Howdy, Stranger!

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

Punters give her a 41% chance of being PM after next election – politicalbetting.com

1235714

Comments

  • LeonLeon Posts: 33,598
    HYUFD said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    ydoethur said:

    dixiedean said:

    Cookie said:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/09/06/teacher-jailed-row-use-pronouns-transgender-pupil/

    A teacher in Ireland has been jailed for refusing to use the pronoun 'they' to refer to a pupil who identified as neither male nor female.

    Fair enough. Teachers should treat their pupils with respect and vice-versa.

    EDIT: Misread it, jailed!? Fired is what I misread it as, fired is appropriate, jailed is not.

    EDIT2: No, he was jailed for contempt of court, not for pronoun use. Contempt of court is of course jailable, should have read article first.
    He was fired.
    He was jailed for ignoring a banning order not to go near the school.
    I cannot, for the life of me, understand why he would breach such an order. There always seemed to me to be something vaguely sad and disturbing about ex-colleagues who tried to hang round the place.

    And of course, it's landed him in prison anyway, which makes it a doubly stupid idea.
    Its disturbing in any workplace.

    Its doubly disturbing surely in schools to have unauthorised adults hanging around the place.
    I think he was after martyrdom.

    Enoch Burke is a great name.

    Anglican, not surprisingly.
    He will be a hero to the anti Woke right though, Leon will have a poster of him on his wall soon enough
    Actually no. From my reading the guy appears to be a religiose twerp
  • CookieCookie Posts: 9,095

    Cookie said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Cookie said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Prime minister Liz Truss in her first speech outside No.10:

    “Now is the time to tackle the issues that are holding Britain back.”

    https://twitter.com/SophiaSleigh/status/1567183127134584838


    Brexit...

    Really? Still? To you, Brexit is still Britain's #1 issue?
    She didn't say #1, she said holding Britain back.

    Absofuckinglutely, Brexit is holding Britain back.
    Well I don't agree, obviously. My view is that the negatives of Brexit over trade with the EU are outweighed by the positives - largely being disentangled from what appears to be a gradually unraveĺling shambles on the continent. But whatever. The impact either way is quite a long way down the list on what's holding Britain back, surely? Compared to energy costs, low productivity, safetyism, an inefficient state, an acute lack of housing, infrastructure issues... Brexit seems a long way down the list of concerns.
    Yes, quite so.
    It's not Brexit holding Britain back. It's 12 years of hopeless Tory governments. At least Truss recognises this.....
    Indeed. A failure to tackle the issues.
    I'd also add woke to the lost of issues that 12 years of Tory government hasn't solved.
  • biggles said:

    kle4 said:

    nico679 said:

    Looks like the UK will soon be withdrawing from the ECHR if the odious Braverman has her way . Patel replaced by an equally nasty individual .

    It is surely the principal reason for her appointment. Stop the boats, get out of the ECHR, job done - it'll give endless chances for them to claim Labour want to give succour to criminals.
    I find the best question to ask anyone who says they want to withdraw is which particular bit they dislike. They generally can’t point to anything as the whole document is basic good sense.
    The document is good sense.

    The courts interpretation of it is not necessary.

    We should go back to what it was in Churchill's day, where we endorse the document but not the court.
  • DavidL said:

    Looks like Rishi and all his cabinet supporters are out. Stupid really. Firstly, talent is thin enough on the ground. Secondly, it creates a natural base for rebellions, grumbling etc. Thirdly, this really should be all hands on deck.

    I'll say it again, she'll be ousted by conference 2023.
    It doesn't matter how many times you assert it, it just won't happen. The Tories have rolled the dice on changing leader, she won decisively, and a further change before 2024 would just add to the impression of panic and chaos. Even if she's a poor PM - and I suspect that's pretty likely - she'll fight the next election.

    Tell you what, I'll give you 10-1 against (with bet void if she goes for an early election before then and loses - clearly, if she loses an election she's gone).
  • PM Truss is just a superb leader, already the best PM ever!
  • bigglesbiggles Posts: 3,201

    HYUFD said:

    Labour lead by 17% in the Red Wall.

    Red Wall Voting Intention (4 September):

    Labour 48% (+1)
    Conservative 31% (-3)
    Liberal Democrat 7% (-1)
    Reform UK 7% (+2)
    Green 5% (+2)
    Plaid Cymru 1% (-1)
    Other 1% (–)

    Changes +/- 21 August

    Reform very high in the red wall.
    Reform level with the LDs in the redwall now, in a Starmer v Truss snoozeville election, Nige may well fancy his chances to bring some populist charisma back into the contest. He could return as leader for the umpteenth time of UKIP/RefUK
    I'm amazed that 7% of voters even know what Reform is. Are they campaigning in the Red Wall? Do they have constituency associations? Public meetings? Down here I've not heard them mentioned - ever.
    I’ve wondered this, and whether such polling prompts using Farage’s name.

  • Truss's speech - comparatively well delivered. Content all as expected.

    Unsurprisingly to people who know my views, I disagree completely with her statements saying we need to ensure security abroad to get security at home. The idea of intervening 'at source' to sort out every issue that could possibly affect us (as opposed to having very good borders and defences) is grotesquely illogical as a theoretical concept, even without recent examples of blowback following ill-judged foreign interventions. However, it wasn't unexpected, and outside No. 10 two minutes into the job isn't really an appropriate juncture to signal a change in foreign policy direction even if one were possible.

    I am delighted that we are going all out for growth, and that domestic energy production seems to be a focus. Bring it on.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 110,113
    edited September 2022
    Leon said:

    HYUFD said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    ydoethur said:

    dixiedean said:

    Cookie said:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/09/06/teacher-jailed-row-use-pronouns-transgender-pupil/

    A teacher in Ireland has been jailed for refusing to use the pronoun 'they' to refer to a pupil who identified as neither male nor female.

    Fair enough. Teachers should treat their pupils with respect and vice-versa.

    EDIT: Misread it, jailed!? Fired is what I misread it as, fired is appropriate, jailed is not.

    EDIT2: No, he was jailed for contempt of court, not for pronoun use. Contempt of court is of course jailable, should have read article first.
    He was fired.
    He was jailed for ignoring a banning order not to go near the school.
    I cannot, for the life of me, understand why he would breach such an order. There always seemed to me to be something vaguely sad and disturbing about ex-colleagues who tried to hang round the place.

    And of course, it's landed him in prison anyway, which makes it a doubly stupid idea.
    Its disturbing in any workplace.

    Its doubly disturbing surely in schools to have unauthorised adults hanging around the place.
    I think he was after martyrdom.

    Enoch Burke is a great name.

    Anglican, not surprisingly.
    He will be a hero to the anti Woke right though, Leon will have a poster of him on his wall soon enough
    Actually no. From my reading the guy appears to be a religiose twerp
    If you don't object to being required to refer to someone as 'they' in a classroom and jailed for doing so, then you are not really anti Woke at all. I am afraid Leon you are just another elitist London metropolitan liberal after all.

    The Mail comments on this are appalled. I am not too bothered with referring to someone as 'they' if they wish but I certainly would not jail someone who refused to, especially if they took a traditional and religious view of sexuality

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11184043/Teacher-refused-use-students-gender-neutral-pronouns-JAILED-Ireland.html#comments
  • LeonLeon Posts: 33,598
    The idea that Truss has madly forsaken some huge reserve of Thatcherian talent in ignoring Grant Shapps and Rishi Sunak is piquant

    Sunak is the guy who said “I don’t have any working class friends” and thought it was fine for his billionaire wife to avoid UK tax; Grant Shapps is Grant Shapps, but in a wig
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 59,635
    edited September 2022

    ydoethur said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    ydoethur said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    ydoethur said:

    Cookie said:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/09/06/teacher-jailed-row-use-pronouns-transgender-pupil/

    A teacher in Ireland has been jailed for refusing to use the pronoun 'they' to refer to a pupil who identified as neither male nor female.

    Whatever the rights and wrongs of the gender identity debate, 'they' is a plural noun and totally unsuitable for referring to a person.

    Couldn't we come up with some vaguely acceptable compromise? E.g. 'shehe?' Or perhaps, to make it sound classier, borrow from Welsh and create 'fehi?'
    No it isn't. been in constant use as a singular since at the latest 1375.
    Really? Where? All documents I have seen from that period use 'he' as a shorthand for a single person of unknown gender.
    https://public.oed.com/blog/a-brief-history-of-singular-they/

    Singular they has become the pronoun of choice to replace he and she in cases where the gender of the antecedent – the word the pronoun refers to – is unknown, irrelevant, or nonbinary, or where gender needs to be concealed. It’s the word we use for sentences like Everyone loves his mother.

    But that’s nothing new. The Oxford English Dictionary traces singular they back to 1375, where it appears in the medieval romance William and the Werewolf. Except for the old-style language of that poem, its use of singular they to refer to an unnamed person seems very modern. Here’s the Middle English version: ‘Hastely hiȝed eche . . . þei neyȝþed so neiȝh . . . þere william & his worþi lef were liand i-fere.’ In modern English, that’s: ‘Each man hurried . . . till they drew near . . . where William and his darling were lying together.’
    But that sentence isn't a singular. If it says 'each man' that means there's more than one.

    And your own link notes the Chicago Manual of Style doesn't agree.
    Each man is singular by their self surely?

    If singular they is due to trans issues then as a child of the eighties the Rocky Horror Show of the seventies must have really shook up education as we were always taught third person singular they.

    Somebody has left their umbrella in the room.
    I met a friend at the beach, they had an ice cream and I had candy floss.
    Well, the correct way as I was taught would be 'somebody has left an umbrella in the room' and to use the gender pronoun for your friend. More traditional usage for the first could be 'someone has left his umbrella in the room,' but that causes all sorts of other issues that frankly aren't any better,

    Not, ultimately, that it is important. It's just vaguely irritating to me in the way that I get annoyed by those muppets in Hollywood who say 'fire' when instructing archers to loose. Also, it muddies the waters around 'they/them' which is after all the only plural pronoun.

    I gather that 'zie' has been proposed as a portmanteau but has never caught on. Besides, it sounds like the German word for 'pull.' Which is not helpful.

    Wouldn't it be great if we could come up with something actually useful and clear?
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 31,578
    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    HYUFD said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    ydoethur said:

    dixiedean said:

    Cookie said:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/09/06/teacher-jailed-row-use-pronouns-transgender-pupil/

    A teacher in Ireland has been jailed for refusing to use the pronoun 'they' to refer to a pupil who identified as neither male nor female.

    Fair enough. Teachers should treat their pupils with respect and vice-versa.

    EDIT: Misread it, jailed!? Fired is what I misread it as, fired is appropriate, jailed is not.

    EDIT2: No, he was jailed for contempt of court, not for pronoun use. Contempt of court is of course jailable, should have read article first.
    He was fired.
    He was jailed for ignoring a banning order not to go near the school.
    I cannot, for the life of me, understand why he would breach such an order. There always seemed to me to be something vaguely sad and disturbing about ex-colleagues who tried to hang round the place.

    And of course, it's landed him in prison anyway, which makes it a doubly stupid idea.
    Its disturbing in any workplace.

    Its doubly disturbing surely in schools to have unauthorised adults hanging around the place.
    I think he was after martyrdom.

    Enoch Burke is a great name.

    Anglican, not surprisingly.
    He will be a hero to the anti Woke right though, Leon will have a poster of him on his wall soon enough
    Actually no. From my reading the guy appears to be a religiose twerp
    If you don't object to being required to refer to someone as 'they' in a classroom and jailed for doing so, then you are not really anti Woke at all.

    The Mail comments on this are appalled. I am not too bothered with referring to someone as 'they' if they wish but I certainly would not jail someone who refused to, especially if they took a traditional and religious view of sexuality

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11184043/Teacher-refused-use-students-gender-neutral-pronouns-JAILED-Ireland.html#comments
    He's not been jailed for mispronoun-cing. Read it properly. Contempt of court.
  • nico679nico679 Posts: 2,970
    Leon said:

    nico679 said:

    kle4 said:

    nico679 said:

    Looks like the UK will soon be withdrawing from the ECHR if the odious Braverman has her way . Patel replaced by an equally nasty individual .

    It is surely the principal reason for her appointment. Stop the boats, get out of the ECHR, job done - it'll give endless chances for them to claim Labour want to give succour to criminals.
    Unfortunately the general public don’t seem to realize how many rights have been secured by the ECHR . I’m hoping there’s enough backbench Tories who would rebel and stop that from happening . It wasn’t in the manifesto , the HOL should not back down if legislation gets there. Can you imagine the optics at this time for the UK to be withdrawing from the ECHR .
    No one gives a fuck, sorry. A load of Bulgarian judges telling ENGLAND what to do. The cheek
    No you don’t give a fuck , stop speaking for everyone . Many important rights have been gained from the ECHR .
  • DavidL said:

    Looks like Rishi and all his cabinet supporters are out. Stupid really. Firstly, talent is thin enough on the ground. Secondly, it creates a natural base for rebellions, grumbling etc. Thirdly, this really should be all hands on deck.

