The polling’s not looking good US Congressman Santos – politicalbetting.com
One of the big stories in US politics at the moment has been on George Santos who last November gained the Long Island seat in the US House of Representatives for the Republicans.
Just out of interest and very much on topic is it realistic to think that someone lying about being Jewish and their parent being in the largest disaster in the nation's history would actually get away with it for more than 30 seconds in the UK? I mean our newspapers are truly terrible in so many ways but they are terriers when it comes to lies about politicians personal lives. And was the whole of social media simply asleep?
By then they will almost certainly own property themselves given the age of first property ownership is 39 and be starting to look to retirement
HYUFD I am telling you as a young person, it's not going to happen.
I own a flat, I hate the Tories for what they have done to us. You are finished.
Not many young people own a flat though
Yes because of our failure of economic policy.
Housing crash now, fuck the elderly.
If there is a housing crash the young will be rogered big time, .
Exactly! The elderly with paid off mortgages will simply have less to pass on to their younger heirs. The young who have mortgages will be totally screwed!
Most people with mortgages will be screwed - including many landlords.
Most young people haven't got mortgages. Inheriting half as much isn't any kind of a problem if they were going to buy a house with it and houses have halved in value.
I'm with Horse. Bring on the housing market crash. (I don't share his attitude towards the elderly, though.)
Those figures for ages 55-64 are remarkably low?
As most of them have already bought with a mortgage by that age
Clearly not, based on that graph.
No clearly, as DJ14 realises now it is cumulative.
So in fact 52% of those aged 35-44 have bought a property with a mortgage, not 29%
No, I don't think it's even that. It's a terrible chart that's for sure.
What I think it's showing is the percentage of a) outright owners and b) owners with a mortgages, who fall in each age group. Hence the percentages for each series add up to 100.
So, for example, 61.6% of people who own outright are 65 and over. And 29.3% of mortgage holders are in the age group 35 to 44.
It says nothing about what percentage of a given age group own a house outright, or with a mortgage.
It's certainly not saying that 52% of those aged 35-44 have bought a property with a mortgage.
It is once you add the 22% of 25 to 34s and 1% of 16-24s who have also bought a property with a mortgage
Good God no it is not saying that!
Please read my post properly.
By your logic if the chart says "52% of those aged 35-44 have bought a property with a mortgage" then it also says:
81.9% of those aged 45-54 have bought a property with a mortgage, and
95.6% of those aged 55-64 have bought a property with a mortgage, and
100% of those over 65 have bought a property with a mortgage.
(And also 100% of those over 65 own a property without a mortgage.)
You have misunderstood the chart. Feel free to admit you are wr*ng, it's not hard ;-)
Well it certainly doesn't say only 29% of 35-44s have a property with a mortgage either or only 61% of over 65s are owner occupiers.
You simply can't bring yourself to admit you were wrong, can you?
I genuinely can't read that graph in any way that makes sense. Surely the lesson of this is that people should stop producing graphs that are so incoherent in what they are trying to show.
Actually looking at it I can understand it but it is not immediately clear. Ben is right and HYUFD is wrong.
for the 35 - 44 tranche a total of 32.6% of people have bought a house. That is split down into 3.3% who own it outright and 29.3% who own it with a mortgage. Obviously the house ownership grows with age and just as obviously by the time you get to the 65 or over age range the vast majority of those house owners have now paid off their mortgages. Hence 61.6% own outright whilst 4.4% still have a mortgage - making total house ownership of 66% of the age range.
I think...
No, you're both wrong. It's the percentage of the total owned homes of that type per age category. So of the 100% of homes owned outright, 61.6% are owned by over 65s, 23.9% by the next category down etc...
By then they will almost certainly own property themselves given the age of first property ownership is 39 and be starting to look to retirement
HYUFD I am telling you as a young person, it's not going to happen.
I own a flat, I hate the Tories for what they have done to us. You are finished.
Not many young people own a flat though
Yes because of our failure of economic policy.
Housing crash now, fuck the elderly.
If there is a housing crash the young will be rogered big time, .
Exactly! The elderly with paid off mortgages will simply have less to pass on to their younger heirs. The young who have mortgages will be totally screwed!
Most people with mortgages will be screwed - including many landlords.
Most young people haven't got mortgages. Inheriting half as much isn't any kind of a problem if they were going to buy a house with it and houses have halved in value.
I'm with Horse. Bring on the housing market crash. (I don't share his attitude towards the elderly, though.)
Those figures for ages 55-64 are remarkably low?
As most of them have already bought with a mortgage by that age
Clearly not, based on that graph.
No clearly, as DJ14 realises now it is cumulative.
So in fact 52% of those aged 35-44 have bought a property with a mortgage, not 29%
No, I don't think it's even that. It's a terrible chart that's for sure.
What I think it's showing is the percentage of a) outright owners and b) owners with a mortgages, who fall in each age group. Hence the percentages for each series add up to 100.
So, for example, 61.6% of people who own outright are 65 and over. And 29.3% of mortgage holders are in the age group 35 to 44.
It says nothing about what percentage of a given age group own a house outright, or with a mortgage.
It's certainly not saying that 52% of those aged 35-44 have bought a property with a mortgage.
It is once you add the 22% of 25 to 34s and 1% of 16-24s who have also bought a property with a mortgage
Good God no it is not saying that!
Please read my post properly.
By your logic if the chart says "52% of those aged 35-44 have bought a property with a mortgage" then it also says:
81.9% of those aged 45-54 have bought a property with a mortgage, and
95.6% of those aged 55-64 have bought a property with a mortgage, and
100% of those over 65 have bought a property with a mortgage.
(And also 100% of those over 65 own a property without a mortgage.)
You have misunderstood the chart. Feel free to admit you are wr*ng, it's not hard ;-)
Well it certainly doesn't say only 29% of 35-44s have a property with a mortgage either or only 61% of over 65s are owner occupiers.
You simply can't bring yourself to admit you were wrong, can you?
I genuinely can't read that graph in any way that makes sense. Surely the lesson of this is that people should stop producing graphs that are so incoherent in what they are trying to show.
Actually looking at it I can understand it but it is not immediately clear. Ben is right and HYUFD is wrong.
for the 35 - 44 tranche a total of 32.6% of people have bought a house. That is split down into 3.3% who own it outright and 29.3% who own it with a mortgage. Obviously the house ownership grows with age and just as obviously by the time you get to the 65 or over age range the vast majority of those house owners have now paid off their mortgages. Hence 61.6% own outright whilst 4.4% still have a mortgage - making total house ownership of 66% of the age range.
I think...
No, you're both wrong. It's the percentage of the total owned homes of that type per age category. So of the 100% of homes owned outright, 61.6% are owned by over 65s, 23.9% by the next category down etc...
By then they will almost certainly own property themselves given the age of first property ownership is 39 and be starting to look to retirement
HYUFD I am telling you as a young person, it's not going to happen.
I own a flat, I hate the Tories for what they have done to us. You are finished.
Not many young people own a flat though
Yes because of our failure of economic policy.
Housing crash now, fuck the elderly.
If there is a housing crash the young will be rogered big time, .
Exactly! The elderly with paid off mortgages will simply have less to pass on to their younger heirs. The young who have mortgages will be totally screwed!
Most people with mortgages will be screwed - including many landlords.
Most young people haven't got mortgages. Inheriting half as much isn't any kind of a problem if they were going to buy a house with it and houses have halved in value.
I'm with Horse. Bring on the housing market crash. (I don't share his attitude towards the elderly, though.)
Those figures for ages 55-64 are remarkably low?
As most of them have already bought with a mortgage by that age
Clearly not, based on that graph.
