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.
Great, so we have a compromise that Sunak cannot sell to his nutters.
I'm hoping Starmer supports the deal, that will bypass the ERG and DUPers, and enrage them which is always a bonus.
Briefly satisfying, but self-defeating when the DUP refuse to join an NI Executive and NI remains in limbo without a government.
If the Irish Sea border is removed no reason why the DUP won't rejoin the NI government. As I said they will abstain.
Starmer however will almost certainly vote against and hope to defeat the government with ERG rebels
Donaldson has included no role for the ECJ as part of his demands, as that would indicate a different legal position for NI compared to the rest of the UK. On the face of it the role for the ECJ envisioned would lead to his rejection, unless he is willing to compromise, which he has denied.
It looks like the ECJ role will be less than before at least
The politics of the teacher strike has been interesting this morning. Gillian Keegan on @TimesRadio was very measured, pointed out that most teachers are reasonably well paid and gently disputed the idea that loads are using food banks….
Now the NEU rep on to explain why they are striking is instead going on about the number of food banks, child hunger and austerity. Important issues but this is a pay dispute not an anti-Tory protest. Isn’t it?
Also, I asked Kevin Courtney, joint general secretary of the National Education Union, if NEU staff had been given a 12% pay rise this year (which is what they are asking the government for).
I agree with her. No teachers should be using food banks.
But:
Here is a thought for all of them and you to ponder.
I have just done my accounts for January and projections for February. This month, working one-third of the hours, at times I can negotiate with my pupils, and 50% from my own home, I will earn one hundred pounds less than I did as a Head of Faculty in an outstanding school working 60 hour weeks across six days a week.
If I worked 50 hours a week tutoring, I would be earning around 50% more than I did in a school.
Ok, I don't get pension with that. And I work through the holidays now as well. But there is a fundamental mismatch between what the market will provide and what the government is paying.
So either change the expectations - or change the salaries.
It's not really that hard. Unless you're stupid.
Ah....
Average teacher salary is now £38k in England, £39k in Wales and £40k in Scotland.
Clearly above the average salary in each of those nations.
Emergency services in Australia have "literally found the needle in the haystack", apparently. Fortunately they also seem to have found the Caesium-137 capsule they were searching for. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-64481317
Literal pedantry aside, this reminds me of when I used to work in a lab with a similar density instrument also using a radioactive source, somewhat larger than this one. When I started the security was laughable - doors unlocked all day and nothing to prevent the source being removed from the instrument. I think the rules tightened up considerably after an inspection and we suddenly had two levels of security locks (main lab and to the room containing the instrument), monitored CCTV, alarm system and a big-ass padlock securing the source in the instrument. Quite how this one could possibly have got lost in transit will be quite the story.
Thankfully this didn't result in a repeat of the Goiânia accident.
Indeed. Rio Tinto need to be hit with a serous fine for this, plus the search costs and, if possible, criminal negligence charges brought against individuals (not familiar with Oz law on this).
ETA: Reading more on that on Wikipedia (I was aware of it, but not the full details): "On September 16, Alves [one of the thieves] succeeded in puncturing the capsule's aperture window with a screwdriver, allowing him to see a deep blue light coming from the tiny opening he had created. He inserted the screwdriver and successfully scooped out some of the glowing substance. Thinking it was perhaps a type of gunpowder, he tried to light it, but the powder would not ignite."
It's the bit when it finds its way to a child that's particularly sad.
More or Less explore the claim that more pensioners are living in “millionaire households” than in poverty. This includes the value of your house and your pension. So this could be for example two pensioners with pensions and a home they own or a single pensioner in a £500,000 house with £30k/year pension. These amount to 22% of pensioners have assets over £1million - while those living in relative poverty (income after housing below 60% of median income) amount to 15% - half the level of the late 1990s. Most pensioners fall into neither category.
They are the richest generation ever and will be richer than their successors. I guess such generations are inevitable occassionally but it would be better for society if they understood and accepted:
this has been down mostly to demographics rather than their generation working harder than others the real economic and housing problems faced by their children and grandchildren that their generation needs to share the pain of demographic changes immigration is a necessary and significant part of dealing with those demographic changes
Why would their children and granchildren be faced with housing and economic problems when they will inherit all the houses and money of the richest generation ever.
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.
Let's take an example case. Someone was born as Michael, and aged 25 transitions to be called Mary. She starts a relationship, and 30 years later she realises she is in a abusive relationship that she needs to get out of.
She has spent over half her life as a woman; many of her acquaintances do not know she was born male, the rest don't care.
Should she be able to access a women's refuge?
If he is a functioning male, despite living as a women all those years, the answer should be no. The rights and needs of the other users would override his/hers. If he is no longer a functioning male I think it is harder to justify exclusion but I recognise that some deeply traumatised women simply cannot bear a male in their proximity and their needs must be respected too.
I take your point but wouldn't it be more respectful to refer to Mary as she? Referring to her as he seems to indicate your bias against trans people.
Given she has transitioned I would assume she is no longer a functioning male. Maybe I am misunderstanding the definition of 'transition' here? (IANAE)
This is one of the things at the heart of this issue. 'Trans' covers a shole host of positions - including someone like Eddie Izzard, through Quentin Crisp, to Caitlyn Jenner or Elliot Page or Hari Nef.
Some trans people will just cross-dress; some will have had the full drugs-and-operations treatment. Some will just take the drugs.
Fully transitioning is a lengthy process (rightly, IMO), so someone intending to be fully transitioned may only be partially transitioned at a certain point, but think of themselves as that. Some may decide that the drugs are enough, and they don't want to go through the operations (which are *not* pleasant).
As for sexuality: some will date men. Some will date women. Some will be bisexual. Some will be asexual.
Also, some trans people will be saints. Some will be sinners; in the same way some men are sinners and saints. Or women. Or doctors. Or lawyers. Or PB posters.
'Trans' covers a whole smorgasbord of things and people, and that's one of the major issues with this 'debate'.
The law, however, has to provide categorical outcomes. It has to say, "this person is a man, and should be accommodated in a male prison, but this person is a woman and should be accommodated in a female prison."
The problem is that trans activists are trying to fit a view entirely lacking in nuance - trans women are women - onto a situation which, as you have described, is a lot more complicated than that, and to have that apply to all circumstances - prisons, hospital wards, women refuges, police strip searches, child safeguarding.
If anyone dares to question this absolutist view, then they are denounced as a transphobe, wishing the death of trans people.
How do we get to a more nuanced outcome that combines respect for trans people with a recognition that self-ID is not appropriate for all circumstances, particularly those where the law is involved?
The politics of the teacher strike has been interesting this morning. Gillian Keegan on @TimesRadio was very measured, pointed out that most teachers are reasonably well paid and gently disputed the idea that loads are using food banks….
Now the NEU rep on to explain why they are striking is instead going on about the number of food banks, child hunger and austerity. Important issues but this is a pay dispute not an anti-Tory protest. Isn’t it?
Also, I asked Kevin Courtney, joint general secretary of the National Education Union, if NEU staff had been given a 12% pay rise this year (which is what they are asking the government for).
I agree with her. No teachers should be using food banks.
But:
Here is a thought for all of them and you to ponder.