    I'll say it again, she'll be ousted by conference 2023.
    It doesn't matter how many times you assert it, it just won't happen. The Tories have rolled the dice on changing leader, she won decisively, and a further change before 2024 would just add to the impression of panic and chaos. Even if she's a poor PM - and I suspect that's pretty likely - she'll fight the next election.

    Tell you what, I'll give you 10-1 against (with bet void if she goes for an early election before then and loses - clearly, if she loses an election she's gone).
    I'll have £50 please.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 21,844
    edited September 2022
    Leon said:

    The idea that Truss has madly forsaken some huge reserve of Thatcherian talent in ignoring Grant Shapps and Rishi Sunak is piquant

    Sunak is the guy who said “I don’t have any working class friends” and thought it was fine for his billionaire wife to avoid UK tax; Grant Shapps is Grant Shapps, but in a wig

    Shapps is the guy who wants everyone to have bike numberplates even if they're just cycling down a country lane for 5 minutes.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    ydoethur said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    ydoethur said:

    Carnyx said:

    ydoethur said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    ydoethur said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    ydoethur said:

    Cookie said:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/09/06/teacher-jailed-row-use-pronouns-transgender-pupil/

    A teacher in Ireland has been jailed for refusing to use the pronoun 'they' to refer to a pupil who identified as neither male nor female.

    Whatever the rights and wrongs of the gender identity debate, 'they' is a plural noun and totally unsuitable for referring to a person.

    Couldn't we come up with some vaguely acceptable compromise? E.g. 'shehe?' Or perhaps, to make it sound classier, borrow from Welsh and create 'fehi?'
    No it isn't. been in constant use as a singular since at the latest 1375.
    Really? Where? All documents I have seen from that period use 'he' as a shorthand for a single person of unknown gender.
    https://public.oed.com/blog/a-brief-history-of-singular-they/

    Singular they has become the pronoun of choice to replace he and she in cases where the gender of the antecedent – the word the pronoun refers to – is unknown, irrelevant, or nonbinary, or where gender needs to be concealed. It’s the word we use for sentences like Everyone loves his mother.

    But that’s nothing new. The Oxford English Dictionary traces singular they back to 1375, where it appears in the medieval romance William and the Werewolf. Except for the old-style language of that poem, its use of singular they to refer to an unnamed person seems very modern. Here’s the Middle English version: ‘Hastely hiȝed eche . . . þei neyȝþed so neiȝh . . . þere william & his worþi lef were liand i-fere.’ In modern English, that’s: ‘Each man hurried . . . till they drew near . . . where William and his darling were lying together.’
    But that sentence isn't a singular. If it says 'each man' that means there's more than one.

    And your own link notes the Chicago Manual of Style doesn't agree.
    Americanese is not English. Though related, admittedly, in the manner of an elephant and a manatee.
    Tusk, tusk.

    There is a serious point, in that the CMS while focused on American English is actually generally used as a standard grammar guide in a way the OED is for spelling.

    So if they agree with me, regardless of what Ishmael thinks I'm happy I'm right.
    you are saying "each man" is plural?

    Respect. A positively HYUFDian claim.
    No, I'm saying if they refer to 'each man' it means there was more than one of them!

    You wouldn't use the word 'each' instead of 'the' for just one, would you?
    No, but that doesn't prevent it from being singular. Each man had a sword = All the men had swords. That doesn't make "Each man had swords" acceptable.

    "A journalist should not be forced to reveal their sources"; are you seriously saying that is not good English?
  • nico679 said:

    kle4 said:

    nico679 said:

    Looks like the UK will soon be withdrawing from the ECHR if the odious Braverman has her way . Patel replaced by an equally nasty individual .

    It is surely the principal reason for her appointment. Stop the boats, get out of the ECHR, job done - it'll give endless chances for them to claim Labour want to give succour to criminals.
    Unfortunately the general public don’t seem to realize how many rights have been secured by the ECHR . I’m hoping there’s enough backbench Tories who would rebel and stop that from happening . It wasn’t in the manifesto , the HOL should not back down if legislation gets there. Can you imagine the optics at this time for the UK to be withdrawing from the ECHR .
    This is a good argument for leaving. These questions should be decided politically in the UK.
  • HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    Truss being ruthless is a good sign. She’s gonna need steely resolve these coming months

    ALSO she isn’t boring. Not in the Starmer way. The necklace and the dress

    Unless Keir has a secret love dungeon and likes asphyxiaphilia and ageplay - and I rather doubt this - then he is more boring

    What Truss is, is a boring, wooden SPEAKER

    Yes but how the PM and Leader of the Opposition speak is 90% of what the average voter sees of them
    Exactly as per Johnson's ridiculous 'Peppa Pig' speech to the CBI
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 21,844
    Next election:

    Lab maj 4.1
    Con maj 4.1
    No maj 2

    https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/politics/market/1.167249195
  • DavidL said:

    Looks like Rishi and all his cabinet supporters are out. Stupid really. Firstly, talent is thin enough on the ground. Secondly, it creates a natural base for rebellions, grumbling etc. Thirdly, this really should be all hands on deck.

    I'll say it again, she'll be ousted by conference 2023.
    It doesn't matter how many times you assert it, it just won't happen. The Tories have rolled the dice on changing leader, she won decisively, and a further change before 2024 would just add to the impression of panic and chaos. Even if she's a poor PM - and I suspect that's pretty likely - she'll fight the next election.

    Tell you what, I'll give you 10-1 against (with bet void if she goes for an early election before then and loses - clearly, if she loses an election she's gone).
    I'll have £50 please.
    Sure. Can we record that somewhere? £500 to you if she's ousted before Tory conference next year. £50 to me if not. Void if there's an election between now and then that she loses.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 59,635
    IshmaelZ said:

    ydoethur said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    ydoethur said:

    Carnyx said:

    ydoethur said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    ydoethur said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    ydoethur said:

    Cookie said:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/09/06/teacher-jailed-row-use-pronouns-transgender-pupil/

    A teacher in Ireland has been jailed for refusing to use the pronoun 'they' to refer to a pupil who identified as neither male nor female.

    Whatever the rights and wrongs of the gender identity debate, 'they' is a plural noun and totally unsuitable for referring to a person.

    Couldn't we come up with some vaguely acceptable compromise? E.g. 'shehe?' Or perhaps, to make it sound classier, borrow from Welsh and create 'fehi?'
    No it isn't. been in constant use as a singular since at the latest 1375.
    Really? Where? All documents I have seen from that period use 'he' as a shorthand for a single person of unknown gender.
    https://public.oed.com/blog/a-brief-history-of-singular-they/

    Singular they has become the pronoun of choice to replace he and she in cases where the gender of the antecedent – the word the pronoun refers to – is unknown, irrelevant, or nonbinary, or where gender needs to be concealed. It’s the word we use for sentences like Everyone loves his mother.

    But that’s nothing new. The Oxford English Dictionary traces singular they back to 1375, where it appears in the medieval romance William and the Werewolf. Except for the old-style language of that poem, its use of singular they to refer to an unnamed person seems very modern. Here’s the Middle English version: ‘Hastely hiȝed eche . . . þei neyȝþed so neiȝh . . . þere william & his worþi lef were liand i-fere.’ In modern English, that’s: ‘Each man hurried . . . till they drew near . . . where William and his darling were lying together.’
    But that sentence isn't a singular. If it says 'each man' that means there's more than one.

    And your own link notes the Chicago Manual of Style doesn't agree.
    Americanese is not English. Though related, admittedly, in the manner of an elephant and a manatee.
    Tusk, tusk.

    There is a serious point, in that the CMS while focused on American English is actually generally used as a standard grammar guide in a way the OED is for spelling.

    So if they agree with me, regardless of what Ishmael thinks I'm happy I'm right.
    you are saying "each man" is plural?

    Respect. A positively HYUFDian claim.
    No, I'm saying if they refer to 'each man' it means there was more than one of them!

    You wouldn't use the word 'each' instead of 'the' for just one, would you?
    No, but that doesn't prevent it from being singular. Each man had a sword = All the men had swords. That doesn't make "Each man had swords" acceptable.

    "A journalist should not be forced to reveal their sources"; are you seriously saying that is not good English?
    Well, yes. Because apart from anything else it should be a general comment in the plural, so 'journalists should not be forced to reveal their sources.'
  • Rapid back pedalling as boring is now a net positive for Truss!
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 10,686

    HYUFD said:

    Labour lead by 17% in the Red Wall.

    Red Wall Voting Intention (4 September):

    Labour 48% (+1)
    Conservative 31% (-3)
    Liberal Democrat 7% (-1)
    Reform UK 7% (+2)
    Green 5% (+2)
    Plaid Cymru 1% (-1)
    Other 1% (–)

    Changes +/- 21 August

    Reform very high in the red wall.
    Reform level with the LDs in the redwall now, in a Starmer v Truss snoozeville election, Nige may well fancy his chances to bring some populist charisma back into the contest. He could return as leader for the umpteenth time of UKIP/RefUK
    I'm amazed that 7% of voters even know what Reform is. Are they campaigning in the Red Wall? Do they have constituency associations? Public meetings? Down here I've not heard them mentioned - ever.
    These are Brexit heartlands Nick, where they have been voting Brexit party in numbers in all sort of elections for more than a decade, and still do, they equate Reform with Brexit Party still.
  • Just misread BBC website and thought Joe Lycett would be speaking to Liz Truss later.....

    :neutral:
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 31,578
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    ydoethur said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    ydoethur said:

    Cookie said:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/09/06/teacher-jailed-row-use-pronouns-transgender-pupil/

    A teacher in Ireland has been jailed for refusing to use the pronoun 'they' to refer to a pupil who identified as neither male nor female.

    Whatever the rights and wrongs of the gender identity debate, 'they' is a plural noun and totally unsuitable for referring to a person.

    Couldn't we come up with some vaguely acceptable compromise? E.g. 'shehe?' Or perhaps, to make it sound classier, borrow from Welsh and create 'fehi?'
    No it isn't. been in constant use as a singular since at the latest 1375.
    Really? Where? All documents I have seen from that period use 'he' as a shorthand for a single person of unknown gender.
    https://public.oed.com/blog/a-brief-history-of-singular-they/

    Singular they has become the pronoun of choice to replace he and she in cases where the gender of the antecedent – the word the pronoun refers to – is unknown, irrelevant, or nonbinary, or where gender needs to be concealed. It’s the word we use for sentences like Everyone loves his mother.

    But that’s nothing new. The Oxford English Dictionary traces singular they back to 1375, where it appears in the medieval romance William and the Werewolf. Except for the old-style language of that poem, its use of singular they to refer to an unnamed person seems very modern. Here’s the Middle English version: ‘Hastely hiȝed eche . . . þei neyȝþed so neiȝh . . . þere william & his worþi lef were liand i-fere.’ In modern English, that’s: ‘Each man hurried . . . till they drew near . . . where William and his darling were lying together.’
    But that sentence isn't a singular. If it says 'each man' that means there's more than one.

    And your own link notes the Chicago Manual of Style doesn't agree.
    Each man is singular by their self surely?

    If singular they is due to trans issues then as a child of the eighties the Rocky Horror Show of the seventies must have really shook up education as we were always taught third person singular they.

    Somebody has left their umbrella in the room.
    I met a friend at the beach, they had an ice cream and I had candy floss.
    Well, the correct way as I was taught would be 'somebody has left an umbrella in the room' and to use the gender pronoun for your friend. More traditional usage for the first could be 'someone has left his umbrella in the room,' but that causes all sorts of other issues that frankly aren't any better,

    Not, ultimately, that it is important. It's just vaguely irritating to me in the way that I get annoyed by those muppets in Hollywood who say 'fire' when instructing archers to loose. Also, it muddies the waters around 'they/them' which is after all the only plural pronoun.

    I gather that 'zie' has been proposed as a portmanteau but has never caught on. Besides, it sounds like the German word for 'pull.' Which is not helpful.

    Wouldn't it be great if we could come up with something actually useful and clear?
    The singular/plural ambiguity and conflict also blocks the comprehension flow. I was taught to rewrite in that sort of situation, as you suggested; also, say:

    At the beach I met a friend, who had an ice-cream while i had a lolly.
  • DavidL said:

    Looks like Rishi and all his cabinet supporters are out. Stupid really. Firstly, talent is thin enough on the ground. Secondly, it creates a natural base for rebellions, grumbling etc. Thirdly, this really should be all hands on deck.

