What do Sturgeon / the SNP gain from this? Presumably she’s doing it because she believes it’s “the right thing” to do?
Nicola Sturgeon's attitude is essentially that "if lives have to be lost, that's just the way it is."
This is nonsense. And the header is misleading and biased imo. Several countries handle gender recognition in ways similar to the Scottish reforms ie a process based on self declaration rather than psychiatric diagnosis. There's solid precedent over a prolonged period. It's not some crazy experiment. There are issues to be considered, valid disagreements, but stuff like a "rapists charter"? C'mon. Neither evidence nor logic supports any such conclusion. It's as irrational as the other extreme of saying gender identity should replace birth sex in all aspects of life and the law. It's no slam dunk but on balance I support these reforms and see no "shame" in them at all. If anything Sturgeon is to be congratulated for holding firm on it.
What do Sturgeon / the SNP gain from this? Presumably she’s doing it because she believes it’s “the right thing” to do?
Of course she thinks it's the right thing to do.
It's causing a load of tension with Westminster, dividing Scotland from England, and pleasing her left wing to the extent that they're willing to overlook the shambles her government is making of running Scotland.
It's absolutely perfect.
Shame about the possible negative consequences for women, but those are of course much less important to her.
I am now of the view - not just because of this - that women's right, needs, desires and wants, their safety, their lives - are simply not important to those in authority in this country. We are seen as second best. We are expected to accommodate others. We are expected, consciously or unconsciously, to put men's interests first. Society is arranged to suit men. If we complain about this or demand changes or demand better, we are told that we are aggressive or tiresome or bitches or attacked or insulted or demeaned in some way.
We are we must be inclusive and kind to others, to think of others first, to be accommodating, to avoid offence and hurt. We are told that all it takes to be women is to wear dresses, high heels and lipstick as if womanhood was merely a superficial costume to be put on and discarded at will. Women are being told to behave like good little girls again. If we don’t, we are verbally assaulted or threatened with physical assault, some of it in luridly sexually offensive ways. Or simply ignored or excluded.
No.
It is so tiresome, so wearying, so infuriating to have to go through this again, to be told that if we disagree or protest or ask about our needs, our rights, our demands, our boundaries, our concerns, the risks to us, we are being bigoted or selfish and that these are “not valid”.
That is what I think is going on. That is why the debate about self-ID is so toxic and so important. Women are not being listened to. If it goes through, I fear that it will push back or eliminate many of the rights women have gained during my lifetime. I am seeing changes in attitudes already. I am seeing exemptions created specifically to permit women only spaces not being used for fear they will upset men. I am seeing inclusivity being used to exclude women from places they were previously free to treat as women-only. It will affect not just me but my daughter — and her daughters too. That is why it matters to me.
Men with power bossing women around. This is a very old, very sour wine being offered in a new bottle.
I am so angry about this.
Today the police are investigating abuse allegations in a mixed sex hostel in London 44 years ago. In decades to come some future police force will start investigating abuse allegations as a result of what Holyrood voted through tonight. But the politicians and their appeasers who pushed this through will not be around to face the consequences, the accountability for the harm they caused.
Very well said, my wife opined the other weekend that trans rights were going nowhere until the blokes in dresses took up the cause and found yet another avenue to trample over women's rights.
What do Sturgeon / the SNP gain from this? Presumably she’s doing it because she believes it’s “the right thing” to do?
Of course she thinks it's the right thing to do.
It's causing a load of tension with Westminster, dividing Scotland from England, and pleasing her left wing to the extent that they're willing to overlook the shambles her government is making of running Scotland.
It's absolutely perfect.
Shame about the possible negative consequences for women, but those are of course much less important to her.
I am now of the view - not just because of this - that women's right, needs, desires and wants, their safety, their lives - are simply not important to those in authority in this country. We are seen as second best. We are expected to accommodate others. We are expected, consciously or unconsciously, to put men's interests first. Society is arranged to suit men. If we complain about this or demand changes or demand better, we are told that we are aggressive or tiresome or bitches or attacked or insulted or demeaned in some way.
We are we must be inclusive and kind to others, to think of others first, to be accommodating, to avoid offence and hurt. We are told that all it takes to be women is to wear dresses, high heels and lipstick as if womanhood was merely a superficial costume to be put on and discarded at will. Women are being told to behave like good little girls again. If we don’t, we are verbally assaulted or threatened with physical assault, some of it in luridly sexually offensive ways. Or simply ignored or excluded.
No.
It is so tiresome, so wearying, so infuriating to have to go through this again, to be told that if we disagree or protest or ask about our needs, our rights, our demands, our boundaries, our concerns, the risks to us, we are being bigoted or selfish and that these are “not valid”.
That is what I think is going on. That is why the debate about self-ID is so toxic and so important. Women are not being listened to. If it goes through, I fear that it will push back or eliminate many of the rights women have gained during my lifetime. I am seeing changes in attitudes already. I am seeing exemptions created specifically to permit women only spaces not being used for fear they will upset men. I am seeing inclusivity being used to exclude women from places they were previously free to treat as women-only. It will affect not just me but my daughter — and her daughters too. That is why it matters to me.
Men with power bossing women around. This is a very old, very sour wine being offered in a new bottle.
I am so angry about this.
Today the police are investigating abuse allegations in a mixed sex hostel in London 44 years ago. In decades to come some future police force will start investigating abuse allegations as a result of what Holyrood voted through tonight. But the politicians and their appeasers who pushed this through will not be around to face the consequences, the accountability for the harm they caused.
That's one lense to view it all through. There are others. Wokism etc. Most I think are just going along with it because they like to be identified as progressive.
While this is welcome, Brammal died with this man’s lies hanging over him (for clarity I mean Beech). Watson enabled that. He persued a fantasists witch hunt that collapsed when the police finally, FINALLY, died some proper detecting and spoke to Beeches wife. Why this wasn’t first on the list, I have no idea. Watson abused his position to hound innocent men. That he has been allowed to become a peer disgusts me really. People have, rightly, been all over Clarkson this week. Where is the leftie outrage about Watson? It was an innocent mistake, and as he was attacking nasty old Tories, somehow the tiny mistake was ok? FFS.
There's a theory, obv complete bollocks, this was a Spy Who Came In From The Cold op: get someone to make allegations which are true, in such a shambolic way they are laughed out of court, and everyone is safe.
Odd how few UK news reports are thrown up by googling Mountbatten kincora.
The allegations dreamt up by Beech were so out there weird that it’s a wonder anyone ever took them seriously. The idea of a cabal of senior politicians, military men etc would procure young boys, abuse them and murder them, and no one ever was reported missing is just beyond belief. The police were criminally negligent in the investigation, acting as if they wanted it to be true. Watson drove it night and day into the media, and as has been pointed out, did it with narrow party interest at heart. He is an utter slimeball.
They were also, like som many such weird stories, of long standing.
There is a cesspool of allegations ranging from the ugly to the plain bizarre. In the old days, whispered in pubs. Then badly photocopies leaflets. Now sludge on the internet.
Tom Watson came across some sludge that matched an inner hope - a hope that something would be true.
Once he started the ball rolling, any attempt to do any kind of due diligence on the accusations was pushed aside. Literally blocked.
As in many such stories, too many people become invested in the outcome to allow the facts to get in the way.
While this is welcome, Brammal died with this man’s lies hanging over him (for clarity I mean Beech). Watson enabled that. He persued a fantasists witch hunt that collapsed when the police finally, FINALLY, died some proper detecting and spoke to Beeches wife. Why this wasn’t first on the list, I have no idea. Watson abused his position to hound innocent men. That he has been allowed to become a peer disgusts me really. People have, rightly, been all over Clarkson this week. Where is the leftie outrage about Watson? It was an innocent mistake, and as he was attacking nasty old Tories, somehow the tiny mistake was ok? FFS.
There's a theory, obv complete bollocks, this was a Spy Who Came In From The Cold op: get someone to make allegations which are true, in such a shambolic way they are laughed out of court, and everyone is safe.
Odd how few UK news reports are thrown up by googling Mountbatten kincora.
The allegations dreamt up by Beech were so out there weird that it’s a wonder anyone ever took them seriously. The idea of a cabal of senior politicians, military men etc would procure young boys, abuse them and murder them, and no one ever was reported missing is just beyond belief. The police were criminally negligent in the investigation, acting as if they wanted it to be true. Watson drove it night and day into the media, and as has been pointed out, did it with narrow party interest at heart. He is an utter slimeball.
They were also, like som many such weird stories, of long standing.
There is a cesspool of allegations ranging from the ugly to the plain bizarre. In the old days, whispered in pubs. Then badly photocopies leaflets. Now sludge on the internet.
Tom Watson came across some sludge that matched an inner hope - a hope that something would be true.
Once he started the ball rolling, any attempt to do any kind of due diligence on the accusations was pushed aside. Literally blocked.
As in many such stories, too many people become invested in the outcome to allow the facts to get in the way.
Golly. The Duke of Pork shelling out 12 large and pore ole Ghislaine getting 200 years is not enough to convince the unconvinceable that sex trading rings of the rich and powerful are a thing
While this is welcome, Brammal died with this man’s lies hanging over him (for clarity I mean Beech). Watson enabled that. He persued a fantasists witch hunt that collapsed when the police finally, FINALLY, died some proper detecting and spoke to Beeches wife. Why this wasn’t first on the list, I have no idea. Watson abused his position to hound innocent men. That he has been allowed to become a peer disgusts me really. People have, rightly, been all over Clarkson this week. Where is the leftie outrage about Watson? It was an innocent mistake, and as he was attacking nasty old Tories, somehow the tiny mistake was ok? FFS.
There's a theory, obv complete bollocks, this was a Spy Who Came In From The Cold op: get someone to make allegations which are true, in such a shambolic way they are laughed out of court, and everyone is safe.
Odd how few UK news reports are thrown up by googling Mountbatten kincora.
The allegations dreamt up by Beech were so out there weird that it’s a wonder anyone ever took them seriously. The idea of a cabal of senior politicians, military men etc would procure young boys, abuse them and murder them, and no one ever was reported missing is just beyond belief. The police were criminally negligent in the investigation, acting as if they wanted it to be true. Watson drove it night and day into the media, and as has been pointed out, did it with narrow party interest at heart. He is an utter slimeball.
They were also, like som many such weird stories, of long standing.
There is a cesspool of allegations ranging from the ugly to the plain bizarre. In the old days, whispered in pubs. Then badly photocopies leaflets. Now sludge on the internet.
Tom Watson came across some sludge that matched an inner hope - a hope that something would be true.
Once he started the ball rolling, any attempt to do any kind of due diligence on the accusations was pushed aside. Literally blocked.
As in many such stories, too many people become invested in the outcome to allow the facts to get in the way.
Hmmm. I'm not interested in this stuff, too dark for my taste, but there are also people like Ben Fellowes whose allegations seem to have a lot more substance. Some people aren't very nice. Some of those people are powerful and influential.
One for @JosiasJessop - It seems that Dimitri "Trampoline" Rogozin was holding a birthday party in a restaurant in Donetesk, and was wounded when the Ukrainians decided to join in with some fireworks (artillery) to help celebrate.
While this is welcome, Brammal died with this man’s lies hanging over him (for clarity I mean Beech). Watson enabled that. He persued a fantasists witch hunt that collapsed when the police finally, FINALLY, died some proper detecting and spoke to Beeches wife. Why this wasn’t first on the list, I have no idea. Watson abused his position to hound innocent men. That he has been allowed to become a peer disgusts me really. People have, rightly, been all over Clarkson this week. Where is the leftie outrage about Watson? It was an innocent mistake, and as he was attacking nasty old Tories, somehow the tiny mistake was ok? FFS.
There's a theory, obv complete bollocks, this was a Spy Who Came In From The Cold op: get someone to make allegations which are true, in such a shambolic way they are laughed out of court, and everyone is safe.
Odd how few UK news reports are thrown up by googling Mountbatten kincora.
The allegations dreamt up by Beech were so out there weird that it’s a wonder anyone ever took them seriously. The idea of a cabal of senior politicians, military men etc would procure young boys, abuse them and murder them, and no one ever was reported missing is just beyond belief. The police were criminally negligent in the investigation, acting as if they wanted it to be true. Watson drove it night and day into the media, and as has been pointed out, did it with narrow party interest at heart. He is an utter slimeball.
They were also, like som many such weird stories, of long standing.
There is a cesspool of allegations ranging from the ugly to the plain bizarre. In the old days, whispered in pubs. Then badly photocopies leaflets. Now sludge on the internet.
Tom Watson came across some sludge that matched an inner hope - a hope that something would be true.
Once he started the ball rolling, any attempt to do any kind of due diligence on the accusations was pushed aside. Literally blocked.
As in many such stories, too many people become invested in the outcome to allow the facts to get in the way.
Golly. The Duke of Pork shelling out 12 large and pore ole Ghislaine getting 200 years is not enough to convince the unconvinceable that sex trading rings of the rich and powerful are a thing
Ah - so one crime being committed means that every allegation of a similar crime is also true?
While this is welcome, Brammal died with this man’s lies hanging over him (for clarity I mean Beech). Watson enabled that. He persued a fantasists witch hunt that collapsed when the police finally, FINALLY, died some proper detecting and spoke to Beeches wife. Why this wasn’t first on the list, I have no idea. Watson abused his position to hound innocent men. That he has been allowed to become a peer disgusts me really. People have, rightly, been all over Clarkson this week. Where is the leftie outrage about Watson? It was an innocent mistake, and as he was attacking nasty old Tories, somehow the tiny mistake was ok? FFS.
There's a theory, obv complete bollocks, this was a Spy Who Came In From The Cold op: get someone to make allegations which are true, in such a shambolic way they are laughed out of court, and everyone is safe.
Odd how few UK news reports are thrown up by googling Mountbatten kincora.
The allegations dreamt up by Beech were so out there weird that it’s a wonder anyone ever took them seriously. The idea of a cabal of senior politicians, military men etc would procure young boys, abuse them and murder them, and no one ever was reported missing is just beyond belief. The police were criminally negligent in the investigation, acting as if they wanted it to be true. Watson drove it night and day into the media, and as has been pointed out, did it with narrow party interest at heart. He is an utter slimeball.
They were also, like som many such weird stories, of long standing.
There is a cesspool of allegations ranging from the ugly to the plain bizarre. In the old days, whispered in pubs. Then badly photocopies leaflets. Now sludge on the internet.
Tom Watson came across some sludge that matched an inner hope - a hope that something would be true.
Once he started the ball rolling, any attempt to do any kind of due diligence on the accusations was pushed aside. Literally blocked.
As in many such stories, too many people become invested in the outcome to allow the facts to get in the way.
Golly. The Duke of Pork shelling out 12 large and pore ole Ghislaine getting 200 years is not enough to convince the unconvinceable that sex trading rings of the rich and powerful are a thing
Ah - so one crime being committed means that every allegation of a similar crime is also true?
Does one set of spurious allegations mean that all similar allegations are untrue?
The allegations dreamt up by Beech were so out there weird that it’s a wonder anyone ever took them seriously. The idea of a cabal of senior politicians, military men etc would procure young boys, abuse them and murder them, and no one ever was reported missing is just beyond belief. The police were criminally negligent in the investigation, acting as if they wanted it to be true. Watson drove it night and day into the media, and as has been pointed out, did it with narrow party interest at heart. He is an utter slimeball.
They were straight out of the kinds of stuff you would see in conspiracy oriented forums, that have often traded in such nonsense, and frequently they were spread as a way of attacking men who may have been gay. Very much along the lines of the "Satanic panic", and if you have ever read about some of the US cases you would realise how utterly nuts many of the claims were. That these allegations were given so much credence with so little evidence is disgraceful.
The allegations dreamt up by Beech were so out there weird that it’s a wonder anyone ever took them seriously. The idea of a cabal of senior politicians, military men etc would procure young boys, abuse them and murder them, and no one ever was reported missing is just beyond belief. The police were criminally negligent in the investigation, acting as if they wanted it to be true. Watson drove it night and day into the media, and as has been pointed out, did it with narrow party interest at heart. He is an utter slimeball.
They were straight out of the kinds of stuff you would see in conspiracy oriented forums, that have often traded in such nonsense, and frequently they were spread as a way of attacking men who may have been gay. Very much along the lines of the "Satanic panic", and if you have ever read about some of the US cases you would realise how utterly nuts many of the claims were. That these allegations were given so much credence with so little evidence is disgraceful.
If you think about it not a million miles away from the QAnon Pizza Restaurant story.
Freakonomics did a bit about similar laws in regards to employment and it had a significant unintended consequences and led to worse outcomes for people of colour.
They were also, like som many such weird stories, of long standing.
There is a cesspool of allegations ranging from the ugly to the plain bizarre. In the old days, whispered in pubs. Then badly photocopies leaflets. Now sludge on the internet.
Tom Watson came across some sludge that matched an inner hope - a hope that something would be true.
Once he started the ball rolling, any attempt to do any kind of due diligence on the accusations was pushed aside. Literally blocked.
As in many such stories, too many people become invested in the outcome to allow the facts to get in the way.
Great piece, and as an SLD member I am appalled. There have been some prissy arguments made which frankly encourage absolutism. I support both women's rights to safety and dignity, *and* the rights of trans women. But that requires balance which too many activists seem hell bent on refusing.
To me this is the problem. There's clearly a complex and nuanced debate about all this in there.
