Howdy, Stranger!

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

The next cabinet minister to go – politicalbetting.com

13567

Comments

  • Predictable:

    So why oh why is the government still refusing to impose a proper windfall tax on these windfall profits?

    https://twitter.com/RhonddaBryant/status/1585538048816717824

    Now it’s a “proper” windfall tax (details unspecified).

    You have to remember the government scorned all talk of windfall tax, right up until Rishi Sunak imposed one. The principle is conceded, the rest is just haggling over details.

    Oh, and right on cue, within the past hour:-

    Rishi Sunak and Jeremy Hunt will examine extending windfall tax, says Cabinet minister Nadhim Zahawi
    It comes after Shell announced it had added $10 billion in extra profit to its balance sheet

    https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/rishi-sunak-news-jeremy-hunt-windfall-tax-nadhim-zahawi-shell-profits-b1035564.html
  • Leon said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Leon said:

    We are so pathetic we have allowed 10,000 Albanian men to just sail the Channel and ‘claim asylum’, from a European country. This is desperate and pitiful

    It also laughs hard in the face of the many many thousands of people who spend years and money trying to claim citizenship - legally. Fuck it. Just cross the Channel and dump your passport. Sorted. The French will wave you on your way. Why take the legal route?

    This scandal is only going to get bigger until a government gets tough

    On top of everything there's the @rcs1000 point that these guys are only 5-10% of the problem anyway, the rest being legal enterers/overstayers. So you could spend an awful lot tackling the problem, and not actually tackle the problem.
    Which is basically an excuse to ignore the problem.
    The combined libertariat will contrive to ignore the problem, for fear of appearing BNP-ish - out of some bizarre social status anxiety - until it gets so bad the only solution is drastic and deeply painful

    It is quite reminiscent of the EU issue in British politics. Indeed there may be an underlying law at work which might furnish a Gazette article
    Yep, exactly this.
    Is there a parallel universe somewhere linked to pb where the LDs have been in power in the UK for the last 12 years and not the Tories with a succession of authoritarian Home Secretaries who have failed to do their job?
  • kjhkjh Posts: 11,789
    Driving a Sports 2000 again today. My first wet weather drive. Eek.
  • We have a real and pressing need for labour. We have a real and pressing crisis of willing and able young men wanting to come here and work. Clearly the solution is to send all of the workers away...
  • Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 14,324
    edited October 2022

    Sunak slashes Labour's lead with YouGov from 37% to 28%.



    [Sunak] trailed Starmer by 34 to 30 when voters were asked who would make the best prime minister, with 33 per cent saying they were not sure.

    After the implosion of her mini-budget, Truss had trailed Starmer by 42-13 on the same measure.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/new-pm-rishi-sunak-gets-polls-bounce-h9hxl7rss

    Best PM ratings point to a hung parliament with Labour as largest party at the next election, IMHO.
    I dunno about that. I try to avoid false Labour optimism, but this poll IS the Sunak bounce, taken at a time of peak coverage, generally favourable, with Starmer largely out of the news. Clearly he's less unpopular than Truss, but the 28-point deficit and continuing lack of confidence in Sunak's handling of the economy or (by a huge margin) the NHS suggests that much of the electorate has provisionally decided not to vote Tory. Naturally that could change in two years, but it's not a promising start.
    Yes, it's pretty much what I would have expected and it pretty much points to a substantial Labour Majority in a couple of years time. It's only one poll of course but if the lead settles down to about 20 points, which is what I would expect, Starmer is going to have a smooth run in to No 10. The 2.36 on Betfair looks exceptional value.

    The Braverman thing resonated more than I expected and suggests that Team Tory remains disjointed and dysfunctional.

    Starmer is a lucky general indeed.
  • If Sunak's intention in re-appointing Braverman was a cunning plan to ensure PB started talking about asylum seekers, rather than worrying about the state of the economy, it was a roaring success, wasn't it?

    At least it has stopped us wandering onto aliens or woke.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,191
    edited October 2022

    If Sunak's intention in re-appointing Braverman was a cunning plan to ensure PB started talking about asylum seekers, rather than worrying about the state of the economy, it was a roaring success, wasn't it?

    Your point is perhaps a little facetious ;) but the fact is it has moved the narrative on generally to immigration which is a far more comfortable wedge issue for the conservatives compared to inflation and interest rates.
  • Leon said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Leon said:

    We are so pathetic we have allowed 10,000 Albanian men to just sail the Channel and ‘claim asylum’, from a European country. This is desperate and pitiful

    It also laughs hard in the face of the many many thousands of people who spend years and money trying to claim citizenship - legally. Fuck it. Just cross the Channel and dump your passport. Sorted. The French will wave you on your way. Why take the legal route?

    This scandal is only going to get bigger until a government gets tough

    On top of everything there's the @rcs1000 point that these guys are only 5-10% of the problem anyway, the rest being legal enterers/overstayers. So you could spend an awful lot tackling the problem, and not actually tackle the problem.
    Which is basically an excuse to ignore the problem.
    The combined libertariat will contrive to ignore the problem, for fear of appearing BNP-ish - out of some bizarre social status anxiety - until it gets so bad the only solution is drastic and deeply painful

    It is quite reminiscent of the EU issue in British politics. Indeed there may be an underlying law at work which might furnish a Gazette article
    We must salute those fearless thinkers totally unbothered about appearing BNP-ish. In fact one might almost think..
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981

    We have a real and pressing need for labour. We have a real and pressing crisis of willing and able young men wanting to come here and work. Clearly the solution is to send all of the workers away...

    We have a real and pressing need for housing. We have a real and pressing crisis of willing and able young men wanting to come here and place further pressure on the system. Clearly the solution is to welcome all comers...

    Ad hominem points are sometimes valid. Why have you not changed your username to WhiteFlight?
  • DriverDriver Posts: 4,963

    Pupils should not be stopped from wearing their hair in natural Afro styles at school, the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) says in new guidance today.

    Uniform and appearance policies that ban certain hairstyles, without the possibility for exceptions to be made on racial grounds, are likely to be unlawful.

    Race is a protected characteristic under the 2010 Equality Act, which means a person must not be discriminated against because of their hair or hairstyle if it is associated with their race or ethnicity.



    https://tinyurl.com/2munshfp


    So whether you can wear an Afro can depend on your race?
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 28,368
    Ishmael_Z said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Leon said:

    We are so pathetic we have allowed 10,000 Albanian men to just sail the Channel and ‘claim asylum’, from a European country. This is desperate and pitiful

    It also laughs hard in the face of the many many thousands of people who spend years and money trying to claim citizenship - legally. Fuck it. Just cross the Channel and dump your passport. Sorted. The French will wave you on your way. Why take the legal route?

    This scandal is only going to get bigger until a government gets tough

    On top of everything there's the @rcs1000 point that these guys are only 5-10% of the problem anyway, the rest being legal enterers/overstayers. So you could spend an awful lot tackling the problem, and not actually tackle the problem.
    Which is basically an excuse to ignore the problem.
    No, it is a reason to ignore point of entry and make it harder for all illegals once they get here. Biometric id cards would be a start.
    Do you really want another vanity by election in Haltemprice and Howden? Although, it might be a little more interesting this time around.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,662

    algarkirk said:

    Leon said:

    “The Home Affairs Committee was told that "one to two percent" of the entire male population of Albania - around 10,000 men - arrived on small boats this year alone”

    https://twitter.com/skynews/status/1585362210523648009?s=46&t=MR0RvTp-dCr-GHWMb65iDw

    This is actually an exaggeration. It’s 1-2% of YOUNGER Albanian males. But it gives a scale

    And this is why Rwanda will work. These are not asylum seekers from Sudan or Syria. They are European men gaming the system. Offer them a 5% chance that their game will end in central Africa and they will stop coming

    The population of Albania is 2.80-2.9 m. About 1.4 m will be male. 1% of 1.4 m is 14,000. If you exclude under 18s the figure is not far off, though exaggerated. It's in the ball park.

    Albania appears to be a multi party democracy and a recognised applicant to join the EU. What possible grounds can there be for refugee status?

    Dunno, though part of the issue is the UK's inability to process asylum claims. From the same Select Committee hearing;


    The Home Office has only processed 4% of asylum claims from Channel migrants last year.

    85% of those completed claims were granted asylum.

    No wonder the asylum backlog has soared over 100,000


    https://twitter.com/matt_dathan/status/1585195009606914050
    That is quite striking. By definition asylum seekers are not illegal immigrants.

    Is that 85% of the 4% assessed? If representative then these are genuine refugees, not chancers.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 28,368

    We have a real and pressing need for labour. We have a real and pressing crisis of willing and able young men wanting to come here and work. Clearly the solution is to send all of the workers away...

    Fortunately we don't have a pressing need for Labour, now we have the perfectly formed Tony Blair sound-alike, Mr Sunak as Prime Minister.
  • paulyork64paulyork64 Posts: 2,507
    On topic, two threads ago I said this.

    "There might not be a betting market on how short Braverman's stint is, but Hills have a next to leave the Cabinet market. She is favourite unsurprisingly at 4/1. I don't like markets like this much as if there is a reshuffle you can get multiple-way dead heats. but if she's out in disgrace she might go alone.

    Wallace is biggest at 25/1. Wonder if Sunak might upset him enough over Ukraine/MoD budgets for him to resign."
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,191
    edited October 2022
    Driver said:

    Pupils should not be stopped from wearing their hair in natural Afro styles at school, the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) says in new guidance today.

    Uniform and appearance policies that ban certain hairstyles, without the possibility for exceptions to be made on racial grounds, are likely to be unlawful.

    Race is a protected characteristic under the 2010 Equality Act, which means a person must not be discriminated against because of their hair or hairstyle if it is associated with their race or ethnicity.



    https://tinyurl.com/2munshfp


    So whether you can wear an Afro can depend on your race?
    Err yes ?

    It's not possible for non african people to "wear an afro" outwith a mountain of hair product and styling. It's how african hair grows normally.
    Now there might be a debate about dreadlocks and corn rows but 'afros' ???

    NO
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 29,406
    Foxy said:

    algarkirk said:

    Leon said:

    “The Home Affairs Committee was told that "one to two percent" of the entire male population of Albania - around 10,000 men - arrived on small boats this year alone”

    https://twitter.com/skynews/status/1585362210523648009?s=46&t=MR0RvTp-dCr-GHWMb65iDw

    This is actually an exaggeration. It’s 1-2% of YOUNGER Albanian males. But it gives a scale

    And this is why Rwanda will work. These are not asylum seekers from Sudan or Syria. They are European men gaming the system. Offer them a 5% chance that their game will end in central Africa and they will stop coming

    The population of Albania is 2.80-2.9 m. About 1.4 m will be male. 1% of 1.4 m is 14,000. If you exclude under 18s the figure is not far off, though exaggerated. It's in the ball park.

    Albania appears to be a multi party democracy and a recognised applicant to join the EU. What possible grounds can there be for refugee status?

    Dunno, though part of the issue is the UK's inability to process asylum claims. From the same Select Committee hearing;


    The Home Office has only processed 4% of asylum claims from Channel migrants last year.

    85% of those completed claims were granted asylum.

    No wonder the asylum backlog has soared over 100,000


    https://twitter.com/matt_dathan/status/1585195009606914050
    That is quite striking. By definition asylum seekers are not illegal immigrants.

    Is that 85% of the 4% assessed? If representative then these are genuine refugees, not chancers.
    But it won't be representative.
    By definition the 4% processed will be the most straightforward.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 42,957
    Leon said:

    mwadams said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Leon said:

    We are so pathetic we have allowed 10,000 Albanian men to just sail the Channel and ‘claim asylum’, from a European country. This is desperate and pitiful

    It also laughs hard in the face of the many many thousands of people who spend years and money trying to claim citizenship - legally. Fuck it. Just cross the Channel and dump your passport. Sorted. The French will wave you on your way. Why take the legal route?

    This scandal is only going to get bigger until a government gets tough

    On top of everything there's the @rcs1000 point that these guys are only 5-10% of the problem anyway, the rest being legal enterers/overstayers. So you could spend an awful lot tackling the problem, and not actually tackle the problem.
    The real issue, I think, is being unable to define "the problem".