    I'll say it again, she'll be ousted by conference 2023.
    It doesn't matter how many times you assert it, it just won't happen. The Tories have rolled the dice on changing leader, she won decisively, and a further change before 2024 would just add to the impression of panic and chaos. Even if she's a poor PM - and I suspect that's pretty likely - she'll fight the next election.

    Tell you what, I'll give you 10-1 against (with bet void if she goes for an early election before then and loses - clearly, if she loses an election she's gone).
    I'll have £50 please.
    Sure. Can we record that somewhere? £500 to you if she's ousted before Tory conference next year. £50 to me if not. Void if there's an election between now and then that she loses.
    I'll send you a vanilla message in a few minutes.
  • bigglesbiggles Posts: 3,201

    biggles said:

    kle4 said:

    nico679 said:

    Looks like the UK will soon be withdrawing from the ECHR if the odious Braverman has her way . Patel replaced by an equally nasty individual .

    It is surely the principal reason for her appointment. Stop the boats, get out of the ECHR, job done - it'll give endless chances for them to claim Labour want to give succour to criminals.
    I find the best question to ask anyone who says they want to withdraw is which particular bit they dislike. They generally can’t point to anything as the whole document is basic good sense.
    The document is good sense.

    The courts interpretation of it is not necessary.

    We should go back to what it was in Churchill's day, where we endorse the document but not the court.
    Name a judgement with which you disagree.

  • LeonLeon Posts: 33,598
    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    HYUFD said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    ydoethur said:

    dixiedean said:

    Cookie said:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/09/06/teacher-jailed-row-use-pronouns-transgender-pupil/

    A teacher in Ireland has been jailed for refusing to use the pronoun 'they' to refer to a pupil who identified as neither male nor female.

    Fair enough. Teachers should treat their pupils with respect and vice-versa.

    EDIT: Misread it, jailed!? Fired is what I misread it as, fired is appropriate, jailed is not.

    EDIT2: No, he was jailed for contempt of court, not for pronoun use. Contempt of court is of course jailable, should have read article first.
    He was fired.
    He was jailed for ignoring a banning order not to go near the school.
    I cannot, for the life of me, understand why he would breach such an order. There always seemed to me to be something vaguely sad and disturbing about ex-colleagues who tried to hang round the place.

    And of course, it's landed him in prison anyway, which makes it a doubly stupid idea.
    Its disturbing in any workplace.

    Its doubly disturbing surely in schools to have unauthorised adults hanging around the place.
    I think he was after martyrdom.

    Enoch Burke is a great name.

    Anglican, not surprisingly.
    He will be a hero to the anti Woke right though, Leon will have a poster of him on his wall soon enough
    Actually no. From my reading the guy appears to be a religiose twerp
    If you don't object to being required to refer to someone as 'they' in a classroom and jailed for doing so, then you are not really anti Woke at all. I am afraid Leon you are just another elitist London metropolitan liberal after all.

    The Mail comments on this are appalled. I am not too bothered with referring to someone as 'they' if they wish but I certainly would not jail someone who refused to, especially if they took a traditional and religious view of sexuality

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11184043/Teacher-refused-use-students-gender-neutral-pronouns-JAILED-Ireland.html#comments
    He was jailed for contempt of court


    I despise Wokeness but a teacher should afford his pupils the basic respect of calling them “they” if that is how they see themselves. The respect must go both ways however
  • nico679nico679 Posts: 2,970

    nico679 said:

    kle4 said:

    nico679 said:

    Looks like the UK will soon be withdrawing from the ECHR if the odious Braverman has her way . Patel replaced by an equally nasty individual .

    It is surely the principal reason for her appointment. Stop the boats, get out of the ECHR, job done - it'll give endless chances for them to claim Labour want to give succour to criminals.
    Unfortunately the general public don’t seem to realize how many rights have been secured by the ECHR . I’m hoping there’s enough backbench Tories who would rebel and stop that from happening . It wasn’t in the manifesto , the HOL should not back down if legislation gets there. Can you imagine the optics at this time for the UK to be withdrawing from the ECHR .
    This is a good argument for leaving. These questions should be decided politically in the UK.
    So you trust the Tories to protect your rights ? Good luck with that .
  • nico679 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Suella Braverman was told by Liz Truss that she would be made Home Secretary “absolutely ages ago”, according to a source familiar with discussions. “Suella has been busy getting background briefings, reading think-tank reports - really getting to grips with it,” they said."

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/09/06/liz-truss-cabinet-appointments/

    Getting to grips with it ! Braverman is clueless and will be just as hopeless and nasty as her predecessor.
    But without the corruption. Firing the corrupt people isn't nothing.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 7,721
    biggles said:

    HYUFD said:

    Labour lead by 17% in the Red Wall.

    Red Wall Voting Intention (4 September):

    Labour 48% (+1)
    Conservative 31% (-3)
    Liberal Democrat 7% (-1)
    Reform UK 7% (+2)
    Green 5% (+2)
    Plaid Cymru 1% (-1)
    Other 1% (–)

    Changes +/- 21 August

    Reform very high in the red wall.
    Reform level with the LDs in the redwall now, in a Starmer v Truss snoozeville election, Nige may well fancy his chances to bring some populist charisma back into the contest. He could return as leader for the umpteenth time of UKIP/RefUK
    I'm amazed that 7% of voters even know what Reform is. Are they campaigning in the Red Wall? Do they have constituency associations? Public meetings? Down here I've not heard them mentioned - ever.
    I’ve wondered this, and whether such polling prompts using Farage’s name.

    I share this surprise. I have no idea who Reform are. I can't believe they get any votes in the actual world. Who are they?

  • PM Truss is just a superb leader, already the best PM ever!

    Certainly the best UK PM of 2022. Too early to claim the title of the GOAT though.
  • Leon said:

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    HYUFD said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    ydoethur said:

    dixiedean said:

    Cookie said:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/09/06/teacher-jailed-row-use-pronouns-transgender-pupil/

    A teacher in Ireland has been jailed for refusing to use the pronoun 'they' to refer to a pupil who identified as neither male nor female.

    Fair enough. Teachers should treat their pupils with respect and vice-versa.

    EDIT: Misread it, jailed!? Fired is what I misread it as, fired is appropriate, jailed is not.

    EDIT2: No, he was jailed for contempt of court, not for pronoun use. Contempt of court is of course jailable, should have read article first.
    He was fired.
    He was jailed for ignoring a banning order not to go near the school.
    I cannot, for the life of me, understand why he would breach such an order. There always seemed to me to be something vaguely sad and disturbing about ex-colleagues who tried to hang round the place.

    And of course, it's landed him in prison anyway, which makes it a doubly stupid idea.
    Its disturbing in any workplace.

    Its doubly disturbing surely in schools to have unauthorised adults hanging around the place.
    I think he was after martyrdom.

    Enoch Burke is a great name.

    Anglican, not surprisingly.
    He will be a hero to the anti Woke right though, Leon will have a poster of him on his wall soon enough
    Actually no. From my reading the guy appears to be a religiose twerp
    If you don't object to being required to refer to someone as 'they' in a classroom and jailed for doing so, then you are not really anti Woke at all. I am afraid Leon you are just another elitist London metropolitan liberal after all.

    The Mail comments on this are appalled. I am not too bothered with referring to someone as 'they' if they wish but I certainly would not jail someone who refused to, especially if they took a traditional and religious view of sexuality

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11184043/Teacher-refused-use-students-gender-neutral-pronouns-JAILED-Ireland.html#comments
    He was jailed for contempt of court


    I despise Wokeness but a teacher should afford his pupils the basic respect of calling them “they” if that is how they see themselves. The respect must go both ways however
    Since you never refer to anyone to their face, I don't see how the issue arose.
  • solarflaresolarflare Posts: 3,473

    Leon said:

    Truss being ruthless is a good sign. She’s gonna need steely resolve these coming months

    ALSO she isn’t boring. Not in the Starmer way. The necklace and the dress

    Unless Keir has a secret love dungeon and likes asphyxiaphilia and ageplay - and I rather doubt this - then he is more boring

    What Truss is, is a boring, wooden SPEAKER

    Sir Keir Starmer's functional fornication hour. With subtitles and appopriate graphic content warnings. Tune in next week for Sir Keirs guide to tepid love making in an energy crisis.
    Lights off, obv.
  • Star Sports' The Polling Station
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jG8TzMizs4

    includes the danger for Labour of underestimating Truss.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 110,113
    edited September 2022
    Leon said:

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    HYUFD said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    ydoethur said:

    dixiedean said:

    Cookie said:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/09/06/teacher-jailed-row-use-pronouns-transgender-pupil/

    A teacher in Ireland has been jailed for refusing to use the pronoun 'they' to refer to a pupil who identified as neither male nor female.

    Fair enough. Teachers should treat their pupils with respect and vice-versa.

    EDIT: Misread it, jailed!? Fired is what I misread it as, fired is appropriate, jailed is not.

    EDIT2: No, he was jailed for contempt of court, not for pronoun use. Contempt of court is of course jailable, should have read article first.
    He was fired.
    He was jailed for ignoring a banning order not to go near the school.
    I cannot, for the life of me, understand why he would breach such an order. There always seemed to me to be something vaguely sad and disturbing about ex-colleagues who tried to hang round the place.

    And of course, it's landed him in prison anyway, which makes it a doubly stupid idea.
    Its disturbing in any workplace.

    Its doubly disturbing surely in schools to have unauthorised adults hanging around the place.
    I think he was after martyrdom.

    Enoch Burke is a great name.

    Anglican, not surprisingly.
    He will be a hero to the anti Woke right though, Leon will have a poster of him on his wall soon enough
    Actually no. From my reading the guy appears to be a religiose twerp
    If you don't object to being required to refer to someone as 'they' in a classroom and jailed for doing so, then you are not really anti Woke at all. I am afraid Leon you are just another elitist London metropolitan liberal after all.

    The Mail comments on this are appalled. I am not too bothered with referring to someone as 'they' if they wish but I certainly would not jail someone who refused to, especially if they took a traditional and religious view of sexuality

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11184043/Teacher-refused-use-students-gender-neutral-pronouns-JAILED-Ireland.html#comments
    He was jailed for contempt of court


    I despise Wokeness but a teacher should afford his pupils the basic respect of calling them “they” if that is how they see themselves. The respect must go both ways however
    It won't, the pupils after this ruling will now clearly be able to order their teachers to refer to them by whatever gender or pronoun they wish. Now that may be the correct decision but there is no doubt it is a big victory for the Woke.

    Enoch Burke will however join the likes of Calvin Robinson and Lawrence Fox as another martyr for the anti Woke right on GB news
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 38,710

    DavidL said:

    Looks like Rishi and all his cabinet supporters are out. Stupid really. Firstly, talent is thin enough on the ground. Secondly, it creates a natural base for rebellions, grumbling etc. Thirdly, this really should be all hands on deck.

    I'll say it again, she'll be ousted by conference 2023.
    It doesn't matter how many times you assert it, it just won't happen. The Tories have rolled the dice on changing leader, she won decisively, and a further change before 2024 would just add to the impression of panic and chaos. Even if she's a poor PM - and I suspect that's pretty likely - she'll fight the next election.

    Tell you what, I'll give you 10-1 against (with bet void if she goes for an early election before then and loses - clearly, if she loses an election she's gone).
    I think 2023 is value for an election. Prior to the FTP act 4 years was more common than 5 years. The latter gives little room for manoeuvre, and usually meant losing the election.

    Bit chicken and egg, as governments trailing in the polls try to drag it out in the hope that something turns up, though it rarely does.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 20,084
    edited September 2022
    Leon said:

    Truss being ruthless is a good sign. She’s gonna need steely resolve these coming months

    ALSO she isn’t boring. Not in the Starmer way. The necklace and the dress

    Unless Keir has a secret love dungeon and likes asphyxiaphilia and ageplay - and I rather doubt this - then he is more boring

    What Truss is, is a boring, wooden SPEAKER

    1. Theresa was ruthless at the start (sacking Boy George and sending him out the back door with a flea in his ear)

    2. Theresa was a boring, wooden SPEAKER.

    3. I doubt very much that Mr and Mrs May had a dungeon and loved asphyxiaphilia and ageplay however...

    4. If indeed Liz loves asphyxiaphilia and ageplay I'm not sure how that will help at the next election... Unless she's planning to replace the election debates and a couple of Porn Hub lives...
  • LeonLeon Posts: 33,598
    nico679 said:

    Leon said:

    nico679 said:

    kle4 said:

    nico679 said:

    Looks like the UK will soon be withdrawing from the ECHR if the odious Braverman has her way . Patel replaced by an equally nasty individual .