But in outside world most arguments seem to boil down to one of:
"We shouldn't do it solely because it might result in a small number of sexual predators mis-using it for their own nefarious ends", or "We should do it because...well if you say no you're a massive transphobe and should be hunted down as such and that's all that needs said there."
Pretty much the entirety of the middle which ought to consist of, oh, 90% of the discussion, gets completely lost between the two extremes.
Cyclefree's header is entirely reasonable and well argued within the context of the specific amendment - so no issue from me on that score. It's just as part of the wider discussion on the legislation as a whole there ought to be so much more to the whole thing than JUST that one aspect, important as I accept it is.
What do Sturgeon / the SNP gain from this? Presumably she’s doing it because she believes it’s “the right thing” to do?
Of course she thinks it's the right thing to do.
It's causing a load of tension with Westminster, dividing Scotland from England, and pleasing her left wing to the extent that they're willing to overlook the shambles her government is making of running Scotland.
It's absolutely perfect.
Shame about the possible negative consequences for women, but those are of course much less important to her.
I am now of the view - not just because of this - that women's right, needs, desires and wants, their safety, their lives - are simply not important to those in authority in this country. We are seen as second best. We are expected to accommodate others. We are expected, consciously or unconsciously, to put men's interests first. Society is arranged to suit men. If we complain about this or demand changes or demand better, we are told that we are aggressive or tiresome or bitches or attacked or insulted or demeaned in some way.
We are we must be inclusive and kind to others, to think of others first, to be accommodating, to avoid offence and hurt. We are told that all it takes to be women is to wear dresses, high heels and lipstick as if womanhood was merely a superficial costume to be put on and discarded at will. Women are being told to behave like good little girls again. If we don’t, we are verbally assaulted or threatened with physical assault, some of it in luridly sexually offensive ways. Or simply ignored or excluded.
No.
It is so tiresome, so wearying, so infuriating to have to go through this again, to be told that if we disagree or protest or ask about our needs, our rights, our demands, our boundaries, our concerns, the risks to us, we are being bigoted or selfish and that these are “not valid”.
That is what I think is going on. That is why the debate about self-ID is so toxic and so important. Women are not being listened to. If it goes through, I fear that it will push back or eliminate many of the rights women have gained during my lifetime. I am seeing changes in attitudes already. I am seeing exemptions created specifically to permit women only spaces not being used for fear they will upset men. I am seeing inclusivity being used to exclude women from places they were previously free to treat as women-only. It will affect not just me but my daughter — and her daughters too. That is why it matters to me.
Men with power bossing women around. This is a very old, very sour wine being offered in a new bottle.
I am so angry about this.
Today the police are investigating abuse allegations in a mixed sex hostel in London 44 years ago. In decades to come some future police force will start investigating abuse allegations as a result of what Holyrood voted through tonight. But the politicians and their appeasers who pushed this through will not be around to face the consequences, the accountability for the harm they caused.
Thank you for this excellent thread header. I fear you are right in what you say and your comment above. If there are weaknesses that people with malice can exploit to their advantage, then they will do so. Do you think that the impact of Scottish self-ID will undermine the UK Equalities Act sufficiently that the UK Supreme Court may overrule it?
The Westminster government can issue an order preventing it from getting Royal Assent, as I understand it. It could well end up in the Supreme Court.
In response to @Pro_Rata, my position on trans issues is this:
- only people with medically diagnosed gender dysphoria should be allowed to change gender. I am aware of the delays in getting this but this is the problem to be tackled and I would be strongly supportive of investment to help people with this condition get the help they need sooner. - Self-ID should never happen because the essence of it is to abolish boundaries, necessary ones. - There is no reason to accommodate men with sexual fetishes (autogynephiles etc). If they wish to masturbate while wearing womens clothes they can do so in the privacy of their own home. Outside of the home, doing that should lead to criminal prosecution. - Single sex spaces for women ie those born women should be made a right which can be enforced against service providers. Women should not have to depend on the kindnesses of strangers to get them. No-one with a male body should be allowed in them. - Trans people can be accommodated in gender neutral spaces. Men can learn to be inclusive of men with sexual fetishes about being women or wanting to dress up as them. - Male sex offenders should never be accommodated in womens prisons. Elizabeth Fry campaigned for women only prisons for a reason - because in mixed sex ones women were sexually exploited and abused. It is beyond disgraceful that we are moving back to early Victorian times when it comes to the safety of women in prison. - No-one should be allowed to change or falsify their birth certificate. It is a document of record. - DBS and other checks for safeguarding purposes should reveal if someone has a GRC. There is no excuse for permitting any sort of loophole in or exception to safeguarding requirements.
While this is welcome, Brammal died with this man’s lies hanging over him (for clarity I mean Beech). Watson enabled that. He persued a fantasists witch hunt that collapsed when the police finally, FINALLY, died some proper detecting and spoke to Beeches wife. Why this wasn’t first on the list, I have no idea. Watson abused his position to hound innocent men. That he has been allowed to become a peer disgusts me really. People have, rightly, been all over Clarkson this week. Where is the leftie outrage about Watson? It was an innocent mistake, and as he was attacking nasty old Tories, somehow the tiny mistake was ok? FFS.
There's a theory, obv complete bollocks, this was a Spy Who Came In From The Cold op: get someone to make allegations which are true, in such a shambolic way they are laughed out of court, and everyone is safe.
Odd how few UK news reports are thrown up by googling Mountbatten kincora.
The allegations dreamt up by Beech were so out there weird that it’s a wonder anyone ever took them seriously. The idea of a cabal of senior politicians, military men etc would procure young boys, abuse them and murder them, and no one ever was reported missing is just beyond belief. The police were criminally negligent in the investigation, acting as if they wanted it to be true. Watson drove it night and day into the media, and as has been pointed out, did it with narrow party interest at heart. He is an utter slimeball.
They were also, like som many such weird stories, of long standing.
There is a cesspool of allegations ranging from the ugly to the plain bizarre. In the old days, whispered in pubs. Then badly photocopies leaflets. Now sludge on the internet.
Tom Watson came across some sludge that matched an inner hope - a hope that something would be true.
Once he started the ball rolling, any attempt to do any kind of due diligence on the accusations was pushed aside. Literally blocked.
As in many such stories, too many people become invested in the outcome to allow the facts to get in the way.
Golly. The Duke of Pork shelling out 12 large and pore ole Ghislaine getting 200 years is not enough to convince the unconvinceable that sex trading rings of the rich and powerful are a thing
Ah - so one crime being committed means that every allegation of a similar crime is also true?
Does one set of spurious allegations mean that all similar allegations are untrue?
It means that allegations should be investigated sensibly and with an open minds to discover those fact things.
When I did a journalism course at university (was editing the Student rag, so thought that I should learn), they emphasised Who, What, Where, When, Why - a story consists of provable facts. If someone says that X was in the Dog and Duck at 12:30 on Thursday, does he know that X looks like? Does the Dog and Duck exist? was it open at 12:30 on Thursday? Can anyone else say that X was there?
In the case of Carl Beech, he literally couldn't identify people. His description of where people were was provably wrong on a number of instances. His descriptions of places were provably wrong, trivially. His whole story was provably false.
In the case of Epstein and Co. the reverse is true. The physical evidence matches the testimonies. Records of place and time match the testimonies.
In the case of Rotherham et al, the same - testimonies matching physical evidence. matching records.
It is worth considering that with Rotherham, a vast establishment conspiracy was uncovered. People up to cabinet level had been told what was happening. The police, social services and the local government structure in Rotherham and similar areas worked together to contain and hide the allegations. And even to protect the abusers.
It's just the wrong kind of conspiracy - not the one that some people wanted to find.
While this is welcome, Brammal died with this man’s lies hanging over him (for clarity I mean Beech). Watson enabled that. He persued a fantasists witch hunt that collapsed when the police finally, FINALLY, died some proper detecting and spoke to Beeches wife. Why this wasn’t first on the list, I have no idea. Watson abused his position to hound innocent men. That he has been allowed to become a peer disgusts me really. People have, rightly, been all over Clarkson this week. Where is the leftie outrage about Watson? It was an innocent mistake, and as he was attacking nasty old Tories, somehow the tiny mistake was ok? FFS.
There's a theory, obv complete bollocks, this was a Spy Who Came In From The Cold op: get someone to make allegations which are true, in such a shambolic way they are laughed out of court, and everyone is safe.
Odd how few UK news reports are thrown up by googling Mountbatten kincora.
The allegations dreamt up by Beech were so out there weird that it’s a wonder anyone ever took them seriously. The idea of a cabal of senior politicians, military men etc would procure young boys, abuse them and murder them, and no one ever was reported missing is just beyond belief. The police were criminally negligent in the investigation, acting as if they wanted it to be true. Watson drove it night and day into the media, and as has been pointed out, did it with narrow party interest at heart. He is an utter slimeball.
They were also, like som many such weird stories, of long standing.
There is a cesspool of allegations ranging from the ugly to the plain bizarre. In the old days, whispered in pubs. Then badly photocopies leaflets. Now sludge on the internet.
Tom Watson came across some sludge that matched an inner hope - a hope that something would be true.
Once he started the ball rolling, any attempt to do any kind of due diligence on the accusations was pushed aside. Literally blocked.
As in many such stories, too many people become invested in the outcome to allow the facts to get in the way.
Golly. The Duke of Pork shelling out 12 large and pore ole Ghislaine getting 200 years is not enough to convince the unconvinceable that sex trading rings of the rich and powerful are a thing
Ah - so one crime being committed means that every allegation of a similar crime is also true?
No, that's an abject fail. You are the one trying to generalise ("like so many stories" twice in your post), I am offering a specific counterexample to suggest that generalising sucks. You can't say it's always Orkneys when sometimes it is st Helena.
The allegations dreamt up by Beech were so out there weird that it’s a wonder anyone ever took them seriously. The idea of a cabal of senior politicians, military men etc would procure young boys, abuse them and murder them, and no one ever was reported missing is just beyond belief. The police were criminally negligent in the investigation, acting as if they wanted it to be true. Watson drove it night and day into the media, and as has been pointed out, did it with narrow party interest at heart. He is an utter slimeball.
They were straight out of the kinds of stuff you would see in conspiracy oriented forums, that have often traded in such nonsense, and frequently they were spread as a way of attacking men who may have been gay. Very much along the lines of the "Satanic panic", and if you have ever read about some of the US cases you would realise how utterly nuts many of the claims were. That these allegations were given so much credence with so little evidence is disgraceful.
If you think about it not a million miles away from the QAnon Pizza Restaurant story.
It absolutely is. Some of the US cases that went to trial, and even resulted in convictions, are completely round the twist. Litterly unbelievable you would think, but once the public starts on the old "no smoke without fire" you see justice go right out the window.
While this is welcome, Brammal died with this man’s lies hanging over him (for clarity I mean Beech). Watson enabled that. He persued a fantasists witch hunt that collapsed when the police finally, FINALLY, died some proper detecting and spoke to Beeches wife. Why this wasn’t first on the list, I have no idea. Watson abused his position to hound innocent men. That he has been allowed to become a peer disgusts me really. People have, rightly, been all over Clarkson this week. Where is the leftie outrage about Watson? It was an innocent mistake, and as he was attacking nasty old Tories, somehow the tiny mistake was ok? FFS.
There's a theory, obv complete bollocks, this was a Spy Who Came In From The Cold op: get someone to make allegations which are true, in such a shambolic way they are laughed out of court, and everyone is safe.
Odd how few UK news reports are thrown up by googling Mountbatten kincora.
The allegations dreamt up by Beech were so out there weird that it’s a wonder anyone ever took them seriously. The idea of a cabal of senior politicians, military men etc would procure young boys, abuse them and murder them, and no one ever was reported missing is just beyond belief. The police were criminally negligent in the investigation, acting as if they wanted it to be true. Watson drove it night and day into the media, and as has been pointed out, did it with narrow party interest at heart. He is an utter slimeball.
They were also, like som many such weird stories, of long standing.
There is a cesspool of allegations ranging from the ugly to the plain bizarre. In the old days, whispered in pubs. Then badly photocopies leaflets. Now sludge on the internet.
Tom Watson came across some sludge that matched an inner hope - a hope that something would be true.
Once he started the ball rolling, any attempt to do any kind of due diligence on the accusations was pushed aside. Literally blocked.
As in many such stories, too many people become invested in the outcome to allow the facts to get in the way.
Golly. The Duke of Pork shelling out 12 large and pore ole Ghislaine getting 200 years is not enough to convince the unconvinceable that sex trading rings of the rich and powerful are a thing
Ah - so one crime being committed means that every allegation of a similar crime is also true?
Does one set of spurious allegations mean that all similar allegations are untrue?
It means that allegations should be investigated sensibly and with an open minds to discover those fact things.
When I did a journalism course at university (was editing the Student rag, so thought that I should learn), they emphasised Who, What, Where, When, Why - a story consists of provable facts. If someone says that X was in the Dog and Duck at 12:30 on Thursday, does he know that X looks like? Does the Dog and Duck exist? was it open at 12:30 on Thursday? Can anyone else say that X was there?
In the case of Carl Beech, he literally couldn't identify people. His description of where people were was provably wrong on a number of instances. His descriptions of places were provably wrong, trivially. His whole story was provably false.
In the case of Epstein and Co. the reverse is true. The physical evidence matches the testimonies. Records of place and time match the testimonies.
In the case of Rotherham et al, the same - testimonies matching physical evidence. matching records.
It is worth considering that with Rotherham, a vast establishment conspiracy was uncovered. People up to cabinet level had been told what was happening. The police, social services and the local government structure in Rotherham and similar areas worked together to contain and hide the allegations. And even to protect the abusers.
It's just the wrong kind of conspiracy - not the one that some people wanted to find.
This is also what we saw with the likes of William Roache case. One woman didn't even tell the story, her partner did, she couldn't even really give details and a simple check of things like where he lived, the car he drove etc, could have swiftly dismissed the complaints.
They were also, like som many such weird stories, of long standing.
There is a cesspool of allegations ranging from the ugly to the plain bizarre. In the old days, whispered in pubs. Then badly photocopies leaflets. Now sludge on the internet.
Tom Watson came across some sludge that matched an inner hope - a hope that something would be true.
Once he started the ball rolling, any attempt to do any kind of due diligence on the accusations was pushed aside. Literally blocked.
As in many such stories, too many people become invested in the outcome to allow the facts to get in the way.
Yes when Watson started his crusade I thought "I've heard a lot of this before".
Beech had been peddling variations of this story for decades.
There's a long history of such conspiracy nonsense/fakes turning into a big story.
The Hitler Diaries were really crap forgeries designed to rip off some rather neo-nazi collectors. Selling to the international press was an accident due to one of the marks being a journalist.
The Tailwind story that CNN ran was conspiracy bullshit by a known bullshitter. A journalist heard of it and didn't realise that it was ancient trash...
The Bush II National Guard records were another fakeup that had been passed around for years, until someone *needed* them to be true.
What do Sturgeon / the SNP gain from this? Presumably she’s doing it because she believes it’s “the right thing” to do?
Nicola Sturgeon's attitude is essentially that "if lives have to be lost, that's just the way it is."
This is nonsense. And the header is misleading and biased imo. Several countries handle gender recognition in ways similar to the Scottish reforms ie a process based on self declaration rather than psychiatric diagnosis. There's solid precedent over a prolonged period. It's not some crazy experiment. There are issues to be considered, valid disagreements, but stuff like a "rapists charter"? C'mon. Neither evidence nor logic supports any such conclusion. It's as irrational as the other extreme of saying gender identity should replace birth sex in all aspects of life and the law. It's no slam dunk but on balance I support these reforms and see no "shame" in them at all. If anything Sturgeon is to be congratulated for holding firm on it.
There is lots of evidence of harm in other countries with self-ID. You simply choose to ignore it. The Scottish government which loudly claims that there is no evidence of harm admitted in a written Parliamentary answer that it had done no analysis of the effects of self-ID in other countries. I'd post the evidence if there was even the remotest chance of you reading it. But from your post I have to conclude that you support allowing convicted sex offenders to hide their identity and evade DBS checks. So I won't bother.
But they will gleefully fill the pockets of their bent cronies. And themselves. Goes without saying.
Lol. It's all political diagrams tonight. That one is from the Health Unions on their petition.
Their point is good, their presentation awful. They should consider real salaries, perhaps real take-home ones, not nominal ones. Plot growth since 2010 on the vertical axis. But no, they went for a wall of digits.
I don't think so - it's unconvincing. Imo they are relying on their supporters being fools who can be directed as a mob wanting to campaign by megaphones and shouting people down.
It reminds me of a previous campaign about allegedly poor pay for I think physiotherapists by the Trades Unions. They used the starting salary of a grad as a seemingly startling bit of poverty porn, and entirely forgot to mention that they all got a +25% salary uplift in year two which removed most of the impact for people who didn't swallow the thing hook, line and sinker.
The result is that they wash away chunks of their own credibility, except for their True Believers (in a theological sense) and gullibles.
While this is welcome, Brammal died with this man’s lies hanging over him (for clarity I mean Beech). Watson enabled that. He persued a fantasists witch hunt that collapsed when the police finally, FINALLY, died some proper detecting and spoke to Beeches wife. Why this wasn’t first on the list, I have no idea. Watson abused his position to hound innocent men. That he has been allowed to become a peer disgusts me really. People have, rightly, been all over Clarkson this week. Where is the leftie outrage about Watson? It was an innocent mistake, and as he was attacking nasty old Tories, somehow the tiny mistake was ok? FFS.
