Why is Zahawi still in a job? You can't have someone who accepted the role of Chancellor who at the time had failed to pay millions in tax surely?
Seems to have got less press than seat belt gate for some reason?
Clearly under Sunak the conservatives are back to near Truss levels of support. I imagine much of their remaining support is wealthy pensioners in the SE. Now i hear talk of another leadershio challenge...they really are jumping the sharj
She's going to get a brutal lesson in supply and demand. America already has an overabundance of swivel eyed small state loons fighting for billionaire funded think-tank sinecures. I'm not sure she has a unique offer in this space. They love a British accent though, they'll automatically add ten points to her IQ when she starts talking, leaving her only ten points down by the time they've listened to what she's saying.
Why is Zahawi still in a job? You can't have someone who accepted the role of Chancellor who at the time had failed to pay millions in tax surely?
Seems to have got less press than seat belt gate for some reason?
He's still there because Sunak and Zahawi both learned how to be a senior minister under Johnson, so they have taken on his values. The "if you you're unhappy, vote us out... in 2024/5" attitude wasn't unique to BoJo.
Once again, a Guardian columnist has compared the resistance to radical trans ideology with homophobia in the 1980s. Why do people – and in this case Owen Jones, a gay man who, by virtue of his age, was not involved in the long fight against Section 28 – rely on that argument? It might pull at the heartstrings of some liberals, but to conflate the two struggles is dangerously misleading….
I have yet to come across a sensible way to compare gay liberation and trans issues. Each has its own sensitivities. Unlike someone trying to change who they are physically, gay and lesbian people were fighting to be recognised as their current selves. We were not seeking taxpayer-funded access to surgery or hormone treatments, but simply to be acknowledged as equal under the law.
Owen Jones was born in 1984 so for his entire education Section 28 was in force.
He was part of the generation of young gay people most impacted by Section 28.
If he wanted help and support from his teachers because of his homosexuality his teachers couldn’t help him.
This needs putting in perspective. The wonderful writer Ronald Blythe, who died recently aged 100 and was gay, lived about 45 years with this being criminal. Owen Jones has lived all his life after the legalisation of gay sex. There is no comparison.
The Sun said allowing homophobia would lead to paedophiles raping school kids, sound familiar?
Personally, I see a strong connection between them, and the attitudes in the 80s when I was growing up and now. But I know others on here strongly disagree.
I think it's hard to argue no connection, there is a strand of opinion resistant for similar reasons and an ugly side rears its head as a result, but I don't think that strand encompasses or eclipses all the issues others have raised, which is what seems to be argued by some when painting it as directly applicable.
You do have to say though that the same media sources that argues against gay rights are arguing against trans rights too. There certainly is an overlap.
I don’t doubt there are legitimate issues that should be resolved but I think in general we’re going in the right direction.
I don’t think many actual people think trans rights should be entirely rolled back do they?
It's probably few, though no doubt there will be some who would not admit to that position even if they held it.
The right direction point is an interesting one, because I would agree in many instances of personal rights of those once marginalised or outright discriminated, society has moved toward a much better position. And as you note not many want to roll back trans rights, so the argument is perhaps not so much about direction, but how far the journey takes us along that direction. Some people were ok with legalising homosexuality, that was the right direction for them, but stopped at the idea of gay marriage (though frankly the debate on that seemed far more muted, some of the opponents ended up just arguing there were bigger priorities to worry about). And on trans rights many will be very happy with where things have gotten to, but don't see why it has to go further, or not as far as some others would like.
Which is why intense debate is a good thing, because that is a political question. It's now tied up with matters of constititionality but that really is a technical legal point, even if the motivation behind the UK gov response is still part of the political debate, which proponents in Scotland had hoped to see the back of having gotten through the domestic legislative hurdles.
Seems like they could have gone with a more staggered approach, and build on some lesser reforms in years to come, rather than go for the 16 thing right up.
She's going to get a brutal lesson in supply and demand. America already has an overabundance of swivel eyed small state loons fighting for billionaire funded think-tank sinecures. I'm not sure she has a unique offer in this space. They love a British accent though, they'll automatically add ten points to her IQ when she starts talking, leaving her only ten points down by the time they've listened to what she's saying.
She could find a niche amongst the deep state conspiracists in their ranks, by attributing her ousting to the shadowy establishment not likeing how awesome she was going to be.
It's strange how public opinion sometimes moves in the precise opposite direction than what "experts" expect.
We were told that the Gender Recognition Bill was a trap - deliberately get the UK Government to block it and that will boost the case for independence.
Well today Survation has Independence at Yes 46, No 54.
Now we know the Gender Recognition Bill is unpopular in Scotland - so might it be that Scots are thinking it's actually a good thing being in the UK - as the UK Government is able to block this legislation they don't want.
And, crucially, if they weren't in the UK, what other crazy (and much more serious) things might the Scottish Government do which couldn't then be blocked?
If the next few years see the FPTP bubbles of the Tories and SNP burst we’ll be none the worst off.
If the SNP command 50% of Scottish votes then great, give them 50% of seats. Not almost all, with weird tactical voting in the remainder.
As subsamples are all the rage today:
SNP 57% SLab 27% Grn 5% SCon 5% SLD 4% Ref 2%
Pro-independence parties 62% British nationalist parties 38%
PeoplePolling/GB News; 18 January
TIMS will be choking on his bile
Nice turn of phrase! You’re presumably in favour of PR though, it would certainly help Alba.
In an election with those results the right answer would be that 62% of seats go to SNP and green, and 38% to the rest.
Seems like they could have gone with a more staggered approach, and build on some lesser reforms in years to come, rather than go for the 16 thing right up.
Stonewall and the greens would have cancelled her if she had done that.
Clearly the GRR has far-reaching implications for women. But what happens when they point this out? First, the bombastic know-alls who’ve ignored every female writer, lawyer and policymaker for five years pull out their manly opinions. Like Alastair Campbell, who chided Laura Kuenssberg for an interview with Sir Keir Starmer in which she dwelt on the GRR, which affects half the population — but not the important half. Or Lord Falconer, who pompously wafts away concerns, tweeting that “the vast majority” of new male GRC holders “are likely to be genuine”. So what’s a few women facing sexual assault or indecent exposure, an intimidated lesbian or two, or a class of girls unhappily undressing with a teenage boy? These “It might never happen, love” guys don’t think women deserve legislation that protects us in principle. We’re expected to pray that careless laws, framed for others’ benefit, don’t hurt us in practice. And if they do, it’s just an “isolated incident”. Suck it up. And the next one. There’s no pattern. Let’s ignore the inconvenient truth that males commit 98 per cent of sex crime and 90 per cent of violence, whatever their gender identity.
Then there are the angry men who can’t even bear to hear women’s voices. No debate. Shut up, bitch. Sit down, bigot. We’ll ban your meeting, ignore your legal submissions.
Why is Zahawi still in a job? You can't have someone who accepted the role of Chancellor who at the time had failed to pay millions in tax surely?
Seems to have got less press than seat belt gate for some reason?
Ideal Tory fundraiser. Knows too much about vaccine contracts? Knows too much about YouGov? Tory tradition of party chairman being in the cabinet.
Something about zahawi screams dodgy to me. I thought putting him in charge of the vaccine rollout was a bad idea
He seemed to be doing a decent job. But his promition to full Cabinet seems to have revealed his true character. His accepting a promotion from Boris then telling him to quit days later (without evening resigning like Donelan did) was the action of an utter snake.
Why is Zahawi still in a job? You can't have someone who accepted the role of Chancellor who at the time had failed to pay millions in tax surely?
Seems to have got less press than seat belt gate for some reason?
I guess people already expect rich Tory Party chairs to be dodgy as f*ck with their finances, but we expect PMs to obey traffic safety laws?
I think we have come to expect them to fiddle their expenses and give dodgy contracts to their mates, but surely getting your tax right to the nearest million is not that much to expect of someone who thinks they should be Chancellor?
How do you explain the decision to block other countries sending Leo 2's? (Let alone the decision not to send German ones)?
Because German capital, at whose pleasure OS serves, doesn't want to be on the Kremlin's shit list when the SMO is over and the sanctions are inevitably lifted. There will be a great deal of pent up demand for the products of DMG Mori, etc.
They are linking it to Abrams in the firm and enduring belief that the US will never give them to Ukraine so Germany will never have to sanction the transfer of Leopards. The US does, 100%, want to prolong the conflict as long as possible, or at least until the 2024 election campaign gets into full swing, because it weakens Russia and erodes the strategic autonomy of Europe.
The 'complexity' argument regarding Abrams is specious. They delivered M1 to Iraq for fuck's sake.
It’s not entirely specious since it makes sense to standardise on one type. And it terms of maintenance, training and logistic support, the Leopard is undoubtedly superior in Europe - and less thirsty. Of course Ukraine could use the M1, but that for no really isn’t the point.
And “100% want to prolong the conflict” is your view, which I think is wrong. Though again there are plenty of US politicians who do think that.
I don't think it's in US interests to prolong the war, except insofar as it is safer for a nuclear power to lose a war slowly, so that they have time to get used to the idea of losing, rather than quickly, where it would be a shock that would be somewhat more likely to lead to a panicked response.
The US is having to deploy more forces to Europe, which it would rather have available for the Pacific, because of the war, and a swift resolution to the war would see the end of those deployments brought forward.
How do you explain the decision to block other countries sending Leo 2's? (Let alone the decision not to send German ones)?
Because German capital, at whose pleasure OS serves, doesn't want to be on the Kremlin's shit list when the SMO is over and the sanctions are inevitably lifted. There will be a great deal of pent up demand for the products of DMG Mori, etc.
They are linking it to Abrams in the firm and enduring belief that the US will never give them to Ukraine so Germany will never have to sanction the transfer of Leopards. The US does, 100%, want to prolong the conflict as long as possible, or at least until the 2024 election campaign gets into full swing, because it weakens Russia and erodes the strategic autonomy of Europe.
The 'complexity' argument regarding Abrams is specious. They delivered M1 to Iraq for fuck's sake.
It’s not entirely specious since it makes sense to standardise on one type. And it terms of maintenance, training and logistic support, the Leopard is undoubtedly superior in Europe - and less thirsty. Of course Ukraine could use the M1, but that for no really isn’t the point.
And “100% want to prolong the conflict” is your view, which I think is wrong. Though again there are plenty of US politicians who do think that.
I don't think it's in US interests to prolong the war, except insofar as it is safer for a nuclear power to lose a war slowly, so that they have time to get used to the idea of losing, rather than quickly, where it would be a shock that would be somewhat more likely to lead to a panicked response.
The US is having to deploy more forces to Europe, which it would rather have available for the Pacific, because of the war, and a swift resolution to the war would see the end of those deployments brought forward.
What’s notable is that all talk of prolonging or hastening the war is now from the perspective of Russia losing. It’s so ingrained an assumption that we don’t even think about it.
What a turnaround from March 2022 when prolonging the war meant giving Ukraine the means to defend itself.
Why is Zahawi still in a job? You can't have someone who accepted the role of Chancellor who at the time had failed to pay millions in tax surely?
Seems to have got less press than seat belt gate for some reason?
The pictures from the video make the story for the seatbelt. There's no corresponding image for the Zahawi story.
Zahawi story is a perfect slow burner. Some corruption stories burst into flame spontaneously (like Cummings and Barnard Castle), others slowly heat up until they finally combust (partygate) while some never quite get there (Jennifer Arcuri comes to mind).
Richard Tice getting in trouble with the antivaxxers in his party after distancing himself from Bridgen and supporting the mrna jab. He sent a panicked email to his members yesterday. Hes trying to thread the needle and not doing so well.
The Sun said allowing homophobia would lead to paedophiles raping school kids, sound familiar?
Personally, I see a strong connection between them, and the attitudes in the 80s when I was growing up and now. But I know others on here strongly disagree.
I think it's hard to argue no connection, there is a strand of opinion resistant for similar reasons and an ugly side rears its head as a result, but I don't think that strand encompasses or eclipses all the issues others have raised, which is what seems to be argued by some when painting it as directly applicable.
You do have to say though that the same media sources that argues against gay rights are arguing against trans rights too. There certainly is an overlap.
I don’t doubt there are legitimate issues that should be resolved but I think in general we’re going in the right direction.
I don’t think many actual people think trans rights should be entirely rolled back do they?
It's probably few, though no doubt there will be some who would not admit to that position even if they held it.
The right direction point is an interesting one, because I would agree in many instances of personal rights of those once marginalised or outright discriminated, society has moved toward a much better position. And as you note not many want to roll back trans rights, so the argument is perhaps not so much about direction, but how far the journey takes us along that direction. Some people were ok with legalising homosexuality, that was the right direction for them, but stopped at the idea of gay marriage (though frankly the debate on that seemed far more muted, some of the opponents ended up just arguing there were bigger priorities to worry about). And on trans rights many will be very happy with where things have gotten to, but don't see why it has to go further, or not as far as some others would like.
Which is why intense debate is a good thing, because that is a political question. It's now tied up with matters of constititionality but that really is a technical legal point, even if the motivation behind the UK gov response is still part of the political debate, which proponents in Scotland had hoped to see the back of having gotten through the domestic legislative hurdles.
Plenty of people who opposed Section 28, or supported same sex marriage, or are themselves gay, object to gender self I/D.