    It is surely the principal reason for her appointment. Stop the boats, get out of the ECHR, job done - it'll give endless chances for them to claim Labour want to give succour to criminals.
    Unfortunately the general public don’t seem to realize how many rights have been secured by the ECHR . I’m hoping there’s enough backbench Tories who would rebel and stop that from happening . It wasn’t in the manifesto , the HOL should not back down if legislation gets there. Can you imagine the optics at this time for the UK to be withdrawing from the ECHR .
    No one gives a fuck, sorry. A load of Bulgarian judges telling ENGLAND what to do. The cheek
    No you don’t give a fuck , stop speaking for everyone . Many important rights have been gained from the ECHR .
    what with them doing all this pooing Am not surprised everywhere pooing. So?
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    Nigelb said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    ydoethur said:

    dixiedean said:

    Cookie said:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/09/06/teacher-jailed-row-use-pronouns-transgender-pupil/

    A teacher in Ireland has been jailed for refusing to use the pronoun 'they' to refer to a pupil who identified as neither male nor female.

    Fair enough. Teachers should treat their pupils with respect and vice-versa.

    EDIT: Misread it, jailed!? Fired is what I misread it as, fired is appropriate, jailed is not.

    EDIT2: No, he was jailed for contempt of court, not for pronoun use. Contempt of court is of course jailable, should have read article first.
    He was fired.
    He was jailed for ignoring a banning order not to go near the school.
    I cannot, for the life of me, understand why he would breach such an order. There always seemed to me to be something vaguely sad and disturbing about ex-colleagues who tried to hang round the place.

    And of course, it's landed him in prison anyway, which makes it a doubly stupid idea.
    Its disturbing in any workplace.

    Its doubly disturbing surely in schools to have unauthorised adults hanging around the place.
    I think he was after martyrdom.

    Enoch Burke is a great name.

    Anglican, not surprisingly.
    Matthew 19:12 and several similar passages suggest he's not much of a Christian, either.
    Yeah, I have often wondered about that. The Greek says Men have castrated themselves for the kingdom of heaven, some mimsy modern translations say stuff like "For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven." KJV says For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake.

    I had always read it literally, as apparently did Origen who got into trouble with the bishop of Alexandria for gelding himself,the consensus even in those days being it was all about voluntary chastity. I don't see how the text supports that.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 59,635
    edited September 2022

    Leon said:

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    HYUFD said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    ydoethur said:

    dixiedean said:

    Cookie said:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/09/06/teacher-jailed-row-use-pronouns-transgender-pupil/

    A teacher in Ireland has been jailed for refusing to use the pronoun 'they' to refer to a pupil who identified as neither male nor female.

    Fair enough. Teachers should treat their pupils with respect and vice-versa.

    EDIT: Misread it, jailed!? Fired is what I misread it as, fired is appropriate, jailed is not.

    EDIT2: No, he was jailed for contempt of court, not for pronoun use. Contempt of court is of course jailable, should have read article first.
    He was fired.
    He was jailed for ignoring a banning order not to go near the school.
    I cannot, for the life of me, understand why he would breach such an order. There always seemed to me to be something vaguely sad and disturbing about ex-colleagues who tried to hang round the place.

    And of course, it's landed him in prison anyway, which makes it a doubly stupid idea.
    Its disturbing in any workplace.

    Its doubly disturbing surely in schools to have unauthorised adults hanging around the place.
    I think he was after martyrdom.

    Enoch Burke is a great name.

    Anglican, not surprisingly.
    He will be a hero to the anti Woke right though, Leon will have a poster of him on his wall soon enough
    Actually no. From my reading the guy appears to be a religiose twerp
    If you don't object to being required to refer to someone as 'they' in a classroom and jailed for doing so, then you are not really anti Woke at all. I am afraid Leon you are just another elitist London metropolitan liberal after all.

    The Mail comments on this are appalled. I am not too bothered with referring to someone as 'they' if they wish but I certainly would not jail someone who refused to, especially if they took a traditional and religious view of sexuality

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11184043/Teacher-refused-use-students-gender-neutral-pronouns-JAILED-Ireland.html#comments
    He was jailed for contempt of court


    I despise Wokeness but a teacher should afford his pupils the basic respect of calling them “they” if that is how they see themselves. The respect must go both ways however
    Since you never refer to anyone to their face, I don't see how the issue arose.
    That's not actually difficult.

    Child answers a question.

    Teacher: 'That was a good answer, X. Now, how can we improve on what s/he said?'
  • nico679 said:

    nico679 said:

    kle4 said:

    nico679 said:

    Looks like the UK will soon be withdrawing from the ECHR if the odious Braverman has her way . Patel replaced by an equally nasty individual .

    It is surely the principal reason for her appointment. Stop the boats, get out of the ECHR, job done - it'll give endless chances for them to claim Labour want to give succour to criminals.
    Unfortunately the general public don’t seem to realize how many rights have been secured by the ECHR . I’m hoping there’s enough backbench Tories who would rebel and stop that from happening . It wasn’t in the manifesto , the HOL should not back down if legislation gets there. Can you imagine the optics at this time for the UK to be withdrawing from the ECHR .
    This is a good argument for leaving. These questions should be decided politically in the UK.
    So you trust the Tories to protect your rights ? Good luck with that .
    Translation: "I don't trust the UK to govern itself. It needs babysitting by continental Europeans."

    I absolutely do not trust the protection of human rights with populist politicians looking for votes.

  • nico679 said:

    nico679 said:

    kle4 said:

    nico679 said:

    Looks like the UK will soon be withdrawing from the ECHR if the odious Braverman has her way . Patel replaced by an equally nasty individual .

    It is surely the principal reason for her appointment. Stop the boats, get out of the ECHR, job done - it'll give endless chances for them to claim Labour want to give succour to criminals.
    Unfortunately the general public don’t seem to realize how many rights have been secured by the ECHR . I’m hoping there’s enough backbench Tories who would rebel and stop that from happening . It wasn’t in the manifesto , the HOL should not back down if legislation gets there. Can you imagine the optics at this time for the UK to be withdrawing from the ECHR .
    This is a good argument for leaving. These questions should be decided politically in the UK.
    So you trust the Tories to protect your rights ? Good luck with that .
    I trust the British voters, yes.

    Putin's Russia was an ECHR member until February. I have ZERO trust in the ECHR.
  • nico679 said:

    nico679 said:

    kle4 said:

    nico679 said:

    Looks like the UK will soon be withdrawing from the ECHR if the odious Braverman has her way . Patel replaced by an equally nasty individual .

    It is surely the principal reason for her appointment. Stop the boats, get out of the ECHR, job done - it'll give endless chances for them to claim Labour want to give succour to criminals.
    Unfortunately the general public don’t seem to realize how many rights have been secured by the ECHR . I’m hoping there’s enough backbench Tories who would rebel and stop that from happening . It wasn’t in the manifesto , the HOL should not back down if legislation gets there. Can you imagine the optics at this time for the UK to be withdrawing from the ECHR .
    This is a good argument for leaving. These questions should be decided politically in the UK.
    So you trust the Tories to protect your rights ? Good luck with that .
    Translation: "I don't trust the UK to govern itself. It needs babysitting by continental Europeans."

    I absolutely do not trust the protection of human rights with populist politicians looking for votes.

    Why trust a court that allowed Putin's Russia at the turn of the year?
  • HYUFD said:
    Wonder who Truss will replace him with?
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 38,710
    Andy_JS said:

    Leon said:

    The idea that Truss has madly forsaken some huge reserve of Thatcherian talent in ignoring Grant Shapps and Rishi Sunak is piquant

    Sunak is the guy who said “I don’t have any working class friends” and thought it was fine for his billionaire wife to avoid UK tax; Grant Shapps is Grant Shapps, but in a wig

    Shapps is the guy who wants everyone to have bike numberplates even if they're just cycling down a country lane for 5 minutes.
    To be honest I think ebikes are as fast as mopeds and should have plates the same. Deliveroo riders on them are maniacs. Completely manual bikes are OK.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 59,635
    IshmaelZ said:

    Nigelb said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    ydoethur said:

    dixiedean said:

    Cookie said:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/09/06/teacher-jailed-row-use-pronouns-transgender-pupil/

    A teacher in Ireland has been jailed for refusing to use the pronoun 'they' to refer to a pupil who identified as neither male nor female.

    Fair enough. Teachers should treat their pupils with respect and vice-versa.

    EDIT: Misread it, jailed!? Fired is what I misread it as, fired is appropriate, jailed is not.

    EDIT2: No, he was jailed for contempt of court, not for pronoun use. Contempt of court is of course jailable, should have read article first.
    He was fired.
    He was jailed for ignoring a banning order not to go near the school.
    I cannot, for the life of me, understand why he would breach such an order. There always seemed to me to be something vaguely sad and disturbing about ex-colleagues who tried to hang round the place.

    And of course, it's landed him in prison anyway, which makes it a doubly stupid idea.
    Its disturbing in any workplace.

    Its doubly disturbing surely in schools to have unauthorised adults hanging around the place.
    I think he was after martyrdom.

    Enoch Burke is a great name.

    Anglican, not surprisingly.
    Matthew 19:12 and several similar passages suggest he's not much of a Christian, either.
    Yeah, I have often wondered about that. The Greek says Men have castrated themselves for the kingdom of heaven, some mimsy modern translations say stuff like "For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven." KJV says For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake.

    I had always read it literally, as apparently did Origen who got into trouble with the bishop of Alexandria for gelding himself,the consensus even in those days being it was all about voluntary chastity. I don't see how the text supports that.
    Are you saying it's a load of balls?
  • Leon said:

    nico679 said:

    Leon said:

    nico679 said:

    kle4 said:

    nico679 said:

    Looks like the UK will soon be withdrawing from the ECHR if the odious Braverman has her way . Patel replaced by an equally nasty individual .

    It is surely the principal reason for her appointment. Stop the boats, get out of the ECHR, job done - it'll give endless chances for them to claim Labour want to give succour to criminals.
    Unfortunately the general public don’t seem to realize how many rights have been secured by the ECHR . I’m hoping there’s enough backbench Tories who would rebel and stop that from happening . It wasn’t in the manifesto , the HOL should not back down if legislation gets there. Can you imagine the optics at this time for the UK to be withdrawing from the ECHR .
    No one gives a fuck, sorry. A load of Bulgarian judges telling ENGLAND what to do. The cheek
    No you don’t give a fuck , stop speaking for everyone . Many important rights have been gained from the ECHR .
    what with them doing all this pooing Am not surprised everywhere pooing. So?
    You're going to miss the ECHR when a far left government strips you of your citizenship for holding unpalatable views.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    ydoethur said:

    Leon said:

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    HYUFD said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    ydoethur said:

    dixiedean said:

    Cookie said:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/09/06/teacher-jailed-row-use-pronouns-transgender-pupil/

    A teacher in Ireland has been jailed for refusing to use the pronoun 'they' to refer to a pupil who identified as neither male nor female.

    Fair enough. Teachers should treat their pupils with respect and vice-versa.

    EDIT: Misread it, jailed!? Fired is what I misread it as, fired is appropriate, jailed is not.

    EDIT2: No, he was jailed for contempt of court, not for pronoun use. Contempt of court is of course jailable, should have read article first.
    He was fired.
    He was jailed for ignoring a banning order not to go near the school.
    I cannot, for the life of me, understand why he would breach such an order. There always seemed to me to be something vaguely sad and disturbing about ex-colleagues who tried to hang round the place.

    And of course, it's landed him in prison anyway, which makes it a doubly stupid idea.
    Its disturbing in any workplace.

    Its doubly disturbing surely in schools to have unauthorised adults hanging around the place.
    I think he was after martyrdom.

    Enoch Burke is a great name.

    Anglican, not surprisingly.
    He will be a hero to the anti Woke right though, Leon will have a poster of him on his wall soon enough
    Actually no. From my reading the guy appears to be a religiose twerp
    If you don't object to being required to refer to someone as 'they' in a classroom and jailed for doing so, then you are not really anti Woke at all. I am afraid Leon you are just another elitist London metropolitan liberal after all.

    The Mail comments on this are appalled. I am not too bothered with referring to someone as 'they' if they wish but I certainly would not jail someone who refused to, especially if they took a traditional and religious view of sexuality

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11184043/Teacher-refused-use-students-gender-neutral-pronouns-JAILED-Ireland.html#comments
    He was jailed for contempt of court


    I despise Wokeness but a teacher should afford his pupils the basic respect of calling them “they” if that is how they see themselves. The respect must go both ways however
    Since you never refer to anyone to their face, I don't see how the issue arose.
    That's not actually difficult.

    They answer a question.

    Teacher: 'That was a good answer, X. Now, how can we improve on what s/he said?'
    Can we improve on that?

    EoT reports more difficult, but you can consistently refer to them by their proper name.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 7,721
    Andy_JS said:

    Next election:

    Lab maj 4.1
    Con maj 4.1
    No maj 2

    https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/politics/market/1.167249195

    IMHO wrong. A Tory majority is much more likely than a Labour one, even though a Lab led government is a bit more likely than a Tory led one.