There's a theory, obv complete bollocks, this was a Spy Who Came In From The Cold op: get someone to make allegations which are true, in such a shambolic way they are laughed out of court, and everyone is safe.
Odd how few UK news reports are thrown up by googling Mountbatten kincora.
The allegations dreamt up by Beech were so out there weird that it’s a wonder anyone ever took them seriously. The idea of a cabal of senior politicians, military men etc would procure young boys, abuse them and murder them, and no one ever was reported missing is just beyond belief. The police were criminally negligent in the investigation, acting as if they wanted it to be true. Watson drove it night and day into the media, and as has been pointed out, did it with narrow party interest at heart. He is an utter slimeball.
They were also, like som many such weird stories, of long standing.
There is a cesspool of allegations ranging from the ugly to the plain bizarre. In the old days, whispered in pubs. Then badly photocopies leaflets. Now sludge on the internet.
Tom Watson came across some sludge that matched an inner hope - a hope that something would be true.
Once he started the ball rolling, any attempt to do any kind of due diligence on the accusations was pushed aside. Literally blocked.
As in many such stories, too many people become invested in the outcome to allow the facts to get in the way.
Golly. The Duke of Pork shelling out 12 large and pore ole Ghislaine getting 200 years is not enough to convince the unconvinceable that sex trading rings of the rich and powerful are a thing
Ah - so one crime being committed means that every allegation of a similar crime is also true?
Does one set of spurious allegations mean that all similar allegations are untrue?
It means that allegations should be investigated sensibly and with an open minds to discover those fact things.
When I did a journalism course at university (was editing the Student rag, so thought that I should learn), they emphasised Who, What, Where, When, Why - a story consists of provable facts. If someone says that X was in the Dog and Duck at 12:30 on Thursday, does he know that X looks like? Does the Dog and Duck exist? was it open at 12:30 on Thursday? Can anyone else say that X was there?
In the case of Carl Beech, he literally couldn't identify people. His description of where people were was provably wrong on a number of instances. His descriptions of places were provably wrong, trivially. His whole story was provably false.
In the case of Epstein and Co. the reverse is true. The physical evidence matches the testimonies. Records of place and time match the testimonies.
In the case of Rotherham et al, the same - testimonies matching physical evidence. matching records.
It is worth considering that with Rotherham, a vast establishment conspiracy was uncovered. People up to cabinet level had been told what was happening. The police, social services and the local government structure in Rotherham and similar areas worked together to contain and hide the allegations. And even to protect the abusers.
It's just the wrong kind of conspiracy - not the one that some people wanted to find.
While this is welcome, Brammal died with this man’s lies hanging over him (for clarity I mean Beech). Watson enabled that. He persued a fantasists witch hunt that collapsed when the police finally, FINALLY, died some proper detecting and spoke to Beeches wife. Why this wasn’t first on the list, I have no idea. Watson abused his position to hound innocent men. That he has been allowed to become a peer disgusts me really. People have, rightly, been all over Clarkson this week. Where is the leftie outrage about Watson? It was an innocent mistake, and as he was attacking nasty old Tories, somehow the tiny mistake was ok? FFS.
There's a theory, obv complete bollocks, this was a Spy Who Came In From The Cold op: get someone to make allegations which are true, in such a shambolic way they are laughed out of court, and everyone is safe.
Odd how few UK news reports are thrown up by googling Mountbatten kincora.
The allegations dreamt up by Beech were so out there weird that it’s a wonder anyone ever took them seriously. The idea of a cabal of senior politicians, military men etc would procure young boys, abuse them and murder them, and no one ever was reported missing is just beyond belief. The police were criminally negligent in the investigation, acting as if they wanted it to be true. Watson drove it night and day into the media, and as has been pointed out, did it with narrow party interest at heart. He is an utter slimeball.
They were also, like som many such weird stories, of long standing.
There is a cesspool of allegations ranging from the ugly to the plain bizarre. In the old days, whispered in pubs. Then badly photocopies leaflets. Now sludge on the internet.
Tom Watson came across some sludge that matched an inner hope - a hope that something would be true.
Once he started the ball rolling, any attempt to do any kind of due diligence on the accusations was pushed aside. Literally blocked.
As in many such stories, too many people become invested in the outcome to allow the facts to get in the way.
Golly. The Duke of Pork shelling out 12 large and pore ole Ghislaine getting 200 years is not enough to convince the unconvinceable that sex trading rings of the rich and powerful are a thing
Ah - so one crime being committed means that every allegation of a similar crime is also true?
Does one set of spurious allegations mean that all similar allegations are untrue?
It means that allegations should be investigated sensibly and with an open minds to discover those fact things.
When I did a journalism course at university (was editing the Student rag, so thought that I should learn), they emphasised Who, What, Where, When, Why - a story consists of provable facts. If someone says that X was in the Dog and Duck at 12:30 on Thursday, does he know that X looks like? Does the Dog and Duck exist? was it open at 12:30 on Thursday? Can anyone else say that X was there?
In the case of Carl Beech, he literally couldn't identify people. His description of where people were was provably wrong on a number of instances. His descriptions of places were provably wrong, trivially. His whole story was provably false.
In the case of Epstein and Co. the reverse is true. The physical evidence matches the testimonies. Records of place and time match the testimonies.
In the case of Rotherham et al, the same - testimonies matching physical evidence. matching records.
It is worth considering that with Rotherham, a vast establishment conspiracy was uncovered. People up to cabinet level had been told what was happening. The police, social services and the local government structure in Rotherham and similar areas worked together to contain and hide the allegations. And even to protect the abusers.
It's just the wrong kind of conspiracy - not the one that some people wanted to find.
This is also what we saw with the likes of William Roache case. One woman didn't even tell the story, her partner did, she couldn't even really give details and a simple check of things like where he lived, the car he drove etc, could have swiftly dismissed the complaints.
A part of the problem is the bizarre mindset that either
- All allegations are false. Therefore all the testimony must be lies.
or
- All allegations are true. Testing whether they are true means not believing in the allegations. Which is wrong.
The idea of intelligent enquiry, diligently building a structure of facts, seems to be beyond such people.
But they will gleefully fill the pockets of their bent cronies. And themselves. Goes without saying.
There are also 600,000 nurses but only 600 MPs.
So ?
MPs are probably one of the highest profile public sector job (And not a particularly tough job). They need to set the tone for the rest of the public sector - And as for the "pay to attract the best talent" - I don't think our MPs are particularly better than the ones we had in 2010.
The allegations dreamt up by Beech were so out there weird that it’s a wonder anyone ever took them seriously. The idea of a cabal of senior politicians, military men etc would procure young boys, abuse them and murder them, and no one ever was reported missing is just beyond belief. The police were criminally negligent in the investigation, acting as if they wanted it to be true. Watson drove it night and day into the media, and as has been pointed out, did it with narrow party interest at heart. He is an utter slimeball.
They were straight out of the kinds of stuff you would see in conspiracy oriented forums, that have often traded in such nonsense, and frequently they were spread as a way of attacking men who may have been gay. Very much along the lines of the "Satanic panic", and if you have ever read about some of the US cases you would realise how utterly nuts many of the claims were. That these allegations were given so much credence with so little evidence is disgraceful.
If you think about it not a million miles away from the QAnon Pizza Restaurant story.
It absolutely is. Some of the US cases that went to trial, and even resulted in convictions, are completely round the twist. Litterly unbelievable you would think, but once the public starts on the old "no smoke without fire" you see justice go right out the window.
Martha Coakley tried to make a career out of some truly weird cases. Which, in part, made her the Democrat who lost Ted Kennedy's seat at the Special Election after his death.
What do Sturgeon / the SNP gain from this? Presumably she’s doing it because she believes it’s “the right thing” to do?
Of course she thinks it's the right thing to do.
It's causing a load of tension with Westminster, dividing Scotland from England, and pleasing her left wing to the extent that they're willing to overlook the shambles her government is making of running Scotland.
It's absolutely perfect.
Shame about the possible negative consequences for women, but those are of course much less important to her.
I am now of the view - not just because of this - that women's right, needs, desires and wants, their safety, their lives - are simply not important to those in authority in this country. We are seen as second best. We are expected to accommodate others. We are expected, consciously or unconsciously, to put men's interests first. Society is arranged to suit men. If we complain about this or demand changes or demand better, we are told that we are aggressive or tiresome or bitches or attacked or insulted or demeaned in some way.
We are we must be inclusive and kind to others, to think of others first, to be accommodating, to avoid offence and hurt. We are told that all it takes to be women is to wear dresses, high heels and lipstick as if womanhood was merely a superficial costume to be put on and discarded at will. Women are being told to behave like good little girls again. If we don’t, we are verbally assaulted or threatened with physical assault, some of it in luridly sexually offensive ways. Or simply ignored or excluded.
No.
It is so tiresome, so wearying, so infuriating to have to go through this again, to be told that if we disagree or protest or ask about our needs, our rights, our demands, our boundaries, our concerns, the risks to us, we are being bigoted or selfish and that these are “not valid”.
That is what I think is going on. That is why the debate about self-ID is so toxic and so important. Women are not being listened to. If it goes through, I fear that it will push back or eliminate many of the rights women have gained during my lifetime. I am seeing changes in attitudes already. I am seeing exemptions created specifically to permit women only spaces not being used for fear they will upset men. I am seeing inclusivity being used to exclude women from places they were previously free to treat as women-only. It will affect not just me but my daughter — and her daughters too. That is why it matters to me.
Men with power bossing women around. This is a very old, very sour wine being offered in a new bottle.
I am so angry about this.
Today the police are investigating abuse allegations in a mixed sex hostel in London 44 years ago. In decades to come some future police force will start investigating abuse allegations as a result of what Holyrood voted through tonight. But the politicians and their appeasers who pushed this through will not be around to face the consequences, the accountability for the harm they caused.
Thank you for this excellent thread header. I fear you are right in what you say and your comment above. If there are weaknesses that people with malice can exploit to their advantage, then they will do so. Do you think that the impact of Scottish self-ID will undermine the UK Equalities Act sufficiently that the UK Supreme Court may overrule it?
The last point is surely the end goal here for the SNP. Push as many laws and initiatives as they can which require the supreme court to strike them down. The women, in this case, are just collateral damage.
So where does this end? UK Government doesn't allow a referendum and the UK Supreme Court says any act by the Scottish Government to split up the UK is beyond it's powers? Catalonia?
What do Sturgeon / the SNP gain from this? Presumably she’s doing it because she believes it’s “the right thing” to do?
Nicola Sturgeon's attitude is essentially that "if lives have to be lost, that's just the way it is."
This is nonsense. And the header is misleading and biased imo. Several countries handle gender recognition in ways similar to the Scottish reforms ie a process based on self declaration rather than psychiatric diagnosis. There's solid precedent over a prolonged period. It's not some crazy experiment. There are issues to be considered, valid disagreements, but stuff like a "rapists charter"? C'mon. Neither evidence nor logic supports any such conclusion. It's as irrational as the other extreme of saying gender identity should replace birth sex in all aspects of life and the law. It's no slam dunk but on balance I support these reforms and see no "shame" in them at all. If anything Sturgeon is to be congratulated for holding firm on it.
Never interrupt a PB moral panic.
I find it depressing that the old fashioned process of using politics and politicians to further aims and principles has been abandoned, with 'activists' preferring to interrupt a parliamentary debate and democratic vote, labelling them anti-democratic because they aren't going their way. I think the influence of the likes of Rowling is pernicious; rather than utilise politics they prefer headlines in friendly media, and JKR's standard mo of unleashing waves of incel flying monkeys on Twitter upon those who displease her.
Given these types' oft heard chuntering about dark forces lobbying political parties with their woke agendas, it's ironic that the LGB Alliance is now shacked up with a whole load of reactionary loonballs at 55 Tuffton St.
'What first attracted you to a bunch of hard right, libertarian ideologues with loads of money?'
While this is welcome, Brammal died with this man’s lies hanging over him (for clarity I mean Beech). Watson enabled that. He persued a fantasists witch hunt that collapsed when the police finally, FINALLY, died some proper detecting and spoke to Beeches wife. Why this wasn’t first on the list, I have no idea. Watson abused his position to hound innocent men. That he has been allowed to become a peer disgusts me really. People have, rightly, been all over Clarkson this week. Where is the leftie outrage about Watson? It was an innocent mistake, and as he was attacking nasty old Tories, somehow the tiny mistake was ok? FFS.
There's a theory, obv complete bollocks, this was a Spy Who Came In From The Cold op: get someone to make allegations which are true, in such a shambolic way they are laughed out of court, and everyone is safe.
Odd how few UK news reports are thrown up by googling Mountbatten kincora.
The allegations dreamt up by Beech were so out there weird that it’s a wonder anyone ever took them seriously. The idea of a cabal of senior politicians, military men etc would procure young boys, abuse them and murder them, and no one ever was reported missing is just beyond belief. The police were criminally negligent in the investigation, acting as if they wanted it to be true. Watson drove it night and day into the media, and as has been pointed out, did it with narrow party interest at heart. He is an utter slimeball.
They were also, like som many such weird stories, of long standing.
There is a cesspool of allegations ranging from the ugly to the plain bizarre. In the old days, whispered in pubs. Then badly photocopies leaflets. Now sludge on the internet.
Tom Watson came across some sludge that matched an inner hope - a hope that something would be true.
Once he started the ball rolling, any attempt to do any kind of due diligence on the accusations was pushed aside. Literally blocked.
As in many such stories, too many people become invested in the outcome to allow the facts to get in the way.
Golly. The Duke of Pork shelling out 12 large and pore ole Ghislaine getting 200 years is not enough to convince the unconvinceable that sex trading rings of the rich and powerful are a thing
Ah - so one crime being committed means that every allegation of a similar crime is also true?
Does one set of spurious allegations mean that all similar allegations are untrue?
It means that allegations should be investigated sensibly and with an open minds to discover those fact things.
When I did a journalism course at university (was editing the Student rag, so thought that I should learn), they emphasised Who, What, Where, When, Why - a story consists of provable facts. If someone says that X was in the Dog and Duck at 12:30 on Thursday, does he know that X looks like? Does the Dog and Duck exist? was it open at 12:30 on Thursday? Can anyone else say that X was there?
In the case of Carl Beech, he literally couldn't identify people. His description of where people were was provably wrong on a number of instances. His descriptions of places were provably wrong, trivially. His whole story was provably false.
In the case of Epstein and Co. the reverse is true. The physical evidence matches the testimonies. Records of place and time match the testimonies.
In the case of Rotherham et al, the same - testimonies matching physical evidence. matching records.
It is worth considering that with Rotherham, a vast establishment conspiracy was uncovered. People up to cabinet level had been told what was happening. The police, social services and the local government structure in Rotherham and similar areas worked together to contain and hide the allegations. And even to protect the abusers.
It's just the wrong kind of conspiracy - not the one that some people wanted to find.
This is also what we saw with the likes of William Roache case. One woman didn't even tell the story, her partner did, she couldn't even really give details and a simple check of things like where he lived, the car he drove etc, could have swiftly dismissed the complaints.
A part of the problem is the bizarre mindset that either
- All allegations are false. Therefore all the testimony must be lies.
or
- All allegations are true. Testing whether they are true means not believing in the allegations. Which is wrong.
The idea of intelligent enquiry, diligently building a structure of facts, seems to be beyond such people.
Revisit your own post of 11.10 which suggests 4 times in 2 paragraphs that we should generalise about "this sort of story," and now that turns out to be a "bizarre mindset." Which?
But they will gleefully fill the pockets of their bent cronies. And themselves. Goes without saying.
Lol. It's all political diagrams tonight. That one is from the Health Unions on their petition.
Their point is good, their presentation awful. They should consider real salaries, perhaps real take-home ones, not nominal ones. Plot growth since 2010 on the vertical axis. But no, they went for a wall of digits.
I don't think so - it's unconvincing. Imo they are relying on their supporters being fools who can be directed as a mob wanting to campaign by megaphones and shouting people down.
It reminds me of a previous campaign about allegedly poor pay for I think physiotherapists by the Trades Unions. They used the starting salary of a grad as a seemingly startling bit of poverty porn, and entirely forgot to mention that they all got a +25% salary uplift in year two which removed most of the impact for people who didn't swallow the thing hook, line and sinker.
The result is that they wash away chunks of their own credibility, except for their True Believers (in a theological sense) and gullibles.
Whereas PB Tories have a complete blind spot for supply and demand and appear not able to grasp that all roles in the NHS have horrendous and growing vacancies.
It's not exactly rocket science to work out that a large factor in thid is 12 years of real wage cuts due to the aforesaid PB Tories favoured Governments Public Sector wage policy
While this is welcome, Brammal died with this man’s lies hanging over him (for clarity I mean Beech). Watson enabled that. He persued a fantasists witch hunt that collapsed when the police finally, FINALLY, died some proper detecting and spoke to Beeches wife. Why this wasn’t first on the list, I have no idea. Watson abused his position to hound innocent men. That he has been allowed to become a peer disgusts me really. People have, rightly, been all over Clarkson this week. Where is the leftie outrage about Watson? It was an innocent mistake, and as he was attacking nasty old Tories, somehow the tiny mistake was ok? FFS.
There's a theory, obv complete bollocks, this was a Spy Who Came In From The Cold op: get someone to make allegations which are true, in such a shambolic way they are laughed out of court, and everyone is safe.
