Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Why this BoJo confidence wager is a good bet – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 12,162
edited June 2022 in General
imageWhy this BoJo confidence wager is a good bet – politicalbetting.com

The betting exchange, Smarkets, has just put up this market in anticipation perhaps of what might happen once MPs have all digested the Gray report.

Read the full story here

«134

Comments

  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,175
    First.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 51,821
    Laters, peeps, I gotta catch a train :lol:
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    A Bayesian bet: P|Johnson loses given P|MPs think it worth having a vote.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 55,277

    Laters, peeps, I gotta catch a train :lol:

    Enjoy!

    Don't forget the PHOTOS
  • StockyStocky Posts: 10,214
    edited May 2022
    Thanks Mike. I've taken a bit of that. Given the refund fall-back, odds should be other way round IMO.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 11,748
    I thought it was interesting that a not particularly politically engaged person I know, generally prepared to excuse whatever Johnson does, commented having watched the media coverage this week by saying "How can he survive this?"

    Probably more a comment on the media coverage than anything, but still.
  • IshmaelZ said:

    A Bayesian bet: P|Johnson loses given P|MPs think it worth having a vote.

    * Time Value of Money.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 50,249
    Chris said:

    I thought it was interesting that a not particularly politically engaged person I know, generally prepared to excuse whatever Johnson does, commented having watched the media coverage this week by saying "How can he survive this?"

    Probably more a comment on the media coverage than anything, but still.

    The toast has been jammed in the toaster for a while. And every so often someone says "*This* will get it out. This time. For sure."
  • LeonLeon Posts: 55,277
    THIS fpt should not get lost in the end-of-thread tailoff..

    @CarlottaVance

    "Words fail......

    Scholz insists to journalists that he’s “not as stupid as Kaiser Wilhelm II” to let Germany fall into a big war. He does not view Ukrainian victory as the goal and prefers a strategy of “active waiting” – cautiously participating until Putin says he has accomplished his war goals

    https://twitter.com/apmassaro3/status/1529372589382041605"

    The thread below is interesting. Germans are also outraged at Scholz. WTF is he on?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,921
    Even if there is a VONC after Gray Johnson will survive it unless polling comes out showing the Tories doing better under Hunt or Wallace or Truss or Sunak or Raab or Patel against Starmer Labour than under Johnson
  • StockyStocky Posts: 10,214
    The absence of an obvious replacement is a factor. Maybe the MPs need to get to the position of thinking that any of the leading candidates is better than Johnson before it happens - and they are not at that position yet.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 11,748
    Leon said:

    THIS fpt should not get lost in the end-of-thread tailoff..

    @CarlottaVance

    "Words fail......

    Scholz insists to journalists that he’s “not as stupid as Kaiser Wilhelm II” to let Germany fall into a big war. He does not view Ukrainian victory as the goal and prefers a strategy of “active waiting” – cautiously participating until Putin says he has accomplished his war goals

    https://twitter.com/apmassaro3/status/1529372589382041605"

    The thread below is interesting. Germans are also outraged at Scholz. WTF is he on?

    Only as stupid as Neville Chamberlain by the sound of it.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 29,401
    Stocky said:

    The absence of an obvious replacement is a factor. Maybe the MPs need to get to the position of thinking that any of the leading candidates is better than Johnson before it happens - and they are not at that position yet.

    That's because they aren't.
    He'll lead into the next GE, and possibly beyond. Because there's no one better.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 26,589
    Leon said:

    THIS fpt should not get lost in the end-of-thread tailoff..

    @CarlottaVance

    "Words fail......

    Scholz insists to journalists that he’s “not as stupid as Kaiser Wilhelm II” to let Germany fall into a big war. He does not view Ukrainian victory as the goal and prefers a strategy of “active waiting” – cautiously participating until Putin says he has accomplished his war goals

    https://twitter.com/apmassaro3/status/1529372589382041605"

    The thread below is interesting. Germans are also outraged at Scholz. WTF is he on?

    WTF is he on?

    The German establishment is hooked on Russian bribes.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 55,277
    Chris said:

    Leon said:

    THIS fpt should not get lost in the end-of-thread tailoff..

    @CarlottaVance

    "Words fail......

    Scholz insists to journalists that he’s “not as stupid as Kaiser Wilhelm II” to let Germany fall into a big war. He does not view Ukrainian victory as the goal and prefers a strategy of “active waiting” – cautiously participating until Putin says he has accomplished his war goals

    https://twitter.com/apmassaro3/status/1529372589382041605"

    The thread below is interesting. Germans are also outraged at Scholz. WTF is he on?

    Only as stupid as Neville Chamberlain by the sound of it.
    So far, he is a catastrophic German Chancellor. I guess the only way is up

    He is also tanking the SPD in the polls


    "Will the Greens in Germany overtake Olaf Scholz’s Social Democratic Party (SPD) in our Poll of Polls?

    The Green Party has gained 5 percentage points in support since the start of the Russian invasion of Ukraine and is polling neck-and-neck with its coalition partner, SPD."



    https://twitter.com/pollofpolls_EU/status/1528770228187848704?s=20&t=-1TqsfsOsZONqUYnx2P1hg
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,585

    IshmaelZ said:

    A Bayesian bet: P|Johnson loses given P|MPs think it worth having a vote.

    * Time Value of Money.
    Something that becomes noticeable with inflation at 9%.

    Next Lab leader after Starmer, for example, could be more than a decade away.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,585
    Leon said:

    THIS fpt should not get lost in the end-of-thread tailoff..

    @CarlottaVance

    "Words fail......

    Scholz insists to journalists that he’s “not as stupid as Kaiser Wilhelm II” to let Germany fall into a big war. He does not view Ukrainian victory as the goal and prefers a strategy of “active waiting” – cautiously participating until Putin says he has accomplished his war goals

    https://twitter.com/apmassaro3/status/1529372589382041605"

    The thread below is interesting. Germans are also outraged at Scholz. WTF is he on?

    WTF is he on?

    I’ll have “Cheap Russian Gas” for $1000, please Alex.
  • StockyStocky Posts: 10,214
    dixiedean said:

    Stocky said:

    The absence of an obvious replacement is a factor. Maybe the MPs need to get to the position of thinking that any of the leading candidates is better than Johnson before it happens - and they are not at that position yet.

    That's because they aren't.
    He'll lead into the next GE, and possibly beyond. Because there's no one better.
    Well, I don't agree but what do I know? I'd much prefer Hunt, Mordaunt, Wallace, Sunak, Javid, Gove, Harper ......
  • kjhkjh Posts: 11,786
    FPT @Leon

    Your post about the EU being unable to reform must be one of the daftest posts I have ever seen here. The EU being a young institution reforms and evolves like no other organisation I have ever seen. Just compare it to the trade block of 6 nations which existed in my adult lifetime. Now compare that to the House of Commons.

    Now I accept people might not like the reforms and many of the arguments against the EU is it should go back to just being a trading organisation and that is a valid argument (even though I don't agree with it).

    But to say it is incapable of reform or change is clearly ignorant and utterly bonkers.

    PS Re Your post trying to get @Nigel_Foremain banned for making a post you don't like in response to you - Just so you know his post to you last time I saw had got 6 likes :smiley:
  • StockyStocky Posts: 10,214
    edited May 2022
    Regarding the header: If it was a coin toss - Heads: IF there is a confidence vote in 2022 Johnson wins; Tails: IF there is a confidence vote in 2022 Johnson loses - would you go heads or tails?
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,561
    Leon said:

    THIS fpt should not get lost in the end-of-thread tailoff..

    @CarlottaVance

    "Words fail......

    Scholz insists to journalists that he’s “not as stupid as Kaiser Wilhelm II” to let Germany fall into a big war. He does not view Ukrainian victory as the goal and prefers a strategy of “active waiting” – cautiously participating until Putin says he has accomplished his war goals

    https://twitter.com/apmassaro3/status/1529372589382041605"

    The thread below is interesting. Germans are also outraged at Scholz. WTF is he on?

    What a disaster his appointment is proving to be for European unity.

    "We will wait until Russia says it has won. At which point, Ukraine will not need the weapons...."
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,561
    Stocky said:

    dixiedean said:

    Stocky said:

    The absence of an obvious replacement is a factor. Maybe the MPs need to get to the position of thinking that any of the leading candidates is better than Johnson before it happens - and they are not at that position yet.

    That's because they aren't.
    He'll lead into the next GE, and possibly beyond. Because there's no one better.
    Well, I don't agree but what do I know? I'd much prefer Hunt, Mordaunt, Wallace, Sunak, Javid, Gove, Harper ......
    When the Tories need to pull a rabbit out a hat...call for former magician's assistant Penny Mordaunt.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,561
    dixiedean said:

    Stocky said:

    The absence of an obvious replacement is a factor. Maybe the MPs need to get to the position of thinking that any of the leading candidates is better than Johnson before it happens - and they are not at that position yet.

    That's because they aren't.
    He'll lead into the next GE, and possibly beyond. Because there's no one better.
    Define "better".
  • StockyStocky Posts: 10,214

    Stocky said:

    dixiedean said:

    Stocky said:

    The absence of an obvious replacement is a factor. Maybe the MPs need to get to the position of thinking that any of the leading candidates is better than Johnson before it happens - and they are not at that position yet.

    That's because they aren't.
    He'll lead into the next GE, and possibly beyond. Because there's no one better.
    Well, I don't agree but what do I know? I'd much prefer Hunt, Mordaunt, Wallace, Sunak, Javid, Gove, Harper ......
    When the Tories need to pull a rabbit out a hat...call for former magician's assistant Penny Mordaunt.
    Who do you think the LP would most fear going up against? Hunt or Mordaunt I'm guessing. Maybe Harper.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 29,401
    edited May 2022
    Stocky said:

    Regarding the header: If it was a coin toss - Heads: IF there is a confidence vote in 2022 Johnson wins; Tails: IF there is a confidence vote in 2022 Johnson loses - would you go heads or tails?

    I'd go tails.
    He's disloyal, so inspires no loyalty.No empathy, so has few friends. Totally lacking in ideology, so has no hardcore followers.
    I don't see any positive reasons to vote for him.
    They're all negatives.
    That may be enough. But I wouldn't bet on it. He's screwed over everyone he comes into contact with.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 55,277
    kjh said:

    FPT @Leon

    Your post about the EU being unable to reform must be one of the daftest posts I have ever seen here. The EU being a young institution reforms and evolves like no other organisation I have ever seen. Just compare it to the trade block of 6 nations which existed in my adult lifetime. Now compare that to the House of Commons.

    Now I accept people might not like the reforms and many of the arguments against the EU is it should go back to just being a trading organisation and that is a valid argument (even though I don't agree with it).

    But to say it is incapable of reform or change is clearly ignorant and utterly bonkers.

    PS Re Your post trying to get @Nigel_Foremain banned for making a post you don't like in response to you - Just so you know his post to you last time I saw had got 6 likes :smiley:

    Jesus fucking Christ are you still banging on about Brexit? Get over it. You lost. But now you are a freeman in a free and democratic country, not some tragic serf in the EU superstate. Make the most of it and stop whining
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 13,677
    edited May 2022

    Leon said:

    THIS fpt should not get lost in the end-of-thread tailoff..

    @CarlottaVance

    "Words fail......

    Scholz insists to journalists that he’s “not as stupid as Kaiser Wilhelm II” to let Germany fall into a big war. He does not view Ukrainian victory as the goal and prefers a strategy of “active waiting” – cautiously participating until Putin says he has accomplished his war goals

    https://twitter.com/apmassaro3/status/1529372589382041605"

    The thread below is interesting. Germans are also outraged at Scholz. WTF is he on?

    WTF is he on?

    The German establishment is hooked on Russian bribes.
    The only difference between him and the rest of the west is that he admits the what the strategy is.

    The US, UK, etc. aren't giving Ukraine enough help to win. They could and would be doing a lot more if that were the goal. They are doing just enough to let Ukraine lose slowly and inflict maximum pain on Russia.
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 14,310
    dixiedean said:

    Stocky said:

    The absence of an obvious replacement is a factor. Maybe the MPs need to get to the position of thinking that any of the leading candidates is better than Johnson before it happens - and they are not at that position yet.

    That's because they aren't.
    He'll lead into the next GE, and possibly beyond. Because there's no one better.
    Even the fecking Downing Street cat is better. The PCP is trapped in a kind of Stockholm syndrome where they cannot bring themselves to accept that their capture is eventually going to politically kill them, but still they wish to please him.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 32,553
    Leon said:

    THIS fpt should not get lost in the end-of-thread tailoff..

    @CarlottaVance

    "Words fail......

    Scholz insists to journalists that he’s “not as stupid as Kaiser Wilhelm II” to let Germany fall into a big war. He does not view Ukrainian victory as the goal and prefers a strategy of “active waiting” – cautiously participating until Putin says he has accomplished his war goals

    https://twitter.com/apmassaro3/status/1529372589382041605"

    The thread below is interesting. Germans are also outraged at Scholz. WTF is he on?

    German politics is a mystery.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 29,401
    Stocky said:

    Regarding the header: If it was a coin toss - Heads: IF there is a confidence vote in 2022 Johnson wins; Tails: IF there is a confidence vote in 2022 Johnson loses - would you go heads or tails?

    I'd go tails.
    He's

    dixiedean said:

    Stocky said:

    The absence of an obvious replacement is a factor. Maybe the MPs need to get to the position of thinking that any of the leading candidates is better than Johnson before it happens - and they are not at that position yet.

    That's because they aren't.
    He'll lead into the next GE, and possibly beyond. Because there's no one better.
    Define "better".
    Winning votes. There is no evidence the polling would improve substantially with anyone else. That's the key metric.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,083
    Cyclefree said:



    Rather more concerning that Gervais's comedy act (I understand he was using actual quotes of things said by TRA activists and if they do not like these being quoted back at them, they might reflect on why that might be) is a statement by a QC yesterday in the Bailey Employment Tribunal case.

    The cross examination was about a seminar about how to overcome the "cotton ceiling" ie how to persuade lesbians that they should have sex with transwomen who still had male bodies. The QC (from the Chambers which is being sued) stated -

    "You can persuade a lesbian that she might want to - that she could want to - have sex with a trans woman in a way that was not coercive."

    Unfortunately, this does not reflect the law - which you'd have thought a QC who does rape cases - would know. The ECHR has ruled that any behaviour which seeks to negate or override a lack of consent to sex may be deemed coercive and that includes "persuasion". In short, sexual autonomy requires consent to be fully and freely given not something you should be persuaded into, even if that persuasion is something less than violence.