  • HYUFD said:
    Wonder who Truss will replace him with?
    For the LOLs Tobias Ellwood.
  • bigglesbiggles Posts: 3,201

    nico679 said:

    nico679 said:

    kle4 said:

    nico679 said:

    Looks like the UK will soon be withdrawing from the ECHR if the odious Braverman has her way . Patel replaced by an equally nasty individual .

    It is surely the principal reason for her appointment. Stop the boats, get out of the ECHR, job done - it'll give endless chances for them to claim Labour want to give succour to criminals.
    Unfortunately the general public don’t seem to realize how many rights have been secured by the ECHR . I’m hoping there’s enough backbench Tories who would rebel and stop that from happening . It wasn’t in the manifesto , the HOL should not back down if legislation gets there. Can you imagine the optics at this time for the UK to be withdrawing from the ECHR .
    This is a good argument for leaving. These questions should be decided politically in the UK.
    So you trust the Tories to protect your rights ? Good luck with that .
    Translation: "I don't trust the UK to govern itself. It needs babysitting by continental Europeans."
    I yield to no one in my Leave-ness and remain glad we left, and completely recognise that argument.

    However, the ECHR is fixed, not changing, and something we drafted and agreed unanimously with allies. Related judgements are generally good sense and remind us of who we are, even if they can also be inconvenient.

  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 59,635
    IshmaelZ said:

    ydoethur said:

    Leon said:

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    HYUFD said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    ydoethur said:

    dixiedean said:

    Cookie said:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/09/06/teacher-jailed-row-use-pronouns-transgender-pupil/

    A teacher in Ireland has been jailed for refusing to use the pronoun 'they' to refer to a pupil who identified as neither male nor female.

    Fair enough. Teachers should treat their pupils with respect and vice-versa.

    EDIT: Misread it, jailed!? Fired is what I misread it as, fired is appropriate, jailed is not.

    EDIT2: No, he was jailed for contempt of court, not for pronoun use. Contempt of court is of course jailable, should have read article first.
    He was fired.
    He was jailed for ignoring a banning order not to go near the school.
    I cannot, for the life of me, understand why he would breach such an order. There always seemed to me to be something vaguely sad and disturbing about ex-colleagues who tried to hang round the place.

    And of course, it's landed him in prison anyway, which makes it a doubly stupid idea.
    Its disturbing in any workplace.

    Its doubly disturbing surely in schools to have unauthorised adults hanging around the place.
    I think he was after martyrdom.

    Enoch Burke is a great name.

    Anglican, not surprisingly.
    He will be a hero to the anti Woke right though, Leon will have a poster of him on his wall soon enough
    Actually no. From my reading the guy appears to be a religiose twerp
    If you don't object to being required to refer to someone as 'they' in a classroom and jailed for doing so, then you are not really anti Woke at all. I am afraid Leon you are just another elitist London metropolitan liberal after all.

    The Mail comments on this are appalled. I am not too bothered with referring to someone as 'they' if they wish but I certainly would not jail someone who refused to, especially if they took a traditional and religious view of sexuality

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11184043/Teacher-refused-use-students-gender-neutral-pronouns-JAILED-Ireland.html#comments
    He was jailed for contempt of court


    I despise Wokeness but a teacher should afford his pupils the basic respect of calling them “they” if that is how they see themselves. The respect must go both ways however
    Since you never refer to anyone to their face, I don't see how the issue arose.
    That's not actually difficult.

    They answer a question.

    Teacher: 'That was a good answer, X. Now, how can we improve on what s/he said?'
    Can we improve on that?

    EoT reports more difficult, but you can consistently refer to them by their proper name.
    You can, but it's easy to slip up.

    However, there is a difference between a slip and a point blank refusal.
  • nico679nico679 Posts: 2,970
    edited September 2022

    nico679 said:

    nico679 said:

    kle4 said:

    nico679 said:

    Looks like the UK will soon be withdrawing from the ECHR if the odious Braverman has her way . Patel replaced by an equally nasty individual .

    It is surely the principal reason for her appointment. Stop the boats, get out of the ECHR, job done - it'll give endless chances for them to claim Labour want to give succour to criminals.
    Unfortunately the general public don’t seem to realize how many rights have been secured by the ECHR . I’m hoping there’s enough backbench Tories who would rebel and stop that from happening . It wasn’t in the manifesto , the HOL should not back down if legislation gets there. Can you imagine the optics at this time for the UK to be withdrawing from the ECHR .
    This is a good argument for leaving. These questions should be decided politically in the UK.
    So you trust the Tories to protect your rights ? Good luck with that .
    Translation: "I don't trust the UK to govern itself. It needs babysitting by continental Europeans."
    You’re missing the point . Governments can change , and rights could then be at the whim of those . Why don’t you read up on the rights won by Brits because of the ECHR .
  • nico679 said:

    nico679 said:

    nico679 said:

    kle4 said:

    nico679 said:

    Looks like the UK will soon be withdrawing from the ECHR if the odious Braverman has her way . Patel replaced by an equally nasty individual .

    It is surely the principal reason for her appointment. Stop the boats, get out of the ECHR, job done - it'll give endless chances for them to claim Labour want to give succour to criminals.
    Unfortunately the general public don’t seem to realize how many rights have been secured by the ECHR . I’m hoping there’s enough backbench Tories who would rebel and stop that from happening . It wasn’t in the manifesto , the HOL should not back down if legislation gets there. Can you imagine the optics at this time for the UK to be withdrawing from the ECHR .
    This is a good argument for leaving. These questions should be decided politically in the UK.
    So you trust the Tories to protect your rights ? Good luck with that .
    Translation: "I don't trust the UK to govern itself. It needs babysitting by continental Europeans."
    You’re missing the point . Governments can change , and rights could then be at the whim of those . Why don’t you read up on the rights won by Brits because of the ECHR .
    Name one.

    And name how the ECHR protected that right in Putin's Russia.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 33,598
    edited September 2022
    “For refusing to use the word, he's a twat. Probably also in breach of contract. Certainly a fool.

    For refusing to stay away, he's a safeguarding risk.

    For breaching the court order, he's a criminal.

    For being a criminal, he's now a lag.

    And that doesn't alter the issues surrounding whether the word itself is best used in this context or whether it would be helpful to come up with a new one.”

    ++++

    When I saw the headline I was cued up to go into an anti Woke frenzy, but then I saw the deets

    A foolishly stubborn man. Probably a fine teacher and means well. But a bit sad really

  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 20,084

    Leon said:

    nico679 said:

    Leon said:

    nico679 said:

    kle4 said:

    nico679 said:

    Looks like the UK will soon be withdrawing from the ECHR if the odious Braverman has her way . Patel replaced by an equally nasty individual .

    It is surely the principal reason for her appointment. Stop the boats, get out of the ECHR, job done - it'll give endless chances for them to claim Labour want to give succour to criminals.
    Unfortunately the general public don’t seem to realize how many rights have been secured by the ECHR . I’m hoping there’s enough backbench Tories who would rebel and stop that from happening . It wasn’t in the manifesto , the HOL should not back down if legislation gets there. Can you imagine the optics at this time for the UK to be withdrawing from the ECHR .
    No one gives a fuck, sorry. A load of Bulgarian judges telling ENGLAND what to do. The cheek
    No you don’t give a fuck , stop speaking for everyone . Many important rights have been gained from the ECHR .
    what with them doing all this pooing Am not surprised everywhere pooing. So?
    You're going to miss the ECHR when a far left government strips you of your citizenship for holding unpalatable views.
    2019 reaffirmed my faith that the British people are far too sensible to ever elect a "far left" government.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    ydoethur said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    ydoethur said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    ydoethur said:

    Carnyx said:

    ydoethur said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    ydoethur said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    ydoethur said:

    Cookie said:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/09/06/teacher-jailed-row-use-pronouns-transgender-pupil/

    A teacher in Ireland has been jailed for refusing to use the pronoun 'they' to refer to a pupil who identified as neither male nor female.

    Whatever the rights and wrongs of the gender identity debate, 'they' is a plural noun and totally unsuitable for referring to a person.

    Couldn't we come up with some vaguely acceptable compromise? E.g. 'shehe?' Or perhaps, to make it sound classier, borrow from Welsh and create 'fehi?'
    No it isn't. been in constant use as a singular since at the latest 1375.
    Really? Where? All documents I have seen from that period use 'he' as a shorthand for a single person of unknown gender.
    https://public.oed.com/blog/a-brief-history-of-singular-they/

    Singular they has become the pronoun of choice to replace he and she in cases where the gender of the antecedent – the word the pronoun refers to – is unknown, irrelevant, or nonbinary, or where gender needs to be concealed. It’s the word we use for sentences like Everyone loves his mother.

    But that’s nothing new. The Oxford English Dictionary traces singular they back to 1375, where it appears in the medieval romance William and the Werewolf. Except for the old-style language of that poem, its use of singular they to refer to an unnamed person seems very modern. Here’s the Middle English version: ‘Hastely hiȝed eche . . . þei neyȝþed so neiȝh . . . þere william & his worþi lef were liand i-fere.’ In modern English, that’s: ‘Each man hurried . . . till they drew near . . . where William and his darling were lying together.’
    But that sentence isn't a singular. If it says 'each man' that means there's more than one.

    And your own link notes the Chicago Manual of Style doesn't agree.
    Americanese is not English. Though related, admittedly, in the manner of an elephant and a manatee.
    Tusk, tusk.

    There is a serious point, in that the CMS while focused on American English is actually generally used as a standard grammar guide in a way the OED is for spelling.

    So if they agree with me, regardless of what Ishmael thinks I'm happy I'm right.
    you are saying "each man" is plural?

    Respect. A positively HYUFDian claim.
    No, I'm saying if they refer to 'each man' it means there was more than one of them!

    You wouldn't use the word 'each' instead of 'the' for just one, would you?
    No, but that doesn't prevent it from being singular. Each man had a sword = All the men had swords. That doesn't make "Each man had swords" acceptable.

    "A journalist should not be forced to reveal their sources"; are you seriously saying that is not good English?
    Well, yes. Because apart from anything else it should be a general comment in the plural, so 'journalists should not be forced to reveal their sources.'
    OK: this allegation was made by a journalist, who when asked refused to reveal their source.
  • nico679 said:

    nico679 said:

    kle4 said:

    nico679 said:

    Looks like the UK will soon be withdrawing from the ECHR if the odious Braverman has her way . Patel replaced by an equally nasty individual .

    It is surely the principal reason for her appointment. Stop the boats, get out of the ECHR, job done - it'll give endless chances for them to claim Labour want to give succour to criminals.
    Unfortunately the general public don’t seem to realize how many rights have been secured by the ECHR . I’m hoping there’s enough backbench Tories who would rebel and stop that from happening . It wasn’t in the manifesto , the HOL should not back down if legislation gets there. Can you imagine the optics at this time for the UK to be withdrawing from the ECHR .
    This is a good argument for leaving. These questions should be decided politically in the UK.
    So you trust the Tories to protect your rights ? Good luck with that .
    Translation: "I don't trust the UK to govern itself. It needs babysitting by continental Europeans."

    I absolutely do not trust the protection of human rights with populist politicians looking for votes.
    It sounds like the core problem you have is that you don't trust most voters. Perhaps it's a shame that it's now taboo to argue against democracy.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 38,710
    IshmaelZ said:

    ydoethur said:

    Leon said:

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    HYUFD said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    ydoethur said:

    dixiedean said:

    Cookie said:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/09/06/teacher-jailed-row-use-pronouns-transgender-pupil/

    A teacher in Ireland has been jailed for refusing to use the pronoun 'they' to refer to a pupil who identified as neither male nor female.

    Fair enough. Teachers should treat their pupils with respect and vice-versa.

    EDIT: Misread it, jailed!? Fired is what I misread it as, fired is appropriate, jailed is not.

    EDIT2: No, he was jailed for contempt of court, not for pronoun use. Contempt of court is of course jailable, should have read article first.
    He was fired.
    He was jailed for ignoring a banning order not to go near the school.
    I cannot, for the life of me, understand why he would breach such an order. There always seemed to me to be something vaguely sad and disturbing about ex-colleagues who tried to hang round the place.

    And of course, it's landed him in prison anyway, which makes it a doubly stupid idea.
    Its disturbing in any workplace.

    Its doubly disturbing surely in schools to have unauthorised adults hanging around the place.
    I think he was after martyrdom.

    Enoch Burke is a great name.

    Anglican, not surprisingly.
    He will be a hero to the anti Woke right though, Leon will have a poster of him on his wall soon enough
    Actually no. From my reading the guy appears to be a religiose twerp
    If you don't object to being required to refer to someone as 'they' in a classroom and jailed for doing so, then you are not really anti Woke at all. I am afraid Leon you are just another elitist London metropolitan liberal after all.