    There are two ways of looking at "the problem", as I see it:

    Way of looking 1: understanding, monitoring, costing, and managing overall immigration into this country from all sources, while trying to shut down the illegal and unsafe routes that fund organized crime.
    Way of looking 2: stop foreigners from coming and taking our jobs, housing, healthcare, benefits etc

    The problem is that (whether or not you agree with the reality behind it) I don't think you *can* address the problem in 2, because it so hard to measure, and includes a lot of things that people who are otherwise minded to support the view, when pushed, are forced to agree that we *should* be doing to deliver a growing economy.

    The headline issue of the truly desperate coming in boats is, as you say, such a small percentage of the problem (whether 1 or 2) that finding a solution is disproportionately expensive ("we could have paid for 'n' nurses on that waste of money") - not least because the level of desperation required to do something so dangerous means that most deterrents simply do not deter.
    It’s the fucking English Channel not the Roaring Forties. It’s not that dangerous. And these people are being transported to Calais in advertised minivans, from Tirana. With a nice stop in Düsseldorf for bratwurst
    So why do you think government after government has failed to address this issue. Is voting in or appointing immigration hardliners like Socialism and Brexit - a great idea just not been done properly yet.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    Pulpstar said:

    Driver said:

    Pupils should not be stopped from wearing their hair in natural Afro styles at school, the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) says in new guidance today.

    Uniform and appearance policies that ban certain hairstyles, without the possibility for exceptions to be made on racial grounds, are likely to be unlawful.

    Race is a protected characteristic under the 2010 Equality Act, which means a person must not be discriminated against because of their hair or hairstyle if it is associated with their race or ethnicity.



    https://tinyurl.com/2munshfp


    So whether you can wear an Afro can depend on your race?
    Err yes ?

    It's not possible for non african people to "wear an afro" outwith a mountain of hair product and styling. It's how african hair grows normally.
    Now there might be a debate about dreadlocks and corn rows but 'afros' ???

    NO
    Utter racial stereotyping nonsense. My hair naturally grows afro if I don't cut it, and I'm as cauc as fuck.
  • Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 5,288

    We have a real and pressing need for labour. We have a real and pressing crisis of willing and able young men wanting to come here and work. Clearly the solution is to send all of the workers away...

    Fortunately we don't have a pressing need for Labour, now we have the perfectly formed Tony Blair sound-alike, Mr Sunak as Prime Minister.
    Heir to Thatcher and all that!
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    “The Daily Show” giving the NYT a run for its money on “bad takes on the U.K.”

    Unpacking the backlash against new UK PM Rishi Sunak

    https://twitter.com/TheDailyShow/status/1585240576537944065
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 42,159
    Is enthusiasm - I mean enthusiasm - for "Rwanda" driven by an acute humanitarian distress at the prospect of migrant deaths in the Channel, do we think?
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 50,270

    We have a real and pressing need for labour. We have a real and pressing crisis of willing and able young men wanting to come here and work. Clearly the solution is to send all of the workers away...

    We have a real and pressing need for labour at the wages offered.

    A relative who works in the building trade says that there are shortages of labour - if you pay the bottom rate and treat the workers like shit.

    Yes, it’s time to reimplement the maximum wages set by Henry VIII.

    The villeins are revolting, aren’t they?
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 42,159
    Ishmael_Z said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Driver said:

    Pupils should not be stopped from wearing their hair in natural Afro styles at school, the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) says in new guidance today.

    Uniform and appearance policies that ban certain hairstyles, without the possibility for exceptions to be made on racial grounds, are likely to be unlawful.

    Race is a protected characteristic under the 2010 Equality Act, which means a person must not be discriminated against because of their hair or hairstyle if it is associated with their race or ethnicity.



    https://tinyurl.com/2munshfp


    So whether you can wear an Afro can depend on your race?
    Err yes ?

    It's not possible for non african people to "wear an afro" outwith a mountain of hair product and styling. It's how african hair grows normally.
    Now there might be a debate about dreadlocks and corn rows but 'afros' ???

    NO
    Utter racial stereotyping nonsense. My hair naturally grows afro if I don't cut it, and I'm as cauc as fuck.
    I'm thinking Art Garfunkel? ...
  • LeonLeon Posts: 55,339
    TOPPING said:

    Leon said:

    mwadams said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Leon said:

    We are so pathetic we have allowed 10,000 Albanian men to just sail the Channel and ‘claim asylum’, from a European country. This is desperate and pitiful

    It also laughs hard in the face of the many many thousands of people who spend years and money trying to claim citizenship - legally. Fuck it. Just cross the Channel and dump your passport. Sorted. The French will wave you on your way. Why take the legal route?

    This scandal is only going to get bigger until a government gets tough

    On top of everything there's the @rcs1000 point that these guys are only 5-10% of the problem anyway, the rest being legal enterers/overstayers. So you could spend an awful lot tackling the problem, and not actually tackle the problem.
    The real issue, I think, is being unable to define "the problem".

    There are two ways of looking at "the problem", as I see it:

    Way of looking 1: understanding, monitoring, costing, and managing overall immigration into this country from all sources, while trying to shut down the illegal and unsafe routes that fund organized crime.
    Way of looking 2: stop foreigners from coming and taking our jobs, housing, healthcare, benefits etc

    The problem is that (whether or not you agree with the reality behind it) I don't think you *can* address the problem in 2, because it so hard to measure, and includes a lot of things that people who are otherwise minded to support the view, when pushed, are forced to agree that we *should* be doing to deliver a growing economy.

    The headline issue of the truly desperate coming in boats is, as you say, such a small percentage of the problem (whether 1 or 2) that finding a solution is disproportionately expensive ("we could have paid for 'n' nurses on that waste of money") - not least because the level of desperation required to do something so dangerous means that most deterrents simply do not deter.
    It’s the fucking English Channel not the Roaring Forties. It’s not that dangerous. And these people are being transported to Calais in advertised minivans, from Tirana. With a nice stop in Düsseldorf for bratwurst
    So why do you think government after government has failed to address this issue. Is voting in or appointing immigration hardliners like Socialism and Brexit - a great idea just not been done properly yet.
    The Stupid Quotient on PB is now so off-the-dial high I may have to recuse myself from the site. Evidence: all your comments today
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,662
    dixiedean said:

    Foxy said:

    algarkirk said:

    Leon said:

    “The Home Affairs Committee was told that "one to two percent" of the entire male population of Albania - around 10,000 men - arrived on small boats this year alone”

    https://twitter.com/skynews/status/1585362210523648009?s=46&t=MR0RvTp-dCr-GHWMb65iDw

    This is actually an exaggeration. It’s 1-2% of YOUNGER Albanian males. But it gives a scale

    And this is why Rwanda will work. These are not asylum seekers from Sudan or Syria. They are European men gaming the system. Offer them a 5% chance that their game will end in central Africa and they will stop coming

    The population of Albania is 2.80-2.9 m. About 1.4 m will be male. 1% of 1.4 m is 14,000. If you exclude under 18s the figure is not far off, though exaggerated. It's in the ball park.

    Albania appears to be a multi party democracy and a recognised applicant to join the EU. What possible grounds can there be for refugee status?

    Dunno, though part of the issue is the UK's inability to process asylum claims. From the same Select Committee hearing;


    The Home Office has only processed 4% of asylum claims from Channel migrants last year.

    85% of those completed claims were granted asylum.

    No wonder the asylum backlog has soared over 100,000


    https://twitter.com/matt_dathan/status/1585195009606914050
    That is quite striking. By definition asylum seekers are not illegal immigrants.

    Is that 85% of the 4% assessed? If representative then these are genuine refugees, not chancers.
    But it won't be representative.
    By definition the 4% processed will be the most straightforward.
    If they haven't processed 96%, how do they know if they are straightforward or not?
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    kinabalu said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Driver said:

    Pupils should not be stopped from wearing their hair in natural Afro styles at school, the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) says in new guidance today.

    Uniform and appearance policies that ban certain hairstyles, without the possibility for exceptions to be made on racial grounds, are likely to be unlawful.

    Race is a protected characteristic under the 2010 Equality Act, which means a person must not be discriminated against because of their hair or hairstyle if it is associated with their race or ethnicity.



    https://tinyurl.com/2munshfp


    So whether you can wear an Afro can depend on your race?
    Err yes ?

    It's not possible for non african people to "wear an afro" outwith a mountain of hair product and styling. It's how african hair grows normally.
    Now there might be a debate about dreadlocks and corn rows but 'afros' ???

    NO
    Utter racial stereotyping nonsense. My hair naturally grows afro if I don't cut it, and I'm as cauc as fuck.
    I'm thinking Art Garfunkel? ...
    Exactly
  • Leon said:

    TOPPING said:

    Leon said:

    mwadams said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Leon said:

    We are so pathetic we have allowed 10,000 Albanian men to just sail the Channel and ‘claim asylum’, from a European country. This is desperate and pitiful

    It also laughs hard in the face of the many many thousands of people who spend years and money trying to claim citizenship - legally. Fuck it. Just cross the Channel and dump your passport. Sorted. The French will wave you on your way. Why take the legal route?

    This scandal is only going to get bigger until a government gets tough

    On top of everything there's the @rcs1000 point that these guys are only 5-10% of the problem anyway, the rest being legal enterers/overstayers. So you could spend an awful lot tackling the problem, and not actually tackle the problem.
    The real issue, I think, is being unable to define "the problem".

    There are two ways of looking at "the problem", as I see it:

    Way of looking 1: understanding, monitoring, costing, and managing overall immigration into this country from all sources, while trying to shut down the illegal and unsafe routes that fund organized crime.
    Way of looking 2: stop foreigners from coming and taking our jobs, housing, healthcare, benefits etc

    The problem is that (whether or not you agree with the reality behind it) I don't think you *can* address the problem in 2, because it so hard to measure, and includes a lot of things that people who are otherwise minded to support the view, when pushed, are forced to agree that we *should* be doing to deliver a growing economy.

    The headline issue of the truly desperate coming in boats is, as you say, such a small percentage of the problem (whether 1 or 2) that finding a solution is disproportionately expensive ("we could have paid for 'n' nurses on that waste of money") - not least because the level of desperation required to do something so dangerous means that most deterrents simply do not deter.
    It’s the fucking English Channel not the Roaring Forties. It’s not that dangerous. And these people are being transported to Calais in advertised minivans, from Tirana. With a nice stop in Düsseldorf for bratwurst
    So why do you think government after government has failed to address this issue. Is voting in or appointing immigration hardliners like Socialism and Brexit - a great idea just not been done properly yet.
    The Stupid Quotient on PB is now so off-the-dial high I may have to recuse myself from the site. Evidence: all your comments today
    Thanks for offering to restore the balance on the quotient. A noble self sacrifice that will move the dial immeasurably.
  • Ishmael_Z said:

    We have a real and pressing need for labour. We have a real and pressing crisis of willing and able young men wanting to come here and work. Clearly the solution is to send all of the workers away...

    We have a real and pressing need for housing. We have a real and pressing crisis of willing and able young men wanting to come here and place further pressure on the system. Clearly the solution is to welcome all comers...

    Ad hominem points are sometimes valid. Why have you not changed your username to WhiteFlight?
    Huh? Who said welcome all-comers? We're supposed to have a needs-based migration system post-Brexit, but in practice the need is there and nobody is allowed to come to fill the jobs. Which shrinks the economy, tax revenues, drives spending cuts etc etc.

    The current policy is making us poorer.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 42,159
    Ishmael_Z said:

    kinabalu said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Driver said:

    Pupils should not be stopped from wearing their hair in natural Afro styles at school, the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) says in new guidance today.

    Uniform and appearance policies that ban certain hairstyles, without the possibility for exceptions to be made on racial grounds, are likely to be unlawful.

    Race is a protected characteristic under the 2010 Equality Act, which means a person must not be discriminated against because of their hair or hairstyle if it is associated with their race or ethnicity.



    https://tinyurl.com/2munshfp


    So whether you can wear an Afro can depend on your race?
    Err yes ?