And the strongest opposition to it comes from many left wing feminists. This isn’t just a tabloid scare.
Checks for whether the British poshos and media have brought about the lynching and honour killing they're aiming for in the Mark Gordon and Constance Marten foxhunt.
Not yet.
They'll be rubbing their hands like motherf*ckers if they get what they want.
Mark Gordon is 48. He committed a horrific rape when he was 14, got handed a 20 year sentence for it, served his sentence, and has been out for 13 years now. If he'd had any further convictions during that time, we'd have heard about them. He is not wanted in connection with any crime.
Leave him alone.
Constance Marten has chosen him has her partner. Reportedly they are married. They have a baby.
Leave her alone. Leave the baby alone.
Interracial relationships are fine. We are in 2023.
PS Has the baby's sex not been made public for some reason?
How do you explain the decision to block other countries sending Leo 2's? (Let alone the decision not to send German ones)?
Because German capital, at whose pleasure OS serves, doesn't want to be on the Kremlin's shit list when the SMO is over and the sanctions are inevitably lifted. There will be a great deal of pent up demand for the products of DMG Mori, etc.
They are linking it to Abrams in the firm and enduring belief that the US will never give them to Ukraine so Germany will never have to sanction the transfer of Leopards. The US does, 100%, want to prolong the conflict as long as possible, or at least until the 2024 election campaign gets into full swing, because it weakens Russia and erodes the strategic autonomy of Europe.
The 'complexity' argument regarding Abrams is specious. They delivered M1 to Iraq for fuck's sake.
It’s not entirely specious since it makes sense to standardise on one type. And it terms of maintenance, training and logistic support, the Leopard is undoubtedly superior in Europe - and less thirsty. Of course Ukraine could use the M1, but that for no really isn’t the point.
And “100% want to prolong the conflict” is your view, which I think is wrong. Though again there are plenty of US politicians who do think that.
I don't think it's in US interests to prolong the war, except insofar as it is safer for a nuclear power to lose a war slowly, so that they have time to get used to the idea of losing, rather than quickly, where it would be a shock that would be somewhat more likely to lead to a panicked response.
The US is having to deploy more forces to Europe, which it would rather have available for the Pacific, because of the war, and a swift resolution to the war would see the end of those deployments brought forward.
What’s notable is that all talk of prolonging or hastening the war is now from the perspective of Russia losing. It’s so ingrained an assumption that we don’t even think about it.
What a turnaround from March 2022 when prolonging the war meant giving Ukraine the means to defend itself.
Clearly the GRR has far-reaching implications for women. But what happens when they point this out? First, the bombastic know-alls who’ve ignored every female writer, lawyer and policymaker for five years pull out their manly opinions. Like Alastair Campbell, who chided Laura Kuenssberg for an interview with Sir Keir Starmer in which she dwelt on the GRR, which affects half the population — but not the important half. Or Lord Falconer, who pompously wafts away concerns, tweeting that “the vast majority” of new male GRC holders “are likely to be genuine”. So what’s a few women facing sexual assault or indecent exposure, an intimidated lesbian or two, or a class of girls unhappily undressing with a teenage boy? These “It might never happen, love” guys don’t think women deserve legislation that protects us in principle. We’re expected to pray that careless laws, framed for others’ benefit, don’t hurt us in practice. And if they do, it’s just an “isolated incident”. Suck it up. And the next one. There’s no pattern. Let’s ignore the inconvenient truth that males commit 98 per cent of sex crime and 90 per cent of violence, whatever their gender identity.
Then there are the angry men who can’t even bear to hear women’s voices. No debate. Shut up, bitch. Sit down, bigot. We’ll ban your meeting, ignore your legal submissions.
I mean, that piece is typical. "Anyone who disagrees with me is awful."
There are well-meaning, genuine voices arguing passionately on both sides of this topic. Painting your opposition as "angry men who can’t even bear to hear women’s voices." is not helpful.
How do you explain the decision to block other countries sending Leo 2's? (Let alone the decision not to send German ones)?
Because German capital, at whose pleasure OS serves, doesn't want to be on the Kremlin's shit list when the SMO is over and the sanctions are inevitably lifted. There will be a great deal of pent up demand for the products of DMG Mori, etc.
They are linking it to Abrams in the firm and enduring belief that the US will never give them to Ukraine so Germany will never have to sanction the transfer of Leopards. The US does, 100%, want to prolong the conflict as long as possible, or at least until the 2024 election campaign gets into full swing, because it weakens Russia and erodes the strategic autonomy of Europe.
The 'complexity' argument regarding Abrams is specious. They delivered M1 to Iraq for fuck's sake.
It’s not entirely specious since it makes sense to standardise on one type. And it terms of maintenance, training and logistic support, the Leopard is undoubtedly superior in Europe - and less thirsty. Of course Ukraine could use the M1, but that for no really isn’t the point.
And “100% want to prolong the conflict” is your view, which I think is wrong. Though again there are plenty of US politicians who do think that.
I don't think it's in US interests to prolong the war, except insofar as it is safer for a nuclear power to lose a war slowly, so that they have time to get used to the idea of losing, rather than quickly, where it would be a shock that would be somewhat more likely to lead to a panicked response.
The US is having to deploy more forces to Europe, which it would rather have available for the Pacific, because of the war, and a swift resolution to the war would see the end of those deployments brought forward.
What’s notable is that all talk of prolonging or hastening the war is now from the perspective of Russia losing. It’s so ingrained an assumption that we don’t even think about it.
A bit like "all territories that were in Ukraine up to 2014 still should be" then.
Tip for those who actually want to examine their assumptions: if you encounter someone who wants to "liberate Crimea", don't bother listening to what they say about Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson, and Zaporozhe.
She's going to get a brutal lesson in supply and demand. America already has an overabundance of swivel eyed small state loons fighting for billionaire funded think-tank sinecures. I'm not sure she has a unique offer in this space. They love a British accent though, they'll automatically add ten points to her IQ when she starts talking, leaving her only ten points down by the time they've listened to what she's saying.
Jizzy Lizzy was PMOTUK for six and a bit hazy, crazy weeks before being outsted by a deep state cabal ideologically opposed to her energetic agenda for growth, That's the sort of grievance laden narrative arc those right wing fucks love. She can market herself as a heady blend of Dagny Taggart and Shirley Porter.
How do you explain the decision to block other countries sending Leo 2's? (Let alone the decision not to send German ones)?
Because German capital, at whose pleasure OS serves, doesn't want to be on the Kremlin's shit list when the SMO is over and the sanctions are inevitably lifted. There will be a great deal of pent up demand for the products of DMG Mori, etc.
They are linking it to Abrams in the firm and enduring belief that the US will never give them to Ukraine so Germany will never have to sanction the transfer of Leopards. The US does, 100%, want to prolong the conflict as long as possible, or at least until the 2024 election campaign gets into full swing, because it weakens Russia and erodes the strategic autonomy of Europe.
The 'complexity' argument regarding Abrams is specious. They delivered M1 to Iraq for fuck's sake.
It’s not entirely specious since it makes sense to standardise on one type. And it terms of maintenance, training and logistic support, the Leopard is undoubtedly superior in Europe - and less thirsty. Of course Ukraine could use the M1, but that for no really isn’t the point.
And “100% want to prolong the conflict” is your view, which I think is wrong. Though again there are plenty of US politicians who do think that.
I don't think it's in US interests to prolong the war, except insofar as it is safer for a nuclear power to lose a war slowly, so that they have time to get used to the idea of losing, rather than quickly, where it would be a shock that would be somewhat more likely to lead to a panicked response.
The US is having to deploy more forces to Europe, which it would rather have available for the Pacific, because of the war, and a swift resolution to the war would see the end of those deployments brought forward.
What’s notable is that all talk of prolonging or hastening the war is now from the perspective of Russia losing. It’s so ingrained an assumption that we don’t even think about it.
What a turnaround from March 2022 when prolonging the war meant giving Ukraine the means to defend itself.
True to a degree and yet apparently US ordered Ukraine to give up Bakhmut yesterday and the big advance we saw last Autumn by Ukraine seems to have fizzled. So to evict Russia from Donbas could still take years and apparently 35000 ukrainians have been killed defending Bakhmut which is a terrible loss of life.
How do you explain the decision to block other countries sending Leo 2's? (Let alone the decision not to send German ones)?
Because German capital, at whose pleasure OS serves, doesn't want to be on the Kremlin's shit list when the SMO is over and the sanctions are inevitably lifted. There will be a great deal of pent up demand for the products of DMG Mori, etc.
They are linking it to Abrams in the firm and enduring belief that the US will never give them to Ukraine so Germany will never have to sanction the transfer of Leopards. The US does, 100%, want to prolong the conflict as long as possible, or at least until the 2024 election campaign gets into full swing, because it weakens Russia and erodes the strategic autonomy of Europe.
The 'complexity' argument regarding Abrams is specious. They delivered M1 to Iraq for fuck's sake.
It’s not entirely specious since it makes sense to standardise on one type. And it terms of maintenance, training and logistic support, the Leopard is undoubtedly superior in Europe - and less thirsty. Of course Ukraine could use the M1, but that for no really isn’t the point.
And “100% want to prolong the conflict” is your view, which I think is wrong. Though again there are plenty of US politicians who do think that.
I don't think it's in US interests to prolong the war, except insofar as it is safer for a nuclear power to lose a war slowly, so that they have time to get used to the idea of losing, rather than quickly, where it would be a shock that would be somewhat more likely to lead to a panicked response.
The US is having to deploy more forces to Europe, which it would rather have available for the Pacific, because of the war, and a swift resolution to the war would see the end of those deployments brought forward.
What’s notable is that all talk of prolonging or hastening the war is now from the perspective of Russia losing. It’s so ingrained an assumption that we don’t even think about it.
A bit like "all territories that were in Ukraine up to 2014 still should be" then.
Tip for those who actually want to examine their assumptions: if you encounter someone who wants to "liberate Crimea", don't bother listening to what they say about Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson, and Zaporozhe.
Very strange war in that we see very little of what is happening at the frontline...
Checks for whether the British poshos and media have brought about the lynching and honour killing they're aiming for in the Mark Gordon and Constance Marten foxhunt.
Not yet.
They'll be rubbing their hands like motherf*ckers if they get what they want.
Mark Gordon is 48. He committed a horrific rape when he was 14, got handed a 20 year sentence for it, served his sentence, and has been out for 13 years now. If he'd had any further convictions during that time, we'd have heard about them. He is not wanted in connection with any crime.
Leave him alone.
Constance Marten has chosen him has her partner. Reportedly they are married. They have a baby.
Leave her alone. Leave the baby alone.
Interracial relationships are fine. We are in 2023.
PS Has the baby's sex not been made public for some reason?
From the little I know of the case, the issue is that no-one (aside from the couple) know anything about the baby - it is alleged the baby may have been born in the car. If that is the case, there are definite potential welfare issues for both mother and child.
The complexity is the father's background, and that makes it a 'bigger' story. But I certainly think it'd be best for the mother and baby to get a medical check-over, at the very least. This is nothing to do with their backgrounds, race, or previous crimes.
Once again, a Guardian columnist has compared the resistance to radical trans ideology with homophobia in the 1980s. Why do people – and in this case Owen Jones, a gay man who, by virtue of his age, was not involved in the long fight against Section 28 – rely on that argument? It might pull at the heartstrings of some liberals, but to conflate the two struggles is dangerously misleading….
I have yet to come across a sensible way to compare gay liberation and trans issues. Each has its own sensitivities. Unlike someone trying to change who they are physically, gay and lesbian people were fighting to be recognised as their current selves. We were not seeking taxpayer-funded access to surgery or hormone treatments, but simply to be acknowledged as equal under the law.
I'm loath to get into this debate because it's so fucking boring but the above strikes me as a rather disingenuous argument. I'm sure that trans people would argue that in both cases it is about being true to who you believe you are inside and overcoming the prejudice of people who are offended by that.
The only offended people are the Trans side, wanting to have teh rights of men and women whilst trashing womens rights and all that as a miniscule % of the population. Anyone who disagrees or tries to debate with them is hounded as transphobic. They are a right bunch of bankers, in Scotland well funded by the government.
Yesterday we saw two very different results on the Sindyref question - one from Survation, using the traditional panel method (No ahead) another using the new FindOutNow methodology (Yes ahead).
Thread analysing the differences - it’s not to say one method is right and the other wrong, but there may be a “shy no vote/enthusiastic yes vote” at play in the latter.
We won’t know until we see how they perform vs real votes:
Which won't be until the next UK general election given no Holyrood or Scottish local elections until after 2024 and this UK government has ruled out indyref2 supported by the UK SC
SNP are scared to dissolve Holyrood and fight election on independence, could be an election in a few weeks if they had the balls, figuratively speaking.
How do you explain the decision to block other countries sending Leo 2's? (Let alone the decision not to send German ones)?
Because German capital, at whose pleasure OS serves, doesn't want to be on the Kremlin's shit list when the SMO is over and the sanctions are inevitably lifted. There will be a great deal of pent up demand for the products of DMG Mori, etc.