    The Mail comments on this are appalled. I am not too bothered with referring to someone as 'they' if they wish but I certainly would not jail someone who refused to, especially if they took a traditional and religious view of sexuality

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11184043/Teacher-refused-use-students-gender-neutral-pronouns-JAILED-Ireland.html#comments
    He was jailed for contempt of court


    I despise Wokeness but a teacher should afford his pupils the basic respect of calling them “they” if that is how they see themselves. The respect must go both ways however
    Since you never refer to anyone to their face, I don't see how the issue arose.
    That's not actually difficult.

    They answer a question.

    Teacher: 'That was a good answer, X. Now, how can we improve on what s/he said?'
    Can we improve on that?

    EoT reports more difficult, but you can consistently refer to them by their proper name.
    "How can we improve on what was said"

    I am not sure pronouns are really necessary. Use nouns, or implied nouns.
  • nico679 said:

    nico679 said:

    nico679 said:

    kle4 said:

    nico679 said:

    Looks like the UK will soon be withdrawing from the ECHR if the odious Braverman has her way . Patel replaced by an equally nasty individual .

    It is surely the principal reason for her appointment. Stop the boats, get out of the ECHR, job done - it'll give endless chances for them to claim Labour want to give succour to criminals.
    Unfortunately the general public don’t seem to realize how many rights have been secured by the ECHR . I’m hoping there’s enough backbench Tories who would rebel and stop that from happening . It wasn’t in the manifesto , the HOL should not back down if legislation gets there. Can you imagine the optics at this time for the UK to be withdrawing from the ECHR .
    This is a good argument for leaving. These questions should be decided politically in the UK.
    So you trust the Tories to protect your rights ? Good luck with that .
    Translation: "I don't trust the UK to govern itself. It needs babysitting by continental Europeans."
    You’re missing the point . Governments can change , and rights could then be at the whim of those . Why don’t you read up on the rights won by Brits because of the ECHR .
    Name one.

    And name how the ECHR protected that right in Putin's Russia.

    Russia and Belarus are not signatories to the ECHR.

  • ydoethur said:

    Leon said:

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    HYUFD said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    ydoethur said:

    dixiedean said:

    Cookie said:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/09/06/teacher-jailed-row-use-pronouns-transgender-pupil/

    A teacher in Ireland has been jailed for refusing to use the pronoun 'they' to refer to a pupil who identified as neither male nor female.

    Fair enough. Teachers should treat their pupils with respect and vice-versa.

    EDIT: Misread it, jailed!? Fired is what I misread it as, fired is appropriate, jailed is not.

    EDIT2: No, he was jailed for contempt of court, not for pronoun use. Contempt of court is of course jailable, should have read article first.
    He was fired.
    He was jailed for ignoring a banning order not to go near the school.
    I cannot, for the life of me, understand why he would breach such an order. There always seemed to me to be something vaguely sad and disturbing about ex-colleagues who tried to hang round the place.

    And of course, it's landed him in prison anyway, which makes it a doubly stupid idea.
    Its disturbing in any workplace.

    Its doubly disturbing surely in schools to have unauthorised adults hanging around the place.
    I think he was after martyrdom.

    Enoch Burke is a great name.

    Anglican, not surprisingly.
    He will be a hero to the anti Woke right though, Leon will have a poster of him on his wall soon enough
    Actually no. From my reading the guy appears to be a religiose twerp
    If you don't object to being required to refer to someone as 'they' in a classroom and jailed for doing so, then you are not really anti Woke at all. I am afraid Leon you are just another elitist London metropolitan liberal after all.

    The Mail comments on this are appalled. I am not too bothered with referring to someone as 'they' if they wish but I certainly would not jail someone who refused to, especially if they took a traditional and religious view of sexuality

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11184043/Teacher-refused-use-students-gender-neutral-pronouns-JAILED-Ireland.html#comments
    He was jailed for contempt of court


    I despise Wokeness but a teacher should afford his pupils the basic respect of calling them “they” if that is how they see themselves. The respect must go both ways however
    Since you never refer to anyone to their face, I don't see how the issue arose.
    That's not actually difficult.

    Child answers a question.

    Teacher: 'That was a good answer, X. Now, how can we improve on what s/he said?'
    Use their name?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 86,032
    edited September 2022

    nico679 said:

    nico679 said:

    kle4 said:

    nico679 said:

    Looks like the UK will soon be withdrawing from the ECHR if the odious Braverman has her way . Patel replaced by an equally nasty individual .

    It is surely the principal reason for her appointment. Stop the boats, get out of the ECHR, job done - it'll give endless chances for them to claim Labour want to give succour to criminals.
    Unfortunately the general public don’t seem to realize how many rights have been secured by the ECHR . I’m hoping there’s enough backbench Tories who would rebel and stop that from happening . It wasn’t in the manifesto , the HOL should not back down if legislation gets there. Can you imagine the optics at this time for the UK to be withdrawing from the ECHR .
    This is a good argument for leaving. These questions should be decided politically in the UK.
    So you trust the Tories to protect your rights ? Good luck with that .
    Translation: "I don't trust the UK to govern itself. It needs babysitting by continental Europeans."
    I don't think we need to be babysat. I'm simply not persuaded, given the general approach to the convention, why it is necessary to junk the whole thing. I think the general competence of ministers who are obsessed with a particular policy they want to enact, rather than a concern about properly reviewing rights, is reasonable to quetion. They want to stop X, but are going to open up and redo the whole alphabet.

    I don't see much gain but plenty to risk.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 59,635
    IshmaelZ said:

    ydoethur said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    ydoethur said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    ydoethur said:

    Carnyx said:

    ydoethur said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    ydoethur said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    ydoethur said:

    Cookie said:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/09/06/teacher-jailed-row-use-pronouns-transgender-pupil/

    A teacher in Ireland has been jailed for refusing to use the pronoun 'they' to refer to a pupil who identified as neither male nor female.

    Whatever the rights and wrongs of the gender identity debate, 'they' is a plural noun and totally unsuitable for referring to a person.

    Couldn't we come up with some vaguely acceptable compromise? E.g. 'shehe?' Or perhaps, to make it sound classier, borrow from Welsh and create 'fehi?'
    No it isn't. been in constant use as a singular since at the latest 1375.
    Really? Where? All documents I have seen from that period use 'he' as a shorthand for a single person of unknown gender.
    https://public.oed.com/blog/a-brief-history-of-singular-they/

    Singular they has become the pronoun of choice to replace he and she in cases where the gender of the antecedent – the word the pronoun refers to – is unknown, irrelevant, or nonbinary, or where gender needs to be concealed. It’s the word we use for sentences like Everyone loves his mother.

    But that’s nothing new. The Oxford English Dictionary traces singular they back to 1375, where it appears in the medieval romance William and the Werewolf. Except for the old-style language of that poem, its use of singular they to refer to an unnamed person seems very modern. Here’s the Middle English version: ‘Hastely hiȝed eche . . . þei neyȝþed so neiȝh . . . þere william & his worþi lef were liand i-fere.’ In modern English, that’s: ‘Each man hurried . . . till they drew near . . . where William and his darling were lying together.’
    But that sentence isn't a singular. If it says 'each man' that means there's more than one.

    And your own link notes the Chicago Manual of Style doesn't agree.
    Americanese is not English. Though related, admittedly, in the manner of an elephant and a manatee.
    Tusk, tusk.

    There is a serious point, in that the CMS while focused on American English is actually generally used as a standard grammar guide in a way the OED is for spelling.

    So if they agree with me, regardless of what Ishmael thinks I'm happy I'm right.
    you are saying "each man" is plural?

    Respect. A positively HYUFDian claim.
    No, I'm saying if they refer to 'each man' it means there was more than one of them!

    You wouldn't use the word 'each' instead of 'the' for just one, would you?
    No, but that doesn't prevent it from being singular. Each man had a sword = All the men had swords. That doesn't make "Each man had swords" acceptable.

    "A journalist should not be forced to reveal their sources"; are you seriously saying that is not good English?
    Well, yes. Because apart from anything else it should be a general comment in the plural, so 'journalists should not be forced to reveal their sources.'
    OK: this allegation was made by a journalist, who when asked refused to reveal their source.
    Why not just use the correct gender pronoun? And incidentally, why not name the journalist?
  • HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    HYUFD said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    ydoethur said:

    dixiedean said:

    Cookie said:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/09/06/teacher-jailed-row-use-pronouns-transgender-pupil/

    A teacher in Ireland has been jailed for refusing to use the pronoun 'they' to refer to a pupil who identified as neither male nor female.

    Fair enough. Teachers should treat their pupils with respect and vice-versa.

    EDIT: Misread it, jailed!? Fired is what I misread it as, fired is appropriate, jailed is not.

    EDIT2: No, he was jailed for contempt of court, not for pronoun use. Contempt of court is of course jailable, should have read article first.
    He was fired.
    He was jailed for ignoring a banning order not to go near the school.
    I cannot, for the life of me, understand why he would breach such an order. There always seemed to me to be something vaguely sad and disturbing about ex-colleagues who tried to hang round the place.

    And of course, it's landed him in prison anyway, which makes it a doubly stupid idea.
    Its disturbing in any workplace.

    Its doubly disturbing surely in schools to have unauthorised adults hanging around the place.
    I think he was after martyrdom.

    Enoch Burke is a great name.

    Anglican, not surprisingly.
    He will be a hero to the anti Woke right though, Leon will have a poster of him on his wall soon enough
    Actually no. From my reading the guy appears to be a religiose twerp
    If you don't object to being required to refer to someone as 'they' in a classroom and jailed for doing so, then you are not really anti Woke at all. I am afraid Leon you are just another elitist London metropolitan liberal after all.

    The Mail comments on this are appalled. I am not too bothered with referring to someone as 'they' if they wish but I certainly would not jail someone who refused to, especially if they took a traditional and religious view of sexuality

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11184043/Teacher-refused-use-students-gender-neutral-pronouns-JAILED-Ireland.html#comments
    Please read the article before ranting about what you imagine it says.

    He's been jailed for breaching a court order banning him from the school whilst the disciplinary process is continuing.

    We also only have his word on the detail of what he's accused of doing. I rather suspect it's a good deal more than he claims, but that the school cannot comment due to his and the pupils' confidentiality. However, even if it's as described, and the suspension (on full pay) is extremely harsh, you still simply don't breach a court order banning you from entering a school (even if you say it's unfair and even if it is unfair).

    The story here is "adult man who is banned from entering a school enters the school and boasts, in court, he will do it again in a heartbeat". What was the judge meant to do?
  • nico679 said:

    nico679 said:

    nico679 said:

    kle4 said:

    nico679 said:

    Looks like the UK will soon be withdrawing from the ECHR if the odious Braverman has her way . Patel replaced by an equally nasty individual .

    It is surely the principal reason for her appointment. Stop the boats, get out of the ECHR, job done - it'll give endless chances for them to claim Labour want to give succour to criminals.
    Unfortunately the general public don’t seem to realize how many rights have been secured by the ECHR . I’m hoping there’s enough backbench Tories who would rebel and stop that from happening . It wasn’t in the manifesto , the HOL should not back down if legislation gets there. Can you imagine the optics at this time for the UK to be withdrawing from the ECHR .
    This is a good argument for leaving. These questions should be decided politically in the UK.
    So you trust the Tories to protect your rights ? Good luck with that .
    Translation: "I don't trust the UK to govern itself. It needs babysitting by continental Europeans."
    You’re missing the point . Governments can change , and rights could then be at the whim of those . Why don’t you read up on the rights won by Brits because of the ECHR .
    Name one.

    And name how the ECHR protected that right in Putin's Russia.

    Russia and Belarus are not signatories to the ECHR.

    Russia was until February 2022.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 110,113
    Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Secretary George Eustice the next of the Rishi backers to be axed by Liz

    https://twitter.com/GuidoFawkes/status/1567206667439202310?s=20&t=89sFpch1U0OCXe8MujhTww
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 59,635

    ydoethur said:

    Leon said:

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    HYUFD said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    ydoethur said:

    dixiedean said:

    Cookie said:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/09/06/teacher-jailed-row-use-pronouns-transgender-pupil/

    A teacher in Ireland has been jailed for refusing to use the pronoun 'they' to refer to a pupil who identified as neither male nor female.

    Fair enough. Teachers should treat their pupils with respect and vice-versa.

    EDIT: Misread it, jailed!? Fired is what I misread it as, fired is appropriate, jailed is not.

    EDIT2: No, he was jailed for contempt of court, not for pronoun use. Contempt of court is of course jailable, should have read article first.
    He was fired.
    He was jailed for ignoring a banning order not to go near the school.
    I cannot, for the life of me, understand why he would breach such an order. There always seemed to me to be something vaguely sad and disturbing about ex-colleagues who tried to hang round the place.

