Howdy, Stranger!

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

The next cabinet minister to go – politicalbetting.com

12467

Comments

  • Driver said:

    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?
    We are where we are. I'm an advocate for new towns and whole community developments as most of the house building seems to be crowding in "executive style homes" that are the wrong design in the wrong location. No consideration for how people move about with roads at crush capacity and no space / money to expand them. Same with hospitals and schools. So build new. There is plenty of room out there to do so, despite the England Britain is full lie.
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 7,459
    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.
    Well, over here people frequently refer to the 'President of America', rather than of the USA, which I've always found a bit irritating. Same difference.
  • nico679nico679 Posts: 4,533
    Ishmael_Z said:

    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

    It’s like the anti -vaxxers dying of covid . Hard to have sympathy for someone trying to facilitate more deaths .
  • MattWMattW Posts: 18,084

    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.
    Well, over here people frequently refer to the 'President of America', rather than of the USA, which I've always found a bit irritating. Same difference.
    With you on that one.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 14,772

    DavidL 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

    The problem, as I have said before, is the asylum system itself. It is not fit for purpose in a world where there are numerous mass movements of people from horrible and not so horrible places driven by a desire for a better life. We are, bluntly, judging the wrong things. We focus on where they have come from, whether they have evidence of oppression or hardship there, whether their story hangs together or it has holes.

    A proper immigration system would be focused on does this person have useful skills or are they willing to work in areas where we have labour shortages. In short, it should be about us not them.

    It would be impossible for us to make such a change on our own. It would need a large number of western governments to act together in essentially opting out of the UN Convention on Refugees. I think that we are a long way from this yet but it is coming.
    There should be different tests for different types of asylum claims.

    We give the benefit of the doubt to known political dissidents fleeing a very nasty regime.

    We drop the "I'm from Iran and I'm gay. and lost my papers" crap.
    What Is the general principle at play here?

    Documentary evidence is often hard for genuine refugees to provide, because of course the government persecuting them has control of their paperwork.

    Your dividing line would presumably grant asylum to someone like Tatchell, but not to an ordinary gay person. Seems a bit arbitrary and hard to define. How much activity is required to qualify as an activist?

    If you were to exclude a whole class of refugees I would think that the easiest way to do so would be on the basis of those who could modify their behaviour to survive (gays, political dissidents, religious practice, etc) and those persecuted for fixed characteristics (e.g. ethnicity, such as Jews, Rohingya, etc).

    Not something I would advocate, and the political problem is that it would exclude some refugees for which there is most sympathy - political dissidents, persecuted Christians - but it has the advantage of being something relatively simple to define.

    I guess there's the potential to give ministers the discretion to define a group worthy of temporary protection for political reasons - Chinese political dissidents, Ukrainians, Middle East Christians. That would create a political safety valve at the cost of introducing arbitrariness.

    I guess I'm trying to understand what your position is in more detail. Is it less about the reasons for asylum and simply an issue of the numbers? That would suggest a further alternative of setting a hard limit on the numbers granted asylum each year - say one refugee for every 1,000 taxpayers - and then have a points-grading system for persecution and admit the 30,000 applicants with the highest persecution scores and deporting the rest.

    Would seem a bit callous, but if the problem is directly the numbers, then maybe best to have a solution that's direct about it.
  • ydoethur 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.
    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...
    Which SNP base does this madness appeal to? I understand the true believer nationalists and we could be better supporters, but as with Brexit you need to consider what you become *after* leaving. Is this the Scotland they want? Doubtful.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 26,279
    If there's a change at the Home Office I hope Kemi Badenoch gets the job.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 19,611
    Andy_JS said:

    If there's a change at the Home Office I hope Kemi Badenoch gets the job.

    Has Cruella been sacked again yet?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,764
    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.
    The point of a GRC is that you are "officially" a member of the sex that you have chosen. I have no problem with that but I do have a problem with the basket of rights that come with such official recognition, especially if it puts other vulnerable people at risk.
  • mwadamsmwadams Posts: 3,089

    DavidL 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

    The problem, as I have said before, is the asylum system itself. It is not fit for purpose in a world where there are numerous mass movements of people from horrible and not so horrible places driven by a desire for a better life. We are, bluntly, judging the wrong things. We focus on where they have come from, whether they have evidence of oppression or hardship there, whether their story hangs together or it has holes.

    A proper immigration system would be focused on does this person have useful skills or are they willing to work in areas where we have labour shortages. In short, it should be about us not them.

    It would be impossible for us to make such a change on our own. It would need a large number of western governments to act together in essentially opting out of the UN Convention on Refugees. I think that we are a long way from this yet but it is coming.
    There should be different tests for different types of asylum claims.

    We give the benefit of the doubt to known political dissidents fleeing a very nasty regime.

    We drop the "I'm from Iran and I'm gay. and lost my papers" crap.
    What Is the general principle at play here?

    Documentary evidence is often hard for genuine refugees to provide, because of course the government persecuting them has control of their paperwork.

    Your dividing line would presumably grant asylum to someone like Tatchell, but not to an ordinary gay person. Seems a bit arbitrary and hard to define. How much activity is required to qualify as an activist?

    If you were to exclude a whole class of refugees I would think that the easiest way to do so would be on the basis of those who could modify their behaviour to survive (gays, political dissidents, religious practice, etc) and those persecuted for fixed characteristics (e.g. ethnicity, such as Jews, Rohingya, etc).

    Not something I would advocate, and the political problem is that it would exclude some refugees for which there is most sympathy - political dissidents, persecuted Christians - but it has the advantage of being something relatively simple to define.

    I guess there's the potential to give ministers the discretion to define a group worthy of temporary protection for political reasons - Chinese political dissidents, Ukrainians, Middle East Christians. That would create a political safety valve at the cost of introducing arbitrariness.

    I guess I'm trying to understand what your position is in more detail. Is it less about the reasons for asylum and simply an issue of the numbers? That would suggest a further alternative of setting a hard limit on the numbers granted asylum each year - say one refugee for every 1,000 taxpayers - and then have a points-grading system for persecution and admit the 30,000 applicants with the highest persecution scores and deporting the rest.

    Would seem a bit callous, but if the problem is directly the numbers, then maybe best to have a solution that's direct about it.
    This is exactly the problem I was getting at. No-one is being honest about what they are trying to achieve, so they will achieve nothing. And if they *were* honest about what they were trying to achieve, they would rapidly lose support for it because the vagueness offers cover to people who really don't want to think of themselves as callous (i.e. most people).
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,851
    TOPPING said:

    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.
    Well thanks. On the age, yes, 18 to 16 is very arguable. And of course sports and prisons, which you mention, are good examples of where sex not gender might be the determinant, depending on the circs, which sport, which prisoner etc.
  • DriverDriver Posts: 4,522

    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.
    Well, over here people frequently refer to the 'President of America', rather than of the USA, which I've always found a bit irritating. Same difference.
    The problem is that "United States" doesn't have a sensible sounding demonym, so it ends up being "American". Ditto "United Kingdom"/"British". And, of course, the USA isn't the only United States, and neither is the UK the only United Kingdom.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950
    edited October 2022
    DavidL said:

    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.
    The point of a GRC is that you are "officially" a member of the sex that you have chosen. I have no problem with that but I do have a problem with the basket of rights that come with such official recognition, especially if it puts other vulnerable people at risk.
    I think you need to be clear that simply having a GRC doesn't automatically make you a threat to any group, vulnerable or not. You need to have a GRC and be criminally-minded. Just the same as any person of whatever gender, and whenever it was assigned.
  • nico679nico679 Posts: 4,533
    So the stain on humanity is asking for more lessons on how not to break the ministerial code ?

    You really couldn’t make it up !
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 39,748
    edited October 2022

    ydoethur 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.
    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...
    Which SNP base does this madness appeal to? I understand the true believer nationalists and we could be better supporters, but as with Brexit you need to consider what you become *after* leaving. Is this the Scotland they want? Doubtful.
    Not that it amounts to a hill of beans, but what is the current SLD position on the GRA?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,764
    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:

    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.
    The point of a GRC is that you are "officially" a member of the sex that you have chosen. I have no problem with that but I do have a problem with the basket of rights that come with such official recognition, especially if it puts other vulnerable people at risk.
    I think you need to be clear that simply having a GRC doesn't automatically make you a threat to any group, vulnerable or not. You need to have a GRC and be criminally-minded. Just the same as any person of whatever gender, and whenever it was assigned.
    Certainly, I completely agree. The few people I have come across who have been transgender have been law abiding and not a threat to anyone. But it does create a loophole for those who are criminally minded and that has to be borne in mind. It may be that @kinabalu's suggestion of sex rather than gender being the determinant in such situations is the beginnings of an answer.
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 12,415
    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

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

    I can place that into some context for you.

