It seems that from July new cars will have a limiter on which stops them exceeding the speed limit. It's an EU law but the UK is expected to follow. (Source: AutoTrader)
Anyone else come across this?
Is it a libertarian issue to fight for?
Afaics the limiter can be switched off by the driver, though will restart automatically the next time the car has started? Doesn't seem a huge deal to me, mostly as I'm unlikely to be buying a new car in my remaining time on this mortal coil.
Perhaps it and who's allowed in women's changing rooms will sweep the nation as the issues of the next GE? Or perhaps not.
The article I read didn't really explain how "strong" the effect is. It implied that the car can go faster than the limit, but depending on the car, you might be slowed over time or have to use more force on the accelerator. Does anyone have an understanding for this?
The info available seems mushy or contradictory. The Autotrader piece if I understand it right says that the accelerator will push back when approaching a speed limit but can be overridden by the driver also pushing down. Sounds fecking annoying if nothing else.
I saw some suggestions in a article last week that they were also considering the system used in some Arabic countries of a continuous audible alarm. It is fecking annoying but has the disadvantage for the authorities that it is only useful for the maximum speed limit - 70 MPH in the UK.
It seems that from July new cars will have a limiter on which stops them exceeding the speed limit. It's an EU law but the UK is expected to follow. (Source: AutoTrader)
Anyone else come across this?
Is it a libertarian issue to fight for?
Even worse, cars will all be fitted with data loggers.
The AutoTrader article says the limit will be set at 112 mph, which most people don't really want to exceed, and you can switch it off if you're really into crime:
No you are reading it incorrectly. It says Renault have currently set their cars to that. ALL cars in EU must be fitted with it and it is the speed limit of the road. It allows you to go over, but then throttles you back. Yes you can turn it off manually at start of each journey AT THE MOMENT.
That is also why I say the data logger is worse. Its tracking everything all the time.
Given all cars will shortly be internet connectrd devices and upgradable software, one should he concerned about this.
The dawn of the encrypted ECU and secure Canbus with allow/deny lists means this will actually be quite hard to disable.
I wish the gender debates were focussed on the bigger issues:
- How to improve treatment (funding, waiting times) for those suffering from gender dysphoria - Clamp down on genuine acts of transphobia (e.g. assaults, harassment) - Raise awareness by showing positive examples to help normalise it in society
Instead, it has become a campaign to remove any reference to a sex-based definition of women (strangely focussed the definition of women, not men); campaigning for self-identification with no regard to sex-based rights; and making sure everyone puts pronouns in email signatures...
On much of the left it has been framed as a "right vs. wrong" issue, much in the way gay rights were 15 years ago, and not as a balancing act between the rights of two groups that face various forms of discrimination.
Perhaps my school's most famous alumni was Quentin Crisp. His story shows how far we have come, and how far we still have to go.
Pippa Crerar @PippaCrerar · 43m No 10 has said it will announce if/ when Boris Johnson is fined but Met statement suggests today’s referrals involve more straightforward cases.
Sources tell me the widely held view in Government is that PM’s case “has been left to the bottom of the pile” by police.
Sounds like they will use the fact that junior staff have received penalties, as the reason for sending them to the more senior staff and potentially ministers.
Which is why everyone needs to be told to challenge any and all FPNs.
Ministers? I've seen no evidence of ministerial involvement, aside of the PM, who was at home.
This is the crazy thing for me. The rule breakers were the supposedly independent civil service, not the conservative party. The poor culture was the civil service culture in No. 10.
Most of the people under investigation are civil servants, but we know of at least 3 non-civil service staff who were sent questionnaires: Boris Johnson, Carrie Johnson and Rishi Sunak.
Why would you accept an FPN for an event organised by your employer? "My employer organised the event and said it was OK. They have lawyers, so I believed them."
Surely the Cabinet Office should be prosecuted, not employees.
1. The "oops we didn't realise. How ghastly". 2. The "how dare you criticise all men. We're not like that". 3. The "yes but what do you suggest we do" (the "women are responsible for sorting men out party) And then - 4. The "this is how I got to shag lots of women group" and 5. The poor incels group because women won't have sex with men who are rude, smelly and self-obsessed.
It was a pretty personal header, frankly. Do you think the largely male reaction encourages women to talk frankly about this topic? Do you think the reaction to women who raise concerns about womens rights and safety in relation to the trans issue ("Terf", "bigot" and threats of violence) is conducive to sensible debate?
I have tried to explain my concerns and why and support my arguments with facts. But a lot of the reaction is often very ad hominem, vile, personal and abusive (tho' generally not on here). Women are finally making their voices heard. They should be listened to. Starmer should meet with those womens' groups who have been asking to meet him and whom he has refused to meet. That would show character and leadership.
It is not enough for men to talk about VAWG. What is needed above all is for men to listen, really listen to women.
"poor incels group because women won't have sex with men who are rude, smelly and self-obsessed."
That comment might say more about your attitude than you intended...
It says quite a lot about you that that is what you picked up from this post.
I am not fighting a culture war - and nobody I know in the Labour Party is either. It seems to be Tories that keep bringing it up
Is Kay Burley a tory now as she raised it with Angela Rayner this morning on Sky ?
No, what a load of bad faith nonsense from you
Just counters your comment which is simply not the case
No, I said the people bringing up the culture wars are the right.
Kay Burley brought it up because the right keep bringing it up. Her job is to report the news, the right are trying to make it the news, unfortunately.
You are trying to deflect a real problem for labour
Strarmer was all over the place and Burley's question referred directly to Starmer
@Kle4 provided the correct response to you at 11.31am
A real problem for Labour is that they answer it in a stupid way and are unprepared for it. That's a question of strategy.
The culture wars themselves are non-existent and irrelevant - and I stand by that.
You care because it's a way for you to vote Tory again. So much for "your vote is up for grabs", that lasted a whole 48 hours didn't it! ROFL
The culture wars will carry Boris to another thumping majority. The idea of women having a cock is laughable to the vast majority of the nation and if Starmer can't do a Blair and tell the loonies to get fucked and state confidently that, "No Laura, women don't have penises" he's going to lose. Boris will have his red wall wedge issue.
Per this take what's "laughable to the vast majority of the nation" is something which has been accepted for ages in this and most western countries and in several others too - ie a legal route to change gender without mandatory radical surgery.
Therefore aren't you're implicitly saying that you - and iyo most of the public - want to rewind the clock by decades?
Fair enough, if so, but this is hardly a risk free position for the Tories to take. Win an election by *rolling back* minority rights? That's no slam dunk imo.
As ever, the question 'the vast majority of which nation?' also needs to be asked. If the SCons adopt their masters' cunning plan to ramp up the culture war it looks like it'll be yet another of the dud anti SNP bullets which they've loaded up with. As it happens I don't think UK wide polling would be hugely different.
'GRA Scotland reform: Poll suggests widespread public support for making it easier to legally change gender
Within weeks, the Scottish Government is expected to introduce legislation to “speed up and simplify” the legal gender recognition process under the 2004 Gender Recognition Act.
The survey of 2,000 adults carried out by Savanta ComRes for BBC Scotland indicated general support for the move with 57% for and 20% against.'
A week later: "I've been repeatedly assured since these allegations emerged there was no party and no rules were broken"
12 Jan 22: "I believed implicitly this was a work event"
24 Jan: "It was only 10 minutes"
Today: 20 fines.
Its possible to both (a) believe that you did nothing wrong and (b) be judged by others. e.g. the police, to have done something wrong.
Simple example - bubbles. My parents genuinely believed that their bubble included everyone from their family visiting all the time as long as it was on an individual basis.
Clearly wrong - it was only meant to be one person, and the same person every time.
Pippa Crerar @PippaCrerar · 43m No 10 has said it will announce if/ when Boris Johnson is fined but Met statement suggests today’s referrals involve more straightforward cases.
Sources tell me the widely held view in Government is that PM’s case “has been left to the bottom of the pile” by police.
Sounds like they will use the fact that junior staff have received penalties, as the reason for sending them to the more senior staff and potentially ministers.
Which is why everyone needs to be told to challenge any and all FPNs.
Ministers? I've seen no evidence of ministerial involvement, aside of the PM, who was at home.
This is the crazy thing for me. The rule breakers were the supposedly independent civil service, not the conservative party. The poor culture was the civil service culture in No. 10.
Most of the people under investigation are civil servants, but we know of at least 3 non-civil service staff who were sent questionnaires: Boris Johnson, Carrie Johnson and Rishi Sunak.
Why would you accept an FPN for an event organised by your employer? "My employer organised the event and said it was OK. They have lawyers, so I believed them."
Surely the Cabinet Office should be prosecuted, not employees.
I *think* that will only get you so far. As in, you have an element of personal responsibility.
Keir is an idiot. He can’t afford to lose one vote on this trans issue.
People who say only a small number of people care about it are burying their heads in the sand.
What’s your take then ? Do you think it’s something a great deal of people care about ?
If I am burying my head in the sand by thinking this only bothers a few people please give me info that will change my perspective.
I think few people care about it. But a decent number, if forced to think about it, will conclude that Labour wants to defy common sense and rub it in voters faces.
1. The "oops we didn't realise. How ghastly". 2. The "how dare you criticise all men. We're not like that". 3. The "yes but what do you suggest we do" (the "women are responsible for sorting men out party) And then - 4. The "this is how I got to shag lots of women group" and 5. The poor incels group because women won't have sex with men who are rude, smelly and self-obsessed.
It was a pretty personal header, frankly. Do you think the largely male reaction encourages women to talk frankly about this topic? Do you think the reaction to women who raise concerns about womens rights and safety in relation to the trans issue ("Terf", "bigot" and threats of violence) is conducive to sensible debate?
I have tried to explain my concerns and why and support my arguments with facts. But a lot of the reaction is often very ad hominem, vile, personal and abusive (tho' generally not on here). Women are finally making their voices heard. They should be listened to. Starmer should meet with those womens' groups who have been asking to meet him and whom he has refused to meet. That would show character and leadership.
It is not enough for men to talk about VAWG. What is needed above all is for men to listen, really listen to women.
"poor incels group because women won't have sex with men who are rude, smelly and self-obsessed."
That comment might say more about your attitude than you intended...
It says quite a lot about you that that is what you picked up from this post.
What does it say about me? The language you used isn't exactly very pleasant, was it?
It seems that from July new cars will have a limiter on which stops them exceeding the speed limit. It's an EU law but the UK is expected to follow. (Source: AutoTrader)
Anyone else come across this?
Is it a libertarian issue to fight for?
Even worse, cars will all be fitted with data loggers.
The AutoTrader article says the limit will be set at 112 mph, which most people don't really want to exceed, and you can switch it off if you're really into crime:
No you are reading it incorrectly. It says Renault have currently set their cars to that. ALL cars in EU must be fitted with it and it is the speed limit of the road. It allows you to go over, but then throttles you back. Yes you can turn it off manually at start of each journey AT THE MOMENT.
That is also why I say the data logger is worse. Its tracking everything all the time.
Given all cars will shortly be internet connectrd devices and upgradable software, one should he concerned about this.
The dawn of the encrypted ECU and secure Canbus with allow/deny lists means this will actually be quite hard to disable.
It will mean a very robust market in pre-2024 muscle cars though.
Until you can't get insurance without retro fitting one.
Pippa Crerar @PippaCrerar · 43m No 10 has said it will announce if/ when Boris Johnson is fined but Met statement suggests today’s referrals involve more straightforward cases.
Sources tell me the widely held view in Government is that PM’s case “has been left to the bottom of the pile” by police.
Sounds like they will use the fact that junior staff have received penalties, as the reason for sending them to the more senior staff and potentially ministers.
Which is why everyone needs to be told to challenge any and all FPNs.
Ministers? I've seen no evidence of ministerial involvement, aside of the PM, who was at home.
This is the crazy thing for me. The rule breakers were the supposedly independent civil service, not the conservative party. The poor culture was the civil service culture in No. 10.
Most of the people under investigation are civil servants, but we know of at least 3 non-civil service staff who were sent questionnaires: Boris Johnson, Carrie Johnson and Rishi Sunak.
At least two of those can claim quite legitamately to have been at home the whole time.
I am not fighting a culture war - and nobody I know in the Labour Party is either. It seems to be Tories that keep bringing it up
Is Kay Burley a tory now as she raised it with Angela Rayner this morning on Sky ?
No, what a load of bad faith nonsense from you
Just counters your comment which is simply not the case
No, I said the people bringing up the culture wars are the right.
Kay Burley brought it up because the right keep bringing it up. Her job is to report the news, the right are trying to make it the news, unfortunately.
You are trying to deflect a real problem for labour
Strarmer was all over the place and Burley's question referred directly to Starmer
@Kle4 provided the correct response to you at 11.31am
A real problem for Labour is that they answer it in a stupid way and are unprepared for it. That's a question of strategy.