I have just done my accounts for January and projections for February. This month, working one-third of the hours, at times I can negotiate with my pupils, and 50% from my own home, I will earn one hundred pounds less than I did as a Head of Faculty in an outstanding school working 60 hour weeks across six days a week.
If I worked 50 hours a week tutoring, I would be earning around 50% more than I did in a school.
Ok, I don't get pension with that. And I work through the holidays now as well. But there is a fundamental mismatch between what the market will provide and what the government is paying.
So either change the expectations - or change the salaries.
It's not really that hard. Unless you're stupid.
Ah....
That's the same in every industry though. With the relevant experience/skills you can outsource/subcontract yourself out and sacrifice job security/pension etc for a higher day rate than you would earn salaried in a role.
The politics of the teacher strike has been interesting this morning. Gillian Keegan on @TimesRadio was very measured, pointed out that most teachers are reasonably well paid and gently disputed the idea that loads are using food banks….
Now the NEU rep on to explain why they are striking is instead going on about the number of food banks, child hunger and austerity. Important issues but this is a pay dispute not an anti-Tory protest. Isn’t it?
Also, I asked Kevin Courtney, joint general secretary of the National Education Union, if NEU staff had been given a 12% pay rise this year (which is what they are asking the government for).
I agree with her. No teachers should be using food banks.
But:
Here is a thought for all of them and you to ponder.
I have just done my accounts for January and projections for February. This month, working one-third of the hours, at times I can negotiate with my pupils, and 50% from my own home, I will earn one hundred pounds less than I did as a Head of Faculty in an outstanding school working 60 hour weeks across six days a week.
If I worked 50 hours a week tutoring, I would be earning around 50% more than I did in a school.
Ok, I don't get pension with that. And I work through the holidays now as well. But there is a fundamental mismatch between what the market will provide and what the government is paying.
So either change the expectations - or change the salaries.
It's not really that hard. Unless you're stupid.
Ah....
Average teacher salary is now £38k in England, £39k in Wales and £40k in Scotland.
Clearly above the average salary in each of those nations.
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.
Let's take an example case. Someone was born as Michael, and aged 25 transitions to be called Mary. She starts a relationship, and 30 years later she realises she is in a abusive relationship that she needs to get out of.
She has spent over half her life as a woman; many of her acquaintances do not know she was born male, the rest don't care.
Should she be able to access a women's refuge?
If he is a functioning male, despite living as a women all those years, the answer should be no. The rights and needs of the other users would override his/hers. If he is no longer a functioning male I think it is harder to justify exclusion but I recognise that some deeply traumatised women simply cannot bear a male in their proximity and their needs must be respected too.
I take your point but wouldn't it be more respectful to refer to Mary as she? Referring to her as he seems to indicate your bias against trans people.
Given she has transitioned I would assume she is no longer a functioning male. Maybe I am misunderstanding the definition of 'transition' here? (IANAE)
Well in Scotland's case the "transitioning" for GRC was just signing a bit of paper and saying you had lived as a woman for 3 months. Who knows what living like a woman is mind you, No-one can explain that one.
On topic. General view is that "Santos" has likely committed criminal fraud. If a criminal investigation is indeed launched, as seems likely, he would be ejected from the House PDQ. That is likely to be fairly soon, and before the next House elections.
No new Tory party chairman yet? A battle is surely raging. Might Sunak be having difficulty finding a single righteous man in the city?
Boris Johnson - he's been on manoeuvres (including in Ukraine), but he is a serial liar.
Priti Patel - also a known liar.
Justin Tomlinson - was once suspended from the Commons for sending a copy of a draft committee report to payday loan company Wonga.
Penny Mordaunt - perhaps it will be her. She claimed pre-Brexit that Britain couldn't stop Turkey joining the EU, but that type of political campaign lie might be assessed in her favour.
More or Less explore the claim that more pensioners are living in “millionaire households” than in poverty. This includes the value of your house and your pension. So this could be for example two pensioners with pensions and a home they own or a single pensioner in a £500,000 house with £30k/year pension. These amount to 22% of pensioners have assets over £1million - while those living in relative poverty (income after housing below 60% of median income) amount to 15% - half the level of the late 1990s. Most pensioners fall into neither category.
They are the richest generation ever and will be richer than their successors. I guess such generations are inevitable occassionally but it would be better for society if they understood and accepted:
this has been down mostly to demographics rather than their generation working harder than others the real economic and housing problems faced by their children and grandchildren that their generation needs to share the pain of demographic changes immigration is a necessary and significant part of dealing with those demographic changes
Why would their children and granchildren be faced with housing and economic problems when they will inherit all the houses and money of the richest generation ever.
Because people need a big house and cash when they are starting families in their twenties and thirties rather than when they inherit in their seventies......
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.
Let's take an example case. Someone was born as Michael, and aged 25 transitions to be called Mary. She starts a relationship, and 30 years later she realises she is in a abusive relationship that she needs to get out of.
She has spent over half her life as a woman; many of her acquaintances do not know she was born male, the rest don't care.
Should she be able to access a women's refuge?
If he is a functioning male, despite living as a women all those years, the answer should be no. The rights and needs of the other users would override his/hers. If he is no longer a functioning male I think it is harder to justify exclusion but I recognise that some deeply traumatised women simply cannot bear a male in their proximity and their needs must be respected too.
I take your point but wouldn't it be more respectful to refer to Mary as she? Referring to her as he seems to indicate your bias against trans people.
Given she has transitioned I would assume she is no longer a functioning male. Maybe I am misunderstanding the definition of 'transition' here? (IANAE)
Well in Scotland's case the "transitioning" for GRC was just signing a bit of paper and saying you had lived as a woman for 3 months. Who knows what living like a woman is mind you, No-one can explain that one.
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.
Let's take an example case. Someone was born as Michael, and aged 25 transitions to be called Mary. She starts a relationship, and 30 years later she realises she is in a abusive relationship that she needs to get out of.
She has spent over half her life as a woman; many of her acquaintances do not know she was born male, the rest don't care.
Should she be able to access a women's refuge?
If he is a functioning male, despite living as a women all those years, the answer should be no. The rights and needs of the other users would override his/hers. If he is no longer a functioning male I think it is harder to justify exclusion but I recognise that some deeply traumatised women simply cannot bear a male in their proximity and their needs must be respected too.
I take your point but wouldn't it be more respectful to refer to Mary as she? Referring to her as he seems to indicate your bias against trans people.
Given she has transitioned I would assume she is no longer a functioning male. Maybe I am misunderstanding the definition of 'transition' here? (IANAE)
This is one of the things at the heart of this issue. 'Trans' covers a shole host of positions - including someone like Eddie Izzard, through Quentin Crisp, to Caitlyn Jenner or Elliot Page or Hari Nef.
Some trans people will just cross-dress; some will have had the full drugs-and-operations treatment. Some will just take the drugs.
Fully transitioning is a lengthy process (rightly, IMO), so someone intending to be fully transitioned may only be partially transitioned at a certain point, but think of themselves as that. Some may decide that the drugs are enough, and they don't want to go through the operations (which are *not* pleasant).
As for sexuality: some will date men. Some will date women. Some will be bisexual. Some will be asexual.