They are linking it to Abrams in the firm and enduring belief that the US will never give them to Ukraine so Germany will never have to sanction the transfer of Leopards. The US does, 100%, want to prolong the conflict as long as possible, or at least until the 2024 election campaign gets into full swing, because it weakens Russia and erodes the strategic autonomy of Europe.
The 'complexity' argument regarding Abrams is specious. They delivered M1 to Iraq for fuck's sake.
It’s not entirely specious since it makes sense to standardise on one type. And it terms of maintenance, training and logistic support, the Leopard is undoubtedly superior in Europe - and less thirsty. Of course Ukraine could use the M1, but that for no really isn’t the point.
And “100% want to prolong the conflict” is your view, which I think is wrong. Though again there are plenty of US politicians who do think that.
I don't think it's in US interests to prolong the war, except insofar as it is safer for a nuclear power to lose a war slowly, so that they have time to get used to the idea of losing, rather than quickly, where it would be a shock that would be somewhat more likely to lead to a panicked response.
The US is having to deploy more forces to Europe, which it would rather have available for the Pacific, because of the war, and a swift resolution to the war would see the end of those deployments brought forward.
What’s notable is that all talk of prolonging or hastening the war is now from the perspective of Russia losing. It’s so ingrained an assumption that we don’t even think about it.
A bit like "all territories that were in Ukraine up to 2014 still should be" then.
Tip for those who actually want to examine their assumptions: if you encounter someone who wants to "liberate Crimea", don't bother listening to what they say about Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson, and Zaporozhe.
If you wanted to keep de facto control of Crimea you shouldn’t have succumbed to a hubristic full scale invasion last year, should you. You could have kept your sunny little Sudetenland.
Clearly the GRR has far-reaching implications for women. But what happens when they point this out? First, the bombastic know-alls who’ve ignored every female writer, lawyer and policymaker for five years pull out their manly opinions. Like Alastair Campbell, who chided Laura Kuenssberg for an interview with Sir Keir Starmer in which she dwelt on the GRR, which affects half the population — but not the important half. Or Lord Falconer, who pompously wafts away concerns, tweeting that “the vast majority” of new male GRC holders “are likely to be genuine”. So what’s a few women facing sexual assault or indecent exposure, an intimidated lesbian or two, or a class of girls unhappily undressing with a teenage boy? These “It might never happen, love” guys don’t think women deserve legislation that protects us in principle. We’re expected to pray that careless laws, framed for others’ benefit, don’t hurt us in practice. And if they do, it’s just an “isolated incident”. Suck it up. And the next one. There’s no pattern. Let’s ignore the inconvenient truth that males commit 98 per cent of sex crime and 90 per cent of violence, whatever their gender identity.
Then there are the angry men who can’t even bear to hear women’s voices. No debate. Shut up, bitch. Sit down, bigot. We’ll ban your meeting, ignore your legal submissions.
I mean, that piece is typical. "Anyone who disagrees with me is awful."
There are well-meaning, genuine voices arguing passionately on both sides of this topic. Painting your opposition is not helpful.as "angry men who can’t even bear to hear women’s voices."
One of the issues in the debate has been framing - is it about “Trans Rights” or “Women’s Rights”?
It’s about both, clearly, but many of the proponents of the former seek to deny and belittle the latter - which is what that column reflects.
And it’s not a “right vs left” or “gay vs straight” issue - many of the women’s rights defenders are left wing lesbians - and the two gentlemen upthread are straight Labour politicians, which is why tropes about “It’s just like Section 28” are so lazy and fatuous.
Unfortunately there is no shortage of "angry men who can’t even bear to hear women’s voices." arguing against women - see Lloyd Russel Moyle’s disgraceful behaviour in the HoC as a recent example.
Dame Anne Gloag, the founder of stagecoach, along with three others charged with human trafficking.
"It is deeply ironic that Dame Ann actually funds an Eastern European charity called the Open Door Foundation whose job it is to stop the trafficking of poor women into sex crimes.
Checks for whether the British poshos and media have brought about the lynching and honour killing they're aiming for in the Mark Gordon and Constance Marten foxhunt.
Not yet.
They'll be rubbing their hands like motherf*ckers if they get what they want.
Mark Gordon is 48. He committed a horrific rape when he was 14, got handed a 20 year sentence for it, served his sentence, and has been out for 13 years now. If he'd had any further convictions during that time, we'd have heard about them. He is not wanted in connection with any crime.
Leave him alone.
Constance Marten has chosen him has her partner. Reportedly they are married. They have a baby.
Leave her alone. Leave the baby alone.
Interracial relationships are fine. We are in 2023.
PS Has the baby's sex not been made public for some reason?
From the little I know of the case, the issue is that no-one (aside from the couple) know anything about the baby - it is alleged the baby may have been born in the car. If that is the case, there are definite potential welfare issues for both mother and child.
The complexity is the father's background, and that makes it a 'bigger' story. But I certainly think it'd be best for the mother and baby to get a medical check-over, at the very least. This is nothing to do with their backgrounds, race, or previous crimes.
Yes, the press does run the occasional missing person story. It’s human interest, and there is presumably a well founded fear for the welfare of the baby. That’s about it. The conspiracy theory stuff is a case of over-analysis of a basic news story.
Significant, and helpful for my Napoli title bet (think I tipped it here). They were on 37 points, equal with Inter and one point behind AC Milan, 10 points off leaders Napoli.
How do you explain the decision to block other countries sending Leo 2's? (Let alone the decision not to send German ones)?
Because German capital, at whose pleasure OS serves, doesn't want to be on the Kremlin's shit list when the SMO is over and the sanctions are inevitably lifted. There will be a great deal of pent up demand for the products of DMG Mori, etc.
They are linking it to Abrams in the firm and enduring belief that the US will never give them to Ukraine so Germany will never have to sanction the transfer of Leopards. The US does, 100%, want to prolong the conflict as long as possible, or at least until the 2024 election campaign gets into full swing, because it weakens Russia and erodes the strategic autonomy of Europe.
The 'complexity' argument regarding Abrams is specious. They delivered M1 to Iraq for fuck's sake.
It’s not entirely specious since it makes sense to standardise on one type. And it terms of maintenance, training and logistic support, the Leopard is undoubtedly superior in Europe - and less thirsty. Of course Ukraine could use the M1, but that for no really isn’t the point.
And “100% want to prolong the conflict” is your view, which I think is wrong. Though again there are plenty of US politicians who do think that.
I don't think it's in US interests to prolong the war, except insofar as it is safer for a nuclear power to lose a war slowly, so that they have time to get used to the idea of losing, rather than quickly, where it would be a shock that would be somewhat more likely to lead to a panicked response.
The US is having to deploy more forces to Europe, which it would rather have available for the Pacific, because of the war, and a swift resolution to the war would see the end of those deployments brought forward.
What’s notable is that all talk of prolonging or hastening the war is now from the perspective of Russia losing. It’s so ingrained an assumption that we don’t even think about it.
What a turnaround from March 2022 when prolonging the war meant giving Ukraine the means to defend itself.
I've been in the 'Russia cannot win' camp for many, many months. (Though as ever, that depends on the definition of 'win'.
But the human wave attacks we've seen recently are leading me to reevaluate that. Russia are deploying a hideous tactic, and it might just work, at massive cost.
It does make having an actual debate rather difficult, though.
That’s the whole point. “No Debate!” Is the mantra.
Isn't that true of any polarised view? In this case their's and your's.
I’m not saying there shouldn’t be a debate.
It was Sturgeon who dismissed concerns as “not valid” and it’s Stonewall that argues for “No Debate!”.
Sturgeon and her paid charities like Stonewall closed down any discussion and they ignored all public input. Sooner we are rid of the lot of them the better.
Once again, a Guardian columnist has compared the resistance to radical trans ideology with homophobia in the 1980s. Why do people – and in this case Owen Jones, a gay man who, by virtue of his age, was not involved in the long fight against Section 28 – rely on that argument? It might pull at the heartstrings of some liberals, but to conflate the two struggles is dangerously misleading….
I have yet to come across a sensible way to compare gay liberation and trans issues. Each has its own sensitivities. Unlike someone trying to change who they are physically, gay and lesbian people were fighting to be recognised as their current selves. We were not seeking taxpayer-funded access to surgery or hormone treatments, but simply to be acknowledged as equal under the law.
Owen Jones was born in 1984 so for his entire education Section 28 was in force.
He was part of the generation of young gay people most impacted by Section 28.
If he wanted help and support from his teachers because of his homosexuality his teachers couldn’t help him.
This needs putting in perspective. The wonderful writer Ronald Blythe, who died recently aged 100 and was gay, lived about 45 years with this being criminal. Owen Jones has lived all his life after the legalisation of gay sex. There is no comparison.
Without any regard to his sexuality , Jones is a balloon of the first order.
It does make having an actual debate rather difficult, though.
That’s the whole point. “No Debate!” Is the mantra.
Isn't that true of any polarised view? In this case their's and your's.
I’m not saying there shouldn’t be a debate.
It was Sturgeon who dismissed concerns as “not valid” and it’s Stonewall that argues for “No Debate!”.
Sturgeon and her paid charities like Stonewall closed down any discussion and they ignored all public input. Sooner we are rid of the lot of them the better.
How do you explain the decision to block other countries sending Leo 2's? (Let alone the decision not to send German ones)?
Because German capital, at whose pleasure OS serves, doesn't want to be on the Kremlin's shit list when the SMO is over and the sanctions are inevitably lifted. There will be a great deal of pent up demand for the products of DMG Mori, etc.
They are linking it to Abrams in the firm and enduring belief that the US will never give them to Ukraine so Germany will never have to sanction the transfer of Leopards. The US does, 100%, want to prolong the conflict as long as possible, or at least until the 2024 election campaign gets into full swing, because it weakens Russia and erodes the strategic autonomy of Europe.
The 'complexity' argument regarding Abrams is specious. They delivered M1 to Iraq for fuck's sake.
It’s not entirely specious since it makes sense to standardise on one type. And it terms of maintenance, training and logistic support, the Leopard is undoubtedly superior in Europe - and less thirsty. Of course Ukraine could use the M1, but that for no really isn’t the point.
And “100% want to prolong the conflict” is your view, which I think is wrong. Though again there are plenty of US politicians who do think that.
I don't think it's in US interests to prolong the war, except insofar as it is safer for a nuclear power to lose a war slowly, so that they have time to get used to the idea of losing, rather than quickly, where it would be a shock that would be somewhat more likely to lead to a panicked response.
The US is having to deploy more forces to Europe, which it would rather have available for the Pacific, because of the war, and a swift resolution to the war would see the end of those deployments brought forward.
What’s notable is that all talk of prolonging or hastening the war is now from the perspective of Russia losing. It’s so ingrained an assumption that we don’t even think about it.
What a turnaround from March 2022 when prolonging the war meant giving Ukraine the means to defend itself.
I've been in the 'Russia cannot win' camp for many, many months. (Though as ever, that depends on the definition of 'win'.
But the human wave attacks we've seen recently are leading me to reevaluate that. Russia are deploying a hideous tactic, and it might just work, at massive cost.
We seem to have seen an alternation between expensive and grinding Russian advances in Donbas and fairly rapid Ukrainian counterattacks. Mariupol and Severodonetsk last year were other examples.
What’s frustratingly (but understandably) a mystery is the level of Ukrainian losses - of equipment and people.
Why is Zahawi still in a job? You can't have someone who accepted the role of Chancellor who at the time had failed to pay millions in tax surely?
Seems to have got less press than seat belt gate for some reason?
Ideal Tory fundraiser. Knows too much about vaccine contracts? Knows too much about YouGov? Tory tradition of party chairman being in the cabinet.
Something about zahawi screams dodgy to me. I thought putting him in charge of the vaccine rollout was a bad idea
He seemed to be doing a decent job. But his promition to full Cabinet seems to have revealed his true character. His accepting a promotion from Boris then telling him to quit days later (without evening resigning like Donelan did) was the action of an utter snake.
Clearly the GRR has far-reaching implications for women. But what happens when they point this out? First, the bombastic know-alls who’ve ignored every female writer, lawyer and policymaker for five years pull out their manly opinions. Like Alastair Campbell, who chided Laura Kuenssberg for an interview with Sir Keir Starmer in which she dwelt on the GRR, which affects half the population — but not the important half. Or Lord Falconer, who pompously wafts away concerns, tweeting that “the vast majority” of new male GRC holders “are likely to be genuine”. So what’s a few women facing sexual assault or indecent exposure, an intimidated lesbian or two, or a class of girls unhappily undressing with a teenage boy? These “It might never happen, love” guys don’t think women deserve legislation that protects us in principle. We’re expected to pray that careless laws, framed for others’ benefit, don’t hurt us in practice. And if they do, it’s just an “isolated incident”. Suck it up. And the next one. There’s no pattern. Let’s ignore the inconvenient truth that males commit 98 per cent of sex crime and 90 per cent of violence, whatever their gender identity.
Then there are the angry men who can’t even bear to hear women’s voices. No debate. Shut up, bitch. Sit down, bigot. We’ll ban your meeting, ignore your legal submissions.
I mean, that piece is typical. "Anyone who disagrees with me is awful."
There are well-meaning, genuine voices arguing passionately on both sides of this topic. Painting your opposition is not helpful.as "angry men who can’t even bear to hear women’s voices."