The culture wars themselves are non-existent and irrelevant - and I stand by that.
You care because it's a way for you to vote Tory again. So much for "your vote is up for grabs", that lasted a whole 48 hours didn't it! ROFL
The culture wars will carry Boris to another thumping majority. The idea of women having a cock is laughable to the vast majority of the nation and if Starmer can't do a Blair and tell the loonies to get fucked and state confidently that, "No Laura, women don't have penises" he's going to lose. Boris will have his red wall wedge issue.
Per this take what's "laughable to the vast majority of the nation" is something which has been accepted for ages in this and most western countries and in several others too - ie a legal route to change gender without mandatory radical surgery.
Therefore aren't you're implicitly saying that you - and iyo most of the public - want to rewind the clock by decades?
Fair enough, if so, but this is hardly a risk free position for the Tories to take. Win an election by *rolling back* minority rights? That's no slam dunk imo.
As ever, the question 'the vast majority of which nation?' also needs to be asked. If the SCons adopt their masters' cunning plan to ramp up the culture war it looks like it'll be yet another of the dud anti SNP bullets which they've loaded up with. As it happens I don't think UK wide polling would be hugely different.
'GRA Scotland reform: Poll suggests widespread public support for making it easier to legally change gender
Within weeks, the Scottish Government is expected to introduce legislation to “speed up and simplify” the legal gender recognition process under the 2004 Gender Recognition Act.
The survey of 2,000 adults carried out by Savanta ComRes for BBC Scotland indicated general support for the move with 57% for and 20% against.'
Yet, opinion still remains divided on the speeding up of the process as well as the proposal to remove the need for a medical diagnosis.
And in another poll:
However, the new proposals would remove the need for medical assessment, and allow someone to obtain a gender recognition certificate through self-declaration after six months
According to the new survey, 53 per cent of Scots believe that a doctor’s approval should be needed for a person to change their sex in law.
Just over a quarter of respondents (27 per cent) think that a doctor’s approval should not be needed while a fifth said they did not know.
Which is precisely why the lefties on here are desperate to shut the topic down. They face the wrath of activists if they change course and the wrath of voters if they don't. It's really very simple.
Your evidence for this? I've never met a Labour activist who mentioned the issue, though I've met two Green activists who did.
CHB and Kinabalu today and every time it has come up. Others too. We get repeatedly told that people don't care about it - reminds me very much of the EU stuff prior to the referendum.
I wish the gender debates were focussed on the bigger issues:
- How to improve treatment (funding, waiting times) for those suffering from gender dysphoria - Clamp down on genuine acts of transphobia (e.g. assaults, harassment) - Raise awareness by showing positive examples to help normalise it in society
Instead, it has become a campaign to remove any reference to a sex-based definition of women (strangely focussed the definition of women, not men); campaigning for self-identification with no regard to sex-based rights; and making sure everyone puts pronouns in email signatures...
On much of the left it has been framed as a "right vs. wrong" issue, much in the way gay rights were 15 years ago, and not as a balancing act between the rights of two groups that face various forms of discrimination.
Perhaps my school's most famous alumni was Quentin Crisp. His story shows how far we have come, and how far we still have to go.
Reflecting on it, one aspect of the issue I have with the move towards everyone defining their gender is that I think a boy or a man should be able to do whatever he wishes without feeling the need to call himself a woman. Wear dresses and makeup. Do dancing rather than sport. Wear pink and not blue. The idea that these are "female" things are primarily social constructs - in the same way there is no issue with girls/women wearing suits, playing rugby and wearing blue.
Let boys and girls, men and women do whatever they hell they want without receiving abuse or needing a new label, and we'll have taken a much bigger leap forward than is possible from resolving the current gender wars.
Pippa Crerar @PippaCrerar · 43m No 10 has said it will announce if/ when Boris Johnson is fined but Met statement suggests today’s referrals involve more straightforward cases.
Sources tell me the widely held view in Government is that PM’s case “has been left to the bottom of the pile” by police.
Sounds like they will use the fact that junior staff have received penalties, as the reason for sending them to the more senior staff and potentially ministers.
Which is why everyone needs to be told to challenge any and all FPNs.
Ministers? I've seen no evidence of ministerial involvement, aside of the PM, who was at home.
This is the crazy thing for me. The rule breakers were the supposedly independent civil service, not the conservative party. The poor culture was the civil service culture in No. 10.
Most of the people under investigation are civil servants, but we know of at least 3 non-civil service staff who were sent questionnaires: Boris Johnson, Carrie Johnson and Rishi Sunak.
Why would you accept an FPN for an event organised by your employer? "My employer organised the event and said it was OK. They have lawyers, so I believed them."
Surely the Cabinet Office should be prosecuted, not employees.
“I was only following orders” isn’t generally considered a good defence. They should still be liable for their actions.
That said, yes, one hopes a tougher penalty falls on the person who organised the event than the attendees.
What we don’t know if what events we’re talking about. We know there are 20 FPNs. We don’t know to whom: it could be to a lot less than 20 people. We don’t know for which of the 12 gatherings: is it for events like the 20 May 2020 “socially distanced drinks”, and/or for events like the pre-Philip funeral late night party? The former was organised by 10 Downing Street, but the latter was not.
We need Sue Gray’s unexpurgated report to answer these sorts of questions.
100+ candidates is reasonable for a year old party but I don't think they're likely to get any elected.
They'll probably do least badly in the Northeast though where they're more likely to get transfers from socially Conservative Tory and independent voters. 1 or 2 seats in those areas would be a great result for them.
I am not fighting a culture war - and nobody I know in the Labour Party is either. It seems to be Tories that keep bringing it up
Is Kay Burley a tory now as she raised it with Angela Rayner this morning on Sky ?
No, what a load of bad faith nonsense from you
Just counters your comment which is simply not the case
No, I said the people bringing up the culture wars are the right.
Kay Burley brought it up because the right keep bringing it up. Her job is to report the news, the right are trying to make it the news, unfortunately.
You are trying to deflect a real problem for labour
Strarmer was all over the place and Burley's question referred directly to Starmer
@Kle4 provided the correct response to you at 11.31am
A real problem for Labour is that they answer it in a stupid way and are unprepared for it. That's a question of strategy.
The culture wars themselves are non-existent and irrelevant - and I stand by that.
You care because it's a way for you to vote Tory again. So much for "your vote is up for grabs", that lasted a whole 48 hours didn't it! ROFL
The culture wars will carry Boris to another thumping majority. The idea of women having a cock is laughable to the vast majority of the nation and if Starmer can't do a Blair and tell the loonies to get fucked and state confidently that, "No Laura, women don't have penises" he's going to lose. Boris will have his red wall wedge issue.
Per this take what's "laughable to the vast majority of the nation" is something which has been accepted for ages in this and most western countries and in several others too - ie a legal route to change gender without mandatory radical surgery.
Therefore aren't you're implicitly saying that you - and iyo most of the public - want to rewind the clock by decades?
Fair enough, if so, but this is hardly a risk free position for the Tories to take. Win an election by *rolling back* minority rights? That's no slam dunk imo.
As ever, the question 'the vast majority of which nation?' also needs to be asked. If the SCons adopt their masters' cunning plan to ramp up the culture war it looks like it'll be yet another of the dud anti SNP bullets which they've loaded up with. As it happens I don't think UK wide polling would be hugely different.
'GRA Scotland reform: Poll suggests widespread public support for making it easier to legally change gender
Within weeks, the Scottish Government is expected to introduce legislation to “speed up and simplify” the legal gender recognition process under the 2004 Gender Recognition Act.
The survey of 2,000 adults carried out by Savanta ComRes for BBC Scotland indicated general support for the move with 57% for and 20% against.'
Yet, opinion still remains divided on the speeding up of the process as well as the proposal to remove the need for a medical diagnosis.
Also ”The poll showed that many people said they were not following recent debate over the GRA reform, with 67% of people saying they were not following closely and 31% saying they were.”
Keir is an idiot. He can’t afford to lose one vote on this trans issue.
People who say only a small number of people care about it are burying their heads in the sand.
What’s your take then ? Do you think it’s something a great deal of people care about ?
If I am burying my head in the sand by thinking this only bothers a few people please give me info that will change my perspective.
I think few people care about it. But a decent number, if forced to think about it, will conclude that Labour wants to defy common sense and rub it in voters faces.
Plenty of people are going to be made to care about it because the tories are going to weaponise the issue.
However the tories have to tread a fine line because the 'adult female' definition is clearly nonsense that falls apart with even a cursory examination as we've seen on here today. The tories love the culture war shit because they've got nothing else left but it can be tricky to get the positioning right and they can get caught out. Eg England at the Euros.
I am not fighting a culture war - and nobody I know in the Labour Party is either. It seems to be Tories that keep bringing it up
Is Kay Burley a tory now as she raised it with Angela Rayner this morning on Sky ?
No, what a load of bad faith nonsense from you
Just counters your comment which is simply not the case
No, I said the people bringing up the culture wars are the right.
Kay Burley brought it up because the right keep bringing it up. Her job is to report the news, the right are trying to make it the news, unfortunately.
You are trying to deflect a real problem for labour
Strarmer was all over the place and Burley's question referred directly to Starmer
@Kle4 provided the correct response to you at 11.31am
A real problem for Labour is that they answer it in a stupid way and are unprepared for it. That's a question of strategy.
The culture wars themselves are non-existent and irrelevant - and I stand by that.
You care because it's a way for you to vote Tory again. So much for "your vote is up for grabs", that lasted a whole 48 hours didn't it! ROFL
The culture wars will carry Boris to another thumping majority. The idea of women having a cock is laughable to the vast majority of the nation and if Starmer can't do a Blair and tell the loonies to get fucked and state confidently that, "No Laura, women don't have penises" he's going to lose. Boris will have his red wall wedge issue.
Per this take what's "laughable to the vast majority of the nation" is something which has been accepted for ages in this and most western countries and in several others too - ie a legal route to change gender without mandatory radical surgery.
Therefore aren't you're implicitly saying that you - and iyo most of the public - want to rewind the clock by decades?
Fair enough, if so, but this is hardly a risk free position for the Tories to take. Win an election by *rolling back* minority rights? That's no slam dunk imo.
As ever, the question 'the vast majority of which nation?' also needs to be asked. If the SCons adopt their masters' cunning plan to ramp up the culture war it looks like it'll be yet another of the dud anti SNP bullets which they've loaded up with. As it happens I don't think UK wide polling would be hugely different.
'GRA Scotland reform: Poll suggests widespread public support for making it easier to legally change gender
Within weeks, the Scottish Government is expected to introduce legislation to “speed up and simplify” the legal gender recognition process under the 2004 Gender Recognition Act.
The survey of 2,000 adults carried out by Savanta ComRes for BBC Scotland indicated general support for the move with 57% for and 20% against.'
I've been mulling over this whole business since encountering my first unisex toilet (in the Rover Cottage restaurant at Axminster, as it happens, about 4 years ago).
One thing does strike me - it is very much a generation thing. So, if the Tories wish to cement themselves even more as the party for retired old farts with their own houses, bump up NI, keep the pensions triple lock, and cancel the trans folk ... yet the youngsters just don't think that way.
Keir is an idiot. He can’t afford to lose one vote on this trans issue.
People who say only a small number of people care about it are burying their heads in the sand.
What’s your take then ? Do you think it’s something a great deal of people care about ?
If I am burying my head in the sand by thinking this only bothers a few people please give me info that will change my perspective.
I think few people care about it. But a decent number, if forced to think about it, will conclude that Labour wants to defy common sense and rub it in voters faces.
I expect it will play badly for Labour. It is precisely the kind of pointless and divisive wedge issue that the Tories will exploit, having nothing real to offer the voters. But the correct (legally and morally) response to the question "can a woman have a penis?" is "yes".
I am not fighting a culture war - and nobody I know in the Labour Party is either. It seems to be Tories that keep bringing it up
Is Kay Burley a tory now as she raised it with Angela Rayner this morning on Sky ?
No, what a load of bad faith nonsense from you
Just counters your comment which is simply not the case
No, I said the people bringing up the culture wars are the right.
Kay Burley brought it up because the right keep bringing it up. Her job is to report the news, the right are trying to make it the news, unfortunately.
You are trying to deflect a real problem for labour
Strarmer was all over the place and Burley's question referred directly to Starmer
@Kle4 provided the correct response to you at 11.31am
A real problem for Labour is that they answer it in a stupid way and are unprepared for it. That's a question of strategy.
The culture wars themselves are non-existent and irrelevant - and I stand by that.
