices may have shaped your attractions" .... ?
This from the CEO of a gay charity. When the very essence of being gay is that you are writing off entire groups of people as potential sexual partners. It's as if she has forgotten what being gay, what being a lesbian actually means.
As for the malicious dishonesty in seeking to equate a lesbian not wanting to have sex with a man with someone not wanting to have sex with someone of a different colour because they are a racist, words fail me.
This kind of thinking is spreading. I was berated by a middle aged lefty woke lady friend the other day, for my preference for younger women. I tried to explain to her that it is just the way I am made. I can’t help it. It’s not a choice. In fact if I had a choice I’d go for the opposite - it would be easier if I fancied older women like her. It’s a buyers market
However God made me like this. So be it
That wasn’t good enough for her tho. My inability to fancy her was, she implied, a kind of bigotry. Certainly a moral failing
I'd say with the 'older man chasing much younger woman' scenario there's been something of a shift in sentiment from 'good for him, randy old goat' and 'it's the way of the world innit' to 'urgh, sleazy'. On which topic I'm watching the Clinton/Lewinsky drama atm. Oh dear oh dear. Truly grisly behaviour from Bill. Maybe the smartest, most charismatic politician there has ever been but I think I'd have voted Guilty in his Impeachment. Absolute disgrace how he behaved.
No, this wasn't an opinion on "man with young woman" as an item, this was her opinion that men who fancy younger women are wrong to do so, and they should fancy older women like her. She was denying that sexuality is intrinsic, and instead saying it is a moral choice we make, as to who we desire, which is absurd. I cannot force myself to have an erection with someone who doesn't turn me on
As ever you duck your confused head and so, Whoosh, it goes right over
I get your point - but you've ended up making a very pro-paedo argument.
I really really REALLY haven't. And I strongly object
I am saying that sexuality is innate, we are born gay or bi or straight or whatever. We don't get to choose. This leads to much misery, but it is better to accept it.
This is absolutely not pro-Pedo, FFS. Pedophilia is a crime, and a vile, despicable crime at that. It ruins lives.
But is a pedophile born a pedophile? Almost certainly. And it is this which makes them so dangerous. They cannot be "cured". It never goes away. Once discovered, they have to be watched for the rest of their lives.
I am actually making the opposite argument to the one you think
It's very likely in fact linked to some form of mental illness, as some preliminary research shows, and is indeed a different topic.
Do you know what I think has been the biggest change in politics in recent years? The fact that the left have become so much more censorious and authoritarian than they used to be. 20 or 30 years ago they were significantly less so than people from other parties; now they're probably more so. For instance, when you hear someone calling for a long prison sentence these days, they're almost as likely to be from the left as the right.
I think this is right, up to a point. I think that if you look at opinion surveys you will still find that people on the left are more libertarian than those on the right. But I think you are right that there has been a rise in authoritarianism on the left. It's probably exaggerated by e.g. Twitter. I think in part it is a generational thing, where millenials tend to be quite authoritarian, maybe because they have grown up in a more permissive environment and so haven't had to push back against people telling them what they can and can't do. Incidentally I suspect that millenials will become very right wing like baby boomers have as they age, while gen x will remain instinctively liberal but apathetic. Millenials have the same "it's all about me" attitude as the baby boomers. And they will be able to afford a house eventually.
You're either self-damning or older than I thought - I'm a millenial and I'm almost 40. The youngest millenials are ~25. Do you really think that group is authoritarian? Gen Z maybe (kids today...)
(I'd always assumed I was Gen X until someone on here posted the definitions)
I'd always assume I was post-boomer. But apparently I am not.
Do you still like to think "Gen X will continue to be a beacon of post-modern cynicism, pragmatic centrism and a bastion of gentle apathy"? Or slightly more boomer-sympathetic now?
I've had a lot more time for millenials since I discovered I was one!
There's TimT, and there's TimS. TimS is a late GenXer in his mid 40s living in SE London (but not the same person as OnlyLivingBoy) who considers GenX are beacons of post-modern cynicism. TimT appears to be an early GenXer or late boomer.
Fun fact: the name Tim fell off a cliff of popularity in the mid 90s, coinciding with the prominence of Harry Enfield's Tim Nice but Dim character.
My screen name here used to be "Timothy (likes zebras)".
For as long as I could remember I'd always gone as "Tim", but when I was 23 my mother made a point of telling me that she'd chosen the name Timothy for me and not Tim. I've been trying out Timothy instead, but people will always ask if they can call me Tim, and I don't really care.
My family only call me Timothy when they are annoyed with me. And Martin Timothy when they are really, really annoyed.
Actually my Dad only ever users Timothy when he is annoyed at me. My theory is that a three-syllable name is ideal for expressing annoyance as you can build up to a higher pitch of emphasis for the final syllable.
I didn't realise this until after I chose a two-syllable name for my daughter though.
Off topic, Daughter and I were out in London last night. Restaurant and theatre packed. A most enjoyable evening and a much-needed break for Daughter. I am worried about the immense strain she is under.
Anyway, on our way into town (separately from some other appointments) we both noticed one thing which annoyed us and will doubtless be dismissed by many on here as hyper-sensitivity. But here goes anyway.
There is a long corridor on the interchange between the Piccadilly and Jubilee lines. On it there are various Pride posters with stories and photos from individuals. All very lovely. No objection to this at all.
There were 29 posters. Only 7 of them were women and one of these was of a mother of a gay person. So only 6 gay women out of 29. 6 women. 22 men.
Why so few women? Why so few gay women? Are their stories not worth telling?
Daughter pointed out that whenever gay marriage is talked about or discussed it is very often accompanied by illustrations of gay men getting married. Not gay women. It annoyed her.
Then on the Central line at Bond Street a big poster saying how London stands together against hate. Well, yes, who wouldn't be?
The precise words used in the poster are these -
"London stands together against hate directed at someone on our transport network because of race, religion, sexual orientation, disability or gender identity."
All very lovely. But spot what's missing. "Sex" - a protected characteristic and probably one of the single biggest reasons for attacks on women and girls. The Mayor talks a good game about Violence against Women and Girls but he cannot bring himself to mention sex in this poster. He ignores the fact that it is a "protected characteristic" in law. He is happy to include characteristics which aren't. But something which is - and which is of great concern to women, especially in relation to the risks they face when travelling - is ignored.
Why? Deliberate? Or just forgotten?
These may seem like small matters. But this sort of unconscious overlooking of women, of the female experience is all too common, all too pervasive and, ironically, occurs at a time when diversity is trumpeted loudly by all sorts of people keen to promote their progressive credentials.
I rather feel that the more people talk about diversity the less likely they are to listen to actual women or do anything practical to help them.
One day we might have 29 posters with 22 of them of women, a few men and a token father. A 50/50 representation would be a start. And - imagine - those posters, those choices were all, I expect, signed off by lots of people in numerous meeting and none of those preparing and implementing this campaign noticed what two women at both ends of the age spectrum noticed in minutes while travelling through. Or cared about the message it sends.
Grrr.....
Its deliberate because they're trying to write off sex as something that even exists.
"Gender identity" covers "sex" in his eyes so that's the end of the story.
Yup, stonewall have redefined homosexuality as same gender attraction as opposed to same sex. Lesbians need to embrace ‘girldick’ or be labelled ‘TERFS’ if they don’t with all that entails.
Not sure I understand all of that..are you saying the Stonewall position is that have to accept a man transitioning to a waman who still has their tackle.?
That is indeed the position of some trans radicals (not sure about Stonewall). A lesbian who refuses to have sex with an untransitioned trans man in possession of male genitals is not expressing a sexual preference for women, she is being "transphobic"
It is pure madness
This is indeed Stonewall's position. They want the offence of rape by deception repealed in its entirety.
Also see what Stonewall's CEO said in response to the outcry about the BBC article on some lesbians feeling pressured into sex with men claiming to be women.
"Nobody should ever be pressurised into dating, or pressured into dating people they aren't attracted to. But if you find that when dating, you are writing off entire groups of people, like people of colour, fat people, disabled people or trans people, then it's worth considering how societal prejudices may have shaped your attractions."
"how societal prejudices may have shaped your attractions" .... ?
This from the CEO of a gay charity. When the very essence of being gay is that you are writing off entire groups of people as potential sexual partners. It's as if she has forgotten what being gay, what being a lesbian actually means.
As for the malicious dishonesty in seeking to equate a lesbian not wanting to have sex with a man with someone not wanting to have sex with someone of a different colour because they are a racist, words fail me.
This kind of thinking is spreading. I was berated by a middle aged lefty woke lady friend the other day, for my preference for younger women. I tried to explain to her that it is just the way I am made. I can’t help it. It’s not a choice. In fact if I had a choice I’d go for the opposite - it would be easier if I fancied older women like her. It’s a buyers market
However God made me like this. So be it
That wasn’t good enough for her tho. My inability to fancy her was, she implied, a kind of bigotry. Certainly a moral failing
I'd say with the 'older man chasing much younger woman' scenario there's been something of a shift in sentiment from 'good for him, randy old goat' and 'it's the way of the world innit' to 'urgh, sleazy'. On which topic I'm watching the Clinton/Lewinsky drama atm. Oh dear oh dear. Truly grisly behaviour from Bill. Maybe the smartest, most charismatic politician there has ever been but I think I'd have voted Guilty in his Impeachment. Absolute disgrace how he behaved.
No, this wasn't an opinion on "man with young woman" as an item, this was her opinion that men who fancy younger women are wrong to do so, and they should fancy older women like her. She was denying that sexuality is intrinsic, and instead saying it is a moral choice we make, as to who we desire, which is absurd. I cannot force myself to have an erection with someone who doesn't turn me on
As ever you duck your confused head and so, Whoosh, it goes right over
I get your point - but you've ended up making a very pro-paedo argument.
I am actually making the opposite argument to the one you think
I'm not sure you are. But I think we should probably let this debate fritter away...
Do you know what I think has been the biggest change in politics in recent years? The fact that the left have become so much more censorious and authoritarian than they used to be. 20 or 30 years ago they were significantly less so than people from other parties; now they're probably more so. For instance, when you hear someone calling for a long prison sentence these days, they're almost as likely to be from the left as the right.
I think this is right, up to a point. I think that if you look at opinion surveys you will still find that people on the left are more libertarian than those on the right. But I think you are right that there has been a rise in authoritarianism on the left. It's probably exaggerated by e.g. Twitter. I think in part it is a generational thing, where millenials tend to be quite authoritarian, maybe because they have grown up in a more permissive environment and so haven't had to push back against people telling them what they can and can't do. Incidentally I suspect that millenials will become very right wing like baby boomers have as they age, while gen x will remain instinctively liberal but apathetic. Millenials have the same "it's all about me" attitude as the baby boomers. And they will be able to afford a house eventually.
You're either self-damning or older than I thought - I'm a millenial and I'm almost 40. The youngest millenials are ~25. Do you really think that group is authoritarian? Gen Z maybe (kids today...)