One of the issues in the debate has been framing - is it about “Trans Rights” or “Women’s Rights”?
It’s about both, clearly, but many of the proponents of the former seek to deny and belittle the latter - which is what that column reflects.
And it’s not a “right vs left” or “gay vs straight” issue - many of the women’s rights defenders are left wing lesbians - and the two gentlemen upthread are straight Labour politicians, which is why tropes about “It’s just like Section 28” are so lazy and fatuous.
Unfortunately there is no shortage of "angry men who can’t even bear to hear women’s voices." arguing against women - see Lloyd Russel Moyle’s disgraceful behaviour in the HoC as a recent example.
"One of the issues in the debate has been framing - is it about “Trans Rights” or “Women’s Rights”? It’s about both, clearly, but many of the proponents of the former seek to deny and belittle the latter - which is what that column reflects. "
And many of the proponents of the latter seek to deny and belittle the former.
IMV it's quite simple: let people be what they want to be, as long as they don't hurt others in the process.
It's strange how public opinion sometimes moves in the precise opposite direction than what "experts" expect.
We were told that the Gender Recognition Bill was a trap - deliberately get the UK Government to block it and that will boost the case for independence.
Well today Survation has Independence at Yes 46, No 54.
Now we know the Gender Recognition Bill is unpopular in Scotland - so might it be that Scots are thinking it's actually a good thing being in the UK - as the UK Government is able to block this legislation they don't want.
And, crucially, if they weren't in the UK, what other crazy (and much more serious) things might the Scottish Government do which couldn't then be blocked?
If the next few years see the FPTP bubbles of the Tories and SNP burst we’ll be none the worst off.
If the SNP command 50% of Scottish votes then great, give them 50% of seats. Not almost all, with weird tactical voting in the remainder.
As subsamples are all the rage today:
SNP 57% SLab 27% Grn 5% SCon 5% SLD 4% Ref 2%
Pro-independence parties 62% British nationalist parties 38%
PeoplePolling/GB News; 18 January
TIMS will be choking on his bile
Nice turn of phrase! You’re presumably in favour of PR though, it would certainly help Alba.
In an election with those results the right answer would be that 62% of seats go to SNP and green, and 38% to the rest.
I do not want to help the cheating unionists one bit. They enjoyed hegemony on FPTP and hopefully get stuffed by it. No English parties , ie Tory, Labour & Lib Dems , should be getting votes in Scotland. Happy with PR when we have all political parties Scottish.
How do you explain the decision to block other countries sending Leo 2's? (Let alone the decision not to send German ones)?
Because German capital, at whose pleasure OS serves, doesn't want to be on the Kremlin's shit list when the SMO is over and the sanctions are inevitably lifted. There will be a great deal of pent up demand for the products of DMG Mori, etc.
They are linking it to Abrams in the firm and enduring belief that the US will never give them to Ukraine so Germany will never have to sanction the transfer of Leopards. The US does, 100%, want to prolong the conflict as long as possible, or at least until the 2024 election campaign gets into full swing, because it weakens Russia and erodes the strategic autonomy of Europe.
The 'complexity' argument regarding Abrams is specious. They delivered M1 to Iraq for fuck's sake.
It’s not entirely specious since it makes sense to standardise on one type. And it terms of maintenance, training and logistic support, the Leopard is undoubtedly superior in Europe - and less thirsty. Of course Ukraine could use the M1, but that for no really isn’t the point.
And “100% want to prolong the conflict” is your view, which I think is wrong. Though again there are plenty of US politicians who do think that.
I don't think it's in US interests to prolong the war, except insofar as it is safer for a nuclear power to lose a war slowly, so that they have time to get used to the idea of losing, rather than quickly, where it would be a shock that would be somewhat more likely to lead to a panicked response.
The US is having to deploy more forces to Europe, which it would rather have available for the Pacific, because of the war, and a swift resolution to the war would see the end of those deployments brought forward.
What’s notable is that all talk of prolonging or hastening the war is now from the perspective of Russia losing. It’s so ingrained an assumption that we don’t even think about it.
What a turnaround from March 2022 when prolonging the war meant giving Ukraine the means to defend itself.
I've been in the 'Russia cannot win' camp for many, many months. (Though as ever, that depends on the definition of 'win'.
But the human wave attacks we've seen recently are leading me to reevaluate that. Russia are deploying a hideous tactic, and it might just work, at massive cost.
We seem to have seen an alternation between expensive and grinding Russian advances in Donbas and fairly rapid Ukrainian counterattacks. Mariupol and Severodonetsk last year were other examples.
What’s frustratingly (but understandably) a mystery is the level of Ukrainian losses - of equipment and people.
There have been claims made recently about Ukrainian troop losses: but most of those seem to be from relatively pro-Russian sources. They might be right, or they might be gross exaggerations.
What might tell us is whether Ukraine undergoes another mobilisation wave, or whether allies step up training programs for massed troops.
But one thing is clear to me: the longer we delay sending Ukraine the kit they need, the more Ukrainians die. Scholz should think about that.
But they don't answer their own question. They just know she and her partner should be hunted down.
From Detective Superintendent Lewis Basford, who is leading the investigation:
"Being on the move for a week must be exhausting for new parents and a newborn baby. Constance and Mark, I appeal directly to you, please think of your baby’s health and wellbeing and get in touch with us so we can ensure your child is medically well and has no underlying issues."
F*ck off! Go and catch some criminals!
"'As a mum, I would like to make a direct appeal to Constance,’ said Greater Manchester Police’s Chief Superintendent Michaela Kerr. 'Constance, I know this is an exceptionally hard time for you and you are likely feeling scared but I promise that our No 1 priority is the same as yours – to keep your beautiful newborn safe.’"
The best way to "keep the baby safe" (who I am told is a girl, although this seems now not to be being mentioned for some reason) isn't to try to chase her family down with hundreds of police officers in a media-whipped up foxhunt.
There's no reason to think the baby's parents are anything other than good parents.
Leave them alone.
The media can enjoy mentioning the prices of any houses that some of the figures in this story may have had some connection with. Funny they can't mention how much public money is being spent on hunting people down who don't seem to be wanted for doing anything wrong.
But they don't answer their own question. They just know she and her partner should be hunted down.
From Detective Superintendent Lewis Basford, who is leading the investigation:
"Being on the move for a week must be exhausting for new parents and a newborn baby. Constance and Mark, I appeal directly to you, please think of your baby’s health and wellbeing and get in touch with us so we can ensure your child is medically well and has no underlying issues."
F*ck off! Go and catch some criminals!
"'As a mum, I would like to make a direct appeal to Constance,’ said Greater Manchester Police’s Chief Superintendent Michaela Kerr. 'Constance, I know this is an exceptionally hard time for you and you are likely feeling scared but I promise that our No 1 priority is the same as yours – to keep your beautiful newborn safe.’"
The best way to "keep the baby safe" (who I am told is a girl, although this seems now not to be being mentioned for some reason) isn't to try to chase her family down with hundreds of police officers in a media-whipped up foxhunt.
There's no reason to think the baby's parents are anything other than good parents.
Leave them alone.
The media can enjoy mentioning the prices of any houses that some of the figures in this story may have had some connection with. Funny they can't mention how much public money is being spent on hunting people down who don't seem to be wanted for doing anything wrong.
I think you're way off-track with this.
"There's no reason to think the baby's parents are anything other than good parents."
Actually, *if* the baby hasn't been seen by medically-trained people, I'd say there's good reason to think the parents are not being good parents - at least in the modern world.
It does make having an actual debate rather difficult, though.
That’s the whole point. “No Debate!” Is the mantra.
Isn't that true of any polarised view? In this case their's and your's.
I’m not saying there shouldn’t be a debate.
It was Sturgeon who dismissed concerns as “not valid” and it’s Stonewall that argues for “No Debate!”.
Sturgeon and her paid charities like Stonewall closed down any discussion and they ignored all public input. Sooner we are rid of the lot of them the better.
Morning Malc.
Are you ALBA now?
Hello GIN, I am for now as they are one of the few real independence parties. SNP are run by nutters and are just another bunch of grifters sponging on Westminster.
The Sun said allowing homophobia would lead to paedophiles raping school kids, sound familiar?
Personally, I see a strong connection between them, and the attitudes in the 80s when I was growing up and now. But I know others on here strongly disagree.
My view is that I don’t rate it highly as none of the problems that have been highlighted of gay rights have come to life and I feel exactly the same about trans rights.
The chances of you meeting a trans person are virtually zero. Why people get so wound up about an issue that will never impact them is very strange to me. I am not gay, their issues do not impact me, they can do what they want as far as I am concerned.
Dame Anne Gloag, the founder of stagecoach, along with three others charged with human trafficking.
"It is deeply ironic that Dame Ann actually funds an Eastern European charity called the Open Door Foundation whose job it is to stop the trafficking of poor women into sex crimes.
Clearly the GRR has far-reaching implications for women. But what happens when they point this out? First, the bombastic know-alls who’ve ignored every female writer, lawyer and policymaker for five years pull out their manly opinions. Like Alastair Campbell, who chided Laura Kuenssberg for an interview with Sir Keir Starmer in which she dwelt on the GRR, which affects half the population — but not the important half. Or Lord Falconer, who pompously wafts away concerns, tweeting that “the vast majority” of new male GRC holders “are likely to be genuine”. So what’s a few women facing sexual assault or indecent exposure, an intimidated lesbian or two, or a class of girls unhappily undressing with a teenage boy? These “It might never happen, love” guys don’t think women deserve legislation that protects us in principle. We’re expected to pray that careless laws, framed for others’ benefit, don’t hurt us in practice. And if they do, it’s just an “isolated incident”. Suck it up. And the next one. There’s no pattern. Let’s ignore the inconvenient truth that males commit 98 per cent of sex crime and 90 per cent of violence, whatever their gender identity.
Then there are the angry men who can’t even bear to hear women’s voices. No debate. Shut up, bitch. Sit down, bigot. We’ll ban your meeting, ignore your legal submissions.
I mean, that piece is typical. "Anyone who disagrees with me is awful."
There are well-meaning, genuine voices arguing passionately on both sides of this topic. Painting your opposition is not helpful.as "angry men who can’t even bear to hear women’s voices."
One of the issues in the debate has been framing - is it about “Trans Rights” or “Women’s Rights”?
It’s about both, clearly, but many of the proponents of the former seek to deny and belittle the latter - which is what that column reflects.
And it’s not a “right vs left” or “gay vs straight” issue - many of the women’s rights defenders are left wing lesbians - and the two gentlemen upthread are straight Labour politicians, which is why tropes about “It’s just like Section 28” are so lazy and fatuous.
Unfortunately there is no shortage of "angry men who can’t even bear to hear women’s voices." arguing against women - see Lloyd Russel Moyle’s disgraceful behaviour in the HoC as a recent example.
"One of the issues in the debate has been framing - is it about “Trans Rights” or “Women’s Rights”? It’s about both, clearly, but many of the proponents of the former seek to deny and belittle the latter - which is what that column reflects. "
And many of the proponents of the latter seek to deny and belittle the former.
IMV it's quite simple: let people be what they want to be, as long as they don't hurt others in the process.
So you would be quite happy for your wife to be naked in changing rooms whilst some total stranger was waving his willie about. Pull the other one.
She's going to get a brutal lesson in supply and demand. America already has an overabundance of swivel eyed small state loons fighting for billionaire funded think-tank sinecures. I'm not sure she has a unique offer in this space. They love a British accent though, they'll automatically add ten points to her IQ when she starts talking, leaving her only ten points down by the time they've listened to what she's saying.
It's the Times. File under Sunakite briefing/wishful thinking. We know nothing factual from this apart from Liz Truss is visiting America.
Clearly the GRR has far-reaching implications for women. But what happens when they point this out? First, the bombastic know-alls who’ve ignored every female writer, lawyer and policymaker for five years pull out their manly opinions. Like Alastair Campbell, who chided Laura Kuenssberg for an interview with Sir Keir Starmer in which she dwelt on the GRR, which affects half the population — but not the important half. Or Lord Falconer, who pompously wafts away concerns, tweeting that “the vast majority” of new male GRC holders “are likely to be genuine”. So what’s a few women facing sexual assault or indecent exposure, an intimidated lesbian or two, or a class of girls unhappily undressing with a teenage boy? These “It might never happen, love” guys don’t think women deserve legislation that protects us in principle. We’re expected to pray that careless laws, framed for others’ benefit, don’t hurt us in practice. And if they do, it’s just an “isolated incident”. Suck it up. And the next one. There’s no pattern. Let’s ignore the inconvenient truth that males commit 98 per cent of sex crime and 90 per cent of violence, whatever their gender identity.
Then there are the angry men who can’t even bear to hear women’s voices. No debate. Shut up, bitch. Sit down, bigot. We’ll ban your meeting, ignore your legal submissions.
I mean, that piece is typical. "Anyone who disagrees with me is awful."
There are well-meaning, genuine voices arguing passionately on both sides of this topic. Painting your opposition is not helpful.as "angry men who can’t even bear to hear women’s voices."
One of the issues in the debate has been framing - is it about “Trans Rights” or “Women’s Rights”?
It’s about both, clearly, but many of the proponents of the former seek to deny and belittle the latter - which is what that column reflects.
