Very happy to have a chat about trans people in sport when the Government start doing something on CoL or the economy, until then it's just a wedge issue
Horse it doesnt really matter what conditions you impose, it is an issue that exercises some and they are going to discuss it and demand this or that over it. That will have some effect at the margins. Like, for example, if Wes was leader. The vast majority wont care he is gay. A few will, and that might be enough to sway some seats perhaps. Anything that exercises more than a couple percent can influence outcomes. Trans issues are not a majority concern but many more than a couple % are exercised by the issue.
In the end sport will resolve the issue, because they have to. And they will do it themselves because various activists have pre-written ideological boilerplates that will not sufficiently match the needs of the particular context.
And it will continue to evolve.
Imo.
They will, yes, but its an output of the wider questions and issues over trans rights, womens rights etc etc.
Agreed.
But the arena of decision will sports' governing bodies, rather than declarations by activists.
And if the decisions of the sports governing bodies don’t match the desires of activists from *both* sides of this debate, it will end I court.
Since the two sides are irreconcilable, that means legal action is inevitable.
Perhaps sort out the law on this might be an idea? No, what we need is a bunch of judges and a law written in 1789. That would work….
The Mail can't wait for Keir Starmer to be found guilty. They've spent time and money proving the forces do issue retrospective fines.
I am sure they will be doing the same for Johnson and Cummings.
Well they did for Johnson. You can argue that every fine ever issued is retrospective, as they are issued after the event. I hope Starmer doesn’t get a fine, although I would be happy with a bit of criticism, as frankly I don’t think they were following all the guidance that night, and Starmer constantly pressed for more restrictions. But right now I’d like the option to vote for him - seems a better human than the current pm, or indeed most of the party of government.
Questions about Starmer, is this the latest CCHQ line?
There are no questions about Starmer in Labour. Zero.
I thought Why are you so boring and underperforming so badly? was a bit of a live issue. Bloody should be. Compare Blair at the equiv stage of the Major govt.
The question is, would somebody else be doing better? And the answer is no, hence why no moves.
There is no question about "his future", however much Tories here would love there to be.
There aren't "Tories here" except HYUFD and he doesn't count because he has no interest in politics in general only in Tory politics and has only the vaguest awareness who SKS is
Yes, one of those wimmin or the one who sounds black but isn't who tweets too much.
That's unfair. He has a big interest in polling for whatever party.
It's just he doesn't get politics, per se.
He seems to have been rather quiet recently, I hope he's OK. Infuriating though he can be I actually have a sneaking regard for him.
Probably because he gets abused and bulled by a few posters who then enjoy playing the victim when it suits them.
HYUFD is one of the best posters here.
He isn't necessarily the latter, although he is valuable for his insights into polling which are extraordinary. And to be honest all the 'bullying' I see is of people getting mad at him for continuing to persist with totally wrong statements.
But having met him in person many years before either of us were on PB, he's not as bad as he sometimes comes across and he must be very downbeat after Thursday.
He gets bullied and targeted constantly. Including two users who joyfully tried to get him to leave the other day. I hope he did not listen.
He's a fine chap and very polite. And actually nice unlike some of the other Tory cretins here
Persistently telling experts they are wrong, when they are right, and refusing to acknowledge facts when they are demonstrated to him, is the opposite of politeness.
Fair language and good manners are not the same thing.
But as I say, that's not necessarily the way he comes across in real life although we did sometimes tease him in Aber by getting him stuck on dogmatic points.
Questions about Starmer, is this the latest CCHQ line?
There are no questions about Starmer in Labour. Zero.
I thought Why are you so boring and underperforming so badly? was a bit of a live issue. Bloody should be. Compare Blair at the equiv stage of the Major govt.
The question is, would somebody else be doing better? And the answer is no, hence why no moves.
There is no question about "his future", however much Tories here would love there to be.
There aren't "Tories here" except HYUFD and he doesn't count because he has no interest in politics in general only in Tory politics and has only the vaguest awareness who SKS is
Yes, one of those wimmin or the one who sounds black but isn't who tweets too much.
I don't agree to be honest, I think Nandy is an utter lightweight and have said so since she ran last time - and I put her as number two.
I was a big fan of Wes but his Tweeting sprees make him look like a prat.
Andy Burnham would be exactly where Keir is now.
I'm happy enough with how Keir is doing for him to have my support.
The one person who could galvanise Labour is Bridget Phillipson who is very impressive and is a northern lass
My God you don't have a fucking clue, embarrassing.
Really and is that the best response you can provide to an honest statement
Honest bullshit, yes that is. It's all you deserve, now sod off
Very happy to have a chat about trans people in sport when the Government start doing something on CoL or the economy, until then it's just a wedge issue
I don't know what twhat wedge issue means.
Thing he doesn't want talked about because it makes Labour look silly.
No, it's just that I think the economy is more important right now. I think people becoming homeless is more important right now.
I care a lot about the environment too - but I think for now people are more important.
From a Tory fanboy like yourself, I will wear this with a mark of pride
Um, WTF are you dribbling on about in that last sentence? Are you dumber than a bag of rocks, or just an outright troll?
Yes I am an outright troll.
You are a Tory fanboy, just too dishonest to say so.
- 70% support inflation-level pay rise - 62% believe govt should intervene - 70% against cuts to rail staff - 84% say invest rail profits in maintaining staff - 59% say workers right to strike if talks fail
The interesting thing is that the RMT aren't asking for an inflation-level pay rise. They're asking for 7% which is below the current annualised rate of inflation, and will be significantly below the peak inflation level this year. In that respect they're not even playing into the government's "oh no wage spiral" argument.
The issue isn’t on wage increases - it’s the insistence that there can be no changes to the old way of working to reflect the impact of the pandemic
Questions about Starmer, is this the latest CCHQ line?
There are no questions about Starmer in Labour. Zero.
I thought Why are you so boring and underperforming so badly? was a bit of a live issue. Bloody should be. Compare Blair at the equiv stage of the Major govt.
The question is, would somebody else be doing better? And the answer is no, hence why no moves.
There is no question about "his future", however much Tories here would love there to be.
There aren't "Tories here" except HYUFD and he doesn't count because he has no interest in politics in general only in Tory politics and has only the vaguest awareness who SKS is
Yes, one of those wimmin or the one who sounds black but isn't who tweets too much.
I don't agree to be honest, I think Nandy is an utter lightweight and have said so since she ran last time - and I put her as number two.
I was a big fan of Wes but his Tweeting sprees make him look like a prat.
Andy Burnham would be exactly where Keir is now.
I'm happy enough with how Keir is doing for him to have my support.
The one person who could galvanise Labour is Bridget Phillipson who is very impressive and is a northern lass
The problem she might have if the polling closes up again is which seat to fight if its after boundaries- the Washington and Houghton mash up seat she'll likely fight could be quite interesting in a close election, her current seat pre boundary changes similarly will be interesting if the Tories recover to a small lead
Edit - obviously on current polling shes safe as houses
What a parasite, he’s just like his younger brother.
The Prince of Wales accepted a suitcase containing €1 million in cash from a controversial Qatari politician, The Sunday Times can reveal.
It was one of three lots of cash, totalling €3 million, which Prince Charles personally received from Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim bin Jaber Al Thani, the former prime minister of Qatar who is nicknamed “HBJ”, between 2011 and 2015.
On one occasion, Al Thani, 62, presented the prince with €1 million, which was reportedly stuffed into carrier bags from Fortnum & Mason, the luxury department store that has a royal charter to provide the prince’s groceries and tea.
1 - It is a Times scoop - is it true? This week I found on old one about claiming that Arthur Scargill bought his Barbican flat at a discount and made a million selling it on in the Times, which appears to be a simple fabrication. Afaics he never bought it.
And we all know that the Times / Sunday Times stable has come up with some fairy stories in the last 2 years.
2 - Does evidence exist of impropriety? TSE seems to be assuming some element of personal benefit for Prince Charles.
I am not suggesting the allegations are wrong but how much does a suitcase weigh with a million euros inside ?
2.2 kg if in €500 notes, according to t'internet. You wouldn't even need a suitcase. A laptop bag would do.
"Glastonbury: more middle-class than a Waitrose olive counter"
I caught up with the wolf Alice, Sam fender sets this afternoon, both very good. And the Billie Eilish, who was a touch Disney time with bad language. 😒
Watched and enjoyed Crowded House, which has a lot of memories for me. Billy Eilish I dont know the music and I don’t get her, so I turned off...
Questions about Starmer, is this the latest CCHQ line?
There are no questions about Starmer in Labour. Zero.
I thought Why are you so boring and underperforming so badly? was a bit of a live issue. Bloody should be. Compare Blair at the equiv stage of the Major govt.
The question is, would somebody else be doing better? And the answer is no, hence why no moves.
There is no question about "his future", however much Tories here would love there to be.
There aren't "Tories here" except HYUFD and he doesn't count because he has no interest in politics in general only in Tory politics and has only the vaguest awareness who SKS is
Yes, one of those wimmin or the one who sounds black but isn't who tweets too much.
That's unfair. He has a big interest in polling for whatever party.
It's just he doesn't get politics, per se.
He seems to have been rather quiet recently, I hope he's OK. Infuriating though he can be I actually have a sneaking regard for him.
Probably because he gets abused and bulled by a few posters who then enjoy playing the victim when it suits them.
HYUFD is one of the best posters here.
He isn't necessarily the latter, although he is valuable for his insights into polling which are extraordinary. And to be honest all the 'bullying' I see is of people getting mad at him for continuing to persist with totally wrong statements.
But having met him in person many years before either of us were on PB, he's not as bad as he sometimes comes across and he must be very downbeat after Thursday.
He gets bullied and targeted constantly. Including two users who joyfully tried to get him to leave the other day. I hope he did not listen.
He's a fine chap and very polite. And actually nice unlike some of the other Tory cretins here
Persistently telling experts they are wrong, when they are right, and refusing to acknowledge facts when they are demonstrated to him, is the opposite of politeness.