(I'd always assumed I was Gen X until someone on here posted the definitions)
I'd always assume I was post-boomer. But apparently I am not.
Do you still like to think "Gen X will continue to be a beacon of post-modern cynicism, pragmatic centrism and a bastion of gentle apathy"? Or slightly more boomer-sympathetic now?
I've had a lot more time for millenials since I discovered I was one!
There's TimT, and there's TimS. TimS is a late GenXer in his mid 40s living in SE London (but not the same person as OnlyLivingBoy) who considers GenX are beacons of post-modern cynicism. TimT appears to be an early GenXer or late boomer.
Fun fact: the name Tim fell off a cliff of popularity in the mid 90s, coinciding with the prominence of Harry Enfield's Tim Nice but Dim character.
My screen name here used to be "Timothy (likes zebras)".
For as long as I could remember I'd always gone as "Tim", but when I was 23 my mother made a point of telling me that she'd chosen the name Timothy for me and not Tim. I've been trying out Timothy instead, but people will always ask if they can call me Tim, and I don't really care.
My family only call me Timothy when they are annoyed with me. And Martin Timothy when they are really, really annoyed.
And to join the fun, I can out myself as 'Tim' as well, but never Timothy, except officially.
Off topic, Daughter and I were out in London last night. Restaurant and theatre packed. A most enjoyable evening and a much-needed break for Daughter. I am worried about the immense strain she is under.
Anyway, on our way into town (separately from some other appointments) we both noticed one thing which annoyed us and will doubtless be dismissed by many on here as hyper-sensitivity. But here goes anyway.
There is a long corridor on the interchange between the Piccadilly and Jubilee lines. On it there are various Pride posters with stories and photos from individuals. All very lovely. No objection to this at all.
There were 29 posters. Only 7 of them were women and one of these was of a mother of a gay person. So only 6 gay women out of 29. 6 women. 22 men.
Why so few women? Why so few gay women? Are their stories not worth telling?
Daughter pointed out that whenever gay marriage is talked about or discussed it is very often accompanied by illustrations of gay men getting married. Not gay women. It annoyed her.
Then on the Central line at Bond Street a big poster saying how London stands together against hate. Well, yes, who wouldn't be?
The precise words used in the poster are these -
"London stands together against hate directed at someone on our transport network because of race, religion, sexual orientation, disability or gender identity."
All very lovely. But spot what's missing. "Sex" - a protected characteristic and probably one of the single biggest reasons for attacks on women and girls. The Mayor talks a good game about Violence against Women and Girls but he cannot bring himself to mention sex in this poster. He ignores the fact that it is a "protected characteristic" in law. He is happy to include characteristics which aren't. But something which is - and which is of great concern to women, especially in relation to the risks they face when travelling - is ignored.
Why? Deliberate? Or just forgotten?
These may seem like small matters. But this sort of unconscious overlooking of women, of the female experience is all too common, all too pervasive and, ironically, occurs at a time when diversity is trumpeted loudly by all sorts of people keen to promote their progressive credentials.
I rather feel that the more people talk about diversity the less likely they are to listen to actual women or do anything practical to help them.
One day we might have 29 posters with 22 of them of women, a few men and a token father. A 50/50 representation would be a start. And - imagine - those posters, those choices were all, I expect, signed off by lots of people in numerous meeting and none of those preparing and implementing this campaign noticed what two women at both ends of the age spectrum noticed in minutes while travelling through. Or cared about the message it sends.
Grrr.....
Its deliberate because they're trying to write off sex as something that even exists.
"Gender identity" covers "sex" in his eyes so that's the end of the story.
Yup, stonewall have redefined homosexuality as same gender attraction as opposed to same sex. Lesbians need to embrace ‘girldick’ or be labelled ‘TERFS’ if they don’t with all that entails.
Not sure I understand all of that..are you saying the Stonewall position is that have to accept a man transitioning to a waman who still has their tackle.?
That is indeed the position of some trans radicals (not sure about Stonewall). A lesbian who refuses to have sex with an untransitioned trans man in possession of male genitals is not expressing a sexual preference for women, she is being "transphobic"
It is pure madness
This is indeed Stonewall's position. They want the offence of rape by deception repealed in its entirety.
Also see what Stonewall's CEO said in response to the outcry about the BBC article on some lesbians feeling pressured into sex with men claiming to be women.
"Nobody should ever be pressurised into dating, or pressured into dating people they aren't attracted to. But if you find that when dating, you are writing off entire groups of people, like people of colour, fat people, disabled people or trans people, then it's worth considering how societal prejudices may have shaped your attractions."
"how societal prejudices may have shaped your attractions" .... ?
This from the CEO of a gay charity. When the very essence of being gay is that you are writing off entire groups of people as potential sexual partners. It's as if she has forgotten what being gay, what being a lesbian actually means.
As for the malicious dishonesty in seeking to equate a lesbian not wanting to have sex with a man with someone not wanting to have sex with someone of a different colour because they are a racist, words fail me.
This kind of thinking is spreading. I was berated by a middle aged lefty woke lady friend the other day, for my preference for younger women. I tried to explain to her that it is just the way I am made. I can’t help it. It’s not a choice. In fact if I had a choice I’d go for the opposite - it would be easier if I fancied older women like her. It’s a buyers market
However God made me like this. So be it
That wasn’t good enough for her tho. My inability to fancy her was, she implied, a kind of bigotry. Certainly a moral failing
I'd say with the 'older man chasing much younger woman' scenario there's been something of a shift in sentiment from 'good for him, randy old goat' and 'it's the way of the world innit' to 'urgh, sleazy'. On which topic I'm watching the Clinton/Lewinsky drama atm. Oh dear oh dear. Truly grisly behaviour from Bill. Maybe the smartest, most charismatic politician there has ever been but I think I'd have voted Guilty in his Impeachment. Absolute disgrace how he behaved.
No, this wasn't an opinion on "man with young woman" as an item, this was her opinion that men who fancy younger women are wrong to do so, and they should fancy older women like her. She was denying that sexuality is intrinsic, and instead saying it is a moral choice we make, as to who we desire, which is absurd. I cannot force myself to have an erection with someone who doesn't turn me on
As ever you duck your confused head and so, Whoosh, it goes right over
He lashes out. Oh no. X purposes though. I was developing the point not repeating or rebutting it. I like to do this sometimes. The art of conversation.
I'm a little surprised on the report Labour are calling for an investigation specifically into Cox. It seems just an issue of him being an extreme example of how much you can earn doing another job as an MP than raking in money because you are an MP. Surely investigation should be for where there is a suggestion of wrongdoing (which the BBC report says there is not in his case), and the issue of having second jobs at all, and how much time you spend on them, is a matter for debate and discussion?
Off topic, Daughter and I were out in London last night. Restaurant and theatre packed. A most enjoyable evening and a much-needed break for Daughter. I am worried about the immense strain she is under.
Anyway, on our way into town (separately from some other appointments) we both noticed one thing which annoyed us and will doubtless be dismissed by many on here as hyper-sensitivity. But here goes anyway.
There is a long corridor on the interchange between the Piccadilly and Jubilee lines. On it there are various Pride posters with stories and photos from individuals. All very lovely. No objection to this at all.
There were 29 posters. Only 7 of them were women and one of these was of a mother of a gay person. So only 6 gay women out of 29. 6 women. 22 men.
Why so few women? Why so few gay women? Are their stories not worth telling?
Daughter pointed out that whenever gay marriage is talked about or discussed it is very often accompanied by illustrations of gay men getting married. Not gay women. It annoyed her.
Then on the Central line at Bond Street a big poster saying how London stands together against hate. Well, yes, who wouldn't be?
The precise words used in the poster are these -
"London stands together against hate directed at someone on our transport network because of race, religion, sexual orientation, disability or gender identity."
All very lovely. But spot what's missing. "Sex" - a protected characteristic and probably one of the single biggest reasons for attacks on women and girls. The Mayor talks a good game about Violence against Women and Girls but he cannot bring himself to mention sex in this poster. He ignores the fact that it is a "protected characteristic" in law. He is happy to include characteristics which aren't. But something which is - and which is of great concern to women, especially in relation to the risks they face when travelling - is ignored.
Why? Deliberate? Or just forgotten?
These may seem like small matters. But this sort of unconscious overlooking of women, of the female experience is all too common, all too pervasive and, ironically, occurs at a time when diversity is trumpeted loudly by all sorts of people keen to promote their progressive credentials.
I rather feel that the more people talk about diversity the less likely they are to listen to actual women or do anything practical to help them.
One day we might have 29 posters with 22 of them of women, a few men and a token father. A 50/50 representation would be a start. And - imagine - those posters, those choices were all, I expect, signed off by lots of people in numerous meeting and none of those preparing and implementing this campaign noticed what two women at both ends of the age spectrum noticed in minutes while travelling through. Or cared about the message it sends.
Grrr.....
Its deliberate because they're trying to write off sex as something that even exists.
"Gender identity" covers "sex" in his eyes so that's the end of the story.
Yup, stonewall have redefined homosexuality as same gender attraction as opposed to same sex. Lesbians need to embrace ‘girldick’ or be labelled ‘TERFS’ if they don’t with all that entails.
Not sure I understand all of that..are you saying the Stonewall position is that have to accept a man transitioning to a waman who still has their tackle.?
That is indeed the position of some trans radicals (not sure about Stonewall). A lesbian who refuses to have sex with an untransitioned trans man in possession of male genitals is not expressing a sexual preference for women, she is being "transphobic"
It is pure madness
This is indeed Stonewall's position. They want the offence of rape by deception repealed in its entirety.
Also see what Stonewall's CEO said in response to the outcry about the BBC article on some lesbians feeling pressured into sex with men claiming to be women.
"Nobody should ever be pressurised into dating, or pressured into dating people they aren't attracted to. But if you find that when dating, you are writing off entire groups of people, like people of colour, fat people, disabled people or trans people, then it's worth considering how societal prejudices may have shaped your attractions."
"how societal prejudices may have shaped your attractions" .... ?
This from the CEO of a gay charity. When the very essence of being gay is that you are writing off entire groups of people as potential sexual partners. It's as if she has forgotten what being gay, what being a lesbian actually means.
As for the malicious dishonesty in seeking to equate a lesbian not wanting to have sex with a man with someone not wanting to have sex with someone of a different colour because they are a racist, words fail me.
This kind of thinking is spreading. I was berated by a middle aged lefty woke lady friend the other day, for my preference for younger women. I tried to explain to her that it is just the way I am made. I can’t help it. It’s not a choice. In fact if I had a choice I’d go for the opposite - it would be easier if I fancied older women like her. It’s a buyers market
However God made me like this. So be it
That wasn’t good enough for her tho. My inability to fancy her was, she implied, a kind of bigotry. Certainly a moral failing
I'd say with the 'older man chasing much younger woman' scenario there's been something of a shift in sentiment from 'good for him, randy old goat' and 'it's the way of the world innit' to 'urgh, sleazy'. On which topic I'm watching the Clinton/Lewinsky drama atm. Oh dear oh dear. Truly grisly behaviour from Bill. Maybe the smartest, most charismatic politician there has ever been but I think I'd have voted Guilty in his Impeachment. Absolute disgrace how he behaved.