And it’s not a “right vs left” or “gay vs straight” issue - many of the women’s rights defenders are left wing lesbians - and the two gentlemen upthread are straight Labour politicians, which is why tropes about “It’s just like Section 28” are so lazy and fatuous.
Unfortunately there is no shortage of "angry men who can’t even bear to hear women’s voices." arguing against women - see Lloyd Russel Moyle’s disgraceful behaviour in the HoC as a recent example.
"One of the issues in the debate has been framing - is it about “Trans Rights” or “Women’s Rights”? It’s about both, clearly, but many of the proponents of the former seek to deny and belittle the latter - which is what that column reflects. "
And many of the proponents of the latter seek to deny and belittle the former.
IMV it's quite simple: let people be what they want to be, as long as they don't hurt others in the process.
The caveat at the end is important and right, but it's also what makes the whole thing so difficult.
Some of the issues (sports, safe spaces) probably do have a compromise fix that mostly works for most people. But there's also a fundamental identity question- who is a man, who is a woman? And that's not one where there's an answer that doesn't hurt someone, and with some justification.
Often the way such questions get resolved is to diminish their importance (see Northern Ireland), but I can't imagine what that looks like for the trans question.
Clearly the GRR has far-reaching implications for women. But what happens when they point this out? First, the bombastic know-alls who’ve ignored every female writer, lawyer and policymaker for five years pull out their manly opinions. Like Alastair Campbell, who chided Laura Kuenssberg for an interview with Sir Keir Starmer in which she dwelt on the GRR, which affects half the population — but not the important half. Or Lord Falconer, who pompously wafts away concerns, tweeting that “the vast majority” of new male GRC holders “are likely to be genuine”. So what’s a few women facing sexual assault or indecent exposure, an intimidated lesbian or two, or a class of girls unhappily undressing with a teenage boy? These “It might never happen, love” guys don’t think women deserve legislation that protects us in principle. We’re expected to pray that careless laws, framed for others’ benefit, don’t hurt us in practice. And if they do, it’s just an “isolated incident”. Suck it up. And the next one. There’s no pattern. Let’s ignore the inconvenient truth that males commit 98 per cent of sex crime and 90 per cent of violence, whatever their gender identity.
Then there are the angry men who can’t even bear to hear women’s voices. No debate. Shut up, bitch. Sit down, bigot. We’ll ban your meeting, ignore your legal submissions.
I mean, that piece is typical. "Anyone who disagrees with me is awful."
There are well-meaning, genuine voices arguing passionately on both sides of this topic. Painting your opposition is not helpful.as "angry men who can’t even bear to hear women’s voices."
One of the issues in the debate has been framing - is it about “Trans Rights” or “Women’s Rights”?
It’s about both, clearly, but many of the proponents of the former seek to deny and belittle the latter - which is what that column reflects.
And it’s not a “right vs left” or “gay vs straight” issue - many of the women’s rights defenders are left wing lesbians - and the two gentlemen upthread are straight Labour politicians, which is why tropes about “It’s just like Section 28” are so lazy and fatuous.
Unfortunately there is no shortage of "angry men who can’t even bear to hear women’s voices." arguing against women - see Lloyd Russel Moyle’s disgraceful behaviour in the HoC as a recent example.
"One of the issues in the debate has been framing - is it about “Trans Rights” or “Women’s Rights”? It’s about both, clearly, but many of the proponents of the former seek to deny and belittle the latter - which is what that column reflects. "
And many of the proponents of the latter seek to deny and belittle the former.
IMV it's quite simple: let people be what they want to be, as long as they don't hurt others in the process.
So you would be quite happy for your wife to be naked in changing rooms whilst some total stranger was waving his willie about. Pull the other one.
You see, that's the sort of comment that causes the problems.
Are you saying all trans people will go waving their willy around in the changing rooms? Or will most just want to get discreetly changed? Why should trans people be prevented from being transitioning just because of a 'fear' of what *may* happen?
The trans people I've known well would certainly not go waving their private parts about. In the case of our female to male friend, he'd always use the cubicles whilst in the male toilets, not the urinals.
Clearly the GRR has far-reaching implications for women. But what happens when they point this out? First, the bombastic know-alls who’ve ignored every female writer, lawyer and policymaker for five years pull out their manly opinions. Like Alastair Campbell, who chided Laura Kuenssberg for an interview with Sir Keir Starmer in which she dwelt on the GRR, which affects half the population — but not the important half. Or Lord Falconer, who pompously wafts away concerns, tweeting that “the vast majority” of new male GRC holders “are likely to be genuine”. So what’s a few women facing sexual assault or indecent exposure, an intimidated lesbian or two, or a class of girls unhappily undressing with a teenage boy? These “It might never happen, love” guys don’t think women deserve legislation that protects us in principle. We’re expected to pray that careless laws, framed for others’ benefit, don’t hurt us in practice. And if they do, it’s just an “isolated incident”. Suck it up. And the next one. There’s no pattern. Let’s ignore the inconvenient truth that males commit 98 per cent of sex crime and 90 per cent of violence, whatever their gender identity.
Then there are the angry men who can’t even bear to hear women’s voices. No debate. Shut up, bitch. Sit down, bigot. We’ll ban your meeting, ignore your legal submissions.
I mean, that piece is typical. "Anyone who disagrees with me is awful."
There are well-meaning, genuine voices arguing passionately on both sides of this topic. Painting your opposition is not helpful.as "angry men who can’t even bear to hear women’s voices."
One of the issues in the debate has been framing - is it about “Trans Rights” or “Women’s Rights”?
It’s about both, clearly, but many of the proponents of the former seek to deny and belittle the latter - which is what that column reflects.
And it’s not a “right vs left” or “gay vs straight” issue - many of the women’s rights defenders are left wing lesbians - and the two gentlemen upthread are straight Labour politicians, which is why tropes about “It’s just like Section 28” are so lazy and fatuous.
Unfortunately there is no shortage of "angry men who can’t even bear to hear women’s voices." arguing against women - see Lloyd Russel Moyle’s disgraceful behaviour in the HoC as a recent example.
IMV it's quite simple: let people be what they want to be, as long as they don't hurt others in the process.
Do you think substantially expanding the group of people who can gain access to opposite sex spaces, removing medical diagnosis and reducing the age at which it can be done might lead to others being hurt?
Clearly the GRR has far-reaching implications for women. But what happens when they point this out? First, the bombastic know-alls who’ve ignored every female writer, lawyer and policymaker for five years pull out their manly opinions. Like Alastair Campbell, who chided Laura Kuenssberg for an interview with Sir Keir Starmer in which she dwelt on the GRR, which affects half the population — but not the important half. Or Lord Falconer, who pompously wafts away concerns, tweeting that “the vast majority” of new male GRC holders “are likely to be genuine”. So what’s a few women facing sexual assault or indecent exposure, an intimidated lesbian or two, or a class of girls unhappily undressing with a teenage boy? These “It might never happen, love” guys don’t think women deserve legislation that protects us in principle. We’re expected to pray that careless laws, framed for others’ benefit, don’t hurt us in practice. And if they do, it’s just an “isolated incident”. Suck it up. And the next one. There’s no pattern. Let’s ignore the inconvenient truth that males commit 98 per cent of sex crime and 90 per cent of violence, whatever their gender identity.
Then there are the angry men who can’t even bear to hear women’s voices. No debate. Shut up, bitch. Sit down, bigot. We’ll ban your meeting, ignore your legal submissions.
I mean, that piece is typical. "Anyone who disagrees with me is awful."
There are well-meaning, genuine voices arguing passionately on both sides of this topic. Painting your opposition is not helpful.as "angry men who can’t even bear to hear women’s voices."
One of the issues in the debate has been framing - is it about “Trans Rights” or “Women’s Rights”?
It’s about both, clearly, but many of the proponents of the former seek to deny and belittle the latter - which is what that column reflects.
And it’s not a “right vs left” or “gay vs straight” issue - many of the women’s rights defenders are left wing lesbians - and the two gentlemen upthread are straight Labour politicians, which is why tropes about “It’s just like Section 28” are so lazy and fatuous.
Unfortunately there is no shortage of "angry men who can’t even bear to hear women’s voices." arguing against women - see Lloyd Russel Moyle’s disgraceful behaviour in the HoC as a recent example.
"One of the issues in the debate has been framing - is it about “Trans Rights” or “Women’s Rights”? It’s about both, clearly, but many of the proponents of the former seek to deny and belittle the latter - which is what that column reflects. "
And many of the proponents of the latter seek to deny and belittle the former.
IMV it's quite simple: let people be what they want to be, as long as they don't hurt others in the process.
So you would be quite happy for your wife to be naked in changing rooms whilst some total stranger was waving his willie about. Pull the other one.
You see, that's the sort of comment that causes the problems.
Are you saying all trans people will go waving their willy around in the changing rooms? Or will most just want to get discreetly changed? Why should trans people be prevented from being transitioning just because of a 'fear' of what *may* happen?
The trans people I've known well would certainly not go waving their private parts about. In the case of our female to male friend, he'd always use the cubicles whilst in the male toilets, not the urinals.
Yes, but you are also making that positive assumption on the part of non-trans men. Your position is that no man who wanted to get their jollies from dressing up as a woman in their spaces would ever use the easy process of obtaining a GRC in order to do so. To me, that is utterly without basis and incredibly naive.
She's going to get a brutal lesson in supply and demand. America already has an overabundance of swivel eyed small state loons fighting for billionaire funded think-tank sinecures. I'm not sure she has a unique offer in this space. They love a British accent though, they'll automatically add ten points to her IQ when she starts talking, leaving her only ten points down by the time they've listened to what she's saying.
It's the Times. File under Sunakite briefing/wishful thinking. We know nothing factual from this apart from Liz Truss is visiting America.
The story was in the Telegraph which backed Truss not Sunak
It's strange how public opinion sometimes moves in the precise opposite direction than what "experts" expect.
We were told that the Gender Recognition Bill was a trap - deliberately get the UK Government to block it and that will boost the case for independence.
Well today Survation has Independence at Yes 46, No 54.
Now we know the Gender Recognition Bill is unpopular in Scotland - so might it be that Scots are thinking it's actually a good thing being in the UK - as the UK Government is able to block this legislation they don't want.
And, crucially, if they weren't in the UK, what other crazy (and much more serious) things might the Scottish Government do which couldn't then be blocked?
If the next few years see the FPTP bubbles of the Tories and SNP burst we’ll be none the worst off.
If the SNP command 50% of Scottish votes then great, give them 50% of seats. Not almost all, with weird tactical voting in the remainder.
As subsamples are all the rage today:
SNP 57% SLab 27% Grn 5% SCon 5% SLD 4% Ref 2%
Pro-independence parties 62% British nationalist parties 38%
PeoplePolling/GB News; 18 January
TIMS will be choking on his bile
Nice turn of phrase! You’re presumably in favour of PR though, it would certainly help Alba.
In an election with those results the right answer would be that 62% of seats go to SNP and green, and 38% to the rest.
I do not want to help the cheating unionists one bit. They enjoyed hegemony on FPTP and hopefully get stuffed by it. No English parties , ie Tory, Labour & Lib Dems , should be getting votes in Scotland. Happy with PR when we have all political parties Scottish.
How are you measuring the Scottishness of political parties?
Clearly the GRR has far-reaching implications for women. But what happens when they point this out? First, the bombastic know-alls who’ve ignored every female writer, lawyer and policymaker for five years pull out their manly opinions. Like Alastair Campbell, who chided Laura Kuenssberg for an interview with Sir Keir Starmer in which she dwelt on the GRR, which affects half the population — but not the important half. Or Lord Falconer, who pompously wafts away concerns, tweeting that “the vast majority” of new male GRC holders “are likely to be genuine”. So what’s a few women facing sexual assault or indecent exposure, an intimidated lesbian or two, or a class of girls unhappily undressing with a teenage boy? These “It might never happen, love” guys don’t think women deserve legislation that protects us in principle. We’re expected to pray that careless laws, framed for others’ benefit, don’t hurt us in practice. And if they do, it’s just an “isolated incident”. Suck it up. And the next one. There’s no pattern. Let’s ignore the inconvenient truth that males commit 98 per cent of sex crime and 90 per cent of violence, whatever their gender identity.
Then there are the angry men who can’t even bear to hear women’s voices. No debate. Shut up, bitch. Sit down, bigot. We’ll ban your meeting, ignore your legal submissions.
I mean, that piece is typical. "Anyone who disagrees with me is awful."
There are well-meaning, genuine voices arguing passionately on both sides of this topic. Painting your opposition is not helpful.as "angry men who can’t even bear to hear women’s voices."
One of the issues in the debate has been framing - is it about “Trans Rights” or “Women’s Rights”?
It’s about both, clearly, but many of the proponents of the former seek to deny and belittle the latter - which is what that column reflects.
And it’s not a “right vs left” or “gay vs straight” issue - many of the women’s rights defenders are left wing lesbians - and the two gentlemen upthread are straight Labour politicians, which is why tropes about “It’s just like Section 28” are so lazy and fatuous.
Unfortunately there is no shortage of "angry men who can’t even bear to hear women’s voices." arguing against women - see Lloyd Russel Moyle’s disgraceful behaviour in the HoC as a recent example.
IMV it's quite simple: let people be what they want to be, as long as they don't hurt others in the process.