Fair language and good manners are not the same thing.
But as I say, that's not necessarily the way he comes across in real life although we did sometimes tease him in Aber by getting him stuck on dogmatic points.
He's never been like that with me. The instances you refer to are when people started on him or were horrible first.
What a parasite, he’s just like his younger brother.
The Prince of Wales accepted a suitcase containing €1 million in cash from a controversial Qatari politician, The Sunday Times can reveal.
It was one of three lots of cash, totalling €3 million, which Prince Charles personally received from Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim bin Jaber Al Thani, the former prime minister of Qatar who is nicknamed “HBJ”, between 2011 and 2015.
On one occasion, Al Thani, 62, presented the prince with €1 million, which was reportedly stuffed into carrier bags from Fortnum & Mason, the luxury department store that has a royal charter to provide the prince’s groceries and tea.
1 - It is a Times scoop - is it true? This week I found on old one about claiming that Arthur Scargill bought his Barbican flat at a discount and made a million selling it on in the Times, which appears to be a simple fabrication. Afaics he never bought it.
And we all know that the Times / Sunday Times stable has come up with some fairy stories in the last 2 years.
2 - Does evidence exist of impropriety? TSE seems to be assuming some element of personal benefit for Prince Charles.
I am not suggesting the allegations are wrong but how much does a suitcase weigh with a million euros inside ?
What a parasite, he’s just like his younger brother.
The Prince of Wales accepted a suitcase containing €1 million in cash from a controversial Qatari politician, The Sunday Times can reveal.
It was one of three lots of cash, totalling €3 million, which Prince Charles personally received from Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim bin Jaber Al Thani, the former prime minister of Qatar who is nicknamed “HBJ”, between 2011 and 2015.
On one occasion, Al Thani, 62, presented the prince with €1 million, which was reportedly stuffed into carrier bags from Fortnum & Mason, the luxury department store that has a royal charter to provide the prince’s groceries and tea.
1 - It is a Times scoop - is it true? This week I found on old one about claiming that Arthur Scargill bought his Barbican flat at a discount and made a million selling it on in the Times, which appears to be a simple fabrication. Afaics he never bought it.
And we all know that the Times / Sunday Times stable has come up with some fairy stories in the last 2 years.
2 - Does evidence exist of impropriety? TSE seems to be assuming some element of personal benefit for Prince Charles.
I am not suggesting the allegations are wrong but how much does a suitcase weigh with a million euros inside ?
What a parasite, he’s just like his younger brother.
The Prince of Wales accepted a suitcase containing €1 million in cash from a controversial Qatari politician, The Sunday Times can reveal.
It was one of three lots of cash, totalling €3 million, which Prince Charles personally received from Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim bin Jaber Al Thani, the former prime minister of Qatar who is nicknamed “HBJ”, between 2011 and 2015.
On one occasion, Al Thani, 62, presented the prince with €1 million, which was reportedly stuffed into carrier bags from Fortnum & Mason, the luxury department store that has a royal charter to provide the prince’s groceries and tea.
1 - It is a Times scoop - is it true? This week I found on old one about claiming that Arthur Scargill bought his Barbican flat at a discount and made a million selling it on in the Times, which appears to be a simple fabrication. Afaics he never bought it.
And we all know that the Times / Sunday Times stable has come up with some fairy stories in the last 2 years.
2 - Does evidence exist of impropriety? TSE seems to be assuming some element of personal benefit for Prince Charles.
1. Think I remember seeing stories a few months ago, that make this one appear potentially credible, as fitting into similar pattern?
2. Suitcase of cash itself would be primae facie evidence IF documented?
In the subhead not quoted by TSE above, the Times says the money went to his Foundation.
What a parasite, he’s just like his younger brother.
The Prince of Wales accepted a suitcase containing €1 million in cash from a controversial Qatari politician, The Sunday Times can reveal.
It was one of three lots of cash, totalling €3 million, which Prince Charles personally received from Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim bin Jaber Al Thani, the former prime minister of Qatar who is nicknamed “HBJ”, between 2011 and 2015.
On one occasion, Al Thani, 62, presented the prince with €1 million, which was reportedly stuffed into carrier bags from Fortnum & Mason, the luxury department store that has a royal charter to provide the prince’s groceries and tea.
1 - It is a Times scoop - is it true? This week I found on old one about claiming that Arthur Scargill bought his Barbican flat at a discount and made a million selling it on in the Times, which appears to be a simple fabrication. Afaics he never bought it.
And we all know that the Times / Sunday Times stable has come up with some fairy stories in the last 2 years.
2 - Does evidence exist of impropriety? TSE seems to be assuming some element of personal benefit for Prince Charles.
I am not suggesting the allegations are wrong but how much does a suitcase weigh with a million euros inside ?
Questions about Starmer, is this the latest CCHQ line?
There are no questions about Starmer in Labour. Zero.
I thought Why are you so boring and underperforming so badly? was a bit of a live issue. Bloody should be. Compare Blair at the equiv stage of the Major govt.
The question is, would somebody else be doing better? And the answer is no, hence why no moves.
There is no question about "his future", however much Tories here would love there to be.
There aren't "Tories here" except HYUFD and he doesn't count because he has no interest in politics in general only in Tory politics and has only the vaguest awareness who SKS is
Yes, one of those wimmin or the one who sounds black but isn't who tweets too much.
That's unfair. He has a big interest in polling for whatever party.
It's just he doesn't get politics, per se.
He seems to have been rather quiet recently, I hope he's OK. Infuriating though he can be I actually have a sneaking regard for him.
Probably because he gets abused and bulled by a few posters who then enjoy playing the victim when it suits them.
HYUFD is one of the best posters here.
We all know who the absolute best is though.
Opinium along soon. They won’t have labour higher than 38 or Tories lower than 34. 37 to 35 feels about right from this one.
So expect Johnny Owl to post soon as the pubs close. 🤭
What a parasite, he’s just like his younger brother.
The Prince of Wales accepted a suitcase containing €1 million in cash from a controversial Qatari politician, The Sunday Times can reveal.
It was one of three lots of cash, totalling €3 million, which Prince Charles personally received from Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim bin Jaber Al Thani, the former prime minister of Qatar who is nicknamed “HBJ”, between 2011 and 2015.
On one occasion, Al Thani, 62, presented the prince with €1 million, which was reportedly stuffed into carrier bags from Fortnum & Mason, the luxury department store that has a royal charter to provide the prince’s groceries and tea.
1 - It is a Times scoop - is it true? This week I found on old one about claiming that Arthur Scargill bought his Barbican flat at a discount and made a million selling it on in the Times, which appears to be a simple fabrication. Afaics he never bought it.
And we all know that the Times / Sunday Times stable has come up with some fairy stories in the last 2 years.
2 - Does evidence exist of impropriety? TSE seems to be assuming some element of personal benefit for Prince Charles.
I am not suggesting the allegations are wrong but how much does a suitcase weigh with a million euros inside ?
2.2 kg if in €500 notes, according to t'internet. You wouldn't even need a suitcase. A laptop bag would do.
Have they stopped issuing €500 notes? Even if so, would reckon their still legal tender and available to those who might want to stuff them under the mattress, & etc.?
Questions about Starmer, is this the latest CCHQ line?
There are no questions about Starmer in Labour. Zero.
I thought Why are you so boring and underperforming so badly? was a bit of a live issue. Bloody should be. Compare Blair at the equiv stage of the Major govt.
The question is, would somebody else be doing better? And the answer is no, hence why no moves.
There is no question about "his future", however much Tories here would love there to be.
There aren't "Tories here" except HYUFD and he doesn't count because he has no interest in politics in general only in Tory politics and has only the vaguest awareness who SKS is
Yes, one of those wimmin or the one who sounds black but isn't who tweets too much.
That's unfair. He has a big interest in polling for whatever party.
It's just he doesn't get politics, per se.
He seems to have been rather quiet recently, I hope he's OK. Infuriating though he can be I actually have a sneaking regard for him.
Probably because he gets abused and bulled by a few posters who then enjoy playing the victim when it suits them.
HYUFD is one of the best posters here.
We all know who the absolute best is though.
Opinium along soon. They won’t have labour higher than 38 or Tories lower than 34. 37 to 35 feels about right from this one.
So expect Johnny Owl to post soon as the pubs close. 🤭
Questions about Starmer, is this the latest CCHQ line?
There are no questions about Starmer in Labour. Zero.
I thought Why are you so boring and underperforming so badly? was a bit of a live issue. Bloody should be. Compare Blair at the equiv stage of the Major govt.
The question is, would somebody else be doing better? And the answer is no, hence why no moves.
There is no question about "his future", however much Tories here would love there to be.
There aren't "Tories here" except HYUFD and he doesn't count because he has no interest in politics in general only in Tory politics and has only the vaguest awareness who SKS is
Yes, one of those wimmin or the one who sounds black but isn't who tweets too much.
I don't agree to be honest, I think Nandy is an utter lightweight and have said so since she ran last time - and I put her as number two.
I was a big fan of Wes but his Tweeting sprees make him look like a prat.
Andy Burnham would be exactly where Keir is now.
I'm happy enough with how Keir is doing for him to have my support.
The one person who could galvanise Labour is Bridget Phillipson who is very impressive and is a northern lass
The problem she might have if the polling closes up again is which seat to fight if its after boundaries- the Washington and Houghton mash up seat she'll likely fight could be quite interesting in a close election, her current seat pre boundary changes similarly will be interesting if the Tories recover to a small lead
Edit - obviously on current polling shes safe as houses
It was noticeably she was sitting next to Starmer at last weeks PMQ and it was commented on
What a parasite, he’s just like his younger brother.
The Prince of Wales accepted a suitcase containing €1 million in cash from a controversial Qatari politician, The Sunday Times can reveal.
It was one of three lots of cash, totalling €3 million, which Prince Charles personally received from Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim bin Jaber Al Thani, the former prime minister of Qatar who is nicknamed “HBJ”, between 2011 and 2015.