    Sunak slashes Labours lead from meteor hitting wiping out all Tory life on earth to meteor hitting wiping out all Tory life on earth.

    Couple of more serious observations. Firstly

    The Starmergasm seems to have mopped our old LLG anti Tory coalition vote into the Labour share.
    The Liz crash only grew the LLG by about 10%, the labour lead grew exoperstenshully.
    We always suspected Labour would eat some greens score when it came to the GE, so will it now slowly wind back to Greens or stay where it is?
    Ditto the low Lib Dem scores, we always suspected high tactical vote at next election, will the Lib Dem vote stay stolen by Starmer until GE day now or unwind from Labour to Lib Dem before GE. The reason this is important is green and Lib Dem growing and Labour share shrinking narrows the gap, Lab lead, everyone is looking at, without Tory share rising very much.
    With the polls as they are I suggest we need to be vote share watching, not Lab lead watching.

    Which brings me to my second point. Liz has been gone a week, Sunak has had great media coverage and “dismantling the last of Truss” clear coverage. The Tories desperately need their % to leap in the polls soon now, before Sunak honeymoon meets reality.
    It is not going to be a case, with all that factional baggage and economic austerity, their % will grow over the next two years, so sneaky bum time for Tories, Sunak needs to bounce that Vote share into the 30s asap before honeymoon meets reality where we can see what voters really thinking about next GE vote.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 18,891
    Andy_JS said:

    If there's a change at the Home Office I hope Kemi Badenoch gets the job.

    Is it her hairstyle that attracts you? I've never heard her say anything which could be described as interesting or impressive. I read about some of her anti wokishness but that's surely not enough for one of the four biggest offices of state.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,038
    Lot of pol journos very quiet on twitter this morning.

    Press Awards last night.

    Correlation or causation? :smile:
  • 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
    That would certainly help
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 14,772
    edited October 2022
    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:

    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.
    The point of a GRC is that you are "officially" a member of the sex that you have chosen. I have no problem with that but I do have a problem with the basket of rights that come with such official recognition, especially if it puts other vulnerable people at risk.
    I think you need to be clear that simply having a GRC doesn't automatically make you a threat to any group, vulnerable or not. You need to have a GRC and be criminally-minded. Just the same as any person of whatever gender, and whenever it was assigned.
    Sure, but as a man I am assumed to be a risk, and excluded from certain places/roles as a risk reduction measure, not because of a personal judgement about my propensity for criminality.

    I don't see in what sense a GRC changes the assessment of risk that leads to my exclusion.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950
    edited October 2022
    DavidL said:

    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:

    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.
    The point of a GRC is that you are "officially" a member of the sex that you have chosen. I have no problem with that but I do have a problem with the basket of rights that come with such official recognition, especially if it puts other vulnerable people at risk.
    I think you need to be clear that simply having a GRC doesn't automatically make you a threat to any group, vulnerable or not. You need to have a GRC and be criminally-minded. Just the same as any person of whatever gender, and whenever it was assigned.
    Certainly, I completely agree. The few people I have come across who have been transgender have been law abiding and not a threat to anyone. But it does create a loophole for those who are criminally minded and that has to be borne in mind. It may be that @kinabalu's suggestion of sex rather than gender being the determinant in such situations is the beginnings of an answer.
    As I understand it there are transgender wings in prisons (how many no idea) and we are seeing how sports are coming to terms with the challenges of accommodating transgender athletes.

    I mention (again) these two areas because they are the ones that catch the public (and PB's) attention.

    As for changing rooms and loos I have to believe that the "problem" such as it may be is vanishingly small in terms of a) transgender people; and b) transgender people who are criminally-intentioned.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 14,912
    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.
    It's not as if nobody in the UK ever does this. I've lost count of the times that I've heard English people refer to the UK as "England".
  • nico679nico679 Posts: 4,533
    Multiple breaches of the ministerial code and an investigation by MI5.

    And she’s still in her job . Extraordinary and shows how weak Sunak is .
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950

    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:

    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.
    The point of a GRC is that you are "officially" a member of the sex that you have chosen. I have no problem with that but I do have a problem with the basket of rights that come with such official recognition, especially if it puts other vulnerable people at risk.
    I think you need to be clear that simply having a GRC doesn't automatically make you a threat to any group, vulnerable or not. You need to have a GRC and be criminally-minded. Just the same as any person of whatever gender, and whenever it was assigned.
    Sure, but as a man I am assumed to be a risk, and excluded from certain places/roles as a risk reduction measure, not because of a personal judgement about my propensity for criminality.

    I don't see in what sense a GRC changes the assessment of risk that leads to my exclusion.
    Because you are seeing a trans woman as a man. If you see them as a woman then the dynamics of the objection are perhaps clearer.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,851
    DavidL said:

    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.
    The point of a GRC is that you are "officially" a member of the sex that you have chosen. I have no problem with that but I do have a problem with the basket of rights that come with such official recognition, especially if it puts other vulnerable people at risk.
    My understanding is that the overall landscape is unchanged. Eg, if a space or activity wishes to be exclusive by birth sex - and there is a good reason for that - it can be.

    The essence of this reform is to make it easier to obtain a GRC. There will be the same (small) number of transgender people in Scotland after it as before it, but a greater proportion of them will have their gender legally recognized.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,540
    DavidL said:

    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.
    The point of a GRC is that you are "officially" a member of the sex that you have chosen. I have no problem with that but I do have a problem with the basket of rights that come with such official recognition, especially if it puts other vulnerable people at risk.
    Worth listening to this podcast:

    “The only way to maintain the lie is to make it impossible for anyone to talk about it” ⁦
    @HJoyceGender


    https://twitter.com/MrWinMarshall/status/1585031599434997770

    Helen Joyce: the truth about trans and why sex matters

    https://www.spectator.co.uk/podcast/helen-joyce-the-truth-about-trans-and-why-sex-matters
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,574
    Can someone explain ?

    Keir Starmer should "reflect on that sort of language" after he called Suella Braverman's re-appointment as Home Secretary the result of a "grubby deal", Nadhim Zahawi tells @LBC
    https://twitter.com/theousherwood/status/1585526017011105793
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 43,619

    DavidL 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

    The problem, as I have said before, is the asylum system itself. It is not fit for purpose in a world where there are numerous mass movements of people from horrible and not so horrible places driven by a desire for a better life. We are, bluntly, judging the wrong things. We focus on where they have come from, whether they have evidence of oppression or hardship there, whether their story hangs together or it has holes.

    A proper immigration system would be focused on does this person have useful skills or are they willing to work in areas where we have labour shortages. In short, it should be about us not them.

    It would be impossible for us to make such a change on our own. It would need a large number of western governments to act together in essentially opting out of the UN Convention on Refugees. I think that we are a long way from this yet but it is coming.
    There should be different tests for different types of asylum claims.

    We give the benefit of the doubt to known political dissidents fleeing a very nasty regime.

    We drop the "I'm from Iran and I'm gay. and lost my papers" crap.
    What Is the general principle at play here?

    Documentary evidence is often hard for genuine refugees to provide, because of course the government persecuting them has control of their paperwork.

    Your dividing line would presumably grant asylum to someone like Tatchell, but not to an ordinary gay person. Seems a bit arbitrary and hard to define. How much activity is required to qualify as an activist?

    If you were to exclude a whole class of refugees I would think that the easiest way to do so would be on the basis of those who could modify their behaviour to survive (gays, political dissidents, religious practice, etc) and those persecuted for fixed characteristics (e.g. ethnicity, such as Jews, Rohingya, etc).

    Not something I would advocate, and the political problem is that it would exclude some refugees for which there is most sympathy - political dissidents, persecuted Christians - but it has the advantage of being something relatively simple to define.

    I guess there's the potential to give ministers the discretion to define a group worthy of temporary protection for political reasons - Chinese political dissidents, Ukrainians, Middle East Christians. That would create a political safety valve at the cost of introducing arbitrariness.

    I guess I'm trying to understand what your position is in more detail. Is it less about the reasons for asylum and simply an issue of the numbers? That would suggest a further alternative of setting a hard limit on the numbers granted asylum each year - say one refugee for every 1,000 taxpayers - and then have a points-grading system for persecution and admit the 30,000 applicants with the highest persecution scores and deporting the rest.