No clearly, as DJ14 realises now it is cumulative.
So in fact 52% of those aged 35-44 have bought a property with a mortgage, not 29%
No, I don't think it's even that. It's a terrible chart that's for sure.
What I think it's showing is the percentage of a) outright owners and b) owners with a mortgages, who fall in each age group. Hence the percentages for each series add up to 100.
So, for example, 61.6% of people who own outright are 65 and over. And 29.3% of mortgage holders are in the age group 35 to 44.
It says nothing about what percentage of a given age group own a house outright, or with a mortgage.
It's certainly not saying that 52% of those aged 35-44 have bought a property with a mortgage.
It is once you add the 22% of 25 to 34s and 1% of 16-24s who have also bought a property with a mortgage
Good God no it is not saying that!
Please read my post properly.
By your logic if the chart says "52% of those aged 35-44 have bought a property with a mortgage" then it also says:
81.9% of those aged 45-54 have bought a property with a mortgage, and
95.6% of those aged 55-64 have bought a property with a mortgage, and
100% of those over 65 have bought a property with a mortgage.
(And also 100% of those over 65 own a property without a mortgage.)
You have misunderstood the chart. Feel free to admit you are wr*ng, it's not hard ;-)
Well it certainly doesn't say only 29% of 35-44s have a property with a mortgage either or only 61% of over 65s are owner occupiers.
You simply can't bring yourself to admit you were wrong, can you?
I genuinely can't read that graph in any way that makes sense. Surely the lesson of this is that people should stop producing graphs that are so incoherent in what they are trying to show.
Actually looking at it I can understand it but it is not immediately clear. Ben is right and HYUFD is wrong.
for the 35 - 44 tranche a total of 32.6% of people have bought a house. That is split down into 3.3% who own it outright and 29.3% who own it with a mortgage. Obviously the house ownership grows with age and just as obviously by the time you get to the 65 or over age range the vast majority of those house owners have now paid off their mortgages. Hence 61.6% own outright whilst 4.4% still have a mortgage - making total house ownership of 66% of the age range.
I think...
No, you're both wrong. It's the percentage of the total owned homes of that type per age category. So of the 100% of homes owned outright, 61.6% are owned by over 65s, 23.9% by the next category down etc...
By then they will almost certainly own property themselves given the age of first property ownership is 39 and be starting to look to retirement
HYUFD I am telling you as a young person, it's not going to happen.
I own a flat, I hate the Tories for what they have done to us. You are finished.
Not many young people own a flat though
Yes because of our failure of economic policy.
Housing crash now, fuck the elderly.
If there is a housing crash the young will be rogered big time, .
Exactly! The elderly with paid off mortgages will simply have less to pass on to their younger heirs. The young who have mortgages will be totally screwed!
Most people with mortgages will be screwed - including many landlords.
Most young people haven't got mortgages. Inheriting half as much isn't any kind of a problem if they were going to buy a house with it and houses have halved in value.
I'm with Horse. Bring on the housing market crash. (I don't share his attitude towards the elderly, though.)
Those figures for ages 55-64 are remarkably low?
As most of them have already bought with a mortgage by that age
Clearly not, based on that graph.
No clearly, as DJ14 realises now it is cumulative.
So in fact 52% of those aged 35-44 have bought a property with a mortgage, not 29%
No, I don't think it's even that. It's a terrible chart that's for sure.
What I think it's showing is the percentage of a) outright owners and b) owners with a mortgages, who fall in each age group. Hence the percentages for each series add up to 100.
So, for example, 61.6% of people who own outright are 65 and over. And 29.3% of mortgage holders are in the age group 35 to 44.
It says nothing about what percentage of a given age group own a house outright, or with a mortgage.
It's certainly not saying that 52% of those aged 35-44 have bought a property with a mortgage.
It is once you add the 22% of 25 to 34s and 1% of 16-24s who have also bought a property with a mortgage
Good God no it is not saying that!
Please read my post properly.
By your logic if the chart says "52% of those aged 35-44 have bought a property with a mortgage" then it also says:
81.9% of those aged 45-54 have bought a property with a mortgage, and
95.6% of those aged 55-64 have bought a property with a mortgage, and
100% of those over 65 have bought a property with a mortgage.
(And also 100% of those over 65 own a property without a mortgage.)
You have misunderstood the chart. Feel free to admit you are wr*ng, it's not hard ;-)
Well it certainly doesn't say only 29% of 35-44s have a property with a mortgage either or only 61% of over 65s are owner occupiers.
You simply can't bring yourself to admit you were wrong, can you?
I genuinely can't read that graph in any way that makes sense. Surely the lesson of this is that people should stop producing graphs that are so incoherent in what they are trying to show.
Actually looking at it I can understand it but it is not immediately clear. Ben is right and HYUFD is wrong.
for the 35 - 44 tranche a total of 32.6% of people have bought a house. That is split down into 3.3% who own it outright and 29.3% who own it with a mortgage. Obviously the house ownership grows with age and just as obviously by the time you get to the 65 or over age range the vast majority of those house owners have now paid off their mortgages. Hence 61.6% own outright whilst 4.4% still have a mortgage - making total house ownership of 66% of the age range.
I think...
No, you're both wrong. It's the percentage of the total owned homes of that type per age category. So of the 100% of homes owned outright, 61.6% are owned by over 65s, 23.9% by the next category down etc...
It is a rubbish visualisation, though.
Hey, that's what I said 20 minutes ago!
"What I think it's showing is the percentage of a) outright owners and b) owners with a mortgages, who fall in each age group. Hence the percentages for each series add up to 100."
Lord Kenneth Baker interviewed on Newsnight tonight. Talking a lot of sense in my opinion. However the authority of his arguments was somewhat undermined by his mobile phone going off four times during a short interview and his having no idea how to address the problem. 😀
Lord Kenneth Baker interviewed on Newsnight tonight. Talking a lot of sense in my opinion. However the authority of his arguments was somewhat undermined by his mobile phone going off four times during a short interview and his having no idea how to address the problem. 😀
First thing you have to do when you go on TV is tell your family and friends not to try to phone you.
Lord Kenneth Baker interviewed on Newsnight tonight. Talking a lot of sense in my opinion. However the authority of his arguments was somewhat undermined by his mobile phone going off four times during a short interview and his having no idea how to address the problem. 😀
First thing you have to do when you go on TV is tell your family and friends not to try to phone you.
Lord Kenneth Baker interviewed on Newsnight tonight. Talking a lot of sense in my opinion. However the authority of his arguments was somewhat undermined by his mobile phone going off four times during a short interview and his having no idea how to address the problem. 😀
First thing you have to do when you go on TV is tell your family and friends not to try to phone you.
Just out of interest and very much on topic is it realistic to think that someone lying about being Jewish and their parent being in the largest disaster in the nation's history would actually get away with it for more than 30 seconds in the UK? I mean our newspapers are truly terrible in so many ways but they are terriers when it comes to lies about politicians personal lives. And was the whole of social media simply asleep?
He was elected by a party which celebrates the blatant lies of its last President. It wasn't unknown that he was a dodgy character prior to the election, either.
The media seriously dropped the ball, though. As did the Democrats, though slightly more understandably in the circumstances.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Santos ...Democrats took Santos seriously enough that Jill Biden campaigned for Zimmerman.[60] His campaign tried in vain to interest the media, at both the national and local levels, to look more closely at Santos. "We knew a lot about him did not add up; we were very conscious of that", Zimmerman said later. "But we didn't have the resources as a campaign to do the kind of digging that had to be done."[31]
One local outlet, The North Shore Leader, a weekly newspaper serving the affluent suburban area of that name that has historically been the core of the district, did report on the questions raised by Santos's personal financial disclosure forms when he finally filed them in September 2022, as well as some other dubious claims of his personal wealth. No other media outlet reported on the matter until after the election...