You care because it's a way for you to vote Tory again. So much for "your vote is up for grabs", that lasted a whole 48 hours didn't it! ROFL
The culture wars will carry Boris to another thumping majority. The idea of women having a cock is laughable to the vast majority of the nation and if Starmer can't do a Blair and tell the loonies to get fucked and state confidently that, "No Laura, women don't have penises" he's going to lose. Boris will have his red wall wedge issue.
Per this take what's "laughable to the vast majority of the nation" is something which has been accepted for ages in this and most western countries and in several others too - ie a legal route to change gender without mandatory radical surgery.
Therefore aren't you're implicitly saying that you - and iyo most of the public - want to rewind the clock by decades?
Fair enough, if so, but this is hardly a risk free position for the Tories to take. Win an election by *rolling back* minority rights? That's no slam dunk imo.
As ever, the question 'the vast majority of which nation?' also needs to be asked. If the SCons adopt their masters' cunning plan to ramp up the culture war it looks like it'll be yet another of the dud anti SNP bullets which they've loaded up with. As it happens I don't think UK wide polling would be hugely different.
'GRA Scotland reform: Poll suggests widespread public support for making it easier to legally change gender
Within weeks, the Scottish Government is expected to introduce legislation to “speed up and simplify” the legal gender recognition process under the 2004 Gender Recognition Act.
The survey of 2,000 adults carried out by Savanta ComRes for BBC Scotland indicated general support for the move with 57% for and 20% against.'
I am not fighting a culture war - and nobody I know in the Labour Party is either. It seems to be Tories that keep bringing it up
Is Kay Burley a tory now as she raised it with Angela Rayner this morning on Sky ?
No, what a load of bad faith nonsense from you
Just counters your comment which is simply not the case
No, I said the people bringing up the culture wars are the right.
Kay Burley brought it up because the right keep bringing it up. Her job is to report the news, the right are trying to make it the news, unfortunately.
You are trying to deflect a real problem for labour
Strarmer was all over the place and Burley's question referred directly to Starmer
@Kle4 provided the correct response to you at 11.31am
A real problem for Labour is that they answer it in a stupid way and are unprepared for it. That's a question of strategy.
The culture wars themselves are non-existent and irrelevant - and I stand by that.
You care because it's a way for you to vote Tory again. So much for "your vote is up for grabs", that lasted a whole 48 hours didn't it! ROFL
The culture wars will carry Boris to another thumping majority. The idea of women having a cock is laughable to the vast majority of the nation and if Starmer can't do a Blair and tell the loonies to get fucked and state confidently that, "No Laura, women don't have penises" he's going to lose. Boris will have his red wall wedge issue.
Per this take what's "laughable to the vast majority of the nation" is something which has been accepted for ages in this and most western countries and in several others too - ie a legal route to change gender without mandatory radical surgery.
Therefore aren't you're implicitly saying that you - and iyo most of the public - want to rewind the clock by decades?
Fair enough, if so, but this is hardly a risk free position for the Tories to take. Win an election by *rolling back* minority rights? That's no slam dunk imo.
I think Max puts his views too robustly, but I suspect he does so for effect.
Nobody wants to roll back existing rights.
They do object to being told to ignore the evidence of their own eyes (I am thinking of the Lia Williams case especially here).
He could be doing that, I don't know. It's not an unheard of technique. And, yes, there's some crazy outlier stuff which it's right to call out.
But my point is to show how all this "Labour in a knot and denying commonsense' business can be quite easily turned back on the Tories to get "Tories in a knot and seem to want to turn the clock back and erase trans people's rights to affirm their gender."
And you say nobody wants to either remove the route to legal gender change or link it to mandatory surgery - but as far as I can see quite a few people do. Not sure where you're deriving your confidence on this one.
Pippa Crerar @PippaCrerar · 43m No 10 has said it will announce if/ when Boris Johnson is fined but Met statement suggests today’s referrals involve more straightforward cases.
Sources tell me the widely held view in Government is that PM’s case “has been left to the bottom of the pile” by police.
Sounds like they will use the fact that junior staff have received penalties, as the reason for sending them to the more senior staff and potentially ministers.
Which is why everyone needs to be told to challenge any and all FPNs.
Ministers? I've seen no evidence of ministerial involvement, aside of the PM, who was at home.
This is the crazy thing for me. The rule breakers were the supposedly independent civil service, not the conservative party. The poor culture was the civil service culture in No. 10.
Most of the people under investigation are civil servants, but we know of at least 3 non-civil service staff who were sent questionnaires: Boris Johnson, Carrie Johnson and Rishi Sunak.
At least two of those can claim quite legitamately to have been at home the whole time.
It is very obvious what part of number 10 is the private residence and what part is a working office. The idea that the whole building counts as the Johnsons’ home is obvious nonsense.
Most of the rules on gatherings made no distinctions between your home and anywhere else anyway. You weren’t allowed to have lots of people gather in your home without a good reason.
Keir is an idiot. He can’t afford to lose one vote on this trans issue.
People who say only a small number of people care about it are burying their heads in the sand.
What’s your take then ? Do you think it’s something a great deal of people care about ?
If I am burying my head in the sand by thinking this only bothers a few people please give me info that will change my perspective.
I think few people care about it. But a decent number, if forced to think about it, will conclude that Labour wants to defy common sense and rub it in voters faces.
I expect it will play badly for Labour. It is precisely the kind of pointless and divisive wedge issue that the Tories will exploit, having nothing real to offer the voters. But the correct (legally and morally) response to the question "can a woman have a penis?" is "yes".
It’s the legally correct answer.
I’m not sure it’s an answer that makes sense to anyone outside a legal framework.
When a normal brain hears it, I think it sets off a small explosion of wtf, which then requires effort to suppress.
And voters don’t want to be told to go against their common sense.
100+ candidates is reasonable for a year old party but I don't think they're likely to get any elected.
They'll probably do least badly in the Northeast though where they're more likely to get transfers from socially Conservative Tory and independent voters. 1 or 2 seats in those areas would be a great result for them.
Scottish local elections are under STV, so I would’ve thought some hope for Alba to win seats.
I wish the gender debates were focussed on the bigger issues:
- How to improve treatment (funding, waiting times) for those suffering from gender dysphoria - Clamp down on genuine acts of transphobia (e.g. assaults, harassment) - Raise awareness by showing positive examples to help normalise it in society
Instead, it has become a campaign to remove any reference to a sex-based definition of women (strangely focussed the definition of women, not men); campaigning for self-identification with no regard to sex-based rights; and making sure everyone puts pronouns in email signatures...
On much of the left it has been framed as a "right vs. wrong" issue, much in the way gay rights were 15 years ago, and not as a balancing act between the rights of two groups that face various forms of discrimination.
Perhaps my school's most famous alumni was Quentin Crisp. His story shows how far we have come, and how far we still have to go.
Reflecting on it, one aspect of the issue I have with the move towards everyone defining their gender is that I think a boy or a man should be able to do whatever he wishes without feeling the need to call himself a woman. Wear dresses and makeup. Do dancing rather than sport. Wear pink and not blue. The idea that these are "female" things are primarily social constructs - in the same way there is no issue with girls/women wearing suits, playing rugby and wearing blue.
Let boys and girls, men and women do whatever they hell they want without receiving abuse or needing a new label, and we'll have taken a much bigger leap forward than is possible from resolving the current gender wars.
I think there's a lot in that view. If someone's not causing any harm, let them do what they want. Even if some people genuinely do want to swap gender.
As I get older, I'm tending to get less fussed about how people act, or about societal 'norms'. As long as you treat people well, it's no-one's business.
It can also be about roles. My wife works. I look after the kid and the home (or try to...) Our roles are somewhat gender-swapped. Not only do most people not give a damn, it's getting increasingly common.
It was very unpopular for England to take the knee here as I recall. Weird how that all went quiet
I think it lacked a bit of context at the time, and the players have made their case very well. You may not agree but the actions of some over the 'black lives matter' campaign were divisive for some people. There are still huge problems with racism in the UK, but many of us pride ourselves on the strides that have been taken in the last 40 years. We are nowhere near as bad as the USA, and so some of the nonsence that spread to here upset people. Its right to continually look at history and learn from it. Colston has been a controversial figure in Bristol for many years. Churchill for many is an absolute hero, for others less so. He was a man of his time, and its hard to judge any historical figure by the standards of 2022. What the footballers have done is win people over to their point of view, so well done them.
As a Tory who'd prefer a new leader this poll shows no change - yesterday's from a different pollster showed a declining Labour lead. Both following a budget slated in the media, suggesting the public view may be more nuanced. Neither showed a Labour surge. What is your explanation for the Tories doing so relatively well.
Pippa Crerar @PippaCrerar · 43m No 10 has said it will announce if/ when Boris Johnson is fined but Met statement suggests today’s referrals involve more straightforward cases.
Sources tell me the widely held view in Government is that PM’s case “has been left to the bottom of the pile” by police.
Sounds like they will use the fact that junior staff have received penalties, as the reason for sending them to the more senior staff and potentially ministers.
Which is why everyone needs to be told to challenge any and all FPNs.
Ministers? I've seen no evidence of ministerial involvement, aside of the PM, who was at home.
This is the crazy thing for me. The rule breakers were the supposedly independent civil service, not the conservative party. The poor culture was the civil service culture in No. 10.
Most of the people under investigation are civil servants, but we know of at least 3 non-civil service staff who were sent questionnaires: Boris Johnson, Carrie Johnson and Rishi Sunak.
At least two of those can claim quite legitamately to have been at home the whole time.
It is very obvious what part of number 10 is the private residence and what part is a working office. The idea that the whole building counts as the Johnsons’ home is obvious nonsense.
Most of the rules on gatherings made no distinctions between your home and anywhere else anyway. You weren’t allowed to have lots of people gather in your home without a good reason.
Keir is an idiot. He can’t afford to lose one vote on this trans issue.
People who say only a small number of people care about it are burying their heads in the sand.
What’s your take then ? Do you think it’s something a great deal of people care about ?
If I am burying my head in the sand by thinking this only bothers a few people please give me info that will change my perspective.
I think few people care about it. But a decent number, if forced to think about it, will conclude that Labour wants to defy common sense and rub it in voters faces.
I expect it will play badly for Labour. It is precisely the kind of pointless and divisive wedge issue that the Tories will exploit, having nothing real to offer the voters. But the correct (legally and morally) response to the question "can a woman have a penis?" is "yes".
It’s the legally correct answer.
I’m not sure it’s an answer that makes sense to anyone outside a legal framework.
When a normal brain hears it, I think it sets off a small explosion of wtf, which then requires effort to suppress.
And voters don’t want to be told to go against their common sense.
A politician is someone who has responsibility for making laws. I would hope and expect that the legally correct answer would occupy a more prominent position in their thinking than it would for some random punter on the street.
A week later: "I've been repeatedly assured since these allegations emerged there was no party and no rules were broken"
12 Jan 22: "I believed implicitly this was a work event"
24 Jan: "It was only 10 minutes"
Today: 20 fines.
Its possible to both (a) believe that you did nothing wrong and (b) be judged by others. e.g. the police, to have done something wrong.
Simple example - bubbles. My parents genuinely believed that their bubble included everyone from their family visiting all the time as long as it was on an individual basis.
Clearly wrong - it was only meant to be one person, and the same person every time.
I suspect, though, that your parents weren't responsible for creating the lockdown rules, nor for using daily televised press conferences to announce the rules to the public. Boris was.
That was last July, when someone made a complaint. It's like the time when a far-right group accused me of racism - the police said they would look at it eventually, but, in fatherly advice mode, not to lose sleep over it. (They got round to it two years later and said curtly to the complainant "No case to answer".)
Keir is an idiot. He can’t afford to lose one vote on this trans issue.
People who say only a small number of people care about it are burying their heads in the sand.
What’s your take then ? Do you think it’s something a great deal of people care about ?
If I am burying my head in the sand by thinking this only bothers a few people please give me info that will change my perspective.
I think few people care about it. But a decent number, if forced to think about it, will conclude that Labour wants to defy common sense and rub it in voters faces.
I expect it will play badly for Labour. It is precisely the kind of pointless and divisive wedge issue that the Tories will exploit, having nothing real to offer the voters. But the correct (legally and morally) response to the question "can a woman have a penis?" is "yes".
It’s also the case that the issue isn’t going away - thanks to live legislation in Scotland and events in the USA.
As @Cyclefree suggested, Labour needs to find a form of words to release in a statement, and then whip everyone to refer to the precise words of that statement. If there’s one thing Sir Keir should be good at, it’s writing a precise form of words that can be interpreted favourably by everyone in the party.
Pippa Crerar @PippaCrerar · 43m No 10 has said it will announce if/ when Boris Johnson is fined but Met statement suggests today’s referrals involve more straightforward cases.
Sources tell me the widely held view in Government is that PM’s case “has been left to the bottom of the pile” by police.