    There is something abhorrent in the idea of seeking to persuade lesbians that they should have sex with people they are not sexually attracted to by definition. Indeed, there is something utterly vile in the idea that (a) women should not have boundaries (b) those boundaries should be breached if that is what is necessary to validate someone else's feelings and (c) if you choose to say no you are somehow being phobic or bigoted

    What part of "No means No" is hard to understand. I am old enough to remember when if you didn't want to have sex with a man they would accuse you of being a lesbian and if you were a lesbian men would tell you that all you needed was a good screw from them to sort it out. We are now seeing some revolting old wine in new bottles, sadly.

    Women - whether lesbians or straight - have no obligation to have sex with anyone and don't need to justify this either. Seminars to "persuade" them is the mentality of the rapist.

    Transgender people deserve consideration but the activist movement has got itself into a very dark place when it comes out with this sort of stuff and is doing genuine transgender people no good at all.

    Mysogny and bigotry is turning out to be a lot more creative than I had anticipated.

    Seminars on persuading people to have sex with someone they don't want to sounds like something from a parody dystopia.
    algarkirk said:

    HYUFD said:

    New Yougov Scottish independence poll has No 55% Yes 45%. So despite Brexit and 8 years of Sturgeon as FM on this poll still zero change from 2014

    https://twitter.com/scotlandinunion/status/1529363820002562048?s=20&t=kK4RfHSnCq6WROPDuOb5TA

    This does raise the question of whether Boris or someone will one day call the SNP's bluff and give them the Ref2 they claim to want but don't. The SNP's fear is really quite unusual: they don't want Ref2, (a) because they might lose it and (b) because they might win it.

    Too high risk. Even if it seemed even more unlikely the consequences of being wrong would be catastrophic.

    Dura_Ace said:



    Change has to come from within, Americans need to grow a backbone and act

    The US has a more vibrant and recent history of resisting tyranny than the UK. The guns are there for use against the government. The British have just meekly ceded a monopoly on violence to the state.

    Orgreave could not have happened in Kentucky.
    The principles of gun ownership are complex. Around the turn of the 19th/20th century gun ownership in the UK was widespread, and probably not dissimilar to the US. There was a famous case around the time where an unarmed policeman borrowed a revolver from a gentleman passer by to tackle an armed gang in London. There is no doubt that authoritarians dislike the idea nd this aspect of US culture.

    High gun ownership does not necessarily lead to higher murder rates, but high gun ownership combined with other malaise in modern society might (desensitisation due to gaming and movies perhaps?). For those of us that have been brought up with the idea of responsible gun ownership the idea of even pointing a gun in the direction of another (unless on a military exercise) is an anathema. Simplistic solutions are rarely to answer to complex problems.
    Odd then that you threw in two bullshit simplistic explanations around gaming and movies.

    Its nonsense. Not only do they have those in, say, Switzerland, movie and videogame violence is in almost all cases not realistic, it's more a pastiche. People can tell the difference, it's why we might thrill to go see the next Tarantino splatterfest but a 2 minute report on the Ukrainian war which might show a dead body for 2 seconds will contain a warning.

    What desensitizes people is experience of actual violence. Colourful depictions of fake violence do not.

    Words fail......

    Scholz insists to journalists that he’s “not as stupid as Kaiser Wilhelm II” to let Germany fall into a big war. He does not view Ukrainian victory as the goal and prefers a strategy of “active waiting” – cautiously participating until Putin says he has accomplished his war goals

    https://twitter.com/apmassaro3/status/1529372589382041605

    Look, when the man has been bought he stays bought, you have to respect that.

  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,561
    dixiedean said:

    Stocky said:

    Regarding the header: If it was a coin toss - Heads: IF there is a confidence vote in 2022 Johnson wins; Tails: IF there is a confidence vote in 2022 Johnson loses - would you go heads or tails?

    I'd go tails.
    He's

    dixiedean said:

    Stocky said:

    The absence of an obvious replacement is a factor. Maybe the MPs need to get to the position of thinking that any of the leading candidates is better than Johnson before it happens - and they are not at that position yet.

    That's because they aren't.
    He'll lead into the next GE, and possibly beyond. Because there's no one better.
    Define "better".
    Winning votes. There is no evidence the polling would improve substantially with anyone else. That's the key metric.
    My key metric is all the former-Tory voters I know in the constituency we haven't a hope in hell of persuading back whilst ever Boris remains as PM.
  • StockyStocky Posts: 10,214
    dixiedean said:

    Stocky said:

    Regarding the header: If it was a coin toss - Heads: IF there is a confidence vote in 2022 Johnson wins; Tails: IF there is a confidence vote in 2022 Johnson loses - would you go heads or tails?

    I'd go tails.
    He's disloyal, so inspires no loyalty.No empathy, so has few friends. Totally lacking in ideology, so has no hardcore followers.
    I don't see any positive reasons to vote for him.
    They're all negatives.
    That may be enough. But I wouldn't bet on it. He's screwed over everyone he comes into contact with.
    You have a reason to vote for him if you are on the government payroll.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,921
    Leon said:

    Chris said:

    Leon said:

    THIS fpt should not get lost in the end-of-thread tailoff..

    @CarlottaVance

    "Words fail......

    Scholz insists to journalists that he’s “not as stupid as Kaiser Wilhelm II” to let Germany fall into a big war. He does not view Ukrainian victory as the goal and prefers a strategy of “active waiting” – cautiously participating until Putin says he has accomplished his war goals

    https://twitter.com/apmassaro3/status/1529372589382041605"

    The thread below is interesting. Germans are also outraged at Scholz. WTF is he on?

    Only as stupid as Neville Chamberlain by the sound of it.
    So far, he is a catastrophic German Chancellor. I guess the only way is up

    He is also tanking the SPD in the polls


    "Will the Greens in Germany overtake Olaf Scholz’s Social Democratic Party (SPD) in our Poll of Polls?

    The Green Party has gained 5 percentage points in support since the start of the Russian invasion of Ukraine and is polling neck-and-neck with its coalition partner, SPD."



    https://twitter.com/pollofpolls_EU/status/1528770228187848704?s=20&t=-1TqsfsOsZONqUYnx2P1hg
    CDU now back in front under Merz too who tales a harder line on Putin than Scholz
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 42,957
    Cyclefree said:

    FPT

    Rather more concerning that Gervais's comedy act (I understand he was using actual quotes of things said by TRA activists and if they do not like these being quoted back at them, they might reflect on why that might be) is a statement by a QC yesterday in the Bailey Employment Tribunal case.

    The cross examination was about a seminar about how to overcome the "cotton ceiling" ie how to persuade lesbians that they should have sex with transwomen who still had male bodies. The QC (from the Chambers which is being sued) stated -

    "You can persuade a lesbian that she might want to - that she could want to - have sex with a trans woman in a way that was not coercive."

    Unfortunately, this does not reflect the law - which you'd have thought a QC who does rape cases - would know. The ECHR has ruled that any behaviour which seeks to negate or override a lack of consent to sex may be deemed coercive and that includes "persuasion". In short, sexual autonomy requires consent to be fully and freely given not something you should be persuaded into, even if that persuasion is something less than violence.

    There is something abhorrent in the idea of seeking to persuade lesbians that they should have sex with people they are not sexually attracted to by definition. Indeed, there is something utterly vile in the idea that (a) women should not have boundaries (b) those boundaries should be breached if that is what is necessary to validate someone else's feelings and (c) if you choose to say no you are somehow being phobic or bigoted

    What part of "No means No" is hard to understand. I am old enough to remember when if you didn't want to have sex with a man they would accuse you of being a lesbian and if you were a lesbian men would tell you that all you needed was a good screw from them to sort it out. We are now seeing some revolting old wine in new bottles, sadly.

    Women - whether lesbians or straight - have no obligation to have sex with anyone and don't need to justify this either. Seminars to "persuade" them is the mentality of the rapist.

    Transgender people deserve consideration but the activist movement has got itself into a very dark place when it comes out with this sort of stuff and is doing genuine transgender people no good at all.

    Incidentally, the consultation period on the Scottish government's proposed GRA reforms has ended and the results are that just under 60% of the responses opposed the proposal. Will La Sturgeon listen?

    I mean I'm not going to read the detail, nor indeed your post on the matter (apols but life's too short).

    However on what planet is someone in court arguing that people should be persuaded to have sex with anyone or any group of people - gay, straight, trans, LFC supporter, why even Flint Knapper - that they don't want to have sex with.

    It is so bizarre as to be out of Alice in Wonderland. In a court of law. Amazing. Have I got it right?
  • LeonLeon Posts: 55,277
    Cyclefree said:

    FPT

    Rather more concerning that Gervais's comedy act (I understand he was using actual quotes of things said by TRA activists and if they do not like these being quoted back at them, they might reflect on why that might be) is a statement by a QC yesterday in the Bailey Employment Tribunal case.

    The cross examination was about a seminar about how to overcome the "cotton ceiling" ie how to persuade lesbians that they should have sex with transwomen who still had male bodies. The QC (from the Chambers which is being sued) stated -

    "You can persuade a lesbian that she might want to - that she could want to - have sex with a trans woman in a way that was not coercive."

    Unfortunately, this does not reflect the law - which you'd have thought a QC who does rape cases - would know. The ECHR has ruled that any behaviour which seeks to negate or override a lack of consent to sex may be deemed coercive and that includes "persuasion". In short, sexual autonomy requires consent to be fully and freely given not something you should be persuaded into, even if that persuasion is something less than violence.

    There is something abhorrent in the idea of seeking to persuade lesbians that they should have sex with people they are not sexually attracted to by definition. Indeed, there is something utterly vile in the idea that (a) women should not have boundaries (b) those boundaries should be breached if that is what is necessary to validate someone else's feelings and (c) if you choose to say no you are somehow being phobic or bigoted

    What part of "No means No" is hard to understand. I am old enough to remember when if you didn't want to have sex with a man they would accuse you of being a lesbian and if you were a lesbian men would tell you that all you needed was a good screw from them to sort it out. We are now seeing some revolting old wine in new bottles, sadly.

    Women - whether lesbians or straight - have no obligation to have sex with anyone and don't need to justify this either. Seminars to "persuade" them is the mentality of the rapist.

    Transgender people deserve consideration but the activist movement has got itself into a very dark place when it comes out with this sort of stuff and is doing genuine transgender people no good at all.

    Incidentally, the consultation period on the Scottish government's proposed GRA reforms has ended and the results are that just under 60% of the responses opposed the proposal. Will La Sturgeon listen?

    Completely agree

    It's a mind boggling and repulsive statement from the QC. Transgender politics is insane. And btw this also applies to straight men. Am I a hate-criminal homophobe or transphobe if I prefer not to suck a transman's penis, just because he claims he is now a woman?

    It's quite close to state-sanctioned rape. The only upside is that the TRA are so obviously crazy and extreme they are destroying their own cause. One hopes
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,083
    Stocky said:

    Stocky said:

    dixiedean said:

    Stocky said:

    The absence of an obvious replacement is a factor. Maybe the MPs need to get to the position of thinking that any of the leading candidates is better than Johnson before it happens - and they are not at that position yet.

    That's because they aren't.
    He'll lead into the next GE, and possibly beyond. Because there's no one better.
    Well, I don't agree but what do I know? I'd much prefer Hunt, Mordaunt, Wallace, Sunak, Javid, Gove, Harper ......
    When the Tories need to pull a rabbit out a hat...call for former magician's assistant Penny Mordaunt.
    Who do you think the LP would most fear going up against? Hunt or Mordaunt I'm guessing. Maybe Harper.
    Hmm, tricky question. I dont think theyd fear Hunt because he's a known quantity. He's mostly inoffensive and normal, not much fear to turn things around. What they fear is someone being even a little like Boris in appeal, without the baggage.
  • StockyStocky Posts: 10,214
    dixiedean said:

    Stocky said:

    Regarding the header: If it was a coin toss - Heads: IF there is a confidence vote in 2022 Johnson wins; Tails: IF there is a confidence vote in 2022 Johnson loses - would you go heads or tails?

    I'd go tails.
    He's disloyal, so inspires no loyalty.No empathy, so has few friends. Totally lacking in ideology, so has no hardcore followers.
    I don't see any positive reasons to vote for him.
    They're all negatives.
    That may be enough. But I wouldn't bet on it. He's screwed over everyone he comes into contact with.
    I agree but Smarkets odds go the other way, though are changing. I got 2.39 on Johnson losing. Now 2.08 him losing, 1.76 him winning. (Odds are slightly better on the lay side.)
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,561
    Stocky said:

    Stocky said:

    dixiedean said:

    Stocky said:

    The absence of an obvious replacement is a factor. Maybe the MPs need to get to the position of thinking that any of the leading candidates is better than Johnson before it happens - and they are not at that position yet.

    That's because they aren't.
    He'll lead into the next GE, and possibly beyond. Because there's no one better.
    Well, I don't agree but what do I know? I'd much prefer Hunt, Mordaunt, Wallace, Sunak, Javid, Gove, Harper ......
    When the Tories need to pull a rabbit out a hat...call for former magician's assistant Penny Mordaunt.
    Who do you think the LP would most fear going up against? Hunt or Mordaunt I'm guessing. Maybe Harper.
    Mordaunt has a definite sense of humour. It has got Boris a long way with the voters - until confronted with the Top Job, when he is clearly out of his depth.

    I just think Starmer especially would really struggle against Mordaunt. She will connect where he will not.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,083
    Leon said:

    THIS fpt should not get lost in the end-of-thread tailoff..

    @CarlottaVance

    "Words fail......

    Scholz insists to journalists that he’s “not as stupid as Kaiser Wilhelm II” to let Germany fall into a big war. He does not view Ukrainian victory as the goal and prefers a strategy of “active waiting” – cautiously participating until Putin says he has accomplished his war goals

    https://twitter.com/apmassaro3/status/1529372589382041605"

    The thread below is interesting. Germans are also outraged at Scholz. WTF is he on?

    Money.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,083
    Leon said:

    Chris said:

    Leon said:

    THIS fpt should not get lost in the end-of-thread tailoff..

    @CarlottaVance

    "Words fail......

    Scholz insists to journalists that he’s “not as stupid as Kaiser Wilhelm II” to let Germany fall into a big war. He does not view Ukrainian victory as the goal and prefers a strategy of “active waiting” – cautiously participating until Putin says he has accomplished his war goals

    https://twitter.com/apmassaro3/status/1529372589382041605"

    The thread below is interesting. Germans are also outraged at Scholz. WTF is he on?

    Only as stupid as Neville Chamberlain by the sound of it.
    So far, he is a catastrophic German Chancellor. I guess the only way is up

    He is also tanking the SPD in the polls


    "Will the Greens in Germany overtake Olaf Scholz’s Social Democratic Party (SPD) in our Poll of Polls?