Odd how few UK news reports are thrown up by googling Mountbatten kincora.
The allegations dreamt up by Beech were so out there weird that it’s a wonder anyone ever took them seriously. The idea of a cabal of senior politicians, military men etc would procure young boys, abuse them and murder them, and no one ever was reported missing is just beyond belief. The police were criminally negligent in the investigation, acting as if they wanted it to be true. Watson drove it night and day into the media, and as has been pointed out, did it with narrow party interest at heart. He is an utter slimeball.
They were also, like som many such weird stories, of long standing.
There is a cesspool of allegations ranging from the ugly to the plain bizarre. In the old days, whispered in pubs. Then badly photocopies leaflets. Now sludge on the internet.
Tom Watson came across some sludge that matched an inner hope - a hope that something would be true.
Once he started the ball rolling, any attempt to do any kind of due diligence on the accusations was pushed aside. Literally blocked.
As in many such stories, too many people become invested in the outcome to allow the facts to get in the way.
Golly. The Duke of Pork shelling out 12 large and pore ole Ghislaine getting 200 years is not enough to convince the unconvinceable that sex trading rings of the rich and powerful are a thing
Ah - so one crime being committed means that every allegation of a similar crime is also true?
Does one set of spurious allegations mean that all similar allegations are untrue?
It means that allegations should be investigated sensibly and with an open minds to discover those fact things.
When I did a journalism course at university (was editing the Student rag, so thought that I should learn), they emphasised Who, What, Where, When, Why - a story consists of provable facts. If someone says that X was in the Dog and Duck at 12:30 on Thursday, does he know that X looks like? Does the Dog and Duck exist? was it open at 12:30 on Thursday? Can anyone else say that X was there?
In the case of Carl Beech, he literally couldn't identify people. His description of where people were was provably wrong on a number of instances. His descriptions of places were provably wrong, trivially. His whole story was provably false.
In the case of Epstein and Co. the reverse is true. The physical evidence matches the testimonies. Records of place and time match the testimonies.
In the case of Rotherham et al, the same - testimonies matching physical evidence. matching records.
It is worth considering that with Rotherham, a vast establishment conspiracy was uncovered. People up to cabinet level had been told what was happening. The police, social services and the local government structure in Rotherham and similar areas worked together to contain and hide the allegations. And even to protect the abusers.
It's just the wrong kind of conspiracy - not the one that some people wanted to find.
This is also what we saw with the likes of William Roache case. One woman didn't even tell the story, her partner did, she couldn't even really give details and a simple check of things like where he lived, the car he drove etc, could have swiftly dismissed the complaints.
A part of the problem is the bizarre mindset that either
- All allegations are false. Therefore all the testimony must be lies.
or
- All allegations are true. Testing whether they are true means not believing in the allegations. Which is wrong.
The idea of intelligent enquiry, diligently building a structure of facts, seems to be beyond such people.
Revisit your own post of 11.10 which suggests 4 times in 2 paragraphs that we should generalise about "this sort of story," and now that turns out to be a "bizarre mindset." Which?
The bizarre mindset was that of the police who claimed they could only either totally believe all allegations (and not investigate them properly) or totally disbelieve all allegations (and not investigate them properly).
What do Sturgeon / the SNP gain from this? Presumably she’s doing it because she believes it’s “the right thing” to do?
Nicola Sturgeon's attitude is essentially that "if lives have to be lost, that's just the way it is."
This is nonsense. And the header is misleading and biased imo. Several countries handle gender recognition in ways similar to the Scottish reforms ie a process based on self declaration rather than psychiatric diagnosis. There's solid precedent over a prolonged period. It's not some crazy experiment. There are issues to be considered, valid disagreements, but stuff like a "rapists charter"? C'mon. Neither evidence nor logic supports any such conclusion. It's as irrational as the other extreme of saying gender identity should replace birth sex in all aspects of life and the law. It's no slam dunk but on balance I support these reforms and see no "shame" in them at all. If anything Sturgeon is to be congratulated for holding firm on it.
Never interrupt a PB moral panic.
I find it depressing that the old fashioned process of using politics and politicians to further aims and principles has been abandoned, with 'activists' preferring to interrupt a parliamentary debate and democratic vote, labelling them anti-democratic because they aren't going their way. I think the influence of the likes of Rowling is pernicious; rather than utilise politics they prefer headlines in friendly media, and JKR's standard mo of unleashing waves of incel flying monkeys on Twitter upon those who displease her.
Given these types' oft heard chuntering about dark forces lobbying political parties with their woke agendas, it's ironic that the LGB Alliance is now shacked up with a whole load of reactionary loonballs at 55 Tuffton St.
'What first attracted you to a bunch of hard right, libertarian ideologues with loads of money?'
All that may be true, but do you agree that the amendment should have passed, or do you think it was right for MSPs to vote it down?
He is the follow on act to Trump - that comes under water is wet. He truly is Florida Man.
This kind of shows up one of Trump's superpowers, which is that because he's such an unapologetic pwner of libs, the base don't mind when he takes more moderate policy positions. Challengers to Trump are likely to end up having to run much further to the right on abortion/contraception than Trump would have.
What do Sturgeon / the SNP gain from this? Presumably she’s doing it because she believes it’s “the right thing” to do?
Nicola Sturgeon's attitude is essentially that "if lives have to be lost, that's just the way it is."
This is nonsense. And the header is misleading and biased imo. Several countries handle gender recognition in ways similar to the Scottish reforms ie a process based on self declaration rather than psychiatric diagnosis. There's solid precedent over a prolonged period. It's not some crazy experiment. There are issues to be considered, valid disagreements, but stuff like a "rapists charter"? C'mon. Neither evidence nor logic supports any such conclusion. It's as irrational as the other extreme of saying gender identity should replace birth sex in all aspects of life and the law. It's no slam dunk but on balance I support these reforms and see no "shame" in them at all. If anything Sturgeon is to be congratulated for holding firm on it.
Never interrupt a PB moral panic.
I find it depressing that the old fashioned process of using politics and politicians to further aims and principles has been abandoned, with 'activists' preferring to interrupt a parliamentary debate and democratic vote, labelling them anti-democratic because they aren't going their way. I think the influence of the likes of Rowling is pernicious; rather than utilise politics they prefer headlines in friendly media, and JKR's standard mo of unleashing waves of incel flying monkeys on Twitter upon those who displease her.
Given these types' oft heard chuntering about dark forces lobbying political parties with their woke agendas, it's ironic that the LGB Alliance is now shacked up with a whole load of reactionary loonballs at 55 Tuffton St.
'What first attracted you to a bunch of hard right, libertarian ideologues with loads of money?'
Or, we could try to answer questions on their merits rather than blathering on about who on twitter is aligned with which set of splitters in whatever street. Why privilege parliamentary debates and democratic votes in a world where you have been governed by Johnson, Truss and Sunak all in one year? Are you equally forgiving about the laws passed in Westminster?
The frustrating thing is, this is such a non issue. Consider the case of school teachers. Am I on the spectrum of mildly-pro-to-mildly-indifferent to them? Of course I am. Do I think very rigorous precautions are needed to filter out wrong uns trying to gain privileged access to children? Obviously. Why does having exactly the same position on the trans make it appropriate to label people schoolteacherphobic bigots?
He is the follow on act to Trump - that comes under water is wet. He truly is Florida Man.
This kind of shows up one of Trump's superpowers, which is that because he's such an unapologetic pwner of libs, the base don't mind when he takes more moderate policy positions. Challengers to Trump are likely to end up having to run much further to the right on abortion/contraception than Trump would have.
Not sure that is true. I think a Trump follow on could even advocate restoration of Roe - as long as he was more efficient at the rest of the Trumpets agenda.
I think that the current follow ons (such as DeSantis) are stone cold hard anti-abortion because that is the background of their wing in the Republican party. To which Trump was a bit of weird party crasher...
They are latching on to the Trump agenda/movement, rather than being an original part of it. And bringing their own shit to throw.
But they will gleefully fill the pockets of their bent cronies. And themselves. Goes without saying.
Lol. It's all political diagrams tonight. That one is from the Health Unions on their petition.
Their point is good, their presentation awful. They should consider real salaries, perhaps real take-home ones, not nominal ones. Plot growth since 2010 on the vertical axis. But no, they went for a wall of digits.
I don't think so - it's unconvincing. Imo they are relying on their supporters being fools who can be directed as a mob wanting to campaign by megaphones and shouting people down.
It reminds me of a previous campaign about allegedly poor pay for I think physiotherapists by the Trades Unions. They used the starting salary of a grad as a seemingly startling bit of poverty porn, and entirely forgot to mention that they all got a +25% salary uplift in year two which removed most of the impact for people who didn't swallow the thing hook, line and sinker.
The result is that they wash away chunks of their own credibility, except for their True Believers (in a theological sense) and gullibles.
Whereas PB Tories have a complete blind spot for supply and demand and appear not able to grasp that all roles in the NHS have horrendous and growing vacancies.
It's not exactly rocket science to work out that a large factor in thid is 12 years of real wage cuts due to the aforesaid PB Tories favoured Governments Public Sector wage policy
Is it possible that some of the vacancies exist because we don't train enough people?
I read recently that we are short tens of thousands of doctors and nurses. For doctors, this will get worse soon with many in their 50's coming up for retirement. There aren't enough medical school places and not enough staff in teaching hospitals to train them anyway. And then we have made nursing a graduate profession so many newly qualified nurses don't want to do basics like bedpans (anecdote alert: a school friend of my 24yo daughter qualified as a nurse but left after a year because it was too hard - she has retrained as a primary school teacher).
Doesn't the basic UK demographic change to more elderly demand fundamental change in the NHS? More social care, dementia support, respite care, cottage hospitals - less bleeding edge surgery units, fancy machines, excruciatingly expensive new drugs. Focus on quality of life at the end rather than length of life? Por resources into support for kids, kids mental health, cancer in young parents, etc.
But they will gleefully fill the pockets of their bent cronies. And themselves. Goes without saying.
Lol. It's all political diagrams tonight. That one is from the Health Unions on their petition.
Their point is good, their presentation awful. They should consider real salaries, perhaps real take-home ones, not nominal ones. Plot growth since 2010 on the vertical axis. But no, they went for a wall of digits.
I don't think so - it's unconvincing. Imo they are relying on their supporters being fools who can be directed as a mob wanting to campaign by megaphones and shouting people down.
It reminds me of a previous campaign about allegedly poor pay for I think physiotherapists by the Trades Unions. They used the starting salary of a grad as a seemingly startling bit of poverty porn, and entirely forgot to mention that they all got a +25% salary uplift in year two which removed most of the impact for people who didn't swallow the thing hook, line and sinker.
The result is that they wash away chunks of their own credibility, except for their True Believers (in a theological sense) and gullibles.
Whereas PB Tories have a complete blind spot for supply and demand and appear not able to grasp that all roles in the NHS have horrendous and growing vacancies.
It's not exactly rocket science to work out that a large factor in thid is 12 years of real wage cuts due to the aforesaid PB Tories favoured Governments Public Sector wage policy
But they will gleefully fill the pockets of their bent cronies. And themselves. Goes without saying.
Lol. It's all political diagrams tonight. That one is from the Health Unions on their petition.
Their point is good, their presentation awful. They should consider real salaries, perhaps real take-home ones, not nominal ones. Plot growth since 2010 on the vertical axis. But no, they went for a wall of digits.
I don't think so - it's unconvincing. Imo they are relying on their supporters being fools who can be directed as a mob wanting to campaign by megaphones and shouting people down.
It reminds me of a previous campaign about allegedly poor pay for I think physiotherapists by the Trades Unions. They used the starting salary of a grad as a seemingly startling bit of poverty porn, and entirely forgot to mention that they all got a +25% salary uplift in year two which removed most of the impact for people who didn't swallow the thing hook, line and sinker.
The result is that they wash away chunks of their own credibility, except for their True Believers (in a theological sense) and gullibles.
Whereas PB Tories have a complete blind spot for supply and demand and appear not able to grasp that all roles in the NHS have horrendous and growing vacancies.
It's not exactly rocket science to work out that a large factor in thid is 12 years of real wage cuts due to the aforesaid PB Tories favoured Governments Public Sector wage policy
Is it possible that some of the vacancies exist because we don't train enough people?
I read recently that we are short tens of thousands of doctors and nurses. For doctors, this will get worse soon with many in their 50's coming up for retirement. There aren't enough medical school places and not enough staff in teaching hospitals to train them anyway. And then we have made nursing a graduate profession so many newly qualified nurses don't want to do basics like bedpans (anecdote alert: a school friend of my 24yo daughter qualified as a nurse but left after a year because it was too hard - she has retrained as a primary school teacher).
Doesn't the basic UK demographic change to more elderly demand fundamental change in the NHS? More social care, dementia support, respite care, cottage hospitals - less bleeding edge surgery units, fancy machines, excruciatingly expensive new drugs. Focus on quality of life at the end rather than length of life? Por resources into support for kids, kids mental health, cancer in young parents, etc.
We deliberately, carefully and for years have less spaces at university and training spaces within the NHS than are required to provide the staff known to be required.
But they will gleefully fill the pockets of their bent cronies. And themselves. Goes without saying.
Lol. It's all political diagrams tonight. That one is from the Health Unions on their petition.
Their point is good, their presentation awful. They should consider real salaries, perhaps real take-home ones, not nominal ones. Plot growth since 2010 on the vertical axis. But no, they went for a wall of digits.
I don't think so - it's unconvincing. Imo they are relying on their supporters being fools who can be directed as a mob wanting to campaign by megaphones and shouting people down.
It reminds me of a previous campaign about allegedly poor pay for I think physiotherapists by the Trades Unions. They used the starting salary of a grad as a seemingly startling bit of poverty porn, and entirely forgot to mention that they all got a +25% salary uplift in year two which removed most of the impact for people who didn't swallow the thing hook, line and sinker.
The result is that they wash away chunks of their own credibility, except for their True Believers (in a theological sense) and gullibles.
Whereas PB Tories have a complete blind spot for supply and demand and appear not able to grasp that all roles in the NHS have horrendous and growing vacancies.
It's not exactly rocket science to work out that a large factor in thid is 12 years of real wage cuts due to the aforesaid PB Tories favoured Governments Public Sector wage policy
What do Sturgeon / the SNP gain from this? Presumably she’s doing it because she believes it’s “the right thing” to do?
Of course she thinks it's the right thing to do.
It's causing a load of tension with Westminster, dividing Scotland from England, and pleasing her left wing to the extent that they're willing to overlook the shambles her government is making of running Scotland.
It's absolutely perfect.
Shame about the possible negative consequences for women, but those are of course much less important to her.
I am now of the view - not just because of this - that women's right, needs, desires and wants, their safety, their lives - are simply not important to those in authority in this country. We are seen as second best. We are expected to accommodate others. We are expected, consciously or unconsciously, to put men's interests first. Society is arranged to suit men. If we complain about this or demand changes or demand better, we are told that we are aggressive or tiresome or bitches or attacked or insulted or demeaned in some way.
We are we must be inclusive and kind to others, to think of others first, to be accommodating, to avoid offence and hurt. We are told that all it takes to be women is to wear dresses, high heels and lipstick as if womanhood was merely a superficial costume to be put on and discarded at will. Women are being told to behave like good little girls again. If we don’t, we are verbally assaulted or threatened with physical assault, some of it in luridly sexually offensive ways. Or simply ignored or excluded.
No.
It is so tiresome, so wearying, so infuriating to have to go through this again, to be told that if we disagree or protest or ask about our needs, our rights, our demands, our boundaries, our concerns, the risks to us, we are being bigoted or selfish and that these are “not valid”.
That is what I think is going on. That is why the debate about self-ID is so toxic and so important. Women are not being listened to. If it goes through, I fear that it will push back or eliminate many of the rights women have gained during my lifetime. I am seeing changes in attitudes already. I am seeing exemptions created specifically to permit women only spaces not being used for fear they will upset men. I am seeing inclusivity being used to exclude women from places they were previously free to treat as women-only. It will affect not just me but my daughter — and her daughters too. That is why it matters to me.
Men with power bossing women around. This is a very old, very sour wine being offered in a new bottle.
I am so angry about this.
Today the police are investigating abuse allegations in a mixed sex hostel in London 44 years ago. In decades to come some future police force will start investigating abuse allegations as a result of what Holyrood voted through tonight. But the politicians and their appeasers who pushed this through will not be around to face the consequences, the accountability for the harm they caused.
I dont think its most men Cyclefree....many of us see the same dangers as you in this bill and don't support it. I have no problem with trans people in the least and trans friends have been round at parties or dinner as much as anyone. The ones I know are supportive of your comments as they want to be women the last thing they would want to do is take women only spaces away but then the ones I know aspire to be your gender when they get the op. ie they actually want to transition. Too many however will take the opportunity to self id for other reasons however. Hell if I ever get caught and they want to shove me in jail I will self id as female so I can goto a female prison. Not because I am a sexual predator just because I think I will have an easier time
But they will gleefully fill the pockets of their bent cronies. And themselves. Goes without saying.
Lol. It's all political diagrams tonight. That one is from the Health Unions on their petition.
Their point is good, their presentation awful. They should consider real salaries, perhaps real take-home ones, not nominal ones. Plot growth since 2010 on the vertical axis. But no, they went for a wall of digits.
I don't think so - it's unconvincing. Imo they are relying on their supporters being fools who can be directed as a mob wanting to campaign by megaphones and shouting people down.