Also, some trans people will be saints. Some will be sinners; in the same way some men are sinners and saints. Or women. Or doctors. Or lawyers. Or PB posters.
'Trans' covers a whole smorgasbord of things and people, and that's one of the major issues with this 'debate'.
The law, however, has to provide categorical outcomes. It has to say, "this person is a man, and should be accommodated in a male prison, but this person is a woman and should be accommodated in a female prison."
The problem is that trans activists are trying to fit a view entirely lacking in nuance - trans women are women - onto a situation which, as you have described, is a lot more complicated than that, and to have that apply to all circumstances - prisons, hospital wards, women refuges, police strip searches, child safeguarding.
If anyone dares to question this absolutist view, then they are denounced as a transphobe, wishing the death of trans people.
How do we get to a more nuanced outcome that combines respect for trans people with a recognition that self-ID is not appropriate for all circumstances, particularly those where the law is involved?
To be fair, that is not the position of all trans 'activists', and not everyone who dares to question the absolutist view is denounced as a transphobe. Those claims are just ridiculous.
The answer has to be that the situation is judged on a case-by-case basis - as it should be for other people as well. For instance, should a person imprisoned for very violent offences be in the same wing as those jailed for non-violent offences?
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 is currently defined in law by the term "gender reassignment" in the GRA & EA. A man wearing women's clothes from time to time does not automatically fall within the legal definition of gender reassignment.
There are 2 difficulties:
1.The use of the word "trans" is now used to mean anyone who says they are. Not the legal definition. 2. The GRR Bill contains no definition of trans at all. In fact it doesn't use the word anywhere in the Bill.
You asked about men who dress up for "erotic" purposes. There is a category - autogynephilia - which refers to men who obtain an erotic thrill from pretending to be & dressing up women, masturbating while dressed up & doing so in female spaces often in front of women & posting those videos. There is a porn category devoted to this activity. They are not men with gender dysphoria. They are not "trans" as defined by the law.
Under the GRR Bill they would get a GRC - no questions asked - and it would then become easier for them to get access to women's spaces to carry out their fetish. Doing what they are doing in the presence of others is not deserving of compassion but a criminal offence.
There is currently a debate into whether adult men who suddenly claim they are trans are actually autogynephiles rather than men with dysphoria. This is very different to the issue of people who have felt dysphoric from a young age, where it is more likely - though not inevitable - that they are genuinely suffering from gender dysphoria.
One of the reasons for the concerns is that one of the SNP MSPs was filmed saying that he was glad to pass the Bill because it was for people like "Claire". "Claire" is a male prostitute posing as a woman who has posted on social media pictures of himself with knives threatening women. He is not trans in the genuine legal sense.Allowing him & others like him to claim to be women & access female spaces should raise very serious concerns indeed.
Frankly I am not going to respect - or be told to respect - people like "Claire" or those who enable him, like those SNP MSPs.
So I agree with you that genuine trans people should not be attacked. But you also need not to confuse those who genuinely have gender dysphoria (what I mean when I use the term "trans" - as per the law) with men with disturbing sexual fetishes who seek to shelter under the undefined trans umbrella. You also need to accept 2 propositions:
1. All groups - no matter who they are (women, trans etc) will contain bad actors. 2. If a group is given privileges or special rights - especially without any safeguards - then there will be others (bad actors) who will seek to pretend to be part of that group in order to benefit from those privileges.
It is the refusal of the SNP to do this which has led to Sturgeon getting her knickers in a twist over this and come out with an incoherent policy on prison placement which completely undermines the rationale for her Bill.
Emergency services in Australia have "literally found the needle in the haystack", apparently. Fortunately they also seem to have found the Caesium-137 capsule they were searching for. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-64481317
Literal pedantry aside, this reminds me of when I used to work in a lab with a similar density instrument also using a radioactive source, somewhat larger than this one. When I started the security was laughable - doors unlocked all day and nothing to prevent the source being removed from the instrument. I think the rules tightened up considerably after an inspection and we suddenly had two levels of security locks (main lab and to the room containing the instrument), monitored CCTV, alarm system and a big-ass padlock securing the source in the instrument. Quite how this one could possibly have got lost in transit will be quite the story.
They might want to consider the possibility that the bolt that worked itself loose had been glued in after breaking. Seems to be de rigueur for nuclear equipment.
Worth remembering that in some circumstances "glues" (usually heat cured epoxy resins) actually form a stronger join than a weld does.
I don´t think they used a Pritt stick in the submarine. Although who knows? What with the country the state it is in under the Tories...
Seriously though, incredible to find such a tiny radiation source in such a very very big search area. Impressive.
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.
Let's take an example case. Someone was born as Michael, and aged 25 transitions to be called Mary. She starts a relationship, and 30 years later she realises she is in a abusive relationship that she needs to get out of.
She has spent over half her life as a woman; many of her acquaintances do not know she was born male, the rest don't care.
Should she be able to access a women's refuge?
She should be able to access a refuge, just not necessarily a women's-only refuge.
Just as someone who was born Michael who realises he is in an abusive relationship that he needs to get out of, may require a refuge to and ought to be able to access a refuge.
However women's-only refuges may be reserved only for women, which could exclude your Mary example. There should be plenty of alternative support available to Mary though, just as there should be plenty of alternative support available to Michael.
Give Mary the support she requires, but that doesn't mean violating the safeguarding available to women.
First off - the knife crime stats the Daily Mail bleats about include every time the police catch someone carrying a blade.
Including my nephew, a tree surgeon, who had his work blade in the car (while smoking a spliff, watching a storm tbf). Not all knife crime is what it seems.
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.
Let's take an example case. Someone was born as Michael, and aged 25 transitions to be called Mary. She starts a relationship, and 30 years later she realises she is in a abusive relationship that she needs to get out of.
She has spent over half her life as a woman; many of her acquaintances do not know she was born male, the rest don't care.
Should she be able to access a women's refuge?
If he is a functioning male, despite living as a women all those years, the answer should be no. The rights and needs of the other users would override his/hers. If he is no longer a functioning male I think it is harder to justify exclusion but I recognise that some deeply traumatised women simply cannot bear a male in their proximity and their needs must be respected too.
I take your point but wouldn't it be more respectful to refer to Mary as she? Referring to her as he seems to indicate your bias against trans people.
Given she has transitioned I would assume she is no longer a functioning male. Maybe I am misunderstanding the definition of 'transition' here? (IANAE)
This is one of the things at the heart of this issue. 'Trans' covers a shole host of positions - including someone like Eddie Izzard, through Quentin Crisp, to Caitlyn Jenner or Elliot Page or Hari Nef.
Some trans people will just cross-dress; some will have had the full drugs-and-operations treatment. Some will just take the drugs.
Fully transitioning is a lengthy process (rightly, IMO), so someone intending to be fully transitioned may only be partially transitioned at a certain point, but think of themselves as that. Some may decide that the drugs are enough, and they don't want to go through the operations (which are *not* pleasant).
As for sexuality: some will date men. Some will date women. Some will be bisexual. Some will be asexual.
Also, some trans people will be saints. Some will be sinners; in the same way some men are sinners and saints. Or women. Or doctors. Or lawyers. Or PB posters.
'Trans' covers a whole smorgasbord of things and people, and that's one of the major issues with this 'debate'.