Lord Kenneth Baker interviewed on Newsnight tonight. Talking a lot of sense in my opinion. However the authority of his arguments was somewhat undermined by his mobile phone going off four times during a short interview and his having no idea how to address the problem. 😀
First thing you have to do when you go on TV is tell your family and friends not to try to phone you.
Okay it's not a public position, but the fact that the vacancy is unfilled is still Sunak's "fault", if one can call it a fault to run the Tory party so badly. Arguably he's doing the country a favour.
Voter fraud in Florida seems to be relatively consequence free, if you’re voting Republican.
4th resident of The Villages admits to voting twice in the 2020 election John Rider avoids jail time under pre-trial intervention program https://www.clickorlando.com/news/local/2023/01/30/4th-resident-of-the-villages-admits-to-voting-twice-in-the-2020-election/ … Rider indicated in court papers that he plans to “buy out” his requirement of completing 50 hours of community service at a cost of $10 per hour. Three other residents of The Villages accused of voting twice signed similar pretrial intervention contracts last year. All four were facing a maximum of five years in prison if a jury convicted them of a third-degree felony. As part of their agreements with the state, Joan Halstead, Charles Barnes and Jay Ketcik were required to complete a 12-week adult civics class based on the textbook “We the People; the Citizen and the Constitution.”
Under the pretrial intervention contracts, prosecution of the defendants will be deferred for a period of 18 months, with the possibility that it will be permanently deferred if they successfully complete the court-ordered requirements…
Ireland and Britain are almost intimately historically connected, whether anyone on either side likes it or not. Joyce also had trouble resolving this contradiction, and often wrote in English about the quandary .
As I mentioned a few weeks back, I remember reading that were up to 12 million people of partly Irish descent, in England alone. There must be another couple of million in Scotland.
Virtually all of that history is negative. As I said up thread it’s a mighty shock to the historically challenged English to find out how much Irish people hate them. There’s a lot of naïveté about how we are one big happy family whereas we’re they’re implacable historic enemy
I'm not sure that that makes us one big happy family. It certainly means that the ethnic interconnections are much greater than many people on both sides might want to acknowledge, though.
You miss the point. We’re not. They absolutely despise us all but we on this side of the Irish Sea are in constant denial about it.
An exaggeration. They do not despise each and every English person.
What is certainly true is that the English have very little understanding of their history in Ireland and how they treated the Irish in their own country and those who migrated here. There is a great deal of arrogant condescension in their approach to Ireland and this has been particularly noticeable among many Tories.
The Catholic Irish rarely have an issue with the English. On the whole, they're quite fond of the English. They're often not too keen on "the Brits", though.
Most of the Protestant Irish see themselves as British. But some of them do have a problem with the English. See the Ulster loyalist song, "The Englishman's Betrayal".
Lord Kenneth Baker interviewed on Newsnight tonight. Talking a lot of sense in my opinion. However the authority of his arguments was somewhat undermined by his mobile phone going off four times during a short interview and his having no idea how to address the problem. 😀
First thing you have to do when you go on TV is tell your family and friends not to try to phone you.
My friends and (especially) family would love to embarrass me when on TV, so I follow the simple expedient of turning my phone off.
Nobody is awake, but two new polls in NZ put Labour back in the lead, by a small margin, after Ardern’s stepping down.
This surprises me, as I’d assumed she was actually a net benefit to her party.
The new PM, Chris Hipkins, will be happy that he is being granted a modest honeymoon by voters.
What's his reputation within the party, and in the country?
I think he was considered a competent “bruiser”, like John Reid was all those years ago, albeit wrapped up in a dweebish and not especially likeable form.
He’s already made a subtle, but possibly clever, re-shuffle which has removed some egregious under-performers from where they were doing damage.
I think when Ardern resigned, the commentariat assumed this was it for Labour, but it seems that, for now, NZ voters want to be charitable.
Hipkins’s opponent, Chris Luxon, Leader of National, does not exactly provoke huge enthusiasm.
A new intro'd bill in Arizona would criminalize drag in presence of a minor as a felony punishable by up to 15 years in prison and a requirement to register as a sex offender. The bill defines drag as just singing and dancing while wearing make-up. https://mobile.twitter.com/Esqueer_/status/1620467163172868096
A legal expert has warned Scotland’s controversial gender laws will provide men “who cross-dress for erotic purposes” with a “magic certificate” to access women’s spaces.
There’s a good argument that it’s a mistake to regulate crypto because you can end up having to bail out investors who you have convinced that it’s now safe. And do we really want the UK to be a “ global crypto hub”?
Good news, and two things to note: both sides have moved, despite how it will be spun in the coming days, and this could have been agreed years ago.
Also, the DUP will almost certainly vote against it and a chunk of the ERG too - the question is, how many?
The Times understands that the customs element of the deal had been due to be announced in January but was pulled at the last minute. One source suggested that Brussels had feared Rishi Sunak could not sell the complete package to the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) and Brexiteers in his own party....
...Sunak is also nervous about reaction to the compromise among Brexit-supporting MPs and in particular any intervention by Boris Johnson, who agreed to the original protocol with the EU.
No 10 was warned about concerns over Dominic Raab’s behaviour before Rishi Sunak appointed him deputy prime minister in the autumn.
Civil servants flagged that there had been “issues” with Raab in his previous departments before Sunak decided to bring him back into government. Downing Street sources insisted that the prime minister was not “directly told” and that officials never advised against appointing Raab.
Trans people are people. They deserve as much respect and compassion as everyone else in our society. This constant "They're a threat!" shittiness that goes on on here is really, really dangerous.
Good news, and two things to note: both sides have moved, despite how it will be spun in the coming days, and this could have been agreed years ago.
Also, the DUP will almost certainly vote against it and a chunk of the ERG too - the question is, how many?
The Times understands that the customs element of the deal had been due to be announced in January but was pulled at the last minute. One source suggested that Brussels had feared Rishi Sunak could not sell the complete package to the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) and Brexiteers in his own party....
...Sunak is also nervous about reaction to the compromise among Brexit-supporting MPs and in particular any intervention by Boris Johnson, who agreed to the original protocol with the EU.
Good news, and two things to note: both sides have moved, despite how it will be spun in the coming days, and this could have been agreed years ago.
Also, the DUP will almost certainly vote against it and a chunk of the ERG too - the question is, how many?
The Times understands that the customs element of the deal had been due to be announced in January but was pulled at the last minute. One source suggested that Brussels had feared Rishi Sunak could not sell the complete package to the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) and Brexiteers in his own party....
...Sunak is also nervous about reaction to the compromise among Brexit-supporting MPs and in particular any intervention by Boris Johnson, who agreed to the original protocol with the EU.
Good news, and two things to note: both sides have moved, despite how it will be spun in the coming days, and this could have been agreed years ago.
Also, the DUP will almost certainly vote against it and a chunk of the ERG too - the question is, how many?
The Times understands that the customs element of the deal had been due to be announced in January but was pulled at the last minute. One source suggested that Brussels had feared Rishi Sunak could not sell the complete package to the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) and Brexiteers in his own party....
...Sunak is also nervous about reaction to the compromise among Brexit-supporting MPs and in particular any intervention by Boris Johnson, who agreed to the original protocol with the EU.
There’s a good argument that it’s a mistake to regulate crypto because you can end up having to bail out investors who you have convinced that it’s now safe. And do we really want the UK to be a “ global crypto hub”?