On one occasion, Al Thani, 62, presented the prince with €1 million, which was reportedly stuffed into carrier bags from Fortnum & Mason, the luxury department store that has a royal charter to provide the prince’s groceries and tea.
1 - It is a Times scoop - is it true? This week I found on old one about claiming that Arthur Scargill bought his Barbican flat at a discount and made a million selling it on in the Times, which appears to be a simple fabrication. Afaics he never bought it.
And we all know that the Times / Sunday Times stable has come up with some fairy stories in the last 2 years.
2 - Does evidence exist of impropriety? TSE seems to be assuming some element of personal benefit for Prince Charles.
I am not suggesting the allegations are wrong but how much does a suitcase weigh with a million euros inside ?
What a parasite, he’s just like his younger brother.
The Prince of Wales accepted a suitcase containing €1 million in cash from a controversial Qatari politician, The Sunday Times can reveal.
It was one of three lots of cash, totalling €3 million, which Prince Charles personally received from Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim bin Jaber Al Thani, the former prime minister of Qatar who is nicknamed “HBJ”, between 2011 and 2015.
On one occasion, Al Thani, 62, presented the prince with €1 million, which was reportedly stuffed into carrier bags from Fortnum & Mason, the luxury department store that has a royal charter to provide the prince’s groceries and tea.
1 - It is a Times scoop - is it true? This week I found on old one about claiming that Arthur Scargill bought his Barbican flat at a discount and made a million selling it on in the Times, which appears to be a simple fabrication. Afaics he never bought it.
And we all know that the Times / Sunday Times stable has come up with some fairy stories in the last 2 years.
2 - Does evidence exist of impropriety? TSE seems to be assuming some element of personal benefit for Prince Charles.
I am not suggesting the allegations are wrong but how much does a suitcase weigh with a million euros inside ?
2.2 kg if in €500 notes, according to t'internet. You wouldn't even need a suitcase. A laptop bag would do.
Have they stopped issuing €500 notes? Even if so, would reckon their still legal tender and available to those who might want to stuff them under the mattress, & etc.?
No new ones were issued from 2019.
So it's quite possible that they are now worth a little more than 500 Euro each.
Questions about Starmer, is this the latest CCHQ line?
There are no questions about Starmer in Labour. Zero.
I thought Why are you so boring and underperforming so badly? was a bit of a live issue. Bloody should be. Compare Blair at the equiv stage of the Major govt.
The question is, would somebody else be doing better? And the answer is no, hence why no moves.
There is no question about "his future", however much Tories here would love there to be.
There aren't "Tories here" except HYUFD and he doesn't count because he has no interest in politics in general only in Tory politics and has only the vaguest awareness who SKS is
Yes, one of those wimmin or the one who sounds black but isn't who tweets too much.
That's unfair. He has a big interest in polling for whatever party.
It's just he doesn't get politics, per se.
He seems to have been rather quiet recently, I hope he's OK. Infuriating though he can be I actually have a sneaking regard for him.
Probably because he gets abused and bulled by a few posters who then enjoy playing the victim when it suits them.
HYUFD is one of the best posters here.
We all know who the absolute best is though.
Opinium along soon. They won’t have labour higher than 38 or Tories lower than 34. 37 to 35 feels about right from this one.
So expect Johnny Owl to post soon as the pubs close. 🤭
Questions about Starmer, is this the latest CCHQ line?
There are no questions about Starmer in Labour. Zero.
I thought Why are you so boring and underperforming so badly? was a bit of a live issue. Bloody should be. Compare Blair at the equiv stage of the Major govt.
The question is, would somebody else be doing better? And the answer is no, hence why no moves.
There is no question about "his future", however much Tories here would love there to be.
There aren't "Tories here" except HYUFD and he doesn't count because he has no interest in politics in general only in Tory politics and has only the vaguest awareness who SKS is
Yes, one of those wimmin or the one who sounds black but isn't who tweets too much.
That's unfair. He has a big interest in polling for whatever party.
It's just he doesn't get politics, per se.
He seems to have been rather quiet recently, I hope he's OK. Infuriating though he can be I actually have a sneaking regard for him.
Probably because he gets abused and bulled by a few posters who then enjoy playing the victim when it suits them.
HYUFD is one of the best posters here.
We all know who the absolute best is though.
Opinium along soon. They won’t have labour higher than 38 or Tories lower than 34. 37 to 35 feels about right from this one.
So expect Johnny Owl to post soon as the pubs close. 🤭
Absolutely. Such issues (I am pro abortion) are for voters and legislators. As they are in the UK. All the SC has done is give USA voters the same rights we enjoy. They have neither banned nor compelled anything at all.
What inherent right can enshrine the pro abortion principle so that it is beyond the reach of the voters? The debate itself, however dire, shows that the issues are not easy or obvious.
This whole issue is bedeviled by all the people on all sides who think only one answer is possible or rational.
Mr Smithson is right: this issue will stir voters to do their job. Good. Perhaps they will demolish Trumpism at the same time too.
The question is, why did Obama and co not legislate for this - and why is Biden not either?
Obama had a Freedom of Choice Bill and he said in 2007 that it would be the first thing he would do as President. Once elected of course he said that it was "not my highest legislative priority".
No, of course it wasn't. You did just enough to get what you wanted from women and then ignored them. There's a word for men who do that. And women are utterly sick of this. We see some of this attitude on here - women's issues are seen as a tiresome addendum not central to what governments should be about. Well we bloody well should be.
Also if Utah wants women to limit their intake of those pesky little sperm well there's an easy answer: reversible vasectomies for all boys at puberty, only to be reversed when they have grown up and are ready to settle down and start a family with a named woman.
What an interference with men's bodies, you say. Yes, well, tough.
NADINE DORRIES: Ban transgender athletes from competing against women, exclusive interview with The Mail on Sunday @NadineDorries mailplus.co.uk/edition/news/p… via @mailplus
Oh goody, more of this.
This is already starting to happen in sport.
You just wonder why the Government would want to make this a big deal, is it because they have nothing to say on anything of actual interest?
Because sportswomen are - rightly - making one hell of a stink about having women's sport ruined by the inclusion of men.
This matters to women - who happen to be a majority - and it's about time our interests and rights and demands were taken a hell of a lot more seriously than they are.
So tough. Governments get involved in the sale of privately owned football clubs. So they can bloody well get involved in making sure that sport is conducted fairly.
Is it wrong to laugh at the far-left Democrats in the States, who are vociferously objecting to the Supreme Court decision, while taking about ‘pregnant people’ because they can’t use the “W-word”?
Not wrong at all. I have been doing a lot of it myself elsewhere. If they can't bloody well use the word "woman" then they're going to have a hard time trying to defend or advance their rights.
Oh indeed. How are you supposed to talk about women’s rights, without talking about women.
There’s an American comedian, Bridget Phetasy, who picks up on all these silly omissions of the “W-word” in an amusing way. https://youtube.com/watch?v=WtfUWS9lBnU
Comedian? Then should be at least somewhat humorous. (Something I demand also of leftwinger who purport to be comics.)
Your example is a rightwing polemnicist. And about as funny as a rubber crutch.
But to each his (or her or their or its) own.
Except that she isn’t. She’s a Californian Democrat, totally in favour of redistribution of wealth - but like many driven completely mad by the woke bollocks of the modern left, who talk about ‘birthing people’ #WOMEN.
Questions about Starmer, is this the latest CCHQ line?
There are no questions about Starmer in Labour. Zero.
I thought Why are you so boring and underperforming so badly? was a bit of a live issue. Bloody should be. Compare Blair at the equiv stage of the Major govt.
The question is, would somebody else be doing better? And the answer is no, hence why no moves.
There is no question about "his future", however much Tories here would love there to be.
There aren't "Tories here" except HYUFD and he doesn't count because he has no interest in politics in general only in Tory politics and has only the vaguest awareness who SKS is
Yes, one of those wimmin or the one who sounds black but isn't who tweets too much.
That's unfair. He has a big interest in polling for whatever party.
It's just he doesn't get politics, per se.
He seems to have been rather quiet recently, I hope he's OK. Infuriating though he can be I actually have a sneaking regard for him.
Probably because he gets abused and bulled by a few posters who then enjoy playing the victim when it suits them.
HYUFD is one of the best posters here.
We all know who the absolute best is though.
Opinium along soon. They won’t have labour higher than 38 or Tories lower than 34. 37 to 35 feels about right from this one.
So expect Johnny Owl to post soon as the pubs close. 🤭
Is there Opinium this week? Isn't it every two weeks?
Questions about Starmer, is this the latest CCHQ line?
There are no questions about Starmer in Labour. Zero.
I thought Why are you so boring and underperforming so badly? was a bit of a live issue. Bloody should be. Compare Blair at the equiv stage of the Major govt.
The question is, would somebody else be doing better? And the answer is no, hence why no moves.
There is no question about "his future", however much Tories here would love there to be.
There aren't "Tories here" except HYUFD and he doesn't count because he has no interest in politics in general only in Tory politics and has only the vaguest awareness who SKS is
Yes, one of those wimmin or the one who sounds black but isn't who tweets too much.
That's unfair. He has a big interest in polling for whatever party.
It's just he doesn't get politics, per se.
He seems to have been rather quiet recently, I hope he's OK. Infuriating though he can be I actually have a sneaking regard for him.
Probably because he gets abused and bulled by a few posters who then enjoy playing the victim when it suits them.
HYUFD is one of the best posters here.
We all know who the absolute best is though.
Opinium along soon. They won’t have labour higher than 38 or Tories lower than 34. 37 to 35 feels about right from this one.
So expect Johnny Owl to post soon as the pubs close. 🤭
The absolute best is me.
And the most modest?
Pretty sure TSE would have something to say about that.
Questions about Starmer, is this the latest CCHQ line?
There are no questions about Starmer in Labour. Zero.
I thought Why are you so boring and underperforming so badly? was a bit of a live issue. Bloody should be. Compare Blair at the equiv stage of the Major govt.