    It's not possible for non african people to "wear an afro" outwith a mountain of hair product and styling. It's how african hair grows normally.
    Now there might be a debate about dreadlocks and corn rows but 'afros' ???

    NO
    Utter racial stereotyping nonsense. My hair naturally grows afro if I don't cut it, and I'm as cauc as fuck.
    I'm thinking Art Garfunkel? ...
    Exactly
    Great! I like a mental picture of each blogger and I can now update yours.

    Sail on silver girl, sail on by ...
  • LeonLeon Posts: 55,339
    edited October 2022
    kinabalu said:

    Is enthusiasm - I mean enthusiasm - for "Rwanda" driven by an acute humanitarian distress at the prospect of migrant deaths in the Channel, do we think?

    Don’t be a twat. No one is enthusiastic for Rwanda. It’s a deeply unpleasant but maybe necessary solution to a dire human conundrum. It’s akin to the abortion debate

    I favour a right to abortions. Yet no one is “enthusiastic” about terminating pregnancies

    Migration must be limited and controlled or societies will unfurl - or elect fascists. That’s it
  • nico679nico679 Posts: 6,275
    Sunak will desperate to hang onto Braverman . If she goes it will look like more chaos and be an open goal to the opposition.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 42,159
    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Is enthusiasm - I mean enthusiasm - for "Rwanda" driven by an acute humanitarian distress at the prospect of migrant deaths in the Channel, do we think?

    Don’t be a twat. No one is enthusiastic for Rwanda. It’s a deeply unpleasant but maybe necessary solution to a dire human conundrum. It’s akin to the abortion debate

    I favour a right to abortions. No one is “enthusiastic” about terminating pregnancies

    Migration must be limited and controlled or societies will unfurl - or elect fascists. That’s it
    I detect enthusiasm.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    Today the first stage of the Gender Recognition (Reform) Bill comes to the Scottish parliament. Three changes are proposed. 1) removes medical/panel process for approval 2) people have to 'live in acquired gender' for 3m rather than 2y, and 3) age change from 18 to 16.…

    ….have no doubt that many people have very good intentions with this Bill and want to help people suffering from gender dysphoria. However medical history shows that good intentions often do harm, especially when we do not interrogate the evidence, and look for unintended harms.…


    https://twitter.com/mgtmccartney/status/1585531822968111104
  • Pulpstar said:

    Driver said:

    Pupils should not be stopped from wearing their hair in natural Afro styles at school, the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) says in new guidance today.

    Uniform and appearance policies that ban certain hairstyles, without the possibility for exceptions to be made on racial grounds, are likely to be unlawful.

    Race is a protected characteristic under the 2010 Equality Act, which means a person must not be discriminated against because of their hair or hairstyle if it is associated with their race or ethnicity.



    https://tinyurl.com/2munshfp


    So whether you can wear an Afro can depend on your race?
    Err yes ?

    It's not possible for non african people to "wear an afro" outwith a mountain of hair product and styling. It's how african hair grows normally.
    Now there might be a debate about dreadlocks and corn rows but 'afros' ???

    NO
    Surely the simple answer is afros can't be banned but anyone can choose to have them.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 42,957
    Leon said:

    TOPPING said:

    Leon said:

    mwadams said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Leon said:

    We are so pathetic we have allowed 10,000 Albanian men to just sail the Channel and ‘claim asylum’, from a European country. This is desperate and pitiful

    It also laughs hard in the face of the many many thousands of people who spend years and money trying to claim citizenship - legally. Fuck it. Just cross the Channel and dump your passport. Sorted. The French will wave you on your way. Why take the legal route?

    This scandal is only going to get bigger until a government gets tough

    On top of everything there's the @rcs1000 point that these guys are only 5-10% of the problem anyway, the rest being legal enterers/overstayers. So you could spend an awful lot tackling the problem, and not actually tackle the problem.
    The real issue, I think, is being unable to define "the problem".

    There are two ways of looking at "the problem", as I see it:

    Way of looking 1: understanding, monitoring, costing, and managing overall immigration into this country from all sources, while trying to shut down the illegal and unsafe routes that fund organized crime.
    Way of looking 2: stop foreigners from coming and taking our jobs, housing, healthcare, benefits etc

    The problem is that (whether or not you agree with the reality behind it) I don't think you *can* address the problem in 2, because it so hard to measure, and includes a lot of things that people who are otherwise minded to support the view, when pushed, are forced to agree that we *should* be doing to deliver a growing economy.

    The headline issue of the truly desperate coming in boats is, as you say, such a small percentage of the problem (whether 1 or 2) that finding a solution is disproportionately expensive ("we could have paid for 'n' nurses on that waste of money") - not least because the level of desperation required to do something so dangerous means that most deterrents simply do not deter.
    It’s the fucking English Channel not the Roaring Forties. It’s not that dangerous. And these people are being transported to Calais in advertised minivans, from Tirana. With a nice stop in Düsseldorf for bratwurst
    So why do you think government after government has failed to address this issue. Is voting in or appointing immigration hardliners like Socialism and Brexit - a great idea just not been done properly yet.
    The Stupid Quotient on PB is now so off-the-dial high I may have to recuse myself from the site. Evidence: all your comments today
    ta-ra luv
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,839

    algarkirk said:

    Leon said:

    “The Home Affairs Committee was told that "one to two percent" of the entire male population of Albania - around 10,000 men - arrived on small boats this year alone”

    https://twitter.com/skynews/status/1585362210523648009?s=46&t=MR0RvTp-dCr-GHWMb65iDw

    This is actually an exaggeration. It’s 1-2% of YOUNGER Albanian males. But it gives a scale

    And this is why Rwanda will work. These are not asylum seekers from Sudan or Syria. They are European men gaming the system. Offer them a 5% chance that their game will end in central Africa and they will stop coming

    The population of Albania is 2.80-2.9 m. About 1.4 m will be male. 1% of 1.4 m is 14,000. If you exclude under 18s the figure is not far off, though exaggerated. It's in the ball park.

    Albania appears to be a multi party democracy and a recognised applicant to join the EU. What possible grounds can there be for refugee status?

    Are they claiming to be from Albania? I thought the game was to dump all paperwork and claim to be Syrian?
    That seems implausible. It would take a couple of minutes to establish whether they are fluent in Levantine Arabic or not.

    Fine, so on what grounds are Albanians being accepted at rate of 95%? Are they claiming to be homosexual and persecuted?
    Mainly on the grounds of blood feuds. The Home Office country guidance is here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/albania-country-policy-and-information-notes/country-policy-and-information-note-blood-feuds-albania-september-2022-accessible
  • We have a real and pressing need for labour. We have a real and pressing crisis of willing and able young men wanting to come here and work. Clearly the solution is to send all of the workers away...

    We have a real and pressing need for labour at the wages offered.

    A relative who works in the building trade says that there are shortages of labour - if you pay the bottom rate and treat the workers like shit.

    Yes, it’s time to reimplement the maximum wages set by Henry VIII.

    The villeins are revolting, aren’t they?
    This is the structural failure at the heart of our economy. The rampant inequality I posted about yesterday. Everything costs too much and wage hikes will push prices even higher. Yet millions of people can't pay their bills no matter how hard they work or how many hours they do...
  • Leon said:

    TOPPING said:

    Leon said:

    mwadams said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Leon said:

    We are so pathetic we have allowed 10,000 Albanian men to just sail the Channel and ‘claim asylum’, from a European country. This is desperate and pitiful

    It also laughs hard in the face of the many many thousands of people who spend years and money trying to claim citizenship - legally. Fuck it. Just cross the Channel and dump your passport. Sorted. The French will wave you on your way. Why take the legal route?

    This scandal is only going to get bigger until a government gets tough

    On top of everything there's the @rcs1000 point that these guys are only 5-10% of the problem anyway, the rest being legal enterers/overstayers. So you could spend an awful lot tackling the problem, and not actually tackle the problem.
    The real issue, I think, is being unable to define "the problem".

    There are two ways of looking at "the problem", as I see it:

    Way of looking 1: understanding, monitoring, costing, and managing overall immigration into this country from all sources, while trying to shut down the illegal and unsafe routes that fund organized crime.
    Way of looking 2: stop foreigners from coming and taking our jobs, housing, healthcare, benefits etc

    The problem is that (whether or not you agree with the reality behind it) I don't think you *can* address the problem in 2, because it so hard to measure, and includes a lot of things that people who are otherwise minded to support the view, when pushed, are forced to agree that we *should* be doing to deliver a growing economy.

    The headline issue of the truly desperate coming in boats is, as you say, such a small percentage of the problem (whether 1 or 2) that finding a solution is disproportionately expensive ("we could have paid for 'n' nurses on that waste of money") - not least because the level of desperation required to do something so dangerous means that most deterrents simply do not deter.
    It’s the fucking English Channel not the Roaring Forties. It’s not that dangerous. And these people are being transported to Calais in advertised minivans, from Tirana. With a nice stop in Düsseldorf for bratwurst
    So why do you think government after government has failed to address this issue. Is voting in or appointing immigration hardliners like Socialism and Brexit - a great idea just not been done properly yet.
    The Stupid Quotient on PB is now so off-the-dial high I may have to recuse myself from the site. Evidence: all your comments today
    Yep. You are the Smartest Person in the Room. Props.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 19,914
    edited October 2022

    Sunak slashes Labour's lead with YouGov from 37% to 28%.



    [Sunak] trailed Starmer by 34 to 30 when voters were asked who would make the best prime minister, with 33 per cent saying they were not sure.

    After the implosion of her mini-budget, Truss had trailed Starmer by 42-13 on the same measure.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/new-pm-rishi-sunak-gets-polls-bounce-h9hxl7rss

    Some previous Tory Don’t Knows going home, presumably. I think we’ll get a better idea of the real lie of the land post-Christmas.

    The best PM ratings will become more meaningful if: (1) the Tories really start eating into the Labour lead; (2) Sunak pulls way ahead of Starmer, but the Labour lead remains quite high as that will indicate stuff happening under the bonnet. Again, we’ll get a better idea on that post-Christmas.

    Right now, voters seem sick and tired of Conservative government. Who runs it is less significant. That’s the bit that really matters. And that’s one reason why the Braverman appointment and all the other old faces was so politically inept - it just says more of the same. Sunak has to change this narrative. It will be tough but it’s not impossible. Starmer is not Blair. Not many are.

    ....Nail on the head. I was optimistic for Sunak. He seemed to be everything Johnson's Tory Party wasn't. I didn't care about his wife his privilege his money his naive interviews. He seemed a rare Tory example of someone who wasn't after self aggrandisment or there for a laugh or to benefit his chums. In short a decent human being

    Then on day one he showed just how wrong I was. He turned out to be a ruthlessly ambitious schemer with the judgement of Kwarteng. His interest in the less well off matches that of Braverman. He too dreams of refugees flying away to Rwanda guaranteed never to come back.

    In short we've landed a refined version of Johnson. Another nasty piece of work
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    kinabalu said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    kinabalu said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Driver said:

    Pupils should not be stopped from wearing their hair in natural Afro styles at school, the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) says in new guidance today.

    Uniform and appearance policies that ban certain hairstyles, without the possibility for exceptions to be made on racial grounds, are likely to be unlawful.

    Race is a protected characteristic under the 2010 Equality Act, which means a person must not be discriminated against because of their hair or hairstyle if it is associated with their race or ethnicity.



    https://tinyurl.com/2munshfp


    So whether you can wear an Afro can depend on your race?
    Err yes ?

    It's not possible for non african people to "wear an afro" outwith a mountain of hair product and styling. It's how african hair grows normally.
    Now there might be a debate about dreadlocks and corn rows but 'afros' ???

    NO
    Utter racial stereotyping nonsense. My hair naturally grows afro if I don't cut it, and I'm as cauc as fuck.
    I'm thinking Art Garfunkel? ...
    Exactly
    Great! I like a mental picture of each blogger and I can now update yours.

    Sail on silver girl, sail on by ...
    I was told by someone at a PB meet up that I looked like Paddy Ashdown, if you want to triangulate
  • LeonLeon Posts: 55,339
    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Is enthusiasm - I mean enthusiasm - for "Rwanda" driven by an acute humanitarian distress at the prospect of migrant deaths in the Channel, do we think?