    The Green Party has gained 5 percentage points in support since the start of the Russian invasion of Ukraine and is polling neck-and-neck with its coalition partner, SPD."



    https://twitter.com/pollofpolls_EU/status/1528770228187848704?s=20&t=-1TqsfsOsZONqUYnx2P1hg
    I seem to recall the SPD looked like they might be eclipsed in recent years but came good for the run up to election.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 55,277
    TOPPING said:

    Cyclefree said:

    FPT

    Rather more concerning that Gervais's comedy act (I understand he was using actual quotes of things said by TRA activists and if they do not like these being quoted back at them, they might reflect on why that might be) is a statement by a QC yesterday in the Bailey Employment Tribunal case.

    The cross examination was about a seminar about how to overcome the "cotton ceiling" ie how to persuade lesbians that they should have sex with transwomen who still had male bodies. The QC (from the Chambers which is being sued) stated -

    "You can persuade a lesbian that she might want to - that she could want to - have sex with a trans woman in a way that was not coercive."

    Unfortunately, this does not reflect the law - which you'd have thought a QC who does rape cases - would know. The ECHR has ruled that any behaviour which seeks to negate or override a lack of consent to sex may be deemed coercive and that includes "persuasion". In short, sexual autonomy requires consent to be fully and freely given not something you should be persuaded into, even if that persuasion is something less than violence.

    There is something abhorrent in the idea of seeking to persuade lesbians that they should have sex with people they are not sexually attracted to by definition. Indeed, there is something utterly vile in the idea that (a) women should not have boundaries (b) those boundaries should be breached if that is what is necessary to validate someone else's feelings and (c) if you choose to say no you are somehow being phobic or bigoted

    What part of "No means No" is hard to understand. I am old enough to remember when if you didn't want to have sex with a man they would accuse you of being a lesbian and if you were a lesbian men would tell you that all you needed was a good screw from them to sort it out. We are now seeing some revolting old wine in new bottles, sadly.

    Women - whether lesbians or straight - have no obligation to have sex with anyone and don't need to justify this either. Seminars to "persuade" them is the mentality of the rapist.

    Transgender people deserve consideration but the activist movement has got itself into a very dark place when it comes out with this sort of stuff and is doing genuine transgender people no good at all.

    Incidentally, the consultation period on the Scottish government's proposed GRA reforms has ended and the results are that just under 60% of the responses opposed the proposal. Will La Sturgeon listen?

    I mean I'm not going to read the detail, nor indeed your post on the matter (apols but life's too short).

    However on what planet is someone in court arguing that people should be persuaded to have sex with anyone or any group of people - gay, straight, trans, LFC supporter, why even Flint Knapper - that they don't want to have sex with.

    It is so bizarre as to be out of Alice in Wonderland. In a court of law. Amazing. Have I got it right?
    Incredibly, Yes - you have got it right
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    In just the past several weeks, British troops, with help from their American counterparts, have transformed a sleepy conference room here at Patch Barracks into one of the nerve centers within the NATO alliance for fielding Ukraine’s weapons requests. Their task is to get artillery, tanks, fighter aircraft, ammunition, and nonlethal aid like helmets from the heart of Europe into the fight in the Donbas, with the help of a handful of Ukrainian liaison officers in the room working the phones with soldiers on the front lines.....

    In the first days of the war, U.S. officials and British troops worked separately. But the British military—headed by the 104 Theater Sustainment Brigade—set up a software system with a Ukrainian code name akin to Craigslist, where Ukrainians can post weapons requests and countries can pull down separate cases. By the beginning of April, the U.S. and British efforts had merged into one unit


    https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/05/24/nato-ukraine-military-aid-germany/
  • StockyStocky Posts: 10,214
    edited May 2022

    Stocky said:

    Stocky said:

    dixiedean said:

    Stocky said:

    The absence of an obvious replacement is a factor. Maybe the MPs need to get to the position of thinking that any of the leading candidates is better than Johnson before it happens - and they are not at that position yet.

    That's because they aren't.
    He'll lead into the next GE, and possibly beyond. Because there's no one better.
    Well, I don't agree but what do I know? I'd much prefer Hunt, Mordaunt, Wallace, Sunak, Javid, Gove, Harper ......
    When the Tories need to pull a rabbit out a hat...call for former magician's assistant Penny Mordaunt.
    Who do you think the LP would most fear going up against? Hunt or Mordaunt I'm guessing. Maybe Harper.
    Mordaunt has a definite sense of humour. It has got Boris a long way with the voters - until confronted with the Top Job, when he is clearly out of his depth.

    I just think Starmer especially would really struggle against Mordaunt. She will connect where he will not.
    How would Starmer tackle Mordaunt at PMQs? I'm guessing his earnestness and unctuousness would be turned up to 11.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 29,401
    edited May 2022
    Stocky said:

    dixiedean said:

    Stocky said:

    Regarding the header: If it was a coin toss - Heads: IF there is a confidence vote in 2022 Johnson wins; Tails: IF there is a confidence vote in 2022 Johnson loses - would you go heads or tails?

    I'd go tails.
    He's disloyal, so inspires no loyalty.No empathy, so has few friends. Totally lacking in ideology, so has no hardcore followers.
    I don't see any positive reasons to vote for him.
    They're all negatives.
    That may be enough. But I wouldn't bet on it. He's screwed over everyone he comes into contact with.
    You have a reason to vote for him if you are on the government payroll.
    Yes indeed.
    That's a negative reason though. Fear of losing position. Along with. Someone else may be worse. My faction may lose (conveniently he has none, so that applies to all). An election would be divisive. A certain section of voters like him for reasons which, to me, are obscure. We may lose them.
    There are no positives. Everyone knows he's not up to it, but inertia is a strong force.
    If it came to a ballot, and I don't think it will, for the above reasons, I reckon he's toast.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,083
    Leon said:

    Cyclefree said:

    FPT

    Rather more concerning that Gervais's comedy act (I understand he was using actual quotes of things said by TRA activists and if they do not like these being quoted back at them, they might reflect on why that might be) is a statement by a QC yesterday in the Bailey Employment Tribunal case.

    The cross examination was about a seminar about how to overcome the "cotton ceiling" ie how to persuade lesbians that they should have sex with transwomen who still had male bodies. The QC (from the Chambers which is being sued) stated -

    "You can persuade a lesbian that she might want to - that she could want to - have sex with a trans woman in a way that was not coercive."

    Unfortunately, this does not reflect the law - which you'd have thought a QC who does rape cases - would know. The ECHR has ruled that any behaviour which seeks to negate or override a lack of consent to sex may be deemed coercive and that includes "persuasion". In short, sexual autonomy requires consent to be fully and freely given not something you should be persuaded into, even if that persuasion is something less than violence.

    There is something abhorrent in the idea of seeking to persuade lesbians that they should have sex with people they are not sexually attracted to by definition. Indeed, there is something utterly vile in the idea that (a) women should not have boundaries (b) those boundaries should be breached if that is what is necessary to validate someone else's feelings and (c) if you choose to say no you are somehow being phobic or bigoted

    What part of "No means No" is hard to understand. I am old enough to remember when if you didn't want to have sex with a man they would accuse you of being a lesbian and if you were a lesbian men would tell you that all you needed was a good screw from them to sort it out. We are now seeing some revolting old wine in new bottles, sadly.

    Women - whether lesbians or straight - have no obligation to have sex with anyone and don't need to justify this either. Seminars to "persuade" them is the mentality of the rapist.

    Transgender people deserve consideration but the activist movement has got itself into a very dark place when it comes out with this sort of stuff and is doing genuine transgender people no good at all.

    Incidentally, the consultation period on the Scottish government's proposed GRA reforms has ended and the results are that just under 60% of the responses opposed the proposal. Will La Sturgeon listen?

    Completely agree

    It's a mind boggling and repulsive statement from the QC. Transgender politics is insane. And btw this also applies to straight men. Am I a hate-criminal homophobe or transphobe if I prefer not to suck a transman's penis, just because he claims he is now a woman?

    It's quite close to state-sanctioned rape. The only upside is that the TRA are so obviously crazy and extreme they are destroying their own cause. One hopes
    Relatedky, Unfortunately that 60% GRA opposition doesn't seem high enough to provoke a change to me. Consultations far more one sided do not lead to change.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 50,249

    In just the past several weeks, British troops, with help from their American counterparts, have transformed a sleepy conference room here at Patch Barracks into one of the nerve centers within the NATO alliance for fielding Ukraine’s weapons requests. Their task is to get artillery, tanks, fighter aircraft, ammunition, and nonlethal aid like helmets from the heart of Europe into the fight in the Donbas, with the help of a handful of Ukrainian liaison officers in the room working the phones with soldiers on the front lines.....

    In the first days of the war, U.S. officials and British troops worked separately. But the British military—headed by the 104 Theater Sustainment Brigade—set up a software system with a Ukrainian code name akin to Craigslist, where Ukrainians can post weapons requests and countries can pull down separate cases. By the beginning of April, the U.S. and British efforts had merged into one unit


    https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/05/24/nato-ukraine-military-aid-germany/

    "A team in the field in Eastern Europe connected to European Command has helped disassemble Soviet-era Su-25 “Frogfoot” aircraft and Mi-17 helicopters so they can be shipped to Ukraine."

    So some aircraft have been sent. Interesting.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,585

    In just the past several weeks, British troops, with help from their American counterparts, have transformed a sleepy conference room here at Patch Barracks into one of the nerve centers within the NATO alliance for fielding Ukraine’s weapons requests. Their task is to get artillery, tanks, fighter aircraft, ammunition, and nonlethal aid like helmets from the heart of Europe into the fight in the Donbas, with the help of a handful of Ukrainian liaison officers in the room working the phones with soldiers on the front lines.....

    In the first days of the war, U.S. officials and British troops worked separately. But the British military—headed by the 104 Theater Sustainment Brigade—set up a software system with a Ukrainian code name akin to Craigslist, where Ukrainians can post weapons requests and countries can pull down separate cases. By the beginning of April, the U.S. and British efforts had merged into one unit


    https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/05/24/nato-ukraine-military-aid-germany/

    Proud to be British reading that.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 12,496
    Not quite sure if there is value here. Ignoring void conditions for a moment. There is only one scene in which Boris loses: it needs 54 letters based on the belief that Boris will lose, and subsequently +50% of the votes.

    There are two settings in which Boris can win: (a) Where the 54 letters arrive capriciously without proper organisation and planning to win the +50%. If that happens Boris will win

    And (b) Where the 54 letters are sent in an organised way, in the rational belief that the next vote is in the bag, but they are wrong. Tory MPs do something they have never done before and say different things to different audiences; fewer than 50% actually vote against Boris. Mostly because they secretly don't think the successor will be better at keeping their seats for them.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,829
    dixiedean said:

    Stocky said:

    dixiedean said:

    Stocky said:

    Regarding the header: If it was a coin toss - Heads: IF there is a confidence vote in 2022 Johnson wins; Tails: IF there is a confidence vote in 2022 Johnson loses - would you go heads or tails?

    I'd go tails.
    He's disloyal, so inspires no loyalty.No empathy, so has few friends. Totally lacking in ideology, so has no hardcore followers.
    I don't see any positive reasons to vote for him.
    They're all negatives.
    That may be enough. But I wouldn't bet on it. He's screwed over everyone he comes into contact with.
    You have a reason to vote for him if you are on the government payroll.
    Yes indeed.
    That's a negative reason though. Fear of losing position. Along with. Someone else may be worse. My faction may lose (conveniently he has none, so that applies to all). An election would be divisive. A certain section of voters like him for reasons which, to me, are obscure.
    There are no positives. Everyone knows he's not up to it, but inertia is a strong force.
    If it came to a ballot, and I don't think it will, for the above reasons, I reckon he's toast.
    Isn't he in charge of the Brexiter faction?

    But he's done a Ruth Davidson and remodelled the Tories as the Brexiter Party, a few such as Messrs Hunt and Stewart aside, so I suppose that analysis falls to the ground as redundant ...
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,083
    TOPPING said:

    Cyclefree said:

    FPT

    Rather more concerning that Gervais's comedy act (I understand he was using actual quotes of things said by TRA activists and if they do not like these being quoted back at them, they might reflect on why that might be) is a statement by a QC yesterday in the Bailey Employment Tribunal case.

    The cross examination was about a seminar about how to overcome the "cotton ceiling" ie how to persuade lesbians that they should have sex with transwomen who still had male bodies. The QC (from the Chambers which is being sued) stated -

    "You can persuade a lesbian that she might want to - that she could want to - have sex with a trans woman in a way that was not coercive."

    Unfortunately, this does not reflect the law - which you'd have thought a QC who does rape cases - would know. The ECHR has ruled that any behaviour which seeks to negate or override a lack of consent to sex may be deemed coercive and that includes "persuasion". In short, sexual autonomy requires consent to be fully and freely given not something you should be persuaded into, even if that persuasion is something less than violence.

    There is something abhorrent in the idea of seeking to persuade lesbians that they should have sex with people they are not sexually attracted to by definition. Indeed, there is something utterly vile in the idea that (a) women should not have boundaries (b) those boundaries should be breached if that is what is necessary to validate someone else's feelings and (c) if you choose to say no you are somehow being phobic or bigoted

    What part of "No means No" is hard to understand. I am old enough to remember when if you didn't want to have sex with a man they would accuse you of being a lesbian and if you were a lesbian men would tell you that all you needed was a good screw from them to sort it out. We are now seeing some revolting old wine in new bottles, sadly.

    Women - whether lesbians or straight - have no obligation to have sex with anyone and don't need to justify this either. Seminars to "persuade" them is the mentality of the rapist.

    Transgender people deserve consideration but the activist movement has got itself into a very dark place when it comes out with this sort of stuff and is doing genuine transgender people no good at all.

    Incidentally, the consultation period on the Scottish government's proposed GRA reforms has ended and the results are that just under 60% of the responses opposed the proposal. Will La Sturgeon listen?

    I mean I'm not going to read the detail, nor indeed your post on the matter (apols but life's too short).

    However on what planet is someone in court arguing that people should be persuaded to have sex with anyone or any group of people - gay, straight, trans, LFC supporter, why even Flint Knapper - that they don't want to have sex with.

    It is so bizarre as to be out of Alice in Wonderland. In a court of law. Amazing. Have I got it right?
    The very act of the seminar is coercive. Its one of thr most bonkers things I've ever read.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,191
    Off topic, colleague's son lifted 33 stone 12 pounds yesterday. He's 14 and under 10 stone.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 11,786
    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    FPT @Leon

    Your post about the EU being unable to reform must be one of the daftest posts I have ever seen here. The EU being a young institution reforms and evolves like no other organisation I have ever seen. Just compare it to the trade block of 6 nations which existed in my adult lifetime. Now compare that to the House of Commons.

    Now I accept people might not like the reforms and many of the arguments against the EU is it should go back to just being a trading organisation and that is a valid argument (even though I don't agree with it).

    But to say it is incapable of reform or change is clearly ignorant and utterly bonkers.