The question is, would somebody else be doing better? And the answer is no, hence why no moves.
There is no question about "his future", however much Tories here would love there to be.
There aren't "Tories here" except HYUFD and he doesn't count because he has no interest in politics in general only in Tory politics and has only the vaguest awareness who SKS is
Yes, one of those wimmin or the one who sounds black but isn't who tweets too much.
That's unfair. He has a big interest in polling for whatever party.
It's just he doesn't get politics, per se.
He seems to have been rather quiet recently, I hope he's OK. Infuriating though he can be I actually have a sneaking regard for him.
Probably because he gets abused and bulled by a few posters who then enjoy playing the victim when it suits them.
HYUFD is one of the best posters here.
We all know who the absolute best is though.
Opinium along soon. They won’t have labour higher than 38 or Tories lower than 34. 37 to 35 feels about right from this one.
So expect Johnny Owl to post soon as the pubs close. 🤭
Is there Opinium this week? Isn't it every two weeks?
Oops, looks like our equine friend has experienced what happens if you use the ‘c’ word. Rightly so. There are limits.
Questions about Starmer, is this the latest CCHQ line?
There are no questions about Starmer in Labour. Zero.
I thought Why are you so boring and underperforming so badly? was a bit of a live issue. Bloody should be. Compare Blair at the equiv stage of the Major govt.
The question is, would somebody else be doing better? And the answer is no, hence why no moves.
There is no question about "his future", however much Tories here would love there to be.
There aren't "Tories here" except HYUFD and he doesn't count because he has no interest in politics in general only in Tory politics and has only the vaguest awareness who SKS is
Yes, one of those wimmin or the one who sounds black but isn't who tweets too much.
That's unfair. He has a big interest in polling for whatever party.
It's just he doesn't get politics, per se.
He seems to have been rather quiet recently, I hope he's OK. Infuriating though he can be I actually have a sneaking regard for him.
Probably because he gets abused and bulled by a few posters who then enjoy playing the victim when it suits them.
HYUFD is one of the best posters here.
We all know who the absolute best is though.
Opinium along soon. They won’t have labour higher than 38 or Tories lower than 34. 37 to 35 feels about right from this one.
So expect Johnny Owl to post soon as the pubs close. 🤭
The absolute best is me.
And the most modest?
Pretty sure TSE would have something to say about that.
Questions about Starmer, is this the latest CCHQ line?
There are no questions about Starmer in Labour. Zero.
I thought Why are you so boring and underperforming so badly? was a bit of a live issue. Bloody should be. Compare Blair at the equiv stage of the Major govt.
The question is, would somebody else be doing better? And the answer is no, hence why no moves.
There is no question about "his future", however much Tories here would love there to be.
There aren't "Tories here" except HYUFD and he doesn't count because he has no interest in politics in general only in Tory politics and has only the vaguest awareness who SKS is
Yes, one of those wimmin or the one who sounds black but isn't who tweets too much.
That's unfair. He has a big interest in polling for whatever party.
It's just he doesn't get politics, per se.
He seems to have been rather quiet recently, I hope he's OK. Infuriating though he can be I actually have a sneaking regard for him.
Probably because he gets abused and bulled by a few posters who then enjoy playing the victim when it suits them.
HYUFD is one of the best posters here.
He isn't necessarily the latter, although he is valuable for his insights into polling which are extraordinary. And to be honest all the 'bullying' I see is of people getting mad at him for continuing to persist with totally wrong statements.
But having met him in person many years before either of us were on PB, he's not as bad as he sometimes comes across and he must be very downbeat after Thursday.
He gets bullied and targeted constantly. Including two users who joyfully tried to get him to leave the other day. I hope he did not listen.
He's a fine chap and very polite. And actually nice unlike some of the other Tory cretins here
Persistently telling experts they are wrong, when they are right, and refusing to acknowledge facts when they are demonstrated to him, is the opposite of politeness.
Fair language and good manners are not the same thing.
But as I say, that's not necessarily the way he comes across in real life although we did sometimes tease him in Aber by getting him stuck on dogmatic points.
He's never been like that with me. The instances you refer to are when people started on him or were horrible first.
That is certainly not the case.
But it seems a bit unfair to keep arguing with a banned poster. If you're reading this, we'll resume when you've apologised and been unbanned.
Can I reiterate my advice to you from a couple of months back - if you don't like Big G, ignore him. It's only you will get into trouble otherwise.
What a parasite, he’s just like his younger brother.
The Prince of Wales accepted a suitcase containing €1 million in cash from a controversial Qatari politician, The Sunday Times can reveal.
It was one of three lots of cash, totalling €3 million, which Prince Charles personally received from Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim bin Jaber Al Thani, the former prime minister of Qatar who is nicknamed “HBJ”, between 2011 and 2015.
On one occasion, Al Thani, 62, presented the prince with €1 million, which was reportedly stuffed into carrier bags from Fortnum & Mason, the luxury department store that has a royal charter to provide the prince’s groceries and tea.
1 - It is a Times scoop - is it true? This week I found on old one about claiming that Arthur Scargill bought his Barbican flat at a discount and made a million selling it on in the Times, which appears to be a simple fabrication. Afaics he never bought it.
And we all know that the Times / Sunday Times stable has come up with some fairy stories in the last 2 years.
2 - Does evidence exist of impropriety? TSE seems to be assuming some element of personal benefit for Prince Charles.
I am not suggesting the allegations are wrong but how much does a suitcase weigh with a million euros inside ?
Questions about Starmer, is this the latest CCHQ line?
There are no questions about Starmer in Labour. Zero.
I thought Why are you so boring and underperforming so badly? was a bit of a live issue. Bloody should be. Compare Blair at the equiv stage of the Major govt.
The question is, would somebody else be doing better? And the answer is no, hence why no moves.
There is no question about "his future", however much Tories here would love there to be.
There aren't "Tories here" except HYUFD and he doesn't count because he has no interest in politics in general only in Tory politics and has only the vaguest awareness who SKS is
Yes, one of those wimmin or the one who sounds black but isn't who tweets too much.
That's unfair. He has a big interest in polling for whatever party.
It's just he doesn't get politics, per se.
He seems to have been rather quiet recently, I hope he's OK. Infuriating though he can be I actually have a sneaking regard for him.
Probably because he gets abused and bulled by a few posters who then enjoy playing the victim when it suits them.
HYUFD is one of the best posters here.
He isn't necessarily the latter, although he is valuable for his insights into polling which are extraordinary. And to be honest all the 'bullying' I see is of people getting mad at him for continuing to persist with totally wrong statements.
But having met him in person many years before either of us were on PB, he's not as bad as he sometimes comes across and he must be very downbeat after Thursday.
He gets bullied and targeted constantly. Including two users who joyfully tried to get him to leave the other day. I hope he did not listen.
He's a fine chap and very polite. And actually nice unlike some of the other Tory cretins here
Persistently telling experts they are wrong, when they are right, and refusing to acknowledge facts when they are demonstrated to him, is the opposite of politeness.
Fair language and good manners are not the same thing.
But as I say, that's not necessarily the way he comes across in real life although we did sometimes tease him in Aber by getting him stuck on dogmatic points.
He's never been like that with me. The instances you refer to are when people started on him or were horrible first.
That is certainly not the case.
But it seems a bit unfair to keep arguing with a banned poster. If you're reading this, we'll resume when you've apologised and been unbanned.
Can I reiterate my advice to you from a couple of months back - if you don't like Big G, ignore him. It's only you will get into trouble otherwise.
Wise words. I find @StuartDickson incredibly annoying, but I wouldn’t use that word about him.
What a parasite, he’s just like his younger brother.
The Prince of Wales accepted a suitcase containing €1 million in cash from a controversial Qatari politician, The Sunday Times can reveal.
It was one of three lots of cash, totalling €3 million, which Prince Charles personally received from Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim bin Jaber Al Thani, the former prime minister of Qatar who is nicknamed “HBJ”, between 2011 and 2015.
On one occasion, Al Thani, 62, presented the prince with €1 million, which was reportedly stuffed into carrier bags from Fortnum & Mason, the luxury department store that has a royal charter to provide the prince’s groceries and tea.
1 - It is a Times scoop - is it true? This week I found on old one about claiming that Arthur Scargill bought his Barbican flat at a discount and made a million selling it on in the Times, which appears to be a simple fabrication. Afaics he never bought it.
And we all know that the Times / Sunday Times stable has come up with some fairy stories in the last 2 years.
2 - Does evidence exist of impropriety? TSE seems to be assuming some element of personal benefit for Prince Charles.
I am not suggesting the allegations are wrong but how much does a suitcase weigh with a million euros inside ?
What a parasite, he’s just like his younger brother.
The Prince of Wales accepted a suitcase containing €1 million in cash from a controversial Qatari politician, The Sunday Times can reveal.
It was one of three lots of cash, totalling €3 million, which Prince Charles personally received from Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim bin Jaber Al Thani, the former prime minister of Qatar who is nicknamed “HBJ”, between 2011 and 2015.
On one occasion, Al Thani, 62, presented the prince with €1 million, which was reportedly stuffed into carrier bags from Fortnum & Mason, the luxury department store that has a royal charter to provide the prince’s groceries and tea.
1 - It is a Times scoop - is it true? This week I found on old one about claiming that Arthur Scargill bought his Barbican flat at a discount and made a million selling it on in the Times, which appears to be a simple fabrication. Afaics he never bought it.
And we all know that the Times / Sunday Times stable has come up with some fairy stories in the last 2 years.
2 - Does evidence exist of impropriety? TSE seems to be assuming some element of personal benefit for Prince Charles.
I am not suggesting the allegations are wrong but how much does a suitcase weigh with a million euros inside ?
What a parasite, he’s just like his younger brother.
The Prince of Wales accepted a suitcase containing €1 million in cash from a controversial Qatari politician, The Sunday Times can reveal.