    Would seem a bit callous, but if the problem is directly the numbers, then maybe best to have a solution that's direct about it.
    The Zimbabwean thing with the farmers led to endless comedy - which began with a Labour government trying to work out how to deny asylum to people who were being driven out at gun point. Illegally, according to Zimbabwean law, for extra LOLs
  • MattWMattW Posts: 18,084

    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

    Here's more detail from the Scot Gov:
    https://www.gov.scot/news/gender-recognition-reform-bill/

    To me, an age reduction combined with removal of checks and balances looks a touch reckless.

    And to try and make this a purely administrative process. Hmmm.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    edited October 2022
    MattW said:

    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.

    Just to note that Ukraine spending, among all of the allies but especially the US, has mostly been academic up until now.

    The actual spending, rather than the donation of existing military assets valued at their development cost, has been in the millions rather than the billions.

    Now, we need to see wartime production lines running for weapons, which will cost actual money, we are starting to see more scepticism from the politicians.

    The intelligence operation, on the other hand, has been the best that the world has ever seen, and needs to be kept running at all costs.
  • TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:

    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.
    The point of a GRC is that you are "officially" a member of the sex that you have chosen. I have no problem with that but I do have a problem with the basket of rights that come with such official recognition, especially if it puts other vulnerable people at risk.
    I think you need to be clear that simply having a GRC doesn't automatically make you a threat to any group, vulnerable or not. You need to have a GRC and be criminally-minded. Just the same as any person of whatever gender, and whenever it was assigned.
    Sure, but as a man I am assumed to be a risk, and excluded from certain places/roles as a risk reduction measure, not because of a personal judgement about my propensity for criminality.

    I don't see in what sense a GRC changes the assessment of risk that leads to my exclusion.
    Because you are seeing a trans woman as a man. If you see them as a woman then the dynamics of the objection are perhaps clearer.
    I believe when this issue started festering on PB and elsewhere, someone (Bev?) asked how the changing room warriors would feel if trans men continued to use women's changing rooms and toilets. I've never really seen a satisfactory answer to that question.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 14,772
    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:

    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.
    The point of a GRC is that you are "officially" a member of the sex that you have chosen. I have no problem with that but I do have a problem with the basket of rights that come with such official recognition, especially if it puts other vulnerable people at risk.
    I think you need to be clear that simply having a GRC doesn't automatically make you a threat to any group, vulnerable or not. You need to have a GRC and be criminally-minded. Just the same as any person of whatever gender, and whenever it was assigned.
    Sure, but as a man I am assumed to be a risk, and excluded from certain places/roles as a risk reduction measure, not because of a personal judgement about my propensity for criminality.

    I don't see in what sense a GRC changes the assessment of risk that leads to my exclusion.
    Because you are seeing a trans woman as a man. If you see them as a woman then the dynamics of the objection are perhaps clearer.
    I guess I'm trying to understand what the basis is for assuming that I am a risk in some settings because I am a man.

    Is it simply the idea of being a man that is dangerous? That would suggest it was something I could change, maybe there would be a male aggression test I could take to see if I was a risk, or I could be educated out of my male aggression?

    If it's something to do with the material reality of being a man, testosterone, say, then that isn't affected by the gender identity that lives in my mind.

    As someone who likes to think that they aren't a threat to anyone, I find it easier to accept my exclusion on the basis that I am a risk, on a statistical basis, due to factors beyond my control, due to my biology, than due to factors within my control, such as my state of mind.

    I really don't identify as an aggressive man, so why should I be bound by rules that are applied because of the risk from aggressive men?
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 19,611
    Roger said:

    Andy_JS said:

    If there's a change at the Home Office I hope Kemi Badenoch gets the job.

    Is it her hairstyle that attracts you? I've never heard her say anything which could be described as interesting or impressive. I read about some of her anti wokishness but that's surely not enough for one of the four biggest offices of state.
    I struggle to grasp @Andy_JS ’s worldview TBH

  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,574
    ydoethur said:

    You have got to be kidding me.

    What is that total loser Nick Gibb doing back as Schools minister?

    He's done it for years and he's done more damage than I would ever have imagined possible.

    He's more useless than Suella Braverman.

    Sunak simply hasn't shown any sense when picking his ministers. This is going to be a car crash.

    Doesn't surprise me, given his previous inexplicable persistence in the Department, against all evidence of his utility (or rather lack of it).

    On the upside, this is what he's replacing.
    https://twitter.com/samnickerson/status/1486830335883104257
  • MattWMattW Posts: 18,084
    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.
    It's not as if nobody in the UK ever does this. I've lost count of the times that I've heard English people refer to the UK as "England".
    It has to be admitted that members of the Scottish Government party love referring to the UK Govt as "English" :smile: .
    It remains important geographically to educate people in the USA, however.
  • MangoMango Posts: 1,013
    Leon said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Leon said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    eek said:

    Foxy 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

    Surely simply deport them back to Albania?
    Then they simply repeat the process of trying to get back to the UK.
    5% chance of ending in Africa? So 95% chance of success? People are shit at probability anyway, so I think that would not stop them. Besides, a lot of those in Calais seem to believe untruths about the UK as it is, Why should they believe they will end in Rwanda, when no-one has ended up in Rwanda?
    Quite. The benchmark for risk tolerance here is, people smoke. I would run a 10% risk for the chances which open up on a successful crossing. At 1 in 20 I would play Russian roulette for a decent payoff. It has to be a stone cold certainty which means recruiting and paying for at least 10s of 000s of new border force bods and buying them RIBs and helicopters and all sorts. And a whole new ministry of Information thinking about it because you have to successfully and simultaneously sell 2 messages: to the public and libs, Look at the light, bright, hygienic accommodation our deportees are welcomed to in Rwanda, and to potential crossers: you will pray for death after 24 hours of what Kigali has lined up for you.
    And your solution is?
    Nobody said all problems have solutions. Cooperating with other countries along the supply chain would slow it down, but we are fucked by geography, technology and ethics. It's in some ways like COVID: poor old contrarian was advocating laissez faire where the old gonna die and the poor gonna starve for a year or so and we emerge a leaner, fitter, richer and less indebted nation. It wasn't a non-solution, but it wasn't a possible solution in the art-of-the-possible sense.
    So, you have no solution. Brilliant
    The simple fact of the matter is it is much nicer to live in wealthy liberal Europe than all these other shitholes. Add in climate catastrophe as a driver, and the choice we face will become stark within a generation or even faster: either we make Africa and west Asia places that most locals want to (and are able to) stay, or we machine gun them in the Med/Channel. I can't see any way of admitting them all without losing our own liberal societal framework, more's the pity.

    Lefty liberals like me might think we need to coordinate across Europe (if only there was some forum for doing so...), and we need something akin to a Marshall plan for Africa and west Asia to help them adapt to climate change and level up entire subcontinents, while not neglecting the work to promote inclusive liberal institutions to spread the wealth around, and make life worth living for all.

    I reiterate: eventually the only alternative will be machine gunning them in the sea.

    Others seem to want to get straight to the machine gunning.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,851

    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:

    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.
    The point of a GRC is that you are "officially" a member of the sex that you have chosen. I have no problem with that but I do have a problem with the basket of rights that come with such official recognition, especially if it puts other vulnerable people at risk.
    I think you need to be clear that simply having a GRC doesn't automatically make you a threat to any group, vulnerable or not. You need to have a GRC and be criminally-minded. Just the same as any person of whatever gender, and whenever it was assigned.
    Sure, but as a man I am assumed to be a risk, and excluded from certain places/roles as a risk reduction measure, not because of a personal judgement about my propensity for criminality.

    I don't see in what sense a GRC changes the assessment of risk that leads to my exclusion.
    You will have lived 3 months as a woman and made a solemn legal declaration that you intend to so live the rest of your life.

    It'll be a criminal offence to do this frivolously or with malign intent.
  • MattW 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.
    It's not as if nobody in the UK ever does this. I've lost count of the times that I've heard English people refer to the UK as "England".
    It has to be admitted that members of the Scottish Government party love referring to the UK Govt as "English" :smile: .
    Can you give some examples of that?
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,145

    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?
    A major selling point of posh boarding schools such as Headmaster's Conference. The local contract barber rocks up at each boarding house one evening a fortnight, on a set cycle, I gather.

    Not sure what happens with the young ladies though.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 12,880
    Sandpit said:


    The intelligence operation, on the other hand, has been the best that the world has ever seen, and needs to be kept running at all costs.