It reminds me of a previous campaign about allegedly poor pay for I think physiotherapists by the Trades Unions. They used the starting salary of a grad as a seemingly startling bit of poverty porn, and entirely forgot to mention that they all got a +25% salary uplift in year two which removed most of the impact for people who didn't swallow the thing hook, line and sinker.
The result is that they wash away chunks of their own credibility, except for their True Believers (in a theological sense) and gullibles.
Whereas PB Tories have a complete blind spot for supply and demand and appear not able to grasp that all roles in the NHS have horrendous and growing vacancies.
It's not exactly rocket science to work out that a large factor in thid is 12 years of real wage cuts due to the aforesaid PB Tories favoured Governments Public Sector wage policy
p.s. I could write a thread advocating trans rights and it would correct the many errors repeated here.
But frankly, it's not worth it.
Not just because you don't throw your pearls before swine.
But because there are FAR more important things for this us and this country to be focussed on right now than how others choose to identify or classify themselves.
It's a frankly bizarre obsession. As bad as the swivel-eyed anti-vaxx loons.
But they will gleefully fill the pockets of their bent cronies. And themselves. Goes without saying.
Lol. It's all political diagrams tonight. That one is from the Health Unions on their petition.
Their point is good, their presentation awful. They should consider real salaries, perhaps real take-home ones, not nominal ones. Plot growth since 2010 on the vertical axis. But no, they went for a wall of digits.
I don't think so - it's unconvincing. Imo they are relying on their supporters being fools who can be directed as a mob wanting to campaign by megaphones and shouting people down.
It reminds me of a previous campaign about allegedly poor pay for I think physiotherapists by the Trades Unions. They used the starting salary of a grad as a seemingly startling bit of poverty porn, and entirely forgot to mention that they all got a +25% salary uplift in year two which removed most of the impact for people who didn't swallow the thing hook, line and sinker.
The result is that they wash away chunks of their own credibility, except for their True Believers (in a theological sense) and gullibles.
Whereas PB Tories have a complete blind spot for supply and demand and appear not able to grasp that all roles in the NHS have horrendous and growing vacancies.
It's not exactly rocket science to work out that a large factor in thid is 12 years of real wage cuts due to the aforesaid PB Tories favoured Governments Public Sector wage policy
Is it possible that some of the vacancies exist because we don't train enough people?
I read recently that we are short tens of thousands of doctors and nurses. For doctors, this will get worse soon with many in their 50's coming up for retirement. There aren't enough medical school places and not enough staff in teaching hospitals to train them anyway. And then we have made nursing a graduate profession so many newly qualified nurses don't want to do basics like bedpans (anecdote alert: a school friend of my 24yo daughter qualified as a nurse but left after a year because it was too hard - she has retrained as a primary school teacher).
Doesn't the basic UK demographic change to more elderly demand fundamental change in the NHS? More social care, dementia support, respite care, cottage hospitals - less bleeding edge surgery units, fancy machines, excruciatingly expensive new drugs. Focus on quality of life at the end rather than length of life? Por resources into support for kids, kids mental health, cancer in young parents, etc.
We deliberately, carefully and for years have less spaces at university and training spaces within the NHS than are required to provide the staff known to be required.
The shortfall is huge.
It is not just training places, there is the issue of retention, and we are haemmorhaging staff. Same for teaching it seems, no one wants to stick around.
The simplist and most economical way to fix the staffing shortfalls is to retain existing staff. Pay is part of this, but the general conditions of work matter too. Consider why so many staff leave so soon.
But they will gleefully fill the pockets of their bent cronies. And themselves. Goes without saying.
Lol. It's all political diagrams tonight. That one is from the Health Unions on their petition.
Their point is good, their presentation awful. They should consider real salaries, perhaps real take-home ones, not nominal ones. Plot growth since 2010 on the vertical axis. But no, they went for a wall of digits.
I don't think so - it's unconvincing. Imo they are relying on their supporters being fools who can be directed as a mob wanting to campaign by megaphones and shouting people down.
It reminds me of a previous campaign about allegedly poor pay for I think physiotherapists by the Trades Unions. They used the starting salary of a grad as a seemingly startling bit of poverty porn, and entirely forgot to mention that they all got a +25% salary uplift in year two which removed most of the impact for people who didn't swallow the thing hook, line and sinker.
The result is that they wash away chunks of their own credibility, except for their True Believers (in a theological sense) and gullibles.
Whereas PB Tories have a complete blind spot for supply and demand and appear not able to grasp that all roles in the NHS have horrendous and growing vacancies.
It's not exactly rocket science to work out that a large factor in thid is 12 years of real wage cuts due to the aforesaid PB Tories favoured Governments Public Sector wage policy
My GP reckons 1750 patients is the absolute maximum a full-time GP can safely be responsible for.
GP workload has changed tremendously too. 40% of consultations are with 10% of the patients, and that varies tremendously with the age and social deprivation of the practice.
Not just demographics but also other aspects of care. On my patch we have 4 times as many with diabetes as we did 25 years ago, approaching 10% of the population and nearly all are now managed in General Practice.
While this is welcome, Brammal died with this man’s lies hanging over him (for clarity I mean Beech). Watson enabled that. He persued a fantasists witch hunt that collapsed when the police finally, FINALLY, died some proper detecting and spoke to Beeches wife. Why this wasn’t first on the list, I have no idea. Watson abused his position to hound innocent men. That he has been allowed to become a peer disgusts me really. People have, rightly, been all over Clarkson this week. Where is the leftie outrage about Watson? It was an innocent mistake, and as he was attacking nasty old Tories, somehow the tiny mistake was ok? FFS.
It can’t have been an innocent mistake. He never named, or even mentioned, the Shadow Cabinet minister who was interviewed under caution on the subject.
That said, nor did most others. One article in the Independent, later taken down from their website.
What I think we may be seeing in Scotland is the moment of progressive over-reach. The pendulum will swing back, it always does. It is likely to be extremely messy and destroy lots of things in its path: Scottish Nationalism could be a casualty.
What do Sturgeon / the SNP gain from this? Presumably she’s doing it because she believes it’s “the right thing” to do?
Nicola Sturgeon's attitude is essentially that "if lives have to be lost, that's just the way it is."
This is nonsense. And the header is misleading and biased imo. Several countries handle gender recognition in ways similar to the Scottish reforms ie a process based on self declaration rather than psychiatric diagnosis. There's solid precedent over a prolonged period. It's not some crazy experiment. There are issues to be considered, valid disagreements, but stuff like a "rapists charter"? C'mon. Neither evidence nor logic supports any such conclusion. It's as irrational as the other extreme of saying gender identity should replace birth sex in all aspects of life and the law. It's no slam dunk but on balance I support these reforms and see no "shame" in them at all. If anything Sturgeon is to be congratulated for holding firm on it.
Never interrupt a PB moral panic.
I find it depressing that the old fashioned process of using politics and politicians to further aims and principles has been abandoned, with 'activists' preferring to interrupt a parliamentary debate and democratic vote, labelling them anti-democratic because they aren't going their way. I think the influence of the likes of Rowling is pernicious; rather than utilise politics they prefer headlines in friendly media, and JKR's standard mo of unleashing waves of incel flying monkeys on Twitter upon those who displease her.
Given these types' oft heard chuntering about dark forces lobbying political parties with their woke agendas, it's ironic that the LGB Alliance is now shacked up with a whole load of reactionary loonballs at 55 Tuffton St.
'What first attracted you to a bunch of hard right, libertarian ideologues with loads of money?'
p.s. I could write a thread advocating trans rights and it would correct the many errors repeated here.
But frankly, it's not worth it.
This reminds me of the time David Brent couldn't moonwalk because he wasn't wearing the right shoes.
There was a conspiracy theorist once (name of David Fitzgerald) who claimed he’d written a book proving his conspiracy theory. When it was pointed out he had only stated general claims and provided no evidence for them, he said the evidence was in the original draft but it made the book too long so he took it out again.
MPs are probably one of the highest profile public sector job (And not a particularly tough job). They need to set the tone for the rest of the public sector - And as for the "pay to attract the best talent" - I don't think our MPs are particularly better than the ones we had in 2010.
The theory that "we should pay MPs more to attract better talent" was tested to destruction with Liz Truss
🚨🚨damning @britishchambers report into EU-UK trade deal two years after Brexit finds businesses facing “structural” challenges because of low-ambition trade deal struck by @BorisJohnson@DavidGHFrost and govt doing little about it /1
While this is welcome, Brammal died with this man’s lies hanging over him (for clarity I mean Beech). Watson enabled that. He persued a fantasists witch hunt that collapsed when the police finally, FINALLY, died some proper detecting and spoke to Beeches wife. Why this wasn’t first on the list, I have no idea. Watson abused his position to hound innocent men. That he has been allowed to become a peer disgusts me really. People have, rightly, been all over Clarkson this week. Where is the leftie outrage about Watson? It was an innocent mistake, and as he was attacking nasty old Tories, somehow the tiny mistake was ok? FFS.
There's a theory, obv complete bollocks, this was a Spy Who Came In From The Cold op: get someone to make allegations which are true, in such a shambolic way they are laughed out of court, and everyone is safe.
Odd how few UK news reports are thrown up by googling Mountbatten kincora.
The allegations dreamt up by Beech were so out there weird that it’s a wonder anyone ever took them seriously. The idea of a cabal of senior politicians, military men etc would procure young boys, abuse them and murder them, and no one ever was reported missing is just beyond belief. The police were criminally negligent in the investigation, acting as if they wanted it to be true. Watson drove it night and day into the media, and as has been pointed out, did it with narrow party interest at heart. He is an utter slimeball.
They were also, like som many such weird stories, of long standing.
There is a cesspool of allegations ranging from the ugly to the plain bizarre. In the old days, whispered in pubs. Then badly photocopies leaflets. Now sludge on the internet.
Tom Watson came across some sludge that matched an inner hope - a hope that something would be true.
Once he started the ball rolling, any attempt to do any kind of due diligence on the accusations was pushed aside. Literally blocked.
As in many such stories, too many people become invested in the outcome to allow the facts to get in the way.
Golly. The Duke of Pork shelling out 12 large and pore ole Ghislaine getting 200 years is not enough to convince the unconvinceable that sex trading rings of the rich and powerful are a thing
And equally, the clear evidence of multiple miscarriages of justice doesn't appear to give pause to your assuming that every allegation of dubious provenance is true.
While this is welcome, Brammal died with this man’s lies hanging over him (for clarity I mean Beech). Watson enabled that. He persued a fantasists witch hunt that collapsed when the police finally, FINALLY, died some proper detecting and spoke to Beeches wife. Why this wasn’t first on the list, I have no idea. Watson abused his position to hound innocent men. That he has been allowed to become a peer disgusts me really. People have, rightly, been all over Clarkson this week. Where is the leftie outrage about Watson? It was an innocent mistake, and as he was attacking nasty old Tories, somehow the tiny mistake was ok? FFS.
There's a theory, obv complete bollocks, this was a Spy Who Came In From The Cold op: get someone to make allegations which are true, in such a shambolic way they are laughed out of court, and everyone is safe.
Odd how few UK news reports are thrown up by googling Mountbatten kincora.
The allegations dreamt up by Beech were so out there weird that it’s a wonder anyone ever took them seriously. The idea of a cabal of senior politicians, military men etc would procure young boys, abuse them and murder them, and no one ever was reported missing is just beyond belief. The police were criminally negligent in the investigation, acting as if they wanted it to be true. Watson drove it night and day into the media, and as has been pointed out, did it with narrow party interest at heart. He is an utter slimeball.
They were also, like som many such weird stories, of long standing.
There is a cesspool of allegations ranging from the ugly to the plain bizarre. In the old days, whispered in pubs. Then badly photocopies leaflets. Now sludge on the internet.
Tom Watson came across some sludge that matched an inner hope - a hope that something would be true.
Once he started the ball rolling, any attempt to do any kind of due diligence on the accusations was pushed aside. Literally blocked.
As in many such stories, too many people become invested in the outcome to allow the facts to get in the way.
Golly. The Duke of Pork shelling out 12 large and pore ole Ghislaine getting 200 years is not enough to convince the unconvinceable that sex trading rings of the rich and powerful are a thing
Ah - so one crime being committed means that every allegation of a similar crime is also true?
Does one set of spurious allegations mean that all similar allegations are untrue?
No, they mean that one should treat unsubstantiated allegations with scepticism, rather than believing every conspiracy theory going the rounds.
While this is welcome, Brammal died with this man’s lies hanging over him (for clarity I mean Beech). Watson enabled that. He persued a fantasists witch hunt that collapsed when the police finally, FINALLY, died some proper detecting and spoke to Beeches wife. Why this wasn’t first on the list, I have no idea. Watson abused his position to hound innocent men. That he has been allowed to become a peer disgusts me really. People have, rightly, been all over Clarkson this week. Where is the leftie outrage about Watson? It was an innocent mistake, and as he was attacking nasty old Tories, somehow the tiny mistake was ok? FFS.
There's a theory, obv complete bollocks, this was a Spy Who Came In From The Cold op: get someone to make allegations which are true, in such a shambolic way they are laughed out of court, and everyone is safe.
Odd how few UK news reports are thrown up by googling Mountbatten kincora.
The allegations dreamt up by Beech were so out there weird that it’s a wonder anyone ever took them seriously. The idea of a cabal of senior politicians, military men etc would procure young boys, abuse them and murder them, and no one ever was reported missing is just beyond belief. The police were criminally negligent in the investigation, acting as if they wanted it to be true. Watson drove it night and day into the media, and as has been pointed out, did it with narrow party interest at heart. He is an utter slimeball.
They were also, like som many such weird stories, of long standing.
There is a cesspool of allegations ranging from the ugly to the plain bizarre. In the old days, whispered in pubs. Then badly photocopies leaflets. Now sludge on the internet.
Tom Watson came across some sludge that matched an inner hope - a hope that something would be true.
Once he started the ball rolling, any attempt to do any kind of due diligence on the accusations was pushed aside. Literally blocked.
As in many such stories, too many people become invested in the outcome to allow the facts to get in the way.
Golly. The Duke of Pork shelling out 12 large and pore ole Ghislaine getting 200 years is not enough to convince the unconvinceable that sex trading rings of the rich and powerful are a thing
Ah - so one crime being committed means that every allegation of a similar crime is also true?
Does one set of spurious allegations mean that all similar allegations are untrue?
No, they mean that one should treat unsubstantiated allegations with scepticism, rather than believing every conspiracy theory going the rounds.
They don't need to treat them with scepticism. Approaching them with an open mind would be enough.
That idiotic overpromoted reception clerk who said 'you will be believed' (who is presumably now a chief constable given this country's habit of promoting failures and imbeciles) should have said, 'you will be listened to.' And that was not only all that was needed but would have been the right approach.
Many years ago, I attended a safeguarding session for teachers on this subject run by a police officer who had never worked in depth with children and had bungled every investigation he'd ever been involved in. I began to get a dim idea why when he said 'children never lie when they claim they've been hurt or abused.'
At this point every single one of us stirred restlessly and began to talk among ourselves, ignoring the rest of his presentation, because he was obviously an ignorant fool.
He later turned out, ironically, to be violent towards children as well. But that)s another story.
But after that the shambles of the way Beech was investigated wasn't a surprise to me.
The much bigger irony is that concerns were raised about Beech's behaviour around children with Gloucestershire Police long before this happened, and they failed to investigate because no children had complained.
While this is welcome, Brammal died with this man’s lies hanging over him (for clarity I mean Beech). Watson enabled that. He persued a fantasists witch hunt that collapsed when the police finally, FINALLY, died some proper detecting and spoke to Beeches wife. Why this wasn’t first on the list, I have no idea. Watson abused his position to hound innocent men. That he has been allowed to become a peer disgusts me really. People have, rightly, been all over Clarkson this week. Where is the leftie outrage about Watson? It was an innocent mistake, and as he was attacking nasty old Tories, somehow the tiny mistake was ok? FFS.
There's a theory, obv complete bollocks, this was a Spy Who Came In From The Cold op: get someone to make allegations which are true, in such a shambolic way they are laughed out of court, and everyone is safe.
Odd how few UK news reports are thrown up by googling Mountbatten kincora.
The allegations dreamt up by Beech were so out there weird that it’s a wonder anyone ever took them seriously. The idea of a cabal of senior politicians, military men etc would procure young boys, abuse them and murder them, and no one ever was reported missing is just beyond belief. The police were criminally negligent in the investigation, acting as if they wanted it to be true. Watson drove it night and day into the media, and as has been pointed out, did it with narrow party interest at heart. He is an utter slimeball.
They were also, like som many such weird stories, of long standing.
There is a cesspool of allegations ranging from the ugly to the plain bizarre. In the old days, whispered in pubs. Then badly photocopies leaflets. Now sludge on the internet.
Tom Watson came across some sludge that matched an inner hope - a hope that something would be true.
Once he started the ball rolling, any attempt to do any kind of due diligence on the accusations was pushed aside. Literally blocked.
As in many such stories, too many people become invested in the outcome to allow the facts to get in the way.
Golly. The Duke of Pork shelling out 12 large and pore ole Ghislaine getting 200 years is not enough to convince the unconvinceable that sex trading rings of the rich and powerful are a thing
Ah - so one crime being committed means that every allegation of a similar crime is also true?
Does one set of spurious allegations mean that all similar allegations are untrue?