The law, however, has to provide categorical outcomes. It has to say, "this person is a man, and should be accommodated in a male prison, but this person is a woman and should be accommodated in a female prison."
The problem is that trans activists are trying to fit a view entirely lacking in nuance - trans women are women - onto a situation which, as you have described, is a lot more complicated than that, and to have that apply to all circumstances - prisons, hospital wards, women refuges, police strip searches, child safeguarding.
If anyone dares to question this absolutist view, then they are denounced as a transphobe, wishing the death of trans people.
How do we get to a more nuanced outcome that combines respect for trans people with a recognition that self-ID is not appropriate for all circumstances, particularly those where the law is involved?
To be fair, that is not the position of all trans 'activists', and not everyone who dares to question the absolutist view is denounced as a transphobe. Those claims are just ridiculous.
The answer has to be that the situation is judged on a case-by-case basis - as it should be for other people as well. For instance, should a person imprisoned for very violent offences be in the same wing as those jailed for non-violent offences?
You seem to denounce everyone here who raises concerns about this issue as a transphobe who is taking us to a very dark place for trans people. Look at the hate received by academics or people like JK Rowling or Joanna Cherry who step out of line on this issue. I think it's a reasonably fair characterisation of the state of the debate and very far from being ridiculous.
Prisons do already have, for example, different categories so that prisoners can be held in facilities with a level of security appropriate to the risk of them attempting to escape, or otherwise causing trouble.
If this matter is to be judged on a case-by-case basis, then what is the point of being able to legally change one's sex/gender? What effect does doing so have? How would that relate to a claim for discrimination on the basis of sex under the Equality Act?
The politics of the teacher strike has been interesting this morning. Gillian Keegan on @TimesRadio was very measured, pointed out that most teachers are reasonably well paid and gently disputed the idea that loads are using food banks….
Now the NEU rep on to explain why they are striking is instead going on about the number of food banks, child hunger and austerity. Important issues but this is a pay dispute not an anti-Tory protest. Isn’t it?
Also, I asked Kevin Courtney, joint general secretary of the National Education Union, if NEU staff had been given a 12% pay rise this year (which is what they are asking the government for).
I agree with her. No teachers should be using food banks.
But:
Here is a thought for all of them and you to ponder.
I have just done my accounts for January and projections for February. This month, working one-third of the hours, at times I can negotiate with my pupils, and 50% from my own home, I will earn one hundred pounds less than I did as a Head of Faculty in an outstanding school working 60 hour weeks across six days a week.
If I worked 50 hours a week tutoring, I would be earning around 50% more than I did in a school.
Ok, I don't get pension with that. And I work through the holidays now as well. But there is a fundamental mismatch between what the market will provide and what the government is paying.
So either change the expectations - or change the salaries.
It's not really that hard. Unless you're stupid.
Ah....
Average teacher salary is now £38k in England, £39k in Wales and £40k in Scotland.
Clearly above the average salary in each of those nations.
Teachers are graduates and will be paying an extra 9% graduate income tax on their salary, so is it above the average graduate salary in each of those nations?
Or are you comparing apples and oranges as usual and deflating salary figures by including non-graduates who don't pay 9% graduate tax on their income?
Why do I even ask, we know the answer.
Either way though, teachers are working for a living but are expected to get a real terms pay cut, while the government is giving double-digit pay increases to match inflation to those who aren't working for a living funded by the tax on those who are working like teachers. Those who are working for a living should not get less than those who are not.
First off - the knife crime stats the Daily Mail bleats about include every time the police catch someone carrying a blade.
Including my nephew, a tree surgeon, who had his work blade in the car (while smoking a spliff, watching a storm tbf). Not all knife crime is what it seems.
My personal favourite was the guy working with news paper bundles, done for having a Stanley knife. In the boot of his car….
More or Less explore the claim that more pensioners are living in “millionaire households” than in poverty. This includes the value of your house and your pension. So this could be for example two pensioners with pensions and a home they own or a single pensioner in a £500,000 house with £30k/year pension. These amount to 22% of pensioners have assets over £1million - while those living in relative poverty (income after housing below 60% of median income) amount to 15% - half the level of the late 1990s. Most pensioners fall into neither category.
They are the richest generation ever and will be richer than their successors. I guess such generations are inevitable occassionally but it would be better for society if they understood and accepted:
this has been down mostly to demographics rather than their generation working harder than others the real economic and housing problems faced by their children and grandchildren that their generation needs to share the pain of demographic changes immigration is a necessary and significant part of dealing with those demographic changes
Why would their children and granchildren be faced with housing and economic problems when they will inherit all the houses and money of the richest generation ever.
Because people need a house when they are young adults starting their own family and bringing up their own children, not by the time they themselves are already old when their parents and grandparents have pegged it and they now have grandchildren of their own.
Inheritance should never be anything anyone ever expects of right, or depends upon. Everyone should be able to get a job and support themselves.
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.
Let's take an example case. Someone was born as Michael, and aged 25 transitions to be called Mary. She starts a relationship, and 30 years later she realises she is in a abusive relationship that she needs to get out of.
She has spent over half her life as a woman; many of her acquaintances do not know she was born male, the rest don't care.
Should she be able to access a women's refuge?
She should be able to access a refuge, just not necessarily a women's-only refuge.
Just as someone who was born Michael who realises he is in an abusive relationship that he needs to get out of, may require a refuge to and ought to be able to access a refuge.
However women's-only refuges may be reserved only for women, which could exclude your Mary example. There should be plenty of alternative support available to Mary though, just as there should be plenty of alternative support available to Michael.
Give Mary the support she requires, but that doesn't mean violating the safeguarding available to women.
What about safeguarding for Mary, if she goes into a mens refuge?
(And BTW, refuges for men are woefully underfunded and AIUI there are very few places. to complicate matters, I also believe some womens' refuges provide a few places for men as well - though not necessarily in the same place.)
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.
Let's take an example case. Someone was born as Michael, and aged 25 transitions to be called Mary. She starts a relationship, and 30 years later she realises she is in a abusive relationship that she needs to get out of.
She has spent over half her life as a woman; many of her acquaintances do not know she was born male, the rest don't care.
Should she be able to access a women's refuge?
If he is a functioning male, despite living as a women all those years, the answer should be no. The rights and needs of the other users would override his/hers. If he is no longer a functioning male I think it is harder to justify exclusion but I recognise that some deeply traumatised women simply cannot bear a male in their proximity and their needs must be respected too.
I take your point but wouldn't it be more respectful to refer to Mary as she? Referring to her as he seems to indicate your bias against trans people.
Given she has transitioned I would assume she is no longer a functioning male. Maybe I am misunderstanding the definition of 'transition' here? (IANAE)
Well in Scotland's case the "transitioning" for GRC was just signing a bit of paper and saying you had lived as a woman for 3 months. Who knows what living like a woman is mind you, No-one can explain that one.
More or Less explore the claim that more pensioners are living in “millionaire households” than in poverty. This includes the value of your house and your pension. So this could be for example two pensioners with pensions and a home they own or a single pensioner in a £500,000 house with £30k/year pension. These amount to 22% of pensioners have assets over £1million - while those living in relative poverty (income after housing below 60% of median income) amount to 15% - half the level of the late 1990s. Most pensioners fall into neither category.