    Ukraine is very unpopular with Trump's base so one way or another this is going to have to be wrapped up by the end of 2023 before we get into the 2024 primaries.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,145
    edited October 2022

    MattW 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.
    It's not as if nobody in the UK ever does this. I've lost count of the times that I've heard English people refer to the UK as "England".
    It has to be admitted that members of the Scottish Government party love referring to the UK Govt as "English" :smile: .
    Can you give some examples of that?
    And excluding those cases which are (accurately) discussing their UKG responsibilities as English.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 43,619
    Sandpit said:

    MattW said:

    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.

    Just to note that Ukraine spending, among all of the allies but especially the US, has mostly been academic up until now.

    The actual spending, rather than the donation of existing military assets valued at their development cost, has been in the millions rather than the billions.

    Now, we need to see wartime production lines running for weapons, which will cost actual money, we are starting to see more scepticism from the politicians.

    The intelligence operation, on the other hand, has been the best that the world has ever seen, and needs to be kept running at all costs.
    In a number of countries, the military have enthusiastically retired old systems to Ukraine.

    In the US, this is good politics for Biden. Brand new weapons means jobs across the board - and represents outreach to the less demented Republicans. Everyone wants a piece of the sweet, sweet money.

    In countries with less of a military pork barrel tradition (funded on the national credit card), less so.
  • DriverDriver Posts: 4,522
    Carnyx said:

    MattW 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.
    It's not as if nobody in the UK ever does this. I've lost count of the times that I've heard English people refer to the UK as "England".
    It has to be admitted that members of the Scottish Government party love referring to the UK Govt as "English" :smile: .
    Can you give some examples of that?
    And excluding those cases which are (accurately) discussing their UKG responsibilities as English.
    Even if the responsibilities don't apply to Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland, it still isn't an English Government.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 24,585
    Andy_JS said:

    If there's a change at the Home Office I hope Kemi Badenoch gets the job.

    Are Genghis Khan or Klaus Barbie unavailable?
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,145
    Driver said:

    Carnyx said:

    MattW 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.
    It's not as if nobody in the UK ever does this. I've lost count of the times that I've heard English people refer to the UK as "England".
    It has to be admitted that members of the Scottish Government party love referring to the UK Govt as "English" :smile: .
    Can you give some examples of that?
    And excluding those cases which are (accurately) discussing their UKG responsibilities as English.
    Even if the responsibilities don't apply to Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland, it still isn't an English Government.
    I didn't say that - just making sure that "The Home Sec is responsible for English planning" is excluded, as it is entirely accurate.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 14,772
    kinabalu said:

    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:

    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.
    The point of a GRC is that you are "officially" a member of the sex that you have chosen. I have no problem with that but I do have a problem with the basket of rights that come with such official recognition, especially if it puts other vulnerable people at risk.
    I think you need to be clear that simply having a GRC doesn't automatically make you a threat to any group, vulnerable or not. You need to have a GRC and be criminally-minded. Just the same as any person of whatever gender, and whenever it was assigned.
    Sure, but as a man I am assumed to be a risk, and excluded from certain places/roles as a risk reduction measure, not because of a personal judgement about my propensity for criminality.

    I don't see in what sense a GRC changes the assessment of risk that leads to my exclusion.
    You will have lived 3 months as a woman and made a solemn legal declaration that you intend to so live the rest of your life.

    It'll be a criminal offence to do this frivolously or with malign intent.
    Could I not make a solemn legal declaration that I intend to live peaceably, after having done so for three months, and then not be considered a violent threat to women?

    Obviously, it'll be a criminal offence to do this frivolously or with malign intent
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:

    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.
    The point of a GRC is that you are "officially" a member of the sex that you have chosen. I have no problem with that but I do have a problem with the basket of rights that come with such official recognition, especially if it puts other vulnerable people at risk.
    I think you need to be clear that simply having a GRC doesn't automatically make you a threat to any group, vulnerable or not. You need to have a GRC and be criminally-minded. Just the same as any person of whatever gender, and whenever it was assigned.
    Sure, but as a man I am assumed to be a risk, and excluded from certain places/roles as a risk reduction measure, not because of a personal judgement about my propensity for criminality.

    I don't see in what sense a GRC changes the assessment of risk that leads to my exclusion.
    Because you are seeing a trans woman as a man. If you see them as a woman then the dynamics of the objection are perhaps clearer.
    I guess I'm trying to understand what the basis is for assuming that I am a risk in some settings because I am a man.

    Is it simply the idea of being a man that is dangerous? That would suggest it was something I could change, maybe there would be a male aggression test I could take to see if I was a risk, or I could be educated out of my male aggression?

    If it's something to do with the material reality of being a )man, testosterone, say, then that isn't affected by the gender identity that lives in my mind.

    As someone who likes to think that they aren't a threat to anyone, I find it easier to accept my exclusion on the basis that I am a risk, on a statistical basis, due to factors beyond my control, due to my biology, than due to factors within my control, such as my state of mind.

    I really don't identify as an aggressive man, so why should I be bound by rules that are applied because of the risk from aggressive men?
    These are imo fantastic thoughts to be having and ones that 99.87% of the population doesn't (bother or are not able to) have.

    I mean if you read the back story of, say, Jane Couch (https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/boxing/52942479) or indeed watch the many, many social media clips of it all going off between girls and girls and girls and boys and what have you, you will see how aggression might not be a "male" thing.

    The segregation might not be "threat" as much as propriety. Not to trivialise it but men and women might not choose to dress the same on the Circle Line as they do on the beach at St. Tropez (thank the lord).
  • TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:

    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:

    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.
    The point of a GRC is that you are "officially" a member of the sex that you have chosen. I have no problem with that but I do have a problem with the basket of rights that come with such official recognition, especially if it puts other vulnerable people at risk.
    I think you need to be clear that simply having a GRC doesn't automatically make you a threat to any group, vulnerable or not. You need to have a GRC and be criminally-minded. Just the same as any person of whatever gender, and whenever it was assigned.
    Certainly, I completely agree. The few people I have come across who have been transgender have been law abiding and not a threat to anyone. But it does create a loophole for those who are criminally minded and that has to be borne in mind. It may be that @kinabalu's suggestion of sex rather than gender being the determinant in such situations is the beginnings of an answer.
    As I understand it there are transgender wings in prisons (how many no idea) and we are seeing how sports are coming to terms with the challenges of accommodating transgender athletes.

    I mention (again) these two areas because they are the ones that catch the public (and PB's) attention.

    As for changing rooms and loos I have to believe that the "problem" such as it may be is vanishingly small in terms of a) transgender people; and b) transgender people who are criminally-intentioned.
    One of the unintended consequences of this is the move towards gender free toilets. It's not the trans community that bothers my wife, it's the half cut pack of rugby playing lads that she gets faced with in the toilets on a night out!
  • Carnyx said:

    MattW 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.
    It's not as if nobody in the UK ever does this. I've lost count of the times that I've heard English people refer to the UK as "England".
    It has to be admitted that members of the Scottish Government party love referring to the UK Govt as "English" :smile: .
    Can you give some examples of that?
    And excluding those cases which are (accurately) discussing their UKG responsibilities as English.
    Like comparitive performance in the devolved health services for example?
    Though posting stuff like this can lead to whiny complaints of rayzism against the English.




  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614

    Sandpit said:

    MattW said:

    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.

    Just to note that Ukraine spending, among all of the allies but especially the US, has mostly been academic up until now.

    The actual spending, rather than the donation of existing military assets valued at their development cost, has been in the millions rather than the billions.

    Now, we need to see wartime production lines running for weapons, which will cost actual money, we are starting to see more scepticism from the politicians.

    The intelligence operation, on the other hand, has been the best that the world has ever seen, and needs to be kept running at all costs.
    In a number of countries, the military have enthusiastically retired old systems to Ukraine.

    In the US, this is good politics for Biden. Brand new weapons means jobs across the board - and represents outreach to the less demented Republicans. Everyone wants a piece of the sweet, sweet money.

    In countries with less of a military pork barrel tradition (funded on the national credit card), less so.
    It is rather amusing to note that the massively successful HIMARS was basically obsolete in the US, yet so far ahead of what the Russians can field in reality, rather than in theory or for a Red Square parade.

    It’s worrying that, a couple of weeks before the elections, that there are plenty of anti-war voices on both sides of the political divide.

    It’s easy to announce another billion in aid, when the actual marginal cost of that aid is nothing but a few hundred grand in transporting the weapons to the battlefield.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,145
    edited October 2022

    Carnyx said:

    MattW 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.
    It's not as if nobody in the UK ever does this. I've lost count of the times that I've heard English people refer to the UK as "England".
    It has to be admitted that members of the Scottish Government party love referring to the UK Govt as "English" :smile: .
    Can you give some examples of that?
    And excluding those cases which are (accurately) discussing their UKG responsibilities as English.
    Like comparitive performance in the devolved health services for example?
    Though posting stuff like this can lead to whiny complaints of rayzism against the English.