    And of course, it's landed him in prison anyway, which makes it a doubly stupid idea.
    Its disturbing in any workplace.

    Its doubly disturbing surely in schools to have unauthorised adults hanging around the place.
    I think he was after martyrdom.

    Enoch Burke is a great name.

    Anglican, not surprisingly.
    He will be a hero to the anti Woke right though, Leon will have a poster of him on his wall soon enough
    Actually no. From my reading the guy appears to be a religiose twerp
    If you don't object to being required to refer to someone as 'they' in a classroom and jailed for doing so, then you are not really anti Woke at all. I am afraid Leon you are just another elitist London metropolitan liberal after all.

    The Mail comments on this are appalled. I am not too bothered with referring to someone as 'they' if they wish but I certainly would not jail someone who refused to, especially if they took a traditional and religious view of sexuality

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11184043/Teacher-refused-use-students-gender-neutral-pronouns-JAILED-Ireland.html#comments
    He was jailed for contempt of court


    I despise Wokeness but a teacher should afford his pupils the basic respect of calling them “they” if that is how they see themselves. The respect must go both ways however
    Since you never refer to anyone to their face, I don't see how the issue arose.
    That's not actually difficult.

    Child answers a question.

    Teacher: 'That was a good answer, X. Now, how can we improve on what s/he said?'
    Use their name?
    As Ishmael said, you could. But generally having identified them I would say grammatically you could then use a pronoun.

    Equally, you don't have to.
  • bigglesbiggles Posts: 3,201
    nico679 said:

    nico679 said:

    nico679 said:

    kle4 said:

    nico679 said:

    Looks like the UK will soon be withdrawing from the ECHR if the odious Braverman has her way . Patel replaced by an equally nasty individual .

    It is surely the principal reason for her appointment. Stop the boats, get out of the ECHR, job done - it'll give endless chances for them to claim Labour want to give succour to criminals.
    Unfortunately the general public don’t seem to realize how many rights have been secured by the ECHR . I’m hoping there’s enough backbench Tories who would rebel and stop that from happening . It wasn’t in the manifesto , the HOL should not back down if legislation gets there. Can you imagine the optics at this time for the UK to be withdrawing from the ECHR .
    This is a good argument for leaving. These questions should be decided politically in the UK.
    So you trust the Tories to protect your rights ? Good luck with that .
    Translation: "I don't trust the UK to govern itself. It needs babysitting by continental Europeans."
    You’re missing the point . Governments can change , and rights could then be at the whim of those . Why don’t you read up on the rights won by Brits because of the ECHR .
    What’s interesting is that you and I furiously agree but for different reasons. I think it’s important that a future Government should be able to strip me off all rights, if elected on a platform to do so, so I don’t want the ECHR there to “protect” me. I want to be a member to set an example.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 33,598
    Incorporate the ECHR into British law, and have it enforced by British judges, who are ultimately answerable to the British people. Then leave the ECHR

    Problem solved
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 34,922
    Andy_JS said:

    The Truss pitch:

    The last 12 years have been a disaster for the UK

    I was at the heart of it all

    Trust me to put it right

    It's true the Tories haven't done anything very conservative over the last 12 years.
    It's not "conservative" to govern the country badly?

    Hmm. Beg to differ, Andy.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,054
    edited September 2022
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 31,578
    IshmaelZ said:

    ydoethur said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    ydoethur said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    ydoethur said:

    Carnyx said:

    ydoethur said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    ydoethur said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    ydoethur said:

    Cookie said:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/09/06/teacher-jailed-row-use-pronouns-transgender-pupil/

    A teacher in Ireland has been jailed for refusing to use the pronoun 'they' to refer to a pupil who identified as neither male nor female.

    Whatever the rights and wrongs of the gender identity debate, 'they' is a plural noun and totally unsuitable for referring to a person.

    Couldn't we come up with some vaguely acceptable compromise? E.g. 'shehe?' Or perhaps, to make it sound classier, borrow from Welsh and create 'fehi?'
    No it isn't. been in constant use as a singular since at the latest 1375.
    Really? Where? All documents I have seen from that period use 'he' as a shorthand for a single person of unknown gender.
    https://public.oed.com/blog/a-brief-history-of-singular-they/

    Singular they has become the pronoun of choice to replace he and she in cases where the gender of the antecedent – the word the pronoun refers to – is unknown, irrelevant, or nonbinary, or where gender needs to be concealed. It’s the word we use for sentences like Everyone loves his mother.

    But that’s nothing new. The Oxford English Dictionary traces singular they back to 1375, where it appears in the medieval romance William and the Werewolf. Except for the old-style language of that poem, its use of singular they to refer to an unnamed person seems very modern. Here’s the Middle English version: ‘Hastely hiȝed eche . . . þei neyȝþed so neiȝh . . . þere william & his worþi lef were liand i-fere.’ In modern English, that’s: ‘Each man hurried . . . till they drew near . . . where William and his darling were lying together.’
    But that sentence isn't a singular. If it says 'each man' that means there's more than one.

    And your own link notes the Chicago Manual of Style doesn't agree.
    Americanese is not English. Though related, admittedly, in the manner of an elephant and a manatee.
    Tusk, tusk.

    There is a serious point, in that the CMS while focused on American English is actually generally used as a standard grammar guide in a way the OED is for spelling.

    So if they agree with me, regardless of what Ishmael thinks I'm happy I'm right.
    you are saying "each man" is plural?

    Respect. A positively HYUFDian claim.
    No, I'm saying if they refer to 'each man' it means there was more than one of them!

    You wouldn't use the word 'each' instead of 'the' for just one, would you?
    No, but that doesn't prevent it from being singular. Each man had a sword = All the men had swords. That doesn't make "Each man had swords" acceptable.

    "A journalist should not be forced to reveal their sources"; are you seriously saying that is not good English?
    Well, yes. Because apart from anything else it should be a general comment in the plural, so 'journalists should not be forced to reveal their sources.'
    OK: this allegation was made by a journalist, who when asked refused to reveal their source.
    ... reveal the sources used.

    Would do, and you avoid the potential singular/plural clash, especially if you have just been talking about a multiple entity.

    "PB posters were accused of rabidly attacking innocent tractor enthusiasts. The journalist refused to reveal the sources used."
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 110,113
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 59,635
    Leon said:

    Incorporate the ECHR into British law, and have it enforced by British judges, who are ultimately answerable to the British people.

    How so? We don't vote for them. We don't appoint them. It's very hard to dismiss them once they've been appointed.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 6,650
    edited September 2022
    algarkirk said:

    biggles said:

    HYUFD said:

    Labour lead by 17% in the Red Wall.

    Red Wall Voting Intention (4 September):

    Labour 48% (+1)
    Conservative 31% (-3)
    Liberal Democrat 7% (-1)
    Reform UK 7% (+2)
    Green 5% (+2)
    Plaid Cymru 1% (-1)
    Other 1% (–)

    Changes +/- 21 August

    Reform very high in the red wall.
    Reform level with the LDs in the redwall now, in a Starmer v Truss snoozeville election, Nige may well fancy his chances to bring some populist charisma back into the contest. He could return as leader for the umpteenth time of UKIP/RefUK
    I'm amazed that 7% of voters even know what Reform is. Are they campaigning in the Red Wall? Do they have constituency associations? Public meetings? Down here I've not heard them mentioned - ever.
    I’ve wondered this, and whether such polling prompts using Farage’s name.

    I share this surprise. I have no idea who Reform are. I can't believe they get any votes in the actual world. Who are they?

    They are what was the Brexit Party. They achieved 1.6% in the sennedd election, 0.2% at Holyrood and 2.4% in the London assembly. They have won 4 seats under fptp local elections, all in Derby, they hold (incliding defections) fewer than 10 council seats. In the by elections they got 4% in N Shropshire N and 6.6% in Old Bexley but sub 2% in all the others they stood in
    They will not have the money to run a full slate unless drastic money is poured in.
    7% my arse.
  • nico679nico679 Posts: 2,970

    nico679 said:

    nico679 said:

    kle4 said:

    nico679 said:

    Looks like the UK will soon be withdrawing from the ECHR if the odious Braverman has her way . Patel replaced by an equally nasty individual .

    It is surely the principal reason for her appointment. Stop the boats, get out of the ECHR, job done - it'll give endless chances for them to claim Labour want to give succour to criminals.
    Unfortunately the general public don’t seem to realize how many rights have been secured by the ECHR . I’m hoping there’s enough backbench Tories who would rebel and stop that from happening . It wasn’t in the manifesto , the HOL should not back down if legislation gets there. Can you imagine the optics at this time for the UK to be withdrawing from the ECHR .
    This is a good argument for leaving. These questions should be decided politically in the UK.
    So you trust the Tories to protect your rights ? Good luck with that .
    Translation: "I don't trust the UK to govern itself. It needs babysitting by continental Europeans."

    I absolutely do not trust the protection of human rights with populist politicians looking for votes.
    It sounds like the core problem you have is that you don't trust most voters. Perhaps it's a shame that it's now taboo to argue against democracy.
    It’s not about trusting voters . You need some protection against governments who might not want to behave properly regarding citizens rights .
  • nico679 said:

    nico679 said:

    kle4 said:

    nico679 said:

    Looks like the UK will soon be withdrawing from the ECHR if the odious Braverman has her way . Patel replaced by an equally nasty individual .

    It is surely the principal reason for her appointment. Stop the boats, get out of the ECHR, job done - it'll give endless chances for them to claim Labour want to give succour to criminals.
    Unfortunately the general public don’t seem to realize how many rights have been secured by the ECHR . I’m hoping there’s enough backbench Tories who would rebel and stop that from happening . It wasn’t in the manifesto , the HOL should not back down if legislation gets there. Can you imagine the optics at this time for the UK to be withdrawing from the ECHR .
    This is a good argument for leaving. These questions should be decided politically in the UK.
    So you trust the Tories to protect your rights ? Good luck with that .
    Translation: "I don't trust the UK to govern itself. It needs babysitting by continental Europeans."
    Sounds reasonable to me.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 59,635
    HYUFD said:
    Do I hear the sound of barrels being scraped?
  • nico679 said:

    nico679 said:

    nico679 said:

    kle4 said:

    nico679 said:

    Looks like the UK will soon be withdrawing from the ECHR if the odious Braverman has her way . Patel replaced by an equally nasty individual .

    It is surely the principal reason for her appointment. Stop the boats, get out of the ECHR, job done - it'll give endless chances for them to claim Labour want to give succour to criminals.
    Unfortunately the general public don’t seem to realize how many rights have been secured by the ECHR . I’m hoping there’s enough backbench Tories who would rebel and stop that from happening . It wasn’t in the manifesto , the HOL should not back down if legislation gets there. Can you imagine the optics at this time for the UK to be withdrawing from the ECHR .
    This is a good argument for leaving. These questions should be decided politically in the UK.
    So you trust the Tories to protect your rights ? Good luck with that .
    Translation: "I don't trust the UK to govern itself. It needs babysitting by continental Europeans."

    I absolutely do not trust the protection of human rights with populist politicians looking for votes.
    It sounds like the core problem you have is that you don't trust most voters. Perhaps it's a shame that it's now taboo to argue against democracy.
    It’s not about trusting voters . You need some protection against governments who might not want to behave properly regarding citizens rights .
    Why?
  • bigglesbiggles Posts: 3,201
    kle4 said:

    nico679 said:

    nico679 said:

    kle4 said:

    nico679 said:

    Looks like the UK will soon be withdrawing from the ECHR if the odious Braverman has her way . Patel replaced by an equally nasty individual .

    It is surely the principal reason for her appointment. Stop the boats, get out of the ECHR, job done - it'll give endless chances for them to claim Labour want to give succour to criminals.
    Unfortunately the general public don’t seem to realize how many rights have been secured by the ECHR . I’m hoping there’s enough backbench Tories who would rebel and stop that from happening . It wasn’t in the manifesto , the HOL should not back down if legislation gets there. Can you imagine the optics at this time for the UK to be withdrawing from the ECHR .
    This is a good argument for leaving. These questions should be decided politically in the UK.
    So you trust the Tories to protect your rights ? Good luck with that .
    Translation: "I don't trust the UK to govern itself. It needs babysitting by continental Europeans."
    I don't think we need to be babysat. I'm simply not persuaded, given the general approach to the convention, why it is necessary to junk the whole thing. I think the general competence of ministers who are obsessed with a particular policy they want to enact, rather than a concern about properly reviewing rights, is reasonable to quetion. They want to stop X, but are going to open up and redo the whole alphabet.

    I don't see much gain but plenty to risk.
    Yup. The classic example is the judgement on prisoner voting. All the ECHR said was that we shouldn’t have a blanket ban with no proportion or reason to it. Our politicians decided to argue the toss and present it as saying all prisoners should get the vote. In fact it was/is an easy fix.