It was one of three lots of cash, totalling €3 million, which Prince Charles personally received from Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim bin Jaber Al Thani, the former prime minister of Qatar who is nicknamed “HBJ”, between 2011 and 2015.
On one occasion, Al Thani, 62, presented the prince with €1 million, which was reportedly stuffed into carrier bags from Fortnum & Mason, the luxury department store that has a royal charter to provide the prince’s groceries and tea.
1 - It is a Times scoop - is it true? This week I found on old one about claiming that Arthur Scargill bought his Barbican flat at a discount and made a million selling it on in the Times, which appears to be a simple fabrication. Afaics he never bought it.
And we all know that the Times / Sunday Times stable has come up with some fairy stories in the last 2 years.
2 - Does evidence exist of impropriety? TSE seems to be assuming some element of personal benefit for Prince Charles.
I am not suggesting the allegations are wrong but how much does a suitcase weigh with a million euros inside ?
What a parasite, he’s just like his younger brother.
The Prince of Wales accepted a suitcase containing €1 million in cash from a controversial Qatari politician, The Sunday Times can reveal.
It was one of three lots of cash, totalling €3 million, which Prince Charles personally received from Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim bin Jaber Al Thani, the former prime minister of Qatar who is nicknamed “HBJ”, between 2011 and 2015.
On one occasion, Al Thani, 62, presented the prince with €1 million, which was reportedly stuffed into carrier bags from Fortnum & Mason, the luxury department store that has a royal charter to provide the prince’s groceries and tea.
Am beginning to suspect, that release of SCOTUS invalidation of Row v Wade was deliberately timed (but how? and who?) to give aid & comfort to Boris Johnson & Co, by distracting our British cousins (not exactly heavy lifting) with exciting news from Across the Pond. And away from the Tory by-election bust-up.
Certainly has had that affect on PB. And the rest of UK media?
What a parasite, he’s just like his younger brother.
The Prince of Wales accepted a suitcase containing €1 million in cash from a controversial Qatari politician, The Sunday Times can reveal.
It was one of three lots of cash, totalling €3 million, which Prince Charles personally received from Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim bin Jaber Al Thani, the former prime minister of Qatar who is nicknamed “HBJ”, between 2011 and 2015.
On one occasion, Al Thani, 62, presented the prince with €1 million, which was reportedly stuffed into carrier bags from Fortnum & Mason, the luxury department store that has a royal charter to provide the prince’s groceries and tea.
1 - It is a Times scoop - is it true? This week I found on old one about claiming that Arthur Scargill bought his Barbican flat at a discount and made a million selling it on in the Times, which appears to be a simple fabrication. Afaics he never bought it.
And we all know that the Times / Sunday Times stable has come up with some fairy stories in the last 2 years.
2 - Does evidence exist of impropriety? TSE seems to be assuming some element of personal benefit for Prince Charles.
I am not suggesting the allegations are wrong but how much does a suitcase weigh with a million euros inside ?
Questions about Starmer, is this the latest CCHQ line?
There are no questions about Starmer in Labour. Zero.
I thought Why are you so boring and underperforming so badly? was a bit of a live issue. Bloody should be. Compare Blair at the equiv stage of the Major govt.
The question is, would somebody else be doing better? And the answer is no, hence why no moves.
There is no question about "his future", however much Tories here would love there to be.
There aren't "Tories here" except HYUFD and he doesn't count because he has no interest in politics in general only in Tory politics and has only the vaguest awareness who SKS is
Yes, one of those wimmin or the one who sounds black but isn't who tweets too much.
That's unfair. He has a big interest in polling for whatever party.
It's just he doesn't get politics, per se.
He seems to have been rather quiet recently, I hope he's OK. Infuriating though he can be I actually have a sneaking regard for him.
Probably because he gets abused and bulled by a few posters who then enjoy playing the victim when it suits them.
HYUFD is one of the best posters here.
We all know who the absolute best is though.
Opinium along soon. They won’t have labour higher than 38 or Tories lower than 34. 37 to 35 feels about right from this one.
So expect Johnny Owl to post soon as the pubs close. 🤭
Is there Opinium this week? Isn't it every two weeks?
The last one was 2 weeks ago. 🙂
I know when polls are coming, based on the phases of the moon.
What a parasite, he’s just like his younger brother.
The Prince of Wales accepted a suitcase containing €1 million in cash from a controversial Qatari politician, The Sunday Times can reveal.
It was one of three lots of cash, totalling €3 million, which Prince Charles personally received from Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim bin Jaber Al Thani, the former prime minister of Qatar who is nicknamed “HBJ”, between 2011 and 2015.
On one occasion, Al Thani, 62, presented the prince with €1 million, which was reportedly stuffed into carrier bags from Fortnum & Mason, the luxury department store that has a royal charter to provide the prince’s groceries and tea.
1 - It is a Times scoop - is it true? This week I found on old one about claiming that Arthur Scargill bought his Barbican flat at a discount and made a million selling it on in the Times, which appears to be a simple fabrication. Afaics he never bought it.
And we all know that the Times / Sunday Times stable has come up with some fairy stories in the last 2 years.
2 - Does evidence exist of impropriety? TSE seems to be assuming some element of personal benefit for Prince Charles.
I am not suggesting the allegations are wrong but how much does a suitcase weigh with a million euros inside ?
What a parasite, he’s just like his younger brother.
The Prince of Wales accepted a suitcase containing €1 million in cash from a controversial Qatari politician, The Sunday Times can reveal.
It was one of three lots of cash, totalling €3 million, which Prince Charles personally received from Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim bin Jaber Al Thani, the former prime minister of Qatar who is nicknamed “HBJ”, between 2011 and 2015.
On one occasion, Al Thani, 62, presented the prince with €1 million, which was reportedly stuffed into carrier bags from Fortnum & Mason, the luxury department store that has a royal charter to provide the prince’s groceries and tea.
1 - It is a Times scoop - is it true? This week I found on old one about claiming that Arthur Scargill bought his Barbican flat at a discount and made a million selling it on in the Times, which appears to be a simple fabrication. Afaics he never bought it.
And we all know that the Times / Sunday Times stable has come up with some fairy stories in the last 2 years.
2 - Does evidence exist of impropriety? TSE seems to be assuming some element of personal benefit for Prince Charles.
I am not suggesting the allegations are wrong but how much does a suitcase weigh with a million euros inside ?
What a parasite, he’s just like his younger brother.
The Prince of Wales accepted a suitcase containing €1 million in cash from a controversial Qatari politician, The Sunday Times can reveal.
It was one of three lots of cash, totalling €3 million, which Prince Charles personally received from Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim bin Jaber Al Thani, the former prime minister of Qatar who is nicknamed “HBJ”, between 2011 and 2015.
On one occasion, Al Thani, 62, presented the prince with €1 million, which was reportedly stuffed into carrier bags from Fortnum & Mason, the luxury department store that has a royal charter to provide the prince’s groceries and tea.
1 - It is a Times scoop - is it true? This week I found on old one about claiming that Arthur Scargill bought his Barbican flat at a discount and made a million selling it on in the Times, which appears to be a simple fabrication. Afaics he never bought it.
And we all know that the Times / Sunday Times stable has come up with some fairy stories in the last 2 years.
2 - Does evidence exist of impropriety? TSE seems to be assuming some element of personal benefit for Prince Charles.
I am not suggesting the allegations are wrong but how much does a suitcase weigh with a million euros inside ?
Am beginning to suspect, that release of SCOTUS invalidation of Row v Wade was deliberately timed (but how? and who?) to give aid & comfort to Boris Johnson & Co, by distracting our British cousins (not exactly heavy lifting) with exciting news from Across the Pond. And away from the Tory by-election bust-up.
Certainly has had that affect on PB. And the rest of UK media?
It's not impossible that the Whips timed the moving of the writs knowing this was the date of SC decision.
What a parasite, he’s just like his younger brother.
The Prince of Wales accepted a suitcase containing €1 million in cash from a controversial Qatari politician, The Sunday Times can reveal.
It was one of three lots of cash, totalling €3 million, which Prince Charles personally received from Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim bin Jaber Al Thani, the former prime minister of Qatar who is nicknamed “HBJ”, between 2011 and 2015.
On one occasion, Al Thani, 62, presented the prince with €1 million, which was reportedly stuffed into carrier bags from Fortnum & Mason, the luxury department store that has a royal charter to provide the prince’s groceries and tea.
1 - It is a Times scoop - is it true? This week I found on old one about claiming that Arthur Scargill bought his Barbican flat at a discount and made a million selling it on in the Times, which appears to be a simple fabrication. Afaics he never bought it.
And we all know that the Times / Sunday Times stable has come up with some fairy stories in the last 2 years.
2 - Does evidence exist of impropriety? TSE seems to be assuming some element of personal benefit for Prince Charles.
I am not suggesting the allegations are wrong but how much does a suitcase weigh with a million euros inside ?
2.2 kg if in €500 notes, according to t'internet. You wouldn't even need a suitcase. A laptop bag would do.
The €500 note has been sardonically referred to a the Drug Dealers Friend for its contribution to massively reducing back injuries from carrying bags of money….
What a parasite, he’s just like his younger brother.
The Prince of Wales accepted a suitcase containing €1 million in cash from a controversial Qatari politician, The Sunday Times can reveal.
It was one of three lots of cash, totalling €3 million, which Prince Charles personally received from Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim bin Jaber Al Thani, the former prime minister of Qatar who is nicknamed “HBJ”, between 2011 and 2015.
On one occasion, Al Thani, 62, presented the prince with €1 million, which was reportedly stuffed into carrier bags from Fortnum & Mason, the luxury department store that has a royal charter to provide the prince’s groceries and tea.
1 - It is a Times scoop - is it true? This week I found on old one about claiming that Arthur Scargill bought his Barbican flat at a discount and made a million selling it on in the Times, which appears to be a simple fabrication. Afaics he never bought it.
And we all know that the Times / Sunday Times stable has come up with some fairy stories in the last 2 years.