    The lack of a true English, rather than a hybrid UK and English, Gmt and Parliament, is a problem, though, more generally: people do get confused. Especially when responsibilities are split horizontally such as onland fracking - licensing is UKG reserved but planning and health are devolved, so in that functional sense the UKG is in part acting as an English one and a UK one at the same time.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950

    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:

    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:

    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.
    The point of a GRC is that you are "officially" a member of the sex that you have chosen. I have no problem with that but I do have a problem with the basket of rights that come with such official recognition, especially if it puts other vulnerable people at risk.
    I think you need to be clear that simply having a GRC doesn't automatically make you a threat to any group, vulnerable or not. You need to have a GRC and be criminally-minded. Just the same as any person of whatever gender, and whenever it was assigned.
    Certainly, I completely agree. The few people I have come across who have been transgender have been law abiding and not a threat to anyone. But it does create a loophole for those who are criminally minded and that has to be borne in mind. It may be that @kinabalu's suggestion of sex rather than gender being the determinant in such situations is the beginnings of an answer.
    As I understand it there are transgender wings in prisons (how many no idea) and we are seeing how sports are coming to terms with the challenges of accommodating transgender athletes.

    I mention (again) these two areas because they are the ones that catch the public (and PB's) attention.

    As for changing rooms and loos I have to believe that the "problem" such as it may be is vanishingly small in terms of a) transgender people; and b) transgender people who are criminally-intentioned.
    One of the unintended consequences of this is the move towards gender free toilets. It's not the trans community that bothers my wife, it's the half cut pack of rugby playing lads that she gets faced with in the toilets on a night out!
    She and I both.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 12,146
    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.
    That Scottish Labour supports the legislation suggests that English Labour might be supportive too?
  • Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    MattW 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.
    It's not as if nobody in the UK ever does this. I've lost count of the times that I've heard English people refer to the UK as "England".
    It has to be admitted that members of the Scottish Government party love referring to the UK Govt as "English" :smile: .
    Can you give some examples of that?
    And excluding those cases which are (accurately) discussing their UKG responsibilities as English.
    Like comparitive performance in the devolved health services for example?
    Though posting stuff like this can lead to whiny complaints of rayzism against the English.




    The lack of a true English, rather than a hybrid UK and English, Gmt and Parliament, is a problem, though, more generally: people do get confused. Especially when responsibilities are split horizontally such as onland fracking - licensing is UKG reserved but planning and health are devolved, so in that functional sense the UKG is in part acting as an English one and a UK one at the same time.
    This is true but the only people who can change that are the two main Unionist parties and their English voters.
    No breath holding please..
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 12,146

    ydoethur 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.
    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...
    Which SNP base does this madness appeal to? I understand the true believer nationalists and we could be better supporters, but as with Brexit you need to consider what you become *after* leaving. Is this the Scotland they want? Doubtful.
    Not that it amounts to a hill of beans, but what is the current SLD position on the GRA?
    Illiberal, undemocratic and anti-Scottish is the standard pattern.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,145

    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.
    That Scottish Labour supports the legislation suggests that English Labour might be supportive too?
    They are all one single party anyway despite the legislative fiddle which allows them to pretend otherwise. I don't know if SKS has quite realised what Slab are doing, though.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    Another 300 Russian troops lost. For how long will their mothers and wives tolerate such meaningless deaths?



    https://mobile.twitter.com/KyivIndependent/status/1585517194296827904/photo/1
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 9,704

    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:

    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:

    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.
    The point of a GRC is that you are "officially" a member of the sex that you have chosen. I have no problem with that but I do have a problem with the basket of rights that come with such official recognition, especially if it puts other vulnerable people at risk.
    I think you need to be clear that simply having a GRC doesn't automatically make you a threat to any group, vulnerable or not. You need to have a GRC and be criminally-minded. Just the same as any person of whatever gender, and whenever it was assigned.
    Certainly, I completely agree. The few people I have come across who have been transgender have been law abiding and not a threat to anyone. But it does create a loophole for those who are criminally minded and that has to be borne in mind. It may be that @kinabalu's suggestion of sex rather than gender being the determinant in such situations is the beginnings of an answer.
    As I understand it there are transgender wings in prisons (how many no idea) and we are seeing how sports are coming to terms with the challenges of accommodating transgender athletes.

    I mention (again) these two areas because they are the ones that catch the public (and PB's) attention.

    As for changing rooms and loos I have to believe that the "problem" such as it may be is vanishingly small in terms of a) transgender people; and b) transgender people who are criminally-intentioned.
    One of the unintended consequences of this is the move towards gender free toilets. It's not the trans community that bothers my wife, it's the half cut pack of rugby playing lads that she gets faced with in the toilets on a night out!
    It does seem like for some people the way of dealing with trans issues is to remove a gender divide completely. Problems with trans inclusion in women sports, simple, remove womens sports, and have it open for all genders...
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,164

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:

    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.
    The point of a GRC is that you are "officially" a member of the sex that you have chosen. I have no problem with that but I do have a problem with the basket of rights that come with such official recognition, especially if it puts other vulnerable people at risk.
    I think you need to be clear that simply having a GRC doesn't automatically make you a threat to any group, vulnerable or not. You need to have a GRC and be criminally-minded. Just the same as any person of whatever gender, and whenever it was assigned.
    Sure, but as a man I am assumed to be a risk, and excluded from certain places/roles as a risk reduction measure, not because of a personal judgement about my propensity for criminality.

    I don't see in what sense a GRC changes the assessment of risk that leads to my exclusion.
    Because you are seeing a trans woman as a man. If you see them as a woman then the dynamics of the objection are perhaps clearer.
    I believe when this issue started festering on PB and elsewhere, someone (Bev?) asked how the changing room warriors would feel if trans men continued to use women's changing rooms and toilets. I've never really seen a satisfactory answer to that question.
    No one gives a ****. Biology matters. Sex is real. Those with male anatomy behave - or, as @DavidL says - have the potential to behave in a way that those without male anatomy cannot.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 14,878

    Carnyx said:

    MattW 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.
    It's not as if nobody in the UK ever does this. I've lost count of the times that I've heard English people refer to the UK as "England".
    It has to be admitted that members of the Scottish Government party love referring to the UK Govt as "English" :smile: .
    Can you give some examples of that?
    And excluding those cases which are (accurately) discussing their UKG responsibilities as English.
    Like comparitive performance in the devolved health services for example?
    Though posting stuff like this can lead to whiny complaints of rayzism against the English.




    Something which has been muted as a possible explanation for excess deaths in England but not in Scotland. On those stats you might expect Wales and NI to be worse than England.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    edited October 2022

    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:

    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:

    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.
    The point of a GRC is that you are "officially" a member of the sex that you have chosen. I have no problem with that but I do have a problem with the basket of rights that come with such official recognition, especially if it puts other vulnerable people at risk.
    I think you need to be clear that simply having a GRC doesn't automatically make you a threat to any group, vulnerable or not. You need to have a GRC and be criminally-minded. Just the same as any person of whatever gender, and whenever it was assigned.
    Certainly, I completely agree. The few people I have come across who have been transgender have been law abiding and not a threat to anyone. But it does create a loophole for those who are criminally minded and that has to be borne in mind. It may be that @kinabalu's suggestion of sex rather than gender being the determinant in such situations is the beginnings of an answer.
    As I understand it there are transgender wings in prisons (how many no idea) and we are seeing how sports are coming to terms with the challenges of accommodating transgender athletes.

    I mention (again) these two areas because they are the ones that catch the public (and PB's) attention.

    As for changing rooms and loos I have to believe that the "problem" such as it may be is vanishingly small in terms of a) transgender people; and b) transgender people who are criminally-intentioned.
    One of the unintended consequences of this is the move towards gender free toilets. It's not the trans community that bothers my wife, it's the half cut pack of rugby playing lads that she gets faced with in the toilets on a night out!
    It does seem like for some people the way of dealing with trans issues is to remove a gender divide completely. Problems with trans inclusion in women sports, simple, remove womens sports, and have it open for all genders...
    Most sports already have open categories, and separate women’s categories. No-one is going to complain if a woman wishes to compete in the open category.

    They will however, complain if a biological man wants to compete in the women’s category.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 26,279
    Roger said:

    Andy_JS said:

    If there's a change at the Home Office I hope Kemi Badenoch gets the job.