    Don’t be a twat. No one is enthusiastic for Rwanda. It’s a deeply unpleasant but maybe necessary solution to a dire human conundrum. It’s akin to the abortion debate

    I favour a right to abortions. No one is “enthusiastic” about terminating pregnancies

    Migration must be limited and controlled or societies will unfurl - or elect fascists. That’s it
    I detect enthusiasm.
    Of course you do. Your fetid antennae twitch on Keats Grove, as you look with faint longing at the rangy Albanian carpenter refurbing next door
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,839

    Today the first stage of the Gender Recognition (Reform) Bill comes to the Scottish parliament. Three changes are proposed. 1) removes medical/panel process for approval 2) people have to 'live in acquired gender' for 3m rather than 2y, and 3) age change from 18 to 16.…

    ….have no doubt that many people have very good intentions with this Bill and want to help people suffering from gender dysphoria. However medical history shows that good intentions often do harm, especially when we do not interrogate the evidence, and look for unintended harms.…


    https://twitter.com/mgtmccartney/status/1585531822968111104

    The question is whether the SNP are willing to allow a free vote on this. My expectation is no. For whatever reason this is a flagship policy for Nicola and she will want to drive it through, despite (or even because of) the handbrake turn recently undertaken by NHS England.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 55,339

    Leon said:

    TOPPING said:

    Leon said:

    mwadams said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Leon said:

    We are so pathetic we have allowed 10,000 Albanian men to just sail the Channel and ‘claim asylum’, from a European country. This is desperate and pitiful

    It also laughs hard in the face of the many many thousands of people who spend years and money trying to claim citizenship - legally. Fuck it. Just cross the Channel and dump your passport. Sorted. The French will wave you on your way. Why take the legal route?

    This scandal is only going to get bigger until a government gets tough

    On top of everything there's the @rcs1000 point that these guys are only 5-10% of the problem anyway, the rest being legal enterers/overstayers. So you could spend an awful lot tackling the problem, and not actually tackle the problem.
    The real issue, I think, is being unable to define "the problem".

    There are two ways of looking at "the problem", as I see it:

    Way of looking 1: understanding, monitoring, costing, and managing overall immigration into this country from all sources, while trying to shut down the illegal and unsafe routes that fund organized crime.
    Way of looking 2: stop foreigners from coming and taking our jobs, housing, healthcare, benefits etc

    The problem is that (whether or not you agree with the reality behind it) I don't think you *can* address the problem in 2, because it so hard to measure, and includes a lot of things that people who are otherwise minded to support the view, when pushed, are forced to agree that we *should* be doing to deliver a growing economy.

    The headline issue of the truly desperate coming in boats is, as you say, such a small percentage of the problem (whether 1 or 2) that finding a solution is disproportionately expensive ("we could have paid for 'n' nurses on that waste of money") - not least because the level of desperation required to do something so dangerous means that most deterrents simply do not deter.
    It’s the fucking English Channel not the Roaring Forties. It’s not that dangerous. And these people are being transported to Calais in advertised minivans, from Tirana. With a nice stop in Düsseldorf for bratwurst
    So why do you think government after government has failed to address this issue. Is voting in or appointing immigration hardliners like Socialism and Brexit - a great idea just not been done properly yet.
    The Stupid Quotient on PB is now so off-the-dial high I may have to recuse myself from the site. Evidence: all your comments today
    Yep. You are the Smartest Person in the Room. Props.
    Well, I am, aren’t I? With the possible exception of @Mysticrose
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 42,957
    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Is enthusiasm - I mean enthusiasm - for "Rwanda" driven by an acute humanitarian distress at the prospect of migrant deaths in the Channel, do we think?

    Don’t be a twat. No one is enthusiastic for Rwanda. It’s a deeply unpleasant but maybe necessary solution to a dire human conundrum. It’s akin to the abortion debate

    I favour a right to abortions. No one is “enthusiastic” about terminating pregnancies

    Migration must be limited and controlled or societies will unfurl - or elect fascists. That’s it
    Deeply unpleasant??? Weren't you lot saying it was a paradise on earth and we should all be so lucky to have the opportunity to go and live there?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,191
    edited October 2022

    Pulpstar said:

    Driver said:

    Pupils should not be stopped from wearing their hair in natural Afro styles at school, the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) says in new guidance today.

    Uniform and appearance policies that ban certain hairstyles, without the possibility for exceptions to be made on racial grounds, are likely to be unlawful.

    Race is a protected characteristic under the 2010 Equality Act, which means a person must not be discriminated against because of their hair or hairstyle if it is associated with their race or ethnicity.



    https://tinyurl.com/2munshfp


    So whether you can wear an Afro can depend on your race?
    Err yes ?

    It's not possible for non african people to "wear an afro" outwith a mountain of hair product and styling. It's how african hair grows normally.
    Now there might be a debate about dreadlocks and corn rows but 'afros' ???

    NO
    Surely the simple answer is afros can't be banned but anyone can choose to have them.
    Or no "natural" hair styles to be banned as an alternative, including Ishmael's garfunkel bonce.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,708
    On topic, maybe not a great thing to bet on unless you have inside information. But if you have to, maybe think David Davies, because he's a massive drama queen.
  • DriverDriver Posts: 4,963

    Pulpstar said:

    Driver said:

    Pupils should not be stopped from wearing their hair in natural Afro styles at school, the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) says in new guidance today.

    Uniform and appearance policies that ban certain hairstyles, without the possibility for exceptions to be made on racial grounds, are likely to be unlawful.

    Race is a protected characteristic under the 2010 Equality Act, which means a person must not be discriminated against because of their hair or hairstyle if it is associated with their race or ethnicity.



    https://tinyurl.com/2munshfp


    So whether you can wear an Afro can depend on your race?
    Err yes ?

    It's not possible for non african people to "wear an afro" outwith a mountain of hair product and styling. It's how african hair grows normally.
    Now there might be a debate about dreadlocks and corn rows but 'afros' ???

    NO
    Surely the simple answer is afros can't be banned but anyone can choose to have them.
    I can't see any reason for any hair rule beyond "it needs to be well looked-after" - unless people use haircuts to signal gang identity or something similar, but even then a rule would seem to create more problems than it is likely to solve.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 42,957
    Leon said:

    TOPPING said:

    Leon said:

    mwadams said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Leon said:

    We are so pathetic we have allowed 10,000 Albanian men to just sail the Channel and ‘claim asylum’, from a European country. This is desperate and pitiful

    It also laughs hard in the face of the many many thousands of people who spend years and money trying to claim citizenship - legally. Fuck it. Just cross the Channel and dump your passport. Sorted. The French will wave you on your way. Why take the legal route?

    This scandal is only going to get bigger until a government gets tough

    On top of everything there's the @rcs1000 point that these guys are only 5-10% of the problem anyway, the rest being legal enterers/overstayers. So you could spend an awful lot tackling the problem, and not actually tackle the problem.
    The real issue, I think, is being unable to define "the problem".

    There are two ways of looking at "the problem", as I see it:

    Way of looking 1: understanding, monitoring, costing, and managing overall immigration into this country from all sources, while trying to shut down the illegal and unsafe routes that fund organized crime.
    Way of looking 2: stop foreigners from coming and taking our jobs, housing, healthcare, benefits etc

    The problem is that (whether or not you agree with the reality behind it) I don't think you *can* address the problem in 2, because it so hard to measure, and includes a lot of things that people who are otherwise minded to support the view, when pushed, are forced to agree that we *should* be doing to deliver a growing economy.

    The headline issue of the truly desperate coming in boats is, as you say, such a small percentage of the problem (whether 1 or 2) that finding a solution is disproportionately expensive ("we could have paid for 'n' nurses on that waste of money") - not least because the level of desperation required to do something so dangerous means that most deterrents simply do not deter.
    It’s the fucking English Channel not the Roaring Forties. It’s not that dangerous. And these people are being transported to Calais in advertised minivans, from Tirana. With a nice stop in Düsseldorf for bratwurst
    So why do you think government after government has failed to address this issue. Is voting in or appointing immigration hardliners like Socialism and Brexit - a great idea just not been done properly yet.
    The Stupid Quotient on PB is now so off-the-dial high I may have to recuse myself from the site. Evidence: all your comments today
    ta-ra luv
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    TOPPING said:

    Leon said:

    mwadams said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Leon said:

    We are so pathetic we have allowed 10,000 Albanian men to just sail the Channel and ‘claim asylum’, from a European country. This is desperate and pitiful

    It also laughs hard in the face of the many many thousands of people who spend years and money trying to claim citizenship - legally. Fuck it. Just cross the Channel and dump your passport. Sorted. The French will wave you on your way. Why take the legal route?

    This scandal is only going to get bigger until a government gets tough

    On top of everything there's the @rcs1000 point that these guys are only 5-10% of the problem anyway, the rest being legal enterers/overstayers. So you could spend an awful lot tackling the problem, and not actually tackle the problem.
    The real issue, I think, is being unable to define "the problem".

    There are two ways of looking at "the problem", as I see it:

    Way of looking 1: understanding, monitoring, costing, and managing overall immigration into this country from all sources, while trying to shut down the illegal and unsafe routes that fund organized crime.
    Way of looking 2: stop foreigners from coming and taking our jobs, housing, healthcare, benefits etc

    The problem is that (whether or not you agree with the reality behind it) I don't think you *can* address the problem in 2, because it so hard to measure, and includes a lot of things that people who are otherwise minded to support the view, when pushed, are forced to agree that we *should* be doing to deliver a growing economy.

    The headline issue of the truly desperate coming in boats is, as you say, such a small percentage of the problem (whether 1 or 2) that finding a solution is disproportionately expensive ("we could have paid for 'n' nurses on that waste of money") - not least because the level of desperation required to do something so dangerous means that most deterrents simply do not deter.
    It’s the fucking English Channel not the Roaring Forties. It’s not that dangerous. And these people are being transported to Calais in advertised minivans, from Tirana. With a nice stop in Düsseldorf for bratwurst
    So why do you think government after government has failed to address this issue. Is voting in or appointing immigration hardliners like Socialism and Brexit - a great idea just not been done properly yet.
    The Stupid Quotient on PB is now so off-the-dial high I may have to recuse myself from the site. Evidence: all your comments today
    Yep. You are the Smartest Person in the Room. Props.
    Well, I am, aren’t I? With the possible exception of @Mysticrose
    Weren't you going to leave us dimwits to it?

    Off you fuck, in which case.
  • Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Is enthusiasm - I mean enthusiasm - for "Rwanda" driven by an acute humanitarian distress at the prospect of migrant deaths in the Channel, do we think?

    Don’t be a twat. No one is enthusiastic for Rwanda. It’s a deeply unpleasant but maybe necessary solution to a dire human conundrum. It’s akin to the abortion debate

    I favour a right to abortions. Yet no one is “enthusiastic” about terminating pregnancies

    Migration must be limited and controlled or societies will unfurl - or elect fascists. That’s it
    I don't know anybody proposing unlimited migration. So you agree with everyone on that point. The challenge is *how* to control it. And your Rwanda policy doesn't work. So will you engage with real world practical ideas or will you just keep telling the entire PB membership how you are so smart and we are all so stupid?
  • MattWMattW Posts: 23,173
    Morning all.

    On the header, I don't see Wallace going first, as afaik the Defence Spending commitment was 3.0% by 2030, with an interim of 2.5% by 2026 - not 3.0% in 2023.
    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/oct/18/james-heappey-defence-spending-quit-hints

    It would be impossible practically to boost the budget by 30%+ in one year and spend that effectively in any case, without wasting a lot of that increase - given how defence spending works. It has to ramp gradually.

    Rishi (hey - we have another first name PM!) will have to show that there will be a gradual increase, and that whatever the stepping up programme is will be supported. As the official number is currently 2.3% including Ukraine spending, I'd say we will see a pathway to 2.5% in 2026 laid out.
  • Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Driver said:

    Pupils should not be stopped from wearing their hair in natural Afro styles at school, the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) says in new guidance today.

    Uniform and appearance policies that ban certain hairstyles, without the possibility for exceptions to be made on racial grounds, are likely to be unlawful.