The argument the other way is that it provides free money for criminals. Billions.
There doesn’t have to be deposit insurance, either. It’s the “exchanges” that are the problem.
At the moment it’s safer to invest your money with a bloke from Devon, you met on a pub in Deptford. Who has this plan to steal gold from the Spanish, use it as collateral in slave trading and bribe the government with half the profits to make it legal, retroactively.
Good news, and two things to note: both sides have moved, despite how it will be spun in the coming days, and this could have been agreed years ago.
Also, the DUP will almost certainly vote against it and a chunk of the ERG too - the question is, how many?
The Times understands that the customs element of the deal had been due to be announced in January but was pulled at the last minute. One source suggested that Brussels had feared Rishi Sunak could not sell the complete package to the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) and Brexiteers in his own party....
...Sunak is also nervous about reaction to the compromise among Brexit-supporting MPs and in particular any intervention by Boris Johnson, who agreed to the original protocol with the EU.
Good news, and two things to note: both sides have moved, despite how it will be spun in the coming days, and this could have been agreed years ago.
Also, the DUP will almost certainly vote against it and a chunk of the ERG too - the question is, how many?
The Times understands that the customs element of the deal had been due to be announced in January but was pulled at the last minute. One source suggested that Brussels had feared Rishi Sunak could not sell the complete package to the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) and Brexiteers in his own party....
...Sunak is also nervous about reaction to the compromise among Brexit-supporting MPs and in particular any intervention by Boris Johnson, who agreed to the original protocol with the EU.
There’s a good argument that it’s a mistake to regulate crypto because you can end up having to bail out investors who you have convinced that it’s now safe. And do we really want the UK to be a “ global crypto hub”?
The argument the other way is that it provides free money for criminals. Billions.
There doesn’t have to be deposit insurance, either. It’s the “exchanges” that are the problem.
At the moment it’s safer to invest your money with a bloke from Devon, you met on a pub in Deptford. Who has this plan to steal gold from the Spanish, use it as collateral in slave trading and bribe the government with half the profits to make it legal, retroactively.
That one actually worked, once.
You missed an opportunity. You could have ended *grabs tinfoil hat and Drakes*
Trans people are people. They deserve as much respect and compassion as everyone else in our society. This constant "They're a threat!" shittiness that goes on on here is really, really dangerous.
I think you’ve landed on a very useful and unifying form of words there. Trans people are people.
Just out of interest and very much on topic is it realistic to think that someone lying about being Jewish and their parent being in the largest disaster in the nation's history would actually get away with it for more than 30 seconds in the UK? I mean our newspapers are truly terrible in so many ways but they are terriers when it comes to lies about politicians personal lives. And was the whole of social media simply asleep?
{Horatio Bottomley has entered the chat and is offering a guaranteed rate of return}
A new intro'd bill in Arizona would criminalize drag in presence of a minor as a felony punishable by up to 15 years in prison and a requirement to register as a sex offender. The bill defines drag as just singing and dancing while wearing make-up. https://mobile.twitter.com/Esqueer_/status/1620467163172868096
Woe betide any child who likes panto or indeed musical theatre more generally. I guess the Frozen live show won't be coming to Arizona, for instance.
Good news, and two things to note: both sides have moved, despite how it will be spun in the coming days, and this could have been agreed years ago.
Also, the DUP will almost certainly vote against it and a chunk of the ERG too - the question is, how many?
The Times understands that the customs element of the deal had been due to be announced in January but was pulled at the last minute. One source suggested that Brussels had feared Rishi Sunak could not sell the complete package to the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) and Brexiteers in his own party....
...Sunak is also nervous about reaction to the compromise among Brexit-supporting MPs and in particular any intervention by Boris Johnson, who agreed to the original protocol with the EU.
A new intro'd bill in Arizona would criminalize drag in presence of a minor as a felony punishable by up to 15 years in prison and a requirement to register as a sex offender. The bill defines drag as just singing and dancing while wearing make-up. https://mobile.twitter.com/Esqueer_/status/1620467163172868096
Woe betide any child who likes panto or indeed musical theatre more generally. I guess the Frozen live show won't be coming to Arizona, for instance.
What happens if they watch Tootsie or Some Like It Hot?
Trans people are people. They deserve as much respect and compassion as everyone else in our society. This constant "They're a threat!" shittiness that goes on on here is really, really dangerous.
Women are people too and have rights too.
You might note that the concern is not with trans people but with men who will abuse poorly drafted law. The attacks on critics of this law frequently resort to blanket claims of “transphobia” because their initial attempt to get it through with “no debate” has been ignored, mainly by women (frequently left wing) who will not be told to “shut up”.
Just out of interest and very much on topic is it realistic to think that someone lying about being Jewish and their parent being in the largest disaster in the nation's history would actually get away with it for more than 30 seconds in the UK? I mean our newspapers are truly terrible in so many ways but they are terriers when it comes to lies about politicians personal lives. And was the whole of social media simply asleep?
{Horatio Bottomley has entered the chat and is offering a guaranteed rate of return}
Oh, he was special.
Did you ever read about the time he tried to rig a horse race?
But he did have a sense of humour. While in prison he was visited by a friend, who found him sewing mail bags. ‘Ah, sewing?’ asked the friend. ‘No, reaping.’ came the grim reply.
Good news, and two things to note: both sides have moved, despite how it will be spun in the coming days, and this could have been agreed years ago.
Also, the DUP will almost certainly vote against it and a chunk of the ERG too - the question is, how many?
The Times understands that the customs element of the deal had been due to be announced in January but was pulled at the last minute. One source suggested that Brussels had feared Rishi Sunak could not sell the complete package to the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) and Brexiteers in his own party....
...Sunak is also nervous about reaction to the compromise among Brexit-supporting MPs and in particular any intervention by Boris Johnson, who agreed to the original protocol with the EU.
A new intro'd bill in Arizona would criminalize drag in presence of a minor as a felony punishable by up to 15 years in prison and a requirement to register as a sex offender. The bill defines drag as just singing and dancing while wearing make-up. https://mobile.twitter.com/Esqueer_/status/1620467163172868096
Woe betide any child who likes panto or indeed musical theatre more generally. I guess the Frozen live show won't be coming to Arizona, for instance.
What happens if they watch Tootsie or Some Like It Hot?
A new intro'd bill in Arizona would criminalize drag in presence of a minor as a felony punishable by up to 15 years in prison and a requirement to register as a sex offender. The bill defines drag as just singing and dancing while wearing make-up. https://mobile.twitter.com/Esqueer_/status/1620467163172868096
Woe betide any child who likes panto or indeed musical theatre more generally. I guess the Frozen live show won't be coming to Arizona, for instance.
What happens if they watch Tootsie or Some Like It Hot?
A new intro'd bill in Arizona would criminalize drag in presence of a minor as a felony punishable by up to 15 years in prison and a requirement to register as a sex offender. The bill defines drag as just singing and dancing while wearing make-up. https://mobile.twitter.com/Esqueer_/status/1620467163172868096
Woe betide any child who likes panto or indeed musical theatre more generally. I guess the Frozen live show won't be coming to Arizona, for instance.
What happens if they watch Tootsie or Some Like It Hot?
A new intro'd bill in Arizona would criminalize drag in presence of a minor as a felony punishable by up to 15 years in prison and a requirement to register as a sex offender. The bill defines drag as just singing and dancing while wearing make-up. https://mobile.twitter.com/Esqueer_/status/1620467163172868096
A new intro'd bill in Arizona would criminalize drag in presence of a minor as a felony punishable by up to 15 years in prison and a requirement to register as a sex offender. The bill defines drag as just singing and dancing while wearing make-up. https://mobile.twitter.com/Esqueer_/status/1620467163172868096
Woe betide any child who likes panto or indeed musical theatre more generally. I guess the Frozen live show won't be coming to Arizona, for instance.