No, this wasn't an opinion on "man with young woman" as an item, this was her opinion that men who fancy younger women are wrong to do so, and they should fancy older women like her. She was denying that sexuality is intrinsic, and instead saying it is a moral choice we make, as to who we desire, which is absurd. I cannot force myself to have an erection with someone who doesn't turn me on
As ever you duck your confused head and so, Whoosh, it goes right over
I get your point - but you've ended up making a very pro-paedo argument.
I really really REALLY haven't. And I strongly object
I am saying that sexuality is innate, we are born gay or bi or straight or whatever. We don't get to choose. This leads to much misery, but it is better to accept it.
This is absolutely not pro-Pedo, FFS. Pedophilia is a crime, and a vile, despicable crime at that. It ruins lives.
But is a pedophile born a pedophile? Almost certainly. And it is this which makes them so dangerous. They cannot be "cured". It never goes away. Once discovered, they have to be watched for the rest of their lives.
I am actually making the opposite argument to the one you think
It's very likely in fact linked to some form of mental illness, as some preliminary research shows, and is indeed a different topic.
This study suggests that it is not genetic, but it is intrinsic - pre natal - you are born with it. Possibly because of uterine imbalances
"As scientists seek to understand how [pedophilia] develops, there is growing consensus that the origin is largely biological. This view is based in part on studies pointing to subtle physical traits that have a higher incidence among pedophiles.
“The biological clues attached to pedophilia demonstrate that its roots are prenatal,” said James Cantor, director of the Toronto Sexuality Center. “These are not genetic; they can be traced to specific periods of development in the womb.”"
Compelling paragraph
"Learning to manage a drive as visceral, and often consuming, as sexual desire is possible, therapists say, but it cannot be shut off; nor can it be replaced, the way heroin can be swapped for methadone. Treatment can require drugs that reduce circulating testosterone and software that limits online browsing habits."
Confirmed PM going back to COP tmrw - interesting timing, it was thought he was more likely to go back towards end of the week, if at all - key moment to see whether some of gloss at the start of the week turns into real commitment in black and white https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1458123303600672773
I'm a little surprised on the report Labour are calling for an investigation specifically into Cox. It seems just an issue of him being an extreme example of how much you can earn doing another job as an MP than raking in money because you are an MP. Surely investigation should be for where there is a suggestion of wrongdoing (which the BBC report says there is not in his case), and the issue of having second jobs at all, and how much time you spend on them, is a matter for debate and discussion?
Labour hasn't grown out of the politics of envy, unfortunately.
Eddie Mair caller: 'If you're being paid £200,000 or £300,000 as a lobbyist and you're getting £80,000 as an MP, then it's being an MP which is the second job.'
Do you know what I think has been the biggest change in politics in recent years? The fact that the left have become so much more censorious and authoritarian than they used to be. 20 or 30 years ago they were significantly less so than people from other parties; now they're probably more so. For instance, when you hear someone calling for a long prison sentence these days, they're almost as likely to be from the left as the right.
I think this is right, up to a point. I think that if you look at opinion surveys you will still find that people on the left are more libertarian than those on the right. But I think you are right that there has been a rise in authoritarianism on the left. It's probably exaggerated by e.g. Twitter. I think in part it is a generational thing, where millenials tend to be quite authoritarian, maybe because they have grown up in a more permissive environment and so haven't had to push back against people telling them what they can and can't do. Incidentally I suspect that millenials will become very right wing like baby boomers have as they age, while gen x will remain instinctively liberal but apathetic. Millenials have the same "it's all about me" attitude as the baby boomers. And they will be able to afford a house eventually.
You're either self-damning or older than I thought - I'm a millenial and I'm almost 40. The youngest millenials are ~25. Do you really think that group is authoritarian? Gen Z maybe (kids today...)
(I'd always assumed I was Gen X until someone on here posted the definitions)
I'd always assume I was post-boomer. But apparently I am not.
Do you still like to think "Gen X will continue to be a beacon of post-modern cynicism, pragmatic centrism and a bastion of gentle apathy"? Or slightly more boomer-sympathetic now?
I've had a lot more time for millenials since I discovered I was one!
There's TimT, and there's TimS. TimS is a late GenXer in his mid 40s living in SE London (but not the same person as OnlyLivingBoy) who considers GenX are beacons of post-modern cynicism. TimT appears to be an early GenXer or late boomer.
Fun fact: the name Tim fell off a cliff of popularity in the mid 90s, coinciding with the prominence of Harry Enfield's Tim Nice but Dim character.
My screen name here used to be "Timothy (likes zebras)".
For as long as I could remember I'd always gone as "Tim", but when I was 23 my mother made a point of telling me that she'd chosen the name Timothy for me and not Tim. I've been trying out Timothy instead, but people will always ask if they can call me Tim, and I don't really care.
My family only call me Timothy when they are annoyed with me. And Martin Timothy when they are really, really annoyed.
And to join the fun, I can out myself as 'Tim' as well, but never Timothy, except officially.
Hard name to pigeonhole I think. Not "rare" but not that common either. Not posh (despite the Harry Enfield character) but not working class. Fairly timeless - I don't think it's ever been massively fashionable.
Having PM present could create a focal point and remind other countries of promises their leaders made, but so many competing agendas there's also risk that Johnson wading in could upset negotiations at a scratchy stage https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1458123968204972039
I've just been Googling "Sadiq Khan" to see what he is actually *doing*
Not much. But a few things. eg He is doing THIS
"Sadiq Khan has unveiled £25,000 grants to help people change street names as part of a diversity campaign launched following Black Lives Matter protests.
"The Mayor of London has announced a £1 million fund that will be shared out among community groups, including those wishing to campaign to alter potentially offensive road names.
"Grants of up to £25,000 will support groups through all aspects of the process of changing street names, which could include enlisting consultants and compensating residents.
"The Untold Stories fund is part of the Commission for Diversity in the Public Realm, which was established following Black Lives Matter protests to diversify artwork and statuary that came under scrutiny for commemorating figures linked to empire and slavery."
Utterly pointless Woke bullshit, which also wastes money. Brilliant
"London mayor Sadiq Khan has urged the government to make face coverings mandatory on public transport as the UK continues to average more than 40,000 confirmed coronavirus cases a day for over a week."
He wants us all to mask up again. That's an inspired and innovative policy. Who saw that coming?
He's just extended the ULEZ zone which at a stroke has stopped me gadding around in my big polluting Merc. Whilst I'm not his greatest fan, eg he comes over to me as a careerist, and as I say he's making me walk everywhere, it has to be noted that much of the more visceral dislike of him is driven by him being Muslim. Not you, of course, but it's undeniably in the mix. Which is disappointing to see.
It is deniably in the mix. He’s just crap.
The only person to bring up his Muslim-ness was the equally crap Zac Goldsmith.
So iyo there are hardly any people whose dislike of him is driven by anti-Muslim prejudice? I think that's an absurdly optimistic notion. Please note I'm not in any way implying that any particular person who thinks he's rubbish is being influenced by this. It's not a smear against anybody to point out that prejudice is in the mix. Neither is it to say he isn't rubbish or some 'lefty comfort blanket' against something or other. It's just a factual comment.
implying that any particular person who thinks he's rubbish is being influenced by this But if you're thinking it, I am too. I doubt we'd be the only ones.
Ah but hang on. Take gardenwalker for eg, I am totally NOT thinking this. I must have read 1000 of his posts and not a trace of anti-muslim prejudice. Not even thinking it about leon where there has been fruitiness sometimes. Tbh it's more about where you see the quite wild-eyed stuff said about him. I think he's testified about it. He gets a lot. There, you have racism rearing its head, no question. What you also get is the slightly brighter and cagey type of racist who keeps a grip on what they say and stays carefully deniable. You know the type.
Ah yes. The people you "just know" are racist, but haven't actually done anything racist.
Bit like the witches. If I wasn't out, 24/7, burning them...
LOL this is the bad old kini.
As I noted several months ago in a post when he was flinging around accusations of racism (amended for his posts today):
"What you have to remember is that because @kinabalu for some unknown reason is very insecure he is invested in belittling views of nationality and what it means to be British and how one should react to people who are not white working class.
He does this because as a white working class lad made good (very good) and now moved away from his roots, he is confused about what he is supposed to think about these things. He feels he should condemn anyone who even mentions nationality or religion but has no views himself on them. He literally has no idea how to approach the idea of criticising someone who is not an "easy" target (ie WWC).
And hence when he bumps into people, like @Leon for example, someone he believes he is far more successful and intelligent than, but someone who is far more confident in their own opinions on such to him delicate and taboo subjects, he has literally no answer."
Holds as true today as it always has done.
Nice couch you have, Topping. Trouble is, I almost nodded off.
Same time next week?
Damn unsolicited diagnoses! He’ll be devising a scoring system to rank people next
Ah, I sense a reference to my simple yet rather sophisticated 'Class Indicator' test that you, almost alone on here, refused to take. And I could never understand why. Still, no point revisiting. The past is another country.
Doing those kind of tests then broadcasting the results is a kind of needy vanity that I’d like to avoid. Not that I always do I suppose
No clue why you're seeing it this way. 'Class' comes up a lot on here and I designed something neat to clarify and assist the discussions. Nothing untoward about it at all. As you'd know if you hadn't refused to co-operate.
I'm a little surprised on the report Labour are calling for an investigation specifically into Cox. It seems just an issue of him being an extreme example of how much you can earn doing another job as an MP than raking in money because you are an MP. Surely investigation should be for where there is a suggestion of wrongdoing (which the BBC report says there is not in his case), and the issue of having second jobs at all, and how much time you spend on them, is a matter for debate and discussion?
Labour hasn't grown out of the politics of envy, unfortunately.
Indeed, Cox could have earned even more money if he had never become an MP.
He's an eminent QC and I'm not surprised people are willing to pay him decent money for his advice, his constituents seem happy with him.
If he really wanted to earn even more he could step down as an MP and trade in on the fact he's a former Attorney General of England & Wales who has fantastic probity.
Who can forget his principles when saying Theresa May was talking rubbish over her Brexit deal compared with Peter Goldsmith's advice that the Iraq war was legal.
Parliament is better served with having Geoffrey Cox as an MP.
Do you know what I think has been the biggest change in politics in recent years? The fact that the left have become so much more censorious and authoritarian than they used to be. 20 or 30 years ago they were significantly less so than people from other parties; now they're probably more so. For instance, when you hear someone calling for a long prison sentence these days, they're almost as likely to be from the left as the right.