Sounds like they will use the fact that junior staff have received penalties, as the reason for sending them to the more senior staff and potentially ministers.
Which is why everyone needs to be told to challenge any and all FPNs.
Ministers? I've seen no evidence of ministerial involvement, aside of the PM, who was at home.
This is the crazy thing for me. The rule breakers were the supposedly independent civil service, not the conservative party. The poor culture was the civil service culture in No. 10.
Most of the people under investigation are civil servants, but we know of at least 3 non-civil service staff who were sent questionnaires: Boris Johnson, Carrie Johnson and Rishi Sunak.
At least two of those can claim quite legitamately to have been at home the whole time.
It is very obvious what part of number 10 is the private residence and what part is a working office. The idea that the whole building counts as the Johnsons’ home is obvious nonsense.
Most of the rules on gatherings made no distinctions between your home and anywhere else anyway. You weren’t allowed to have lots of people gather in your home without a good reason.
And the garden?
Did any of the legislation in question specify that different rules applied to gardens? Could you give us the relevant paragraphs?
100+ candidates is reasonable for a year old party but I don't think they're likely to get any elected.
They'll probably do least badly in the Northeast though where they're more likely to get transfers from socially Conservative Tory and independent voters. 1 or 2 seats in those areas would be a great result for them.
Scottish local elections are under STV, so I would’ve thought some hope for Alba to win seats.
I think it's unlikely they'll get any seats although somewhere like Arbroath West where they have a relatively high profile candidate and are putting in a reasonable effort is probably their best bet.
I can't see them going anywhere in the central belt.
As a Tory who'd prefer a new leader this poll shows no change - yesterday's from a different pollster showed a declining Labour lead. Both following a budget slated in the media, suggesting the public view may be more nuanced. Neither showed a Labour surge. What is your explanation for the Tories doing so relatively well.
I remember you saying just about a year ago, that Labour was doomed
I am not fighting a culture war - and nobody I know in the Labour Party is either. It seems to be Tories that keep bringing it up
Is Kay Burley a tory now as she raised it with Angela Rayner this morning on Sky ?
No, what a load of bad faith nonsense from you
Just counters your comment which is simply not the case
No, I said the people bringing up the culture wars are the right.
Kay Burley brought it up because the right keep bringing it up. Her job is to report the news, the right are trying to make it the news, unfortunately.
You are trying to deflect a real problem for labour
Strarmer was all over the place and Burley's question referred directly to Starmer
@Kle4 provided the correct response to you at 11.31am
A real problem for Labour is that they answer it in a stupid way and are unprepared for it. That's a question of strategy.
The culture wars themselves are non-existent and irrelevant - and I stand by that.
You care because it's a way for you to vote Tory again. So much for "your vote is up for grabs", that lasted a whole 48 hours didn't it! ROFL
The culture wars will carry Boris to another thumping majority. The idea of women having a cock is laughable to the vast majority of the nation and if Starmer can't do a Blair and tell the loonies to get fucked and state confidently that, "No Laura, women don't have penises" he's going to lose. Boris will have his red wall wedge issue.
Per this take what's "laughable to the vast majority of the nation" is something which has been accepted for ages in this and most western countries and in several others too - ie a legal route to change gender without mandatory radical surgery.
Therefore aren't you're implicitly saying that you - and iyo most of the public - want to rewind the clock by decades?
Fair enough, if so, but this is hardly a risk free position for the Tories to take. Win an election by *rolling back* minority rights? That's no slam dunk imo.
As ever, the question 'the vast majority of which nation?' also needs to be asked. If the SCons adopt their masters' cunning plan to ramp up the culture war it looks like it'll be yet another of the dud anti SNP bullets which they've loaded up with. As it happens I don't think UK wide polling would be hugely different.
'GRA Scotland reform: Poll suggests widespread public support for making it easier to legally change gender
Within weeks, the Scottish Government is expected to introduce legislation to “speed up and simplify” the legal gender recognition process under the 2004 Gender Recognition Act.
The survey of 2,000 adults carried out by Savanta ComRes for BBC Scotland indicated general support for the move with 57% for and 20% against.'
I've been mulling over this whole business since encountering my first unisex toilet (in the Rover Cottage restaurant at Axminster, as it happens, about 4 years ago).
One thing does strike me - it is very much a generation thing. So, if the Tories wish to cement themselves even more as the party for retired old farts with their own houses, bump up NI, keep the pensions triple lock, and cancel the trans folk ... yet the youngsters just don't think that way.
Very much so, and even if my view on the issue is not have a fixed one, in any case I kinda feel I have an obligation to stand back and let younger people work it out. Besides, the folk that seem to have a very strong opinion on this seem to be a bit deranged by it.
I can think of another issue on which the youngsters differ from the retired old farts with their own houses (I am at least 2/3 of the way into the latter category)..
A week later: "I've been repeatedly assured since these allegations emerged there was no party and no rules were broken"
12 Jan 22: "I believed implicitly this was a work event"
24 Jan: "It was only 10 minutes"
Today: 20 fines.
Its possible to both (a) believe that you did nothing wrong and (b) be judged by others. e.g. the police, to have done something wrong.
Simple example - bubbles. My parents genuinely believed that their bubble included everyone from their family visiting all the time as long as it was on an individual basis.
Clearly wrong - it was only meant to be one person, and the same person every time.
I suspect, though, that your parents weren't responsible for creating the lockdown rules, nor for using daily televised press conferences to announce the rules to the public. Boris was.
No, my parents were not involved in drafting the laws. But here's the thing, I suspect most of those given FPN's weren't either.
I'm not defending them. The country would be a less angry place if they hadn't done it, but I can see how it happened. I also think its a bit less clear cut a conservative issue than some want it to be. We will never know what would have happened if Labour had been in charge. The civil service would have been the same though.
Keir is an idiot. He can’t afford to lose one vote on this trans issue.
People who say only a small number of people care about it are burying their heads in the sand.
What’s your take then ? Do you think it’s something a great deal of people care about ?
If I am burying my head in the sand by thinking this only bothers a few people please give me info that will change my perspective.
I think few people care about it. But a decent number, if forced to think about it, will conclude that Labour wants to defy common sense and rub it in voters faces.
Plenty of people are going to be made to care about it because the tories are going to weaponise the issue.
However the tories have to tread a fine line because the 'adult female' definition is clearly nonsense that falls apart with even a cursory examination as we've seen on here today. The tories love the culture war shit because they've got nothing else left but it can be tricky to get the positioning right and they can get caught out. Eg England at the Euros.
Do you think they're going to do a Slab and organise some statue-bothering with the TV cameras waiting?
It was very unpopular for England to take the knee here as I recall. Weird how that all went quiet
Except its still virtue signalling with no meaning behind it .
So is saying "a woman can't have a penis" when the law says otherwise and you have no intention of changing it.
did i say that ? I dont think i have uttered a word on the trans debate ever!
Ha ha, congratulations. I was referring to the debate that CHB's post was referencing, and pointing out that there is virtue signalling on all sides, not commenting on anything you had said on that matter.
I am not fighting a culture war - and nobody I know in the Labour Party is either. It seems to be Tories that keep bringing it up
Is Kay Burley a tory now as she raised it with Angela Rayner this morning on Sky ?
No, what a load of bad faith nonsense from you
Just counters your comment which is simply not the case
No, I said the people bringing up the culture wars are the right.
Kay Burley brought it up because the right keep bringing it up. Her job is to report the news, the right are trying to make it the news, unfortunately.
You are trying to deflect a real problem for labour
Strarmer was all over the place and Burley's question referred directly to Starmer
@Kle4 provided the correct response to you at 11.31am
A real problem for Labour is that they answer it in a stupid way and are unprepared for it. That's a question of strategy.
The culture wars themselves are non-existent and irrelevant - and I stand by that.
You care because it's a way for you to vote Tory again. So much for "your vote is up for grabs", that lasted a whole 48 hours didn't it! ROFL
The culture wars will carry Boris to another thumping majority. The idea of women having a cock is laughable to the vast majority of the nation and if Starmer can't do a Blair and tell the loonies to get fucked and state confidently that, "No Laura, women don't have penises" he's going to lose. Boris will have his red wall wedge issue.
Per this take what's "laughable to the vast majority of the nation" is something which has been accepted for ages in this and most western countries and in several others too - ie a legal route to change gender without mandatory radical surgery.
Therefore aren't you're implicitly saying that you - and iyo most of the public - want to rewind the clock by decades?
Fair enough, if so, but this is hardly a risk free position for the Tories to take. Win an election by *rolling back* minority rights? That's no slam dunk imo.
As ever, the question 'the vast majority of which nation?' also needs to be asked. If the SCons adopt their masters' cunning plan to ramp up the culture war it looks like it'll be yet another of the dud anti SNP bullets which they've loaded up with. As it happens I don't think UK wide polling would be hugely different.
'GRA Scotland reform: Poll suggests widespread public support for making it easier to legally change gender
Within weeks, the Scottish Government is expected to introduce legislation to “speed up and simplify” the legal gender recognition process under the 2004 Gender Recognition Act.
The survey of 2,000 adults carried out by Savanta ComRes for BBC Scotland indicated general support for the move with 57% for and 20% against.'
I've been mulling over this whole business since encountering my first unisex toilet (in the Rover Cottage restaurant at Axminster, as it happens, about 4 years ago).
One thing does strike me - it is very much a generation thing. So, if the Tories wish to cement themselves even more as the party for retired old farts with their own houses, bump up NI, keep the pensions triple lock, and cancel the trans folk ... yet the youngsters just don't think that way.
Very much so, and even if my view on the issue is not have a fixed one, in any case I kinda feel I have an obligation to stand back and let younger people work it out. Besides, the folk that seem to have a very strong opinion on this seem to be a bit deranged by it.
I can think of another issue on which the youngsters differ from the retired old farts with their own houses (I am at least 2/3 of the way into the latter category)..
I should also admit, me ditto on the latter category.
Keir is an idiot. He can’t afford to lose one vote on this trans issue.
People who say only a small number of people care about it are burying their heads in the sand.
What’s your take then ? Do you think it’s something a great deal of people care about ?
If I am burying my head in the sand by thinking this only bothers a few people please give me info that will change my perspective.
I think few people care about it. But a decent number, if forced to think about it, will conclude that Labour wants to defy common sense and rub it in voters faces.
I expect it will play badly for Labour. It is precisely the kind of pointless and divisive wedge issue that the Tories will exploit, having nothing real to offer the voters. But the correct (legally and morally) response to the question "can a woman have a penis?" is "yes".
It’s the legally correct answer.
I’m not sure it’s an answer that makes sense to anyone outside a legal framework.
When a normal brain hears it, I think it sets off a small explosion of wtf, which then requires effort to suppress.
And voters don’t want to be told to go against their common sense.
A politician is someone who has responsibility for making laws. I would hope and expect that the legally correct answer would occupy a more prominent position in their thinking than it would for some random punter on the street.
Sure but saying it is the “moral answer” Is alienating.
Labour need to turn this into a question of basic respect, not “I’m right and you the voter are wrong”
That was last July, when someone made a complaint. It's like the time when a far-right group accused me of racism - the police said they would look at it eventually, but, in fatherly advice mode, not to lose sleep over it. (They got round to it two years later and said curtly to the complainant "No case to answer".)
Not really the same. This is a group within the party complaining andasking for her to lose the whip. The article says the party takes all complaints seriously. Are you saying they don't?
A week later: "I've been repeatedly assured since these allegations emerged there was no party and no rules were broken"
12 Jan 22: "I believed implicitly this was a work event"
24 Jan: "It was only 10 minutes"
Today: 20 fines.
Its possible to both (a) believe that you did nothing wrong and (b) be judged by others. e.g. the police, to have done something wrong.
Simple example - bubbles. My parents genuinely believed that their bubble included everyone from their family visiting all the time as long as it was on an individual basis.
Clearly wrong - it was only meant to be one person, and the same person every time.
I suspect, though, that your parents weren't responsible for creating the lockdown rules, nor for using daily televised press conferences to announce the rules to the public. Boris was.
No, my parents were not involved in drafting the laws. But here's the thing, I suspect most of those given FPN's weren't either.
I'm not defending them. The country would be a less angry place if they hadn't done it, but I can see how it happened. I also think its a bit less clear cut a conservative issue than some want it to be. We will never know what would have happened if Labour had been in charge. The civil service would have been the same though.
Many of the people involved were, while civil servants, political appointees, there at the behest of a Conservative PM.
We don’t know what would’ve happened in different circumstances. But that’s always true. We can look at what happened. The Gray interim report, even so limited in what it could say, is damning. Leadership comes from the top: from the PM and who he appoints.
I am not fighting a culture war - and nobody I know in the Labour Party is either. It seems to be Tories that keep bringing it up
Is Kay Burley a tory now as she raised it with Angela Rayner this morning on Sky ?