They are the richest generation ever and will be richer than their successors. I guess such generations are inevitable occassionally but it would be better for society if they understood and accepted:
this has been down mostly to demographics rather than their generation working harder than others the real economic and housing problems faced by their children and grandchildren that their generation needs to share the pain of demographic changes immigration is a necessary and significant part of dealing with those demographic changes
Why would their children and granchildren be faced with housing and economic problems when they will inherit all the houses and money of the richest generation ever.
Because people need a house when they are young adults starting their own family and bringing up their own children, not by the time they themselves are already old when their parents and grandparents have pegged it and they now have grandchildren of their own.
Inheritance should never be anything anyone ever expects of right, or depends upon. Everyone should be able to get a job and support themselves.
And most now have a house, at least with a mortgage, by 39. Helped in large part in many cases by help with a deposit from parents or inheritance from grandparents (especially in London and the South where houses are least affordable).
Farmers, many family owned businesses, aristocratic estates and our Royal family of course all rely on inheritance in large part too
More or Less explore the claim that more pensioners are living in “millionaire households” than in poverty. This includes the value of your house and your pension. So this could be for example two pensioners with pensions and a home they own or a single pensioner in a £500,000 house with £30k/year pension. These amount to 22% of pensioners have assets over £1million - while those living in relative poverty (income after housing below 60% of median income) amount to 15% - half the level of the late 1990s. Most pensioners fall into neither category.
They are the richest generation ever and will be richer than their successors. I guess such generations are inevitable occassionally but it would be better for society if they understood and accepted:
this has been down mostly to demographics rather than their generation working harder than others the real economic and housing problems faced by their children and grandchildren that their generation needs to share the pain of demographic changes immigration is a necessary and significant part of dealing with those demographic changes
Why would their children and granchildren be faced with housing and economic problems when they will inherit all the houses and money of the richest generation ever.
Because people need a house when they are young adults starting their own family and bringing up their own children, not by the time they themselves are already old when their parents and grandparents have pegged it and they now have grandchildren of their own.
Inheritance should never be anything anyone ever expects of right, or depends upon. Everyone should be able to get a job and support themselves.
Which is great in theory, but seems to ignore that there's a swathe of people in their 40s and 50s who have spent the last 25 years expecting to get an inheritance.
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.
Let's take an example case. Someone was born as Michael, and aged 25 transitions to be called Mary. She starts a relationship, and 30 years later she realises she is in a abusive relationship that she needs to get out of.
She has spent over half her life as a woman; many of her acquaintances do not know she was born male, the rest don't care.
Should she be able to access a women's refuge?
She should be able to access a refuge, just not necessarily a women's-only refuge.
Just as someone who was born Michael who realises he is in an abusive relationship that he needs to get out of, may require a refuge to and ought to be able to access a refuge.
However women's-only refuges may be reserved only for women, which could exclude your Mary example. There should be plenty of alternative support available to Mary though, just as there should be plenty of alternative support available to Michael.
Give Mary the support she requires, but that doesn't mean violating the safeguarding available to women.
What about safeguarding for Mary, if she goes into a mens refuge?
(And BTW, refuges for men are woefully underfunded and AIUI there are very few places. to complicate matters, I also believe some womens' refuges provide a few places for men as well - though not necessarily in the same place.)
Safeguarding for Mary should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis, not violating the safeguarding for women. Deal with Mary as Mary, don't simply shove Mary into the women's-category and hope for the best.
Not all refuges are women-only, many as you say contain both sexes. If they do, Mary ought to be more than welcome there.
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.
The evidence on this is mixed. A lot more research is needed.
The figures from the Ministry of Justice for 2019 show that men who claim to be trans form a higher proportion of those convicted of sexual offences than for the non-trans male prisoner population or the female prisoner population.
Men who claim to be trans have the same offending pattern as non-trans men. In other words, merely saying that they are women does not mean that they offend like women.
Much more research is needed. But we need to be wary of saying what we would like to be true. What evidence there is suggests that trans identified mean are as much of a risk as other men and may, possibly, be a greater risk. What we do not know is whether that greater risk is coming from men who wrongly claim to be dysphoric rather than from men who genuinely are so.
One of the amendments Holyrood rejected was one which would have permitted evidence to be collected on the consequences of the Bill precisely in order to understand questions like these.
The politics of the teacher strike has been interesting this morning. Gillian Keegan on @TimesRadio was very measured, pointed out that most teachers are reasonably well paid and gently disputed the idea that loads are using food banks….
Now the NEU rep on to explain why they are striking is instead going on about the number of food banks, child hunger and austerity. Important issues but this is a pay dispute not an anti-Tory protest. Isn’t it?
Also, I asked Kevin Courtney, joint general secretary of the National Education Union, if NEU staff had been given a 12% pay rise this year (which is what they are asking the government for).
I agree with her. No teachers should be using food banks.
But:
Here is a thought for all of them and you to ponder.
I have just done my accounts for January and projections for February. This month, working one-third of the hours, at times I can negotiate with my pupils, and 50% from my own home, I will earn one hundred pounds less than I did as a Head of Faculty in an outstanding school working 60 hour weeks across six days a week.
If I worked 50 hours a week tutoring, I would be earning around 50% more than I did in a school.
Ok, I don't get pension with that. And I work through the holidays now as well. But there is a fundamental mismatch between what the market will provide and what the government is paying.
So either change the expectations - or change the salaries.
It's not really that hard. Unless you're stupid.
Ah....
Average teacher salary is now £38k in England, £39k in Wales and £40k in Scotland.
Clearly above the average salary in each of those nations.
Teachers are graduates and will be paying an extra 9% graduate income tax on their salary, so is it above the average graduate salary in each of those nations?
Or are you comparing apples and oranges as usual and deflating salary figures by including non-graduates who don't pay 9% graduate tax on their income?
Why do I even ask, we know the answer.
Either way though, teachers are working for a living but are expected to get a real terms pay cut, while the government is giving double-digit pay increases to match inflation to those who aren't working for a living funded by the tax on those who are working like teachers. Those who are working for a living should not get less than those who are not.
You can be a teacher with a 2.2 from an ex polytechnic.
Nobody is getting double digit pay increases except those on benefits, the minimum wage and state pension ie the poorest in society
More or Less explore the claim that more pensioners are living in “millionaire households” than in poverty. This includes the value of your house and your pension. So this could be for example two pensioners with pensions and a home they own or a single pensioner in a £500,000 house with £30k/year pension. These amount to 22% of pensioners have assets over £1million - while those living in relative poverty (income after housing below 60% of median income) amount to 15% - half the level of the late 1990s. Most pensioners fall into neither category.
They are the richest generation ever and will be richer than their successors. I guess such generations are inevitable occassionally but it would be better for society if they understood and accepted:
this has been down mostly to demographics rather than their generation working harder than others the real economic and housing problems faced by their children and grandchildren that their generation needs to share the pain of demographic changes immigration is a necessary and significant part of dealing with those demographic changes
Why would their children and granchildren be faced with housing and economic problems when they will inherit all the houses and money of the richest generation ever.