No, they mean that one should treat unsubstantiated allegations with scepticism, rather than believing every conspiracy theory going the rounds.
And you should not believe unsubstantiated allegations just because they fit your political or world view. Though it's even worse, as in Watson's case, to treat (or ignore) allegations more lightly because the person accused is on your side.
While this is welcome, Brammal died with this man’s lies hanging over him (for clarity I mean Beech). Watson enabled that. He persued a fantasists witch hunt that collapsed when the police finally, FINALLY, died some proper detecting and spoke to Beeches wife. Why this wasn’t first on the list, I have no idea. Watson abused his position to hound innocent men. That he has been allowed to become a peer disgusts me really. People have, rightly, been all over Clarkson this week. Where is the leftie outrage about Watson? It was an innocent mistake, and as he was attacking nasty old Tories, somehow the tiny mistake was ok? FFS.
There's a theory, obv complete bollocks, this was a Spy Who Came In From The Cold op: get someone to make allegations which are true, in such a shambolic way they are laughed out of court, and everyone is safe.
Odd how few UK news reports are thrown up by googling Mountbatten kincora.
The allegations dreamt up by Beech were so out there weird that it’s a wonder anyone ever took them seriously. The idea of a cabal of senior politicians, military men etc would procure young boys, abuse them and murder them, and no one ever was reported missing is just beyond belief. The police were criminally negligent in the investigation, acting as if they wanted it to be true. Watson drove it night and day into the media, and as has been pointed out, did it with narrow party interest at heart. He is an utter slimeball.
They were also, like som many such weird stories, of long standing.
There is a cesspool of allegations ranging from the ugly to the plain bizarre. In the old days, whispered in pubs. Then badly photocopies leaflets. Now sludge on the internet.
Tom Watson came across some sludge that matched an inner hope - a hope that something would be true.
Once he started the ball rolling, any attempt to do any kind of due diligence on the accusations was pushed aside. Literally blocked.
As in many such stories, too many people become invested in the outcome to allow the facts to get in the way.
Golly. The Duke of Pork shelling out 12 large and pore ole Ghislaine getting 200 years is not enough to convince the unconvinceable that sex trading rings of the rich and powerful are a thing
Ah - so one crime being committed means that every allegation of a similar crime is also true?
Does one set of spurious allegations mean that all similar allegations are untrue?
It means that allegations should be investigated sensibly and with an open minds to discover those fact things.
When I did a journalism course at university (was editing the Student rag, so thought that I should learn), they emphasised Who, What, Where, When, Why - a story consists of provable facts. If someone says that X was in the Dog and Duck at 12:30 on Thursday, does he know that X looks like? Does the Dog and Duck exist? was it open at 12:30 on Thursday? Can anyone else say that X was there?
In the case of Carl Beech, he literally couldn't identify people. His description of where people were was provably wrong on a number of instances. His descriptions of places were provably wrong, trivially. His whole story was provably false.
In the case of Epstein and Co. the reverse is true. The physical evidence matches the testimonies. Records of place and time match the testimonies.
In the case of Rotherham et al, the same - testimonies matching physical evidence. matching records.
It is worth considering that with Rotherham, a vast establishment conspiracy was uncovered. People up to cabinet level had been told what was happening. The police, social services and the local government structure in Rotherham and similar areas worked together to contain and hide the allegations. And even to protect the abusers.
It's just the wrong kind of conspiracy - not the one that some people wanted to find.
This is also what we saw with the likes of William Roache case. One woman didn't even tell the story, her partner did, she couldn't even really give details and a simple check of things like where he lived, the car he drove etc, could have swiftly dismissed the complaints.
A part of the problem is the bizarre mindset that either
- All allegations are false. Therefore all the testimony must be lies.
or
- All allegations are true. Testing whether they are true means not believing in the allegations. Which is wrong.
The idea of intelligent enquiry, diligently building a structure of facts, seems to be beyond such people.
The Henriques report showed not only the the police did not understand basic investigative practice and were reversing the burden of proof, expecting people to prove themselves innocent, but that many of them still felt that was the correct thing to do.
Its utterly bizarre that there is still resistance to not simply believing complainants, but testing claims with an open mind. Self justified with twaddle about encouraging victims, as if it helps real victims to ignore processes to determine truth from fiction.
p.s. I could write a thread advocating trans rights and it would correct the many errors repeated here.
But frankly, it's not worth it.
This reminds me of the time David Brent couldn't moonwalk because he wasn't wearing the right shoes.
There was a conspiracy theorist once (name of David Fitzgerald) who claimed he’d written a book proving his conspiracy theory. When it was pointed out he had only stated general claims and provided no evidence for them, he said the evidence was in the original draft but it made the book too long so he took it out again.
Sounds like all those Trump lawyers who make damning claims about election fraud they then dial back considerably in court.
I almost never read Cyclefree's wordy pieces. They're too full of self-important waffle.
And I am certainly never reading her repeated diatribes against trans people.
This site deserves better.
Nutjob, most boring poster on eth site and biggest fibber as well, more faces than teh town clock.
It never ceases to amaze me that posters like Malc are allowed to spew this repetitive shite day in day out, while witty and acerbic posters like Ishmael are banned.
While this is welcome, Brammal died with this man’s lies hanging over him (for clarity I mean Beech). Watson enabled that. He persued a fantasists witch hunt that collapsed when the police finally, FINALLY, died some proper detecting and spoke to Beeches wife. Why this wasn’t first on the list, I have no idea. Watson abused his position to hound innocent men. That he has been allowed to become a peer disgusts me really. People have, rightly, been all over Clarkson this week. Where is the leftie outrage about Watson? It was an innocent mistake, and as he was attacking nasty old Tories, somehow the tiny mistake was ok? FFS.
There's a theory, obv complete bollocks, this was a Spy Who Came In From The Cold op: get someone to make allegations which are true, in such a shambolic way they are laughed out of court, and everyone is safe.
Odd how few UK news reports are thrown up by googling Mountbatten kincora.
The allegations dreamt up by Beech were so out there weird that it’s a wonder anyone ever took them seriously. The idea of a cabal of senior politicians, military men etc would procure young boys, abuse them and murder them, and no one ever was reported missing is just beyond belief. The police were criminally negligent in the investigation, acting as if they wanted it to be true. Watson drove it night and day into the media, and as has been pointed out, did it with narrow party interest at heart. He is an utter slimeball.
They were also, like som many such weird stories, of long standing.
There is a cesspool of allegations ranging from the ugly to the plain bizarre. In the old days, whispered in pubs. Then badly photocopies leaflets. Now sludge on the internet.
Tom Watson came across some sludge that matched an inner hope - a hope that something would be true.
Once he started the ball rolling, any attempt to do any kind of due diligence on the accusations was pushed aside. Literally blocked.
As in many such stories, too many people become invested in the outcome to allow the facts to get in the way.
Golly. The Duke of Pork shelling out 12 large and pore ole Ghislaine getting 200 years is not enough to convince the unconvinceable that sex trading rings of the rich and powerful are a thing
Ah - so one crime being committed means that every allegation of a similar crime is also true?
Does one set of spurious allegations mean that all similar allegations are untrue?
It means that allegations should be investigated sensibly and with an open minds to discover those fact things.
When I did a journalism course at university (was editing the Student rag, so thought that I should learn), they emphasised Who, What, Where, When, Why - a story consists of provable facts. If someone says that X was in the Dog and Duck at 12:30 on Thursday, does he know that X looks like? Does the Dog and Duck exist? was it open at 12:30 on Thursday? Can anyone else say that X was there?
In the case of Carl Beech, he literally couldn't identify people. His description of where people were was provably wrong on a number of instances. His descriptions of places were provably wrong, trivially. His whole story was provably false.
In the case of Epstein and Co. the reverse is true. The physical evidence matches the testimonies. Records of place and time match the testimonies.
In the case of Rotherham et al, the same - testimonies matching physical evidence. matching records.
It is worth considering that with Rotherham, a vast establishment conspiracy was uncovered. People up to cabinet level had been told what was happening. The police, social services and the local government structure in Rotherham and similar areas worked together to contain and hide the allegations. And even to protect the abusers.
It's just the wrong kind of conspiracy - not the one that some people wanted to find.
This is also what we saw with the likes of William Roache case. One woman didn't even tell the story, her partner did, she couldn't even really give details and a simple check of things like where he lived, the car he drove etc, could have swiftly dismissed the complaints.
A part of the problem is the bizarre mindset that either
- All allegations are false. Therefore all the testimony must be lies.
or
- All allegations are true. Testing whether they are true means not believing in the allegations. Which is wrong.
The idea of intelligent enquiry, diligently building a structure of facts, seems to be beyond such people.
The Henriques report showed not only the the police did not understand basic investigative practice and were reversing the burden of proof, expecting people to prove themselves innocent, but that many of them still felt that was the correct thing to do.
Its utterly bizarre that there is still resistance to not simply believing complainants, but testing claims with an open mind. Self justified with twaddle about encouraging victims, as if it helps real victims to ignore processes to determine truth from fiction.
Not really, it's much easier that way round. You don't have to sod about with all that annoying stuff like evidence and reality.
It's a bit like a policy wonk or SPAD. They don't want to deal with reality because it might mess up all their lovely theories.
(Incidentally I have frequently thought one way of improving government in this country would be getting rid of the ghastly MA in public policy which gives these cranks a veneer of respectability.)
Much of the fuss seems to be over the issuing of GRCs to sex offenders. Alex Cole-Hamilton has tweeted at length on this one, pointing out that no female spaces - changing rooms as an example - demand to see proof of gender such as a birth certificate or GRC before allowing access. And that the police will have the power to ask the authorities to ignore GRC requests made by sex offenders.
Like a PM giving a peerage to a defeated ally (a practice I think should be prohibited via my well rehearsed argument about a time period between being an MP and a Peer).
MPs are probably one of the highest profile public sector job (And not a particularly tough job). They need to set the tone for the rest of the public sector - And as for the "pay to attract the best talent" - I don't think our MPs are particularly better than the ones we had in 2010.
The theory that "we should pay MPs more to attract better talent" was tested to destruction with Liz Truss
Alternatively, the fact that Liz Truss got to the top shows that we really need to pay MPs a lot more to get talented people who aren't doing the job for ideological nutjobbery reasons.
It's not a totally crazy idea, though it needs thought about what the job of an MP is, how it relates to the job of MP + minister, and how many of them we need.
And it loops back to the fact that most of us don't really know how much other people are paid - I suspect we'd be shocked at both the top and bottom. And to the observation that the Great British Public often wants things from its public sector that it isn't really willing to pay for.
Point of order, sir. It's not crypto that's the problem here, it's people not self custodying crypto. Crypto is a bearer asset, i.e. the person who controls the keys can do what they like with it. Hence, it was designed for self custody.
It's not that much of a surprise when, handed billions of dollars worth of many, many people's bearer assets, people run off with it (or in SBF's case, sell it to short it and make huge amounts of money off the short).
Not your keys, not your coins. A feature (and arguably a bug, in terms of usability and adoption) of crypto.
But to go back to your point, the real question here is why Ellison and Wang have had their bail set at $250,000. For comparison, when Arthur Hayes (co founder of Bitmex) was arrested for banking violations, he had his bail set at $10,000,000.
I almost never read Cyclefree's wordy pieces. They're too full of self-important waffle.
And I am certainly never reading her repeated diatribes against trans people.
This site deserves better.
Nutjob, most boring poster on eth site and biggest fibber as well, more faces than teh town clock.
It never ceases to amaze me that posters like Malc are allowed to spew this repetitive shite day in day out, while witty and acerbic posters like Ishmael are banned.
The difference is that Malc will abuse you in response to one post, but be perfectly polite in response to another - a clear case of simply appearing ride on the basis of words used - while the posters who are banned appeared to run vendettas against specific other posters that amounted to harassment.
MPs are probably one of the highest profile public sector job (And not a particularly tough job). They need to set the tone for the rest of the public sector - And as for the "pay to attract the best talent" - I don't think our MPs are particularly better than the ones we had in 2010.
The theory that "we should pay MPs more to attract better talent" was tested to destruction with Liz Truss
Alternatively, the fact that Liz Truss got to the top shows that we really need to pay MPs a lot more to get talented people who aren't doing the job for ideological nutjobbery reasons.
It's not a totally crazy idea, though it needs thought about what the job of an MP is, how it relates to the job of MP + minister, and how many of them we need.
And it loops back to the fact that most of us don't really know how much other people are paid - I suspect we'd be shocked at both the top and bottom. And to the observation that the Great British Public often wants things from its public sector that it isn't really willing to pay for.
This only works if the "really talented" people have to prove it in some way.
Right now the only qualification to be an MP is that you can demonstrate sufficient ideological nutjobbery to get selected in a winnable seat.
MPs are probably one of the highest profile public sector job (And not a particularly tough job). They need to set the tone for the rest of the public sector - And as for the "pay to attract the best talent" - I don't think our MPs are particularly better than the ones we had in 2010.
The theory that "we should pay MPs more to attract better talent" was tested to destruction with Liz Truss
Alternatively, the fact that Liz Truss got to the top shows that we really need to pay MPs a lot more to get talented people who aren't doing the job for ideological nutjobbery reasons.
It's not a totally crazy idea, though it needs thought about what the job of an MP is, how it relates to the job of MP + minister, and how many of them we need.
And it loops back to the fact that most of us don't really know how much other people are paid - I suspect we'd be shocked at both the top and bottom. And to the observation that the Great British Public often wants things from its public sector that it isn't really willing to pay for.
The last point is definitely true. A few friends "we support nurses!" ok, who will pay more tax for their payrise? "we support nurses but not a 19% payrise!".
While this is welcome, Brammal died with this man’s lies hanging over him (for clarity I mean Beech). Watson enabled that. He persued a fantasists witch hunt that collapsed when the police finally, FINALLY, died some proper detecting and spoke to Beeches wife. Why this wasn’t first on the list, I have no idea. Watson abused his position to hound innocent men. That he has been allowed to become a peer disgusts me really. People have, rightly, been all over Clarkson this week. Where is the leftie outrage about Watson? It was an innocent mistake, and as he was attacking nasty old Tories, somehow the tiny mistake was ok? FFS.
There's a theory, obv complete bollocks, this was a Spy Who Came In From The Cold op: get someone to make allegations which are true, in such a shambolic way they are laughed out of court, and everyone is safe.
Odd how few UK news reports are thrown up by googling Mountbatten kincora.
The allegations dreamt up by Beech were so out there weird that it’s a wonder anyone ever took them seriously. The idea of a cabal of senior politicians, military men etc would procure young boys, abuse them and murder them, and no one ever was reported missing is just beyond belief. The police were criminally negligent in the investigation, acting as if they wanted it to be true. Watson drove it night and day into the media, and as has been pointed out, did it with narrow party interest at heart. He is an utter slimeball.
They were also, like som many such weird stories, of long standing.
There is a cesspool of allegations ranging from the ugly to the plain bizarre. In the old days, whispered in pubs. Then badly photocopies leaflets. Now sludge on the internet.
Tom Watson came across some sludge that matched an inner hope - a hope that something would be true.
Once he started the ball rolling, any attempt to do any kind of due diligence on the accusations was pushed aside. Literally blocked.
As in many such stories, too many people become invested in the outcome to allow the facts to get in the way.
Golly. The Duke of Pork shelling out 12 large and pore ole Ghislaine getting 200 years is not enough to convince the unconvinceable that sex trading rings of the rich and powerful are a thing
And equally, the clear evidence of multiple miscarriages of justice doesn't appear to give pause to your assuming that every allegation of dubious provenance is true.
The context of Savile was important here too. For all the post-hoc-knowing-nodders (half the nation claims to have known all along, though presumably none of them went to his mad street-lined funeral), for most people the extraordinary scale of his abuse - and his use of charitable work and powerful connections to perpetrate and cover up his crimes for literally decades - was utterly shocking; more so in fact than even Beech's outlandish allegations. It gave a sense that (a) the establishment was willing to be at least complicit in covering for abuse, and (b) that abusers had been able to use this cover for abuse on a scale that is almost unimaginable.
We now know that Carl Beech's allegations were fantastical, wrong, and in their own right caused untold damage - but the real villains here are the police, who failed in the most basic ways to actually investigate; Watson et al are certainly not in the clear here either (nor are the journalists on the now-defunt Exaro, who were intergral in promoting this conspiracy). It's a shame the same effort wasn't put into the well-known industrial-scale abuse of hundreds, probably thousands, of young girls in towns and cities across the country.
While this is welcome, Brammal died with this man’s lies hanging over him (for clarity I mean Beech). Watson enabled that. He persued a fantasists witch hunt that collapsed when the police finally, FINALLY, died some proper detecting and spoke to Beeches wife. Why this wasn’t first on the list, I have no idea. Watson abused his position to hound innocent men. That he has been allowed to become a peer disgusts me really. People have, rightly, been all over Clarkson this week. Where is the leftie outrage about Watson? It was an innocent mistake, and as he was attacking nasty old Tories, somehow the tiny mistake was ok? FFS.
There's a theory, obv complete bollocks, this was a Spy Who Came In From The Cold op: get someone to make allegations which are true, in such a shambolic way they are laughed out of court, and everyone is safe.
Odd how few UK news reports are thrown up by googling Mountbatten kincora.