    Is it her hairstyle that attracts you? I've never heard her say anything which could be described as interesting or impressive. I read about some of her anti wokishness but that's surely not enough for one of the four biggest offices of state.
    Her anti-wokeness is what attracts me.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 12,146
    Carnyx said:

    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.
    That Scottish Labour supports the legislation suggests that English Labour might be supportive too?
    They are all one single party anyway despite the legislative fiddle which allows them to pretend otherwise. I don't know if SKS has quite realised what Slab are doing, though.
    Yes and no.

    Of course the “Scottish Labour Party” brand which is misleadingly printed on ballot papers is a scandal, but there are a surprisingly large number of cases where the behaviour of Labour legislators in Wales, England and Scotland has actually varied. In fact it is quite common for Sarwar to criticise Sturgeon for stuff that his own party colleague Drakeford in Wales is also implementing.
  • AlistairMAlistairM Posts: 2,004
    Sandpit said:

    Another 300 Russian troops lost. For how long will their mothers and wives tolerate such meaningless deaths?



    https://mobile.twitter.com/KyivIndependent/status/1585517194296827904/photo/1

    Unfortunately, it is what Russia has always done. Thrown cannon fodder at a battle. Unlike in WW2 though their enemy is getting weapons from the West and not Russia.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 26,279

    Roger said:

    Andy_JS said:

    If there's a change at the Home Office I hope Kemi Badenoch gets the job.

    Is it her hairstyle that attracts you? I've never heard her say anything which could be described as interesting or impressive. I read about some of her anti wokishness but that's surely not enough for one of the four biggest offices of state.
    I struggle to grasp @Andy_JS ’s worldview TBH

    Anti-wokeness is my worldview.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    Carnyx 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?
    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?
    A major selling point of posh boarding schools such as Headmaster's Conference. The local contract barber rocks up at each boarding house one evening a fortnight, on a set cycle, I gather.

    Not sure what happens with the young ladies though.
    We could indent for the price of a haircut and go into town for it. Obvious consequence being one boy developing his natural aptitude for hair dressing, and his discount on the town rate going toward vodka n fags.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 30,846
    edited October 2022
    Sandpit said:

    Another 300 Russian troops lost. For how long will their mothers and wives tolerate such meaningless deaths?



    https://mobile.twitter.com/KyivIndependent/status/1585517194296827904/photo/1

    It seems strange to include UAVs and cruise missiles in those numbers since I assume they refer to ones that hit their targets* so can't exactly be called 'lost'.

    *Edit - or rather hit 'a' target
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 12,146
    Tory ‘journalist’ Quinton Letts on GMB TV describing pensioners as ‘on the take from the state’.

    https://twitter.com/bbmorg/status/1585510139125288960?s=46&t=3McKfsBHL4pw465Hv8r4vA

    Toxic Tories.
  • tlg86 said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:

    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.
    The point of a GRC is that you are "officially" a member of the sex that you have chosen. I have no problem with that but I do have a problem with the basket of rights that come with such official recognition, especially if it puts other vulnerable people at risk.
    I think you need to be clear that simply having a GRC doesn't automatically make you a threat to any group, vulnerable or not. You need to have a GRC and be criminally-minded. Just the same as any person of whatever gender, and whenever it was assigned.
    Sure, but as a man I am assumed to be a risk, and excluded from certain places/roles as a risk reduction measure, not because of a personal judgement about my propensity for criminality.

    I don't see in what sense a GRC changes the assessment of risk that leads to my exclusion.
    Because you are seeing a trans woman as a man. If you see them as a woman then the dynamics of the objection are perhaps clearer.
    I believe when this issue started festering on PB and elsewhere, someone (Bev?) asked how the changing room warriors would feel if trans men continued to use women's changing rooms and toilets. I've never really seen a satisfactory answer to that question.
    No one gives a ****. Biology matters. Sex is real. Those with male anatomy behave - or, as @DavidL says - have the potential to behave in a way that those without male anatomy cannot.
    Cool, glad to hear that society would be totes relaxed about this person rocking up to the M&S women's changing rooms to try on his boxers. I'm sure there wouldn't be any screeching about hairy blokes who self identify as women for dubious reasons.





  • mwadamsmwadams Posts: 3,089
    Sandpit said:

    MattW said:

    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.

    Just to note that Ukraine spending, among all of the allies but especially the US, has mostly been academic up until now.

    The actual spending, rather than the donation of existing military assets valued at their development cost, has been in the millions rather than the billions.

    Now, we need to see wartime production lines running for weapons, which will cost actual money, we are starting to see more scepticism from the politicians.

    The intelligence operation, on the other hand, has been the best that the world has ever seen, and needs to be kept running at all costs.
    Intelligence/special forces, training, tech - these would seem to be the unique strengths of the British Armed forces, and should be funded to the hilt. "Some boats, planes and anti-drone/missile systems that can dissuade our enemies" would also seem a sensible use of resources.
  • boulayboulay Posts: 3,773
    Ishmael_Z said:

    Carnyx 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?
    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?
    A major selling point of posh boarding schools such as Headmaster's Conference. The local contract barber rocks up at each boarding house one evening a fortnight, on a set cycle, I gather.

    Not sure what happens with the young ladies though.
    We could indent for the price of a haircut and go into town for it. Obvious
    consequence being one boy developing his natural aptitude for hair dressing, and his discount on the town rate going toward vodka n fags.
    Yes the good old days of taking out £25 from the house bank and then having a £5 haircut and the rest on fags and booze.

    There was a weird barber/leather coat shop (never understood the combination) called “Head and Hide” which we used and referred to correctly as “Hide your head”.

  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,958
    Dura_Ace said:

    Sandpit said:


    The intelligence operation, on the other hand, has been the best that the world has ever seen, and needs to be kept running at all costs.

    Ukraine is very unpopular with Trump's base so one way or another this is going to have to be wrapped up by the end of 2023 before we get into the 2024 primaries.
    How is Trump going to do primaries from jail?
  • DriverDriver Posts: 4,522
    Sandpit said:

    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:

    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:

    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.
    The point of a GRC is that you are "officially" a member of the sex that you have chosen. I have no problem with that but I do have a problem with the basket of rights that come with such official recognition, especially if it puts other vulnerable people at risk.
    I think you need to be clear that simply having a GRC doesn't automatically make you a threat to any group, vulnerable or not. You need to have a GRC and be criminally-minded. Just the same as any person of whatever gender, and whenever it was assigned.
    Certainly, I completely agree. The few people I have come across who have been transgender have been law abiding and not a threat to anyone. But it does create a loophole for those who are criminally minded and that has to be borne in mind. It may be that @kinabalu's suggestion of sex rather than gender being the determinant in such situations is the beginnings of an answer.
    As I understand it there are transgender wings in prisons (how many no idea) and we are seeing how sports are coming to terms with the challenges of accommodating transgender athletes.

    I mention (again) these two areas because they are the ones that catch the public (and PB's) attention.

    As for changing rooms and loos I have to believe that the "problem" such as it may be is vanishingly small in terms of a) transgender people; and b) transgender people who are criminally-intentioned.
    One of the unintended consequences of this is the move towards gender free toilets. It's not the trans community that bothers my wife, it's the half cut pack of rugby playing lads that she gets faced with in the toilets on a night out!
    It does seem like for some people the way of dealing with trans issues is to remove a gender divide completely. Problems with trans inclusion in women sports, simple, remove womens sports, and have it open for all genders...
    Most sports already have open categories, and separate women’s categories. No-one is going to complain if a woman wishes to compete in the open category.

    They will however, complain if a biological man wants to compete in the women’s category.
    See snooker, which is facing exactly this.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614

    Sandpit said:

    Another 300 Russian troops lost. For how long will their mothers and wives tolerate such meaningless deaths?



    https://mobile.twitter.com/KyivIndependent/status/1585517194296827904/photo/1

    It seems strange to include UAVs and cruise missiles in those numbers since I assume they refer to ones that hit their targets* so can't exactly be called 'lost'.

    *Edit - or rather hit 'a' target
    I was assuming the “losses” referred to those shot down, as opposed to those which hit the ground. The latest Iranian khamikhazi drones, for example, have a 50% loss rate.
  • Andy_JS said:

    Roger said:

    Andy_JS said:

    If there's a change at the Home Office I hope Kemi Badenoch gets the job.