    PS Re Your post trying to get @Nigel_Foremain banned for making a post you don't like in response to you - Just so you know his post to you last time I saw had got 6 likes :smiley:

    Jesus fucking Christ are you still banging on about Brexit? Get over it. You lost. But now you are a freeman in a free and democratic country, not some tragic serf in the EU superstate. Make the most of it and stop whining
    Very good. At least you get the irony of your obsession. Failed to respond though to the fact that your post was clearly nonsense.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 50,249
    Chris said:

    Leon said:

    THIS fpt should not get lost in the end-of-thread tailoff..

    @CarlottaVance

    "Words fail......

    Scholz insists to journalists that he’s “not as stupid as Kaiser Wilhelm II” to let Germany fall into a big war. He does not view Ukrainian victory as the goal and prefers a strategy of “active waiting” – cautiously participating until Putin says he has accomplished his war goals

    https://twitter.com/apmassaro3/status/1529372589382041605"

    The thread below is interesting. Germans are also outraged at Scholz. WTF is he on?

    Only as stupid as Neville Chamberlain by the sound of it.
    To be fair to Neville Chamberlain - he didn't have the example of... Neville Chamberlain.

    The theory of Appeasement was that by giving in to the various border changes/annexations Hitler wanted, the causes of a future war would be removed. So Hitler wouldn't be able to bang that drum again.

    The problem was that Hitler was pretty much the only Nazi who was mad keen on a WWII. Everyone else in the Army and the Nazi party wanted a fight/land grab against Poland at some point, but not a general war.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 28,419

    Stocky said:

    Stocky said:

    dixiedean said:

    Stocky said:

    The absence of an obvious replacement is a factor. Maybe the MPs need to get to the position of thinking that any of the leading candidates is better than Johnson before it happens - and they are not at that position yet.

    That's because they aren't.
    He'll lead into the next GE, and possibly beyond. Because there's no one better.
    Well, I don't agree but what do I know? I'd much prefer Hunt, Mordaunt, Wallace, Sunak, Javid, Gove, Harper ......
    When the Tories need to pull a rabbit out a hat...call for former magician's assistant Penny Mordaunt.
    Who do you think the LP would most fear going up against? Hunt or Mordaunt I'm guessing. Maybe Harper.
    Mordaunt has a definite sense of humour. It has got Boris a long way with the voters - until confronted with the Top Job, when he is clearly out of his depth.

    I just think Starmer especially would really struggle against Mordaunt. She will connect where he will not.
    Yep. Against SKS, however pissed off with Boris you'd been, you'd find enough excuses to vote for Mordaunt. What's also extraordinary (probably by virtue of us not knowing much about what her programme would be), is the cross-section of PBers who like her. I am usually diametrically opposed to TSE on all Tory figures, but we both like Mordaunt. I think Gardenwalker is OK with her too. I respect both those posters, but usually oppose most of their views on British politics.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 28,900
    Off-topic FPT:
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Farooq said:

    Killing bulls for fun in Spain and parts of France is pretty bizarre, to say the least, and pretty unbannable.

    Catalonia, the Balearics, and the Canaries have all moved against bullfighting in recent decades and I believe killing the bull is banned in all three.
    Whatever you think of La Corrida (I quite like it) it does not warp Spanish society, or cost it billions, the way the NHS costs Britain and gun law ravages America; so it's not a good equivalent
    It is very heavily subsidised, but I take your point. I have very mixed feelings on bullfighting. Objectively, it is profoundly cruel to torture an animal to death for fun. I don’t see how that is defensible. But then when you do see one man alone in a ring with no defence but a cape leading a ferocious and deadly wild animal through a series of perfect passes you can forget the cruelty and admire, even be moved by, the bravery and the skill.

    We agree. I expected to hate bullfighting. My mum took me to see one when I was about eight or nine, at a time when I had the normal childhood sentimentality about animals (I remember crying over a TV report on hare coursing, at roughly the same age). To my intense surprise, I loved it

    I've always loved it. I've actually researched it for the Gazette

    It probably is quite cruel but I find it hard to get that upset because I know the bulls lead fabulous lives up to those fifteen minutes of terror, certainly they lead fabulous lives compared to the billions of animals that die horrible deaths - after horrible lives -in factory farms

    Pigs in tiny boxes and chickens crushed together upset me way more than bullfights. I'm down to eating meat about once a week, I may abandon it entirely, or get really religious about where it comes from
    Despite having been working in the vegetarian / meat-free / plant-based world for a decade or so I have been occasionally flexitarian at best. A few times I have had an "eugh" reaction to what I am eating and have changed my diet but it doesn't stick.

    So as part of my mental health rebuild I need to think much more about what I eat, and drink, and calorie burn as I am too fat. So have opted for an "as much plant-based as possible" diet. Its not exclusive as that's too hard for one leap.

    But it has meant that I have to think about what I am proposing to eat. Which makes for positive choices which allows better control of fats / carbs / meat.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,310
    kle4 said:

    TOPPING said:

    Cyclefree said:

    FPT

    Rather more concerning that Gervais's comedy act (I understand he was using actual quotes of things said by TRA activists and if they do not like these being quoted back at them, they might reflect on why that might be) is a statement by a QC yesterday in the Bailey Employment Tribunal case.

    The cross examination was about a seminar about how to overcome the "cotton ceiling" ie how to persuade lesbians that they should have sex with transwomen who still had male bodies. The QC (from the Chambers which is being sued) stated -

    "You can persuade a lesbian that she might want to - that she could want to - have sex with a trans woman in a way that was not coercive."

    Unfortunately, this does not reflect the law - which you'd have thought a QC who does rape cases - would know. The ECHR has ruled that any behaviour which seeks to negate or override a lack of consent to sex may be deemed coercive and that includes "persuasion". In short, sexual autonomy requires consent to be fully and freely given not something you should be persuaded into, even if that persuasion is something less than violence.

    There is something abhorrent in the idea of seeking to persuade lesbians that they should have sex with people they are not sexually attracted to by definition. Indeed, there is something utterly vile in the idea that (a) women should not have boundaries (b) those boundaries should be breached if that is what is necessary to validate someone else's feelings and (c) if you choose to say no you are somehow being phobic or bigoted

    What part of "No means No" is hard to understand. I am old enough to remember when if you didn't want to have sex with a man they would accuse you of being a lesbian and if you were a lesbian men would tell you that all you needed was a good screw from them to sort it out. We are now seeing some revolting old wine in new bottles, sadly.

    Women - whether lesbians or straight - have no obligation to have sex with anyone and don't need to justify this either. Seminars to "persuade" them is the mentality of the rapist.

    Transgender people deserve consideration but the activist movement has got itself into a very dark place when it comes out with this sort of stuff and is doing genuine transgender people no good at all.

    Incidentally, the consultation period on the Scottish government's proposed GRA reforms has ended and the results are that just under 60% of the responses opposed the proposal. Will La Sturgeon listen?

    I mean I'm not going to read the detail, nor indeed your post on the matter (apols but life's too short).

    However on what planet is someone in court arguing that people should be persuaded to have sex with anyone or any group of people - gay, straight, trans, LFC supporter, why even Flint Knapper - that they don't want to have sex with.

    It is so bizarre as to be out of Alice in Wonderland. In a court of law. Amazing. Have I got it right?
    The very act of the seminar is coercive. Its one of thr most bonkers things I've ever read.
    I would only add that Stonewall, who are also being sued, have expressly lobbied for the offence of rape by deception to be abolished. Yes - you read that right.

    Also that QC said that the "persuasion" seminars were akin to post-apartheid integration measures in South Africa, lesbians presumably being akin to white supremacists.

    It's not just offensive misogynistic rubbish. It's offensive homophobic rubbish.

    And now I really am off.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 22,822
    On topic for once. Seems like a terrible bet.

    It requires 35%+ of Tory MPs to want the leader changed but take no action to make that happen, when their actions are confidential and only cause an impact if they are sufficient in number.

    I would expect the PM to get close to 60%, perhaps even above in a confidence vote. Who wants PM Dorries?
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    Later today the Prime Minister will make a statement on the Sue Gray Report.

    https://twitter.com/CommonsLeader/status/1529391033930420225
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 50,249
    Cyclefree said:

    FPT

    Rather more concerning that Gervais's comedy act (I understand he was using actual quotes of things said by TRA activists and if they do not like these being quoted back at them, they might reflect on why that might be) is a statement by a QC yesterday in the Bailey Employment Tribunal case.

    The cross examination was about a seminar about how to overcome the "cotton ceiling" ie how to persuade lesbians that they should have sex with transwomen who still had male bodies. The QC (from the Chambers which is being sued) stated -

    "You can persuade a lesbian that she might want to - that she could want to - have sex with a trans woman in a way that was not coercive."

    Unfortunately, this does not reflect the law - which you'd have thought a QC who does rape cases - would know. The ECHR has ruled that any behaviour which seeks to negate or override a lack of consent to sex may be deemed coercive and that includes "persuasion". In short, sexual autonomy requires consent to be fully and freely given not something you should be persuaded into, even if that persuasion is something less than violence.

    There is something abhorrent in the idea of seeking to persuade lesbians that they should have sex with people they are not sexually attracted to by definition. Indeed, there is something utterly vile in the idea that (a) women should not have boundaries (b) those boundaries should be breached if that is what is necessary to validate someone else's feelings and (c) if you choose to say no you are somehow being phobic or bigoted

    What part of "No means No" is hard to understand. I am old enough to remember when if you didn't want to have sex with a man they would accuse you of being a lesbian and if you were a lesbian men would tell you that all you needed was a good screw from them to sort it out. We are now seeing some revolting old wine in new bottles, sadly.

    Women - whether lesbians or straight - have no obligation to have sex with anyone and don't need to justify this either. Seminars to "persuade" them is the mentality of the rapist.

    Transgender people deserve consideration but the activist movement has got itself into a very dark place when it comes out with this sort of stuff and is doing genuine transgender people no good at all.

    Incidentally, the consultation period on the Scottish government's proposed GRA reforms has ended and the results are that just under 60% of the responses opposed the proposal. Will La Sturgeon listen?

    Stepping back for a moment.

    This treats sex in an incredibly juvenile manner - that it is some kind of "right" to be "given".

    The magic of the thing, as adults know, is the enthusiastic, unexplained and total eagerness of both parties.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,829
    edited May 2022
    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/may/25/bill-irish-official-status-northern-ireland-language-government

    Interesting point, which I hadn't realised, that giving Irish equal status is actually bringing NI into line with the rest of the UK, mutatis mutandis.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    In 2014, appeasers hoped that giving Putin Crimea and Donbas would produce peace. It didn't work. 8 years later, he invaded Ukraine. Why on earth do people think today that giving Putin more of Ukraine will produce peace? Illogical.

    https://twitter.com/McFaul/status/1529314852552187904
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 42,957

    Cyclefree said:

    FPT

    Rather more concerning that Gervais's comedy act (I understand he was using actual quotes of things said by TRA activists and if they do not like these being quoted back at them, they might reflect on why that might be) is a statement by a QC yesterday in the Bailey Employment Tribunal case.

    The cross examination was about a seminar about how to overcome the "cotton ceiling" ie how to persuade lesbians that they should have sex with transwomen who still had male bodies. The QC (from the Chambers which is being sued) stated -

    "You can persuade a lesbian that she might want to - that she could want to - have sex with a trans woman in a way that was not coercive."

    Unfortunately, this does not reflect the law - which you'd have thought a QC who does rape cases - would know. The ECHR has ruled that any behaviour which seeks to negate or override a lack of consent to sex may be deemed coercive and that includes "persuasion". In short, sexual autonomy requires consent to be fully and freely given not something you should be persuaded into, even if that persuasion is something less than violence.

    There is something abhorrent in the idea of seeking to persuade lesbians that they should have sex with people they are not sexually attracted to by definition. Indeed, there is something utterly vile in the idea that (a) women should not have boundaries (b) those boundaries should be breached if that is what is necessary to validate someone else's feelings and (c) if you choose to say no you are somehow being phobic or bigoted

    What part of "No means No" is hard to understand. I am old enough to remember when if you didn't want to have sex with a man they would accuse you of being a lesbian and if you were a lesbian men would tell you that all you needed was a good screw from them to sort it out. We are now seeing some revolting old wine in new bottles, sadly.

    Women - whether lesbians or straight - have no obligation to have sex with anyone and don't need to justify this either. Seminars to "persuade" them is the mentality of the rapist.

    Transgender people deserve consideration but the activist movement has got itself into a very dark place when it comes out with this sort of stuff and is doing genuine transgender people no good at all.

    Incidentally, the consultation period on the Scottish government's proposed GRA reforms has ended and the results are that just under 60% of the responses opposed the proposal. Will La Sturgeon listen?

    Stepping back for a moment.

    This treats sex in an incredibly juvenile manner - that it is some kind of "right" to be "given".

    The magic of the thing, as adults know, is the enthusiastic, unexplained and total eagerness of both parties.
    BiB. I wish there had been a bit more of that in my teenage years...
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,070
    As I understand it @BorisJohnson has timed a 1922 committee meeting to save his own skin at the same time as a government debate in his name in the Commons on Ukraine. Please stop pretending you care about anything other than yourself.
    https://mobile.twitter.com/RhonddaBryant/status/1529349025916493825
  • LeonLeon Posts: 55,277

    Off-topic FPT:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Farooq said:

    Killing bulls for fun in Spain and parts of France is pretty bizarre, to say the least, and pretty unbannable.

    Catalonia, the Balearics, and the Canaries have all moved against bullfighting in recent decades and I believe killing the bull is banned in all three.
    Whatever you think of La Corrida (I quite like it) it does not warp Spanish society, or cost it billions, the way the NHS costs Britain and gun law ravages America; so it's not a good equivalent
    It is very heavily subsidised, but I take your point. I have very mixed feelings on bullfighting. Objectively, it is profoundly cruel to torture an animal to death for fun. I don’t see how that is defensible. But then when you do see one man alone in a ring with no defence but a cape leading a ferocious and deadly wild animal through a series of perfect passes you can forget the cruelty and admire, even be moved by, the bravery and the skill.

    We agree. I expected to hate bullfighting. My mum took me to see one when I was about eight or nine, at a time when I had the normal childhood sentimentality about animals (I remember crying over a TV report on hare coursing, at roughly the same age). To my intense surprise, I loved it

    I've always loved it. I've actually researched it for the Gazette

    It probably is quite cruel but I find it hard to get that upset because I know the bulls lead fabulous lives up to those fifteen minutes of terror, certainly they lead fabulous lives compared to the billions of animals that die horrible deaths - after horrible lives -in factory farms

    Pigs in tiny boxes and chickens crushed together upset me way more than bullfights. I'm down to eating meat about once a week, I may abandon it entirely, or get really religious about where it comes from
    Despite having been working in the vegetarian / meat-free / plant-based world for a decade or so I have been occasionally flexitarian at best. A few times I have had an "eugh" reaction to what I am eating and have changed my diet but it doesn't stick.