Because people need a house when they are young adults starting their own family and bringing up their own children, not by the time they themselves are already old when their parents and grandparents have pegged it and they now have grandchildren of their own.
Inheritance should never be anything anyone ever expects of right, or depends upon. Everyone should be able to get a job and support themselves.
You are assuming that they will be old themselves when grandparents peg it. I doubt many plan their lives on inheritances given most people peg it with washers in the bank. Still does not get away with fact that they are unlikely to be in poverty in later life if they are families of the richest generation ever. You missed the irony that some eejit thinks every pensioner is a millionaire.
Politicians who struggled with the fundamental question of 'what is a woman' as some kind of gotcha' in a faux culture war now seem quite clear about the definition when faced with the reality of the risks of self ID. https://twitter.com/holyroodmandy/status/1620730404134354946
More or Less explore the claim that more pensioners are living in “millionaire households” than in poverty. This includes the value of your house and your pension. So this could be for example two pensioners with pensions and a home they own or a single pensioner in a £500,000 house with £30k/year pension. These amount to 22% of pensioners have assets over £1million - while those living in relative poverty (income after housing below 60% of median income) amount to 15% - half the level of the late 1990s. Most pensioners fall into neither category.
They are the richest generation ever and will be richer than their successors. I guess such generations are inevitable occassionally but it would be better for society if they understood and accepted:
this has been down mostly to demographics rather than their generation working harder than others the real economic and housing problems faced by their children and grandchildren that their generation needs to share the pain of demographic changes immigration is a necessary and significant part of dealing with those demographic changes
Why would their children and granchildren be faced with housing and economic problems when they will inherit all the houses and money of the richest generation ever.
Because people need a house when they are young adults starting their own family and bringing up their own children, not by the time they themselves are already old when their parents and grandparents have pegged it and they now have grandchildren of their own.
Inheritance should never be anything anyone ever expects of right, or depends upon. Everyone should be able to get a job and support themselves.
Which is great in theory, but seems to ignore that there's a swathe of people in their 40s and 50s who have spent the last 25 years expecting to get an inheritance.
Not ignoring it, just dismissing it as irrelevant. People have all sorts of expectations in life and not all expectations come through.
If they're in their 40s and 50s their parents presumably are in their 60s and 70s and could easily live another 30+ years, which then takes them into their 70s and 80s before any potential inheritance they may or may not receive.
Far better to rely upon your own earnings. If you can't be bothered to rely upon your own earnings because you want to rely on someone else's, then you put yourself at the mercy of others if you don't get what you haven't earned. Get a job and work for it.
If you have got a job, and can't support yourself as you're taxed too much to pay for those who aren't paying for themselves, then that's a problem.
The politics of the teacher strike has been interesting this morning. Gillian Keegan on @TimesRadio was very measured, pointed out that most teachers are reasonably well paid and gently disputed the idea that loads are using food banks….
Now the NEU rep on to explain why they are striking is instead going on about the number of food banks, child hunger and austerity. Important issues but this is a pay dispute not an anti-Tory protest. Isn’t it?
Also, I asked Kevin Courtney, joint general secretary of the National Education Union, if NEU staff had been given a 12% pay rise this year (which is what they are asking the government for).
I agree with her. No teachers should be using food banks.
But:
Here is a thought for all of them and you to ponder.
I have just done my accounts for January and projections for February. This month, working one-third of the hours, at times I can negotiate with my pupils, and 50% from my own home, I will earn one hundred pounds less than I did as a Head of Faculty in an outstanding school working 60 hour weeks across six days a week.
If I worked 50 hours a week tutoring, I would be earning around 50% more than I did in a school.
Ok, I don't get pension with that. And I work through the holidays now as well. But there is a fundamental mismatch between what the market will provide and what the government is paying.
So either change the expectations - or change the salaries.
It's not really that hard. Unless you're stupid.
Ah....
Average teacher salary is now £38k in England, £39k in Wales and £40k in Scotland.
Clearly above the average salary in each of those nations.
More or Less explore the claim that more pensioners are living in “millionaire households” than in poverty. This includes the value of your house and your pension. So this could be for example two pensioners with pensions and a home they own or a single pensioner in a £500,000 house with £30k/year pension. These amount to 22% of pensioners have assets over £1million - while those living in relative poverty (income after housing below 60% of median income) amount to 15% - half the level of the late 1990s. Most pensioners fall into neither category.
They are the richest generation ever and will be richer than their successors. I guess such generations are inevitable occassionally but it would be better for society if they understood and accepted:
this has been down mostly to demographics rather than their generation working harder than others the real economic and housing problems faced by their children and grandchildren that their generation needs to share the pain of demographic changes immigration is a necessary and significant part of dealing with those demographic changes
Why would their children and granchildren be faced with housing and economic problems when they will inherit all the houses and money of the richest generation ever.
Because people need a house when they are young adults starting their own family and bringing up their own children, not by the time they themselves are already old when their parents and grandparents have pegged it and they now have grandchildren of their own.
Inheritance should never be anything anyone ever expects of right, or depends upon. Everyone should be able to get a job and support themselves.
And most now have a house, at least with a mortgage, by 39. Helped in large part in many cases by help with a deposit from parents or inheritance from grandparents (especially in London and the South where houses are least affordable).
Farmers, many family owned businesses, aristocratic estates and our Royal family of course all rely on inheritance in large part too
Thirty-nine is too late for many, and there will still be lots of people in the minority who do not own a house by that age.
When my wife was 38 we realised that we risked leaving it too late if we waited to buy a house to start trying for a baby. That was 30 months ago. Reader, we left it too late. I am lucky to have a daughter from a previous relationship, but many will not.
The politics of the teacher strike has been interesting this morning. Gillian Keegan on @TimesRadio was very measured, pointed out that most teachers are reasonably well paid and gently disputed the idea that loads are using food banks….
Now the NEU rep on to explain why they are striking is instead going on about the number of food banks, child hunger and austerity. Important issues but this is a pay dispute not an anti-Tory protest. Isn’t it?
Also, I asked Kevin Courtney, joint general secretary of the National Education Union, if NEU staff had been given a 12% pay rise this year (which is what they are asking the government for).
I agree with her. No teachers should be using food banks.
But:
Here is a thought for all of them and you to ponder.
I have just done my accounts for January and projections for February. This month, working one-third of the hours, at times I can negotiate with my pupils, and 50% from my own home, I will earn one hundred pounds less than I did as a Head of Faculty in an outstanding school working 60 hour weeks across six days a week.
If I worked 50 hours a week tutoring, I would be earning around 50% more than I did in a school.
Ok, I don't get pension with that. And I work through the holidays now as well. But there is a fundamental mismatch between what the market will provide and what the government is paying.
So either change the expectations - or change the salaries.
It's not really that hard. Unless you're stupid.
Ah....
Average teacher salary is now £38k in England, £39k in Wales and £40k in Scotland.
Clearly above the average salary in each of those nations.
Teachers are graduates and will be paying an extra 9% graduate income tax on their salary, so is it above the average graduate salary in each of those nations?
Or are you comparing apples and oranges as usual and deflating salary figures by including non-graduates who don't pay 9% graduate tax on their income?
Why do I even ask, we know the answer.