  • kle4kle4 Posts: 86,032
    Leon said:

    Incorporate the ECHR into British law, and have it enforced by British judges, who are ultimately answerable to the British people. Then leave the ECHR

    Problem solved

    But the government presumably want to remove certain bits, or else they'd not be so mad. So which bits?
  • bigglesbiggles Posts: 3,201
    Leon said:

    Incorporate the ECHR into British law, and have it enforced by British judges, who are ultimately answerable to the British people. Then leave the ECHR

    Problem solved

    How then do you use it as a foreign policy tool?
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 20,084
    edited September 2022
    HYUFD said:
    Cue attack of the vapors by the health campaigners lol!
  • Is Rees-Mogg really going to BEIS? Really?

    What sick parody is this?
  • kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    Incorporate the ECHR into British law, and have it enforced by British judges, who are ultimately answerable to the British people. Then leave the ECHR

    Problem solved

    But the government presumably want to remove certain bits, or else they'd not be so mad. So which bits?
    The issue is not the document, its the Court.

    Lawyers here like @DavidL have repeatedly pointed to flaws in the Courts judgments and reasoning.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    nico679 said:

    nico679 said:

    nico679 said:

    kle4 said:

    nico679 said:

    Looks like the UK will soon be withdrawing from the ECHR if the odious Braverman has her way . Patel replaced by an equally nasty individual .

    It is surely the principal reason for her appointment. Stop the boats, get out of the ECHR, job done - it'll give endless chances for them to claim Labour want to give succour to criminals.
    Unfortunately the general public don’t seem to realize how many rights have been secured by the ECHR . I’m hoping there’s enough backbench Tories who would rebel and stop that from happening . It wasn’t in the manifesto , the HOL should not back down if legislation gets there. Can you imagine the optics at this time for the UK to be withdrawing from the ECHR .
    This is a good argument for leaving. These questions should be decided politically in the UK.
    So you trust the Tories to protect your rights ? Good luck with that .
    Translation: "I don't trust the UK to govern itself. It needs babysitting by continental Europeans."

    I absolutely do not trust the protection of human rights with populist politicians looking for votes.
    It sounds like the core problem you have is that you don't trust most voters. Perhaps it's a shame that it's now taboo to argue against democracy.
    It’s not about trusting voters . You need some protection against governments who might not want to behave properly regarding citizens rights .
    Why?
    Have you read any 20th century history?

    Start with the background to the Convention.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 86,032

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    HYUFD said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    ydoethur said:

    dixiedean said:

    Cookie said:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/09/06/teacher-jailed-row-use-pronouns-transgender-pupil/

    A teacher in Ireland has been jailed for refusing to use the pronoun 'they' to refer to a pupil who identified as neither male nor female.

    Fair enough. Teachers should treat their pupils with respect and vice-versa.

    EDIT: Misread it, jailed!? Fired is what I misread it as, fired is appropriate, jailed is not.

    EDIT2: No, he was jailed for contempt of court, not for pronoun use. Contempt of court is of course jailable, should have read article first.
    He was fired.
    He was jailed for ignoring a banning order not to go near the school.
    I cannot, for the life of me, understand why he would breach such an order. There always seemed to me to be something vaguely sad and disturbing about ex-colleagues who tried to hang round the place.

    And of course, it's landed him in prison anyway, which makes it a doubly stupid idea.
    Its disturbing in any workplace.

    Its doubly disturbing surely in schools to have unauthorised adults hanging around the place.
    I think he was after martyrdom.

    Enoch Burke is a great name.

    Anglican, not surprisingly.
    He will be a hero to the anti Woke right though, Leon will have a poster of him on his wall soon enough
    Actually no. From my reading the guy appears to be a religiose twerp
    If you don't object to being required to refer to someone as 'they' in a classroom and jailed for doing so, then you are not really anti Woke at all. I am afraid Leon you are just another elitist London metropolitan liberal after all.

    The Mail comments on this are appalled. I am not too bothered with referring to someone as 'they' if they wish but I certainly would not jail someone who refused to, especially if they took a traditional and religious view of sexuality

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11184043/Teacher-refused-use-students-gender-neutral-pronouns-JAILED-Ireland.html#comments
    Please read the article before ranting about what you imagine it says.

    He's been jailed for breaching a court order banning him from the school whilst the disciplinary process is continuing.

    We also only have his word on the detail of what he's accused of doing. I rather suspect it's a good deal more than he claims, but that the school cannot comment due to his and the pupils' confidentiality. However, even if it's as described, and the suspension (on full pay) is extremely harsh, you still simply don't breach a court order banning you from entering a school (even if you say it's unfair and even if it is unfair).

    The story here is "adult man who is banned from entering a school enters the school and boasts, in court, he will do it again in a heartbeat". What was the judge meant to do?
    Yes, I think plenty of 'unwoke' people would be mad as hell at someone being jailed for not saying a word, but it simply is not what happened here.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 33,598
    ydoethur said:

    Leon said:

    Incorporate the ECHR into British law, and have it enforced by British judges, who are ultimately answerable to the British people.

    How so? We don't vote for them. We don't appoint them. It's very hard to dismiss them once they've been appointed.

    It’s opaque but ultimately we do have democratic control. We have absolutely no say on who the Moldovans appoint to the ECHR. Leave
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 59,635

    Is Rees-Mogg really going to BEIS? Really?

    What sick parody is this?

    Apparently he's been such a knob in his previous roles that there's no junior minister willing to work with him either. So he's got to be his own minister of state too.
  • nico679 said:

    nico679 said:

    kle4 said:

    nico679 said:

    Looks like the UK will soon be withdrawing from the ECHR if the odious Braverman has her way . Patel replaced by an equally nasty individual .

    It is surely the principal reason for her appointment. Stop the boats, get out of the ECHR, job done - it'll give endless chances for them to claim Labour want to give succour to criminals.
    Unfortunately the general public don’t seem to realize how many rights have been secured by the ECHR . I’m hoping there’s enough backbench Tories who would rebel and stop that from happening . It wasn’t in the manifesto , the HOL should not back down if legislation gets there. Can you imagine the optics at this time for the UK to be withdrawing from the ECHR .
    This is a good argument for leaving. These questions should be decided politically in the UK.
    So you trust the Tories to protect your rights ? Good luck with that .
    Translation: "I don't trust the UK to govern itself. It needs babysitting by continental Europeans."

    I absolutely do not trust the protection of human rights with populist politicians looking for votes.
    It sounds like the core problem you have is that you don't trust most voters. Perhaps it's a shame that it's now taboo to argue against democracy.
    I do not trust politicians or their motives. I am very wary of giving them too much power - especially over human rights and especially in a country where you can secure a comfortable majority without getting close to 50% of the vote. You may trust someone like Jeremy Corbyn to protect your right to private property, but I wouldn't.

  • bigglesbiggles Posts: 3,201

    Is Rees-Mogg really going to BEIS? Really?

    What sick parody is this?

    Children back down mines and up chimneys confirmed.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 110,113
  • nico679nico679 Posts: 2,970

    nico679 said:

    nico679 said:

    nico679 said:

    kle4 said:

    nico679 said:

    Looks like the UK will soon be withdrawing from the ECHR if the odious Braverman has her way . Patel replaced by an equally nasty individual .

    It is surely the principal reason for her appointment. Stop the boats, get out of the ECHR, job done - it'll give endless chances for them to claim Labour want to give succour to criminals.
    Unfortunately the general public don’t seem to realize how many rights have been secured by the ECHR . I’m hoping there’s enough backbench Tories who would rebel and stop that from happening . It wasn’t in the manifesto , the HOL should not back down if legislation gets there. Can you imagine the optics at this time for the UK to be withdrawing from the ECHR .
    This is a good argument for leaving. These questions should be decided politically in the UK.
    So you trust the Tories to protect your rights ? Good luck with that .
    Translation: "I don't trust the UK to govern itself. It needs babysitting by continental Europeans."

    I absolutely do not trust the protection of human rights with populist politicians looking for votes.
    It sounds like the core problem you have is that you don't trust most voters. Perhaps it's a shame that it's now taboo to argue against democracy.
    It’s not about trusting voters . You need some protection against governments who might not want to behave properly regarding citizens rights .
    Why?
    I thought that would be obvious . Are you seriously arguing that a government could do anything regarding rights without any recourse at all for people .
  • Saw the speech: plodding and laboured as we’ve come to expect, but at least it wasn’t delivery delivery delivery like last night. I thought she did OK. Hard work starts now though. She’s got, charitably, 2 months tops to really stake her claim on a 2024 victory and show she’s got a chance of delivering it. Otherwise bet accordingly.

    If the two main party leaders stay in post til the GE I think it’s safe to say the next campaign isn’t going to be washing with charisma.
  • “Grant Shapps is Grant Shapps, in a wig” is genuinely one of the funniest things I’ve read on here.
  • IshmaelZ said:

    nico679 said:

    nico679 said:

    nico679 said:

    kle4 said:

    nico679 said:

    Looks like the UK will soon be withdrawing from the ECHR if the odious Braverman has her way . Patel replaced by an equally nasty individual .

    It is surely the principal reason for her appointment. Stop the boats, get out of the ECHR, job done - it'll give endless chances for them to claim Labour want to give succour to criminals.
    Unfortunately the general public don’t seem to realize how many rights have been secured by the ECHR . I’m hoping there’s enough backbench Tories who would rebel and stop that from happening . It wasn’t in the manifesto , the HOL should not back down if legislation gets there. Can you imagine the optics at this time for the UK to be withdrawing from the ECHR .
    This is a good argument for leaving. These questions should be decided politically in the UK.
    So you trust the Tories to protect your rights ? Good luck with that .
    Translation: "I don't trust the UK to govern itself. It needs babysitting by continental Europeans."

    I absolutely do not trust the protection of human rights with populist politicians looking for votes.
    It sounds like the core problem you have is that you don't trust most voters. Perhaps it's a shame that it's now taboo to argue against democracy.
    It’s not about trusting voters . You need some protection against governments who might not want to behave properly regarding citizens rights .
    Why?
    Have you read any 20th century history?

    Start with the background to the Convention.
    I have yes.

    The Convention was drafted in large part by Britain using British rights, and it should be kept. The court is the issue.

    I repeat the repeatedly-ignored point that Russia was a full ECHR member as recently as February 2022. So I repeat, what 'rights' did the ECHR guarantee in Russia until February 2022, in practice?
  • ydoethur said:

    Leon said:

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    HYUFD said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    ydoethur said:

    dixiedean said:

    Cookie said:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/09/06/teacher-jailed-row-use-pronouns-transgender-pupil/

    A teacher in Ireland has been jailed for refusing to use the pronoun 'they' to refer to a pupil who identified as neither male nor female.

    Fair enough. Teachers should treat their pupils with respect and vice-versa.

    EDIT: Misread it, jailed!? Fired is what I misread it as, fired is appropriate, jailed is not.

    EDIT2: No, he was jailed for contempt of court, not for pronoun use. Contempt of court is of course jailable, should have read article first.
    He was fired.
    He was jailed for ignoring a banning order not to go near the school.
    I cannot, for the life of me, understand why he would breach such an order. There always seemed to me to be something vaguely sad and disturbing about ex-colleagues who tried to hang round the place.

    And of course, it's landed him in prison anyway, which makes it a doubly stupid idea.
    Its disturbing in any workplace.

    Its doubly disturbing surely in schools to have unauthorised adults hanging around the place.
    I think he was after martyrdom.

    Enoch Burke is a great name.

    Anglican, not surprisingly.
    He will be a hero to the anti Woke right though, Leon will have a poster of him on his wall soon enough
    Actually no. From my reading the guy appears to be a religiose twerp
    If you don't object to being required to refer to someone as 'they' in a classroom and jailed for doing so, then you are not really anti Woke at all. I am afraid Leon you are just another elitist London metropolitan liberal after all.

    The Mail comments on this are appalled. I am not too bothered with referring to someone as 'they' if they wish but I certainly would not jail someone who refused to, especially if they took a traditional and religious view of sexuality

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11184043/Teacher-refused-use-students-gender-neutral-pronouns-JAILED-Ireland.html#comments
    He was jailed for contempt of court


    I despise Wokeness but a teacher should afford his pupils the basic respect of calling them “they” if that is how they see themselves. The respect must go both ways however
    Since you never refer to anyone to their face, I don't see how the issue arose.
    That's not actually difficult.

    Child answers a question.

    Teacher: 'That was a good answer, X. Now, how can we improve on what s/he said?'
    English is only my tenth language or summat (I first arrived in this country in early 1976 not able to speak a single word of English - I was only four months old!), BUT:

    Isn't the third person singular "it"/"its"?
This discussion has been closed.