    So as part of my mental health rebuild I need to think much more about what I eat, and drink, and calorie burn as I am too fat. So have opted for an "as much plant-based as possible" diet. Its not exclusive as that's too hard for one leap.

    But it has meant that I have to think about what I am proposing to eat. Which makes for positive choices which allows better control of fats / carbs / meat.
    Yes. We really don't need to eat meat as much as we do, and it's morally right and also healthy to scrutinise it.

    eg ribeye steak used to be a regular dish for me. Twice a week? I love it. But I have discovered I am equally content with it as a rare but delicious treat, once every few weeks, and I really check the origins

    Bacon is also now a rarity, likewise lamb, pork, etc. I eat a bit of chicken and some game if I can - it's healthy and a bit kinder to animals - and a LOT of fish and shellfish. I am certainly not veggie

  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 21,971
    edited May 2022
    Sandpit said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    A Bayesian bet: P|Johnson loses given P|MPs think it worth having a vote.

    * Time Value of Money.
    Something that becomes noticeable with inflation at 9%.

    Next Lab leader after Starmer, for example, could be more than a decade away.
    Indeed. Even at no inflation TVM still matters, but with inflation progressing it needs to be seriously considered.

    Long bets where you essentially lend your money to the bookmaker at a set odd, while someone else lends the other side at the set odd, means the bookmaker gains from TVM while the winning punter loses from it.

    Its worth keeping in mind now for any potential long-odds or "bet void" bets that a void bet 7 months from now is not the same as never placing the bet now.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 50,249
    kle4 said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Leon said:

    THIS fpt should not get lost in the end-of-thread tailoff..

    @CarlottaVance

    "Words fail......

    Scholz insists to journalists that he’s “not as stupid as Kaiser Wilhelm II” to let Germany fall into a big war. He does not view Ukrainian victory as the goal and prefers a strategy of “active waiting” – cautiously participating until Putin says he has accomplished his war goals

    https://twitter.com/apmassaro3/status/1529372589382041605"

    The thread below is interesting. Germans are also outraged at Scholz. WTF is he on?

    WTF is he on?

    The German establishment is hooked on Russian bribes.
    The only difference between him and the rest of the west is that he admits the what the strategy is.

    The US, UK, etc. aren't giving Ukraine enough help to win. They could and would be doing a lot more if that were the goal. They are doing just enough to let Ukraine lose slowly and inflict maximum pain on Russia.
    You're an idiot on this subject, or pretending to be because you're in love with being edgy. You profess to believe there is no difference between losing quickly and cheaply (for the winner) versus slowly and more costly. You pretend there's no difference between types of loss, such as if they had lost at the start and Kyiv had fallen versus if they lose all the Donbas. You seem to believe a loss is for all time, as if an aggressor might not win a battle but lose a war, or take a castle but take so many losses doing so it scuppers hopes of a wider campaign.

    We are not doing all Ukraine wants. We are holding back and that might mean Ukraine loses more territory. We have to be honest that we in the West are choosing not to do more and that Ukraine will suffer as a result. There no escaping that is true.

    Thst is not the same thing as the Scholz's of the world presenting as realists when their and your analysis is that of a 5 year old - being if you cannot win outright why even try.

    Your military knowledge is great. But your pretending to some 'realistic' seer of geopolitics is unpersuasive. Your disparagement of the 'Disney prince' as you've called Zekensky rather gives the game away that you're not being realistic, you're showing off.

    I think Ukraine probably will be unable to regain all the territory its lost since February. I think they may face no choice despite heroic effort and western support. Thats realistic/pessimistic. I'm no more a seer than you, but I'm also not some optimistic Ukrainian hype man.

    You just keep insisting all losses are equal. Why even fight if thats true?
    Sell the Ukrainians some of these

    image

    Complete with the fun stuff for the front end.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 28,900
    Cyclefree said:

    FPT

    Rather more concerning that Gervais's comedy act (I understand he was using actual quotes of things said by TRA activists and if they do not like these being quoted back at them, they might reflect on why that might be) is a statement by a QC yesterday in the Bailey Employment Tribunal case.

    The cross examination was about a seminar about how to overcome the "cotton ceiling" ie how to persuade lesbians that they should have sex with transwomen who still had male bodies. The QC (from the Chambers which is being sued) stated -

    "You can persuade a lesbian that she might want to - that she could want to - have sex with a trans woman in a way that was not coercive."

    Unfortunately, this does not reflect the law - which you'd have thought a QC who does rape cases - would know. The ECHR has ruled that any behaviour which seeks to negate or override a lack of consent to sex may be deemed coercive and that includes "persuasion". In short, sexual autonomy requires consent to be fully and freely given not something you should be persuaded into, even if that persuasion is something less than violence.

    There is something abhorrent in the idea of seeking to persuade lesbians that they should have sex with people they are not sexually attracted to by definition. Indeed, there is something utterly vile in the idea that (a) women should not have boundaries (b) those boundaries should be breached if that is what is necessary to validate someone else's feelings and (c) if you choose to say no you are somehow being phobic or bigoted

    What part of "No means No" is hard to understand. I am old enough to remember when if you didn't want to have sex with a man they would accuse you of being a lesbian and if you were a lesbian men would tell you that all you needed was a good screw from them to sort it out. We are now seeing some revolting old wine in new bottles, sadly.

    Women - whether lesbians or straight - have no obligation to have sex with anyone and don't need to justify this either. Seminars to "persuade" them is the mentality of the rapist.

    Transgender people deserve consideration but the activist movement has got itself into a very dark place when it comes out with this sort of stuff and is doing genuine transgender people no good at all.

    Incidentally, the consultation period on the Scottish government's proposed GRA reforms has ended and the results are that just under 60% of the responses opposed the proposal. Will La Sturgeon listen?

    Yep. Its all very bitter and disappearing down all kinds of outrageous rabbit holes. Surely the arbiter of who anyone wants to have sex with is the person. Lets take this example lesbian woman. If she doesn't want to have sex with a trans woman who has a penis that isn't transphobic. Because she doesn't have to have sex with anyone in possession of a vagina on demand - she has choice. Why is this choice somehow not allowable?

    Cotton ceiling my arse. I am a bisexual man. Being bisexual doesn't mean that I have to have sex with any man or any woman or any transgender person that I don't want to. A sexuality label does not compel sex with anyone, so wtf is this seminar supposed to do? Compel people to have sex with people they aren't attracted to? This isn't a genitals thing, its a desire thing. And some people are more attractive than others. And besides which as a *married* bisexual man I'd have to sew them back on first if I went off shagging other people...
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,585

    In 2014, appeasers hoped that giving Putin Crimea and Donbas would produce peace. It didn't work. 8 years later, he invaded Ukraine. Why on earth do people think today that giving Putin more of Ukraine will produce peace? Illogical.

    https://twitter.com/McFaul/status/1529314852552187904

    Putin’s already made it quite clear with his words that he doesn’t think Ukraine is a country, and had already made it quite clear with his actions that he wants Russian flags flying in Kiev.

    The only thing that stopping the war now, with anything except a clear Russian defeat, will achieve, is to allow the Russian army to reconstitute itself and have another go at Kiev some months or years from now.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 28,900
    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    FPT @Leon

    Your post about the EU being unable to reform must be one of the daftest posts I have ever seen here. The EU being a young institution reforms and evolves like no other organisation I have ever seen. Just compare it to the trade block of 6 nations which existed in my adult lifetime. Now compare that to the House of Commons.

    Now I accept people might not like the reforms and many of the arguments against the EU is it should go back to just being a trading organisation and that is a valid argument (even though I don't agree with it).

    But to say it is incapable of reform or change is clearly ignorant and utterly bonkers.

    PS Re Your post trying to get @Nigel_Foremain banned for making a post you don't like in response to you - Just so you know his post to you last time I saw had got 6 likes :smiley:

    Jesus fucking Christ are you still banging on about Brexit? Get over it. You lost. But now you are a freeman in a free and democratic country, not some tragic serf in the EU superstate. Make the most of it and stop whining
    Leon luv you were banging on and on and on about Brexit yesterday. And the day before. Starmer being an anti-democrat who tried to overturn the will of the people, remember?

    You may have got part of HY's massive plank stuck in your eye, hopefully only a splinter you can quickly remove.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 28,419

    Off-topic FPT:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Farooq said:

    Killing bulls for fun in Spain and parts of France is pretty bizarre, to say the least, and pretty unbannable.

    Catalonia, the Balearics, and the Canaries have all moved against bullfighting in recent decades and I believe killing the bull is banned in all three.
    Whatever you think of La Corrida (I quite like it) it does not warp Spanish society, or cost it billions, the way the NHS costs Britain and gun law ravages America; so it's not a good equivalent
    It is very heavily subsidised, but I take your point. I have very mixed feelings on bullfighting. Objectively, it is profoundly cruel to torture an animal to death for fun. I don’t see how that is defensible. But then when you do see one man alone in a ring with no defence but a cape leading a ferocious and deadly wild animal through a series of perfect passes you can forget the cruelty and admire, even be moved by, the bravery and the skill.

    We agree. I expected to hate bullfighting. My mum took me to see one when I was about eight or nine, at a time when I had the normal childhood sentimentality about animals (I remember crying over a TV report on hare coursing, at roughly the same age). To my intense surprise, I loved it

    I've always loved it. I've actually researched it for the Gazette

    It probably is quite cruel but I find it hard to get that upset because I know the bulls lead fabulous lives up to those fifteen minutes of terror, certainly they lead fabulous lives compared to the billions of animals that die horrible deaths - after horrible lives -in factory farms

    Pigs in tiny boxes and chickens crushed together upset me way more than bullfights. I'm down to eating meat about once a week, I may abandon it entirely, or get really religious about where it comes from
    Despite having been working in the vegetarian / meat-free / plant-based world for a decade or so I have been occasionally flexitarian at best. A few times I have had an "eugh" reaction to what I am eating and have changed my diet but it doesn't stick.

    So as part of my mental health rebuild I need to think much more about what I eat, and drink, and calorie burn as I am too fat. So have opted for an "as much plant-based as possible" diet. Its not exclusive as that's too hard for one leap.

    But it has meant that I have to think about what I am proposing to eat. Which makes for positive choices which allows better control of fats / carbs / meat.
    Good meat (which I believe you have access to and can afford) is healthier than a mostly vegetarian diet. It's more nutrient dense, nutrients are assimilated more easily, it contains more protein and it's more satiating. (Good) fat is also considered a better energy source than carbs (which become glucose and result in less stable blood sugar levels, which in turn result in rises and falls in energy levels and potentially mood).

    If your goals are weight loss and mental wellbeing, you might want to look into a healthy keto diet combined with intermittent fasting. Dyor.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 28,900
    Cyclefree said:

    kle4 said:

    TOPPING said:

    Cyclefree said:

    FPT

    Rather more concerning that Gervais's comedy act (I understand he was using actual quotes of things said by TRA activists and if they do not like these being quoted back at them, they might reflect on why that might be) is a statement by a QC yesterday in the Bailey Employment Tribunal case.

    The cross examination was about a seminar about how to overcome the "cotton ceiling" ie how to persuade lesbians that they should have sex with transwomen who still had male bodies. The QC (from the Chambers which is being sued) stated -

    "You can persuade a lesbian that she might want to - that she could want to - have sex with a trans woman in a way that was not coercive."

    Unfortunately, this does not reflect the law - which you'd have thought a QC who does rape cases - would know. The ECHR has ruled that any behaviour which seeks to negate or override a lack of consent to sex may be deemed coercive and that includes "persuasion". In short, sexual autonomy requires consent to be fully and freely given not something you should be persuaded into, even if that persuasion is something less than violence.

    There is something abhorrent in the idea of seeking to persuade lesbians that they should have sex with people they are not sexually attracted to by definition. Indeed, there is something utterly vile in the idea that (a) women should not have boundaries (b) those boundaries should be breached if that is what is necessary to validate someone else's feelings and (c) if you choose to say no you are somehow being phobic or bigoted

    What part of "No means No" is hard to understand. I am old enough to remember when if you didn't want to have sex with a man they would accuse you of being a lesbian and if you were a lesbian men would tell you that all you needed was a good screw from them to sort it out. We are now seeing some revolting old wine in new bottles, sadly.

    Women - whether lesbians or straight - have no obligation to have sex with anyone and don't need to justify this either. Seminars to "persuade" them is the mentality of the rapist.

    Transgender people deserve consideration but the activist movement has got itself into a very dark place when it comes out with this sort of stuff and is doing genuine transgender people no good at all.

    Incidentally, the consultation period on the Scottish government's proposed GRA reforms has ended and the results are that just under 60% of the responses opposed the proposal. Will La Sturgeon listen?

    I mean I'm not going to read the detail, nor indeed your post on the matter (apols but life's too short).

    However on what planet is someone in court arguing that people should be persuaded to have sex with anyone or any group of people - gay, straight, trans, LFC supporter, why even Flint Knapper - that they don't want to have sex with.

    It is so bizarre as to be out of Alice in Wonderland. In a court of law. Amazing. Have I got it right?
    The very act of the seminar is coercive. Its one of thr most bonkers things I've ever read.
    I would only add that Stonewall, who are also being sued, have expressly lobbied for the offence of rape by deception to be abolished. Yes - you read that right.

    Also that QC said that the "persuasion" seminars were akin to post-apartheid integration measures in South Africa, lesbians presumably being akin to white supremacists.

    It's not just offensive misogynistic rubbish. It's offensive homophobic rubbish.

    And now I really am off.
    Thats just bonkers. OK so someone pulls a crying game and pulls a cock out of their panties. Surprise! So what? That person and their prospective partner both have a choice and can say no at any time. What people keep in their keks isn't remotely relevant.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 15,779
    I'm looking forward to seeing the report purely for shits and giggles. Chances of it spurring the gutless Tory party into action are low, though.
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 21,971
    edited May 2022

    Chris said:

    Leon said:

    THIS fpt should not get lost in the end-of-thread tailoff..

    @CarlottaVance

    "Words fail......

    Scholz insists to journalists that he’s “not as stupid as Kaiser Wilhelm II” to let Germany fall into a big war. He does not view Ukrainian victory as the goal and prefers a strategy of “active waiting” – cautiously participating until Putin says he has accomplished his war goals

    https://twitter.com/apmassaro3/status/1529372589382041605"

    The thread below is interesting. Germans are also outraged at Scholz. WTF is he on?

    Only as stupid as Neville Chamberlain by the sound of it.
    To be fair to Neville Chamberlain - he didn't have the example of... Neville Chamberlain.

    The theory of Appeasement was that by giving in to the various border changes/annexations Hitler wanted, the causes of a future war would be removed. So Hitler wouldn't be able to bang that drum again.