I think this is right, up to a point. I think that if you look at opinion surveys you will still find that people on the left are more libertarian than those on the right. But I think you are right that there has been a rise in authoritarianism on the left. It's probably exaggerated by e.g. Twitter. I think in part it is a generational thing, where millenials tend to be quite authoritarian, maybe because they have grown up in a more permissive environment and so haven't had to push back against people telling them what they can and can't do. Incidentally I suspect that millenials will become very right wing like baby boomers have as they age, while gen x will remain instinctively liberal but apathetic. Millenials have the same "it's all about me" attitude as the baby boomers. And they will be able to afford a house eventually.
You're either self-damning or older than I thought - I'm a millenial and I'm almost 40. The youngest millenials are ~25. Do you really think that group is authoritarian? Gen Z maybe (kids today...)
(I'd always assumed I was Gen X until someone on here posted the definitions)
I'd always assume I was post-boomer. But apparently I am not.
Do you still like to think "Gen X will continue to be a beacon of post-modern cynicism, pragmatic centrism and a bastion of gentle apathy"? Or slightly more boomer-sympathetic now?
I've had a lot more time for millenials since I discovered I was one!
There's TimT, and there's TimS. TimS is a late GenXer in his mid 40s living in SE London (but not the same person as OnlyLivingBoy) who considers GenX are beacons of post-modern cynicism. TimT appears to be an early GenXer or late boomer.
Fun fact: the name Tim fell off a cliff of popularity in the mid 90s, coinciding with the prominence of Harry Enfield's Tim Nice but Dim character.
My screen name here used to be "Timothy (likes zebras)".
For as long as I could remember I'd always gone as "Tim", but when I was 23 my mother made a point of telling me that she'd chosen the name Timothy for me and not Tim. I've been trying out Timothy instead, but people will always ask if they can call me Tim, and I don't really care.
I always find it a bit weird when someone uses my full name. I've always been known by the shortened version.
Back when people used to write cheques, it could be a bit of a faff if they used the initial they knew me by rather than my formal initial.
I’d assume that most people know that Sandy is short for Alexander?
Parliament is better served with having Geoffrey Cox as an MP.
The joke among Tory MPs about Sir Geoffrey Cox, not a conspicuous presence in the Commons for years, is the chief whip can’t afford his hourly rate. That rate is £813 an hour, before VAT, according to his latest submission in the register of MPs’ interests https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1458069056603529222
I've just been Googling "Sadiq Khan" to see what he is actually *doing*
Not much. But a few things. eg He is doing THIS
"Sadiq Khan has unveiled £25,000 grants to help people change street names as part of a diversity campaign launched following Black Lives Matter protests.
"The Mayor of London has announced a £1 million fund that will be shared out among community groups, including those wishing to campaign to alter potentially offensive road names.
"Grants of up to £25,000 will support groups through all aspects of the process of changing street names, which could include enlisting consultants and compensating residents.
"The Untold Stories fund is part of the Commission for Diversity in the Public Realm, which was established following Black Lives Matter protests to diversify artwork and statuary that came under scrutiny for commemorating figures linked to empire and slavery."
Utterly pointless Woke bullshit, which also wastes money. Brilliant
"London mayor Sadiq Khan has urged the government to make face coverings mandatory on public transport as the UK continues to average more than 40,000 confirmed coronavirus cases a day for over a week."
He wants us all to mask up again. That's an inspired and innovative policy. Who saw that coming?
He's just extended the ULEZ zone which at a stroke has stopped me gadding around in my big polluting Merc. Whilst I'm not his greatest fan, eg he comes over to me as a careerist, and as I say he's making me walk everywhere, it has to be noted that much of the more visceral dislike of him is driven by him being Muslim. Not you, of course, but it's undeniably in the mix. Which is disappointing to see.
It is deniably in the mix. He’s just crap.
The only person to bring up his Muslim-ness was the equally crap Zac Goldsmith.
So iyo there are hardly any people whose dislike of him is driven by anti-Muslim prejudice? I think that's an absurdly optimistic notion. Please note I'm not in any way implying that any particular person who thinks he's rubbish is being influenced by this. It's not a smear against anybody to point out that prejudice is in the mix. Neither is it to say he isn't rubbish or some 'lefty comfort blanket' against something or other. It's just a factual comment.
implying that any particular person who thinks he's rubbish is being influenced by this But if you're thinking it, I am too. I doubt we'd be the only ones.
Ah but hang on. Take gardenwalker for eg, I am totally NOT thinking this. I must have read 1000 of his posts and not a trace of anti-muslim prejudice. Not even thinking it about leon where there has been fruitiness sometimes. Tbh it's more about where you see the quite wild-eyed stuff said about him. I think he's testified about it. He gets a lot. There, you have racism rearing its head, no question. What you also get is the slightly brighter and cagey type of racist who keeps a grip on what they say and stays carefully deniable. You know the type.
Ah yes. The people you "just know" are racist, but haven't actually done anything racist.
Bit like the witches. If I wasn't out, 24/7, burning them...
LOL this is the bad old kini.
As I noted several months ago in a post when he was flinging around accusations of racism (amended for his posts today):
"What you have to remember is that because @kinabalu for some unknown reason is very insecure he is invested in belittling views of nationality and what it means to be British and how one should react to people who are not white working class.
He does this because as a white working class lad made good (very good) and now moved away from his roots, he is confused about what he is supposed to think about these things. He feels he should condemn anyone who even mentions nationality or religion but has no views himself on them. He literally has no idea how to approach the idea of criticising someone who is not an "easy" target (ie WWC).
And hence when he bumps into people, like @Leon for example, someone he believes he is far more successful and intelligent than, but someone who is far more confident in their own opinions on such to him delicate and taboo subjects, he has literally no answer."
Holds as true today as it always has done.
Nice couch you have, Topping. Trouble is, I almost nodded off.
Same time next week?
Damn unsolicited diagnoses! He’ll be devising a scoring system to rank people next
Ah, I sense a reference to my simple yet rather sophisticated 'Class Indicator' test that you, almost alone on here, refused to take. And I could never understand why. Still, no point revisiting. The past is another country.
Doing those kind of tests then broadcasting the results is a kind of needy vanity that I’d like to avoid. Not that I always do I suppose
No clue why you're seeing it this way. 'Class' comes up a lot on here and I designed something neat to clarify and assist the discussions. Nothing untoward about it at all. As you'd know if you hadn't refused to co-operate.
Off topic, Daughter and I were out in London last night. Restaurant and theatre packed. A most enjoyable evening and a much-needed break for Daughter. I am worried about the immense strain she is under.
Anyway, on our way into town (separately from some other appointments) we both noticed one thing which annoyed us and will doubtless be dismissed by many on here as hyper-sensitivity. But here goes anyway.
There is a long corridor on the interchange between the Piccadilly and Jubilee lines. On it there are various Pride posters with stories and photos from individuals. All very lovely. No objection to this at all.
There were 29 posters. Only 7 of them were women and one of these was of a mother of a gay person. So only 6 gay women out of 29. 6 women. 22 men.
Why so few women? Why so few gay women? Are their stories not worth telling?
Daughter pointed out that whenever gay marriage is talked about or discussed it is very often accompanied by illustrations of gay men getting married. Not gay women. It annoyed her.
Then on the Central line at Bond Street a big poster saying how London stands together against hate. Well, yes, who wouldn't be?
The precise words used in the poster are these -
"London stands together against hate directed at someone on our transport network because of race, religion, sexual orientation, disability or gender identity."
All very lovely. But spot what's missing. "Sex" - a protected characteristic and probably one of the single biggest reasons for attacks on women and girls. The Mayor talks a good game about Violence against Women and Girls but he cannot bring himself to mention sex in this poster. He ignores the fact that it is a "protected characteristic" in law. He is happy to include characteristics which aren't. But something which is - and which is of great concern to women, especially in relation to the risks they face when travelling - is ignored.
Why? Deliberate? Or just forgotten?
These may seem like small matters. But this sort of unconscious overlooking of women, of the female experience is all too common, all too pervasive and, ironically, occurs at a time when diversity is trumpeted loudly by all sorts of people keen to promote their progressive credentials.
I rather feel that the more people talk about diversity the less likely they are to listen to actual women or do anything practical to help them.
One day we might have 29 posters with 22 of them of women, a few men and a token father. A 50/50 representation would be a start. And - imagine - those posters, those choices were all, I expect, signed off by lots of people in numerous meeting and none of those preparing and implementing this campaign noticed what two women at both ends of the age spectrum noticed in minutes while travelling through. Or cared about the message it sends.
Grrr.....
Its deliberate because they're trying to write off sex as something that even exists.
"Gender identity" covers "sex" in his eyes so that's the end of the story.
Yup, stonewall have redefined homosexuality as same gender attraction as opposed to same sex. Lesbians need to embrace ‘girldick’ or be labelled ‘TERFS’ if they don’t with all that entails.
Not sure I understand all of that..are you saying the Stonewall position is that have to accept a man transitioning to a waman who still has their tackle.?
That is indeed the position of some trans radicals (not sure about Stonewall). A lesbian who refuses to have sex with an untransitioned trans man in possession of male genitals is not expressing a sexual preference for women, she is being "transphobic"
It is pure madness
This is indeed Stonewall's position. They want the offence of rape by deception repealed in its entirety.
Also see what Stonewall's CEO said in response to the outcry about the BBC article on some lesbians feeling pressured into sex with men claiming to be women.
"Nobody should ever be pressurised into dating, or pressured into dating people they aren't attracted to. But if you find that when dating, you are writing off entire groups of people, like people of colour, fat people, disabled people or trans people, then it's worth considering how societal prejudices may have shaped your attractions."
"how societal prejudices may have shaped your attractions" .... ?
This from the CEO of a gay charity. When the very essence of being gay is that you are writing off entire groups of people as potential sexual partners. It's as if she has forgotten what being gay, what being a lesbian actually means.
As for the malicious dishonesty in seeking to equate a lesbian not wanting to have sex with a man with someone not wanting to have sex with someone of a different colour because they are a racist, words fail me.
This kind of thinking is spreading. I was berated by a middle aged lefty woke lady friend the other day, for my preference for younger women. I tried to explain to her that it is just the way I am made. I can’t help it. It’s not a choice. In fact if I had a choice I’d go for the opposite - it would be easier if I fancied older women like her. It’s a buyers market
However God made me like this. So be it
That wasn’t good enough for her tho. My inability to fancy her was, she implied, a kind of bigotry. Certainly a moral failing
I'd say with the 'older man chasing much younger woman' scenario there's been something of a shift in sentiment from 'good for him, randy old goat' and 'it's the way of the world innit' to 'urgh, sleazy'. On which topic I'm watching the Clinton/Lewinsky drama atm. Oh dear oh dear. Truly grisly behaviour from Bill. Maybe the smartest, most charismatic politician there has ever been but I think I'd have voted Guilty in his Impeachment. Absolute disgrace how he behaved.