What happens if they watch Tootsie or Some Like It Hot?
THE chief strategist for the 2014 Yes Scotland campaign has set out a new route to independence under a UK Labour Government.
Stephen Noon described a route map based on the likely prospect of Sir Keir Starmer winning the keys to Downing Street at the next general election, expected before the end of next year.
A new intro'd bill in Arizona would criminalize drag in presence of a minor as a felony punishable by up to 15 years in prison and a requirement to register as a sex offender. The bill defines drag as just singing and dancing while wearing make-up. https://mobile.twitter.com/Esqueer_/status/1620467163172868096
Woe betide any child who likes panto or indeed musical theatre more generally. I guess the Frozen live show won't be coming to Arizona, for instance.
What happens if they watch Tootsie or Some Like It Hot?
Trans people are people. They deserve as much respect and compassion as everyone else in our society. This constant "They're a threat!" shittiness that goes on on here is really, really dangerous.
Women are people too and have rights too.
You might note that the concern is not with trans people but with men who will abuse poorly drafted law. The attacks on critics of this law frequently resort to blanket claims of “transphobia” because their initial attempt to get it through with “no debate” has been ignored, mainly by women (frequently left wing) who will not be told to “shut up”.
Wow. I never realised women have rights too. Thanks for telling me, Carlotta (/sarcasm mode).
Read the tweet you posted. It is part of a constant drip-drip of poison that trans people are a threat. The tweet connects, to anyone reading it, trans people and negative traits.
Some questions: how many trans people cross-dress for erotic purposes? All? Some? None? If they do, is giving them access to "women's spaces" (i.e. loos) fulfilling these dark "erotic purposes"? What about trans people who just want to have a pee without being hassled or beaten up when they go into the 'wrong' toilet? What even are "erotic purposes"?
The tweet below about Arizona shows the direction we're heading in, if we're not careful.
THE chief strategist for the 2014 Yes Scotland campaign has set out a new route to independence under a UK Labour Government.
Stephen Noon described a route map based on the likely prospect of Sir Keir Starmer winning the keys to Downing Street at the next general election, expected before the end of next year.
Trans people are people. They deserve as much respect and compassion as everyone else in our society. This constant "They're a threat!" shittiness that goes on on here is really, really dangerous.
Women are people too and have rights too.
You might note that the concern is not with transgender people but with men who will abuse poorly drafted law. The attacks on critics of this law frequently resort to blanket claims of “transphobia” because their initial attempt to get it through with “no debate” has been ignored, mainly by women (frequently left wing) who will not be told to “shut up”.
Yes, and those that cannot distinguish between people who hate transgender people (? none on this board) and those appalled by transgender activists/ transgender ideology /politicians who make bad laws seem to have misplaced their brains on this issue.
And, as you say, your post wasn't about trans people it was about miscreants who pretend to be to make use of a dodgy law. (Personally, I think this risk is exaggerated but I may be wrong.)
Trans people are people. They deserve as much respect and compassion as everyone else in our society. This constant "They're a threat!" shittiness that goes on on here is really, really dangerous.
Women are people too and have rights too.
You might note that the concern is not with trans people but with men who will abuse poorly drafted law. The attacks on critics of this law frequently resort to blanket claims of “transphobia” because their initial attempt to get it through with “no debate” has been ignored, mainly by women (frequently left wing) who will not be told to “shut up”.
Wow. I never realised women have rights too. Thanks for telling me, Carlotta (/sarcasm mode).
Read the tweet you posted. It is part of a constant drip-drip of poison that trans people are a threat. The tweet connects, to anyone reading it, trans people and negative traits.
Some questions: how many trans people cross-dress for erotic purposes? All? Some? None? If they do, is giving them access to "women's spaces" (i.e. loos) fulfilling these dark "erotic purposes"? What about trans people who just want to have a pee without being hassled or beaten up when they go into the 'wrong' toilet? What even are "erotic purposes"?
The tweet below about Arizona shows the direction we're heading in, if we're not careful.
Trans people are entitled to dignity, respect and consideration. There is no evidence that as a group they are any more prone to crime than the rest of society. But the rights they want can be abused by predatory men seeking access to women only spaces. We need safeguards to ensure that does not happen. The GRR bill has no such safeguards. That is what needs addressed. The safeguards may require modifications of the Equality Act which is ambiguous because it does not distinguish between sex and gender. That is what people should be focusing on. The political game playing around this threatens the reputation and safety of those the proponents say they want to protect.
Trans people are people. They deserve as much respect and compassion as everyone else in our society. This constant "They're a threat!" shittiness that goes on on here is really, really dangerous.
Women are people too and have rights too.
You might note that the concern is not with trans people but with men who will abuse poorly drafted law. The attacks on critics of this law frequently resort to blanket claims of “transphobia” because their initial attempt to get it through with “no debate” has been ignored, mainly by women (frequently left wing) who will not be told to “shut up”.
Wow. I never realised women have rights too. Thanks for telling me, Carlotta (/sarcasm mode).
Read the tweet you posted. It is part of a constant drip-drip of poison that trans people are a threat. The tweet connects, to anyone reading it, trans people and negative traits.
Some questions: how many trans people cross-dress for erotic purposes? All? Some? None? If they do, is giving them access to "women's spaces" (i.e. loos) fulfilling these dark "erotic purposes"? What about trans people who just want to have a pee without being hassled or beaten up when they go into the 'wrong' toilet? What even are "erotic purposes"?
The tweet below about Arizona shows the direction we're heading in, if we're not careful.
If you have the time I suggest watching the testimony yesterday at the HoC Women and Equalities Committee. Naomi Cunningham made the point that when the GRA was introduced it was on the basis that it would affect a very small number of people because gender dysphoria was mercifully rare and those with the condition should be treated with compassion and sympathy.
The issue with the Scottish GRR bill is that it will substantially widen the cohort to whom a GRC is available. People like “Isla Bryson” a convicted double rapist with prison onset gender dysphoria.
The statistics could be crudely read as suggesting that trans people are more likely to be sex offenders. Not a view I take, but very much more likely that sex offenders are falsely claiming to be trans.
That’s why Self-ID (not in the SNP manifesto) without any gate keeping is potentially highly dangerous. That’s what the quarrel is with - not with trans people.
Its not that we find the word acceptable, its just that you're not that interesting. The press would rather talk about more interesting things instead, like TV shows like Queer Eye.
Good news, and two things to note: both sides have moved, despite how it will be spun in the coming days, and this could have been agreed years ago.
Also, the DUP will almost certainly vote against it and a chunk of the ERG too - the question is, how many?
The Times understands that the customs element of the deal had been due to be announced in January but was pulled at the last minute. One source suggested that Brussels had feared Rishi Sunak could not sell the complete package to the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) and Brexiteers in his own party....
...Sunak is also nervous about reaction to the compromise among Brexit-supporting MPs and in particular any intervention by Boris Johnson, who agreed to the original protocol with the EU.
The DUP are defined only by what they don't want. For mysterious reasons the media give them a truly easy ride on the subject of what they actually want. It's time their bluff was called.
Suggestions and guesses welcome as to what the DUP want, but they have to be within the laws of logic and gravity. And unicorns don't exist.
Trans people are people. They deserve as much respect and compassion as everyone else in our society. This constant "They're a threat!" shittiness that goes on on here is really, really dangerous.