    The problem was that Hitler was pretty much the only Nazi who was mad keen on a WWII. Everyone else in the Army and the Nazi party wanted a fight/land grab against Poland at some point, but not a general war.
    Also to be fair to Neville Chamberlain he was busy rearming the UK so we'd be prepared to fight Hitler if we needed to do so.

    Chamberlain gets a bad rap because appeasement didn't work, but he was then prepared to fight and he helped the UK get into a position where we could fight. So he worked on and implemented a Plan B to appeasement. A true appeaser who wasn't involved in rearming the UK would have seen us lose WWII when it inevitably happened.

    Some people want to only have his Plan A as the option, even after its already failed. Even Chamberlain wasn't that foolish.

    Chamberlain was an example of 'speak softly and carry a big stick' which isn't always the best idea, but its better than not getting the stick.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 17,215
    H/T to Charlotte Overs for this insight.

    Two years to the day that Dom did that insane press conference in the Downing Street garden.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 32,553
    25% of votes still to be counted in Australia.

    https://pollbludger.net/fed2022/Results/
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 42,957
    kle4 said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Leon said:

    THIS fpt should not get lost in the end-of-thread tailoff..

    @CarlottaVance

    "Words fail......

    Scholz insists to journalists that he’s “not as stupid as Kaiser Wilhelm II” to let Germany fall into a big war. He does not view Ukrainian victory as the goal and prefers a strategy of “active waiting” – cautiously participating until Putin says he has accomplished his war goals

    https://twitter.com/apmassaro3/status/1529372589382041605"

    The thread below is interesting. Germans are also outraged at Scholz. WTF is he on?

    WTF is he on?

    The German establishment is hooked on Russian bribes.
    The only difference between him and the rest of the west is that he admits the what the strategy is.

    The US, UK, etc. aren't giving Ukraine enough help to win. They could and would be doing a lot more if that were the goal. They are doing just enough to let Ukraine lose slowly and inflict maximum pain on Russia.
    You're an idiot on this subject, or pretending to be because you're in love with being edgy. You profess to believe (by implication) there is no difference between losing quickly and cheaply (for the winner) versus slowly and more costly. You pretend there's no difference between types of loss, such as if they had lost at the start and Kyiv had fallen versus if they lose all the Donbas. You seem to believe a loss is for all time, as if an aggressor might not win a battle but lose a war, or take a castle but take so many losses doing so it scuppers hopes of a wider campaign.

    We are not doing all Ukraine wants. We are holding back and that might mean Ukraine loses more territory. We have to be honest that we in the West are choosing not to do more and that Ukraine will suffer as a result. There no escaping that is true.

    Thst is not the same thing as the Scholz's of the world presenting as realists when their and your analysis is that of a 5 year old - being if you cannot win outright why even try. (Though in his case he clearly goes further as hes a Russian shill, which you are not)

    Your military knowledge is great. But your pretending to some 'realistic' seer of geopolitics is unpersuasive. Your disparagement of the 'Disney prince' as you've called Zekensky rather gives the game away that you're not being realistic, you're showing off.

    I think Ukraine probably will be unable to regain all the territory its lost since February. I think they may face no choice despite heroic effort and western support. Thats realistic/pessimistic. I'm no more a seer than you, but I'm also not some optimistic Ukrainian hype man.

    You just keep insisting all losses are equal. Why even fight if thats true?
    You need to take the emotion out of your posts on the subject. People will think it is either admirable (much like bull fighting) or virtue signalling.

    There is no pre-ordained end to this with the baddies losing and the goodies (us and whoever we determine, natch) winning. There is cold, hard, horrible war on the one hand, and realpolitik and pragmatism on the other.

    Many on PB berate Germany for not condemning their population to severe economic hardship. Fair enough, people are allowed to berate them thus but also need to understand the calculus of the German decision.

    Likewise the horror (to the PB warriors sitting tight in the UK) of contemplating a "negotiated settlement". People go off on one on PB about it but the debate is increasingly moving (on R4 this morning, interviewing Ukrainians, for example; in plenty of other thought pieces also) towards a "land for peace" scenario.

    Not for me to say yes or no or which line is drawn where but it is a wholly legitimate discussion to have.

    I continue to be bemused by the virulence that many on PB employ to condemn rational discussion of the situation in Ukraine if it doesn't involve stating that Ukraine is unequivocally winning and Russia similarly losing.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 29,401
    37 pages without photos.
    9 accompanying photos.
    It's hardly War and Peace.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 28,900

    Off-topic FPT:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Farooq said:

    Killing bulls for fun in Spain and parts of France is pretty bizarre, to say the least, and pretty unbannable.

    Catalonia, the Balearics, and the Canaries have all moved against bullfighting in recent decades and I believe killing the bull is banned in all three.
    Whatever you think of La Corrida (I quite like it) it does not warp Spanish society, or cost it billions, the way the NHS costs Britain and gun law ravages America; so it's not a good equivalent
    It is very heavily subsidised, but I take your point. I have very mixed feelings on bullfighting. Objectively, it is profoundly cruel to torture an animal to death for fun. I don’t see how that is defensible. But then when you do see one man alone in a ring with no defence but a cape leading a ferocious and deadly wild animal through a series of perfect passes you can forget the cruelty and admire, even be moved by, the bravery and the skill.

    We agree. I expected to hate bullfighting. My mum took me to see one when I was about eight or nine, at a time when I had the normal childhood sentimentality about animals (I remember crying over a TV report on hare coursing, at roughly the same age). To my intense surprise, I loved it

    I've always loved it. I've actually researched it for the Gazette

    It probably is quite cruel but I find it hard to get that upset because I know the bulls lead fabulous lives up to those fifteen minutes of terror, certainly they lead fabulous lives compared to the billions of animals that die horrible deaths - after horrible lives -in factory farms

    Pigs in tiny boxes and chickens crushed together upset me way more than bullfights. I'm down to eating meat about once a week, I may abandon it entirely, or get really religious about where it comes from
    Despite having been working in the vegetarian / meat-free / plant-based world for a decade or so I have been occasionally flexitarian at best. A few times I have had an "eugh" reaction to what I am eating and have changed my diet but it doesn't stick.

    So as part of my mental health rebuild I need to think much more about what I eat, and drink, and calorie burn as I am too fat. So have opted for an "as much plant-based as possible" diet. Its not exclusive as that's too hard for one leap.

    But it has meant that I have to think about what I am proposing to eat. Which makes for positive choices which allows better control of fats / carbs / meat.
    Good meat (which I believe you have access to and can afford) is healthier than a mostly vegetarian diet. It's more nutrient dense, nutrients are assimilated more easily, it contains more protein and it's more satiating. (Good) fat is also considered a better energy source than carbs (which become glucose and result in less stable blood sugar levels, which in turn result in rises and falls in energy levels and potentially mood).

    If your goals are weight loss and mental wellbeing, you might want to look into a healthy keto diet combined with intermittent fasting. Dyor.
    Appreciate the tips. Do intermittent fasting already (often by being busy more than being planned). And I agree that good meat is a wholly different proposition to bad meat. The Good News for meat lovers is that us plant-based people are doing you a favour.

    Its very simple. There isn't enough planet to keep feeding our growing population meat. Leon's ribeye steak takes a vast amount of land and water to grow grain to feed the cows to be converted into steak. The more people there are the more land and water you need and there simply isn't enough to go round.

    Which forces industrial scale farming and intensive methods which destroy the land quicker which only accelerates the lack of land and water problem. And means that so much mass-produced meat is low quality. So switch a chunk of your diet to plants and the quality of meat can improve and availability can be maintained which means prices won't make it for rich people only.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 55,277
    This poll showing NO on 55 and YES on 45 must be quite intensely disappointing for Nats


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/nicola-sturgeon-fails-to-boost-independence-support-during-record-reign-g38lr3l6g


    It is now eight years since indyref. In that time we have had endless political turmoil, the epochal shift of Brexit, a global plague, and now a European war, you couldn't ask for more game-changing events which might shift voters. Also, eight years have elapsed, time for all those ancient NO voters to die off, and young YES voters to accede to their inevitable majority, as we were constantly promised

    Hasn't happened. If anything NO is rising. And the figures for Who actually wants a referendum are even worse. Only 28% want one in 2023, as Sturgeon is promising her hardcore, and 59% oppose this, and the stats on "in the next five years" show equally divided opinion, which is moving towards "Let's not have one"

    The only conclusion is that nothing - black swans aside - is going to shift Scottish public opinion fundamentally towards YES in the short-to-medium term, and therefore that there isn't going to be a vote in that time (no way any SNP leader will call a referendum they are likely to lose, as that kills the party for 30 years)

    This has quite serious implications for Scottish politics, and thus UK politics. It is now likely that Sturgeon will retire without ever having called her 2nd vote. That might be the moment when Scottish Labour finally make a revival (yes yes, this has been often predicted without ever happening). At that point, the balance of power down in London shifts, dramatically
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    But if you think he [Johnson] has been slacking on the job, then you haven’t been to Edinburgh. As has long been observed, Nicola Sturgeon has no real instinct for business. Her record in government shows she believes her job is not to support firms in the mucky business of making money but to cure it of its baser instincts so instead they perform “progressive” aims.

    As an aside, given the case for independence relies almost entirely on stronger economic growth, I would rank her failure to prioritize this as her greatest strategic error; it was not a mistake Alex Salmond made. Far from the First Minister learning from her mistakes, however, if anything, it’s now getting worse.

    One leading Scottish entrepreneur told me yesterday: “Scotland is now basically a no-go area for investment. It’s not so much the referendum because nobody thinks it’ll happen. It’s because of the anti-business agenda here.”


    https://eddiebarnes.substack.com/p/it-is-still-the-economy-stupid?s=r
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 42,957

    Cyclefree said:

    FPT

    Rather more concerning that Gervais's comedy act (I understand he was using actual quotes of things said by TRA activists and if they do not like these being quoted back at them, they might reflect on why that might be) is a statement by a QC yesterday in the Bailey Employment Tribunal case.

    The cross examination was about a seminar about how to overcome the "cotton ceiling" ie how to persuade lesbians that they should have sex with transwomen who still had male bodies. The QC (from the Chambers which is being sued) stated -

    "You can persuade a lesbian that she might want to - that she could want to - have sex with a trans woman in a way that was not coercive."

    Unfortunately, this does not reflect the law - which you'd have thought a QC who does rape cases - would know. The ECHR has ruled that any behaviour which seeks to negate or override a lack of consent to sex may be deemed coercive and that includes "persuasion". In short, sexual autonomy requires consent to be fully and freely given not something you should be persuaded into, even if that persuasion is something less than violence.

    There is something abhorrent in the idea of seeking to persuade lesbians that they should have sex with people they are not sexually attracted to by definition. Indeed, there is something utterly vile in the idea that (a) women should not have boundaries (b) those boundaries should be breached if that is what is necessary to validate someone else's feelings and (c) if you choose to say no you are somehow being phobic or bigoted

    What part of "No means No" is hard to understand. I am old enough to remember when if you didn't want to have sex with a man they would accuse you of being a lesbian and if you were a lesbian men would tell you that all you needed was a good screw from them to sort it out. We are now seeing some revolting old wine in new bottles, sadly.

    Women - whether lesbians or straight - have no obligation to have sex with anyone and don't need to justify this either. Seminars to "persuade" them is the mentality of the rapist.

    Transgender people deserve consideration but the activist movement has got itself into a very dark place when it comes out with this sort of stuff and is doing genuine transgender people no good at all.

    Incidentally, the consultation period on the Scottish government's proposed GRA reforms has ended and the results are that just under 60% of the responses opposed the proposal. Will La Sturgeon listen?

    Yep. Its all very bitter and disappearing down all kinds of outrageous rabbit holes. Surely the arbiter of who anyone wants to have sex with is the person. Lets take this example lesbian woman. If she doesn't want to have sex with a trans woman who has a penis that isn't transphobic. Because she doesn't have to have sex with anyone in possession of a vagina on demand - she has choice. Why is this choice somehow not allowable?

    Cotton ceiling my arse. I am a bisexual man. Being bisexual doesn't mean that I have to have sex with any man or any woman or any transgender person that I don't want to. A sexuality label does not compel sex with anyone, so wtf is this seminar supposed to do? Compel people to have sex with people they aren't attracted to? This isn't a genitals thing, its a desire thing. And some people are more attractive than others. And besides which as a *married* bisexual man I'd have to sew them back on first if I went off shagging other people...
    It is almost impossible to articulate the opposition to such a bonkers concept. I don't even know what the premise is - that people should be persuaded to have sex with someone on the grounds of that person's membership of some group or other. Like you say as though there are formal rules on the issue with penalties issued for violation of required behaviour.

    Absolutely bizarre. I think I am going to have to go back to skipping all posts on trans issues as it is all so crazy.

    Where is @kinabalu? He is usually a sane voice on all of this and can put it into human for the rest of us to understand.
  • Cyclefree said:

    kle4 said:

    TOPPING said:

    Cyclefree said:

    FPT

    Rather more concerning that Gervais's comedy act (I understand he was using actual quotes of things said by TRA activists and if they do not like these being quoted back at them, they might reflect on why that might be) is a statement by a QC yesterday in the Bailey Employment Tribunal case.

    The cross examination was about a seminar about how to overcome the "cotton ceiling" ie how to persuade lesbians that they should have sex with transwomen who still had male bodies. The QC (from the Chambers which is being sued) stated -

    "You can persuade a lesbian that she might want to - that she could want to - have sex with a trans woman in a way that was not coercive."

    Unfortunately, this does not reflect the law - which you'd have thought a QC who does rape cases - would know. The ECHR has ruled that any behaviour which seeks to negate or override a lack of consent to sex may be deemed coercive and that includes "persuasion". In short, sexual autonomy requires consent to be fully and freely given not something you should be persuaded into, even if that persuasion is something less than violence.

    There is something abhorrent in the idea of seeking to persuade lesbians that they should have sex with people they are not sexually attracted to by definition. Indeed, there is something utterly vile in the idea that (a) women should not have boundaries (b) those boundaries should be breached if that is what is necessary to validate someone else's feelings and (c) if you choose to say no you are somehow being phobic or bigoted

    What part of "No means No" is hard to understand. I am old enough to remember when if you didn't want to have sex with a man they would accuse you of being a lesbian and if you were a lesbian men would tell you that all you needed was a good screw from them to sort it out. We are now seeing some revolting old wine in new bottles, sadly.

    Women - whether lesbians or straight - have no obligation to have sex with anyone and don't need to justify this either. Seminars to "persuade" them is the mentality of the rapist.

    Transgender people deserve consideration but the activist movement has got itself into a very dark place when it comes out with this sort of stuff and is doing genuine transgender people no good at all.