No, this wasn't an opinion on "man with young woman" as an item, this was her opinion that men who fancy younger women are wrong to do so, and they should fancy older women like her. She was denying that sexuality is intrinsic, and instead saying it is a moral choice we make, as to who we desire, which is absurd. I cannot force myself to have an erection with someone who doesn't turn me on
As ever you duck your confused head and so, Whoosh, it goes right over
I get your point - but you've ended up making a very pro-paedo argument.
I am actually making the opposite argument to the one you think
I'm not sure you are. But I think we should probably let this debate fritter away...
Probably a good idea. But just for the sake of clarity, NOTHING I have said can be seen as "pro-Pedo", that is ridiculous and objectionable. As I have said, I am actually pretty draconian on this issue, BECAUSE I firmly believe sexuality is innate
A pedophile cannot be changed or persuaded to "not be" a pedophile, anymore than someone can change their blood group if you ask them. And sexual desire is so powerful even the biggest punishments are often no deterrent to the crime.
If anyone is discovered to be a pedophile they must be categorised as a grave potential menace until they either die, or the libido withers entirely.
I'm a little surprised on the report Labour are calling for an investigation specifically into Cox. It seems just an issue of him being an extreme example of how much you can earn doing another job as an MP than raking in money because you are an MP. Surely investigation should be for where there is a suggestion of wrongdoing (which the BBC report says there is not in his case), and the issue of having second jobs at all, and how much time you spend on them, is a matter for debate and discussion?
But with theirs on the way up and ours on the way down.
Thank goodness we resisted the siren call to use masks and other NPIs etc during the summer and autumn.
Theirs have been rising and ours have been falling is fairer. If you want to make predictions about where case numbers are going, that's your business. I won't follow you there.
All you need to remember is that the high number of Covid cases and deaths in the UK is completely immaterial; it's the end of lockdown that counts. But in countries other than the UK, high numbers of cases and deaths are a sign of doom and massive governmental incompetence. That's right, isn't it?
Re: other countries, high numbers of cases and deaths may be an indication of bad decision-making if accompanied by more draconian measures than us. Worst of both worlds sort of thing.
The UK has no legal restrictions currently so why are they rating the UK as a 41.2 at the moment?
Though I see its based upon the 'strictest sub-region' so that would include any restrictions by Holyrood etc as "UK".
I was wrong to use the word restrictions. It's wider than just prohibitions.
Additional: I've been digging into the data a little and it's troubling. The current value for face coverings in England is listed as "2". In Scotland it's "3". The levels are: 0- No policy 1- Recommended 2- Required in some specified shared/public spaces outside the home with other people present, or some situations when social distancing not possible 3- Required in all shared/public spaces outside the home with other people present or all situations when social distancing not possible
This seems wrong, to me. As I understand it, the mask level should be at most "1" for England.
I withdraw any point I have made about the stringency index until and unless I find out that this is my mistake and not theirs.
Face masks are required on public transport in England so that would fit with being a 2.
I opened your document but couldn't work out where to go for the "executive summary".
If Labour does eventually ban MPs having second jobs how will that applies to ministers/party leaders/shadow ministers?
I mean right now for example Sir Keir Starmer not only is an MP but has secondary jobs as Leader of Her Majesty's Most Loyal Opposition and leader of the labour party will he have to give up those jobs?
What happens if Starmer becomes PM, he gets a few more jobs, things like Minister for the Civil Service, President of the G8 etc?
Confirmed PM going back to COP tmrw - interesting timing, it was thought he was more likely to go back towards end of the week, if at all - key moment to see whether some of gloss at the start of the week turns into real commitment in black and white
Off topic, Daughter and I were out in London last night. Restaurant and theatre packed. A most enjoyable evening and a much-needed break for Daughter. I am worried about the immense strain she is under.
Anyway, on our way into town (separately from some other appointments) we both noticed one thing which annoyed us and will doubtless be dismissed by many on here as hyper-sensitivity. But here goes anyway.
There is a long corridor on the interchange between the Piccadilly and Jubilee lines. On it there are various Pride posters with stories and photos from individuals. All very lovely. No objection to this at all.
There were 29 posters. Only 7 of them were women and one of these was of a mother of a gay person. So only 6 gay women out of 29. 6 women. 22 men.
Why so few women? Why so few gay women? Are their stories not worth telling?
Daughter pointed out that whenever gay marriage is talked about or discussed it is very often accompanied by illustrations of gay men getting married. Not gay women. It annoyed her.
Then on the Central line at Bond Street a big poster saying how London stands together against hate. Well, yes, who wouldn't be?
The precise words used in the poster are these -
"London stands together against hate directed at someone on our transport network because of race, religion, sexual orientation, disability or gender identity."
All very lovely. But spot what's missing. "Sex" - a protected characteristic and probably one of the single biggest reasons for attacks on women and girls. The Mayor talks a good game about Violence against Women and Girls but he cannot bring himself to mention sex in this poster. He ignores the fact that it is a "protected characteristic" in law. He is happy to include characteristics which aren't. But something which is - and which is of great concern to women, especially in relation to the risks they face when travelling - is ignored.
Why? Deliberate? Or just forgotten?
These may seem like small matters. But this sort of unconscious overlooking of women, of the female experience is all too common, all too pervasive and, ironically, occurs at a time when diversity is trumpeted loudly by all sorts of people keen to promote their progressive credentials.
I rather feel that the more people talk about diversity the less likely they are to listen to actual women or do anything practical to help them.
One day we might have 29 posters with 22 of them of women, a few men and a token father. A 50/50 representation would be a start. And - imagine - those posters, those choices were all, I expect, signed off by lots of people in numerous meeting and none of those preparing and implementing this campaign noticed what two women at both ends of the age spectrum noticed in minutes while travelling through. Or cared about the message it sends.
Grrr.....
Its deliberate because they're trying to write off sex as something that even exists.
"Gender identity" covers "sex" in his eyes so that's the end of the story.
Yup, stonewall have redefined homosexuality as same gender attraction as opposed to same sex. Lesbians need to embrace ‘girldick’ or be labelled ‘TERFS’ if they don’t with all that entails.
Not sure I understand all of that..are you saying the Stonewall position is that have to accept a man transitioning to a waman who still has their tackle.?
That is indeed the position of some trans radicals (not sure about Stonewall). A lesbian who refuses to have sex with an untransitioned trans man in possession of male genitals is not expressing a sexual preference for women, she is being "transphobic"
It is pure madness
Perhaps the trans community will join forces with the incels to demand the right to have sex with persons of their own choosing, regardless of the wishes of the targets of their 'affection'. Those claiming rape are just bigots.
That is exactly what some of the nuttier trans loons are indeed arguing.
It is a rape mentality. It is - I know some of you may not like what I am going to say next - a male mentality. Not that all males think like this. Far from it. But it is overwhelmingly only men who think like this.
And it is why changing language does not change underlying reality. When men attack gay women for not having sex with them, even though they claim to be "women", they are no different in reality from the men of my youth who called women who would not sleep with them lesbians.
Or told lesbians that a good fuck would change their minds about being lesbian.
And bizarrely the CEO of Stonewall is repeating and implicitly endorsing this view, though this time she substitutes the phrase "societal pressures" for "a good fuck".
It is notable that the example raised tends to be lesbian women refusing sex with transgender (but not transexual - i.e. pre-op, is that the best way to put it?) women. There are surely similar issues with gay men rejecting transgender men and staight men rejecting transgender women etc etc, but those don't seem to come up. What's the male equivalent of the TERF?
There isn't one. Almost all of the shouting matches over trans inclusion concern natal women, their rights and their exclusive spaces, because at root they're about power relationships. In short, men don't typically give trans men any thought, and most wouldn't feel at all threatened by them if they did.
The problem is the onion skin like layers of wankerdom which accrete round the piece of grit at the heart of the issue. At heart you have a tiny number of genuine transsexuals. I know one very well, from when she was a 13 year old girl to now when he's a 25 year old bloke, and there's no doubt whatever in my mind that's what he really is.
On top of that you get the wannabes who are either just unsatisfied with life generally and have misdiagnosed their own problems, or who think claiming to be gender fluid makes them a bit more interesting, or doubles the size of the sexual pool they are fishing in, or annoys their parents. You also get out and out male sexual perverts who just want to get in to women's toilets and prisons.
And on top of that again you get the perennial problem of lefties in search of a cause (or to put it more bluntly, looking for an issue to be wankers about). The touchstone for issues used to be geographic remoteness - South Africa, then Palestine. The reason for this being that the agenda is set by the posh left, and if they worried about causes closer to home (and it's not like the UK is short of poverty or racism) they might end up having to interact with the victims who are really not, darling, the sort of person one wants to interact with. The trans thing takes matters a stage further by taking up the cause of people who are so thin on the ground they barely statistically exist. Declaring war on transphobia is like declaring war on the Beast in Lord of the Flies.
Parliament is better served with having Geoffrey Cox as an MP.
The joke among Tory MPs about Sir Geoffrey Cox, not a conspicuous presence in the Commons for years, is the chief whip can’t afford his hourly rate. That rate is £813 an hour, before VAT, according to his latest submission in the register of MPs’ interests https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1458069056603529222
The Tory Party really is leftie, moaning about someone's salary is the politics of envy.
I'd like to think I don't fall for clickbait tactics, but I have to admit I was tickled by the provocative nature of this headline, so it definitely works
Sadly I don't think it is put as a serious argument, even if the point of some activists being, well, too gloomy for their own good (even if gloominess is warranted), is one that has some basis.
Cox is a tiny micro-organism in the sea next to the millions', or possibly billions', worth of dubious and yet-to-be-investigated covid contracts.
Yes, it's to the government's benefit that the conversation seems to have moved onto someone working legally. What's more is that one can't accuse Cox of lobbying easily either given that the government was on the opposing side and still trying to win the case. The moral objection of a government MP trying to defeat the government is definitely up for discussion but in terms of sleaze or corruption there isn't any.
Parliament is better served with having Geoffrey Cox as an MP.
The joke among Tory MPs about Sir Geoffrey Cox, not a conspicuous presence in the Commons for years, is the chief whip can’t afford his hourly rate. That rate is £813 an hour, before VAT, according to his latest submission in the register of MPs’ interests https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1458069056603529222
Good for him. He must be a very good lawyer. If he was my MP I'd rather he spend more time on parliamentary duties, but it is all open and declared so it's not secret or shady.
Whether he earns a lot or very little seems not very relevant to the question of if second jobs are are good thing or not.
Do you know what I think has been the biggest change in politics in recent years? The fact that the left have become so much more censorious and authoritarian than they used to be. 20 or 30 years ago they were significantly less so than people from other parties; now they're probably more so. For instance, when you hear someone calling for a long prison sentence these days, they're almost as likely to be from the left as the right.