I don't think there's anyone sensible on here who is saying trans people are a threat. What people are saying though is that trans people are people and need to be treated with respect. Women are people and need to be treated with respect.
Trans people are not sexually women and where safeguarding means a women's-only space is required, then that may mean that trans people need to be excluded for safeguarding reasons, just as men are excluded for safeguarding reasons.
That does not make trans people lesser or not people, any more than it makes men lesser or not people.
There’s a good argument that it’s a mistake to regulate crypto because you can end up having to bail out investors who you have convinced that it’s now safe. And do we really want the UK to be a “ global crypto hub”?
The argument the other way is that it provides free money for criminals. Billions.
There doesn’t have to be deposit insurance, either. It’s the “exchanges” that are the problem.
At the moment it’s safer to invest your money with a bloke from Devon, you met on a pub in Deptford. Who has this plan to steal gold from the Spanish, use it as collateral in slave trading and bribe the government with half the profits to make it legal, retroactively.
That one actually worked, once.
You missed an opportunity. You could have ended *grabs tinfoil hat and Drakes*
Well, according to a number of people in this parish, we do need migrant workers and the demands for a wage to actually live off are bad for the economy…
Nikki Haley poised to enter 2024 presidential race https://www.politico.com/news/2023/01/31/nikki-haley-2024-presidential-race-00080575 ...Haley declared in 2021 that she wouldn’t run for president if Trump did. But Haley telegraphed her change of plans in an interview with Fox News earlier this month, saying, “It’s bigger than one person. And when you’re looking at the future of America, I think it’s time for new generational change. I don’t think you need to be 80 years old to go be a leader in D.C.”..
Trans people are people. They deserve as much respect and compassion as everyone else in our society. This constant "They're a threat!" shittiness that goes on on here is really, really dangerous.
Women are people too and have rights too.
You might note that the concern is not with trans people but with men who will abuse poorly drafted law. The attacks on critics of this law frequently resort to blanket claims of “transphobia” because their initial attempt to get it through with “no debate” has been ignored, mainly by women (frequently left wing) who will not be told to “shut up”.
Wow. I never realised women have rights too. Thanks for telling me, Carlotta (/sarcasm mode).
Read the tweet you posted. It is part of a constant drip-drip of poison that trans people are a threat. The tweet connects, to anyone reading it, trans people and negative traits.
Some questions: how many trans people cross-dress for erotic purposes? All? Some? None? If they do, is giving them access to "women's spaces" (i.e. loos) fulfilling these dark "erotic purposes"? What about trans people who just want to have a pee without being hassled or beaten up when they go into the 'wrong' toilet? What even are "erotic purposes"?
The tweet below about Arizona shows the direction we're heading in, if we're not careful.
Where does the Tweet do that? It doesn't even mention trans people, I will highlight the word it does use.
A legal expert has warned Scotland’s controversial gender laws will provide men “who cross-dress for erotic purposes” with a “magic certificate” to access women’s spaces.
Trans people are people. They deserve as much respect and compassion as everyone else in our society. This constant "They're a threat!" shittiness that goes on on here is really, really dangerous.
Women are people too and have rights too.
You might note that the concern is not with trans people but with men who will abuse poorly drafted law. The attacks on critics of this law frequently resort to blanket claims of “transphobia” because their initial attempt to get it through with “no debate” has been ignored, mainly by women (frequently left wing) who will not be told to “shut up”.
The fact that people have rights is not in issue. The subject only becomes interesting when rights come into conflict with each other (your fist and my nose both have rights). At that point the assertion of rights in themselves does not progress the argument.
Nikki Haley poised to enter 2024 presidential race https://www.politico.com/news/2023/01/31/nikki-haley-2024-presidential-race-00080575 ...Haley declared in 2021 that she wouldn’t run for president if Trump did. But Haley telegraphed her change of plans in an interview with Fox News earlier this month, saying, “It’s bigger than one person. And when you’re looking at the future of America, I think it’s time for new generational change. I don’t think you need to be 80 years old to go be a leader in D.C.”..
Trans people are people. They deserve as much respect and compassion as everyone else in our society. This constant "They're a threat!" shittiness that goes on on here is really, really dangerous.
Women are people too and have rights too.
You might note that the concern is not with trans people but with men who will abuse poorly drafted law. The attacks on critics of this law frequently resort to blanket claims of “transphobia” because their initial attempt to get it through with “no debate” has been ignored, mainly by women (frequently left wing) who will not be told to “shut up”.
Wow. I never realised women have rights too. Thanks for telling me, Carlotta (/sarcasm mode).
Read the tweet you posted. It is part of a constant drip-drip of poison that trans people are a threat. The tweet connects, to anyone reading it, trans people and negative traits.
Some questions: how many trans people cross-dress for erotic purposes? All? Some? None? If they do, is giving them access to "women's spaces" (i.e. loos) fulfilling these dark "erotic purposes"? What about trans people who just want to have a pee without being hassled or beaten up when they go into the 'wrong' toilet? What even are "erotic purposes"?
The tweet below about Arizona shows the direction we're heading in, if we're not careful.
“Women’s spaces” in the context of this discussion are women’s shelters, prisons etc.
Which actually have some legal basis for the exclusion of “men” at present. Unlike loos, where it is, I believe, almost entirely social convention.
Labour will use the local elections in May to sharpen its campaign machine ahead of next year’s expected general election with new regional organisers, a bigger digital operation and the slogan “Build a Better Britain”.
Shadow cabinet ministers were given a presentation on their local election prospects by the party’s campaign director, Morgan McSweeney, on Tuesday as Labour attempts to turn its 20-point poll lead into votes.
Trans people are people. They deserve as much respect and compassion as everyone else in our society. This constant "They're a threat!" shittiness that goes on on here is really, really dangerous.
I don't think there's anyone sensible on here who is saying trans people are a threat. What people are saying though is that trans people are people and need to be treated with respect. Women are people and need to be treated with respect.
Trans people are not sexually women and where safeguarding means a women's-only space is required, then that may mean that trans people need to be excluded for safeguarding reasons, just as men are excluded for safeguarding reasons.
That does not make trans people lesser or not people, any more than it makes men lesser or not people.
"What people are saying though is that trans people are people and need to be treated with respect. "
I utterly disagree with the above; people are explicitly *not* saying that. All we see on here is the *threat* they pose.
Ireland and Britain are almost intimately historically connected, whether anyone on either side likes it or not. Joyce also had trouble resolving this contradiction, and often wrote in English about the quandary .
As I mentioned a few weeks back, I remember reading that were up to 12 million people of partly Irish descent, in England alone. There must be another couple of million in Scotland.
Virtually all of that history is negative. As I said up thread it’s a mighty shock to the historically challenged English to find out how much Irish people hate them. There’s a lot of naïveté about how we are one big happy family whereas we’re they’re implacable historic enemy
I'm not sure that that makes us one big happy family. It certainly means that the ethnic interconnections are much greater than many people on both sides might want to acknowledge, though.
You miss the point. We’re not. They absolutely despise us all but we on this side of the Irish Sea are in constant denial about it.
An exaggeration. They do not despise each and every English person.
What is certainly true is that the English have very little understanding of their history in Ireland and how they treated the Irish in their own country and those who migrated here. There is a great deal of arrogant condescension in their approach to Ireland and this has been particularly noticeable among many Tories.
The Catholic Irish rarely have an issue with the English. On the whole, they're quite fond of the English. They're often not too keen on "the Brits", though.
Most of the Protestant Irish see themselves as British. But some of them do have a problem with the English. See the Ulster loyalist song, "The Englishman's Betrayal".