The allegations dreamt up by Beech were so out there weird that it’s a wonder anyone ever took them seriously. The idea of a cabal of senior politicians, military men etc would procure young boys, abuse them and murder them, and no one ever was reported missing is just beyond belief. The police were criminally negligent in the investigation, acting as if they wanted it to be true. Watson drove it night and day into the media, and as has been pointed out, did it with narrow party interest at heart. He is an utter slimeball.
They were also, like som many such weird stories, of long standing.
There is a cesspool of allegations ranging from the ugly to the plain bizarre. In the old days, whispered in pubs. Then badly photocopies leaflets. Now sludge on the internet.
Tom Watson came across some sludge that matched an inner hope - a hope that something would be true.
Once he started the ball rolling, any attempt to do any kind of due diligence on the accusations was pushed aside. Literally blocked.
As in many such stories, too many people become invested in the outcome to allow the facts to get in the way.
Golly. The Duke of Pork shelling out 12 large and pore ole Ghislaine getting 200 years is not enough to convince the unconvinceable that sex trading rings of the rich and powerful are a thing
Ah - so one crime being committed means that every allegation of a similar crime is also true?
Does one set of spurious allegations mean that all similar allegations are untrue?
It means that allegations should be investigated sensibly and with an open minds to discover those fact things.
When I did a journalism course at university (was editing the Student rag, so thought that I should learn), they emphasised Who, What, Where, When, Why - a story consists of provable facts. If someone says that X was in the Dog and Duck at 12:30 on Thursday, does he know that X looks like? Does the Dog and Duck exist? was it open at 12:30 on Thursday? Can anyone else say that X was there?
In the case of Carl Beech, he literally couldn't identify people. His description of where people were was provably wrong on a number of instances. His descriptions of places were provably wrong, trivially. His whole story was provably false.
In the case of Epstein and Co. the reverse is true. The physical evidence matches the testimonies. Records of place and time match the testimonies.
In the case of Rotherham et al, the same - testimonies matching physical evidence. matching records.
It is worth considering that with Rotherham, a vast establishment conspiracy was uncovered. People up to cabinet level had been told what was happening. The police, social services and the local government structure in Rotherham and similar areas worked together to contain and hide the allegations. And even to protect the abusers.
It's just the wrong kind of conspiracy - not the one that some people wanted to find.
This is also what we saw with the likes of William Roache case. One woman didn't even tell the story, her partner did, she couldn't even really give details and a simple check of things like where he lived, the car he drove etc, could have swiftly dismissed the complaints.
A part of the problem is the bizarre mindset that either
- All allegations are false. Therefore all the testimony must be lies.
or
- All allegations are true. Testing whether they are true means not believing in the allegations. Which is wrong.
The idea of intelligent enquiry, diligently building a structure of facts, seems to be beyond such people.
The Henriques report showed not only the the police did not understand basic investigative practice and were reversing the burden of proof, expecting people to prove themselves innocent, but that many of them still felt that was the correct thing to do.
Its utterly bizarre that there is still resistance to not simply believing complainants, but testing claims with an open mind. Self justified with twaddle about encouraging victims, as if it helps real victims to ignore processes to determine truth from fiction.
I think that this is in practice much more difficult than a neat summation on a PB post makes it sound. The reality is that many, possibly even most, alleged victims need a lot of support and encouragement to make their claims. They will be vulnerable in a variety of ways; drug dependency, alcohol addiction, some other form of behaviour that makes them wary of the police and the authorities in general. They start off with a default assumption that they will not be believed and their word will be given little value, all too often because that is their life experience. It is not enough to listen to victims with an open mind. If you do the prosecution will either not happen or fail. They need assurance that they are being believed, valued, cared about. For many this is so contrary to their expectations and experience that the need for assurance is almost constant and even minor deviations from this will bring the process to an end.
When I meet a rape complainer before they give evidence, as I did yesterday, I see it as my task to show I really care (and I do), that I am there to support and help them through the process and to help them give the best and clearest version that they can.
Of course this does not mean switching off critical faculties or being unaware of inconsistencies. These should be addressed but in a supportive manner with the complainer given a proper and respectful opportunity to explain rather than a got you.
It is, in my experience, all too often the case that these victims have been singled out because of their vulnerability and it has been exploited by the selfish and the cruel. An even handed approach is not enough to balance the playing field in such a scenario.
But they will gleefully fill the pockets of their bent cronies. And themselves. Goes without saying.
Lol. It's all political diagrams tonight. That one is from the Health Unions on their petition.
Their point is good, their presentation awful. They should consider real salaries, perhaps real take-home ones, not nominal ones. Plot growth since 2010 on the vertical axis. But no, they went for a wall of digits.
I don't think so - it's unconvincing. Imo they are relying on their supporters being fools who can be directed as a mob wanting to campaign by megaphones and shouting people down.
It reminds me of a previous campaign about allegedly poor pay for I think physiotherapists by the Trades Unions. They used the starting salary of a grad as a seemingly startling bit of poverty porn, and entirely forgot to mention that they all got a +25% salary uplift in year two which removed most of the impact for people who didn't swallow the thing hook, line and sinker.
The result is that they wash away chunks of their own credibility, except for their True Believers (in a theological sense) and gullibles.
Whereas PB Tories have a complete blind spot for supply and demand and appear not able to grasp that all roles in the NHS have horrendous and growing vacancies.
It's not exactly rocket science to work out that a large factor in thid is 12 years of real wage cuts due to the aforesaid PB Tories favoured Governments Public Sector wage policy
While this is welcome, Brammal died with this man’s lies hanging over him (for clarity I mean Beech). Watson enabled that. He persued a fantasists witch hunt that collapsed when the police finally, FINALLY, died some proper detecting and spoke to Beeches wife. Why this wasn’t first on the list, I have no idea. Watson abused his position to hound innocent men. That he has been allowed to become a peer disgusts me really. People have, rightly, been all over Clarkson this week. Where is the leftie outrage about Watson? It was an innocent mistake, and as he was attacking nasty old Tories, somehow the tiny mistake was ok? FFS.
There's a theory, obv complete bollocks, this was a Spy Who Came In From The Cold op: get someone to make allegations which are true, in such a shambolic way they are laughed out of court, and everyone is safe.
Odd how few UK news reports are thrown up by googling Mountbatten kincora.
The allegations dreamt up by Beech were so out there weird that it’s a wonder anyone ever took them seriously. The idea of a cabal of senior politicians, military men etc would procure young boys, abuse them and murder them, and no one ever was reported missing is just beyond belief. The police were criminally negligent in the investigation, acting as if they wanted it to be true. Watson drove it night and day into the media, and as has been pointed out, did it with narrow party interest at heart. He is an utter slimeball.
They were also, like som many such weird stories, of long standing.
There is a cesspool of allegations ranging from the ugly to the plain bizarre. In the old days, whispered in pubs. Then badly photocopies leaflets. Now sludge on the internet.
Tom Watson came across some sludge that matched an inner hope - a hope that something would be true.
Once he started the ball rolling, any attempt to do any kind of due diligence on the accusations was pushed aside. Literally blocked.
As in many such stories, too many people become invested in the outcome to allow the facts to get in the way.
Golly. The Duke of Pork shelling out 12 large and pore ole Ghislaine getting 200 years is not enough to convince the unconvinceable that sex trading rings of the rich and powerful are a thing
Ah - so one crime being committed means that every allegation of a similar crime is also true?
Does one set of spurious allegations mean that all similar allegations are untrue?
It means that allegations should be investigated sensibly and with an open minds to discover those fact things.
When I did a journalism course at university (was editing the Student rag, so thought that I should learn), they emphasised Who, What, Where, When, Why - a story consists of provable facts. If someone says that X was in the Dog and Duck at 12:30 on Thursday, does he know that X looks like? Does the Dog and Duck exist? was it open at 12:30 on Thursday? Can anyone else say that X was there?
In the case of Carl Beech, he literally couldn't identify people. His description of where people were was provably wrong on a number of instances. His descriptions of places were provably wrong, trivially. His whole story was provably false.
In the case of Epstein and Co. the reverse is true. The physical evidence matches the testimonies. Records of place and time match the testimonies.
In the case of Rotherham et al, the same - testimonies matching physical evidence. matching records.
It is worth considering that with Rotherham, a vast establishment conspiracy was uncovered. People up to cabinet level had been told what was happening. The police, social services and the local government structure in Rotherham and similar areas worked together to contain and hide the allegations. And even to protect the abusers.
It's just the wrong kind of conspiracy - not the one that some people wanted to find.
This is also what we saw with the likes of William Roache case. One woman didn't even tell the story, her partner did, she couldn't even really give details and a simple check of things like where he lived, the car he drove etc, could have swiftly dismissed the complaints.
A part of the problem is the bizarre mindset that either
- All allegations are false. Therefore all the testimony must be lies.
or
- All allegations are true. Testing whether they are true means not believing in the allegations. Which is wrong.
The idea of intelligent enquiry, diligently building a structure of facts, seems to be beyond such people.
The Henriques report showed not only the the police did not understand basic investigative practice and were reversing the burden of proof, expecting people to prove themselves innocent, but that many of them still felt that was the correct thing to do.
Its utterly bizarre that there is still resistance to not simply believing complainants, but testing claims with an open mind. Self justified with twaddle about encouraging victims, as if it helps real victims to ignore processes to determine truth from fiction.
Part of the problem is a fear of “discretion” - making a judgement oneself, taking responsibility.
When I was much younger and naive, I was astonished by the vast sums that are paid in software to “senior developers”.
Then I worked with people outside the high end.
The hideous buzz speak phrase “self starting” can be used. People who will take the initiative, do work if their own accord and actually *seek* knowledge.
Many, many people find the idea somewhere between terrifying and impossible.
A friend worked in an area where the company was paying pitiful sums for a horde of developers. He had 10 people working for him. Who would stop where they hit a problem. Which was once an hour. Without detailed, written guidance they couldn’t proceed.
The problem is exacerbated by systems that punish those that show discretion and blame any failure on it.
So you have timid, beta minus minds, desperate for absolute rules to follow.
Much of the fuss seems to be over the issuing of GRCs to sex offenders. Alex Cole-Hamilton has tweeted at length on this one, pointing out that no female spaces - changing rooms as an example - demand to see proof of gender such as a birth certificate or GRC before allowing access. And that the police will have the power to ask the authorities to ignore GRC requests made by sex offenders.
Well, that's because it wasn't an issue, is it not? Like saying nobody demanded covid vaccine certificates 5 years ago, so why would we ask for them now?
Point of order, sir. It's not crypto that's the problem here, it's people not self custodying crypto. Crypto is a bearer asset, i.e. the person who controls the keys can do what they like with it. Hence, it was designed for self custody.
It's not that much of a surprise when, handed billions of dollars worth of many, many people's bearer assets, people run off with it (or in SBF's case, sell it to short it and make huge amounts of money off the short).
Not your keys, not your coins. A feature (and arguably a bug, in terms of usability and adoption) of crypto.
But to go back to your point, the real question here is why Ellison and Wang have had their bail set at $250,000. For comparison, when Arthur Hayes (co founder of Bitmex) was arrested for banking violations, he had his bail set at $10,000,000.
Hmm.
It has been said, wisely, that the crypto-currency world is recreating the history of finance from medieval times to the present. Just compressing all of it into a decade.
I almost never read Cyclefree's wordy pieces. They're too full of self-important waffle.
And I am certainly never reading her repeated diatribes against trans people.
This site deserves better.
Nutjob, most boring poster on eth site and biggest fibber as well, more faces than teh town clock.
Not very bright either. If someone is going on about the danger presented by wolves in sheep's clothing, that doesn't constitute a diatribe against sheep.
While this is welcome, Brammal died with this man’s lies hanging over him (for clarity I mean Beech). Watson enabled that. He persued a fantasists witch hunt that collapsed when the police finally, FINALLY, died some proper detecting and spoke to Beeches wife. Why this wasn’t first on the list, I have no idea. Watson abused his position to hound innocent men. That he has been allowed to become a peer disgusts me really. People have, rightly, been all over Clarkson this week. Where is the leftie outrage about Watson? It was an innocent mistake, and as he was attacking nasty old Tories, somehow the tiny mistake was ok? FFS.
There's a theory, obv complete bollocks, this was a Spy Who Came In From The Cold op: get someone to make allegations which are true, in such a shambolic way they are laughed out of court, and everyone is safe.
Odd how few UK news reports are thrown up by googling Mountbatten kincora.
The allegations dreamt up by Beech were so out there weird that it’s a wonder anyone ever took them seriously. The idea of a cabal of senior politicians, military men etc would procure young boys, abuse them and murder them, and no one ever was reported missing is just beyond belief. The police were criminally negligent in the investigation, acting as if they wanted it to be true. Watson drove it night and day into the media, and as has been pointed out, did it with narrow party interest at heart. He is an utter slimeball.
They were also, like som many such weird stories, of long standing.
There is a cesspool of allegations ranging from the ugly to the plain bizarre. In the old days, whispered in pubs. Then badly photocopies leaflets. Now sludge on the internet.
Tom Watson came across some sludge that matched an inner hope - a hope that something would be true.
Once he started the ball rolling, any attempt to do any kind of due diligence on the accusations was pushed aside. Literally blocked.
As in many such stories, too many people become invested in the outcome to allow the facts to get in the way.
Golly. The Duke of Pork shelling out 12 large and pore ole Ghislaine getting 200 years is not enough to convince the unconvinceable that sex trading rings of the rich and powerful are a thing
Ah - so one crime being committed means that every allegation of a similar crime is also true?
Does one set of spurious allegations mean that all similar allegations are untrue?
It means that allegations should be investigated sensibly and with an open minds to discover those fact things.
When I did a journalism course at university (was editing the Student rag, so thought that I should learn), they emphasised Who, What, Where, When, Why - a story consists of provable facts. If someone says that X was in the Dog and Duck at 12:30 on Thursday, does he know that X looks like? Does the Dog and Duck exist? was it open at 12:30 on Thursday? Can anyone else say that X was there?
In the case of Carl Beech, he literally couldn't identify people. His description of where people were was provably wrong on a number of instances. His descriptions of places were provably wrong, trivially. His whole story was provably false.
In the case of Epstein and Co. the reverse is true. The physical evidence matches the testimonies. Records of place and time match the testimonies.
In the case of Rotherham et al, the same - testimonies matching physical evidence. matching records.
It is worth considering that with Rotherham, a vast establishment conspiracy was uncovered. People up to cabinet level had been told what was happening. The police, social services and the local government structure in Rotherham and similar areas worked together to contain and hide the allegations. And even to protect the abusers.
It's just the wrong kind of conspiracy - not the one that some people wanted to find.
This is also what we saw with the likes of William Roache case. One woman didn't even tell the story, her partner did, she couldn't even really give details and a simple check of things like where he lived, the car he drove etc, could have swiftly dismissed the complaints.
A part of the problem is the bizarre mindset that either
- All allegations are false. Therefore all the testimony must be lies.
or
- All allegations are true. Testing whether they are true means not believing in the allegations. Which is wrong.
The idea of intelligent enquiry, diligently building a structure of facts, seems to be beyond such people.
The Henriques report showed not only the the police did not understand basic investigative practice and were reversing the burden of proof, expecting people to prove themselves innocent, but that many of them still felt that was the correct thing to do.
Its utterly bizarre that there is still resistance to not simply believing complainants, but testing claims with an open mind. Self justified with twaddle about encouraging victims, as if it helps real victims to ignore processes to determine truth from fiction.
I think that this is in practice much more difficult than a neat summation on a PB post makes it sound. The reality is that many, possibly even most, alleged victims need a lot of support and encouragement to make their claims. They will be vulnerable in a variety of ways; drug dependency, alcohol addiction, some other form of behaviour that makes them wary of the police and the authorities in general. They start off with a default assumption that they will not be believed and their word will be given little value, all too often because that is their life experience. It is not enough to listen to victims with an open mind. If you do the prosecution will either not happen or fail. They need assurance that they are being believed, valued, cared about. For many this is so contrary to their expectations and experience that the need for assurance is almost constant and even minor deviations from this will bring the process to an end.
When I meet a rape complainer before they give evidence, as I did yesterday, I see it as my task to show I really care (and I do), that I am there to support and help them through the process and to help them give the best and clearest version that they can.
Of course this does not mean switching off critical faculties or being unaware of inconsistencies. These should be addressed but in a supportive manner with the complainer given a proper and respectful opportunity to explain rather than a got you.
It is, in my experience, all too often the case that these victims have been singled out because of their vulnerability and it has been exploited by the selfish and the cruel. An even handed approach is not enough to balance the playing field in such a scenario.
MPs are probably one of the highest profile public sector job (And not a particularly tough job). They need to set the tone for the rest of the public sector - And as for the "pay to attract the best talent" - I don't think our MPs are particularly better than the ones we had in 2010.
The theory that "we should pay MPs more to attract better talent" was tested to destruction with Liz Truss
Alternatively, the fact that Liz Truss got to the top shows that we really need to pay MPs a lot more to get talented people who aren't doing the job for ideological nutjobbery reasons.
It's not a totally crazy idea, though it needs thought about what the job of an MP is, how it relates to the job of MP + minister, and how many of them we need.
And it loops back to the fact that most of us don't really know how much other people are paid - I suspect we'd be shocked at both the top and bottom. And to the observation that the Great British Public often wants things from its public sector that it isn't really willing to pay for.
Merely paying money gets you Charlie Prince at Citigroup.
What is needed is a filtering mechanism for skill and talent - the money is there to persuade people to put in the time and effort.
Attempts to use filters for other professions (notably law) for politics have not been entirely successful.