Either way though, teachers are working for a living but are expected to get a real terms pay cut, while the government is giving double-digit pay increases to match inflation to those who aren't working for a living funded by the tax on those who are working like teachers. Those who are working for a living should not get less than those who are not.
More economics from dummies guidance, reckons pensioners, disabled and unemployed/sick ar eon £40K a year and adds usual sneering nasty Tory denigrating anyone unable to work , disabled , carers , etc. What a nasty piece of work.
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.
Let's take an example case. Someone was born as Michael, and aged 25 transitions to be called Mary. She starts a relationship, and 30 years later she realises she is in a abusive relationship that she needs to get out of.
She has spent over half her life as a woman; many of her acquaintances do not know she was born male, the rest don't care.
Should she be able to access a women's refuge?
If he is a functioning male, despite living as a women all those years, the answer should be no. The rights and needs of the other users would override his/hers. If he is no longer a functioning male I think it is harder to justify exclusion but I recognise that some deeply traumatised women simply cannot bear a male in their proximity and their needs must be respected too.
I take your point but wouldn't it be more respectful to refer to Mary as she? Referring to her as he seems to indicate your bias against trans people.
Given she has transitioned I would assume she is no longer a functioning male. Maybe I am misunderstanding the definition of 'transition' here? (IANAE)
This is one of the things at the heart of this issue. 'Trans' covers a shole host of positions - including someone like Eddie Izzard, through Quentin Crisp, to Caitlyn Jenner or Elliot Page or Hari Nef.
Some trans people will just cross-dress; some will have had the full drugs-and-operations treatment. Some will just take the drugs.
Fully transitioning is a lengthy process (rightly, IMO), so someone intending to be fully transitioned may only be partially transitioned at a certain point, but think of themselves as that. Some may decide that the drugs are enough, and they don't want to go through the operations (which are *not* pleasant).
As for sexuality: some will date men. Some will date women. Some will be bisexual. Some will be asexual.
Also, some trans people will be saints. Some will be sinners; in the same way some men are sinners and saints. Or women. Or doctors. Or lawyers. Or PB posters.
'Trans' covers a whole smorgasbord of things and people, and that's one of the major issues with this 'debate'.
The law, however, has to provide categorical outcomes. It has to say, "this person is a man, and should be accommodated in a male prison, but this person is a woman and should be accommodated in a female prison."
The problem is that trans activists are trying to fit a view entirely lacking in nuance - trans women are women - onto a situation which, as you have described, is a lot more complicated than that, and to have that apply to all circumstances - prisons, hospital wards, women refuges, police strip searches, child safeguarding.
If anyone dares to question this absolutist view, then they are denounced as a transphobe, wishing the death of trans people.
How do we get to a more nuanced outcome that combines respect for trans people with a recognition that self-ID is not appropriate for all circumstances, particularly those where the law is involved?
To be fair, that is not the position of all trans 'activists', and not everyone who dares to question the absolutist view is denounced as a transphobe. Those claims are just ridiculous.
The answer has to be that the situation is judged on a case-by-case basis - as it should be for other people as well. For instance, should a person imprisoned for very violent offences be in the same wing as those jailed for non-violent offences?
You seem to denounce everyone here who raises concerns about this issue as a transphobe who is taking us to a very dark place for trans people. (Snip)
"You seem to denounce everyone here who raises concerns about this issue as a transphobe"
More or Less explore the claim that more pensioners are living in “millionaire households” than in poverty. This includes the value of your house and your pension. So this could be for example two pensioners with pensions and a home they own or a single pensioner in a £500,000 house with £30k/year pension. These amount to 22% of pensioners have assets over £1million - while those living in relative poverty (income after housing below 60% of median income) amount to 15% - half the level of the late 1990s. Most pensioners fall into neither category.
They are the richest generation ever and will be richer than their successors. I guess such generations are inevitable occassionally but it would be better for society if they understood and accepted:
this has been down mostly to demographics rather than their generation working harder than others the real economic and housing problems faced by their children and grandchildren that their generation needs to share the pain of demographic changes immigration is a necessary and significant part of dealing with those demographic changes
Why would their children and granchildren be faced with housing and economic problems when they will inherit all the houses and money of the richest generation ever.
Because people need a house when they are young adults starting their own family and bringing up their own children, not by the time they themselves are already old when their parents and grandparents have pegged it and they now have grandchildren of their own.
Inheritance should never be anything anyone ever expects of right, or depends upon. Everyone should be able to get a job and support themselves.
You are assuming that they will be old themselves when grandparents peg it. I doubt many plan their lives on inheritances given most people peg it with washers in the bank. Still does not get away with fact that they are unlikely to be in poverty in later life if they are families of the richest generation ever. You missed the irony that some eejit thinks every pensioner is a millionaire.
Not every pensioner is a millionaire. If you believe in redistribution, then we ought to be able to tax well off pensioners and give the money to provide for pensioners who are struggling.
Merging the various forms of income tax (ie Income Tax, NI and "Student Loans") all into one single income tax that is paid by everyone the same regardless of how you earn your money, would enable more taxation on the millionaire pensioners and enable more support for struggling pensioners.
So pick your poison, do you want to support redistribution or not?
Football: I can't remember the odds, but I think it was circa 11/1 or such, but if you followed my Napoli Serie A title tip you can hold onto it (they're 13 points clear) or lay them at 1.09 on Betfair.
Edited extra bit: Arsenal title bet, odds also unknown, looking good too, though Borussia Dortmund less so. And the Napoli bet was only made because they finished 4th, then 3rd, then 2nd...
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.
Let's take an example case. Someone was born as Michael, and aged 25 transitions to be called Mary. She starts a relationship, and 30 years later she realises she is in a abusive relationship that she needs to get out of.
She has spent over half her life as a woman; many of her acquaintances do not know she was born male, the rest don't care.
Should she be able to access a women's refuge?
If he is a functioning male, despite living as a women all those years, the answer should be no. The rights and needs of the other users would override his/hers. If he is no longer a functioning male I think it is harder to justify exclusion but I recognise that some deeply traumatised women simply cannot bear a male in their proximity and their needs must be respected too.
I take your point but wouldn't it be more respectful to refer to Mary as she? Referring to her as he seems to indicate your bias against trans people.
Given she has transitioned I would assume she is no longer a functioning male. Maybe I am misunderstanding the definition of 'transition' here? (IANAE)
Well in Scotland's case the "transitioning" for GRC was just signing a bit of paper and saying you had lived as a woman for 3 months. Who knows what living like a woman is mind you, No-one can explain that one.
The politics of the teacher strike has been interesting this morning. Gillian Keegan on @TimesRadio was very measured, pointed out that most teachers are reasonably well paid and gently disputed the idea that loads are using food banks….
Now the NEU rep on to explain why they are striking is instead going on about the number of food banks, child hunger and austerity. Important issues but this is a pay dispute not an anti-Tory protest. Isn’t it?
Also, I asked Kevin Courtney, joint general secretary of the National Education Union, if NEU staff had been given a 12% pay rise this year (which is what they are asking the government for).
I agree with her. No teachers should be using food banks.
But:
Here is a thought for all of them and you to ponder.