Do you think substantially expanding the group of people who can gain access to opposite sex spaces, removing medical diagnosis and reducing the age at which it can be done might lead to others being hurt?
Possibly, and I'm not in favour of all of those. But the issues is with the people doing the hurt, not the group.
Do you think that forcing a man who is transitioning to be a woman, to go into the male toilets, might lead to them getting hurt? Do you think making trans people fearful of using any public toilet might lead to hurt?
And how do you police it? How do you check that every woman going into a toilets passes your definition of 'woman'? What happens when you make mistakes, when you get false positives? Are you more likely to make mistakes with women who do not fit in with your view of what a 'woman' is, such as the following?
Clearly the GRR has far-reaching implications for women. But what happens when they point this out? First, the bombastic know-alls who’ve ignored every female writer, lawyer and policymaker for five years pull out their manly opinions. Like Alastair Campbell, who chided Laura Kuenssberg for an interview with Sir Keir Starmer in which she dwelt on the GRR, which affects half the population — but not the important half. Or Lord Falconer, who pompously wafts away concerns, tweeting that “the vast majority” of new male GRC holders “are likely to be genuine”. So what’s a few women facing sexual assault or indecent exposure, an intimidated lesbian or two, or a class of girls unhappily undressing with a teenage boy? These “It might never happen, love” guys don’t think women deserve legislation that protects us in principle. We’re expected to pray that careless laws, framed for others’ benefit, don’t hurt us in practice. And if they do, it’s just an “isolated incident”. Suck it up. And the next one. There’s no pattern. Let’s ignore the inconvenient truth that males commit 98 per cent of sex crime and 90 per cent of violence, whatever their gender identity.
Then there are the angry men who can’t even bear to hear women’s voices. No debate. Shut up, bitch. Sit down, bigot. We’ll ban your meeting, ignore your legal submissions.
I mean, that piece is typical. "Anyone who disagrees with me is awful."
There are well-meaning, genuine voices arguing passionately on both sides of this topic. Painting your opposition is not helpful.as "angry men who can’t even bear to hear women’s voices."
One of the issues in the debate has been framing - is it about “Trans Rights” or “Women’s Rights”?
It’s about both, clearly, but many of the proponents of the former seek to deny and belittle the latter - which is what that column reflects.
And it’s not a “right vs left” or “gay vs straight” issue - many of the women’s rights defenders are left wing lesbians - and the two gentlemen upthread are straight Labour politicians, which is why tropes about “It’s just like Section 28” are so lazy and fatuous.
Unfortunately there is no shortage of "angry men who can’t even bear to hear women’s voices." arguing against women - see Lloyd Russel Moyle’s disgraceful behaviour in the HoC as a recent example.
"One of the issues in the debate has been framing - is it about “Trans Rights” or “Women’s Rights”? It’s about both, clearly, but many of the proponents of the former seek to deny and belittle the latter - which is what that column reflects. "
And many of the proponents of the latter seek to deny and belittle the former.
IMV it's quite simple: let people be what they want to be, as long as they don't hurt others in the process.
So you would be quite happy for your wife to be naked in changing rooms whilst some total stranger was waving his willie about. Pull the other one.
You see, that's the sort of comment that causes the problems.
Are you saying all trans people will go waving their willy around in the changing rooms? Or will most just want to get discreetly changed? Why should trans people be prevented from being transitioning just because of a 'fear' of what *may* happen?
The trans people I've known well would certainly not go waving their private parts about. In the case of our female to male friend, he'd always use the cubicles whilst in the male toilets, not the urinals.
Yes, but you are also making that positive assumption on the part of non-trans men. Your position is that no man who wanted to get their jollies from dressing up as a woman in their spaces would ever use the easy process of obtaining a GRC in order to do so. To me, that is utterly without basis and incredibly naive.
Quick comment on OJ, probably obvious: Jones was brought up in the tradition of the Militant (or RSL). Even amongst the far left (where I was) the Militant were distiguished by their 'inevitabilism' or fatalism. A particular criticism was that they didn't *do* much...
... except propogandise, becuase they knew, and endlessly said (they were very boring) that history was on their side. They would quote this line from the Communist Manifesto...
..."What the bourgeoisie therefore produces, above all, are its own grave diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable."...
It's strange how public opinion sometimes moves in the precise opposite direction than what "experts" expect.
We were told that the Gender Recognition Bill was a trap - deliberately get the UK Government to block it and that will boost the case for independence.
Well today Survation has Independence at Yes 46, No 54.
Now we know the Gender Recognition Bill is unpopular in Scotland - so might it be that Scots are thinking it's actually a good thing being in the UK - as the UK Government is able to block this legislation they don't want.
And, crucially, if they weren't in the UK, what other crazy (and much more serious) things might the Scottish Government do which couldn't then be blocked?
If the next few years see the FPTP bubbles of the Tories and SNP burst we’ll be none the worst off.
If the SNP command 50% of Scottish votes then great, give them 50% of seats. Not almost all, with weird tactical voting in the remainder.
As subsamples are all the rage today:
SNP 57% SLab 27% Grn 5% SCon 5% SLD 4% Ref 2%
Pro-independence parties 62% British nationalist parties 38%
PeoplePolling/GB News; 18 January
TIMS will be choking on his bile
Nice turn of phrase! You’re presumably in favour of PR though, it would certainly help Alba.
In an election with those results the right answer would be that 62% of seats go to SNP and green, and 38% to the rest.
I do not want to help the cheating unionists one bit. They enjoyed hegemony on FPTP and hopefully get stuffed by it. No English parties , ie Tory, Labour & Lib Dems , should be getting votes in Scotland. Happy with PR when we have all political parties Scottish.
I’ve been a Lib Dem my entire adult life. I’d hardly say I’ve enjoyed hegemony on FPTP.
Clearly the GRR has far-reaching implications for women. But what happens when they point this out? First, the bombastic know-alls who’ve ignored every female writer, lawyer and policymaker for five years pull out their manly opinions. Like Alastair Campbell, who chided Laura Kuenssberg for an interview with Sir Keir Starmer in which she dwelt on the GRR, which affects half the population — but not the important half. Or Lord Falconer, who pompously wafts away concerns, tweeting that “the vast majority” of new male GRC holders “are likely to be genuine”. So what’s a few women facing sexual assault or indecent exposure, an intimidated lesbian or two, or a class of girls unhappily undressing with a teenage boy? These “It might never happen, love” guys don’t think women deserve legislation that protects us in principle. We’re expected to pray that careless laws, framed for others’ benefit, don’t hurt us in practice. And if they do, it’s just an “isolated incident”. Suck it up. And the next one. There’s no pattern. Let’s ignore the inconvenient truth that males commit 98 per cent of sex crime and 90 per cent of violence, whatever their gender identity.
Then there are the angry men who can’t even bear to hear women’s voices. No debate. Shut up, bitch. Sit down, bigot. We’ll ban your meeting, ignore your legal submissions.
I mean, that piece is typical. "Anyone who disagrees with me is awful."
There are well-meaning, genuine voices arguing passionately on both sides of this topic. Painting your opposition is not helpful.as "angry men who can’t even bear to hear women’s voices."
One of the issues in the debate has been framing - is it about “Trans Rights” or “Women’s Rights”?
It’s about both, clearly, but many of the proponents of the former seek to deny and belittle the latter - which is what that column reflects.
And it’s not a “right vs left” or “gay vs straight” issue - many of the women’s rights defenders are left wing lesbians - and the two gentlemen upthread are straight Labour politicians, which is why tropes about “It’s just like Section 28” are so lazy and fatuous.
Unfortunately there is no shortage of "angry men who can’t even bear to hear women’s voices." arguing against women - see Lloyd Russel Moyle’s disgraceful behaviour in the HoC as a recent example.
"One of the issues in the debate has been framing - is it about “Trans Rights” or “Women’s Rights”? It’s about both, clearly, but many of the proponents of the former seek to deny and belittle the latter - which is what that column reflects. "
And many of the proponents of the latter seek to deny and belittle the former.
IMV it's quite simple: let people be what they want to be, as long as they don't hurt others in the process.
So you would be quite happy for your wife to be naked in changing rooms whilst some total stranger was waving his willie about. Pull the other one.
Surely indecent exposure is a crime in Scotland, whatever the purported gender of the criminal or whether they are in possession of a GRC?
Checks for whether the British poshos and media have brought about the lynching and honour killing they're aiming for in the Mark Gordon and Constance Marten foxhunt.
Not yet.
They'll be rubbing their hands like motherf*ckers if they get what they want.
Mark Gordon is 48. He committed a horrific rape when he was 14, got handed a 20 year sentence for it, served his sentence, and has been out for 13 years now. If he'd had any further convictions during that time, we'd have heard about them. He is not wanted in connection with any crime.
Leave him alone.
Constance Marten has chosen him has her partner. Reportedly they are married. They have a baby.
Leave her alone. Leave the baby alone.
Interracial relationships are fine. We are in 2023.
PS Has the baby's sex not been made public for some reason?
From the little I know of the case, the issue is that no-one (aside from the couple) know anything about the baby - it is alleged the baby may have been born in the car. If that is the case, there are definite potential welfare issues for both mother and child.
The complexity is the father's background, and that makes it a 'bigger' story. But I certainly think it'd be best for the mother and baby to get a medical check-over, at the very least. This is nothing to do with their backgrounds, race, or previous crimes.
Good parents? Doesn't sound like it.
Criminally negligent parents? Not enough evidence in public domain but plausible I suppose
Would 200 police officers have been assigned to the case if the lady in question was not an aristocrat? No chance. If she was from some backgrounds it would be zero police officers giving a toss.
She's going to get a brutal lesson in supply and demand. America already has an overabundance of swivel eyed small state loons fighting for billionaire funded think-tank sinecures. I'm not sure she has a unique offer in this space. They love a British accent though, they'll automatically add ten points to her IQ when she starts talking, leaving her only ten points down by the time they've listened to what she's saying.
It's the Times. File under Sunakite briefing/wishful thinking. We know nothing factual from this apart from Liz Truss is visiting America.
The story was in the Telegraph which backed Truss not Sunak
Clearly the GRR has far-reaching implications for women. But what happens when they point this out? First, the bombastic know-alls who’ve ignored every female writer, lawyer and policymaker for five years pull out their manly opinions. Like Alastair Campbell, who chided Laura Kuenssberg for an interview with Sir Keir Starmer in which she dwelt on the GRR, which affects half the population — but not the important half. Or Lord Falconer, who pompously wafts away concerns, tweeting that “the vast majority” of new male GRC holders “are likely to be genuine”. So what’s a few women facing sexual assault or indecent exposure, an intimidated lesbian or two, or a class of girls unhappily undressing with a teenage boy? These “It might never happen, love” guys don’t think women deserve legislation that protects us in principle. We’re expected to pray that careless laws, framed for others’ benefit, don’t hurt us in practice. And if they do, it’s just an “isolated incident”. Suck it up. And the next one. There’s no pattern. Let’s ignore the inconvenient truth that males commit 98 per cent of sex crime and 90 per cent of violence, whatever their gender identity.
Then there are the angry men who can’t even bear to hear women’s voices. No debate. Shut up, bitch. Sit down, bigot. We’ll ban your meeting, ignore your legal submissions.
I mean, that piece is typical. "Anyone who disagrees with me is awful."
There are well-meaning, genuine voices arguing passionately on both sides of this topic. Painting your opposition is not helpful.as "angry men who can’t even bear to hear women’s voices."
One of the issues in the debate has been framing - is it about “Trans Rights” or “Women’s Rights”?
It’s about both, clearly, but many of the proponents of the former seek to deny and belittle the latter - which is what that column reflects.
And it’s not a “right vs left” or “gay vs straight” issue - many of the women’s rights defenders are left wing lesbians - and the two gentlemen upthread are straight Labour politicians, which is why tropes about “It’s just like Section 28” are so lazy and fatuous.
Unfortunately there is no shortage of "angry men who can’t even bear to hear women’s voices." arguing against women - see Lloyd Russel Moyle’s disgraceful behaviour in the HoC as a recent example.
"One of the issues in the debate has been framing - is it about “Trans Rights” or “Women’s Rights”? It’s about both, clearly, but many of the proponents of the former seek to deny and belittle the latter - which is what that column reflects. "
And many of the proponents of the latter seek to deny and belittle the former.
IMV it's quite simple: let people be what they want to be, as long as they don't hurt others in the process.
So you would be quite happy for your wife to be naked in changing rooms whilst some total stranger was waving his willie about. Pull the other one.
You see, that's the sort of comment that causes the problems.
Are you saying all trans people will go waving their willy around in the changing rooms? Or will most just want to get discreetly changed? Why should trans people be prevented from being transitioning just because of a 'fear' of what *may* happen?
The trans people I've known well would certainly not go waving their private parts about. In the case of our female to male friend, he'd always use the cubicles whilst in the male toilets, not the urinals.
Yes, but you are also making that positive assumption on the part of non-trans men. Your position is that no man who wanted to get their jollies from dressing up as a woman in their spaces would ever use the easy process of obtaining a GRC in order to do so. To me, that is utterly without basis and incredibly naive.
That is not my position.
So your position is that it would happen but it's just collateral damage.