2 - Does evidence exist of impropriety? TSE seems to be assuming some element of personal benefit for Prince Charles.
I am not suggesting the allegations are wrong but how much does a suitcase weigh with a million euros inside ?
What a parasite, he’s just like his younger brother.
The Prince of Wales accepted a suitcase containing €1 million in cash from a controversial Qatari politician, The Sunday Times can reveal.
It was one of three lots of cash, totalling €3 million, which Prince Charles personally received from Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim bin Jaber Al Thani, the former prime minister of Qatar who is nicknamed “HBJ”, between 2011 and 2015.
On one occasion, Al Thani, 62, presented the prince with €1 million, which was reportedly stuffed into carrier bags from Fortnum & Mason, the luxury department store that has a royal charter to provide the prince’s groceries and tea.
What a parasite, he’s just like his younger brother.
The Prince of Wales accepted a suitcase containing €1 million in cash from a controversial Qatari politician, The Sunday Times can reveal.
It was one of three lots of cash, totalling €3 million, which Prince Charles personally received from Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim bin Jaber Al Thani, the former prime minister of Qatar who is nicknamed “HBJ”, between 2011 and 2015.
On one occasion, Al Thani, 62, presented the prince with €1 million, which was reportedly stuffed into carrier bags from Fortnum & Mason, the luxury department store that has a royal charter to provide the prince’s groceries and tea.
1 - It is a Times scoop - is it true? This week I found on old one about claiming that Arthur Scargill bought his Barbican flat at a discount and made a million selling it on in the Times, which appears to be a simple fabrication. Afaics he never bought it.
And we all know that the Times / Sunday Times stable has come up with some fairy stories in the last 2 years.
2 - Does evidence exist of impropriety? TSE seems to be assuming some element of personal benefit for Prince Charles.
I am not suggesting the allegations are wrong but how much does a suitcase weigh with a million euros inside ?
The Living Marxism mob seems to have gone lock, stock and barrel over to British reactionary nationalism; at the very least it’s psychologically interesting.
So revolutionary communists, what first attracted you to flag waving, grifting populist conservatives and their culture wars?
Absolutely. Such issues (I am pro abortion) are for voters and legislators. As they are in the UK. All the SC has done is give USA voters the same rights we enjoy. They have neither banned nor compelled anything at all.
What inherent right can enshrine the pro abortion principle so that it is beyond the reach of the voters? The debate itself, however dire, shows that the issues are not easy or obvious.
This whole issue is bedeviled by all the people on all sides who think only one answer is possible or rational.
Mr Smithson is right: this issue will stir voters to do their job. Good. Perhaps they will demolish Trumpism at the same time too.
The question is, why did Obama and co not legislate for this - and why is Biden not either?
Obama had a Freedom of Choice Bill and he said in 2007 that it would be the first thing he would do as President. Once elected of course he said that it was "not my highest legislative priority".
No, of course it wasn't. You did just enough to get what you wanted from women and then ignored them. There's a word for men who do that. And women are utterly sick of this. We see some of this attitude on here - women's issues are seen as a tiresome addendum not central to what governments should be about. Well we bloody well should be.
Also if Utah wants women to limit their intake of those pesky little sperm well there's an easy answer: reversible vasectomies for all boys at puberty, only to be reversed when they have grown up and are ready to settle down and start a family with a named woman.
What an interference with men's bodies, you say. Yes, well, tough.
NADINE DORRIES: Ban transgender athletes from competing against women, exclusive interview with The Mail on Sunday @NadineDorries mailplus.co.uk/edition/news/p… via @mailplus
Oh goody, more of this.
This is already starting to happen in sport.
You just wonder why the Government would want to make this a big deal, is it because they have nothing to say on anything of actual interest?
Because sportswomen are - rightly - making one hell of a stink about having women's sport ruined by the inclusion of men.
This matters to women - who happen to be a majority - and it's about time our interests and rights and demands were taken a hell of a lot more seriously than they are.
So tough. Governments get involved in the sale of privately owned football clubs. So they can bloody well get involved in making sure that sport is conducted fairly.
Is it wrong to laugh at the far-left Democrats in the States, who are vociferously objecting to the Supreme Court decision, while taking about ‘pregnant people’ because they can’t use the “W-word”?
Not wrong at all. I have been doing a lot of it myself elsewhere. If they can't bloody well use the word "woman" then they're going to have a hard time trying to defend or advance their rights.
Oh indeed. How are you supposed to talk about women’s rights, without talking about women.
There’s an American comedian, Bridget Phetasy, who picks up on all these silly omissions of the “W-word” in an amusing way. https://youtube.com/watch?v=WtfUWS9lBnU
Comedian? Then should be at least somewhat humorous. (Something I demand also of leftwinger who purport to be comics.)
Your example is a rightwing polemnicist. And about as funny as a rubber crutch.
But to each his (or her or their or its) own.
Except that she isn’t. She’s a Californian Democrat, totally in favour of redistribution of wealth - but like many driven completely mad by the woke bollocks of the modern left, who talk about ‘birthing people’ #WOMEN.
"California Democrat" who hangs with Federalist Society and is associate editor of The Spectator
Absolutely. Such issues (I am pro abortion) are for voters and legislators. As they are in the UK. All the SC has done is give USA voters the same rights we enjoy. They have neither banned nor compelled anything at all.
What inherent right can enshrine the pro abortion principle so that it is beyond the reach of the voters? The debate itself, however dire, shows that the issues are not easy or obvious.
This whole issue is bedeviled by all the people on all sides who think only one answer is possible or rational.
Mr Smithson is right: this issue will stir voters to do their job. Good. Perhaps they will demolish Trumpism at the same time too.
The issue is bedeviled by people finding false complexity in the debate and going down blind allies.
And just in time here is a front page blind alley from a usual suspect:
Well Pro-Life is a bit of a cheek. But whatever. Brass tacks, there's 3 answers to the question, do pregnant women have the right to choose whether to have the baby?
(i) No - once pregnant they become primarily carriers of child. (ii) Yes - with controls and prohibitions. (iii) Yes - an absolute untrammelled right.
Where (ii) is the Roe status quo - balance struck between competing rights - and (i) and (iii) are the extremes, (i) being all child and no woman, (iii) being all woman and no child.
And what's happening in America is an attack by (i) on (ii). The other extreme - (iii) - is not a player. Hence my frustration with people (eg your good self) going on about "complexity" and "both the extremes" and "deep philosophical dilemmas" bla bla.
Very happy to have a chat about trans people in sport when the Government start doing something on CoL or the economy, until then it's just a wedge issue
Very happy to have a chat about trans people in sport when the Government start doing something on CoL or the economy, until then it's just a wedge issue
Horse it doesnt really matter what conditions you impose, it is an issue that exercises some and they are going to discuss it and demand this or that over it. That will have some effect at the margins. Like, for example, if Wes was leader. The vast majority wont care he is gay. A few will, and that might be enough to sway some seats perhaps. Anything that exercises more than a couple percent can influence outcomes. Trans issues are not a majority concern but many more than a couple % are exercised by the issue.
In the end sport will resolve the issue, because they have to. And they will do it themselves because various activists have pre-written ideological boilerplates that will not sufficiently match the needs of the particular context.
And it will continue to evolve.
Imo.
They will, yes, but its an output of the wider questions and issues over trans rights, womens rights etc etc.
Agreed.
But the arena of decision will sports' governing bodies, rather than declarations by activists.
And if the decisions of the sports governing bodies don’t match the desires of activists from *both* sides of this debate, it will end I court.
Since the two sides are irreconcilable, that means legal action is inevitable.
Perhaps sort out the law on this might be an idea? No, what we need is a bunch of judges and a law written in 1789. That would work….
S 195 of the Equality Act is your answer.
A boy, a man, especially after puberty is stronger in every respect than a woman. It is not simply testosterone but the shape, everything. Male and female bodies are different. And there is nothing which can reverse or equalise that physical advantage which a man - whatever he calls or thinks himself to be - has over a woman.
So it is fundamentally unfair to allow a physical male to compete in women's sport. It will destroy women's sport at every level. It is also potentially harmful to women because of the risk of serious injury (eg in rugby).
Physical males are not banned from sport if they cannot compete in women's sport. They can compete against men - who can, for a change, do the whole "inclusivity" shtick with no loss to themselves. Or other transgender sports people, if there are enough.
Of course transactivists may get their way but this will mean the destruction of women's sport - as so many elite sportswomen have said. That may be what society wants - as it has done so often before - putting men's needs and desires ahead of women. So be it. But let's not pretend that this about "fairness", "inclusivity" or "rights" bullshit.
"Glastonbury: more middle-class than a Waitrose olive counter"
I caught up with the wolf Alice, Sam fender sets this afternoon, both very good. And the Billie Eilish, who was a touch Disney time with bad language. 😒
Watched and enjoyed Crowded House, which has a lot of memories for me. Billy Eilish I dont know the music and I don’t get her, so I turned off...
Sometimes an album can be quite atmospheric, but the songs don’t work same live. She’s like someone from Disney time, so jolly and cheesy.
Primal Scream opened with swastika from xtrmtr? It sounded so flat, mogodon remix I moved on straight away.
What a parasite, he’s just like his younger brother.
The Prince of Wales accepted a suitcase containing €1 million in cash from a controversial Qatari politician, The Sunday Times can reveal.
It was one of three lots of cash, totalling €3 million, which Prince Charles personally received from Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim bin Jaber Al Thani, the former prime minister of Qatar who is nicknamed “HBJ”, between 2011 and 2015.
On one occasion, Al Thani, 62, presented the prince with €1 million, which was reportedly stuffed into carrier bags from Fortnum & Mason, the luxury department store that has a royal charter to provide the prince’s groceries and tea.
1 - It is a Times scoop - is it true? This week I found on old one about claiming that Arthur Scargill bought his Barbican flat at a discount and made a million selling it on in the Times, which appears to be a simple fabrication. Afaics he never bought it.