    Incidentally, the consultation period on the Scottish government's proposed GRA reforms has ended and the results are that just under 60% of the responses opposed the proposal. Will La Sturgeon listen?

    I mean I'm not going to read the detail, nor indeed your post on the matter (apols but life's too short).

    However on what planet is someone in court arguing that people should be persuaded to have sex with anyone or any group of people - gay, straight, trans, LFC supporter, why even Flint Knapper - that they don't want to have sex with.

    It is so bizarre as to be out of Alice in Wonderland. In a court of law. Amazing. Have I got it right?
    The very act of the seminar is coercive. Its one of thr most bonkers things I've ever read.
    I would only add that Stonewall, who are also being sued, have expressly lobbied for the offence of rape by deception to be abolished. Yes - you read that right.

    Also that QC said that the "persuasion" seminars were akin to post-apartheid integration measures in South Africa, lesbians presumably being akin to white supremacists.

    It's not just offensive misogynistic rubbish. It's offensive homophobic rubbish.

    And now I really am off.
    Thats just bonkers. OK so someone pulls a crying game and pulls a cock out of their panties. Surprise! So what? That person and their prospective partner both have a choice and can say no at any time. What people keep in their keks isn't remotely relevant.
    Rape by deception is where they don't have a choice and its happened before.

    https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-merseyside-40668960.amp
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,083

    In 2014, appeasers hoped that giving Putin Crimea and Donbas would produce peace. It didn't work. 8 years later, he invaded Ukraine. Why on earth do people think today that giving Putin more of Ukraine will produce peace? Illogical.

    https://twitter.com/McFaul/status/1529314852552187904

    Yeah, but since we Ukraine (even with assistance) cannot entirely resist the might of Russia it's the same as it being pointless to do so. They are just losing after all, so what's the point even if it limits the chunks handed over.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 50,249

    Chris said:

    Leon said:

    THIS fpt should not get lost in the end-of-thread tailoff..

    @CarlottaVance

    "Words fail......

    Scholz insists to journalists that he’s “not as stupid as Kaiser Wilhelm II” to let Germany fall into a big war. He does not view Ukrainian victory as the goal and prefers a strategy of “active waiting” – cautiously participating until Putin says he has accomplished his war goals

    https://twitter.com/apmassaro3/status/1529372589382041605"

    The thread below is interesting. Germans are also outraged at Scholz. WTF is he on?

    Only as stupid as Neville Chamberlain by the sound of it.
    To be fair to Neville Chamberlain - he didn't have the example of... Neville Chamberlain.

    The theory of Appeasement was that by giving in to the various border changes/annexations Hitler wanted, the causes of a future war would be removed. So Hitler wouldn't be able to bang that drum again.

    The problem was that Hitler was pretty much the only Nazi who was mad keen on a WWII. Everyone else in the Army and the Nazi party wanted a fight/land grab against Poland at some point, but not a general war.
    Also to be fair to Neville Chamberlain he was busy rearming the UK so we'd be prepared to fight Hitler if we needed to do so.

    Chamberlain gets a bad rap because appeasement didn't work, but he was then prepared to fight and he helped the UK get into a position where we could fight. So he worked on and implemented a Plan B to appeasement. A true appeaser who wasn't involved in rearming the UK would have seen us lose WWII when it inevitably happened.

    Some people want to only have his Plan A as the option, even after its already failed. Even Chamberlain wasn't that foolish.

    Chamberlain was an example of 'speak softly and carry a big stick' which isn't always the best idea, but its better than not getting the stick.
    He was "A true appeaser".

    After the fact, some people (who very often opposed re-armament at the time) tried to claim that all appeasers = Nazi supporters.

    But that is bullshit. Appeasement was about removing the nationalist props holding up a belligerent Germany.

    The appeasers believed the moral course was to avoid war by any means. Since the next war would be worse than WWI. Which it was.

    The problem was that Hitler wanted war.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 13,677

    In just the past several weeks, British troops, with help from their American counterparts, have transformed a sleepy conference room here at Patch Barracks into one of the nerve centers within the NATO alliance for fielding Ukraine’s weapons requests. Their task is to get artillery, tanks, fighter aircraft, ammunition, and nonlethal aid like helmets from the heart of Europe into the fight in the Donbas, with the help of a handful of Ukrainian liaison officers in the room working the phones with soldiers on the front lines.....

    In the first days of the war, U.S. officials and British troops worked separately. But the British military—headed by the 104 Theater Sustainment Brigade—set up a software system with a Ukrainian code name akin to Craigslist, where Ukrainians can post weapons requests and countries can pull down separate cases. By the beginning of April, the U.S. and British efforts had merged into one unit


    https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/05/24/nato-ukraine-military-aid-germany/

    "A team in the field in Eastern Europe connected to European Command has helped disassemble Soviet-era Su-25 “Frogfoot” aircraft and Mi-17 helicopters so they can be shipped to Ukraine."

    So some aircraft have been sent. Interesting.
    Possible sources: Chad, DRC, Equatorial Guinea, Gambia, Niger and Sudan.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,083

    kle4 said:

    Dura_Ace said:



    Change has to come from within, Americans need to grow a backbone and act

    The US has a more vibrant and recent history of resisting tyranny than the UK. The guns are there for use against the government. The British have just meekly ceded a monopoly on violence to the state.

    Orgreave could not have happened in Kentucky.
    The principles of gun ownership are complex. Around the turn of the 19th/20th century gun ownership in the UK was widespread, and probably not dissimilar to the US. There was a famous case around the time where an unarmed policeman borrowed a revolver from a gentleman passer by to tackle an armed gang in London. There is no doubt that authoritarians dislike the idea of an armed populace for obvious reason. It is difficult for many urban Brits to understand this aspect of US culture.

    High gun ownership does not necessarily lead to higher murder rates, but high gun ownership combined with other malaise in modern society might (desensitisation due to gaming and movies perhaps?). For those of us that have been brought up with the idea of responsible gun ownership the idea of even pointing a gun in the direction of another (unless on a military exercise) is an anathema. Simplistic solutions are rarely to answer to complex problems.
    Odd then that you threw in two bullshit simplistic explanations around gaming and movies.

    Its nonsense. Not only do they have those in, say, Switzerland, movie and videogame violence is in almost all cases not realistic, it's more a pastiche. People can tell the difference, it's why we might thrill to go see the next Tarantino splatterfest but a 2 minute report on the Ukrainian war which might show a dead body for 2 seconds will contain a warning.

    What desensitizes people is experience of actual violence. Colourful depictions of fake violence do not.
    You have absolutely no evidence for that final assertion. And I have no evidence to the contrary. But the surmise that today's gamers spending hours in an immersive 3D world where they shoot people with assault weapons with great detail and realism might desensitise them to gun violence or even encourage gun violence is hardly a far fetched one. Mortal Kombat and its splatters of 2D blood back in 1991 it aint.
    It is no more realistic in almost all instances. It looks more convincing but it's still in a Hollywood way, loud, exciting and unreal, it is still not realistic. Thats why real violence needs warnings, because it's still different.

    But no neither of us is presenting detailed studies on the subject (though that people the world over see violent media and dont have American gun violence even when they have guns is I'd say good circumstantial stuff. Also the fact people did claim mortal kombat was that bad at the time and now you seem to think it is not shows the argument was wrong then and I'd argue is now. And the point about real violence desensitising people is borne out by any warzone).

    In which case I am equally able to dismiss what I see as a bullshit argument as someone is to make it, it's not competing academic journals. The original post cited no evidence either did you jump on that? Curious, I guess we aren't allowed to make assertions strongly for some reason?
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    Leon said:

    This poll showing NO on 55 and YES on 45 must be quite intensely disappointing for Nats


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/nicola-sturgeon-fails-to-boost-independence-support-during-record-reign-g38lr3l6g


    It is now eight years since indyref. In that time we have had endless political turmoil, the epochal shift of Brexit, a global plague, and now a European war, you couldn't ask for more game-changing events which might shift voters. Also, eight years have elapsed, time for all those ancient NO voters to die off, and young YES voters to accede to their inevitable majority, as we were constantly promised

    Hasn't happened. If anything NO is rising. And the figures for Who actually wants a referendum are even worse. Only 28% want one in 2023, as Sturgeon is promising her hardcore, and 59% oppose this, and the stats on "in the next five years" show equally divided opinion, which is moving towards "Let's not have one"

    The only conclusion is that nothing - black swans aside - is going to shift Scottish public opinion fundamentally towards YES in the short-to-medium term, and therefore that there isn't going to be a vote in that time (no way any SNP leader will call a referendum they are likely to lose, as that kills the party for 30 years)

    This has quite serious implications for Scottish politics, and thus UK politics. It is now likely that Sturgeon will retire without ever having called her 2nd vote. That might be the moment when Scottish Labour finally make a revival (yes yes, this has been often predicted without ever happening). At that point, the balance of power down in London shifts, dramatically

    What @johnmcternan said when he came to @KingsCollegeLon
    : “Boris and Nicola are the two politicians who most need each other in the world”

    “She needs him to deny the referendum she doesn’t want; and he needs her to demand the referendum he’s going to refuse”

    “And in doing so they make all Scottish politics about the referendum”

    “The failure in public services is not talked about if the constitution is being talked about”


    https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1529398445705920518
  • LeonLeon Posts: 55,277
    TOPPING said:

    Cyclefree said:

    FPT

    Rather more concerning that Gervais's comedy act (I understand he was using actual quotes of things said by TRA activists and if they do not like these being quoted back at them, they might reflect on why that might be) is a statement by a QC yesterday in the Bailey Employment Tribunal case.

    The cross examination was about a seminar about how to overcome the "cotton ceiling" ie how to persuade lesbians that they should have sex with transwomen who still had male bodies. The QC (from the Chambers which is being sued) stated -

    "You can persuade a lesbian that she might want to - that she could want to - have sex with a trans woman in a way that was not coercive."

    Unfortunately, this does not reflect the law - which you'd have thought a QC who does rape cases - would know. The ECHR has ruled that any behaviour which seeks to negate or override a lack of consent to sex may be deemed coercive and that includes "persuasion". In short, sexual autonomy requires consent to be fully and freely given not something you should be persuaded into, even if that persuasion is something less than violence.

    There is something abhorrent in the idea of seeking to persuade lesbians that they should have sex with people they are not sexually attracted to by definition. Indeed, there is something utterly vile in the idea that (a) women should not have boundaries (b) those boundaries should be breached if that is what is necessary to validate someone else's feelings and (c) if you choose to say no you are somehow being phobic or bigoted

    What part of "No means No" is hard to understand. I am old enough to remember when if you didn't want to have sex with a man they would accuse you of being a lesbian and if you were a lesbian men would tell you that all you needed was a good screw from them to sort it out. We are now seeing some revolting old wine in new bottles, sadly.

    Women - whether lesbians or straight - have no obligation to have sex with anyone and don't need to justify this either. Seminars to "persuade" them is the mentality of the rapist.

    Transgender people deserve consideration but the activist movement has got itself into a very dark place when it comes out with this sort of stuff and is doing genuine transgender people no good at all.

    Incidentally, the consultation period on the Scottish government's proposed GRA reforms has ended and the results are that just under 60% of the responses opposed the proposal. Will La Sturgeon listen?

    Yep. Its all very bitter and disappearing down all kinds of outrageous rabbit holes. Surely the arbiter of who anyone wants to have sex with is the person. Lets take this example lesbian woman. If she doesn't want to have sex with a trans woman who has a penis that isn't transphobic. Because she doesn't have to have sex with anyone in possession of a vagina on demand - she has choice. Why is this choice somehow not allowable?

    Cotton ceiling my arse. I am a bisexual man. Being bisexual doesn't mean that I have to have sex with any man or any woman or any transgender person that I don't want to. A sexuality label does not compel sex with anyone, so wtf is this seminar supposed to do? Compel people to have sex with people they aren't attracted to? This isn't a genitals thing, its a desire thing. And some people are more attractive than others. And besides which as a *married* bisexual man I'd have to sew them back on first if I went off shagging other people...
    It is almost impossible to articulate the opposition to such a bonkers concept. I don't even know what the premise is - that people should be persuaded to have sex with someone on the grounds of that person's membership of some group or other. Like you say as though there are formal rules on the issue with penalties issued for violation of required behaviour.

    Absolutely bizarre. I think I am going to have to go back to skipping all posts on trans issues as it is all so crazy.

    Where is @kinabalu? He is usually a sane voice on all of this and can put it into human for the rest of us to understand.
    There's a similar move to get people to drop their sexual preferences in skin colour. ie white men MUST date black women to show they are non-racist, and if you - a white, or Japanese or Jewish woman (ie not oppressed) - exclusively date white men then you too are racist

    What a ridiculous mess
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 14,310
    kle4 said:

    Cyclefree said:



    Rather more concerning that Gervais's comedy act (I understand he was using actual quotes of things said by TRA activists and if they do not like these being quoted back at them, they might reflect on why that might be) is a statement by a QC yesterday in the Bailey Employment Tribunal case.

    The cross examination was about a seminar about how to overcome the "cotton ceiling" ie how to persuade lesbians that they should have sex with transwomen who still had male bodies. The QC (from the Chambers which is being sued) stated -

    "You can persuade a lesbian that she might want to - that she could want to - have sex with a trans woman in a way that was not coercive."

    Unfortunately, this does not reflect the law - which you'd have thought a QC who does rape cases - would know. The ECHR has ruled that any behaviour which seeks to negate or override a lack of consent to sex may be deemed coercive and that includes "persuasion". In short, sexual autonomy requires consent to be fully and freely given not something you should be persuaded into, even if that persuasion is something less than violence.

    There is something abhorrent in the idea of seeking to persuade lesbians that they should have sex with people they are not sexually attracted to by definition. Indeed, there is something utterly vile in the idea that (a) women should not have boundaries (b) those boundaries should be breached if that is what is necessary to validate someone else's feelings and (c) if you choose to say no you are somehow being phobic or bigoted

    What part of "No means No" is hard to understand. I am old enough to remember when if you didn't want to have sex with a man they would accuse you of being a lesbian and if you were a lesbian men would tell you that all you needed was a good screw from them to sort it out. We are now seeing some revolting old wine in new bottles, sadly.

    Women - whether lesbians or straight - have no obligation to have sex with anyone and don't need to justify this either. Seminars to "persuade" them is the mentality of the rapist.

    Transgender people deserve consideration but the activist movement has got itself into a very dark place when it comes out with this sort of stuff and is doing genuine transgender people no good at all.

    Mysogny and bigotry is turning out to be a lot more creative than I had anticipated.