Clearly the GRR has far-reaching implications for women. But what happens when they point this out? First, the bombastic know-alls who’ve ignored every female writer, lawyer and policymaker for five years pull out their manly opinions. Like Alastair Campbell, who chided Laura Kuenssberg for an interview with Sir Keir Starmer in which she dwelt on the GRR, which affects half the population — but not the important half. Or Lord Falconer, who pompously wafts away concerns, tweeting that “the vast majority” of new male GRC holders “are likely to be genuine”. So what’s a few women facing sexual assault or indecent exposure, an intimidated lesbian or two, or a class of girls unhappily undressing with a teenage boy? These “It might never happen, love” guys don’t think women deserve legislation that protects us in principle. We’re expected to pray that careless laws, framed for others’ benefit, don’t hurt us in practice. And if they do, it’s just an “isolated incident”. Suck it up. And the next one. There’s no pattern. Let’s ignore the inconvenient truth that males commit 98 per cent of sex crime and 90 per cent of violence, whatever their gender identity.
Then there are the angry men who can’t even bear to hear women’s voices. No debate. Shut up, bitch. Sit down, bigot. We’ll ban your meeting, ignore your legal submissions.
I mean, that piece is typical. "Anyone who disagrees with me is awful."
There are well-meaning, genuine voices arguing passionately on both sides of this topic. Painting your opposition is not helpful.as "angry men who can’t even bear to hear women’s voices."
One of the issues in the debate has been framing - is it about “Trans Rights” or “Women’s Rights”?
It’s about both, clearly, but many of the proponents of the former seek to deny and belittle the latter - which is what that column reflects.
And it’s not a “right vs left” or “gay vs straight” issue - many of the women’s rights defenders are left wing lesbians - and the two gentlemen upthread are straight Labour politicians, which is why tropes about “It’s just like Section 28” are so lazy and fatuous.
Unfortunately there is no shortage of "angry men who can’t even bear to hear women’s voices." arguing against women - see Lloyd Russel Moyle’s disgraceful behaviour in the HoC as a recent example.
IMV it's quite simple: let people be what they want to be, as long as they don't hurt others in the process.
Do you think substantially expanding the group of people who can gain access to opposite sex spaces, removing medical diagnosis and reducing the age at which it can be done might lead to others being hurt?
Possibly, and I'm not in favour of all of those. But the issues is with the people doing the hurt, not the group.
Do you think that forcing a man who is transitioning to be a woman, to go into the male toilets, might lead to them getting hurt? Do you think making trans people fearful of using any public toilet might lead to hurt?
If you are suggesting men are a violent threat to women then I agree - the stats are overwhelmingly in favour of men committing most violent and sexual crime.
I would suggest the best solution would be to provide gender neutral toilets, not unilaterally open women’s toilets to men who claim they are women and to trans women.
Capital is forming to bet against the willfully ignorant and take advantage of the great asymmetric information gap of my career. The trade is on… If you don’t believe me fine, don’t care…you do you boo but we will bet against your inability to see reality vs safe & effective
Checks for whether the British poshos and media have brought about the lynching and honour killing they're aiming for in the Mark Gordon and Constance Marten foxhunt.
Not yet.
They'll be rubbing their hands like motherf*ckers if they get what they want.
Mark Gordon is 48. He committed a horrific rape when he was 14, got handed a 20 year sentence for it, served his sentence, and has been out for 13 years now. If he'd had any further convictions during that time, we'd have heard about them. He is not wanted in connection with any crime.
Leave him alone.
Constance Marten has chosen him has her partner. Reportedly they are married. They have a baby.
Leave her alone. Leave the baby alone.
Interracial relationships are fine. We are in 2023.
PS Has the baby's sex not been made public for some reason?
From the little I know of the case, the issue is that no-one (aside from the couple) know anything about the baby - it is alleged the baby may have been born in the car. If that is the case, there are definite potential welfare issues for both mother and child.
The complexity is the father's background, and that makes it a 'bigger' story. But I certainly think it'd be best for the mother and baby to get a medical check-over, at the very least. This is nothing to do with their backgrounds, race, or previous crimes.
Good parents? Doesn't sound like it.
Criminally negligent parents? Not enough evidence in public domain but plausible I suppose
Would 200 police officers have been assigned to the case if the lady in question was not an aristocrat? No chance. If she was from some backgrounds it would be zero police officers giving a toss.
I suspect that being the daughter of an aristocrat gets attention of the press and SMT of the police.
Nonetheless there do seem to be real child welfare concerns.
Checks for whether the British poshos and media have brought about the lynching and honour killing they're aiming for in the Mark Gordon and Constance Marten foxhunt.
Not yet.
They'll be rubbing their hands like motherf*ckers if they get what they want.
Mark Gordon is 48. He committed a horrific rape when he was 14, got handed a 20 year sentence for it, served his sentence, and has been out for 13 years now. If he'd had any further convictions during that time, we'd have heard about them. He is not wanted in connection with any crime.
Leave him alone.
Constance Marten has chosen him has her partner. Reportedly they are married. They have a baby.
Leave her alone. Leave the baby alone.
Interracial relationships are fine. We are in 2023.
PS Has the baby's sex not been made public for some reason?
From the little I know of the case, the issue is that no-one (aside from the couple) know anything about the baby - it is alleged the baby may have been born in the car. If that is the case, there are definite potential welfare issues for both mother and child.
The complexity is the father's background, and that makes it a 'bigger' story. But I certainly think it'd be best for the mother and baby to get a medical check-over, at the very least. This is nothing to do with their backgrounds, race, or previous crimes.
Good parents? Doesn't sound like it.
Criminally negligent parents? Not enough evidence in public domain but plausible I suppose
Would 200 police officers have been assigned to the case if the lady in question was not an aristocrat? No chance. If she was from some backgrounds it would be zero police officers giving a toss.
I suspect that being the daughter of an aristocrat gets attention of the press and SMT of the police.
Nonetheless there do seem to be real child welfare concerns.
Hows the medical profession doing with a 4% trust rate Foxy
That is a bit of an odd poll. The vast majority of people want "Reform" yet object to changing three of the main pillars of the current law.
What sort of reform do they actually want? To make it illegal to change gender?
It would be interesting to see what order the questions were asked in. For example, if the first response question was asked last, it may have got a different response.
People want to “be kind” but when exposed to the detail of what that may involve get a lot less keen. The cynic might think that could be why proponents of self-ID want “no debate”.
Clearly the GRR has far-reaching implications for women. But what happens when they point this out? First, the bombastic know-alls who’ve ignored every female writer, lawyer and policymaker for five years pull out their manly opinions. Like Alastair Campbell, who chided Laura Kuenssberg for an interview with Sir Keir Starmer in which she dwelt on the GRR, which affects half the population — but not the important half. Or Lord Falconer, who pompously wafts away concerns, tweeting that “the vast majority” of new male GRC holders “are likely to be genuine”. So what’s a few women facing sexual assault or indecent exposure, an intimidated lesbian or two, or a class of girls unhappily undressing with a teenage boy? These “It might never happen, love” guys don’t think women deserve legislation that protects us in principle. We’re expected to pray that careless laws, framed for others’ benefit, don’t hurt us in practice. And if they do, it’s just an “isolated incident”. Suck it up. And the next one. There’s no pattern. Let’s ignore the inconvenient truth that males commit 98 per cent of sex crime and 90 per cent of violence, whatever their gender identity.
Then there are the angry men who can’t even bear to hear women’s voices. No debate. Shut up, bitch. Sit down, bigot. We’ll ban your meeting, ignore your legal submissions.
I mean, that piece is typical. "Anyone who disagrees with me is awful."
There are well-meaning, genuine voices arguing passionately on both sides of this topic. Painting your opposition is not helpful.as "angry men who can’t even bear to hear women’s voices."
One of the issues in the debate has been framing - is it about “Trans Rights” or “Women’s Rights”?
It’s about both, clearly, but many of the proponents of the former seek to deny and belittle the latter - which is what that column reflects.
And it’s not a “right vs left” or “gay vs straight” issue - many of the women’s rights defenders are left wing lesbians - and the two gentlemen upthread are straight Labour politicians, which is why tropes about “It’s just like Section 28” are so lazy and fatuous.
Unfortunately there is no shortage of "angry men who can’t even bear to hear women’s voices." arguing against women - see Lloyd Russel Moyle’s disgraceful behaviour in the HoC as a recent example.
"One of the issues in the debate has been framing - is it about “Trans Rights” or “Women’s Rights”? It’s about both, clearly, but many of the proponents of the former seek to deny and belittle the latter - which is what that column reflects. "
And many of the proponents of the latter seek to deny and belittle the former.
IMV it's quite simple: let people be what they want to be, as long as they don't hurt others in the process.
So you would be quite happy for your wife to be naked in changing rooms whilst some total stranger was waving his willie about. Pull the other one.
Surely indecent exposure is a crime in Scotland, whatever the purported gender of the criminal or whether they are in possession of a GRC?
How is it indecent for a lady to bare her ladycock in the ladies’ changing room?
I think I preferred it when the trolls started with half a day of friendly conversation, mate.
It's all a bit wham, bam, before the ban these days.
(And always Saturdays. Why is it always Saturdays?)
The antivax nonsense is a bit odd really. Why has that sort of scientific gibberish got such a hold of the Russians and their far-right fellow travellers in the USA and UK? It all whiffs a bit of QAnon and the blood libel.
That is a bit of an odd poll. The vast majority of people want "Reform" yet object to changing three of the main pillars of the current law.
What sort of reform do they actually want? To make it illegal to change gender?
Has anyone polled that? I wonder if some people might prefer to see legal recognition follow reassignment surgery. At the moment it seems like you have to do things in the other order, which might strike people as backwards.
Clearly the GRR has far-reaching implications for women. But what happens when they point this out? First, the bombastic know-alls who’ve ignored every female writer, lawyer and policymaker for five years pull out their manly opinions. Like Alastair Campbell, who chided Laura Kuenssberg for an interview with Sir Keir Starmer in which she dwelt on the GRR, which affects half the population — but not the important half. Or Lord Falconer, who pompously wafts away concerns, tweeting that “the vast majority” of new male GRC holders “are likely to be genuine”. So what’s a few women facing sexual assault or indecent exposure, an intimidated lesbian or two, or a class of girls unhappily undressing with a teenage boy? These “It might never happen, love” guys don’t think women deserve legislation that protects us in principle. We’re expected to pray that careless laws, framed for others’ benefit, don’t hurt us in practice. And if they do, it’s just an “isolated incident”. Suck it up. And the next one. There’s no pattern. Let’s ignore the inconvenient truth that males commit 98 per cent of sex crime and 90 per cent of violence, whatever their gender identity.
Then there are the angry men who can’t even bear to hear women’s voices. No debate. Shut up, bitch. Sit down, bigot. We’ll ban your meeting, ignore your legal submissions.
I mean, that piece is typical. "Anyone who disagrees with me is awful."
There are well-meaning, genuine voices arguing passionately on both sides of this topic. Painting your opposition is not helpful.as "angry men who can’t even bear to hear women’s voices."
One of the issues in the debate has been framing - is it about “Trans Rights” or “Women’s Rights”?
It’s about both, clearly, but many of the proponents of the former seek to deny and belittle the latter - which is what that column reflects.
And it’s not a “right vs left” or “gay vs straight” issue - many of the women’s rights defenders are left wing lesbians - and the two gentlemen upthread are straight Labour politicians, which is why tropes about “It’s just like Section 28” are so lazy and fatuous.
Unfortunately there is no shortage of "angry men who can’t even bear to hear women’s voices." arguing against women - see Lloyd Russel Moyle’s disgraceful behaviour in the HoC as a recent example.
"One of the issues in the debate has been framing - is it about “Trans Rights” or “Women’s Rights”? It’s about both, clearly, but many of the proponents of the former seek to deny and belittle the latter - which is what that column reflects. "
And many of the proponents of the latter seek to deny and belittle the former.
IMV it's quite simple: let people be what they want to be, as long as they don't hurt others in the process.
So you would be quite happy for your wife to be naked in changing rooms whilst some total stranger was waving his willie about. Pull the other one.
You see, that's the sort of comment that causes the problems.
Are you saying all trans people will go waving their willy around in the changing rooms? Or will most just want to get discreetly changed? Why should trans people be prevented from being transitioning just because of a 'fear' of what *may* happen?
The trans people I've known well would certainly not go waving their private parts about. In the case of our female to male friend, he'd always use the cubicles whilst in the male toilets, not the urinals.
I am saying that some of them will and potentially my family may be there. If they still have block and tackle use disabled toilets etc and keep out of women's changing rooms. One person doing it is enough.
Clearly the GRR has far-reaching implications for women. But what happens when they point this out? First, the bombastic know-alls who’ve ignored every female writer, lawyer and policymaker for five years pull out their manly opinions. Like Alastair Campbell, who chided Laura Kuenssberg for an interview with Sir Keir Starmer in which she dwelt on the GRR, which affects half the population — but not the important half. Or Lord Falconer, who pompously wafts away concerns, tweeting that “the vast majority” of new male GRC holders “are likely to be genuine”. So what’s a few women facing sexual assault or indecent exposure, an intimidated lesbian or two, or a class of girls unhappily undressing with a teenage boy? These “It might never happen, love” guys don’t think women deserve legislation that protects us in principle. We’re expected to pray that careless laws, framed for others’ benefit, don’t hurt us in practice. And if they do, it’s just an “isolated incident”. Suck it up. And the next one. There’s no pattern. Let’s ignore the inconvenient truth that males commit 98 per cent of sex crime and 90 per cent of violence, whatever their gender identity.