It's the Scots that hate the English.
Aww did poor diddums get his pigtails pulled by a wee Scots lassie in primary school!
Trans people are people. They deserve as much respect and compassion as everyone else in our society. This constant "They're a threat!" shittiness that goes on on here is really, really dangerous.
Women are people too and have rights too.
You might note that the concern is not with trans people but with men who will abuse poorly drafted law. The attacks on critics of this law frequently resort to blanket claims of “transphobia” because their initial attempt to get it through with “no debate” has been ignored, mainly by women (frequently left wing) who will not be told to “shut up”.
Wow. I never realised women have rights too. Thanks for telling me, Carlotta (/sarcasm mode).
Read the tweet you posted. It is part of a constant drip-drip of poison that trans people are a threat. The tweet connects, to anyone reading it, trans people and negative traits.
Some questions: how many trans people cross-dress for erotic purposes? All? Some? None? If they do, is giving them access to "women's spaces" (i.e. loos) fulfilling these dark "erotic purposes"? What about trans people who just want to have a pee without being hassled or beaten up when they go into the 'wrong' toilet? What even are "erotic purposes"?
The tweet below about Arizona shows the direction we're heading in, if we're not careful.
Where does the Tweet do that? It doesn't even mention trans people, I will highlight the word it does use.
A legal expert has warned Scotland’s controversial gender laws will provide men “who cross-dress for erotic purposes” with a “magic certificate” to access women’s spaces.
(Snip)
'cross-dressers' is another term for transvestites.
"Today, the term transvestite is commonly considered outdated and derogatory, with the term cross-dresser used as a more appropriate replacement." (1)
So yes, the tweet is referring to trans people; just men who dress up as women; not women as men.
Trans people are people. They deserve as much respect and compassion as everyone else in our society. This constant "They're a threat!" shittiness that goes on on here is really, really dangerous.
Women are people too and have rights too.
You might note that the concern is not with trans people but with men who will abuse poorly drafted law. The attacks on critics of this law frequently resort to blanket claims of “transphobia” because their initial attempt to get it through with “no debate” has been ignored, mainly by women (frequently left wing) who will not be told to “shut up”.
Wow. I never realised women have rights too. Thanks for telling me, Carlotta (/sarcasm mode).
Read the tweet you posted. It is part of a constant drip-drip of poison that trans people are a threat. The tweet connects, to anyone reading it, trans people and negative traits.
Some questions: how many trans people cross-dress for erotic purposes? All? Some? None? If they do, is giving them access to "women's spaces" (i.e. loos) fulfilling these dark "erotic purposes"? What about trans people who just want to have a pee without being hassled or beaten up when they go into the 'wrong' toilet? What even are "erotic purposes"?
The tweet below about Arizona shows the direction we're heading in, if we're not careful.
You seem desperate , like teh Scottish government, to totally miss the point that people are objecting to MEN gaining access to women's safe places. All this crap about trans people getting beaten up when they go for a piss is unsubstantiated mince. There are nearly always facilities such as unisex disabled toilets that can be used, etc. You seem desperate to trash the rights of 50% of the population just on the whim of a few cross dressers , about 0.04% of population and 95% still have their block and tackle.
Comments
Also, Sunak is useless. Now Raab is on the loose
It is a rubbish visualisation, though.
"What I think it's showing is the percentage of a) outright owners and b) owners with a mortgages, who fall in each age group. Hence the percentages for each series add up to 100."
It wasn't unknown that he was a dodgy character prior to the election, either.
The media seriously dropped the ball, though.
As did the Democrats, though slightly more understandably in the circumstances.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Santos
...Democrats took Santos seriously enough that Jill Biden campaigned for Zimmerman.[60] His campaign tried in vain to interest the media, at both the national and local levels, to look more closely at Santos. "We knew a lot about him did not add up; we were very conscious of that", Zimmerman said later. "But we didn't have the resources as a campaign to do the kind of digging that had to be done."[31]
One local outlet, The North Shore Leader, a weekly newspaper serving the affluent suburban area of that name that has historically been the core of the district, did report on the questions raised by Santos's personal financial disclosure forms when he finally filed them in September 2022, as well as some other dubious claims of his personal wealth. No other media outlet reported on the matter until after the election...
LAB: 46% (=)
CON: 29% (+1)
LDM: 9% (-1)
REF: 6% (=)
GRN: 3% (-2)
via @BMGResearch, 24-26 Jan
(Changes with 1 Dec)
Santos: In New York’s third congressional district, we are seeing an uptick in crime
https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1620561429463179264
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chairman_of_the_Conservative_Party
Okay it's not a public position, but the fact that the vacancy is unfilled is still Sunak's "fault", if one can call it a fault to run the Tory party so badly. Arguably he's doing the country a favour.
4th resident of The Villages admits to voting twice in the 2020 election
John Rider avoids jail time under pre-trial intervention program
https://www.clickorlando.com/news/local/2023/01/30/4th-resident-of-the-villages-admits-to-voting-twice-in-the-2020-election/
… Rider indicated in court papers that he plans to “buy out” his requirement of completing 50 hours of community service at a cost of $10 per hour.
Three other residents of The Villages accused of voting twice signed similar pretrial intervention contracts last year.
All four were facing a maximum of five years in prison if a jury convicted them of a third-degree felony.
As part of their agreements with the state, Joan Halstead, Charles Barnes and Jay Ketcik were required to complete a 12-week adult civics class based on the textbook “We the People; the Citizen and the Constitution.”
Under the pretrial intervention contracts, prosecution of the defendants will be deferred for a period of 18 months, with the possibility that it will be permanently deferred if they successfully complete the court-ordered requirements…
The Republican DA looks prepared to bring charges.
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/01/30/george-santos-new-york-nassau-county-da-00080083
When Long Island Republicans organized in 2021 to take back the Nassau County District Attorney’s Office after 16 years of Democratic control, no one expected the first blockbuster case to be against a sitting member of the party.
Yet here we are…
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jan/06/met-police-chief-mark-rowley-london-fantastically-safe-homicide-rate-falls
Most of the Protestant Irish see themselves as British. But some of them do have a problem with the English. See the Ulster loyalist song, "The Englishman's Betrayal".
It's the Scots that hate the English.
Behold, movement. (the Times)
This surprises me, as I’d assumed she was actually a net benefit to her party.
The new PM, Chris Hipkins, will be happy that he is being granted a modest honeymoon by voters.
He’s already made a subtle, but possibly clever, re-shuffle which has removed some egregious under-performers from where they were doing damage.
I think when Ardern resigned, the commentariat assumed this was it for Labour, but it seems that, for now, NZ voters want to be charitable.
Hipkins’s opponent, Chris Luxon, Leader of National, does not exactly provoke huge enthusiasm.
So, oafism not confined to London politicians.
Political parties really should conduct due diligence.
https://twitter.com/skynews/status/1612345929629155329?s=46&t=kIulQMq5Dv5XbeBGQtGDMw
Also, the DUP will almost certainly vote against it and a chunk of the ERG too - the question is, how many?