    Race is a protected characteristic under the 2010 Equality Act, which means a person must not be discriminated against because of their hair or hairstyle if it is associated with their race or ethnicity.



    https://tinyurl.com/2munshfp


    So whether you can wear an Afro can depend on your race?
    Err yes ?

    It's not possible for non african people to "wear an afro" outwith a mountain of hair product and styling. It's how african hair grows normally.
    Now there might be a debate about dreadlocks and corn rows but 'afros' ???

    NO
    Surely the simple answer is afros can't be banned but anyone can choose to have them.
    Or no "natural" hair styles to be banned as an alternative.
    How on earth are you going to train all teachers across the country to understand what is a natural hairstyle for millions of individual kids? Keep it simple.
  • DavidL said:

    Today the first stage of the Gender Recognition (Reform) Bill comes to the Scottish parliament. Three changes are proposed. 1) removes medical/panel process for approval 2) people have to 'live in acquired gender' for 3m rather than 2y, and 3) age change from 18 to 16.…

    ….have no doubt that many people have very good intentions with this Bill and want to help people suffering from gender dysphoria. However medical history shows that good intentions often do harm, especially when we do not interrogate the evidence, and look for unintended harms.…


    https://twitter.com/mgtmccartney/status/1585531822968111104

    The question is whether the SNP are willing to allow a free vote on this. My expectation is no. For whatever reason this is a flagship policy for Nicola and she will want to drive it through, despite (or even because of) the handbrake turn recently undertaken by NHS England.
    Its a dangerous, stupid policy. I don't even know whose virtue they are signalling to.
  • DriverDriver Posts: 4,963
    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Driver said:

    Pupils should not be stopped from wearing their hair in natural Afro styles at school, the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) says in new guidance today.

    Uniform and appearance policies that ban certain hairstyles, without the possibility for exceptions to be made on racial grounds, are likely to be unlawful.

    Race is a protected characteristic under the 2010 Equality Act, which means a person must not be discriminated against because of their hair or hairstyle if it is associated with their race or ethnicity.



    https://tinyurl.com/2munshfp


    So whether you can wear an Afro can depend on your race?
    Err yes ?

    It's not possible for non african people to "wear an afro" outwith a mountain of hair product and styling. It's how african hair grows normally.
    Now there might be a debate about dreadlocks and corn rows but 'afros' ???

    NO
    Surely the simple answer is afros can't be banned but anyone can choose to have them.
    Or no "natural" hair styles to be banned as an alternative, including Ishmael's garfunkel bonce.
    The problem with that is defining "natural".
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,191

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Is enthusiasm - I mean enthusiasm - for "Rwanda" driven by an acute humanitarian distress at the prospect of migrant deaths in the Channel, do we think?

    Don’t be a twat. No one is enthusiastic for Rwanda. It’s a deeply unpleasant but maybe necessary solution to a dire human conundrum. It’s akin to the abortion debate

    I favour a right to abortions. Yet no one is “enthusiastic” about terminating pregnancies

    Migration must be limited and controlled or societies will unfurl - or elect fascists. That’s it
    I don't know anybody proposing unlimited migration. So you agree with everyone on that point. The challenge is *how* to control it. And your Rwanda policy doesn't work. So will you engage with real world practical ideas or will you just keep telling the entire PB membership how you are so smart and we are all so stupid?
    What are the "real world practical ideas" to limit immigration.

    Blood feud, modern slavery, victim of oppression.

    There's a litany of 'safe words' to bypass all the checks. The truth is the number who qualify for asylum on legitimate grounds with a following human rights lawyer are likely literally billions. Do they all have a right to come here ?
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 51,648

    Ishmael_Z said:

    We have a real and pressing need for labour. We have a real and pressing crisis of willing and able young men wanting to come here and work. Clearly the solution is to send all of the workers away...

    We have a real and pressing need for housing. We have a real and pressing crisis of willing and able young men wanting to come here and place further pressure on the system. Clearly the solution is to welcome all comers...

    Ad hominem points are sometimes valid. Why have you not changed your username to WhiteFlight?
    Huh? Who said welcome all-comers? We're supposed to have a needs-based migration system post-Brexit, but in practice the need is there and nobody is allowed to come to fill the jobs. Which shrinks the economy, tax revenues, drives spending cuts etc etc.

    The current policy is making us poorer.
    "Nobody is allowed to come"? Have you not seen the immigration statistics?
  • Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Driver said:

    Pupils should not be stopped from wearing their hair in natural Afro styles at school, the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) says in new guidance today.

    Uniform and appearance policies that ban certain hairstyles, without the possibility for exceptions to be made on racial grounds, are likely to be unlawful.

    Race is a protected characteristic under the 2010 Equality Act, which means a person must not be discriminated against because of their hair or hairstyle if it is associated with their race or ethnicity.



    https://tinyurl.com/2munshfp


    So whether you can wear an Afro can depend on your race?
    Err yes ?

    It's not possible for non african people to "wear an afro" outwith a mountain of hair product and styling. It's how african hair grows normally.
    Now there might be a debate about dreadlocks and corn rows but 'afros' ???

    NO
    Surely the simple answer is afros can't be banned but anyone can choose to have them.
    Or no "natural" hair styles to be banned as an alternative.
    How on earth are you going to train all teachers across the country to understand what is a natural hairstyle for millions of individual kids? Keep it simple.
    Way way back many centuries ago, the smart* kids at my school gamed the rules on hairstyles. Simply go to Billy Slaps for a new buzzcut and have him shave stars or zigzag lines into the stubble. Instant suspension until it grows back out.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,397

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Driver said:

    Pupils should not be stopped from wearing their hair in natural Afro styles at school, the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) says in new guidance today.

    Uniform and appearance policies that ban certain hairstyles, without the possibility for exceptions to be made on racial grounds, are likely to be unlawful.

    Race is a protected characteristic under the 2010 Equality Act, which means a person must not be discriminated against because of their hair or hairstyle if it is associated with their race or ethnicity.



    https://tinyurl.com/2munshfp


    So whether you can wear an Afro can depend on your race?
    Err yes ?

    It's not possible for non african people to "wear an afro" outwith a mountain of hair product and styling. It's how african hair grows normally.
    Now there might be a debate about dreadlocks and corn rows but 'afros' ???

    NO
    Surely the simple answer is afros can't be banned but anyone can choose to have them.
    Or no "natural" hair styles to be banned as an alternative.
    How on earth are you going to train all teachers across the country to understand what is a natural hairstyle for millions of individual kids? Keep it simple.
    Force them all to go skinhead?
  • ydoethur said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Driver said:

    Pupils should not be stopped from wearing their hair in natural Afro styles at school, the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) says in new guidance today.

    Uniform and appearance policies that ban certain hairstyles, without the possibility for exceptions to be made on racial grounds, are likely to be unlawful.

    Race is a protected characteristic under the 2010 Equality Act, which means a person must not be discriminated against because of their hair or hairstyle if it is associated with their race or ethnicity.



    https://tinyurl.com/2munshfp


    So whether you can wear an Afro can depend on your race?
    Err yes ?

    It's not possible for non african people to "wear an afro" outwith a mountain of hair product and styling. It's how african hair grows normally.
    Now there might be a debate about dreadlocks and corn rows but 'afros' ???

    NO
    Surely the simple answer is afros can't be banned but anyone can choose to have them.
    Or no "natural" hair styles to be banned as an alternative.
    How on earth are you going to train all teachers across the country to understand what is a natural hairstyle for millions of individual kids? Keep it simple.
    Force them all to go skinhead?
    Sounds unnatural to me.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,397
    edited October 2022

    ydoethur said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Driver said:

    Pupils should not be stopped from wearing their hair in natural Afro styles at school, the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) says in new guidance today.

    Uniform and appearance policies that ban certain hairstyles, without the possibility for exceptions to be made on racial grounds, are likely to be unlawful.

    Race is a protected characteristic under the 2010 Equality Act, which means a person must not be discriminated against because of their hair or hairstyle if it is associated with their race or ethnicity.



    https://tinyurl.com/2munshfp


    So whether you can wear an Afro can depend on your race?
    Err yes ?

    It's not possible for non african people to "wear an afro" outwith a mountain of hair product and styling. It's how african hair grows normally.
    Now there might be a debate about dreadlocks and corn rows but 'afros' ???

    NO
    Surely the simple answer is afros can't be banned but anyone can choose to have them.
    Or no "natural" hair styles to be banned as an alternative.
    How on earth are you going to train all teachers across the country to understand what is a natural hairstyle for millions of individual kids? Keep it simple.
    Force them all to go skinhead?
    Sounds unnatural to me.
    OGH @turbotubbs and I disagree with you...
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 8,383
    edited October 2022
    A prediction. The numbers of people successfully crossing the Channel in small boats will decline rapidly over the next four months or so. Braverman (if still in post) and the government will claim vindication for the huge success of their policy and announce mission achieved.

    Anybody who has the audacity to suggest that the decline may have something to do with the time of year will be deemed unpatriotic and/or a lefty lawyer and/or a member of the tofu-eating wokerati.
  • Ishmael_Z said:

    We have a real and pressing need for labour. We have a real and pressing crisis of willing and able young men wanting to come here and work. Clearly the solution is to send all of the workers away...

    We have a real and pressing need for housing. We have a real and pressing crisis of willing and able young men wanting to come here and place further pressure on the system. Clearly the solution is to welcome all comers...

    Ad hominem points are sometimes valid. Why have you not changed your username to WhiteFlight?
    Huh? Who said welcome all-comers? We're supposed to have a needs-based migration system post-Brexit, but in practice the need is there and nobody is allowed to come to fill the jobs. Which shrinks the economy, tax revenues, drives spending cuts etc etc.

    The current policy is making us poorer.
    "Nobody is allowed to come"? Have you not seen the immigration statistics?
    Apologies. You are right. We have filled all the vacancies and we don't have a stack of industries screaming for more labour and being told "no".

    You can join Leon on the smart step. Meanwhile in the real world we need to find solutions that work.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,397
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    TOPPING said:

    Leon said:

    mwadams said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Leon said:

    We are so pathetic we have allowed 10,000 Albanian men to just sail the Channel and ‘claim asylum’, from a European country. This is desperate and pitiful

    It also laughs hard in the face of the many many thousands of people who spend years and money trying to claim citizenship - legally. Fuck it. Just cross the Channel and dump your passport. Sorted. The French will wave you on your way. Why take the legal route?

    This scandal is only going to get bigger until a government gets tough

    On top of everything there's the @rcs1000 point that these guys are only 5-10% of the problem anyway, the rest being legal enterers/overstayers. So you could spend an awful lot tackling the problem, and not actually tackle the problem.
    The real issue, I think, is being unable to define "the problem".

    There are two ways of looking at "the problem", as I see it:

    Way of looking 1: understanding, monitoring, costing, and managing overall immigration into this country from all sources, while trying to shut down the illegal and unsafe routes that fund organized crime.
    Way of looking 2: stop foreigners from coming and taking our jobs, housing, healthcare, benefits etc

    The problem is that (whether or not you agree with the reality behind it) I don't think you *can* address the problem in 2, because it so hard to measure, and includes a lot of things that people who are otherwise minded to support the view, when pushed, are forced to agree that we *should* be doing to deliver a growing economy.

    The headline issue of the truly desperate coming in boats is, as you say, such a small percentage of the problem (whether 1 or 2) that finding a solution is disproportionately expensive ("we could have paid for 'n' nurses on that waste of money") - not least because the level of desperation required to do something so dangerous means that most deterrents simply do not deter.
    It’s the fucking English Channel not the Roaring Forties. It’s not that dangerous. And these people are being transported to Calais in advertised minivans, from Tirana. With a nice stop in Düsseldorf for bratwurst
    So why do you think government after government has failed to address this issue. Is voting in or appointing immigration hardliners like Socialism and Brexit - a great idea just not been done properly yet.
    The Stupid Quotient on PB is now so off-the-dial high I may have to recuse myself from the site. Evidence: all your comments today
    Yep. You are the Smartest Person in the Room. Props.
    Well, I am, aren’t I? With the possible exception of @Mysticrose
    Any man who not only makes vast sums of money from knapping flints into dildos but also gets oodles of free overseas travel thrown in strikes me as an absolute genius.