And we all know that the Times / Sunday Times stable has come up with some fairy stories in the last 2 years.
2 - Does evidence exist of impropriety? TSE seems to be assuming some element of personal benefit for Prince Charles.
I am not suggesting the allegations are wrong but how much does a suitcase weigh with a million euros inside ?
On a parallel, £20 and £50 notes cease to be used from next September.
I had to look that up. You're referring to the old paper version, not the crappy plastic ones we have now.
The 1970 to 1992 paper notes were the most beautifully designed IMO. Featured Christopher Wren, William Shakespeare, Florence Nightingale, Duke of Wellington and Isaac Newton.
...but the second poster to be banned was @CorrectHorseBattery for use of c-word directed at another poster. Fair do's - hopefully CBH will see the error of his ways soon and apologise.
Just in case I go all CorrectHorse after a few drinks and I’m feeling the love of the first few drinks I would like to thank SeashantyIrish and Sir Norfolk for their responses to a post I made earlier.
The knowledge, insight and experience on here is really bloody good and I wish I could impart the expertise I have but it’s completely useless re politics and frankly outside of a very few people.
Posters outside the UK get the odd knock but the fact that we have a place where we get input from all over the world, different backgrounds, different political views and different meds and vices makes this a very special place. We even get a regular travel supplement - take that guardian.
Just wanted to get this out there in case I decide to post that we should exterminate Russian leaders’ offspring or use the most wonderful C word.
Am beginning to suspect, that release of SCOTUS invalidation of Row v Wade was deliberately timed (but how? and who?) to give aid & comfort to Boris Johnson & Co, by distracting our British cousins (not exactly heavy lifting) with exciting news from Across the Pond. And away from the Tory by-election bust-up.
Certainly has had that affect on PB. And the rest of UK media?
It's not impossible that the Whips timed the moving of the writs knowing this was the date of SC decision.
That actually makes WAY more sense, as it WAS known IIRC that SCOTUS was scheduled to release a bunch of decisions, including this one.
In which case, pretty savvy of Team Big Dog. Perhaps like timing of the 1922 Committee vote?
On topic, roughly the same proportion of Dems strongly support as Reps strongly oppose. That hardly looks like electoral Armageddon. Sadly.
So real questions are likely > what is the differential in intensity of feeling & motivation on each side? > what do independents think, and are they breaking one way or the other?
Plus > how does this play out on state-by-state, district-by-district basis for Congress, governor, legislature, judges and other races on 2022 ballot?
I would post about the Trans issue, but I have a Trans Step-Son, so will probably end up getting banned, except to say there aren't a group of Male Sports Athletes thinking "Oh I know, I'll pretend to be a Woman so I can get lots of medals!"
"Glastonbury: more middle-class than a Waitrose olive counter"
I caught up with the wolf Alice, Sam fender sets this afternoon, both very good. And the Billie Eilish, who was a touch Disney time with bad language. 😒
Watched and enjoyed Crowded House, which has a lot of memories for me. Billy Eilish I dont know the music and I don’t get her, so I turned off...
Sometimes an album can be quite atmospheric, but the songs don’t work same live. She’s like someone from Disney time, so jolly and cheesy.
Primal Scream opened with swastika from xtrmtr? It sounded so flat, mogodon remix I moved on straight away.
The avalanches live soon, they could be fun.
Ooooooh Frankie Sinatra
I found it interesting that my daughter dropped Billy Eilish (to the point of reselling concert tickets), on the grounds that she had realised her music didn’t have depth.
On topic, roughly the same proportion of Dems strongly support as Reps strongly oppose. That hardly looks like electoral Armageddon. Sadly.
So real questions are likely > what is the differential in intensity of feeling & motivation on each side? > what do independents think, and are they breaking one way or the other?
Plus > how does this play out on state-by-state, district-by-district basis for Congress, governor, legislature, judges and other races on 2022 ballot?
Also the extent to which voters feel that their votes are likely to change anything. Particularly considering the Dems had plenty of chance to codify the 1970s ruling into law under several presidencies when they controlled the legislature.
...but the second poster to be banned was @CorrectHorseBattery for use of c-word directed at another poster. Fair do's - hopefully CBH will see the error of his ways soon and apologise.
CHB has his faults and has just paid penalty for one. He's also got his own issues about which he's been candid. His bark is definitely worse than his bite, and his contributions are always worth considering (if not always treasuring).
So looking forward to seeing him restored very soon to full communion in & with this parish.
To get banned, will I have to say ????? is a **** and that they should ***** off a **** with a ***** inserted ***** ***** *** *** ***** before ***** with Jude Law and ****-***** Coldplay ****** into ****** for all eternity?
Am beginning to suspect, that release of SCOTUS invalidation of Row v Wade was deliberately timed (but how? and who?) to give aid & comfort to Boris Johnson & Co, by distracting our British cousins (not exactly heavy lifting) with exciting news from Across the Pond. And away from the Tory by-election bust-up.
Certainly has had that affect on PB. And the rest of UK media?
It's not impossible that the Whips timed the moving of the writs knowing this was the date of SC decision.
That actually makes WAY more sense, as it WAS known IIRC that SCOTUS was scheduled to release a bunch of decisions, including this one.
In which case, pretty savvy of Team Big Dog. Perhaps like timing of the 1922 Committee vote?
I think this is complete bollocks. You expect them to be that knowledgeable, that Marchiavellian, that competent? Which Conservative Party have you been watching lately? Also, by most accounts, they didn’t expect to lose Tiverton.
I would post about the Trans issue, but I have a Trans Step-Son, so will probably end up getting banned, except to say there aren't a group of Male Sports Athletes thinking "Oh I know, I'll pretend to be a Woman so I can get lots of medals!"
But there are, look at East Germany back in the day. I don't see what conclusions you think you're drawing from a sample of one with unspecified if any sporting interests
Very happy to have a chat about trans people in sport when the Government start doing something on CoL or the economy, until then it's just a wedge issue
Very happy to have a chat about trans people in sport when the Government start doing something on CoL or the economy, until then it's just a wedge issue
Horse it doesnt really matter what conditions you impose, it is an issue that exercises some and they are going to discuss it and demand this or that over it. That will have some effect at the margins. Like, for example, if Wes was leader. The vast majority wont care he is gay. A few will, and that might be enough to sway some seats perhaps. Anything that exercises more than a couple percent can influence outcomes. Trans issues are not a majority concern but many more than a couple % are exercised by the issue.
In the end sport will resolve the issue, because they have to. And they will do it themselves because various activists have pre-written ideological boilerplates that will not sufficiently match the needs of the particular context.
And it will continue to evolve.
Imo.
They will, yes, but its an output of the wider questions and issues over trans rights, womens rights etc etc.
Agreed.
But the arena of decision will sports' governing bodies, rather than declarations by activists.
And if the decisions of the sports governing bodies don’t match the desires of activists from *both* sides of this debate, it will end I court.
Since the two sides are irreconcilable, that means legal action is inevitable.
Perhaps sort out the law on this might be an idea? No, what we need is a bunch of judges and a law written in 1789. That would work….
S 195 of the Equality Act is your answer.
A boy, a man, especially after puberty is stronger in every respect than a woman. It is not simply testosterone but the shape, everything. Male and female bodies are different. And there is nothing which can reverse or equalise that physical advantage which a man - whatever he calls or thinks himself to be - has over a woman.
So it is fundamentally unfair to allow a physical male to compete in women's sport. It will destroy women's sport at every level. It is also potentially harmful to women because of the risk of serious injury (eg in rugby).
Physical males are not banned from sport if they cannot compete in women's sport. They can compete against men - who can, for a change, do the whole "inclusivity" shtick with no loss to themselves. Or other transgender sports people, if there are enough.
Of course transactivists may get their way but this will mean the destruction of women's sport - as so many elite sportswomen have said. That may be what society wants - as it has done so often before - putting men's needs and desires ahead of women. So be it. But let's not pretend that this about "fairness", "inclusivity" or "rights" bullshit.
I agree with much of that.
I also believe the legitimate interest of government in this matter is a combination of guidance and legislation, rather than just waiting until private parties get sued through the courts.
I would post about the Trans issue, but I have a Trans Step-Son, so will probably end up getting banned, except to say there aren't a group of Male Sports Athletes thinking "Oh I know, I'll pretend to be a Woman so I can get lots of medals!"
Well that’s good news then, as they won’t mind being banned from female competitions.
"Glastonbury: more middle-class than a Waitrose olive counter"
I caught up with the wolf Alice, Sam fender sets this afternoon, both very good. And the Billie Eilish, who was a touch Disney time with bad language. 😒
Watched and enjoyed Crowded House, which has a lot of memories for me. Billy Eilish I dont know the music and I don’t get her, so I turned off...
Sometimes an album can be quite atmospheric, but the songs don’t work same live. She’s like someone from Disney time, so jolly and cheesy.
Primal Scream opened with swastika from xtrmtr? It sounded so flat, mogodon remix I moved on straight away.
The avalanches live soon, they could be fun.
Ooooooh Frankie Sinatra
Weirdly just listening to the Primal Scream set and whilst I loved a lot of their music in my teens I get really pissed off with bands that are crap live.
When you rewatch the Cure’s set from a couple of years ago where they are so ridiculously tight - almost recording studio quality, or an REM concert and then you have bands who just get away with it because people recognise their songs and are “merry” it highlights the real quality.
And I don’t get the Billie Eyelash thing - nice background music in a cafe when you are an angst student. Oh god I’m old!
To get banned, will I have to say ????? is a **** and that they should ***** off a **** with a ***** inserted ***** ***** *** *** ***** before ***** with Jude Law and ****-***** Coldplay ****** into ****** for all eternity?
I got a ban for discussing an issue with @SeanT and promised never to discuss it with him again. Fortunately he never comes to this forum anymore, so no risk of a repetition 🙂
Absolutely. Such issues (I am pro abortion) are for voters and legislators. As they are in the UK. All the SC has done is give USA voters the same rights we enjoy. They have neither banned nor compelled anything at all.