    Seminars on persuading people to have sex with someone they don't want to sounds like something from a parody dystopia.
    algarkirk said:

    HYUFD said:

    New Yougov Scottish independence poll has No 55% Yes 45%. So despite Brexit and 8 years of Sturgeon as FM on this poll still zero change from 2014

    https://twitter.com/scotlandinunion/status/1529363820002562048?s=20&t=kK4RfHSnCq6WROPDuOb5TA

    This does raise the question of whether Boris or someone will one day call the SNP's bluff and give them the Ref2 they claim to want but don't. The SNP's fear is really quite unusual: they don't want Ref2, (a) because they might lose it and (b) because they might win it.

    Too high risk. Even if it seemed even more unlikely the consequences of being wrong would be catastrophic.

    Dura_Ace said:



    Change has to come from within, Americans need to grow a backbone and act

    The US has a more vibrant and recent history of resisting tyranny than the UK. The guns are there for use against the government. The British have just meekly ceded a monopoly on violence to the state.

    Orgreave could not have happened in Kentucky.
    The principles of gun ownership are complex. Around the turn of the 19th/20th century gun ownership in the UK was widespread, and probably not dissimilar to the US. There was a famous case around the time where an unarmed policeman borrowed a revolver from a gentleman passer by to tackle an armed gang in London. There is no doubt that authoritarians dislike the idea nd this aspect of US culture.

    High gun ownership does not necessarily lead to higher murder rates, but high gun ownership combined with other malaise in modern society might (desensitisation due to gaming and movies perhaps?). For those of us that have been brought up with the idea of responsible gun ownership the idea of even pointing a gun in the direction of another (unless on a military exercise) is an anathema. Simplistic solutions are rarely to answer to complex problems.
    Odd then that you threw in two bullshit simplistic explanations around gaming and movies.

    Its nonsense. Not only do they have those in, say, Switzerland, movie and videogame violence is in almost all cases not realistic, it's more a pastiche. People can tell the difference, it's why we might thrill to go see the next Tarantino splatterfest but a 2 minute report on the Ukrainian war which might show a dead body for 2 seconds will contain a warning.

    What desensitizes people is experience of actual violence. Colourful depictions of fake violence do not.

    Words fail......

    Scholz insists to journalists that he’s “not as stupid as Kaiser Wilhelm II” to let Germany fall into a big war. He does not view Ukrainian victory as the goal and prefers a strategy of “active waiting” – cautiously participating until Putin says he has accomplished his war goals

    https://twitter.com/apmassaro3/status/1529372589382041605

    Look, when the man has been bought he stays bought, you have to respect that.

    Response to your point, you will note I said "perhaps" with a question mark. I don't have a problem with gaming or movies showing violence, but I would like to see definitive studies done on those that commit such deranged murders to understand their habits and psychology. The vast majority of gun owners do not commit acts of murder and the vast majority of gamers do not want to take a gun and try out COD in a school, or GTA in their car, but it would be interesting to know if there is any correlation. If there is I doubt many people will support restrictions on violent video games. I guess from your emotive response you are a gamer?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,083
    edited May 2022
    Leon said:

    TOPPING said:

    Cyclefree said:

    FPT

    Rather more concerning that Gervais's comedy act (I understand he was using actual quotes of things said by TRA activists and if they do not like these being quoted back at them, they might reflect on why that might be) is a statement by a QC yesterday in the Bailey Employment Tribunal case.

    The cross examination was about a seminar about how to overcome the "cotton ceiling" ie how to persuade lesbians that they should have sex with transwomen who still had male bodies. The QC (from the Chambers which is being sued) stated -

    "You can persuade a lesbian that she might want to - that she could want to - have sex with a trans woman in a way that was not coercive."

    Unfortunately, this does not reflect the law - which you'd have thought a QC who does rape cases - would know. The ECHR has ruled that any behaviour which seeks to negate or override a lack of consent to sex may be deemed coercive and that includes "persuasion". In short, sexual autonomy requires consent to be fully and freely given not something you should be persuaded into, even if that persuasion is something less than violence.

    There is something abhorrent in the idea of seeking to persuade lesbians that they should have sex with people they are not sexually attracted to by definition. Indeed, there is something utterly vile in the idea that (a) women should not have boundaries (b) those boundaries should be breached if that is what is necessary to validate someone else's feelings and (c) if you choose to say no you are somehow being phobic or bigoted

    What part of "No means No" is hard to understand. I am old enough to remember when if you didn't want to have sex with a man they would accuse you of being a lesbian and if you were a lesbian men would tell you that all you needed was a good screw from them to sort it out. We are now seeing some revolting old wine in new bottles, sadly.

    Women - whether lesbians or straight - have no obligation to have sex with anyone and don't need to justify this either. Seminars to "persuade" them is the mentality of the rapist.

    Transgender people deserve consideration but the activist movement has got itself into a very dark place when it comes out with this sort of stuff and is doing genuine transgender people no good at all.

    Incidentally, the consultation period on the Scottish government's proposed GRA reforms has ended and the results are that just under 60% of the responses opposed the proposal. Will La Sturgeon listen?

    Yep. Its all very bitter and disappearing down all kinds of outrageous rabbit holes. Surely the arbiter of who anyone wants to have sex with is the person. Lets take this example lesbian woman. If she doesn't want to have sex with a trans woman who has a penis that isn't transphobic. Because she doesn't have to have sex with anyone in possession of a vagina on demand - she has choice. Why is this choice somehow not allowable?

    Cotton ceiling my arse. I am a bisexual man. Being bisexual doesn't mean that I have to have sex with any man or any woman or any transgender person that I don't want to. A sexuality label does not compel sex with anyone, so wtf is this seminar supposed to do? Compel people to have sex with people they aren't attracted to? This isn't a genitals thing, its a desire thing. And some people are more attractive than others. And besides which as a *married* bisexual man I'd have to sew them back on first if I went off shagging other people...
    It is almost impossible to articulate the opposition to such a bonkers concept. I don't even know what the premise is - that people should be persuaded to have sex with someone on the grounds of that person's membership of some group or other. Like you say as though there are formal rules on the issue with penalties issued for violation of required behaviour.

    Absolutely bizarre. I think I am going to have to go back to skipping all posts on trans issues as it is all so crazy.

    Where is @kinabalu? He is usually a sane voice on all of this and can put it into human for the rest of us to understand.
    There's a similar move to get people to drop their sexual preferences in skin colour. ie white men MUST date black women to show they are non-racist, and if you - a white, or Japanese or Jewish woman (ie not oppressed) - exclusively date white men then you too are racist

    What a ridiculous mess
    But isn't 'fetishising' dating people of X colour also considrred problematic? I'm sure I've pieces like that.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 28,900
    Anyone commented on today's Yorkshire Post? Their P1 lead is how the Tories were told about their candidate then MP's actions and did nothing...

    https://twitter.com/LouHaigh/status/1529348786799230976/photo/1
  • LeonLeon Posts: 55,277
    kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    TOPPING said:

    Cyclefree said:

    FPT

    Rather more concerning that Gervais's comedy act (I understand he was using actual quotes of things said by TRA activists and if they do not like these being quoted back at them, they might reflect on why that might be) is a statement by a QC yesterday in the Bailey Employment Tribunal case.

    The cross examination was about a seminar about how to overcome the "cotton ceiling" ie how to persuade lesbians that they should have sex with transwomen who still had male bodies. The QC (from the Chambers which is being sued) stated -

    "You can persuade a lesbian that she might want to - that she could want to - have sex with a trans woman in a way that was not coercive."

    Unfortunately, this does not reflect the law - which you'd have thought a QC who does rape cases - would know. The ECHR has ruled that any behaviour which seeks to negate or override a lack of consent to sex may be deemed coercive and that includes "persuasion". In short, sexual autonomy requires consent to be fully and freely given not something you should be persuaded into, even if that persuasion is something less than violence.

    There is something abhorrent in the idea of seeking to persuade lesbians that they should have sex with people they are not sexually attracted to by definition. Indeed, there is something utterly vile in the idea that (a) women should not have boundaries (b) those boundaries should be breached if that is what is necessary to validate someone else's feelings and (c) if you choose to say no you are somehow being phobic or bigoted

    What part of "No means No" is hard to understand. I am old enough to remember when if you didn't want to have sex with a man they would accuse you of being a lesbian and if you were a lesbian men would tell you that all you needed was a good screw from them to sort it out. We are now seeing some revolting old wine in new bottles, sadly.

    Women - whether lesbians or straight - have no obligation to have sex with anyone and don't need to justify this either. Seminars to "persuade" them is the mentality of the rapist.

    Transgender people deserve consideration but the activist movement has got itself into a very dark place when it comes out with this sort of stuff and is doing genuine transgender people no good at all.

    Incidentally, the consultation period on the Scottish government's proposed GRA reforms has ended and the results are that just under 60% of the responses opposed the proposal. Will La Sturgeon listen?

    Yep. Its all very bitter and disappearing down all kinds of outrageous rabbit holes. Surely the arbiter of who anyone wants to have sex with is the person. Lets take this example lesbian woman. If she doesn't want to have sex with a trans woman who has a penis that isn't transphobic. Because she doesn't have to have sex with anyone in possession of a vagina on demand - she has choice. Why is this choice somehow not allowable?

    Cotton ceiling my arse. I am a bisexual man. Being bisexual doesn't mean that I have to have sex with any man or any woman or any transgender person that I don't want to. A sexuality label does not compel sex with anyone, so wtf is this seminar supposed to do? Compel people to have sex with people they aren't attracted to? This isn't a genitals thing, its a desire thing. And some people are more attractive than others. And besides which as a *married* bisexual man I'd have to sew them back on first if I went off shagging other people...
    It is almost impossible to articulate the opposition to such a bonkers concept. I don't even know what the premise is - that people should be persuaded to have sex with someone on the grounds of that person's membership of some group or other. Like you say as though there are formal rules on the issue with penalties issued for violation of required behaviour.

    Absolutely bizarre. I think I am going to have to go back to skipping all posts on trans issues as it is all so crazy.

    Where is @kinabalu? He is usually a sane voice on all of this and can put it into human for the rest of us to understand.
    There's a similar move to get people to drop their sexual preferences in skin colour. ie white men MUST date black women to show they are non-racist, and if you - a white, or Japanese or Jewish woman (ie not oppressed) - exclusively date white men then you too are racist

    What a ridiculous mess
    But isn't 'fetishising' dating people of X colour also problematic?
    Probably. Fuck knows. It's a minefield

    Far better to accept people have sexual preferences, some men like men, some women like women, some men like everything, some men like Japanese women, some women like to pretend they are kittens (pet play, real thing, google it), and some men get turned on by pavements

    Just let them get on with it, and don't interfere, as long as it all involves consenting adults, and no kids or animals. All else sends you mad
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,585
    kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    TOPPING said:

    Cyclefree said:

    FPT

    Rather more concerning that Gervais's comedy act (I understand he was using actual quotes of things said by TRA activists and if they do not like these being quoted back at them, they might reflect on why that might be) is a statement by a QC yesterday in the Bailey Employment Tribunal case.

    The cross examination was about a seminar about how to overcome the "cotton ceiling" ie how to persuade lesbians that they should have sex with transwomen who still had male bodies. The QC (from the Chambers which is being sued) stated -

    "You can persuade a lesbian that she might want to - that she could want to - have sex with a trans woman in a way that was not coercive."

    Unfortunately, this does not reflect the law - which you'd have thought a QC who does rape cases - would know. The ECHR has ruled that any behaviour which seeks to negate or override a lack of consent to sex may be deemed coercive and that includes "persuasion". In short, sexual autonomy requires consent to be fully and freely given not something you should be persuaded into, even if that persuasion is something less than violence.

    There is something abhorrent in the idea of seeking to persuade lesbians that they should have sex with people they are not sexually attracted to by definition. Indeed, there is something utterly vile in the idea that (a) women should not have boundaries (b) those boundaries should be breached if that is what is necessary to validate someone else's feelings and (c) if you choose to say no you are somehow being phobic or bigoted

    What part of "No means No" is hard to understand. I am old enough to remember when if you didn't want to have sex with a man they would accuse you of being a lesbian and if you were a lesbian men would tell you that all you needed was a good screw from them to sort it out. We are now seeing some revolting old wine in new bottles, sadly.

    Women - whether lesbians or straight - have no obligation to have sex with anyone and don't need to justify this either. Seminars to "persuade" them is the mentality of the rapist.

    Transgender people deserve consideration but the activist movement has got itself into a very dark place when it comes out with this sort of stuff and is doing genuine transgender people no good at all.

    Incidentally, the consultation period on the Scottish government's proposed GRA reforms has ended and the results are that just under 60% of the responses opposed the proposal. Will La Sturgeon listen?

    Yep. Its all very bitter and disappearing down all kinds of outrageous rabbit holes. Surely the arbiter of who anyone wants to have sex with is the person. Lets take this example lesbian woman. If she doesn't want to have sex with a trans woman who has a penis that isn't transphobic. Because she doesn't have to have sex with anyone in possession of a vagina on demand - she has choice. Why is this choice somehow not allowable?

    Cotton ceiling my arse. I am a bisexual man. Being bisexual doesn't mean that I have to have sex with any man or any woman or any transgender person that I don't want to. A sexuality label does not compel sex with anyone, so wtf is this seminar supposed to do? Compel people to have sex with people they aren't attracted to? This isn't a genitals thing, its a desire thing. And some people are more attractive than others. And besides which as a *married* bisexual man I'd have to sew them back on first if I went off shagging other people...
    It is almost impossible to articulate the opposition to such a bonkers concept. I don't even know what the premise is - that people should be persuaded to have sex with someone on the grounds of that person's membership of some group or other. Like you say as though there are formal rules on the issue with penalties issued for violation of required behaviour.

    Absolutely bizarre. I think I am going to have to go back to skipping all posts on trans issues as it is all so crazy.

    Where is @kinabalu? He is usually a sane voice on all of this and can put it into human for the rest of us to understand.
    There's a similar move to get people to drop their sexual preferences in skin colour. ie white men MUST date black women to show they are non-racist, and if you - a white, or Japanese or Jewish woman (ie not oppressed) - exclusively date white men then you too are racist

    What a ridiculous mess
    But isn't 'fetishising' dating people of X colour also considrred problematic? I'm sure I've pieces like that.
    “Inter-racial” is still a category on Mr Eagles’ favourite websites, even if some of the young ladies involved aren’t exactly fans of such categorisation - for which they get paid more than a ‘standard’ scene.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,070
    edited May 2022
    Credit to France for actually supplying Ukraine with the means to defend itself, despite their advocating a deal with Russia.

    https://mobile.twitter.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1529399870028763136
    French Caesar howitzers are already at the frontline - 🇺🇦Army Commander Zaluzhnyi

    They can hit targets 42 km away with high accuracy, important for targeting 🇷🇺 command points. Macron announced 12 Caesars would go to Ukraine on 22 Apr


    The German government’s attitude - or at least that of Scholz and his party - seems to be that Ukraine should be forced to capitulate.
This discussion has been closed.