No, what a load of bad faith nonsense from you
Just counters your comment which is simply not the case
No, I said the people bringing up the culture wars are the right.
Kay Burley brought it up because the right keep bringing it up. Her job is to report the news, the right are trying to make it the news, unfortunately.
You are trying to deflect a real problem for labour
Strarmer was all over the place and Burley's question referred directly to Starmer
@Kle4 provided the correct response to you at 11.31am
A real problem for Labour is that they answer it in a stupid way and are unprepared for it. That's a question of strategy.
The culture wars themselves are non-existent and irrelevant - and I stand by that.
You care because it's a way for you to vote Tory again. So much for "your vote is up for grabs", that lasted a whole 48 hours didn't it! ROFL
The culture wars will carry Boris to another thumping majority. The idea of women having a cock is laughable to the vast majority of the nation and if Starmer can't do a Blair and tell the loonies to get fucked and state confidently that, "No Laura, women don't have penises" he's going to lose. Boris will have his red wall wedge issue.
Per this take what's "laughable to the vast majority of the nation" is something which has been accepted for ages in this and most western countries and in several others too - ie a legal route to change gender without mandatory radical surgery.
Therefore aren't you're implicitly saying that you - and iyo most of the public - want to rewind the clock by decades?
Fair enough, if so, but this is hardly a risk free position for the Tories to take. Win an election by *rolling back* minority rights? That's no slam dunk imo.
As ever, the question 'the vast majority of which nation?' also needs to be asked. If the SCons adopt their masters' cunning plan to ramp up the culture war it looks like it'll be yet another of the dud anti SNP bullets which they've loaded up with. As it happens I don't think UK wide polling would be hugely different.
'GRA Scotland reform: Poll suggests widespread public support for making it easier to legally change gender
Within weeks, the Scottish Government is expected to introduce legislation to “speed up and simplify” the legal gender recognition process under the 2004 Gender Recognition Act.
The survey of 2,000 adults carried out by Savanta ComRes for BBC Scotland indicated general support for the move with 57% for and 20% against.'
Yet, opinion still remains divided on the speeding up of the process as well as the proposal to remove the need for a medical diagnosis.
I believe it's not the done thing to reproduce whole articles, but if you want to pick nuggets from the piece:
'It also suggested more support for trans people accessing single-sex changing rooms with 61% in agreement and 10% disagreeing.'
Overall, the survey suggests more support than opposition for transgender people to access single sex spaces - in certain situations. A third (35%) said they should be able to do so only if they have legally changed sex and had gender reassignment surgery.
And 28% said that transgender people should be able to access single sex spaces even if they had not had gender reassignment surgery.
Pippa Crerar @PippaCrerar · 43m No 10 has said it will announce if/ when Boris Johnson is fined but Met statement suggests today’s referrals involve more straightforward cases.
Sources tell me the widely held view in Government is that PM’s case “has been left to the bottom of the pile” by police.
Sounds like they will use the fact that junior staff have received penalties, as the reason for sending them to the more senior staff and potentially ministers.
Which is why everyone needs to be told to challenge any and all FPNs.
Ministers? I've seen no evidence of ministerial involvement, aside of the PM, who was at home.
This is the crazy thing for me. The rule breakers were the supposedly independent civil service, not the conservative party. The poor culture was the civil service culture in No. 10.
Most of the people under investigation are civil servants, but we know of at least 3 non-civil service staff who were sent questionnaires: Boris Johnson, Carrie Johnson and Rishi Sunak.
At least two of those can claim quite legitamately to have been at home the whole time.
It is very obvious what part of number 10 is the private residence and what part is a working office. The idea that the whole building counts as the Johnsons’ home is obvious nonsense.
Most of the rules on gatherings made no distinctions between your home and anywhere else anyway. You weren’t allowed to have lots of people gather in your home without a good reason.
And the garden?
Did any of the legislation in question specify that different rules applied to gardens? Could you give us the relevant paragraphs?
The gardens being outside in the open air is a significant difference from an indoor room.
It seems that from July new cars will have a limiter on which stops them exceeding the speed limit. It's an EU law but the UK is expected to follow. (Source: AutoTrader)
Anyone else come across this?
Is it a libertarian issue to fight for?
Even worse, cars will all be fitted with data loggers.
The AutoTrader article says the limit will be set at 112 mph, which most people don't really want to exceed, and you can switch it off if you're really into crime:
No you are reading it incorrectly. It says Renault have currently set their cars to that. ALL cars in EU must be fitted with it and it is the speed limit of the road. It allows you to go over, but then throttles you back. Yes you can turn it off manually at start of each journey AT THE MOMENT.
That is also why I say the data logger is worse. Its tracking everything all the time.
Given all cars will shortly be internet connectrd devices and upgradable software, one should he concerned about this.
The dawn of the encrypted ECU and secure Canbus with allow/deny lists means this will actually be quite hard to disable.
It will mean a very robust market in pre-2024 muscle cars though.
Until you can't get insurance without retro fitting one.
Muscle cars are pre 1975 USDM V8s with live rear axles (so Corvettes don't count) and are a tiny niche market in the UK anyway.
I don't think it will push up the value of pre-2022 cars because the number of people with the fortitude and clarity of purpose to drive at over 112mph regularly n the road AND base their new car purchasing decisions on that is very, very small.
When it eventually comes in for motorcycles I could see the last of the unfettered models being very desirable as, in my experience, a lot more very high speed larks are done on two wheels than four. I did 165mph in the rain yesterday. Lol.
As a Tory who'd prefer a new leader this poll shows no change - yesterday's from a different pollster showed a declining Labour lead. Both following a budget slated in the media, suggesting the public view may be more nuanced. Neither showed a Labour surge. What is your explanation for the Tories doing so relatively well.
I remember you saying just about a year ago, that Labour was doomed
So you cannot answer. If I did say that it just shows how much politics can change in a very short time. Maybe you might want to think about that.
Pippa Crerar @PippaCrerar · 43m No 10 has said it will announce if/ when Boris Johnson is fined but Met statement suggests today’s referrals involve more straightforward cases.
Sources tell me the widely held view in Government is that PM’s case “has been left to the bottom of the pile” by police.
Sounds like they will use the fact that junior staff have received penalties, as the reason for sending them to the more senior staff and potentially ministers.
Which is why everyone needs to be told to challenge any and all FPNs.
Ministers? I've seen no evidence of ministerial involvement, aside of the PM, who was at home.
This is the crazy thing for me. The rule breakers were the supposedly independent civil service, not the conservative party. The poor culture was the civil service culture in No. 10.
Most of the people under investigation are civil servants, but we know of at least 3 non-civil service staff who were sent questionnaires: Boris Johnson, Carrie Johnson and Rishi Sunak.
At least two of those can claim quite legitamately to have been at home the whole time.
It is very obvious what part of number 10 is the private residence and what part is a working office. The idea that the whole building counts as the Johnsons’ home is obvious nonsense.
Most of the rules on gatherings made no distinctions between your home and anywhere else anyway. You weren’t allowed to have lots of people gather in your home without a good reason.
And the garden?
Did any of the legislation in question specify that different rules applied to gardens? Could you give us the relevant paragraphs?
And that's back to @Cyclefree's question about what was law and what was guidance.
Keir is an idiot. He can’t afford to lose one vote on this trans issue.
People who say only a small number of people care about it are burying their heads in the sand.
What’s your take then ? Do you think it’s something a great deal of people care about ?
If I am burying my head in the sand by thinking this only bothers a few people please give me info that will change my perspective.
I think few people care about it. But a decent number, if forced to think about it, will conclude that Labour wants to defy common sense and rub it in voters faces.
I expect it will play badly for Labour. It is precisely the kind of pointless and divisive wedge issue that the Tories will exploit, having nothing real to offer the voters. But the correct (legally and morally) response to the question "can a woman have a penis?" is "yes".
It’s the legally correct answer.
I’m not sure it’s an answer that makes sense to anyone outside a legal framework.
When a normal brain hears it, I think it sets off a small explosion of wtf, which then requires effort to suppress.
And voters don’t want to be told to go against their common sense.
A politician is someone who has responsibility for making laws. I would hope and expect that the legally correct answer would occupy a more prominent position in their thinking than it would for some random punter on the street.
Sure but saying it is the “moral answer” Is alienating.
Labour need to turn this into a question of basic respect, not “I’m right and you the voter are wrong”
But that is to go against the modern concept of Rights.
- Rights are defined by The Great And The Good - They are enshrined in Law - They cannot be questioned.
It would be immoral to let the voter touch the Sacred Precepts.
If the voters don't agree with the Sacred Precepts, they are heretics. Obviously.
Boss of Formula 1 Max Mosley took his own life after learning his cancer diagnosis was terminal, an inquest was told. Mosley, 81, was found with severe injuries 'consistent with a gunshot' wound at his home in London on May 24 last year.
It seems that from July new cars will have a limiter on which stops them exceeding the speed limit. It's an EU law but the UK is expected to follow. (Source: AutoTrader)
Anyone else come across this?
Is it a libertarian issue to fight for?
Even worse, cars will all be fitted with data loggers.
The AutoTrader article says the limit will be set at 112 mph, which most people don't really want to exceed, and you can switch it off if you're really into crime:
No you are reading it incorrectly. It says Renault have currently set their cars to that. ALL cars in EU must be fitted with it and it is the speed limit of the road. It allows you to go over, but then throttles you back. Yes you can turn it off manually at start of each journey AT THE MOMENT.
That is also why I say the data logger is worse. Its tracking everything all the time.
Given all cars will shortly be internet connectrd devices and upgradable software, one should he concerned about this.
The dawn of the encrypted ECU and secure Canbus with allow/deny lists means this will actually be quite hard to disable.
It will mean a very robust market in pre-2024 muscle cars though.
Until you can't get insurance without retro fitting one.
Muscle cars are pre 1975 USDM V8s with live rear axles (so Corvettes don't count) and are a tiny niche market in the UK anyway.
I don't think it will push up the value of pre-2022 cars because the number of people with the fortitude and clarity of purpose to drive at over 112mph regularly n the road AND base their new car purchasing decisions on that is very, very small.
When it eventually comes in for motorcycles I could see the last of the unfettered models being very desirable as, in my experience, a lot more very high speed larks are done on two wheels than four. I did 165mph in the rain yesterday. Lol.
Whilst we argue about penises, any solutions on CoL or housing yet Tories
Been reading some of your (and others) comments around this over the last few days.
I think covid has produced a more interventionist mindset, and I think we need to move back away from that.
If we live in a market economy then one of the great things that we can do is let the market sort it out. Now of course that's little comfort for those feeling the squeeze, but that's the way it works. For those hit very hard there are of course safety nets of all sorts.
There may be specific measures here and there that could help, but wanting the government to smooth every bump in the road just leads to very big and very bad government.
Pippa Crerar @PippaCrerar · 43m No 10 has said it will announce if/ when Boris Johnson is fined but Met statement suggests today’s referrals involve more straightforward cases.
Sources tell me the widely held view in Government is that PM’s case “has been left to the bottom of the pile” by police.
Sounds like they will use the fact that junior staff have received penalties, as the reason for sending them to the more senior staff and potentially ministers.
Which is why everyone needs to be told to challenge any and all FPNs.
Ministers? I've seen no evidence of ministerial involvement, aside of the PM, who was at home.
This is the crazy thing for me. The rule breakers were the supposedly independent civil service, not the conservative party. The poor culture was the civil service culture in No. 10.
Most of the people under investigation are civil servants, but we know of at least 3 non-civil service staff who were sent questionnaires: Boris Johnson, Carrie Johnson and Rishi Sunak.
At least two of those can claim quite legitamately to have been at home the whole time.
It is very obvious what part of number 10 is the private residence and what part is a working office. The idea that the whole building counts as the Johnsons’ home is obvious nonsense.
Most of the rules on gatherings made no distinctions between your home and anywhere else anyway. You weren’t allowed to have lots of people gather in your home without a good reason.
And the garden?
Did any of the legislation in question specify that different rules applied to gardens? Could you give us the relevant paragraphs?
The gardens being outside in the open air is a significant difference from an indoor room.
Absolutely, yes. A good defence against respiratory viruses is to meet outside. The regulations and advice given by Government has recognised an outdoor/indoor distinction. However, turbotubbs appears to be advancing a case that the nature of a specific outdoor space, the No. 10 garden, might somehow mean Boris and Carrie broke no rules. Seems like clutching at straws to me, but I was giving turbotubbs the benefit of the doubt.
Which is precisely why the lefties on here are desperate to shut the topic down. They face the wrath of activists if they change course and the wrath of voters if they don't. It's really very simple.
Your evidence for this? I've never met a Labour activist who mentioned the issue, though I've met two Green activists who did.