    Is it her hairstyle that attracts you? I've never heard her say anything which could be described as interesting or impressive. I read about some of her anti wokishness but that's surely not enough for one of the four biggest offices of state.
    I struggle to grasp @Andy_JS ’s worldview TBH

    Anti-wokeness is my worldview.
    Still hold a candle for Putin, or has he let himself and the anti-woke cause down?
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,136

    Sandpit said:

    Another 300 Russian troops lost. For how long will their mothers and wives tolerate such meaningless deaths?



    https://mobile.twitter.com/KyivIndependent/status/1585517194296827904/photo/1

    It seems strange to include UAVs and cruise missiles in those numbers since I assume they refer to ones that hit their targets* so can't exactly be called 'lost'.

    *Edit - or rather hit 'a' target
    I'm pretty sure those numbers are supposed to be numbers that they shot down before they hit their targets. Also "UAV" is a really broad category, not all of them will have been intended to self-destruct.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,958
    AlistairM said:

    Sandpit said:

    Another 300 Russian troops lost. For how long will their mothers and wives tolerate such meaningless deaths?



    https://mobile.twitter.com/KyivIndependent/status/1585517194296827904/photo/1

    Unfortunately, it is what Russia has always done. Thrown cannon fodder at a battle. Unlike in WW2 though their enemy is getting weapons from the West and not Russia.
    Except, their enemies are getting more weapons from Russia than from the West.

  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842

    Sandpit said:

    Another 300 Russian troops lost. For how long will their mothers and wives tolerate such meaningless deaths?



    https://mobile.twitter.com/KyivIndependent/status/1585517194296827904/photo/1

    It seems strange to include UAVs and cruise missiles in those numbers since I assume they refer to ones that hit their targets* so can't exactly be called 'lost'.

    *Edit - or rather hit 'a' target
    I'm pretty sure those numbers are supposed to be numbers that they shot down before they hit their targets. Also "UAV" is a really broad category, not all of them will have been intended to self-destruct.
    UAV or UAP

    We should be told !
  • MattWMattW Posts: 18,084

    MattW 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.
    It's not as if nobody in the UK ever does this. I've lost count of the times that I've heard English people refer to the UK as "England".
    It has to be admitted that members of the Scottish Government party love referring to the UK Govt as "English" :smile: .
    Can you give some examples of that?
    TBH no I can't - it was a mistake to make it a direct quote.
  • MattW said:

    MattW 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.
    It's not as if nobody in the UK ever does this. I've lost count of the times that I've heard English people refer to the UK as "England".
    It has to be admitted that members of the Scottish Government party love referring to the UK Govt as "English" :smile: .
    Can you give some examples of that?
    TBH no I can't - it was a mistake to make it a direct quote.
    No mistake, very useful in revealing what you want to believe.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,851

    kinabalu said:

    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:

    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.
    The point of a GRC is that you are "officially" a member of the sex that you have chosen. I have no problem with that but I do have a problem with the basket of rights that come with such official recognition, especially if it puts other vulnerable people at risk.
    I think you need to be clear that simply having a GRC doesn't automatically make you a threat to any group, vulnerable or not. You need to have a GRC and be criminally-minded. Just the same as any person of whatever gender, and whenever it was assigned.
    Sure, but as a man I am assumed to be a risk, and excluded from certain places/roles as a risk reduction measure, not because of a personal judgement about my propensity for criminality.

    I don't see in what sense a GRC changes the assessment of risk that leads to my exclusion.
    You will have lived 3 months as a woman and made a solemn legal declaration that you intend to so live the rest of your life.

    It'll be a criminal offence to do this frivolously or with malign intent.
    Could I not make a solemn legal declaration that I intend to live peaceably, after having done so for three months, and then not be considered a violent threat to women?

    Obviously, it'll be a criminal offence to do this frivolously or with malign intent
    Not sure what you're driving at. My sense is you view the whole concept of gender - and by logical inference "transgender" - as a bit of a nonsense.

    But in practice there ARE such people and so the questions are -

    Should they be legally recognized as such?
    What should the process be?
    Should some things still be determined by sex not gender?

    To which we have -

    Yes, say England and Scotland.
    Very hard says England, not so hard says Scotland.
    Yes, say England and Scotland. If there's a good reason for it.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    Driver said:

    Sandpit said:

    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:

    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:

    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.
    The point of a GRC is that you are "officially" a member of the sex that you have chosen. I have no problem with that but I do have a problem with the basket of rights that come with such official recognition, especially if it puts other vulnerable people at risk.
    I think you need to be clear that simply having a GRC doesn't automatically make you a threat to any group, vulnerable or not. You need to have a GRC and be criminally-minded. Just the same as any person of whatever gender, and whenever it was assigned.
    Certainly, I completely agree. The few people I have come across who have been transgender have been law abiding and not a threat to anyone. But it does create a loophole for those who are criminally minded and that has to be borne in mind. It may be that @kinabalu's suggestion of sex rather than gender being the determinant in such situations is the beginnings of an answer.
    As I understand it there are transgender wings in prisons (how many no idea) and we are seeing how sports are coming to terms with the challenges of accommodating transgender athletes.

    I mention (again) these two areas because they are the ones that catch the public (and PB's) attention.

    As for changing rooms and loos I have to believe that the "problem" such as it may be is vanishingly small in terms of a) transgender people; and b) transgender people who are criminally-intentioned.
    One of the unintended consequences of this is the move towards gender free toilets. It's not the trans community that bothers my wife, it's the half cut pack of rugby playing lads that she gets faced with in the toilets on a night out!
    It does seem like for some people the way of dealing with trans issues is to remove a gender divide completely. Problems with trans inclusion in women sports, simple, remove womens sports, and have it open for all genders...
    Most sports already have open categories, and separate women’s categories. No-one is going to complain if a woman wishes to compete in the open category.

    They will however, complain if a biological man wants to compete in the women’s category.
    See snooker, which is facing exactly this.
    Snooker, darts, equestrian events, motorsports, chess, poker - all allow men and women to compete on an equal basis in an open category, because the event is based on the brain, or hand-eye co-ordination, rather than physical strength. They also hold women’s competitions, to which they are entitled to invite whoever they wish to compete.
  • Andy_JS said:

    Roger said:

    Andy_JS said:

    If there's a change at the Home Office I hope Kemi Badenoch gets the job.

    Is it her hairstyle that attracts you? I've never heard her say anything which could be described as interesting or impressive. I read about some of her anti wokishness but that's surely not enough for one of the four biggest offices of state.
    Her anti-wokeness is what attracts me.
    What I don't understand about the anti woke is not that they are anti woke, but why do you ignore her complete failure to resolve any of the issues?

    All she does is get angry about the issues and diminish our institutions. She does not offer any solutions that are workable or legal. It is all most unconservative.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Mr. Sandpit, got to say I remain opposed to W Series. If one were seeking to design a means of implying women can't compete with men on equal footing without saying (indeed, saying the opposite), the W Series would be the perfect expression of such a thought.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,851
    tlg86 said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:

    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.
    The point of a GRC is that you are "officially" a member of the sex that you have chosen. I have no problem with that but I do have a problem with the basket of rights that come with such official recognition, especially if it puts other vulnerable people at risk.
    I think you need to be clear that simply having a GRC doesn't automatically make you a threat to any group, vulnerable or not. You need to have a GRC and be criminally-minded. Just the same as any person of whatever gender, and whenever it was assigned.
    Sure, but as a man I am assumed to be a risk, and excluded from certain places/roles as a risk reduction measure, not because of a personal judgement about my propensity for criminality.

    I don't see in what sense a GRC changes the assessment of risk that leads to my exclusion.
    Because you are seeing a trans woman as a man. If you see them as a woman then the dynamics of the objection are perhaps clearer.
    I believe when this issue started festering on PB and elsewhere, someone (Bev?) asked how the changing room warriors would feel if trans men continued to use women's changing rooms and toilets. I've never really seen a satisfactory answer to that question.
    No one gives a ****. Biology matters. Sex is real. Those with male anatomy behave - or, as @DavidL says - have the potential to behave in a way that those without male anatomy cannot.
    There's no conflict between these sentiments and the Scottish reforms.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 21,723
    edited October 2022
    UK Shell Oil have announced their profits.

    £8bn profits in just 13 weeks. A profit rate of £3.7 million every hour.

    #enoughisenough
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 18,156
    edited October 2022

    Driver said:

    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?
    We are where we are. I'm an advocate for new towns and whole community developments as most of the house building seems to be crowding in "executive style homes" that are the wrong design in the wrong location. No consideration for how people move about with roads at crush capacity and no space / money to expand them. Same with hospitals and schools. So build new. There is plenty of room out there to do so, despite the England Britain is full lie.
    "Executive style homes" are better than no homes at all. And complaining about building homes "in the wrong location" (ie where people want to buy them, near communities and where jobs etc are) while ranting about new towns that nobody has been able to get going in decades.