I think this is right, up to a point. I think that if you look at opinion surveys you will still find that people on the left are more libertarian than those on the right. But I think you are right that there has been a rise in authoritarianism on the left. It's probably exaggerated by e.g. Twitter. I think in part it is a generational thing, where millenials tend to be quite authoritarian, maybe because they have grown up in a more permissive environment and so haven't had to push back against people telling them what they can and can't do. Incidentally I suspect that millenials will become very right wing like baby boomers have as they age, while gen x will remain instinctively liberal but apathetic. Millenials have the same "it's all about me" attitude as the baby boomers. And they will be able to afford a house eventually.
You're either self-damning or older than I thought - I'm a millenial and I'm almost 40. The youngest millenials are ~25. Do you really think that group is authoritarian? Gen Z maybe (kids today...)
(I'd always assumed I was Gen X until someone on here posted the definitions)
I'd always assume I was post-boomer. But apparently I am not.
Do you still like to think "Gen X will continue to be a beacon of post-modern cynicism, pragmatic centrism and a bastion of gentle apathy"? Or slightly more boomer-sympathetic now?
I've had a lot more time for millenials since I discovered I was one!
There's TimT, and there's TimS. TimS is a late GenXer in his mid 40s living in SE London (but not the same person as OnlyLivingBoy) who considers GenX are beacons of post-modern cynicism. TimT appears to be an early GenXer or late boomer.
Fun fact: the name Tim fell off a cliff of popularity in the mid 90s, coinciding with the prominence of Harry Enfield's Tim Nice but Dim character.
My screen name here used to be "Timothy (likes zebras)".
For as long as I could remember I'd always gone as "Tim", but when I was 23 my mother made a point of telling me that she'd chosen the name Timothy for me and not Tim. I've been trying out Timothy instead, but people will always ask if they can call me Tim, and I don't really care.
My family only call me Timothy when they are annoyed with me. And Martin Timothy when they are really, really annoyed.
Actually my Dad only ever users Timothy when he is annoyed at me. My theory is that a three-syllable name is ideal for expressing annoyance as you can build up to a higher pitch of emphasis for the final syllable.
I didn't realise this until after I chose a two-syllable name for my daughter though.
Our daughter's name is monosyllabic. Most unsatisfactory ...
But with theirs on the way up and ours on the way down.
Thank goodness we resisted the siren call to use masks and other NPIs etc during the summer and autumn.
Theirs have been rising and ours have been falling is fairer. If you want to make predictions about where case numbers are going, that's your business. I won't follow you there.
All you need to remember is that the high number of Covid cases and deaths in the UK is completely immaterial; it's the end of lockdown that counts. But in countries other than the UK, high numbers of cases and deaths are a sign of doom and massive governmental incompetence. That's right, isn't it?
Re: other countries, high numbers of cases and deaths may be an indication of bad decision-making if accompanied by more draconian measures than us. Worst of both worlds sort of thing.
The UK has no legal restrictions currently so why are they rating the UK as a 41.2 at the moment?
Though I see its based upon the 'strictest sub-region' so that would include any restrictions by Holyrood etc as "UK".
I was wrong to use the word restrictions. It's wider than just prohibitions.
Additional: I've been digging into the data a little and it's troubling. The current value for face coverings in England is listed as "2". In Scotland it's "3". The levels are: 0- No policy 1- Recommended 2- Required in some specified shared/public spaces outside the home with other people present, or some situations when social distancing not possible 3- Required in all shared/public spaces outside the home with other people present or all situations when social distancing not possible
This seems wrong, to me. As I understand it, the mask level should be at most "1" for England.
I withdraw any point I have made about the stringency index until and unless I find out that this is my mistake and not theirs.
Face masks are required on public transport in England so that would fit with being a 2.
I opened your document but couldn't work out where to go for the "executive summary".
As for the link I sent before... I don't know what to say. There's plenty of stuff in there including a paper exploring the methodology and links to the data in a github repo. I'm sorry it's not in a more digestible format for you but sometimes it's worth digging a little deeper, as I've just been reminded by checking the face coverings score.
However I wonder what is the legal basis for this. It's notable they don't mention fines, so maybe this is a bit of a charade, and they actually don't have the power to enforce this?
The best characterisation of mask policy in England is "1 - Recommended"
But with theirs on the way up and ours on the way down.
Thank goodness we resisted the siren call to use masks and other NPIs etc during the summer and autumn.
Theirs have been rising and ours have been falling is fairer. If you want to make predictions about where case numbers are going, that's your business. I won't follow you there.
All you need to remember is that the high number of Covid cases and deaths in the UK is completely immaterial; it's the end of lockdown that counts. But in countries other than the UK, high numbers of cases and deaths are a sign of doom and massive governmental incompetence. That's right, isn't it?
Re: other countries, high numbers of cases and deaths may be an indication of bad decision-making if accompanied by more draconian measures than us. Worst of both worlds sort of thing.
The UK has no legal restrictions currently so why are they rating the UK as a 41.2 at the moment?
Though I see its based upon the 'strictest sub-region' so that would include any restrictions by Holyrood etc as "UK".
I was wrong to use the word restrictions. It's wider than just prohibitions.
Additional: I've been digging into the data a little and it's troubling. The current value for face coverings in England is listed as "2". In Scotland it's "3". The levels are: 0- No policy 1- Recommended 2- Required in some specified shared/public spaces outside the home with other people present, or some situations when social distancing not possible 3- Required in all shared/public spaces outside the home with other people present or all situations when social distancing not possible
This seems wrong, to me. As I understand it, the mask level should be at most "1" for England.
I withdraw any point I have made about the stringency index until and unless I find out that this is my mistake and not theirs.
Face masks are required on public transport in England so that would fit with being a 2.
I opened your document but couldn't work out where to go for the "executive summary".
Seems a lot in there.
Not by law they aren't, TFL require them as part of their terms of carriage but ultimately they can't legally force anyone to wear a mask.
But with theirs on the way up and ours on the way down.
Thank goodness we resisted the siren call to use masks and other NPIs etc during the summer and autumn.
Theirs have been rising and ours have been falling is fairer. If you want to make predictions about where case numbers are going, that's your business. I won't follow you there.
All you need to remember is that the high number of Covid cases and deaths in the UK is completely immaterial; it's the end of lockdown that counts. But in countries other than the UK, high numbers of cases and deaths are a sign of doom and massive governmental incompetence. That's right, isn't it?
Re: other countries, high numbers of cases and deaths may be an indication of bad decision-making if accompanied by more draconian measures than us. Worst of both worlds sort of thing.
The UK has no legal restrictions currently so why are they rating the UK as a 41.2 at the moment?
Though I see its based upon the 'strictest sub-region' so that would include any restrictions by Holyrood etc as "UK".
I was wrong to use the word restrictions. It's wider than just prohibitions.
Additional: I've been digging into the data a little and it's troubling. The current value for face coverings in England is listed as "2". In Scotland it's "3". The levels are: 0- No policy 1- Recommended 2- Required in some specified shared/public spaces outside the home with other people present, or some situations when social distancing not possible 3- Required in all shared/public spaces outside the home with other people present or all situations when social distancing not possible
This seems wrong, to me. As I understand it, the mask level should be at most "1" for England.
I withdraw any point I have made about the stringency index until and unless I find out that this is my mistake and not theirs.
Face masks are required on public transport in England so that would fit with being a 2.
I opened your document but couldn't work out where to go for the "executive summary".
As for the link I sent before... I don't know what to say. There's plenty of stuff in there including a paper exploring the methodology and links to the data in a github repo. I'm sorry it's not in a more digestible format for you but sometimes it's worth digging a little deeper, as I've just been reminded by checking the face coverings score.
Hmm it was my understanding that on Public Transport it was required. Not a legal requirement but one short of that - I think the announcements say something like "may be refused passage".
And as for the doc - give me time I thought it might be something I could speed skim. Which it is not.
I'm a little surprised on the report Labour are calling for an investigation specifically into Cox. It seems just an issue of him being an extreme example of how much you can earn doing another job as an MP than raking in money because you are an MP. Surely investigation should be for where there is a suggestion of wrongdoing (which the BBC report says there is not in his case), and the issue of having second jobs at all, and how much time you spend on them, is a matter for debate and discussion?
I'm a little surprised on the report Labour are calling for an investigation specifically into Cox. It seems just an issue of him being an extreme example of how much you can earn doing another job as an MP than raking in money because you are an MP. Surely investigation should be for where there is a suggestion of wrongdoing (which the BBC report says there is not in his case), and the issue of having second jobs at all, and how much time you spend on them, is a matter for debate and discussion?
But with theirs on the way up and ours on the way down.
Thank goodness we resisted the siren call to use masks and other NPIs etc during the summer and autumn.
Theirs have been rising and ours have been falling is fairer. If you want to make predictions about where case numbers are going, that's your business. I won't follow you there.
All you need to remember is that the high number of Covid cases and deaths in the UK is completely immaterial; it's the end of lockdown that counts. But in countries other than the UK, high numbers of cases and deaths are a sign of doom and massive governmental incompetence. That's right, isn't it?
Re: other countries, high numbers of cases and deaths may be an indication of bad decision-making if accompanied by more draconian measures than us. Worst of both worlds sort of thing.
The UK has no legal restrictions currently so why are they rating the UK as a 41.2 at the moment?
Though I see its based upon the 'strictest sub-region' so that would include any restrictions by Holyrood etc as "UK".
I was wrong to use the word restrictions. It's wider than just prohibitions.
Additional: I've been digging into the data a little and it's troubling. The current value for face coverings in England is listed as "2". In Scotland it's "3". The levels are: 0- No policy 1- Recommended 2- Required in some specified shared/public spaces outside the home with other people present, or some situations when social distancing not possible 3- Required in all shared/public spaces outside the home with other people present or all situations when social distancing not possible
This seems wrong, to me. As I understand it, the mask level should be at most "1" for England.
I withdraw any point I have made about the stringency index until and unless I find out that this is my mistake and not theirs.
Face masks are required on public transport in England so that would fit with being a 2.
I opened your document but couldn't work out where to go for the "executive summary".
As for the link I sent before... I don't know what to say. There's plenty of stuff in there including a paper exploring the methodology and links to the data in a github repo. I'm sorry it's not in a more digestible format for you but sometimes it's worth digging a little deeper, as I've just been reminded by checking the face coverings score.
However I wonder what is the legal basis for this. It's notable they don't mention fines, so maybe this is a bit of a charade, and they actually don't have the power to enforce this?
The best characterisation of mask policy in England is "1 - Recommended"
No power to enforce, I saw it in action, someone complained to an employee about people not wearing masks and threatened to call the BTP (at Old Street, I actually hung back to see what would happen!) the employee said that the BTP would do nothing so don't bother wasting anyone's time.
This is indeed Stonewall's position. They want the offence of rape by deception repealed in its entirety.
Also see what Stonewall's CEO said in response to the outcry about the BBC article on some lesbians feeling pressured into sex with men claiming to be women.