    I wish I had that kind of skill with money...
  • Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Is enthusiasm - I mean enthusiasm - for "Rwanda" driven by an acute humanitarian distress at the prospect of migrant deaths in the Channel, do we think?

    Don’t be a twat. No one is enthusiastic for Rwanda. It’s a deeply unpleasant but maybe necessary solution to a dire human conundrum. It’s akin to the abortion debate

    I favour a right to abortions. Yet no one is “enthusiastic” about terminating pregnancies

    Migration must be limited and controlled or societies will unfurl - or elect fascists. That’s it
    Our Home Secretary is, in fact its her ‘dream’.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 51,648

    Ishmael_Z said:

    We have a real and pressing need for labour. We have a real and pressing crisis of willing and able young men wanting to come here and work. Clearly the solution is to send all of the workers away...

    We have a real and pressing need for housing. We have a real and pressing crisis of willing and able young men wanting to come here and place further pressure on the system. Clearly the solution is to welcome all comers...

    Ad hominem points are sometimes valid. Why have you not changed your username to WhiteFlight?
    Huh? Who said welcome all-comers? We're supposed to have a needs-based migration system post-Brexit, but in practice the need is there and nobody is allowed to come to fill the jobs. Which shrinks the economy, tax revenues, drives spending cuts etc etc.

    The current policy is making us poorer.
    "Nobody is allowed to come"? Have you not seen the immigration statistics?
    Apologies. You are right. We have filled all the vacancies and we don't have a stack of industries screaming for more labour and being told "no".

    You can join Leon on the smart step. Meanwhile in the real world we need to find solutions that work.
    Why were you ever in the Labour party if you instinctively take the side of capital?
  • novanova Posts: 692

    Sunak slashes Labour's lead with YouGov from 37% to 28%.



    [Sunak] trailed Starmer by 34 to 30 when voters were asked who would make the best prime minister, with 33 per cent saying they were not sure.

    After the implosion of her mini-budget, Truss had trailed Starmer by 42-13 on the same measure.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/new-pm-rishi-sunak-gets-polls-bounce-h9hxl7rss

    One of the biggest problems with "best PM" is that whoever is PM has an advantage, because people already see them as PM.

    Truss clearly lost her incumbent bonus be messing up so quickly and so dramatically, but her first best PM figures were not dissimilar (40 to 33 in favour of Starmer).
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    DavidL said:

    Today the first stage of the Gender Recognition (Reform) Bill comes to the Scottish parliament. Three changes are proposed. 1) removes medical/panel process for approval 2) people have to 'live in acquired gender' for 3m rather than 2y, and 3) age change from 18 to 16.…

    ….have no doubt that many people have very good intentions with this Bill and want to help people suffering from gender dysphoria. However medical history shows that good intentions often do harm, especially when we do not interrogate the evidence, and look for unintended harms.…


    https://twitter.com/mgtmccartney/status/1585531822968111104

    The question is whether the SNP are willing to allow a free vote on this. My expectation is no. For whatever reason this is a flagship policy for Nicola and she will want to drive it through, despite (or even because of) the handbrake turn recently undertaken by NHS England.
    No.

    It’s Whipped by the SNP and Labour, with the Tories allowing a free vote:

    https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/snp-msps-will-be-whipped-to-vote-in-favour-of-gender-recognition-reforms-3894529?amp

    And on the day the Telegraph is exposing “Sturgeon’s Tavistock”:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/10/26/sturgeons-tavistock-clinic-offers-trans-children-surgery-not/
  • DriverDriver Posts: 4,963

    Ishmael_Z said:

    We have a real and pressing need for labour. We have a real and pressing crisis of willing and able young men wanting to come here and work. Clearly the solution is to send all of the workers away...

    We have a real and pressing need for housing. We have a real and pressing crisis of willing and able young men wanting to come here and place further pressure on the system. Clearly the solution is to welcome all comers...

    Ad hominem points are sometimes valid. Why have you not changed your username to WhiteFlight?
    Huh? Who said welcome all-comers? We're supposed to have a needs-based migration system post-Brexit, but in practice the need is there and nobody is allowed to come to fill the jobs. Which shrinks the economy, tax revenues, drives spending cuts etc etc.

    The current policy is making us poorer.
    "Nobody is allowed to come"? Have you not seen the immigration statistics?
    Apologies. You are right. We have filled all the vacancies and we don't have a stack of industries screaming for more labour and being told "no".

    You can join Leon on the smart step. Meanwhile in the real world we need to find solutions that work.
    Go back 20 years and start building enough houses?
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 42,957
    Pulpstar said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Is enthusiasm - I mean enthusiasm - for "Rwanda" driven by an acute humanitarian distress at the prospect of migrant deaths in the Channel, do we think?

    Don’t be a twat. No one is enthusiastic for Rwanda. It’s a deeply unpleasant but maybe necessary solution to a dire human conundrum. It’s akin to the abortion debate

    I favour a right to abortions. Yet no one is “enthusiastic” about terminating pregnancies

    Migration must be limited and controlled or societies will unfurl - or elect fascists. That’s it
    I don't know anybody proposing unlimited migration. So you agree with everyone on that point. The challenge is *how* to control it. And your Rwanda policy doesn't work. So will you engage with real world practical ideas or will you just keep telling the entire PB membership how you are so smart and we are all so stupid?
    What are the "real world practical ideas" to limit immigration.

    Blood feud, modern slavery, victim of oppression.

    There's a litany of 'safe words' to bypass all the checks. The truth is the number who qualify for asylum on legitimate grounds with a following human rights lawyer are likely literally billions. Do they all have a right to come here ?
    The real world practical ideas to limit immigration are analagous to the real world practical ideas to limit, say, Islamic terrorism.

    We need to improve the conditions of people from the places which produce the immigrants so that they don't feel the need to cross the globe to come here.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,397
    edited October 2022

    DavidL said:

    Today the first stage of the Gender Recognition (Reform) Bill comes to the Scottish parliament. Three changes are proposed. 1) removes medical/panel process for approval 2) people have to 'live in acquired gender' for 3m rather than 2y, and 3) age change from 18 to 16.…

    ….have no doubt that many people have very good intentions with this Bill and want to help people suffering from gender dysphoria. However medical history shows that good intentions often do harm, especially when we do not interrogate the evidence, and look for unintended harms.…


    https://twitter.com/mgtmccartney/status/1585531822968111104

    The question is whether the SNP are willing to allow a free vote on this. My expectation is no. For whatever reason this is a flagship policy for Nicola and she will want to drive it through, despite (or even because of) the handbrake turn recently undertaken by NHS England.
    Its a dangerous, stupid policy. I don't even know whose virtue they are signalling to.
    A bunch of Nationalists who've been in power without proper challenge for ages yet can't get their one policy to actually work go instead for a load of culture war shit that flies in the face of the evidence, may do enormous harm, is possibly illegal and which won't work either but which will buy off their base and piss off their opponents.

    Turning to Scotland...
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 50,270

    We have a real and pressing need for labour. We have a real and pressing crisis of willing and able young men wanting to come here and work. Clearly the solution is to send all of the workers away...

    We have a real and pressing need for labour at the wages offered.

    A relative who works in the building trade says that there are shortages of labour - if you pay the bottom rate and treat the workers like shit.

    Yes, it’s time to reimplement the maximum wages set by Henry VIII.

    The villeins are revolting, aren’t they?
    This is the structural failure at the heart of our economy. The rampant inequality I posted about yesterday. Everything costs too much and wage hikes will push prices even higher. Yet millions of people can't pay their bills no matter how hard they work or how many hours they do...
    Because we have an engineered, mandated housing shortage. Which means that any available wealth gets sucked into housing.

    In the countryside, crime reporting generally results in crickets chirping. Bit if you dare to put a roof on an abandoned outhouse, their round to check up faster than you can say “For The Greater Good”.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 42,159
    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Is enthusiasm - I mean enthusiasm - for "Rwanda" driven by an acute humanitarian distress at the prospect of migrant deaths in the Channel, do we think?

    Don’t be a twat. No one is enthusiastic for Rwanda. It’s a deeply unpleasant but maybe necessary solution to a dire human conundrum. It’s akin to the abortion debate

    I favour a right to abortions. No one is “enthusiastic” about terminating pregnancies

    Migration must be limited and controlled or societies will unfurl - or elect fascists. That’s it
    I detect enthusiasm.
    Of course you do. Your fetid antennae twitch on Keats Grove, as you look with faint longing at the rangy Albanian carpenter refurbing next door
    I really don't know where that's come from. But it's come from somewhere.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 42,159
    Ishmael_Z said:

    kinabalu said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    kinabalu said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Driver said:

    Pupils should not be stopped from wearing their hair in natural Afro styles at school, the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) says in new guidance today.

    Uniform and appearance policies that ban certain hairstyles, without the possibility for exceptions to be made on racial grounds, are likely to be unlawful.

    Race is a protected characteristic under the 2010 Equality Act, which means a person must not be discriminated against because of their hair or hairstyle if it is associated with their race or ethnicity.



    https://tinyurl.com/2munshfp


    So whether you can wear an Afro can depend on your race?
    Err yes ?

    It's not possible for non african people to "wear an afro" outwith a mountain of hair product and styling. It's how african hair grows normally.
    Now there might be a debate about dreadlocks and corn rows but 'afros' ???

    NO
    Utter racial stereotyping nonsense. My hair naturally grows afro if I don't cut it, and I'm as cauc as fuck.
    I'm thinking Art Garfunkel? ...
    Exactly
    Great! I like a mental picture of each blogger and I can now update yours.

    Sail on silver girl, sail on by ...
    I was told by someone at a PB meet up that I looked like Paddy Ashdown, if you want to triangulate
    Oh god. No, let's stick with Art.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,397

    We have a real and pressing need for labour. We have a real and pressing crisis of willing and able young men wanting to come here and work. Clearly the solution is to send all of the workers away...

    We have a real and pressing need for labour at the wages offered.

    A relative who works in the building trade says that there are shortages of labour - if you pay the bottom rate and treat the workers like shit.

    Yes, it’s time to reimplement the maximum wages set by Henry VIII.

    The villeins are revolting, aren’t they?
    This is the structural failure at the heart of our economy. The rampant inequality I posted about yesterday. Everything costs too much and wage hikes will push prices even higher. Yet millions of people can't pay their bills no matter how hard they work or how many hours they do...
    Because we have an engineered, mandated housing shortage. Which means that any available wealth gets sucked into housing.

    In the countryside, crime reporting generally results in crickets chirping. Bit if you dare to put a roof on an abandoned outhouse, their round to check up faster than you can say “For The Greater Good”.
    Especially since you have to say it twice.
  • A prediction. The numbers of people successfully crossing the Channel in small boats will decline rapidly over the next four months or so. Braverman (if still in post) and the government will claim vindication for the huge success of their policy and announce mission achieved.

    Anybody who has the audacity to suggest that the decline may have something to do with the time of year will be deemed unpatriotic and/or a lefty lawyer and/or a member of the tofu-eating wokerati.

    How well I remember the triumphant squawking when the introduction of Rwanda coincided with some shit weather in the Channel.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 23,173

    “The Daily Show” giving the NYT a run for its money on “bad takes on the U.K.”

    Unpacking the backlash against new UK PM Rishi Sunak

    https://twitter.com/TheDailyShow/status/1585240576537944065

    Is Trevor Noah as ignorant as he projects?

    "England's first Prime Minister" in the first 5 seconds. Duh.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,397
    edited October 2022
    MattW said:

    “The Daily Show” giving the NYT a run for its money on “bad takes on the U.K.”

    Unpacking the backlash against new UK PM Rishi Sunak

    https://twitter.com/TheDailyShow/status/1585240576537944065

    Is Trevor Noah as ignorant as he projects?

    "England's first Prime Minister" in the first 5 seconds. Duh.
    Strictly speaking, England has never had a Prime Minister. By the time the office is recognised as having come about it was part of Great Britain.