    Get some new towns built, solve the housing crisis, then talk about further liberating migration, but your opposition to "executive style" homes while supporting free movement because you don't want to pay more is pure hypocrisy.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,851

    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:

    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:

    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.
    The point of a GRC is that you are "officially" a member of the sex that you have chosen. I have no problem with that but I do have a problem with the basket of rights that come with such official recognition, especially if it puts other vulnerable people at risk.
    I think you need to be clear that simply having a GRC doesn't automatically make you a threat to any group, vulnerable or not. You need to have a GRC and be criminally-minded. Just the same as any person of whatever gender, and whenever it was assigned.
    Certainly, I completely agree. The few people I have come across who have been transgender have been law abiding and not a threat to anyone. But it does create a loophole for those who are criminally minded and that has to be borne in mind. It may be that @kinabalu's suggestion of sex rather than gender being the determinant in such situations is the beginnings of an answer.
    As I understand it there are transgender wings in prisons (how many no idea) and we are seeing how sports are coming to terms with the challenges of accommodating transgender athletes.

    I mention (again) these two areas because they are the ones that catch the public (and PB's) attention.

    As for changing rooms and loos I have to believe that the "problem" such as it may be is vanishingly small in terms of a) transgender people; and b) transgender people who are criminally-intentioned.
    One of the unintended consequences of this is the move towards gender free toilets. It's not the trans community that bothers my wife, it's the half cut pack of rugby playing lads that she gets faced with in the toilets on a night out!
    It does seem like for some people the way of dealing with trans issues is to remove a gender divide completely. Problems with trans inclusion in women sports, simple, remove womens sports, and have it open for all genders...
    Very few people wish to eliminate women's sport. I think how it is now - each sport finding its way to its own rules around this - is ok.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 24,585
    Andy_JS said:

    Roger said:

    Andy_JS said:

    If there's a change at the Home Office I hope Kemi Badenoch gets the job.

    Is it her hairstyle that attracts you? I've never heard her say anything which could be described as interesting or impressive. I read about some of her anti wokishness but that's surely not enough for one of the four biggest offices of state.
    I struggle to grasp @Andy_JS ’s worldview TBH

    Anti-wokeness is my worldview.
    What a dreary hill on which to die.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    edited October 2022
    mwadams said:

    Sandpit said:

    MattW said:

    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.

    Just to note that Ukraine spending, among all of the allies but especially the US, has mostly been academic up until now.

    The actual spending, rather than the donation of existing military assets valued at their development cost, has been in the millions rather than the billions.

    Now, we need to see wartime production lines running for weapons, which will cost actual money, we are starting to see more scepticism from the politicians.

    The intelligence operation, on the other hand, has been the best that the world has ever seen, and needs to be kept running at all costs.
    Intelligence/special forces, training, tech - these would seem to be the unique strengths of the British Armed forces, and should be funded to the hilt. "Some boats, planes and anti-drone/missile systems that can dissuade our enemies" would also seem a sensible use of resources.
    The training role of the British in Ukraine, over the last eight years, went pretty much un-noticed.

    The effect of that training, however, has been astonishing. Persuading the Ukranian officers to abandon their Soviet military doctrine, in favour of established NATO doctrine, would have been a huge change for them - a change which has paid off in the current war, when they have NATO radios and support from all angles.

    The one I still laugh about, was the airfield in Crimea that was blown up a couple of months ago. Within hours, the US had provided satellite photos of the day before and the day after the attack. That the “day before” photo existed, would have scared the sh!t out of the Russians, and let them know exactly what they were up against.

    Maybe there’s some UK and US special forces there, or maybe they’re standing back and advising - but the Russians know they’re up against the best that NATO can support.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 19,611
    Andy_JS said:

    Roger said:

    Andy_JS said:

    If there's a change at the Home Office I hope Kemi Badenoch gets the job.

    Is it her hairstyle that attracts you? I've never heard her say anything which could be described as interesting or impressive. I read about some of her anti wokishness but that's surely not enough for one of the four biggest offices of state.
    I struggle to grasp @Andy_JS ’s worldview TBH

    Anti-wokeness is my worldview.
    A very narrow prism through which to see life. Define woke.

  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981

    UK Shell Oil have announced their profits.

    £8bn profits in just 13 weeks. A profit rate of £3.7 million every hour.

    #enoughisenough

    #notifyourelongrdsb.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 24,585

    UK Shell Oil have announced their profits.

    £8bn profits in just 13 weeks. A profit rate of £3.7 million every hour.

    #enoughisenough

    I am hearing whisperings from your favoured party that Mr Hunt is considering windfall taxes on energy giant profits. Any opposition party worth its salt would already have thought of that revenue source as an option.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 12,146

    Andy_JS said:

    Roger said:

    Andy_JS said:

    If there's a change at the Home Office I hope Kemi Badenoch gets the job.

    Is it her hairstyle that attracts you? I've never heard her say anything which could be described as interesting or impressive. I read about some of her anti wokishness but that's surely not enough for one of the four biggest offices of state.
    I struggle to grasp @Andy_JS ’s worldview TBH

    Anti-wokeness is my worldview.
    What a dreary hill on which to die.
    You have to wonder about the quality of life of someone who would say such an odd thing.

    I sincerely hope their assertion is untrue.
  • .
    Sandpit said:

    mwadams said:

    Sandpit said:

    MattW said:

    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.

    Just to note that Ukraine spending, among all of the allies but especially the US, has mostly been academic up until now.

    The actual spending, rather than the donation of existing military assets valued at their development cost, has been in the millions rather than the billions.

    Now, we need to see wartime production lines running for weapons, which will cost actual money, we are starting to see more scepticism from the politicians.

    The intelligence operation, on the other hand, has been the best that the world has ever seen, and needs to be kept running at all costs.
    Intelligence/special forces, training, tech - these would seem to be the unique strengths of the British Armed forces, and should be funded to the hilt. "Some boats, planes and anti-drone/missile systems that can dissuade our enemies" would also seem a sensible use of resources.
    The training role of the British in Ukraine, over the last eight years, went pretty much un-noticed.

    The effect of that training, however, has been astonishing. Persuading the Ukranian officers to abandon their Soviet military doctrine, in favour of established NATO doctrine, would have been a huge change for them - a change which has paid off in the current war, when they have NATO radios and support from all angles.

    The one I still laugh about, was the airfield in Crimea that was blown up a couple of months ago. Within hours, the US had provided satellite photos of the day before and the day after the attack. That the “day before” photo existed, would have scared the sh!t out of the Russians, and let them know exactly what they were up against.
    I don't understand why that is shocking?

    I would have thought with modern satellite telemetry there'd be "day before" photos available for almost any target nowadays?
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 14,878
    kinabalu said:

    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:

    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:

    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.
    The point of a GRC is that you are "officially" a member of the sex that you have chosen. I have no problem with that but I do have a problem with the basket of rights that come with such official recognition, especially if it puts other vulnerable people at risk.
    I think you need to be clear that simply having a GRC doesn't automatically make you a threat to any group, vulnerable or not. You need to have a GRC and be criminally-minded. Just the same as any person of whatever gender, and whenever it was assigned.
    Certainly, I completely agree. The few people I have come across who have been transgender have been law abiding and not a threat to anyone. But it does create a loophole for those who are criminally minded and that has to be borne in mind. It may be that @kinabalu's suggestion of sex rather than gender being the determinant in such situations is the beginnings of an answer.
    As I understand it there are transgender wings in prisons (how many no idea) and we are seeing how sports are coming to terms with the challenges of accommodating transgender athletes.

    I mention (again) these two areas because they are the ones that catch the public (and PB's) attention.

    As for changing rooms and loos I have to believe that the "problem" such as it may be is vanishingly small in terms of a) transgender people; and b) transgender people who are criminally-intentioned.
    One of the unintended consequences of this is the move towards gender free toilets. It's not the trans community that bothers my wife, it's the half cut pack of rugby playing lads that she gets faced with in the toilets on a night out!
    It does seem like for some people the way of dealing with trans issues is to remove a gender divide completely. Problems with trans inclusion in women sports, simple, remove womens sports, and have it open for all genders...
    Very few people wish to eliminate women's sport. I think how it is now - each sport finding its way to its own rules around this - is ok.
    I think any women's sports where size, physical strength etc play a role are never going to be right to accept trans athletes. There is simply too much advantage through puberty growing as a male, no matter how much hormone suppressing agents you take when 'competing'.
This discussion has been closed.