"Nobody should ever be pressurised into dating, or pressured into dating people they aren't attracted to. But if you find that when dating, you are writing off entire groups of people, like people of colour, fat people, disabled people or trans people, then it's worth considering how societal prejudices may have shaped your attractions."
"how societal prejudices may have shaped your attractions" .... ?
This from the CEO of a gay charity. When the very essence of being gay is that you are writing off entire groups of people as potential sexual partners. It's as if she has forgotten what being gay, what being a lesbian actually means.
As for the malicious dishonesty in seeking to equate a lesbian not wanting to have sex with a man with someone not wanting to have sex with someone of a different colour because they are a racist, words fail me.
The logic of that position is that a woman who refuses to have sex with a black man (or vice versa) should be prosecuted under race discrimination laws.
Lord only knows how it is that much of the Western world, including to a large extent the government and the law, have got us into this Alice-in-Wonderland lunacy. It was certainly not with the consent of the population.
I can't quite see how that is the logic of the quoted position. The extrapolation is that she'd be saying to a white person who rules out black sexual partners -
"It's a personal matter, and you shouldn't feel pressurized to change, but it's worth you considering the extent to which societal prejudices might have shaped your feelings on this."
What's the massive problem?
Because, as with my lady friend who thinks I should fancy older women like her, there is definitely the suggestion of shame, a moral failing in YOU, if you have these sexual preferences (whether by age, race, sex/gender or whatever)
And that is absurd. No one can help their sexuality, that is the whole point of gay liberation. Now it is being turned on its head by the Woke.
Incidentally my lady friend's Woke Weirdness was briskly underlined when she then admitted (after denouncing my sexual preferences) that after her menopause she essentially no longer had a libido anyway, anymore, so she was denouncing me for not desiring sex.... with someone who doesn't want sex
We've done this one before on PB. Guess this applies to most things! Reprise of my view - sexuality is 100% private domain. You just can't legislate for all of that. It's a person's pure prerogative. BUT - does this mean that (eg) if I cannot stomach the notion of physical intimacy with somebody of a different skin colour that I shouldn't be asking myself why I think that is? I don't think it does. Hardly a bizarrio superwoke position, that, is it? It's just recognizing nuance and introducing perspective in lieu of the crazy extrapolation of you and Nabavi and some of the other reactionary cranks on here.
But with theirs on the way up and ours on the way down.
Thank goodness we resisted the siren call to use masks and other NPIs etc during the summer and autumn.
Theirs have been rising and ours have been falling is fairer. If you want to make predictions about where case numbers are going, that's your business. I won't follow you there.
All you need to remember is that the high number of Covid cases and deaths in the UK is completely immaterial; it's the end of lockdown that counts. But in countries other than the UK, high numbers of cases and deaths are a sign of doom and massive governmental incompetence. That's right, isn't it?
Re: other countries, high numbers of cases and deaths may be an indication of bad decision-making if accompanied by more draconian measures than us. Worst of both worlds sort of thing.
The UK has no legal restrictions currently so why are they rating the UK as a 41.2 at the moment?
Though I see its based upon the 'strictest sub-region' so that would include any restrictions by Holyrood etc as "UK".
I was wrong to use the word restrictions. It's wider than just prohibitions.
Additional: I've been digging into the data a little and it's troubling. The current value for face coverings in England is listed as "2". In Scotland it's "3". The levels are: 0- No policy 1- Recommended 2- Required in some specified shared/public spaces outside the home with other people present, or some situations when social distancing not possible 3- Required in all shared/public spaces outside the home with other people present or all situations when social distancing not possible
This seems wrong, to me. As I understand it, the mask level should be at most "1" for England.
I withdraw any point I have made about the stringency index until and unless I find out that this is my mistake and not theirs.
Face masks are required on public transport in England so that would fit with being a 2.
I opened your document but couldn't work out where to go for the "executive summary".
But with theirs on the way up and ours on the way down.
Thank goodness we resisted the siren call to use masks and other NPIs etc during the summer and autumn.
Theirs have been rising and ours have been falling is fairer. If you want to make predictions about where case numbers are going, that's your business. I won't follow you there.
All you need to remember is that the high number of Covid cases and deaths in the UK is completely immaterial; it's the end of lockdown that counts. But in countries other than the UK, high numbers of cases and deaths are a sign of doom and massive governmental incompetence. That's right, isn't it?
Re: other countries, high numbers of cases and deaths may be an indication of bad decision-making if accompanied by more draconian measures than us. Worst of both worlds sort of thing.
The UK has no legal restrictions currently so why are they rating the UK as a 41.2 at the moment?
Though I see its based upon the 'strictest sub-region' so that would include any restrictions by Holyrood etc as "UK".
I was wrong to use the word restrictions. It's wider than just prohibitions.
Additional: I've been digging into the data a little and it's troubling. The current value for face coverings in England is listed as "2". In Scotland it's "3". The levels are: 0- No policy 1- Recommended 2- Required in some specified shared/public spaces outside the home with other people present, or some situations when social distancing not possible 3- Required in all shared/public spaces outside the home with other people present or all situations when social distancing not possible
This seems wrong, to me. As I understand it, the mask level should be at most "1" for England.
I withdraw any point I have made about the stringency index until and unless I find out that this is my mistake and not theirs.
Face masks are required on public transport in England so that would fit with being a 2.
I opened your document but couldn't work out where to go for the "executive summary".
Seems a lot in there.
Not by law they aren't, TFL require them as part of their terms of carriage but ultimately they can't legally force anyone to wear a mask.
Yep as per the link I posted. That is some turbo nudging right there. I particularly (didn't) like this bit, referring to the exemption card you can get:
"If you are exempt from wearing a face covering, you can download and print the card below and carry it with you. You may want to print it and wear it on a lanyard or attach it to your clothing. You can show it if you are asked why you are not wearing a face covering. We will also recognise similar cards that may have been issued by other transport operators. You can also display it on your phone."
How about fuck off.
And it then gives a very long list of exemption reasons.
But with theirs on the way up and ours on the way down.
Thank goodness we resisted the siren call to use masks and other NPIs etc during the summer and autumn.
Theirs have been rising and ours have been falling is fairer. If you want to make predictions about where case numbers are going, that's your business. I won't follow you there.
All you need to remember is that the high number of Covid cases and deaths in the UK is completely immaterial; it's the end of lockdown that counts. But in countries other than the UK, high numbers of cases and deaths are a sign of doom and massive governmental incompetence. That's right, isn't it?
Re: other countries, high numbers of cases and deaths may be an indication of bad decision-making if accompanied by more draconian measures than us. Worst of both worlds sort of thing.
The UK has no legal restrictions currently so why are they rating the UK as a 41.2 at the moment?
Though I see its based upon the 'strictest sub-region' so that would include any restrictions by Holyrood etc as "UK".
I was wrong to use the word restrictions. It's wider than just prohibitions.
Additional: I've been digging into the data a little and it's troubling. The current value for face coverings in England is listed as "2". In Scotland it's "3". The levels are: 0- No policy 1- Recommended 2- Required in some specified shared/public spaces outside the home with other people present, or some situations when social distancing not possible 3- Required in all shared/public spaces outside the home with other people present or all situations when social distancing not possible
This seems wrong, to me. As I understand it, the mask level should be at most "1" for England.
I withdraw any point I have made about the stringency index until and unless I find out that this is my mistake and not theirs.
Face masks are required on public transport in England so that would fit with being a 2.
I opened your document but couldn't work out where to go for the "executive summary".
As for the link I sent before... I don't know what to say. There's plenty of stuff in there including a paper exploring the methodology and links to the data in a github repo. I'm sorry it's not in a more digestible format for you but sometimes it's worth digging a little deeper, as I've just been reminded by checking the face coverings score.
Hmm it was my understanding that on Public Transport it was required. Not a legal requirement but one short of that - I think the announcements say something like "may be refused passage".
And as for the doc - give me time I thought it might be something I could speed skim. Which it is not.
Yeah that's the terms of carriage but there's no legal foundation so it's merely a recommendation that people can (and obviously do) ignore. It's like companies insisting on a terms of service or end user licence agreement. No one has ever, ever gone to jail for hacking their iPhone or PS4 or Xbox.
I'm a little surprised on the report Labour are calling for an investigation specifically into Cox. It seems just an issue of him being an extreme example of how much you can earn doing another job as an MP than raking in money because you are an MP. Surely investigation should be for where there is a suggestion of wrongdoing (which the BBC report says there is not in his case), and the issue of having second jobs at all, and how much time you spend on them, is a matter for debate and discussion?
However I wonder what is the legal basis for this. It's notable they don't mention fines, so maybe this is a bit of a charade, and they actually don't have the power to enforce this?
The best characterisation of mask policy in England is "1 - Recommended"
1 to 2 on the definition given. They are 'required' in some places (TFL, hospitals, care homes, and in Scotland on public transport), even if it's not a legally-enforceable requirement.
I've just been Googling "Sadiq Khan" to see what he is actually *doing*
Not much. But a few things. eg He is doing THIS
"Sadiq Khan has unveiled £25,000 grants to help people change street names as part of a diversity campaign launched following Black Lives Matter protests.
"The Mayor of London has announced a £1 million fund that will be shared out among community groups, including those wishing to campaign to alter potentially offensive road names.
"Grants of up to £25,000 will support groups through all aspects of the process of changing street names, which could include enlisting consultants and compensating residents.
"The Untold Stories fund is part of the Commission for Diversity in the Public Realm, which was established following Black Lives Matter protests to diversify artwork and statuary that came under scrutiny for commemorating figures linked to empire and slavery."
Utterly pointless Woke bullshit, which also wastes money. Brilliant
"London mayor Sadiq Khan has urged the government to make face coverings mandatory on public transport as the UK continues to average more than 40,000 confirmed coronavirus cases a day for over a week."
He wants us all to mask up again. That's an inspired and innovative policy. Who saw that coming?
He's just extended the ULEZ zone which at a stroke has stopped me gadding around in my big polluting Merc. Whilst I'm not his greatest fan, eg he comes over to me as a careerist, and as I say he's making me walk everywhere, it has to be noted that much of the more visceral dislike of him is driven by him being Muslim. Not you, of course, but it's undeniably in the mix. Which is disappointing to see.
It is deniably in the mix. He’s just crap.
The only person to bring up his Muslim-ness was the equally crap Zac Goldsmith.
So iyo there are hardly any people whose dislike of him is driven by anti-Muslim prejudice? I think that's an absurdly optimistic notion. Please note I'm not in any way implying that any particular person who thinks he's rubbish is being influenced by this. It's not a smear against anybody to point out that prejudice is in the mix. Neither is it to say he isn't rubbish or some 'lefty comfort blanket' against something or other. It's just a factual comment.
implying that any particular person who thinks he's rubbish is being influenced by this But if you're thinking it, I am too. I doubt we'd be the only ones.