What inherent right can enshrine the pro abortion principle so that it is beyond the reach of the voters? The debate itself, however dire, shows that the issues are not easy or obvious.
This whole issue is bedeviled by all the people on all sides who think only one answer is possible or rational.
Mr Smithson is right: this issue will stir voters to do their job. Good. Perhaps they will demolish Trumpism at the same time too.
The question is, why did Obama and co not legislate for this - and why is Biden not either?
Didn't have the votes to do so then. And still don't have them today.
Didn't the Democrats have 60 votes in the Senate in 2009, as well as control of the House and presidency?
I would post about the Trans issue, but I have a Trans Step-Son, so will probably end up getting banned, except to say there aren't a group of Male Sports Athletes thinking "Oh I know, I'll pretend to be a Woman so I can get lots of medals!"
But there are, look at East Germany back in the day. I don't see what conclusions you think you're drawing from a sample of one with unspecified if any sporting interests
I don’t think there is a state sponsored effort to get Trans athletes into competition for the glory of Team GB, as there was in the DDR. It raises profound ethical questions and it is the one area of Trans rights I tend to the the reactionary side, but it is not a very common issue.
To get banned, will I have to say ????? is a **** and that they should ***** off a **** with a ***** inserted ***** ***** *** *** ***** before ***** with Jude Law and ****-***** Coldplay ****** into ****** for all eternity?
On topic, roughly the same proportion of Dems strongly support as Reps strongly oppose. That hardly looks like electoral Armageddon. Sadly.
So real questions are likely > what is the differential in intensity of feeling & motivation on each side? > what do independents think, and are they breaking one way or the other?
Plus > how does this play out on state-by-state, district-by-district basis for Congress, governor, legislature, judges and other races on 2022 ballot?
Particularly around independents, a more insightful question would be where abortion rights sit in the level of priorities.
There are risks for both parties around the issue. For the GOP, it risks taking away some of the traction they've had in the suburbs off the back of the CRT / trans issues in schools. For the Democrats, the risk would be is it further accelerates the shift of socially conservative Hispanics to the GOP and / or causes friction with parts of the religious Black vote.
I would post about the Trans issue, but I have a Trans Step-Son, so will probably end up getting banned, except to say there aren't a group of Male Sports Athletes thinking "Oh I know, I'll pretend to be a Woman so I can get lots of medals!"
Yes, the motivation is purely about feeling more comfortable in ones own skin. The whole winning thing is pure coincidence.
To get banned, will I have to say ????? is a **** and that they should ***** off a **** with a ***** inserted ***** ***** *** *** ***** before ***** with Jude Law and ****-***** Coldplay ****** into ****** for all eternity?
Not Coldplay, you numpty. Radiohead!
Er - that's if you want a ban.
I'm not dissing Radiohead, honest...
Surely an instant ban for having the temerity to confuse the two - one is a band made up of middle class private school miseries and the other is
Comments
Since the two sides are irreconcilable, that means legal action is inevitable.
Perhaps sort out the law on this might be an idea? No, what we need is a bunch of judges and a law written in 1789. That would work….
Fair language and good manners are not the same thing.
But as I say, that's not necessarily the way he comes across in real life although we did sometimes tease him in Aber by getting him stuck on dogmatic points.
Edit - obviously on current polling shes safe as houses
"A million euros in 500-euro notes weighs just 2.2 kilogrammes"
https://www.thelocal.de/20190127/mixed-emotions-in-germany-as-500-euro-note-bows-out/
Opinium along soon. They won’t have labour higher than 38 or Tories lower than 34. 37 to 35 feels about right from this one.
So expect Johnny Owl to post soon as the pubs close. 🤭
Does this site have moderators any more, or is it now just a gutter?
So it's quite possible that they are now worth a little more than 500 Euro each.
Actually, had a bit of fondness there, as the Mickster was definitely an above-average bot.
Wasn't surprised his plug got pulled AFTER he made grossly unwarranted aspersions against Foxy's character - that pissed me off.
Though reckon it perturbed the good Doc not one whit - or no more than one!
Rightly so. There are limits.
But it seems a bit unfair to keep arguing with a banned poster. If you're reading this, we'll resume when you've apologised and been unbanned.
Can I reiterate my advice to you from a couple of months back - if you don't like Big G, ignore him. It's only you will get into trouble otherwise.
Certainly has had that affect on PB. And the rest of UK media?
I know when polls are coming, based on the phases of the moon.
I might tweak my prediction on second thoughts.
Labour no higher than 37 so 36 or 37 v 34 or 33.
https://youtu.be/1FVOFzvdpiw
Maybe the equivalent of walking into a pub as a punch is thrown.
The only one of the night?
Maybe it is the humid weather getting to everyone.
Life comes fast on PB.
So revolutionary communists, what first attracted you to flag waving, grifting populist conservatives and their culture wars?
https://twitter.com/bellacaledonia/status/1540708965620690945?s=21&t=vbojmWGZAc_YvHFmP6_8dg
(i) No - once pregnant they become primarily carriers of child.
(ii) Yes - with controls and prohibitions.
(iii) Yes - an absolute untrammelled right.
Where (ii) is the Roe status quo - balance struck between competing rights - and (i) and (iii) are the extremes, (i) being all child and no woman, (iii) being all woman and no child.
And what's happening in America is an attack by (i) on (ii). The other extreme - (iii) - is not a player. Hence my frustration with people (eg your good self) going on about "complexity" and "both the extremes" and "deep philosophical dilemmas" bla bla.
Shape up.
A boy, a man, especially after puberty is stronger in every respect than a woman. It is not simply testosterone but the shape, everything. Male and female bodies are different. And there is nothing which can reverse or equalise that physical advantage which a man - whatever he calls or thinks himself to be - has over a woman.
So it is fundamentally unfair to allow a physical male to compete in women's sport. It will destroy women's sport at every level. It is also potentially harmful to women because of the risk of serious injury (eg in rugby).
Physical males are not banned from sport if they cannot compete in women's sport. They can compete against men - who can, for a change, do the whole "inclusivity" shtick with no loss to themselves. Or other transgender sports people, if there are enough.
Of course transactivists may get their way but this will mean the destruction of women's sport - as so many elite sportswomen have said. That may be what society wants - as it has done so often before - putting men's needs and desires ahead of women. So be it. But let's not pretend that this about "fairness", "inclusivity" or "rights" bullshit.
Primal Scream opened with swastika from xtrmtr? It sounded so flat, mogodon remix I moved on straight away.
The avalanches live soon, they could be fun.
Ooooooh Frankie Sinatra
Hmmm....
Maybe skip PB tonight
[Closes door]
https://www.leftovercurrency.com/exchange/british-pounds/withdrawn-bank-of-england-banknotes/bank-of-england-20-pounds-sterling-banknote-william-shakespeare/
https://www.leftovercurrency.com/exchange/british-pounds/withdrawn-bank-of-england-banknotes/bank-of-england-50-pounds-sterling-banknote-sir-christopher-wren/
https://www.leftovercurrency.com/exchange/british-pounds/withdrawn-bank-of-england-banknotes/bank-of-england-10-pounds-sterling-banknote-florence-nightingale/
https://www.leftovercurrency.com/exchange/british-pounds/withdrawn-bank-of-england-banknotes/bank-of-england-5-pounds-sterling-banknote-duke-of-wellington/
https://www.leftovercurrency.com/exchange/british-pounds/withdrawn-bank-of-england-banknotes/bank-of-england-1-pound-sterling-banknote-sir-isaac-newton/
Lorde is the penultimate act tomorrow night, and she is far superior.
It upsets OGH.
Gets you in the sin bin for 48 hours.
...but the second poster to be banned was @CorrectHorseBattery for use of c-word directed at another poster. Fair do's - hopefully CBH will see the error of his ways soon and apologise.
The knowledge, insight and experience on here is really bloody good and I wish I could impart the expertise I have but it’s completely useless re politics and frankly outside of a very few people.
Posters outside the UK get the odd knock but the fact that we have a place where we get input from all over the world, different backgrounds, different political views and different meds and vices makes this a very special place. We even get a regular travel supplement - take that guardian.
Just wanted to get this out there in case I decide to post that we should exterminate Russian leaders’ offspring or use the most wonderful C word.
In which case, pretty savvy of Team Big Dog. Perhaps like timing of the 1922 Committee vote?
A Vanilla Mystery.
Which would be a good name for a band/album come to think of it.
> what is the differential in intensity of feeling & motivation on each side?
> what do independents think, and are they breaking one way or the other?
Plus
> how does this play out on state-by-state, district-by-district basis for Congress, governor, legislature, judges and other races on 2022 ballot?
"Tory blah blah."
So looking forward to seeing him restored very soon to full communion in & with this parish.
An interesting bit of financial news from Canada. Let's see others do the same:
https://twitter.com/Denys_Shmyhal/status/1540451233961476098?t=ECXx2GBV4zs7DA_srgFU4Q&s=19
To get banned, will I have to say ????? is a **** and that they should ***** off a **** with a ***** inserted ***** ***** *** *** ***** before ***** with Jude Law and ****-***** Coldplay ****** into ****** for all eternity?
I also believe the legitimate interest of government in this matter is a combination of guidance and legislation, rather than just waiting until private parties get sued through the courts.
When you rewatch the Cure’s set from a couple of years ago where they are so ridiculously tight - almost recording studio quality, or an REM concert and then you have bands who just get away with it because people recognise their songs and are “merry” it highlights the real quality.
And I don’t get the Billie Eyelash thing - nice background music in a cafe when you are an angst student. Oh god I’m old!
Er - that's if you want a ban.
I'm not dissing Radiohead, honest...
There are risks for both parties around the issue. For the GOP, it risks taking away some of the traction they've had in the suburbs off the back of the CRT / trans issues in schools. For the Democrats, the risk would be is it further accelerates the shift of socially conservative Hispanics to the GOP and / or causes friction with parts of the religious Black vote.