So you didn't see anyone calling for the whip to be removed from Rosie Duffield at the last Labour conference?
No. These things have a crowd of thousands so I might have missed one, but no, I've never heard of it outside PB.
It seems that from July new cars will have a limiter on which stops them exceeding the speed limit. It's an EU law but the UK is expected to follow. (Source: AutoTrader)
Anyone else come across this?
Is it a libertarian issue to fight for?
Even worse, cars will all be fitted with data loggers.
The AutoTrader article says the limit will be set at 112 mph, which most people don't really want to exceed, and you can switch it off if you're really into crime:
No you are reading it incorrectly. It says Renault have currently set their cars to that. ALL cars in EU must be fitted with it and it is the speed limit of the road. It allows you to go over, but then throttles you back. Yes you can turn it off manually at start of each journey AT THE MOMENT.
That is also why I say the data logger is worse. Its tracking everything all the time.
Given all cars will shortly be internet connectrd devices and upgradable software, one should he concerned about this.
The dawn of the encrypted ECU and secure Canbus with allow/deny lists means this will actually be quite hard to disable.
It will mean a very robust market in pre-2024 muscle cars though.
Until you can't get insurance without retro fitting one.
How will the car determine the current speed limit given the state of most satnav maps?
Transmitters behind each sign? Or will there be a "definitive" government map?
What happens when I interfere with the GPS signal? Will the car refuse to start?
It all seems like a nonsense solution looking for a problem.
It was very unpopular for England to take the knee here as I recall. Weird how that all went quiet
Except its still virtue signalling with no meaning behind it .
So is saying "a woman can't have a penis" when the law says otherwise and you have no intention of changing it.
When that law then allows a serious crime to occur and the authorities to use that same law to deny it ever happened then it is something that moves beyond virtue signalling and enters the realms of dangerous incompetence.
Keir is an idiot. He can’t afford to lose one vote on this trans issue.
People who say only a small number of people care about it are burying their heads in the sand.
What’s your take then ? Do you think it’s something a great deal of people care about ?
If I am burying my head in the sand by thinking this only bothers a few people please give me info that will change my perspective.
I think few people care about it. But a decent number, if forced to think about it, will conclude that Labour wants to defy common sense and rub it in voters faces.
I expect it will play badly for Labour. It is precisely the kind of pointless and divisive wedge issue that the Tories will exploit, having nothing real to offer the voters. But the correct (legally and morally) response to the question "can a woman have a penis?" is "yes".
It’s the legally correct answer.
I’m not sure it’s an answer that makes sense to anyone outside a legal framework.
When a normal brain hears it, I think it sets off a small explosion of wtf, which then requires effort to suppress.
And voters don’t want to be told to go against their common sense.
A politician is someone who has responsibility for making laws. I would hope and expect that the legally correct answer would occupy a more prominent position in their thinking than it would for some random punter on the street.
Sure but saying it is the “moral answer” Is alienating.
Labour need to turn this into a question of basic respect, not “I’m right and you the voter are wrong”
It's what the modern left do repeatedly. The old Labour party had much more respect for the views of their supporters even when they didn't like them.
Keir is an idiot. He can’t afford to lose one vote on this trans issue.
People who say only a small number of people care about it are burying their heads in the sand.
What’s your take then ? Do you think it’s something a great deal of people care about ?
If I am burying my head in the sand by thinking this only bothers a few people please give me info that will change my perspective.
I think few people care about it. But a decent number, if forced to think about it, will conclude that Labour wants to defy common sense and rub it in voters faces.
I expect it will play badly for Labour. It is precisely the kind of pointless and divisive wedge issue that the Tories will exploit, having nothing real to offer the voters. But the correct (legally and morally) response to the question "can a woman have a penis?" is "yes".
It’s the legally correct answer.
I’m not sure it’s an answer that makes sense to anyone outside a legal framework.
When a normal brain hears it, I think it sets off a small explosion of wtf, which then requires effort to suppress.
And voters don’t want to be told to go against their common sense.
A politician is someone who has responsibility for making laws. I would hope and expect that the legally correct answer would occupy a more prominent position in their thinking than it would for some random punter on the street.
A legally correct answer, carefully trying to balance the rights of different groups, all of whom have a point, is exactly what we want for good government.
However, gotcha questions, rhyming slogans and rude words makes for a much more amusing game of politics. You can even point and laugh at people who say "it's a bit complicated".
And so we continue to giggle as we walk into the sea.
Pippa Crerar @PippaCrerar · 43m No 10 has said it will announce if/ when Boris Johnson is fined but Met statement suggests today’s referrals involve more straightforward cases.
Sources tell me the widely held view in Government is that PM’s case “has been left to the bottom of the pile” by police.
Sounds like they will use the fact that junior staff have received penalties, as the reason for sending them to the more senior staff and potentially ministers.
Which is why everyone needs to be told to challenge any and all FPNs.
Ministers? I've seen no evidence of ministerial involvement, aside of the PM, who was at home.
This is the crazy thing for me. The rule breakers were the supposedly independent civil service, not the conservative party. The poor culture was the civil service culture in No. 10.
Most of the people under investigation are civil servants, but we know of at least 3 non-civil service staff who were sent questionnaires: Boris Johnson, Carrie Johnson and Rishi Sunak.
At least two of those can claim quite legitamately to have been at home the whole time.
It is very obvious what part of number 10 is the private residence and what part is a working office. The idea that the whole building counts as the Johnsons’ home is obvious nonsense.
Most of the rules on gatherings made no distinctions between your home and anywhere else anyway. You weren’t allowed to have lots of people gather in your home without a good reason.
And the garden?
Did any of the legislation in question specify that different rules applied to gardens? Could you give us the relevant paragraphs?
And that's back to @Cyclefree's question about what was law and what was guidance.
Indeed. @Cyclefree is very wise on many things. So, do you actually have any details of the legislation that are relevant here, or are you just making smoke?
Keir is an idiot. He can’t afford to lose one vote on this trans issue.
People who say only a small number of people care about it are burying their heads in the sand.
What’s your take then ? Do you think it’s something a great deal of people care about ?
If I am burying my head in the sand by thinking this only bothers a few people please give me info that will change my perspective.
I think few people care about it. But a decent number, if forced to think about it, will conclude that Labour wants to defy common sense and rub it in voters faces.
I expect it will play badly for Labour. It is precisely the kind of pointless and divisive wedge issue that the Tories will exploit, having nothing real to offer the voters. But the correct (legally and morally) response to the question "can a woman have a penis?" is "yes".
It’s the legally correct answer.
I’m not sure it’s an answer that makes sense to anyone outside a legal framework.
When a normal brain hears it, I think it sets off a small explosion of wtf, which then requires effort to suppress.
And voters don’t want to be told to go against their common sense.
A politician is someone who has responsibility for making laws. I would hope and expect that the legally correct answer would occupy a more prominent position in their thinking than it would for some random punter on the street.
Sure but saying it is the “moral answer” Is alienating.
Labour need to turn this into a question of basic respect, not “I’m right and you the voter are wrong”
It's not a question of telling people they are wrong. It is the "moral" answer precisely because it is the answer that respects people's wish to live how they choose. If you want to respect that choice then you have to accept that some women do indeed have a penis, however wrong that sounds or however uncomfortable that makes us feel. It sounds wrong to me too and makes me feel uncomfortable too, FWIW.
Keir is an idiot. He can’t afford to lose one vote on this trans issue.
People who say only a small number of people care about it are burying their heads in the sand.
What’s your take then ? Do you think it’s something a great deal of people care about ?
If I am burying my head in the sand by thinking this only bothers a few people please give me info that will change my perspective.
I think few people care about it. But a decent number, if forced to think about it, will conclude that Labour wants to defy common sense and rub it in voters faces.
I expect it will play badly for Labour. It is precisely the kind of pointless and divisive wedge issue that the Tories will exploit, having nothing real to offer the voters. But the correct (legally and morally) response to the question "can a woman have a penis?" is "yes".
It’s the legally correct answer.
I’m not sure it’s an answer that makes sense to anyone outside a legal framework.
When a normal brain hears it, I think it sets off a small explosion of wtf, which then requires effort to suppress.
And voters don’t want to be told to go against their common sense.
A politician is someone who has responsibility for making laws. I would hope and expect that the legally correct answer would occupy a more prominent position in their thinking than it would for some random punter on the street.
Sure but saying it is the “moral answer” Is alienating.
Labour need to turn this into a question of basic respect, not “I’m right and you the voter are wrong”
But that is to go against the modern concept of Rights.
- Rights are defined by The Great And The Good - They are enshrined in Law - They cannot be questioned.
It would be immoral to let the voter touch the Sacred Precepts.
If the voters don't agree with the Sacred Precepts, they are heretics. Obviously.
Voters disagreeing with experts is a threat to democracy.
I am not fighting a culture war - and nobody I know in the Labour Party is either. It seems to be Tories that keep bringing it up
Is Kay Burley a tory now as she raised it with Angela Rayner this morning on Sky ?
No, what a load of bad faith nonsense from you
Just counters your comment which is simply not the case
No, I said the people bringing up the culture wars are the right.
Kay Burley brought it up because the right keep bringing it up. Her job is to report the news, the right are trying to make it the news, unfortunately.
You are trying to deflect a real problem for labour
Strarmer was all over the place and Burley's question referred directly to Starmer
@Kle4 provided the correct response to you at 11.31am
A real problem for Labour is that they answer it in a stupid way and are unprepared for it. That's a question of strategy.
The culture wars themselves are non-existent and irrelevant - and I stand by that.
You care because it's a way for you to vote Tory again. So much for "your vote is up for grabs", that lasted a whole 48 hours didn't it! ROFL
The culture wars will carry Boris to another thumping majority. The idea of women having a cock is laughable to the vast majority of the nation and if Starmer can't do a Blair and tell the loonies to get fucked and state confidently that, "No Laura, women don't have penises" he's going to lose. Boris will have his red wall wedge issue.
Per this take what's "laughable to the vast majority of the nation" is something which has been accepted for ages in this and most western countries and in several others too - ie a legal route to change gender without mandatory radical surgery.
Therefore aren't you're implicitly saying that you - and iyo most of the public - want to rewind the clock by decades?
Fair enough, if so, but this is hardly a risk free position for the Tories to take. Win an election by *rolling back* minority rights? That's no slam dunk imo.
As ever, the question 'the vast majority of which nation?' also needs to be asked. If the SCons adopt their masters' cunning plan to ramp up the culture war it looks like it'll be yet another of the dud anti SNP bullets which they've loaded up with. As it happens I don't think UK wide polling would be hugely different.
'GRA Scotland reform: Poll suggests widespread public support for making it easier to legally change gender
Within weeks, the Scottish Government is expected to introduce legislation to “speed up and simplify” the legal gender recognition process under the 2004 Gender Recognition Act.
The survey of 2,000 adults carried out by Savanta ComRes for BBC Scotland indicated general support for the move with 57% for and 20% against.'
Well you guys have pretty much done the reform that we shelved and which we now seemingly can't discuss without first digging through layers and layers of misinformation and a fair amount of prejudice. So it'll be interesting how it pans out in actual practice. Will it improve the lives of trans people whilst causing no significant problems for anybody else? That's my expectation, and why I support it, but let's see. I am open minded. I like the case for, I think it's strong, but I do see a case against too.
Russia’s deputy defense minister says Moscow has decided to “fundamentally cut back military activity in the direction of Kyiv and Chernigiv” in order to “increase mutual trust for future negotiations to agree and sign a peace deal with Ukraine.”
Vaguely connected to what we've been talking about, I've just found out that Ukraine have an LGBTQ battalion - whose symbol is apparently a unicorn.
So the manly-manly (*) Russians are getting beaten by a country that is surprisingly inclusive. And if I were LGBT in Ukraine, I'd be more keen to fight - as the Russian regime is rather anti-them.
It seems that from July new cars will have a limiter on which stops them exceeding the speed limit. It's an EU law but the UK is expected to follow. (Source: AutoTrader)
Anyone else come across this?
Is it a libertarian issue to fight for?
Even worse, cars will all be fitted with data loggers.
The AutoTrader article says the limit will be set at 112 mph, which most people don't really want to exceed, and you can switch it off if you're really into crime:
No you are reading it incorrectly. It says Renault have currently set their cars to that. ALL cars in EU must be fitted with it and it is the speed limit of the road. It allows you to go over, but then throttles you back. Yes you can turn it off manually at start of each journey AT THE MOMENT.
That is also why I say the data logger is worse. Its tracking everything all the time.
Given all cars will shortly be internet connectrd devices and upgradable software, one should he concerned about this.
The dawn of the encrypted ECU and secure Canbus with allow/deny lists means this will actually be quite hard to disable.