    So if England ever declared its independence, it would have a first Prime Minister.
  • kinabalu said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    kinabalu said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    kinabalu said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Driver said:

    Pupils should not be stopped from wearing their hair in natural Afro styles at school, the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) says in new guidance today.

    Uniform and appearance policies that ban certain hairstyles, without the possibility for exceptions to be made on racial grounds, are likely to be unlawful.

    Race is a protected characteristic under the 2010 Equality Act, which means a person must not be discriminated against because of their hair or hairstyle if it is associated with their race or ethnicity.



    https://tinyurl.com/2munshfp


    So whether you can wear an Afro can depend on your race?
    Err yes ?

    It's not possible for non african people to "wear an afro" outwith a mountain of hair product and styling. It's how african hair grows normally.
    Now there might be a debate about dreadlocks and corn rows but 'afros' ???

    NO
    Utter racial stereotyping nonsense. My hair naturally grows afro if I don't cut it, and I'm as cauc as fuck.
    I'm thinking Art Garfunkel? ...
    Exactly
    Great! I like a mental picture of each blogger and I can now update yours.

    Sail on silver girl, sail on by ...
    I was told by someone at a PB meet up that I looked like Paddy Ashdown, if you want to triangulate
    Oh god. No, let's stick with Art.
    Ishy shall henceforth be known as Bright Eyes in Divvy Towers.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 50,270

    DavidL said:

    Today the first stage of the Gender Recognition (Reform) Bill comes to the Scottish parliament. Three changes are proposed. 1) removes medical/panel process for approval 2) people have to 'live in acquired gender' for 3m rather than 2y, and 3) age change from 18 to 16.…

    ….have no doubt that many people have very good intentions with this Bill and want to help people suffering from gender dysphoria. However medical history shows that good intentions often do harm, especially when we do not interrogate the evidence, and look for unintended harms.…


    https://twitter.com/mgtmccartney/status/1585531822968111104

    The question is whether the SNP are willing to allow a free vote on this. My expectation is no. For whatever reason this is a flagship policy for Nicola and she will want to drive it through, despite (or even because of) the handbrake turn recently undertaken by NHS England.
    Its a dangerous, stupid policy. I don't even know whose virtue they are signalling to.
    For a number of years, progressivism has defined itself as not saying “no” to any minority group.

    Therefore a nice progressive says yes to self ID. Yes to self ID at any age. Yes to self ID for any mental state.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,397
    After 3 overs, Netherlands have already lost this.

    I would love to think my track record holds good but short of something along the lines of Kevin O'Brien's dayout at Bangalore, it just ain't happening.
  • ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Driver said:

    Pupils should not be stopped from wearing their hair in natural Afro styles at school, the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) says in new guidance today.

    Uniform and appearance policies that ban certain hairstyles, without the possibility for exceptions to be made on racial grounds, are likely to be unlawful.

    Race is a protected characteristic under the 2010 Equality Act, which means a person must not be discriminated against because of their hair or hairstyle if it is associated with their race or ethnicity.



    https://tinyurl.com/2munshfp


    So whether you can wear an Afro can depend on your race?
    Err yes ?

    It's not possible for non african people to "wear an afro" outwith a mountain of hair product and styling. It's how african hair grows normally.
    Now there might be a debate about dreadlocks and corn rows but 'afros' ???

    NO
    Surely the simple answer is afros can't be banned but anyone can choose to have them.
    Or no "natural" hair styles to be banned as an alternative.
    How on earth are you going to train all teachers across the country to understand what is a natural hairstyle for millions of individual kids? Keep it simple.
    Force them all to go skinhead?
    Sounds unnatural to me.
    OGH @turbotubbs and I disagree with you...
    Natural for a few, and many more as we age, but definitely unnatural if applied to all of school age.
  • PJHPJH Posts: 645

    ydoethur said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Driver said:

    Pupils should not be stopped from wearing their hair in natural Afro styles at school, the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) says in new guidance today.

    Uniform and appearance policies that ban certain hairstyles, without the possibility for exceptions to be made on racial grounds, are likely to be unlawful.

    Race is a protected characteristic under the 2010 Equality Act, which means a person must not be discriminated against because of their hair or hairstyle if it is associated with their race or ethnicity.



    https://tinyurl.com/2munshfp


    So whether you can wear an Afro can depend on your race?
    Err yes ?

    It's not possible for non african people to "wear an afro" outwith a mountain of hair product and styling. It's how african hair grows normally.
    Now there might be a debate about dreadlocks and corn rows but 'afros' ???

    NO
    Surely the simple answer is afros can't be banned but anyone can choose to have them.
    Or no "natural" hair styles to be banned as an alternative.
    How on earth are you going to train all teachers across the country to understand what is a natural hairstyle for millions of individual kids? Keep it simple.
    Force them all to go skinhead?
    Sounds unnatural to me.
    That happened at my school, a long time ago now. One of the 'hard boys' in the year above me came in one day (perhaps Year 9 or 10 in modern terminology) with a completely shaved head. And was immediately summoned to the headmaster's office...

    .. and politely pointed out that the only rule about hair was that it must not be below the collar, and he clearly wasn't in breach of that.

    That's the trouble with school rules, they are usually addressing the previous decade's trend, that no pupil would dream of following anyway. Some rule is needed, and it's usually clear what's acceptable and what's not in practice, but writing it down is almost impossible - my school changed the rule to say 'extreme' hair styles not permitted without defining them.

  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 17,405
    kinabalu said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Driver said:

    Pupils should not be stopped from wearing their hair in natural Afro styles at school, the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) says in new guidance today.

    Uniform and appearance policies that ban certain hairstyles, without the possibility for exceptions to be made on racial grounds, are likely to be unlawful.

    Race is a protected characteristic under the 2010 Equality Act, which means a person must not be discriminated against because of their hair or hairstyle if it is associated with their race or ethnicity.



    https://tinyurl.com/2munshfp


    So whether you can wear an Afro can depend on your race?
    Err yes ?

    It's not possible for non african people to "wear an afro" outwith a mountain of hair product and styling. It's how african hair grows normally.
    Now there might be a debate about dreadlocks and corn rows but 'afros' ???

    NO
    Utter racial stereotyping nonsense. My hair naturally grows afro if I don't cut it, and I'm as cauc as fuck.
    I'm thinking Art Garfunkel? ...
    Bob Ross
  • mwadamsmwadams Posts: 3,593
    Ishmael_Z said:

    mwadams said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Leon said:

    We are so pathetic we have allowed 10,000 Albanian men to just sail the Channel and ‘claim asylum’, from a European country. This is desperate and pitiful

    It also laughs hard in the face of the many many thousands of people who spend years and money trying to claim citizenship - legally. Fuck it. Just cross the Channel and dump your passport. Sorted. The French will wave you on your way. Why take the legal route?

    This scandal is only going to get bigger until a government gets tough

    On top of everything there's the @rcs1000 point that these guys are only 5-10% of the problem anyway, the rest being legal enterers/overstayers. So you could spend an awful lot tackling the problem, and not actually tackle the problem.
    The real issue, I think, is being unable to define "the problem".

    There are two ways of looking at "the problem", as I see it:

    Way of looking 1: understanding, monitoring, costing, and managing overall immigration into this country from all sources, while trying to shut down the illegal and unsafe routes that fund organized crime.
    Way of looking 2: stop foreigners from coming and taking our jobs, housing, healthcare, benefits etc

    The problem is that (whether or not you agree with the reality behind it) I don't think you *can* address the problem in 2, because it so hard to measure, and includes a lot of things that people who are otherwise minded to support the view, when pushed, are forced to agree that we *should* be doing to deliver a growing economy.

    The headline issue of the truly desperate coming in boats is, as you say, such a small percentage of the problem (whether 1 or 2) that finding a solution is disproportionately expensive ("we could have paid for 'n' nurses on that waste of money") - not least because the level of desperation required to do something so dangerous means that most deterrents simply do not deter.
    Let's not overstate the danger, it is a slight variation on what thousands of people do regularly for fun. Compared to say a bus journey in mountainous rural India it's a doddle.
    It is fair to say I would do neither by choice! I'm guessing at least as much danger comes from the criminal gang who are "helping" you.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 50,270
    Driver said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Driver said:

    Pupils should not be stopped from wearing their hair in natural Afro styles at school, the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) says in new guidance today.

    Uniform and appearance policies that ban certain hairstyles, without the possibility for exceptions to be made on racial grounds, are likely to be unlawful.

    Race is a protected characteristic under the 2010 Equality Act, which means a person must not be discriminated against because of their hair or hairstyle if it is associated with their race or ethnicity.



    https://tinyurl.com/2munshfp


    So whether you can wear an Afro can depend on your race?
    Err yes ?

    It's not possible for non african people to "wear an afro" outwith a mountain of hair product and styling. It's how african hair grows normally.
    Now there might be a debate about dreadlocks and corn rows but 'afros' ???

    NO
    Surely the simple answer is afros can't be banned but anyone can choose to have them.
    I can't see any reason for any hair rule beyond "it needs to be well looked-after" - unless people use haircuts to signal gang identity or something similar, but even then a rule would seem to create more problems than it is likely to solve.
    It’s the usual problem with modern society - since we can’t trust people with discretion, all students in all schools must obey uniform rules.

    Or not.

    So in a small number of schools where the inner city gang thing is an issue, rules for the entire country are dropped on them. Or not.

  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 13,507
    On topic. Brilliant tip TSE. Wallace will be next to go.
  • mwadamsmwadams Posts: 3,593
    Leon said:

    mwadams said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Leon said:

    We are so pathetic we have allowed 10,000 Albanian men to just sail the Channel and ‘claim asylum’, from a European country. This is desperate and pitiful

    It also laughs hard in the face of the many many thousands of people who spend years and money trying to claim citizenship - legally. Fuck it. Just cross the Channel and dump your passport. Sorted. The French will wave you on your way. Why take the legal route?

    This scandal is only going to get bigger until a government gets tough

    On top of everything there's the @rcs1000 point that these guys are only 5-10% of the problem anyway, the rest being legal enterers/overstayers. So you could spend an awful lot tackling the problem, and not actually tackle the problem.
    The real issue, I think, is being unable to define "the problem".

    There are two ways of looking at "the problem", as I see it:

    Way of looking 1: understanding, monitoring, costing, and managing overall immigration into this country from all sources, while trying to shut down the illegal and unsafe routes that fund organized crime.
    Way of looking 2: stop foreigners from coming and taking our jobs, housing, healthcare, benefits etc

    The problem is that (whether or not you agree with the reality behind it) I don't think you *can* address the problem in 2, because it so hard to measure, and includes a lot of things that people who are otherwise minded to support the view, when pushed, are forced to agree that we *should* be doing to deliver a growing economy.

    The headline issue of the truly desperate coming in boats is, as you say, such a small percentage of the problem (whether 1 or 2) that finding a solution is disproportionately expensive ("we could have paid for 'n' nurses on that waste of money") - not least because the level of desperation required to do something so dangerous means that most deterrents simply do not deter.
    It’s the fucking English Channel not the Roaring Forties. It’s not that dangerous. And these people are being transported to Calais in advertised minivans, from Tirana. With a nice stop in Düsseldorf for bratwurst
    A have been to Dusseldorf and had the bratwurst. (It's impossible not to, given that the entire city smells of bratwurst, like Grantham and lasagne.) I wouldn't risk that a second time.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 23,173
    edited October 2022
    ydoethur said:

    MattW said:

    “The Daily Show” giving the NYT a run for its money on “bad takes on the U.K.”

    Unpacking the backlash against new UK PM Rishi Sunak

    https://twitter.com/TheDailyShow/status/1585240576537944065

    Is Trevor Noah as ignorant as he projects?

    "England's first Prime Minister" in the first 5 seconds. Duh.
    Strictly speaking, England has never had a Prime Minister. By the time the office is recognised as having come about it was part of Great Britain.

    So if England ever declared its independence, it would have a first Prime Minister.
    Exactly. Perhaps we need to start calling Mr Biden the "President of New York".