Then there are the angry men who can’t even bear to hear women’s voices. No debate. Shut up, bitch. Sit down, bigot. We’ll ban your meeting, ignore your legal submissions.
I mean, that piece is typical. "Anyone who disagrees with me is awful."
There are well-meaning, genuine voices arguing passionately on both sides of this topic. Painting your opposition is not helpful.as "angry men who can’t even bear to hear women’s voices."
One of the issues in the debate has been framing - is it about “Trans Rights” or “Women’s Rights”?
It’s about both, clearly, but many of the proponents of the former seek to deny and belittle the latter - which is what that column reflects.
And it’s not a “right vs left” or “gay vs straight” issue - many of the women’s rights defenders are left wing lesbians - and the two gentlemen upthread are straight Labour politicians, which is why tropes about “It’s just like Section 28” are so lazy and fatuous.
Unfortunately there is no shortage of "angry men who can’t even bear to hear women’s voices." arguing against women - see Lloyd Russel Moyle’s disgraceful behaviour in the HoC as a recent example.
"One of the issues in the debate has been framing - is it about “Trans Rights” or “Women’s Rights”? It’s about both, clearly, but many of the proponents of the former seek to deny and belittle the latter - which is what that column reflects. "
And many of the proponents of the latter seek to deny and belittle the former.
IMV it's quite simple: let people be what they want to be, as long as they don't hurt others in the process.
So you would be quite happy for your wife to be naked in changing rooms whilst some total stranger was waving his willie about. Pull the other one.
You see, that's the sort of comment that causes the problems.
Are you saying all trans people will go waving their willy around in the changing rooms? Or will most just want to get discreetly changed? Why should trans people be prevented from being transitioning just because of a 'fear' of what *may* happen?
The trans people I've known well would certainly not go waving their private parts about. In the case of our female to male friend, he'd always use the cubicles whilst in the male toilets, not the urinals.
Yes, but you are also making that positive assumption on the part of non-trans men. Your position is that no man who wanted to get their jollies from dressing up as a woman in their spaces would ever use the easy process of obtaining a GRC in order to do so. To me, that is utterly without basis and incredibly naive.
That is not my position.
So your position is that it would happen but it's just collateral damage.
I think I preferred it when the trolls started with half a day of friendly conversation, mate.
It's all a bit wham, bam, before the ban these days.
(And always Saturdays. Why is it always Saturdays?)
The antivax nonsense is a bit odd really. Why has that sort of scientific gibberish got such a hold of the Russians and their far-right fellow travellers in the USA and UK? It all whiffs a bit of QAnon and the blood libel.
Wall street is betting against pfizercstock. These guys only care about money and can see the problems withthe vax. The fact you cant fixy is why hardly anyone trusts the medical profession now
Comments
The right direction point is an interesting one, because I would agree in many instances of personal rights of those once marginalised or outright discriminated, society has moved toward a much better position. And as you note not many want to roll back trans rights, so the argument is perhaps not so much about direction, but how far the journey takes us along that direction. Some people were ok with legalising homosexuality, that was the right direction for them, but stopped at the idea of gay marriage (though frankly the debate on that seemed far more muted, some of the opponents ended up just arguing there were bigger priorities to worry about). And on trans rights many will be very happy with where things have gotten to, but don't see why it has to go further, or not as far as some others would like.
Which is why intense debate is a good thing, because that is a political question. It's now tied up with matters of constititionality but that really is a technical legal point, even if the motivation behind the UK gov response is still part of the political debate, which proponents in Scotland had hoped to see the back of having gotten through the domestic legislative hurdles.
Removing key safeguards such as reducing the age from 18 to 16 to change legal gender is not supported.
https://twitter.com/Rachael2Win/status/1616730719262330880
Knows too much about vaccine contracts?
Knows too much about YouGov?
Tory tradition of party chairman being in the cabinet.
You’re presumably in favour of PR though, it would certainly help Alba.
In an election with those results the right answer would be that 62% of seats go to SNP and green, and 38% to the rest.
Then there are the angry men who can’t even bear to hear women’s voices. No debate. Shut up, bitch. Sit down, bigot. We’ll ban your meeting, ignore your legal submissions.
https://archive.is/oGaiO
The US is having to deploy more forces to Europe, which it would rather have available for the Pacific, because of the war, and a swift resolution to the war would see the end of those deployments brought forward.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jan/20/twins-killed-canada-shootout-kill-police-bank
It seems more than just a story of nutjobs in a faraway land, therefore.
What a turnaround from March 2022 when prolonging the war meant giving Ukraine the means to defend itself.
https://twitter.com/John_S_Rawlins/status/1616203828801507330?s=20&t=9N_58FK29eZNlz_bmgREAw
And the strongest opposition to it comes from many left wing feminists. This isn’t just a tabloid scare.
Checks for whether the British poshos and media have brought about the lynching and honour killing they're aiming for in the Mark Gordon and Constance Marten foxhunt.
Not yet.
They'll be rubbing their hands like motherf*ckers if they get what they want.
Mark Gordon is 48. He committed a horrific rape when he was 14, got handed a 20 year sentence for it, served his sentence, and has been out for 13 years now. If he'd had any further convictions during that time, we'd have heard about them. He is not wanted in connection with any crime.
Leave him alone.
Constance Marten has chosen him has her partner. Reportedly they are married. They have a baby.
Leave her alone. Leave the baby alone.
Interracial relationships are fine. We are in 2023.
PS Has the baby's sex not been made public for some reason?
There are well-meaning, genuine voices arguing passionately on both sides of this topic. Painting your opposition as "angry men who can’t even bear to hear women’s voices." is not helpful.
Tip for those who actually want to examine their assumptions: if you encounter someone who wants to "liberate Crimea", don't bother listening to what they say about Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson, and Zaporozhe.
https://twitter.com/GonzaloLira1968/status/1616532586049798148?s=20&t=9N_58FK29eZNlz_bmgREAw
https://twitter.com/sentdefender/status/1616562438299869184?s=20&t=9N_58FK29eZNlz_bmgREAw
The complexity is the father's background, and that makes it a 'bigger' story. But I certainly think it'd be best for the mother and baby to get a medical check-over, at the very least. This is nothing to do with their backgrounds, race, or previous crimes.
It’s about both, clearly, but many of the proponents of the former seek to deny and belittle the latter - which is what that column reflects.
And it’s not a “right vs left” or “gay vs straight” issue - many of the women’s rights defenders are left wing lesbians - and the two gentlemen upthread are straight Labour politicians, which is why tropes about “It’s just like Section 28” are so lazy and fatuous.
Unfortunately there is no shortage of "angry men who can’t even bear to hear women’s voices." arguing against women - see Lloyd Russel Moyle’s disgraceful behaviour in the HoC as a recent example.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/64355497
Significant, and helpful for my Napoli title bet (think I tipped it here). They were on 37 points, equal with Inter and one point behind AC Milan, 10 points off leaders Napoli.
But the human wave attacks we've seen recently are leading me to reevaluate that. Russia are deploying a hideous tactic, and it might just work, at massive cost.
We'll be able to party like it's 2013!
Are you ALBA now?
What’s frustratingly (but understandably) a mystery is the level of Ukrainian losses - of equipment and people.
And many of the proponents of the latter seek to deny and belittle the former.
IMV it's quite simple: let people be what they want to be, as long as they don't hurt others in the process.
No English parties , ie Tory, Labour & Lib Dems , should be getting votes in Scotland.
Happy with PR when we have all political parties Scottish.
What might tell us is whether Ukraine undergoes another mobilisation wave, or whether allies step up training programs for massed troops.
But one thing is clear to me: the longer we delay sending Ukraine the kit they need, the more Ukrainians die. Scholz should think about that.
From the Heil: "Why did aristocrat new mum vanish with her baby and lover?"
But they don't answer their own question. They just know she and her partner should be hunted down.
From Detective Superintendent Lewis Basford, who is leading the investigation:
"Being on the move for a week must be exhausting for new parents and a newborn baby. Constance and Mark, I appeal directly to you, please think of your baby’s health and wellbeing and get in touch with us so we can ensure your child is medically well and has no underlying issues."
F*ck off! Go and catch some criminals!
"'As a mum, I would like to make a direct appeal to Constance,’ said Greater Manchester Police’s Chief Superintendent Michaela Kerr. 'Constance, I know this is an exceptionally hard time for you and you are likely feeling scared but I promise that our No 1 priority is the same as yours – to keep your beautiful newborn safe.’"
The best way to "keep the baby safe" (who I am told is a girl, although this seems now not to be being mentioned for some reason) isn't to try to chase her family down with hundreds of police officers in a media-whipped up foxhunt.
There's no reason to think the baby's parents are anything other than good parents.
Leave them alone.
The media can enjoy mentioning the prices of any houses that some of the figures in this story may have had some connection with. Funny they can't mention how much public money is being spent on hunting people down who don't seem to be wanted for doing anything wrong.
"There's no reason to think the baby's parents are anything other than good parents."
Actually, *if* the baby hasn't been seen by medically-trained people, I'd say there's good reason to think the parents are not being good parents - at least in the modern world.
Some of the issues (sports, safe spaces) probably do have a compromise fix that mostly works for most people. But there's also a fundamental identity question- who is a man, who is a woman? And that's not one where there's an answer that doesn't hurt someone, and with some justification.
Often the way such questions get resolved is to diminish their importance (see Northern Ireland), but I can't imagine what that looks like for the trans question.
Are you saying all trans people will go waving their willy around in the changing rooms? Or will most just want to get discreetly changed? Why should trans people be prevented from being transitioning just because of a 'fear' of what *may* happen?
The trans people I've known well would certainly not go waving their private parts about. In the case of our female to male friend, he'd always use the cubicles whilst in the male toilets, not the urinals.
https://twitter.com/irEnriqueCortes/status/1616724640696508416?s=20&t=9N_58FK29eZNlz_bmgREAw
https://twitter.com/Johnbegood2000/status/1615775470871797760?s=20&t=9N_58FK29eZNlz_bmgREAw
Do you think that forcing a man who is transitioning to be a woman, to go into the male toilets, might lead to them getting hurt? Do you think making trans people fearful of using any public toilet might lead to hurt?
https://metro.co.uk/2022/05/05/scared-of-trans-people-in-loos-were-the-ones-who-should-be-afraid-16584590/
And how do you police it? How do you check that every woman going into a toilets passes your definition of 'woman'? What happens when you make mistakes, when you get false positives? Are you more likely to make mistakes with women who do not fit in with your view of what a 'woman' is, such as the following?
https://twitter.com/the__chez/status/1351472725798301699
https://twitter.com/backtolife_2023/status/1615786354381570083?s=20&t=9N_58FK29eZNlz_bmgREAw
https://twitter.com/ichudov/status/1616463339655401473?s=20&t=9N_58FK29eZNlz_bmgREAw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-j7oiDwUaw8
https://twitter.com/wolsned/status/1616572547834822658?s=20&t=9N_58FK29eZNlz_bmgREAw
Quick comment on OJ, probably obvious:
Jones was brought up in the tradition of the Militant (or RSL). Even amongst the far left (where I was) the Militant were distiguished by their 'inevitabilism' or fatalism. A particular criticism was that they didn't *do* much...
... except propogandise, becuase they knew, and endlessly said (they were very boring) that history was on their side. They would quote this line from the Communist Manifesto...
..."What the bourgeoisie therefore produces, above all, are its own grave diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable."...
https://twitter.com/runthinkwrite/status/1616366898094145536
https://twitter.com/DowdEdward/status/1616549571194388481?s=20&t=9N_58FK29eZNlz_bmgREAw
Criminally negligent parents? Not enough evidence in public domain but plausible I suppose
Would 200 police officers have been assigned to the case if the lady in question was not an aristocrat? No chance. If she was from some backgrounds it would be zero police officers giving a toss.
https://twitter.com/DowdEdward/status/1615885848419131392?s=20&t=9N_58FK29eZNlz_bmgREAw
It's all a bit wham, bam, before the ban these days.
(And always Saturdays. Why is it always Saturdays?)
Long interview with Keir here
What sort of reform do they actually want? To make it illegal to change gender?
I would suggest the best solution would be to provide gender neutral toilets, not unilaterally open women’s toilets to men who claim they are women and to trans women.
What would your solution be?
Capital is forming to bet against the willfully ignorant and take advantage of the great asymmetric information gap of my career. The trade is on… If you don’t believe me fine, don’t care…you do you boo but we will bet against your inability to see reality vs safe & effective
Nonetheless there do seem to be real child welfare concerns.
https://twitter.com/ABridgen/status/1615252171746078720?s=20&t=9N_58FK29eZNlz_bmgREAw
It's perfectly possible for people to think the current situation needs to change whilst disliking all the changes anyone can come up with.
See The UK/EU relationship...
People want to “be kind” but when exposed to the detail of what that may involve get a lot less keen. The cynic might think that could be why proponents of self-ID want “no debate”.