What we need is a career path for politicians which involves tests, actual training and barriers to progress that can be surmounted only by demonstrating ability.
While this is welcome, Brammal died with this man’s lies hanging over him (for clarity I mean Beech). Watson enabled that. He persued a fantasists witch hunt that collapsed when the police finally, FINALLY, died some proper detecting and spoke to Beeches wife. Why this wasn’t first on the list, I have no idea. Watson abused his position to hound innocent men. That he has been allowed to become a peer disgusts me really. People have, rightly, been all over Clarkson this week. Where is the leftie outrage about Watson? It was an innocent mistake, and as he was attacking nasty old Tories, somehow the tiny mistake was ok? FFS.
There's a theory, obv complete bollocks, this was a Spy Who Came In From The Cold op: get someone to make allegations which are true, in such a shambolic way they are laughed out of court, and everyone is safe.
Odd how few UK news reports are thrown up by googling Mountbatten kincora.
The allegations dreamt up by Beech were so out there weird that it’s a wonder anyone ever took them seriously. The idea of a cabal of senior politicians, military men etc would procure young boys, abuse them and murder them, and no one ever was reported missing is just beyond belief. The police were criminally negligent in the investigation, acting as if they wanted it to be true. Watson drove it night and day into the media, and as has been pointed out, did it with narrow party interest at heart. He is an utter slimeball.
They were also, like som many such weird stories, of long standing.
There is a cesspool of allegations ranging from the ugly to the plain bizarre. In the old days, whispered in pubs. Then badly photocopies leaflets. Now sludge on the internet.
Tom Watson came across some sludge that matched an inner hope - a hope that something would be true.
Once he started the ball rolling, any attempt to do any kind of due diligence on the accusations was pushed aside. Literally blocked.
As in many such stories, too many people become invested in the outcome to allow the facts to get in the way.
Golly. The Duke of Pork shelling out 12 large and pore ole Ghislaine getting 200 years is not enough to convince the unconvinceable that sex trading rings of the rich and powerful are a thing
And equally, the clear evidence of multiple miscarriages of justice doesn't appear to give pause to your assuming that every allegation of dubious provenance is true.
The context of Savile was important here too. For all the post-hoc-knowing-nodders (half the nation claims to have known all along, though presumably none of them went to his mad street-lined funeral), for most people the extraordinary scale of his abuse - and his use of charitable work and powerful connections to perpetrate and cover up his crimes for literally decades - was utterly shocking; more so in fact than even Beech's outlandish allegations. It gave a sense that (a) the establishment was willing to be at least complicit in covering for abuse, and (b) that abusers had been able to use this cover for abuse on a scale that is almost unimaginable.
We now know that Carl Beech's allegations were fantastical, wrong, and in their own right caused untold damage - but the real villains here are the police, who failed in the most basic ways to actually investigate; Watson et al are certainly not in the clear here either (nor are the journalists on the now-defunt Exaro, who were intergral in promoting this conspiracy). It's a shame the same effort wasn't put into the well-known industrial-scale abuse of hundreds, probably thousands, of young girls in towns and cities across the country.
Whilst I agree, I'd make a little correction: the abuse was not just girls; many boys were abused as well. It's curious that two politicians convicted recently of abuse abused, or also abused, boys. Lord Ahmed was convicted of attempted rape of a young girl and sexually assaulting a boy aged under 11. ex-MP Khan was found guilty of sexually assaulting a 15-year old boy.
And the same was true for Rotherham: although the large majority of victims were girls, some boys were sexually assaulted as well.
We should not forget that anyone: female, male, young, old, fit or infirm, can be the victims of physical or sexual abuse.
Comments
There is a cesspool of allegations ranging from the ugly to the plain bizarre. In the old days, whispered in pubs. Then badly photocopies leaflets. Now sludge on the internet.
Tom Watson came across some sludge that matched an inner hope - a hope that something would be true.
Once he started the ball rolling, any attempt to do any kind of due diligence on the accusations was pushed aside. Literally blocked.
As in many such stories, too many people become invested in the outcome to allow the facts to get in the way.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orkney_child_abuse_scandal is a another classic of this genre.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/dec/21/california-alameda-county-landlords-background-checks
Freakonomics did a bit about similar laws in regards to employment and it had a significant unintended consequences and led to worse outcomes for people of colour.
In response to @Pro_Rata, my position on trans issues is this:
- only people with medically diagnosed gender dysphoria should be allowed to change gender. I am aware of the delays in getting this but this is the problem to be tackled and I would be strongly supportive of investment to help people with this condition get the help they need sooner.
- Self-ID should never happen because the essence of it is to abolish boundaries, necessary ones.
- There is no reason to accommodate men with sexual fetishes (autogynephiles etc). If they wish to masturbate while wearing womens clothes they can do so in the privacy of their own home. Outside of the home, doing that should lead to criminal prosecution.
- Single sex spaces for women ie those born women should be made a right which can be enforced against service providers. Women should not have to depend on the kindnesses of strangers to get them. No-one with a male body should be allowed in them.
- Trans people can be accommodated in gender neutral spaces. Men can learn to be inclusive of men with sexual fetishes about being women or wanting to dress up as them.
- Male sex offenders should never be accommodated in womens prisons. Elizabeth Fry campaigned for women only prisons for a reason - because in mixed sex ones women were sexually exploited and abused. It is beyond disgraceful that we are moving back to early Victorian times when it comes to the safety of women in prison.
- No-one should be allowed to change or falsify their birth certificate. It is a document of record.
- DBS and other checks for safeguarding purposes should reveal if someone has a GRC. There is no excuse for permitting any sort of loophole in or exception to safeguarding requirements.
When I did a journalism course at university (was editing the Student rag, so thought that I should learn), they emphasised Who, What, Where, When, Why - a story consists of provable facts. If someone says that X was in the Dog and Duck at 12:30 on Thursday, does he know that X looks like? Does the Dog and Duck exist? was it open at 12:30 on Thursday? Can anyone else say that X was there?
In the case of Carl Beech, he literally couldn't identify people. His description of where people were was provably wrong on a number of instances. His descriptions of places were provably wrong, trivially. His whole story was provably false.
In the case of Epstein and Co. the reverse is true. The physical evidence matches the testimonies. Records of place and time match the testimonies.
In the case of Rotherham et al, the same - testimonies matching physical evidence. matching records.
It is worth considering that with Rotherham, a vast establishment conspiracy was uncovered. People up to cabinet level had been told what was happening. The police, social services and the local government structure in Rotherham and similar areas worked together to contain and hide the allegations. And even to protect the abusers.
It's just the wrong kind of conspiracy - not the one that some people wanted to find.
There's a long history of such conspiracy nonsense/fakes turning into a big story.
The Hitler Diaries were really crap forgeries designed to rip off some rather neo-nazi collectors. Selling to the international press was an accident due to one of the marks being a journalist.
The Tailwind story that CNN ran was conspiracy bullshit by a known bullshitter. A journalist heard of it and didn't realise that it was ancient trash...
The Bush II National Guard records were another fakeup that had been passed around for years, until someone *needed* them to be true.
It reminds me of a previous campaign about allegedly poor pay for I think physiotherapists by the Trades Unions. They used the starting salary of a grad as a seemingly startling bit of poverty porn, and entirely forgot to mention that they all got a +25% salary uplift in year two which removed most of the impact for people who didn't swallow the thing hook, line and sinker.
The result is that they wash away chunks of their own credibility, except for their True Believers (in a theological sense) and gullibles.
- All allegations are false. Therefore all the testimony must be lies.
or
- All allegations are true. Testing whether they are true means not believing in the allegations. Which is wrong.
The idea of intelligent enquiry, diligently building a structure of facts, seems to be beyond such people.
MPs are probably one of the highest profile public sector job (And not a particularly tough job). They need to set the tone for the rest of the public sector - And as for the "pay to attract the best talent" - I don't think our MPs are particularly better than the ones we had in 2010.
I find it depressing that the old fashioned process of using politics and politicians to further aims and principles has been abandoned, with 'activists' preferring to interrupt a parliamentary debate and democratic vote, labelling them anti-democratic because they aren't going their way. I think the influence of the likes of Rowling is pernicious; rather than utilise politics they prefer headlines in friendly media, and JKR's standard mo of unleashing waves of incel flying monkeys on Twitter upon those who displease her.
Given these types' oft heard chuntering about dark forces lobbying political parties with their woke agendas, it's ironic that the LGB Alliance is now shacked up with a whole load of reactionary loonballs at 55 Tuffton St.
'What first attracted you to a bunch of hard right, libertarian ideologues with loads of money?'
https://twitter.com/mjs_DC/status/1605338852754829312?cxt=HHwWgMCt6cvLp8csAAAA
It's not exactly rocket science to work out that a large factor in thid is 12 years of real wage cuts due to the aforesaid PB Tories favoured Governments Public Sector wage policy
The frustrating thing is, this is such a non issue. Consider the case of school teachers. Am I on the spectrum of mildly-pro-to-mildly-indifferent to them? Of course I am. Do I think very rigorous precautions are needed to filter out wrong uns trying to gain privileged access to children? Obviously. Why does having exactly the same position on the trans make it appropriate to label people schoolteacherphobic bigots?
I think that the current follow ons (such as DeSantis) are stone cold hard anti-abortion because that is the background of their wing in the Republican party. To which Trump was a bit of weird party crasher...
They are latching on to the Trump agenda/movement, rather than being an original part of it. And bringing their own shit to throw.
I read recently that we are short tens of thousands of doctors and nurses. For doctors, this will get worse soon with many in their 50's coming up for retirement. There aren't enough medical school places and not enough staff in teaching hospitals to train them anyway. And then we have made nursing a graduate profession so many newly qualified nurses don't want to do basics like bedpans (anecdote alert: a school friend of my 24yo daughter qualified as a nurse but left after a year because it was too hard - she has retrained as a primary school teacher).
Doesn't the basic UK demographic change to more elderly demand fundamental change in the NHS? More social care, dementia support, respite care, cottage hospitals - less bleeding edge surgery units, fancy machines, excruciatingly expensive new drugs. Focus on quality of life at the end rather than length of life? Por resources into support for kids, kids mental health, cancer in young parents, etc.
https://www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk/chart/percentage-change-in-number-of-nurses-by-nursing-type-february-2010-2021-1
https://www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk/chart/number-of-people-per-gp-nurse-and-medical-or-dental-staff-since-1949-1
The last is not what you'd expect.
The shortfall is huge.
Like Winston Churchill eighty years ago, he is speaking and standing for freedom, not just in one country, but for the world.
Makes me wonder what they would do with 10%
(More before the end of he year.)
And I am certainly never reading her repeated diatribes against trans people.
This site deserves better.
But frankly, it's not worth it.
Not just because you don't throw your pearls before swine.
But because there are FAR more important things for this us and this country to be focussed on right now than how others choose to identify or classify themselves.
It's a frankly bizarre obsession. As bad as the swivel-eyed anti-vaxx loons.
The simplist and most economical way to fix the staffing shortfalls is to retain existing staff. Pay is part of this, but the general conditions of work matter too. Consider why so many staff leave so soon.
Not just demographics but also other aspects of care. On my patch we have 4 times as many with diabetes as we did 25 years ago, approaching 10% of the population and nearly all are now managed in General Practice.
That said, nor did most others. One article in the Independent, later taken down from their website.
The pendulum will swing back, it always does. It is likely to be extremely messy and destroy lots of things in its path: Scottish Nationalism could be a casualty.
Slightly unexpected, the Speaker opposes Labour's plan for the Lords:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-64053545
There is no such test for an MP
https://on.ft.com/3FLhwlu
“Brexit was the biggest ever imposition of bureaucracy on business,” says one firm.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-12-21/uk-businesses-hitting-a-brick-wall-as-brexit-dents-exports
Brexit and the economy: the hit has been ‘substantially negative’ /8
https://on.ft.com/3VD76dZ https://twitter.com/pmdfoster/status/1605827210123673600/photo/1
More: http://trib.al/SHR1eim https://twitter.com/BloombergUK/status/1605827052413882368/photo/1
That idiotic overpromoted reception clerk who said 'you will be believed' (who is presumably now a chief constable given this country's habit of promoting failures and imbeciles) should have said, 'you will be listened to.' And that was not only all that was needed but would have been the right approach.
Many years ago, I attended a safeguarding session for teachers on this subject run by a police officer who had never worked in depth with children and had bungled every investigation he'd ever been involved in. I began to get a dim idea why when he said 'children never lie when they claim they've been hurt or abused.'
At this point every single one of us stirred restlessly and began to talk among ourselves, ignoring the rest of his presentation, because he was obviously an ignorant fool.
He later turned out, ironically, to be violent towards children as well. But that)s another story.
But after that the shambles of the way Beech was investigated wasn't a surprise to me.
The much bigger irony is that concerns were raised about Beech's behaviour around children with Gloucestershire Police long before this happened, and they failed to investigate because no children had complained.
Its utterly bizarre that there is still resistance to not simply believing complainants, but testing claims with an open mind. Self justified with twaddle about encouraging victims, as if it helps real victims to ignore processes to determine truth from fiction.
It's a bit like a policy wonk or SPAD. They don't want to deal with reality because it might mess up all their lovely theories.
(Incidentally I have frequently thought one way of improving government in this country would be getting rid of the ghastly MA in public policy which gives these cranks a veneer of respectability.)
As someone put it on twitter, it is the first time Caroline Ellison has used a stop loss !!!
The whole collapse of FTX has caused some reputational damage to a few people in investing who are trying to front it out.
The case will be interesting.
If these two have turned on SBF who does he turn on to get a deal ? Binance ?
Crypto is a murky world. I am glad I have never touched it.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/sam-bankman-fried-s-ex-girlfriend-and-ftx-co-founder-plead-guilty-to-fraud/ar-AA15vpKE?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=U531&cvid=117ccf2926134ff09954c48f05095615
It's not a totally crazy idea, though it needs thought about what the job of an MP is, how it relates to the job of MP + minister, and how many of them we need.
And it loops back to the fact that most of us don't really know how much other people are paid - I suspect we'd be shocked at both the top and bottom. And to the observation that the Great British Public often wants things from its public sector that it isn't really willing to pay for.
It's not that much of a surprise when, handed billions of dollars worth of many, many people's bearer assets, people run off with it (or in SBF's case, sell it to short it and make huge amounts of money off the short).
Not your keys, not your coins. A feature (and arguably a bug, in terms of usability and adoption) of crypto.
But to go back to your point, the real question here is why Ellison and Wang have had their bail set at $250,000. For comparison, when Arthur Hayes (co founder of Bitmex) was arrested for banking violations, he had his bail set at $10,000,000.
Hmm.
Right now the only qualification to be an MP is that you can demonstrate sufficient ideological nutjobbery to get selected in a winnable seat.
We now know that Carl Beech's allegations were fantastical, wrong, and in their own right caused untold damage - but the real villains here are the police, who failed in the most basic ways to actually investigate; Watson et al are certainly not in the clear here either (nor are the journalists on the now-defunt Exaro, who were intergral in promoting this conspiracy). It's a shame the same effort wasn't put into the well-known industrial-scale abuse of hundreds, probably thousands, of young girls in towns and cities across the country.
I just wrote a text message to the mum of one of my son's friends. I meant to type: "Are you around later for us to drop off a card?"
I mistyped, and autocorrect changed it to: "Are you around later gorgeous to drop off a card?"
I only noticed after I sent it. It s rapidly followed by a correction...
It is not enough to listen to victims with an open mind. If you do the prosecution will either not happen or fail. They need assurance that they are being believed, valued, cared about. For many this is so contrary to their expectations and experience that the need for assurance is almost constant and even minor deviations from this will bring the process to an end.
When I meet a rape complainer before they give evidence, as I did yesterday, I see it as my task to show I really care (and I do), that I am there to support and help them through the process and to help them give the best and clearest version that they can.
Of course this does not mean switching off critical faculties or being unaware of inconsistencies. These should be addressed but in a supportive manner with the complainer given a proper and respectful opportunity to explain rather than a got you.
It is, in my experience, all too often the case that these victims have been singled out because of their vulnerability and it has been exploited by the selfish and the cruel. An even handed approach is not enough to balance the playing field in such a scenario.
When I was much younger and naive, I was astonished by the vast sums that are paid in software to “senior developers”.
Then I worked with people outside the high end.
The hideous buzz speak phrase “self starting” can be used. People who will take the initiative, do work if their own accord and actually *seek* knowledge.
Many, many people find the idea somewhere between terrifying and impossible.
A friend worked in an area where the company was paying pitiful sums for a horde of developers. He had 10 people working for him. Who would stop where they hit a problem. Which was once an hour. Without detailed, written guidance they couldn’t proceed.
The problem is exacerbated by systems that punish those that show discretion and blame any failure on it.
So you have timid, beta minus minds, desperate for absolute rules to follow.
Some time
We seem to have reached the South Sea Bubble.
What is needed is a filtering mechanism for skill and talent - the money is there to persuade people to put in the time and effort.
Attempts to use filters for other professions (notably law) for politics have not been entirely successful.
What we need is a career path for politicians which involves tests, actual training and barriers to progress that can be surmounted only by demonstrating ability.
But there's only so much handwringing I can face this time of year. Too depressing.
And the same was true for Rotherham: although the large majority of victims were girls, some boys were sexually assaulted as well.
We should not forget that anyone: female, male, young, old, fit or infirm, can be the victims of physical or sexual abuse.