    I guess Mr Noah is some competition for Gary Lineker.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 42,159

    DavidL said:

    Today the first stage of the Gender Recognition (Reform) Bill comes to the Scottish parliament. Three changes are proposed. 1) removes medical/panel process for approval 2) people have to 'live in acquired gender' for 3m rather than 2y, and 3) age change from 18 to 16.…

    ….have no doubt that many people have very good intentions with this Bill and want to help people suffering from gender dysphoria. However medical history shows that good intentions often do harm, especially when we do not interrogate the evidence, and look for unintended harms.…


    https://twitter.com/mgtmccartney/status/1585531822968111104

    The question is whether the SNP are willing to allow a free vote on this. My expectation is no. For whatever reason this is a flagship policy for Nicola and she will want to drive it through, despite (or even because of) the handbrake turn recently undertaken by NHS England.
    Its a dangerous, stupid policy. I don't even know whose virtue they are signalling to.
    This seems to be a PB consensus but I don't agree. The reform makes the process to obtain a GRC less lengthy and harrowing but doesn't stop things being determined by sex rather than gender if there's a good reason for that. The effect imo will be to make the lives of transgender people easier without damaging anybody else. I support the policy and I'd hope that England will one day follow suit.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981


    gives some idea. (That was then, this is now, not grown it out for 40 years).
  • Ishmael_Z said:

    We have a real and pressing need for labour. We have a real and pressing crisis of willing and able young men wanting to come here and work. Clearly the solution is to send all of the workers away...

    We have a real and pressing need for housing. We have a real and pressing crisis of willing and able young men wanting to come here and place further pressure on the system. Clearly the solution is to welcome all comers...

    Ad hominem points are sometimes valid. Why have you not changed your username to WhiteFlight?
    Huh? Who said welcome all-comers? We're supposed to have a needs-based migration system post-Brexit, but in practice the need is there and nobody is allowed to come to fill the jobs. Which shrinks the economy, tax revenues, drives spending cuts etc etc.

    The current policy is making us poorer.
    "Nobody is allowed to come"? Have you not seen the immigration statistics?
    Apologies. You are right. We have filled all the vacancies and we don't have a stack of industries screaming for more labour and being told "no".

    You can join Leon on the smart step. Meanwhile in the real world we need to find solutions that work.
    Why were you ever in the Labour party if you instinctively take the side of capital?
    Because life isn't about taking sides - and artificial sides at that. "Workers" vs "Bosses" is stupid. Capital only accrues when it is productive. Hard for business and industry to do that without a workforce who are productive and engaged. Similarly the "all out" mentality only succeeded in closing down the big industries and thus removing all the jobs.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 17,405
    Leon said:

    TOPPING said:

    Leon said:

    mwadams said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Leon said:

    We are so pathetic we have allowed 10,000 Albanian men to just sail the Channel and ‘claim asylum’, from a European country. This is desperate and pitiful

    It also laughs hard in the face of the many many thousands of people who spend years and money trying to claim citizenship - legally. Fuck it. Just cross the Channel and dump your passport. Sorted. The French will wave you on your way. Why take the legal route?

    This scandal is only going to get bigger until a government gets tough

    On top of everything there's the @rcs1000 point that these guys are only 5-10% of the problem anyway, the rest being legal enterers/overstayers. So you could spend an awful lot tackling the problem, and not actually tackle the problem.
    The real issue, I think, is being unable to define "the problem".

    There are two ways of looking at "the problem", as I see it:

    Way of looking 1: understanding, monitoring, costing, and managing overall immigration into this country from all sources, while trying to shut down the illegal and unsafe routes that fund organized crime.
    Way of looking 2: stop foreigners from coming and taking our jobs, housing, healthcare, benefits etc

    The problem is that (whether or not you agree with the reality behind it) I don't think you *can* address the problem in 2, because it so hard to measure, and includes a lot of things that people who are otherwise minded to support the view, when pushed, are forced to agree that we *should* be doing to deliver a growing economy.

    The headline issue of the truly desperate coming in boats is, as you say, such a small percentage of the problem (whether 1 or 2) that finding a solution is disproportionately expensive ("we could have paid for 'n' nurses on that waste of money") - not least because the level of desperation required to do something so dangerous means that most deterrents simply do not deter.
    It’s the fucking English Channel not the Roaring Forties. It’s not that dangerous. And these people are being transported to Calais in advertised minivans, from Tirana. With a nice stop in Düsseldorf for bratwurst
    So why do you think government after government has failed to address this issue. Is voting in or appointing immigration hardliners like Socialism and Brexit - a great idea just not been done properly yet.
    The Stupid Quotient on PB is now so off-the-dial high I may have to recuse myself from the site. Evidence: all your comments today
    I know - there's at least two on here who here who have fallen for the 'usual suspects' in the US whittering on about UAPs.
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 8,383
    ydoethur said:

    After 3 overs, Netherlands have already lost this.

    I would love to think my track record holds good but short of something along the lines of Kevin O'Brien's dayout at Bangalore, it just ain't happening.

    Ignored. Because this time I think you've got it right.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 13,677
    pm215 said:

    On the topic, do we think that Sunak and Wallace would have discussed defence spending before Sunak kept him on? If you're Sunak presumably you'd prefer "I appointed somebody else to Defence" over "Defence minister resigns three weeks into my administration" so I guess better to be clear in advance ("I'd like you to remain in post but I must be clear that I cannot guarantee that we'll be able to raise defence spending etc etc" and Wallace either agrees or doesn't stay on). Or maybe 3% on defence, like the Braverman appointment, is just a price Sunak has agreed to pay to keep his party together...

    Wallace didn't quit when Johnson cut 10,000 troops eighteen months after saying he wouldn't. He's already presided over plenty of cuts to capability why is he going to resign over a few more?
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 50,270
    ydoethur said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Driver said:

    Pupils should not be stopped from wearing their hair in natural Afro styles at school, the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) says in new guidance today.

    Uniform and appearance policies that ban certain hairstyles, without the possibility for exceptions to be made on racial grounds, are likely to be unlawful.

    Race is a protected characteristic under the 2010 Equality Act, which means a person must not be discriminated against because of their hair or hairstyle if it is associated with their race or ethnicity.



    https://tinyurl.com/2munshfp


    So whether you can wear an Afro can depend on your race?
    Err yes ?

    It's not possible for non african people to "wear an afro" outwith a mountain of hair product and styling. It's how african hair grows normally.
    Now there might be a debate about dreadlocks and corn rows but 'afros' ???

    NO
    Surely the simple answer is afros can't be banned but anyone can choose to have them.
    Or no "natural" hair styles to be banned as an alternative.
    How on earth are you going to train all teachers across the country to understand what is a natural hairstyle for millions of individual kids? Keep it simple.
    Force them all to go skinhead?
    The simple answer is an “unnatural” haircut for all students, provided by a barber who has a “uniform” contract with the school.

    This creates employment, eliminates parents arguing with their kids about expensive haircuts, eliminates the gang issue and makes the school policy on haircuts easy to enforce.

    Along with using mandatory Zorb balls for all students to eliminate disease, bullying, sexual harassment etc, providing Saracen APCs to the teachers as a safe space…. Is there no problem in education that I can’t solve?
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 42,159

    kinabalu said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Driver said:

    Pupils should not be stopped from wearing their hair in natural Afro styles at school, the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) says in new guidance today.

    Uniform and appearance policies that ban certain hairstyles, without the possibility for exceptions to be made on racial grounds, are likely to be unlawful.

    Race is a protected characteristic under the 2010 Equality Act, which means a person must not be discriminated against because of their hair or hairstyle if it is associated with their race or ethnicity.



    https://tinyurl.com/2munshfp


    So whether you can wear an Afro can depend on your race?
    Err yes ?

    It's not possible for non african people to "wear an afro" outwith a mountain of hair product and styling. It's how african hair grows normally.
    Now there might be a debate about dreadlocks and corn rows but 'afros' ???

    NO
    Utter racial stereotyping nonsense. My hair naturally grows afro if I don't cut it, and I'm as cauc as fuck.
    I'm thinking Art Garfunkel? ...
    Bob Ross
    Ah yes! Who I have a soft spot for. His painting programmes have the same soothing effect on me as Bake Off. I've watched a ton of them.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    CALL TO ACTIVISM
    @CalltoActivism
    BREAKING: A right-wing Florida lawyer who fought against state laws requiring motorcycle riders to wear helmets was killed in a motorcycle crash while not wearing a helmet, the Tampa Bay Times reports.

    https://twitter.com/CalltoActivism/status/1585278678266699779
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 50,270
    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Driver said:

    Pupils should not be stopped from wearing their hair in natural Afro styles at school, the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) says in new guidance today.

    Uniform and appearance policies that ban certain hairstyles, without the possibility for exceptions to be made on racial grounds, are likely to be unlawful.

    Race is a protected characteristic under the 2010 Equality Act, which means a person must not be discriminated against because of their hair or hairstyle if it is associated with their race or ethnicity.



    https://tinyurl.com/2munshfp


    So whether you can wear an Afro can depend on your race?
    Err yes ?

    It's not possible for non african people to "wear an afro" outwith a mountain of hair product and styling. It's how african hair grows normally.
    Now there might be a debate about dreadlocks and corn rows but 'afros' ???

    NO
    Utter racial stereotyping nonsense. My hair naturally grows afro if I don't cut it, and I'm as cauc as fuck.
    I'm thinking Art Garfunkel? ...
    Bob Ross
    Ah yes! Who I have a soft spot for. His painting programmes have the same soothing effect on me as Bake Off. I've watched a ton of them.
    Sideshow Bob
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,839
    edited October 2022

    DavidL said:

    Today the first stage of the Gender Recognition (Reform) Bill comes to the Scottish parliament. Three changes are proposed. 1) removes medical/panel process for approval 2) people have to 'live in acquired gender' for 3m rather than 2y, and 3) age change from 18 to 16.…

    ….have no doubt that many people have very good intentions with this Bill and want to help people suffering from gender dysphoria. However medical history shows that good intentions often do harm, especially when we do not interrogate the evidence, and look for unintended harms.…


    https://twitter.com/mgtmccartney/status/1585531822968111104

    The question is whether the SNP are willing to allow a free vote on this. My expectation is no. For whatever reason this is a flagship policy for Nicola and she will want to drive it through, despite (or even because of) the handbrake turn recently undertaken by NHS England.
    No.

    It’s Whipped by the SNP and Labour, with the Tories allowing a free vote:

    https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/snp-msps-will-be-whipped-to-vote-in-favour-of-gender-recognition-reforms-3894529?amp

    And on the day the Telegraph is exposing “Sturgeon’s Tavistock”:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/10/26/sturgeons-tavistock-clinic-offers-trans-children-surgery-not/
    Personally, I would ban such invasive treatments or hormone blockers for people under the age of 25, when the brain supposedly becomes adult (I must have missed that stage but never mind). This would not of course stop those who wanted to live as a different gender from doing so and we should be respectful of such wishes but giving these treatments to children should be illegal.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 42,957
    edited October 2022
    kinabalu said:

    DavidL said:

    Today the first stage of the Gender Recognition (Reform) Bill comes to the Scottish parliament. Three changes are proposed. 1) removes medical/panel process for approval 2) people have to 'live in acquired gender' for 3m rather than 2y, and 3) age change from 18 to 16.…

    ….have no doubt that many people have very good intentions with this Bill and want to help people suffering from gender dysphoria. However medical history shows that good intentions often do harm, especially when we do not interrogate the evidence, and look for unintended harms.…


    https://twitter.com/mgtmccartney/status/1585531822968111104

    The question is whether the SNP are willing to allow a free vote on this. My expectation is no. For whatever reason this is a flagship policy for Nicola and she will want to drive it through, despite (or even because of) the handbrake turn recently undertaken by NHS England.
    Its a dangerous, stupid policy. I don't even know whose virtue they are signalling to.
    This seems to be a PB consensus but I don't agree. The reform makes the process to obtain a GRC less lengthy and harrowing but doesn't stop things being determined by sex rather than gender if there's a good reason for that. The effect imo will be to make the lives of transgender people easier without damaging anybody else. I support the policy and I'd hope that England will one day follow suit.
    You are the PB go-to person on transgender issues, while the rest of us faff around sports and prisons so I am minded to go with your view. Lowering the age, however, for example? Seems one for discussion, perhaps.
This discussion has been closed.