It will mean a very robust market in pre-2024 muscle cars though.
Until you can't get insurance without retro fitting one.
Muscle cars are pre 1975 USDM V8s with live rear axles (so Corvettes don't count) and are a tiny niche market in the UK anyway.
I don't think it will push up the value of pre-2022 cars because the number of people with the fortitude and clarity of purpose to drive at over 112mph regularly n the road AND base their new car purchasing decisions on that is very, very small.
When it eventually comes in for motorcycles I could see the last of the unfettered models being very desirable as, in my experience, a lot more very high speed larks are done on two wheels than four. I did 165mph in the rain yesterday. Lol.
Bald tyres and a bottle of Jack?
New Bridgestone Battlax RS11 120/70/17 (front) and 190/55/17 (rear),
Don't drink alcohol as it attenuates revolutionary militancy.
Which is precisely why the lefties on here are desperate to shut the topic down. They face the wrath of activists if they change course and the wrath of voters if they don't. It's really very simple.
Your evidence for this? I've never met a Labour activist who mentioned the issue, though I've met two Green activists who did.
So you didn't see anyone calling for the whip to be removed from Rosie Duffield at the last Labour conference?
No. These things have a crowd of thousands so I might have missed one, but no, I've never heard of it outside PB.
Here you go Nick. So you are up to speed with your own party. This was a call from the podium.
Russia’s deputy defense minister says Moscow has decided to “fundamentally cut back military activity in the direction of Kyiv and Chernigiv” in order to “increase mutual trust for future negotiations to agree and sign a peace deal with Ukraine.”
Keir is an idiot. He can’t afford to lose one vote on this trans issue.
People who say only a small number of people care about it are burying their heads in the sand.
What’s your take then ? Do you think it’s something a great deal of people care about ?
If I am burying my head in the sand by thinking this only bothers a few people please give me info that will change my perspective.
I think few people care about it. But a decent number, if forced to think about it, will conclude that Labour wants to defy common sense and rub it in voters faces.
I expect it will play badly for Labour. It is precisely the kind of pointless and divisive wedge issue that the Tories will exploit, having nothing real to offer the voters. But the correct (legally and morally) response to the question "can a woman have a penis?" is "yes".
It’s the legally correct answer.
I’m not sure it’s an answer that makes sense to anyone outside a legal framework.
When a normal brain hears it, I think it sets off a small explosion of wtf, which then requires effort to suppress.
And voters don’t want to be told to go against their common sense.
A politician is someone who has responsibility for making laws. I would hope and expect that the legally correct answer would occupy a more prominent position in their thinking than it would for some random punter on the street.
Sure but saying it is the “moral answer” Is alienating.
Labour need to turn this into a question of basic respect, not “I’m right and you the voter are wrong”
It's not a question of telling people they are wrong. It is the "moral" answer precisely because it is the answer that respects people's wish to live how they choose. If you want to respect that choice then you have to accept that some women do indeed have a penis, however wrong that sounds or however uncomfortable that makes us feel. It sounds wrong to me too and makes me feel uncomfortable too, FWIW.
Absolutely - but whether that acceptance has to extend to allowing those people into women's prisons, toilets and sports requires much more discussion surely. We all ahve the right to live our own lives to the degree that does not impinge on the rights and safety of others.
I am not fighting a culture war - and nobody I know in the Labour Party is either. It seems to be Tories that keep bringing it up
Is Kay Burley a tory now as she raised it with Angela Rayner this morning on Sky ?
No, what a load of bad faith nonsense from you
Just counters your comment which is simply not the case
No, I said the people bringing up the culture wars are the right.
Kay Burley brought it up because the right keep bringing it up. Her job is to report the news, the right are trying to make it the news, unfortunately.
You are trying to deflect a real problem for labour
Strarmer was all over the place and Burley's question referred directly to Starmer
@Kle4 provided the correct response to you at 11.31am
A real problem for Labour is that they answer it in a stupid way and are unprepared for it. That's a question of strategy.
The culture wars themselves are non-existent and irrelevant - and I stand by that.
You care because it's a way for you to vote Tory again. So much for "your vote is up for grabs", that lasted a whole 48 hours didn't it! ROFL
The culture wars will carry Boris to another thumping majority. The idea of women having a cock is laughable to the vast majority of the nation and if Starmer can't do a Blair and tell the loonies to get fucked and state confidently that, "No Laura, women don't have penises" he's going to lose. Boris will have his red wall wedge issue.
Per this take what's "laughable to the vast majority of the nation" is something which has been accepted for ages in this and most western countries and in several others too - ie a legal route to change gender without mandatory radical surgery.
Therefore aren't you're implicitly saying that you - and iyo most of the public - want to rewind the clock by decades?
Fair enough, if so, but this is hardly a risk free position for the Tories to take. Win an election by *rolling back* minority rights? That's no slam dunk imo.
Boo - appointment delayed.
There is no requirement for mandatory radical surgery. Never has been.
We have a legal route to change gender. What people like you fail to answer is why it should be made easier than it is.
Errors in that report and what Caroline Nokes, its Chair has said. For starters:-
- It claims that gender dysphoria is a mental health condition. Wrong: the NHS does not describe it as such. - It says there should be no requirement for a medical diagnosis to get a GRC but then asks for better medical treatment. Well, if it's not a medical issue why does it need medical treatment? If it is, why abandon the need for a medical diagnosis. Just one example of its incoherent thinking. - It wrongly describes what the so-called spousal veto is. It also wrongly says that a spouse's consent is needed to live in your acquired gender. Not so. - It removes the option for a spouse to get a divorce rather than an annulment. Why? - It says that a panel of strangers has to judge your femininity or masculinity before granting a GRC. Not so. - It says that providing documents - eg of name changes etc is "dehumanising" and "cruel". Why? This is asserted by TRAs. Most official documents are obtained by people providing evidence of their identity. In what sense is it therefore dehumanising to ask trans people to do the same?
And so on. It is not a well thought out report. Its principal failing is that it does not explain how the sex-based rights of natal born women are to be preserved if self-ID goes through.
It is a question which is often asked. But never answered. It needs to be.
Russia’s deputy defense minister says Moscow has decided to “fundamentally cut back military activity in the direction of Kyiv and Chernigiv” in order to “increase mutual trust for future negotiations to agree and sign a peace deal with Ukraine.”
Keir is an idiot. He can’t afford to lose one vote on this trans issue.
People who say only a small number of people care about it are burying their heads in the sand.
What’s your take then ? Do you think it’s something a great deal of people care about ?
If I am burying my head in the sand by thinking this only bothers a few people please give me info that will change my perspective.
I think few people care about it. But a decent number, if forced to think about it, will conclude that Labour wants to defy common sense and rub it in voters faces.
I expect it will play badly for Labour. It is precisely the kind of pointless and divisive wedge issue that the Tories will exploit, having nothing real to offer the voters. But the correct (legally and morally) response to the question "can a woman have a penis?" is "yes".
It’s the legally correct answer.
I’m not sure it’s an answer that makes sense to anyone outside a legal framework.
When a normal brain hears it, I think it sets off a small explosion of wtf, which then requires effort to suppress.
And voters don’t want to be told to go against their common sense.
A politician is someone who has responsibility for making laws. I would hope and expect that the legally correct answer would occupy a more prominent position in their thinking than it would for some random punter on the street.
Sure but saying it is the “moral answer” Is alienating.
Labour need to turn this into a question of basic respect, not “I’m right and you the voter are wrong”
It's not a question of telling people they are wrong. It is the "moral" answer precisely because it is the answer that respects people's wish to live how they choose. If you want to respect that choice then you have to accept that some women do indeed have a penis, however wrong that sounds or however uncomfortable that makes us feel. It sounds wrong to me too and makes me feel uncomfortable too, FWIW.
Absolutely - but whether that acceptance has to extend to allowing those people into women's prisons, toilets and sports requires much more discussion surely. We all ahve the right to live our own lives to the degree that does not impinge on the rights and safety of others.
Sure, let's have the discussion. I'd be interested in answers to the question I posed earlier - does anyone think that forcing trans women to use male toilets (or indeed prisons) would result in fewer assaults overall?
Pippa Crerar @PippaCrerar · 43m No 10 has said it will announce if/ when Boris Johnson is fined but Met statement suggests today’s referrals involve more straightforward cases.
Sources tell me the widely held view in Government is that PM’s case “has been left to the bottom of the pile” by police.
Sounds like they will use the fact that junior staff have received penalties, as the reason for sending them to the more senior staff and potentially ministers.
Which is why everyone needs to be told to challenge any and all FPNs.
Ministers? I've seen no evidence of ministerial involvement, aside of the PM, who was at home.
This is the crazy thing for me. The rule breakers were the supposedly independent civil service, not the conservative party. The poor culture was the civil service culture in No. 10.
Most of the people under investigation are civil servants, but we know of at least 3 non-civil service staff who were sent questionnaires: Boris Johnson, Carrie Johnson and Rishi Sunak.
At least two of those can claim quite legitamately to have been at home the whole time.
It is very obvious what part of number 10 is the private residence and what part is a working office. The idea that the whole building counts as the Johnsons’ home is obvious nonsense.
Most of the rules on gatherings made no distinctions between your home and anywhere else anyway. You weren’t allowed to have lots of people gather in your home without a good reason.
And the garden?
Did any of the legislation in question specify that different rules applied to gardens? Could you give us the relevant paragraphs?
The gardens being outside in the open air is a significant difference from an indoor room.
Absolutely, yes. A good defence against respiratory viruses is to meet outside. The regulations and advice given by Government has recognised an outdoor/indoor distinction. However, turbotubbs appears to be advancing a case that the nature of a specific outdoor space, the No. 10 garden, might somehow mean Boris and Carrie broke no rules. Seems like clutching at straws to me, but I was giving turbotubbs the benefit of the doubt.
I genuinely believe that the No 10 garden is a grey area as far as the law is concerned here. Given that 'you must stay at home' was never clarified to 'you must stay at home, and that does not include your garden', I think there is a case for saying both the PM and Carrie Johnson had an absolute right to be in the garden at all times. No 10 is also a workplace. During the first lockdown I had to attend the University once a week to do maintenance on equipment, and did this with a colleague. We met and talked outside, so not in a park, but at work on the campus. A bit like the garden.
I have repeatedly said that they got this wrong as a judgement, but I can understand why/how it happened. I also can see a path that says even with FPN's flying round, the desired target for most, the PM himself, may wriggle free like the greased pig that he is, because he was at home, and in his garden.
Which is precisely why the lefties on here are desperate to shut the topic down. They face the wrath of activists if they change course and the wrath of voters if they don't. It's really very simple.
Your evidence for this? I've never met a Labour activist who mentioned the issue, though I've met two Green activists who did.
So you didn't see anyone calling for the whip to be removed from Rosie Duffield at the last Labour conference?
No. These things have a crowd of thousands so I might have missed one, but no, I've never heard of it outside PB.
Here you go Nick. So you are up to speed with your own party. This was a call from the podium.
Pippa Crerar @PippaCrerar · 43m No 10 has said it will announce if/ when Boris Johnson is fined but Met statement suggests today’s referrals involve more straightforward cases.
Sources tell me the widely held view in Government is that PM’s case “has been left to the bottom of the pile” by police.
Sounds like they will use the fact that junior staff have received penalties, as the reason for sending them to the more senior staff and potentially ministers.
Which is why everyone needs to be told to challenge any and all FPNs.
Ministers? I've seen no evidence of ministerial involvement, aside of the PM, who was at home.
This is the crazy thing for me. The rule breakers were the supposedly independent civil service, not the conservative party. The poor culture was the civil service culture in No. 10.
Most of the people under investigation are civil servants, but we know of at least 3 non-civil service staff who were sent questionnaires: Boris Johnson, Carrie Johnson and Rishi Sunak.
At least two of those can claim quite legitamately to have been at home the whole time.
It is very obvious what part of number 10 is the private residence and what part is a working office. The idea that the whole building counts as the Johnsons’ home is obvious nonsense.
Most of the rules on gatherings made no distinctions between your home and anywhere else anyway. You weren’t allowed to have lots of people gather in your home without a good reason.
And the garden?
Did any of the legislation in question specify that different rules applied to gardens? Could you give us the relevant paragraphs?
And that's back to @Cyclefree's question about what was law and what was guidance.
Indeed. @Cyclefree is very wise on many things. So, do you actually have any details of the legislation that are relevant here, or are you just making smoke?
No, I don't know the exact legislation (a bit like the Derbyshire police). I am just suggesting that it is not as clear cut as people think. If the PM lived in Hampstead not No 10 there would be not issue. But he doesn't.