A new intro'd bill in Arizona would criminalize drag in presence of a minor as a felony punishable by up to 15 years in prison and a requirement to register as a sex offender. The bill defines drag as just singing and dancing while wearing make-up.
https://mobile.twitter.com/Esqueer_/status/1620467163172868096
Few people realise how lucrative it is to be an antivax grifter. @alexberenson a middling player in the field makes an estimated ~$108,000/month from his Substack alone, roughly 10X what I make as a a very senior infectious disease epidemiologist.
https://mobile.twitter.com/BallouxFrancois/status/1620512284086009860
https://twitter.com/magnusllewellin/status/1620673022339284992
There’s a good argument that it’s a mistake to regulate crypto because you can end up having to bail out investors who you have convinced that it’s now safe. And do we really want the UK to be a “ global crypto hub”?
https://twitter.com/ruskin147/status/1620681347974201344
“Never stand between a fool and his folly”…
...Sunak is also nervous about reaction to the compromise among Brexit-supporting MPs and in particular any intervention by Boris Johnson, who agreed to the original protocol with the EU.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/uk-and-eu-set-for-northern-ireland-brexit-deal-tj9v9bgzw
Civil servants flagged that there had been “issues” with Raab in his previous departments before Sunak decided to bring him back into government. Downing Street sources insisted that the prime minister was not “directly told” and that officials never advised against appointing Raab.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/no10-was-warned-of-dominic-raab-issues-before-rishi-sunak-promoted-him-9dg708grs
Trans people are people. They deserve as much respect and compassion as everyone else in our society. This constant "They're a threat!" shittiness that goes on on here is really, really dangerous.
That poll is deeply disturbing. WTF are the 29% who think he shouldn’t resign thinking?
Edit - FFS Autocorrect!
There doesn’t have to be deposit insurance, either. It’s the “exchanges” that are the problem.
At the moment it’s safer to invest your money with a bloke from Devon, you met on a pub in Deptford. Who has this plan to steal gold from the Spanish, use it as collateral in slave trading and bribe the government with half the profits to make it legal, retroactively.
That one actually worked, once.
Probably not wrong either…
You might note that the concern is not with trans people but with men who will abuse poorly drafted law. The attacks on critics of this law frequently resort to blanket claims of “transphobia” because their initial attempt to get it through with “no debate” has been ignored, mainly by women (frequently left wing) who will not be told to “shut up”.
Did you ever read about the time he tried to rig a horse race?
But he did have a sense of humour. While in prison he was visited by a friend, who found him sewing mail bags. ‘Ah, sewing?’ asked the friend. ‘No, reaping.’ came the grim reply.
Stephen Noon described a route map based on the likely prospect of Sir Keir Starmer winning the keys to Downing Street at the next general election, expected before the end of next year.
He argued that in exchange for giving legislative consent to the Labour government for a Westminster bill reforming the UK constitution, Holyrood should demand powers to hold an independence referendum. He said under his plan a new independence referendum could be held in 2027 or 2028.
https://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/23290184.stephen-noon-unveils-path-independence-labour-government/
Read the tweet you posted. It is part of a constant drip-drip of poison that trans people are a threat. The tweet connects, to anyone reading it, trans people and negative traits.
Some questions: how many trans people cross-dress for erotic purposes? All? Some? None? If they do, is giving them access to "women's spaces" (i.e. loos) fulfilling these dark "erotic purposes"? What about trans people who just want to have a pee without being hassled or beaten up when they go into the 'wrong' toilet? What even are "erotic purposes"?
The tweet below about Arizona shows the direction we're heading in, if we're not careful.
UK tech start-ups hasten overseas expansion after R&D tax cuts
Move threatens Britain’s standing as a tech hub and government ambitions to grow the sector
https://www.ft.com/content/f9b8a08a-2e98-4e10-9dd1-188d30408c36
The total number of homicides recorded under Home Office counting rules for 2022 was 109, which was 17% down on 2021, the Met said. Nine homicides were gun enabled in 2022, a 25% fall and the lowest figure since 2014. Sixty-nine homicides were knife enabled, a 17% reduction and equal to the pre-pandemic figure for 2019.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jan/06/met-police-chief-mark-rowley-london-fantastically-safe-homicide-rate-falls
The ERG would still but with a majority of 80 Sunak might still get it through
And, as you say, your post wasn't about trans people it was about miscreants who pretend to be to make use of a dodgy law. (Personally, I think this risk is exaggerated but I may be wrong.)
But the rights they want can be abused by predatory men seeking access to women only spaces. We need safeguards to ensure that does not happen. The GRR bill has no such safeguards. That is what needs addressed.
The safeguards may require modifications of the Equality Act which is ambiguous because it does not distinguish between sex and gender. That is what people should be focusing on. The political game playing around this threatens the reputation and safety of those the proponents say they want to protect.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/this-young-american-couple-had-scotlands-first-ever-queer-jewish-wedding/
The issue with the Scottish GRR bill is that it will substantially widen the cohort to whom a GRC is available. People like “Isla Bryson” a convicted double rapist with prison onset gender dysphoria.
The statistics could be crudely read as suggesting that trans people are more likely to be sex offenders. Not a view I take, but very much more likely that sex offenders are falsely claiming to be trans.
That’s why Self-ID (not in the SNP manifesto) without any gate keeping is potentially highly dangerous. That’s what the quarrel is with - not with trans people.
Its not that we find the word acceptable, its just that you're not that interesting. The press would rather talk about more interesting things instead, like TV shows like Queer Eye.
Suggestions and guesses welcome as to what the DUP want, but they have to be within the laws of logic and gravity. And unicorns don't exist.
Trans people are not sexually women and where safeguarding means a women's-only space is required, then that may mean that trans people need to be excluded for safeguarding reasons, just as men are excluded for safeguarding reasons.
That does not make trans people lesser or not people, any more than it makes men lesser or not people.
{digs out ancient map of Sierra Leone}
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/01/31/nikki-haley-2024-presidential-race-00080575
...Haley declared in 2021 that she wouldn’t run for president if Trump did. But Haley telegraphed her change of plans in an interview with Fox News earlier this month, saying, “It’s bigger than one person. And when you’re looking at the future of America, I think it’s time for new generational change. I don’t think you need to be 80 years old to go be a leader in D.C.”..
A legal expert has warned Scotland’s controversial gender laws will provide men “who cross-dress for erotic purposes” with a “magic certificate” to access women’s spaces.
https://twitter.com/magnusllewellin/status/1620673022339284992
The issue is that men are excluded from women's spaces and this law violates that. Safeguarding needs to exclude men.
Which actually have some legal basis for the exclusion of “men” at present. Unlike loos, where it is, I believe, almost entirely social convention.
Shadow cabinet ministers were given a presentation on their local election prospects by the party’s campaign director, Morgan McSweeney, on Tuesday as Labour attempts to turn its 20-point poll lead into votes.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/feb/01/labour-may-vote-campaign-general-election
While the Tories will likely use it to indulge in more infighting…
The complaint seems to be that he used the people in videos to raise money.
Isn’t this just reinventing charities, or have I missed something?
There is a forgotten, nay almost forbidden word, which means more to me than any other. That word is England.
Consumer group Which? measured the caffeine in cappuccino, espresso and filter coffee at Caffè Nero, Costa, Greggs, Pret a Manger and Starbucks.
It found Pret's single espresso had six times as much caffeine as Starbucks's.
:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-64472214
I utterly disagree with the above; people are explicitly *not* saying that. All we see on here is the *threat* they pose.
And that will end up in a very poor place.
I wonder what the sage of Sweden thinks the Q in LGBTQIA2S+ stands for?
"Today, the term transvestite is commonly considered outdated and derogatory, with the term cross-dresser used as a more appropriate replacement." (1)
So yes, the tweet is referring to trans people; just men who dress up as women; not women as men.
(1): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transvestism
You seem desperate to trash the rights of 50% of the population just on the whim of a few cross dressers , about 0.04% of population and 95% still have their block and tackle.
Almost 13,000 offshore companies with UK property fail to declare owners
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/feb/01/almost-13000-offshore-companies-with-uk-property-fail-to-declare-owners