Ah but hang on. Take gardenwalker for eg, I am totally NOT thinking this. I must have read 1000 of his posts and not a trace of anti-muslim prejudice. Not even thinking it about leon where there has been fruitiness sometimes. Tbh it's more about where you see the quite wild-eyed stuff said about him. I think he's testified about it. He gets a lot. There, you have racism rearing its head, no question. What you also get is the slightly brighter and cagey type of racist who keeps a grip on what they say and stays carefully deniable. You know the type.
Ah yes. The people you "just know" are racist, but haven't actually done anything racist.
Bit like the witches. If I wasn't out, 24/7, burning them...
LOL this is the bad old kini.
As I noted several months ago in a post when he was flinging around accusations of racism (amended for his posts today):
"What you have to remember is that because @kinabalu for some unknown reason is very insecure he is invested in belittling views of nationality and what it means to be British and how one should react to people who are not white working class.
He does this because as a white working class lad made good (very good) and now moved away from his roots, he is confused about what he is supposed to think about these things. He feels he should condemn anyone who even mentions nationality or religion but has no views himself on them. He literally has no idea how to approach the idea of criticising someone who is not an "easy" target (ie WWC).
And hence when he bumps into people, like @Leon for example, someone he believes he is far more successful and intelligent than, but someone who is far more confident in their own opinions on such to him delicate and taboo subjects, he has literally no answer."
Holds as true today as it always has done.
Nice couch you have, Topping. Trouble is, I almost nodded off.
Same time next week?
Damn unsolicited diagnoses! He’ll be devising a scoring system to rank people next
Ah, I sense a reference to my simple yet rather sophisticated 'Class Indicator' test that you, almost alone on here, refused to take. And I could never understand why. Still, no point revisiting. The past is another country.
Doing those kind of tests then broadcasting the results is a kind of needy vanity that I’d like to avoid. Not that I always do I suppose
No clue why you're seeing it this way. 'Class' comes up a lot on here and I designed something neat to clarify and assist the discussions. Nothing untoward about it at all. As you'd know if you hadn't refused to co-operate.
I'm a little surprised on the report Labour are calling for an investigation specifically into Cox. It seems just an issue of him being an extreme example of how much you can earn doing another job as an MP than raking in money because you are an MP. Surely investigation should be for where there is a suggestion of wrongdoing (which the BBC report says there is not in his case), and the issue of having second jobs at all, and how much time you spend on them, is a matter for debate and discussion?
That is a funny letter. Politely worded rebukes can be hilarious, its why some legal judgements can be pretty entertaining.
My most sarcastic response to a complaint from a random member of the public (not even a client or customer) was along the lines of
1) You have no standing
and
2) There's so much wrong with your original 'complaint' that I don't know where to even begin but do not consider this response to be exhaustive, I shall only address the major points as a complete reply will lead to the complete deforestation of the Amazon rainforest due to the paper required to address every incomplete point you have raised.
Comments
A simple, "I hadn't noticed that, interesting, thanks for the link," would be more appropriate in the circumstances.
Back when people used to write cheques, it could be a bit of a faff if they used the initial they knew me by rather than my formal initial.
There's also a conflating of different issues (not by you):
1: Sexual attraction/non-attraction based on sexual characteristics/organs
2: Sexual attraction based on perceived gender
I can only speak for myself, but if I was getting amorous with someone I thought was a woman and then discovered she had a penis, it would end there. I'd rule that out, I think. Penises are just not my thing. A transgender post-op woman? Not necessarily (probably not likely, I've never seen a person that I know to be transgender who I have found attractive, but if I did then I don't think I'd be particularly bothered by the history).
It is, a bit - as you alluded to earlier, I think - similar to a situation in which a gay man complains about straight men not wanting to have sex with him. Or a straight man being offended that lesbians do not want to have sex with him.
The main dashboard updates a few minutes before the case summary and I got confused with yesterday's figures. You are quite correct.
https://twitter.com/BallouxFrancois/status/1457861459447328768
This was possibly one of my least subtle twitter threads ever. Though I stand by it. Schools should never, ever have been closed long-term anywhere in the world. That's a hill I'm prepared to die on.
School closures must never be tolerated again.
But regardless of that, and on the stringency index they sort of came into line or approaching it eventually, the key thing was that they never closed the schools and that, almost alone, justifies everything they did.
Single person households or not.
I didn't realise this until after I chose a two-syllable name for my daughter though.
Though I see its based upon the 'strictest sub-region' so that would include any restrictions by Holyrood etc as "UK".
As ever you duck your confused head and so, Whoosh, it goes right over
https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1458117266269261831
We know how this will go
There's no way any person should be pressurized into having sex with any other person. So, if lesbians are being hassled for sex by trans women on any sort of scale this is a big problem. Nothing like as big a problem as the one of women generally being hassled by men generally, but still a big problem.
But are they? I truly don't know and given my links to the lesbian dating scene are sparse these days I'm not sure how to find out.
The BBC might help maybe? Well you'd have thought so. In fact they recently published a long piece implying this WAS a widespread problem. But on examination of the small print it was based mainly on a small response Twitter poll performed by a vigorous anti-trans activist, then burnished by anecdote from a single named source - who turned out to be an unhinged individual with a criminal record who had in print called for the 'extermination' of all trans people.
I offer this to show that the nonsense is not all on one side - not by a long chalk - and that the notion of 'moral panic' and transphobia becoming an acceptable mainstream prejudice isn't without merit.
IIRC Blair wasn't questioned under caution during his cash for honours problem.
Until then, #shrugs#
Call your child by their forename and surname and they know they're in trouble.
Although I take your broader point.
As I said yesterday, the UK having no real restrictions is seemingly being completely ignored by the whole world as it defies the idea that only lockdown measures can bring cases down.
I think that's the inherent problem for Boris Johnson in this.
I am saying that sexuality is innate, we are born gay or bi or straight or whatever. We don't get to choose. This leads to much misery, but it is better to accept it.
This is absolutely not pro-Pedo, FFS. Pedophilia is a crime, and a vile, despicable crime at that. It ruins lives.
But is a pedophile born a pedophile? Almost certainly. And it is this which makes them so dangerous. They cannot be "cured". It never goes away. Once discovered, they have to be watched for the rest of their lives.
I am actually making the opposite argument to the one you think
/self-doxx
"As scientists seek to understand how [pedophilia] develops, there is growing consensus that the origin is largely biological. This view is based in part on studies pointing to subtle physical traits that have a higher incidence among pedophiles.
“The biological clues attached to pedophilia demonstrate that its roots are prenatal,” said James Cantor, director of the Toronto Sexuality Center. “These are not genetic; they can be traced to specific periods of development in the womb.”"
Compelling paragraph
"Learning to manage a drive as visceral, and often consuming, as sexual desire is possible, therapists say, but it cannot be shut off; nor can it be replaced, the way heroin can be swapped for methadone. Treatment can require drugs that reduce circulating testosterone and software that limits online browsing habits."
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/29/us/pedophiles-online-sex-abuse.html
https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1458123303600672773
@eddiemair https://twitter.com/LBC/status/1457767288321581056/video/1
https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1458123968204972039
He's an eminent QC and I'm not surprised people are willing to pay him decent money for his advice, his constituents seem happy with him.
If he really wanted to earn even more he could step down as an MP and trade in on the fact he's a former Attorney General of England & Wales who has fantastic probity.
Who can forget his principles when saying Theresa May was talking rubbish over her Brexit deal compared with Peter Goldsmith's advice that the Iraq war was legal.
Parliament is better served with having Geoffrey Cox as an MP.
https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1458069056603529222
A pedophile cannot be changed or persuaded to "not be" a pedophile, anymore than someone can change their blood group if you ask them. And sexual desire is so powerful even the biggest punishments are often no deterrent to the crime.
If anyone is discovered to be a pedophile they must be categorised as a grave potential menace until they either die, or the libido withers entirely.
And there, I agree, we can end an unhappy debate
Looks as if Labour are overplaying their hand
https://twitter.com/GuidoFawkes/status/1458103687235125248?t=XDy4f163ezzoBYHNTLUmFA&s=19
I opened your document but couldn't work out where to go for the "executive summary".
Seems a lot in there.
I mean right now for example Sir Keir Starmer not only is an MP but has secondary jobs as Leader of Her Majesty's Most Loyal Opposition and leader of the labour party will he have to give up those jobs?
What happens if Starmer becomes PM, he gets a few more jobs, things like Minister for the Civil Service, President of the G8 etc?
https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1458123303600672773?s=20
On top of that you get the wannabes who are either just unsatisfied with life generally and have misdiagnosed their own problems, or who think claiming to be gender fluid makes them a bit more interesting, or doubles the size of the sexual pool they are fishing in, or annoys their parents. You also get out and out male sexual perverts who just want to get in to women's toilets and prisons.
And on top of that again you get the perennial problem of lefties in search of a cause (or to put it more bluntly, looking for an issue to be wankers about). The touchstone for issues used to be geographic remoteness - South Africa, then Palestine. The reason for this being that the agenda is set by the posh left, and if they worried about causes closer to home (and it's not like the UK is short of poverty or racism) they might end up having to interact with the victims who are really not, darling, the sort of person one wants to interact with. The trans thing takes matters a stage further by taking up the cause of people who are so thin on the ground they barely statistically exist. Declaring war on transphobia is like declaring war on the Beast in Lord of the Flies.
https://capx.co/is-greta-thunberg-a-secret-climate-change-denier/
Sadly I don't think it is put as a serious argument, even if the point of some activists being, well, too gloomy for their own good (even if gloominess is warranted), is one that has some basis.
Whether he earns a lot or very little seems not very relevant to the question of if second jobs are are good thing or not.
https://tfl.gov.uk/campaign/face-coverings
However I wonder what is the legal basis for this. It's notable they don't mention fines, so maybe this is a bit of a charade, and they actually don't have the power to enforce this?
The best characterisation of mask policy in England is "1 - Recommended"
And as for the doc - give me time I thought it might be something I could speed skim. Which it is not.
Edit: https://tfl.gov.uk/campaign/face-coverings is what I found.
Most PBers would be able to blend right in!
https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/news/osmosis-of-corruption-the-viral-james-obrien-video-that-has-racked-up-over-2-million-views-300298/
(Although to some, London is England)
"If you are exempt from wearing a face covering, you can download and print the card below and carry it with you. You may want to print it and wear it on a lanyard or attach it to your clothing. You can show it if you are asked why you are not wearing a face covering. We will also recognise similar cards that may have been issued by other transport operators. You can also display it on your phone."
How about fuck off.
And it then gives a very long list of exemption reasons.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-floats-idea-eu-paying-belarus-stop-migrant-flows-2021-11-09/
1) You have no standing
and
2) There's so much wrong with your original 'complaint' that I don't know where to even begin but do not consider this response to be exhaustive, I shall only address the major points as a complete reply will lead to the complete deforestation of the Amazon rainforest due to the paper required to address every incomplete point you have raised.