It was very unpopular for England to take the knee here as I recall. Weird how that all went quiet
I think it lacked a bit of context at the time, and the players have made their case very well. You may not agree but the actions of some over the 'black lives matter' campaign were divisive for some people. There are still huge problems with racism in the UK, but many of us pride ourselves on the strides that have been taken in the last 40 years. We are nowhere near as bad as the USA, and so some of the nonsence that spread to here upset people. Its right to continually look at history and learn from it. Colston has been a controversial figure in Bristol for many years. Churchill for many is an absolute hero, for others less so. He was a man of his time, and its hard to judge any historical figure by the standards of 2022. What the footballers have done is win people over to their point of view, so well done them.
I think the soccer team pitched it perfectly and when the general public accepted it was a well meaning gesture against racism and not support for the extremists who wanted to defund the police it’s been warmly welcomed.
Just think. Engaging with people and explaining the reasoning rather than telling them they are all stupid bigots bore fruit. Shocked.
It was very unpopular for England to take the knee here as I recall. Weird how that all went quiet
I think it lacked a bit of context at the time, and the players have made their case very well. You may not agree but the actions of some over the 'black lives matter' campaign were divisive for some people. There are still huge problems with racism in the UK, but many of us pride ourselves on the strides that have been taken in the last 40 years. We are nowhere near as bad as the USA, and so some of the nonsence that spread to here upset people. Its right to continually look at history and learn from it. Colston has been a controversial figure in Bristol for many years. Churchill for many is an absolute hero, for others less so. He was a man of his time, and its hard to judge any historical figure by the standards of 2022. What the footballers have done is win people over to their point of view, so well done them.
I think the soccer team pitched it perfectly and when the general public accepted it was a well meaning gesture against racism and not support for the extremists who wanted to defund the police it’s been warmly welcomed.
Just think. Engaging with people and explaining the reasoning rather than telling them they are all stupid bigots bore fruit. Shocked.
Quite. I think they have done very well. That said there are still a lot of issues in football. The progression of players of colour after their playing career into coaching is in stark contrast to their manifold success on the field.
Russian billionaire Roman Abramovich has appeared at peace negotiations between Russia and Ukraine in Turkey. He was seen talking to Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who is mediating in the talks in Istanbul.
Comments
If I am burying my head in the sand by thinking this only bothers a few people please give me info that will change my perspective.
https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2017/11/21/quentin-crisp-reflects-on-trans-identity-in-exclusive-final-autobiography/
Surely the Cabinet Office should be prosecuted, not employees.
So I will say goodbye and thanks for the debate.
As it happens I don't think UK wide polling would be hugely different.
'GRA Scotland reform: Poll suggests widespread public support for making it easier to legally change gender
Within weeks, the Scottish Government is expected to introduce legislation to “speed up and simplify” the legal gender recognition process under the 2004 Gender Recognition Act.
The survey of 2,000 adults carried out by Savanta ComRes for BBC Scotland indicated general support for the move with 57% for and 20% against.'
https://tinyurl.com/2p98nz2t
Simple example - bubbles. My parents genuinely believed that their bubble included everyone from their family visiting all the time as long as it was on an individual basis.
Clearly wrong - it was only meant to be one person, and the same person every time.
@PB_Lawyers?
But a decent number, if forced to think about it, will conclude that Labour wants to defy common sense and rub it in voters faces.
And thankfully I did not comment on that thread
Until you can't get insurance without retro fitting one.
Yet, opinion still remains divided on the speeding up of the process as well as the proposal to remove the need for a medical diagnosis.
And in another poll:
However, the new proposals would remove the need for medical assessment, and allow someone to obtain a gender recognition certificate through self-declaration after six months
According to the new survey, 53 per cent of Scots believe that a doctor’s approval should be needed for a person to change their sex in law.
Just over a quarter of respondents (27 per cent) think that a doctor’s approval should not be needed while a fifth said they did not know.
https://www.holyrood.com/news/view,only-a-fifth-of-scots-back-plans-for-selfid-transgender-laws
Reflecting on it, one aspect of the issue I have with the move towards everyone defining their gender is that I think a boy or a man should be able to do whatever he wishes without feeling the need to call himself a woman. Wear dresses and makeup. Do dancing rather than sport. Wear pink and not blue. The idea that these are "female" things are primarily social constructs - in the same way there is no issue with girls/women wearing suits, playing rugby and wearing blue.
Let boys and girls, men and women do whatever they hell they want without receiving abuse or needing a new label, and we'll have taken a much bigger leap forward than is possible from resolving the current gender wars.
That said, yes, one hopes a tougher penalty falls on the person who organised the event than the attendees.
What we don’t know if what events we’re talking about. We know there are 20 FPNs. We don’t know to whom: it could be to a lot less than 20 people. We don’t know for which of the 12 gatherings: is it for events like the 20 May 2020 “socially distanced drinks”, and/or for events like the pre-Philip funeral late night party? The former was organised by 10 Downing Street, but the latter was not.
We need Sue Gray’s unexpurgated report to answer these sorts of questions.
100+ candidates is reasonable for a year old party but I don't think they're likely to get any elected.
They'll probably do least badly in the Northeast though where they're more likely to get transfers from socially Conservative Tory and independent voters. 1 or 2 seats in those areas would be a great result for them.
However the tories have to tread a fine line because the 'adult female' definition is clearly nonsense that falls apart with even a cursory examination as we've seen on here today. The tories love the culture war shit because they've got nothing else left but it can be tricky to get the positioning right and they can get caught out. Eg England at the Euros.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwvP6xG-KG0
* at this time....
https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2021/07/29/labour-rosie-duffield-transphobia/
One thing does strike me - it is very much a generation thing. So, if the Tories wish to cement themselves even more as the party for retired old farts with their own houses, bump up NI, keep the pensions triple lock, and cancel the trans folk ... yet the youngsters just don't think that way.
'It also suggested more support for trans people accessing single-sex changing rooms with 61% in agreement and 10% disagreeing.'
But my point is to show how all this "Labour in a knot and denying commonsense' business can be quite easily turned back on the Tories to get "Tories in a knot and seem to want to turn the clock back and erase trans people's rights to affirm their gender."
And you say nobody wants to either remove the route to legal gender change or link it to mandatory surgery - but as far as I can see quite a few people do. Not sure where you're deriving your confidence on this one.
Most of the rules on gatherings made no distinctions between your home and anywhere else anyway. You weren’t allowed to have lots of people gather in your home without a good reason.
I’m not sure it’s an answer that makes sense to anyone outside a legal framework.
When a normal brain hears it, I think it sets off a small explosion of wtf, which then requires effort to suppress.
And voters don’t want to be told to go against their common sense.
As I get older, I'm tending to get less fussed about how people act, or about societal 'norms'. As long as you treat people well, it's no-one's business.
It can also be about roles. My wife works. I look after the kid and the home (or try to...) Our roles are somewhat gender-swapped. Not only do most people not give a damn, it's getting increasingly common.
But I'd look *awful* in a dress...
Its right to continually look at history and learn from it. Colston has been a controversial figure in Bristol for many years. Churchill for many is an absolute hero, for others less so. He was a man of his time, and its hard to judge any historical figure by the standards of 2022.
What the footballers have done is win people over to their point of view, so well done them.
https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/fcgi-bin/usercode.py?scotcontrol=Y&CON=35&LAB=39&LIB=11&Reform=2&Green=3&UKIP=&TVCON=&TVLAB=&TVLIB=&TVReform=&TVGreen=&TVUKIP=&SCOTCON=18.3&SCOTLAB=20.2&SCOTLIB=6.6&SCOTReform=0.9&SCOTGreen=3&SCOTUKIP=&SCOTNAT=48&display=AllChanged&regorseat=(none)&boundary=2019nbbase
As @Cyclefree suggested, Labour needs to find a form of words to release in a statement, and then whip everyone to refer to the precise words of that statement. If there’s one thing Sir Keir should be good at, it’s writing a precise form of words that can be interpreted favourably by everyone in the party.
I can't see them going anywhere in the central belt.
I can think of another issue on which the youngsters differ from the retired old farts with their own houses (I am at least 2/3 of the way into the latter category)..
I'm not defending them. The country would be a less angry place if they hadn't done it, but I can see how it happened. I also think its a bit less clear cut a conservative issue than some want it to be. We will never know what would have happened if Labour had been in charge. The civil service would have been the same though.
Labour need to turn this into a question of basic respect, not “I’m right and you the voter are wrong”
We don’t know what would’ve happened in different circumstances. But that’s always true. We can look at what happened. The Gray interim report, even so limited in what it could say, is damning. Leadership comes from the top: from the PM and who he appoints.
A third (35%) said they should be able to do so only if they have legally changed sex and had gender reassignment surgery.
And 28% said that transgender people should be able to access single sex spaces even if they had not had gender reassignment surgery.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-60214574.amp
I don't think it will push up the value of pre-2022 cars because the number of people with the fortitude and clarity of purpose to drive at over 112mph regularly n the road AND base their new car purchasing decisions on that is very, very small.
When it eventually comes in for motorcycles I could see the last of the unfettered models being very desirable as, in my experience, a lot more very high speed larks are done on two wheels than four. I did 165mph in the rain yesterday. Lol.
- Rights are defined by The Great And The Good
- They are enshrined in Law
- They cannot be questioned.
It would be immoral to let the voter touch the Sacred Precepts.
If the voters don't agree with the Sacred Precepts, they are heretics. Obviously.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10663809/F1-boss-Max-Mosley-81-shot-dead-learning-terminal-cancer.html
I think covid has produced a more interventionist mindset, and I think we need to move back away from that.
If we live in a market economy then one of the great things that we can do is let the market sort it out. Now of course that's little comfort for those feeling the squeeze, but that's the way it works. For those hit very hard there are of course safety nets of all sorts.
There may be specific measures here and there that could help, but wanting the government to smooth every bump in the road just leads to very big and very bad government.
Transmitters behind each sign? Or will there be a "definitive" government map?
What happens when I interfere with the GPS signal? Will the car refuse to start?
It all seems like a nonsense solution looking for a problem.
However, gotcha questions, rhyming slogans and rude words makes for a much more amusing game of politics. You can even point and laugh at people who say "it's a bit complicated".
And so we continue to giggle as we walk into the sea.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-60905199
https://twitter.com/maxseddon/status/1508774654940520448?s=20&t=Cr0-AxM7rIBrPgUErHmhzA
So the manly-manly (*) Russians are getting beaten by a country that is surprisingly inclusive. And if I were LGBT in Ukraine, I'd be more keen to fight - as the Russian regime is rather anti-them.
https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/ukraine-s-lgbtq-soldiers-hope-their-service-will-change-hearts-n822291
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamiewareham/2022/03/16/ukrainian-lgbtq-soldiers-fight-against-darkness-of-russian-invasion/?sh=5c0122733177
(*) Sadly, increasingly boy-and-old-man
Don't drink alcohol as it attenuates revolutionary militancy.
https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/southport-delegate-cheered-speech-demanding-21722863
There is no requirement for mandatory radical surgery. Never has been.
We have a legal route to change gender. What people like you fail to answer is why it should be made easier than it is.
Errors in that report and what Caroline Nokes, its Chair has said. For starters:-
- It claims that gender dysphoria is a mental health condition. Wrong: the NHS does not describe it as such.
- It says there should be no requirement for a medical diagnosis to get a GRC but then asks for better medical treatment. Well, if it's not a medical issue why does it need medical treatment? If it is, why abandon the need for a medical diagnosis. Just one example of its incoherent thinking.
- It wrongly describes what the so-called spousal veto is. It also wrongly says that a spouse's consent is needed to live in your acquired gender. Not so.
- It removes the option for a spouse to get a divorce rather than an annulment. Why?
- It says that a panel of strangers has to judge your femininity or masculinity before granting a GRC. Not so.
- It says that providing documents - eg of name changes etc is "dehumanising" and "cruel". Why? This is asserted by TRAs. Most official documents are obtained by people providing evidence of their identity. In what sense is it therefore dehumanising to ask trans people to do the same?
And so on. It is not a well thought out report. Its principal failing is that it does not explain how the sex-based rights of natal born women are to be preserved if self-ID goes through.
It is a question which is often asked. But never answered. It needs to be.
No 10 is also a workplace. During the first lockdown I had to attend the University once a week to do maintenance on equipment, and did this with a colleague. We met and talked outside, so not in a park, but at work on the campus. A bit like the garden.
I have repeatedly said that they got this wrong as a judgement, but I can understand why/how it happened. I also can see a path that says even with FPN's flying round, the desired target for most, the PM himself, may wriggle free like the greased pig that he is, because he was at home, and in his garden.
Just think. Engaging with people and explaining the reasoning rather than telling them they are all stupid bigots bore fruit. Shocked.
That said there are still a lot of issues in football. The progression of players of colour after their playing career into coaching is in stark contrast to their manifold success on the field.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60912474