I have just done my accounts for January and projections for February. This month, working one-third of the hours, at times I can negotiate with my pupils, and 50% from my own home, I will earn one hundred pounds less than I did as a Head of Faculty in an outstanding school working 60 hour weeks across six days a week.
If I worked 50 hours a week tutoring, I would be earning around 50% more than I did in a school.
Ok, I don't get pension with that. And I work through the holidays now as well. But there is a fundamental mismatch between what the market will provide and what the government is paying.
So either change the expectations - or change the salaries.
It's not really that hard. Unless you're stupid.
Ah....
Average teacher salary is now £38k in England, £39k in Wales and £40k in Scotland.
Clearly above the average salary in each of those nations.
The politics of the teacher strike has been interesting this morning. Gillian Keegan on @TimesRadio was very measured, pointed out that most teachers are reasonably well paid and gently disputed the idea that loads are using food banks….
Now the NEU rep on to explain why they are striking is instead going on about the number of food banks, child hunger and austerity. Important issues but this is a pay dispute not an anti-Tory protest. Isn’t it?
Also, I asked Kevin Courtney, joint general secretary of the National Education Union, if NEU staff had been given a 12% pay rise this year (which is what they are asking the government for).
I agree with her. No teachers should be using food banks.
But:
Here is a thought for all of them and you to ponder.
I have just done my accounts for January and projections for February. This month, working one-third of the hours, at times I can negotiate with my pupils, and 50% from my own home, I will earn one hundred pounds less than I did as a Head of Faculty in an outstanding school working 60 hour weeks across six days a week.
If I worked 50 hours a week tutoring, I would be earning around 50% more than I did in a school.
Ok, I don't get pension with that. And I work through the holidays now as well. But there is a fundamental mismatch between what the market will provide and what the government is paying.
So either change the expectations - or change the salaries.
It's not really that hard. Unless you're stupid.
Ah....
Average teacher salary is now £38k in England, £39k in Wales and £40k in Scotland.
Clearly above the average salary in each of those nations.
Teachers are graduates and will be paying an extra 9% graduate income tax on their salary, so is it above the average graduate salary in each of those nations?
Or are you comparing apples and oranges as usual and deflating salary figures by including non-graduates who don't pay 9% graduate tax on their income?
Why do I even ask, we know the answer.
Either way though, teachers are working for a living but are expected to get a real terms pay cut, while the government is giving double-digit pay increases to match inflation to those who aren't working for a living funded by the tax on those who are working like teachers. Those who are working for a living should not get less than those who are not.
You can be a teacher with a 2.2 from an ex polytechnic.
Nobody is getting double digit pay increases except those on benefits, the minimum wage and state pension ie the poorest in society
A 2:2 from an ex-poly is still a degree and will still leave people paying 9% extra income tax on their earnings.
The state pension is not given to the poorest in society, pension credit is given to poor pensioners not the state pension.
The politics of the teacher strike has been interesting this morning. Gillian Keegan on @TimesRadio was very measured, pointed out that most teachers are reasonably well paid and gently disputed the idea that loads are using food banks….
Now the NEU rep on to explain why they are striking is instead going on about the number of food banks, child hunger and austerity. Important issues but this is a pay dispute not an anti-Tory protest. Isn’t it?
Also, I asked Kevin Courtney, joint general secretary of the National Education Union, if NEU staff had been given a 12% pay rise this year (which is what they are asking the government for).
I agree with her. No teachers should be using food banks.
But:
Here is a thought for all of them and you to ponder.
I have just done my accounts for January and projections for February. This month, working one-third of the hours, at times I can negotiate with my pupils, and 50% from my own home, I will earn one hundred pounds less than I did as a Head of Faculty in an outstanding school working 60 hour weeks across six days a week.
If I worked 50 hours a week tutoring, I would be earning around 50% more than I did in a school.
Ok, I don't get pension with that. And I work through the holidays now as well. But there is a fundamental mismatch between what the market will provide and what the government is paying.
So either change the expectations - or change the salaries.
It's not really that hard. Unless you're stupid.
Ah....
Average teacher salary is now £38k in England, £39k in Wales and £40k in Scotland.
Clearly above the average salary in each of those nations.
Teachers are graduates and will be paying an extra 9% graduate income tax on their salary, so is it above the average graduate salary in each of those nations?
Or are you comparing apples and oranges as usual and deflating salary figures by including non-graduates who don't pay 9% graduate tax on their income?
Why do I even ask, we know the answer.
Either way though, teachers are working for a living but are expected to get a real terms pay cut, while the government is giving double-digit pay increases to match inflation to those who aren't working for a living funded by the tax on those who are working like teachers. Those who are working for a living should not get less than those who are not.
You can be a teacher with a 2.2 from an ex polytechnic.
Nobody is getting double digit pay increases except those on benefits, the minimum wage and state pension ie the poorest in society
So? Having any sort of degree puts you above the median in terms of academic attainment.
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.
Let's take an example case. Someone was born as Michael, and aged 25 transitions to be called Mary. She starts a relationship, and 30 years later she realises she is in a abusive relationship that she needs to get out of.
She has spent over half her life as a woman; many of her acquaintances do not know she was born male, the rest don't care.
Should she be able to access a women's refuge?
If he is a functioning male, despite living as a women all those years, the answer should be no. The rights and needs of the other users would override his/hers. If he is no longer a functioning male I think it is harder to justify exclusion but I recognise that some deeply traumatised women simply cannot bear a male in their proximity and their needs must be respected too.
I take your point but wouldn't it be more respectful to refer to Mary as she? Referring to her as he seems to indicate your bias against trans people.
Given she has transitioned I would assume she is no longer a functioning male. Maybe I am misunderstanding the definition of 'transition' here? (IANAE)
This is one of the things at the heart of this issue. 'Trans' covers a shole host of positions - including someone like Eddie Izzard, through Quentin Crisp, to Caitlyn Jenner or Elliot Page or Hari Nef.
Some trans people will just cross-dress; some will have had the full drugs-and-operations treatment. Some will just take the drugs.
Fully transitioning is a lengthy process (rightly, IMO), so someone intending to be fully transitioned may only be partially transitioned at a certain point, but think of themselves as that. Some may decide that the drugs are enough, and they don't want to go through the operations (which are *not* pleasant).
As for sexuality: some will date men. Some will date women. Some will be bisexual. Some will be asexual.
Also, some trans people will be saints. Some will be sinners; in the same way some men are sinners and saints. Or women. Or doctors. Or lawyers. Or PB posters.
'Trans' covers a whole smorgasbord of things and people, and that's one of the major issues with this 'debate'.
The law, however, has to provide categorical outcomes. It has to say, "this person is a man, and should be accommodated in a male prison, but this person is a woman and should be accommodated in a female prison."
The problem is that trans activists are trying to fit a view entirely lacking in nuance - trans women are women - onto a situation which, as you have described, is a lot more complicated than that, and to have that apply to all circumstances - prisons, hospital wards, women refuges, police strip searches, child safeguarding.
If anyone dares to question this absolutist view, then they are denounced as a transphobe, wishing the death of trans people.
How do we get to a more nuanced outcome that combines respect for trans people with a recognition that self-ID is not appropriate for all circumstances, particularly those where the law is involved?
To be fair, that is not the position of all trans 'activists', and not everyone who dares to question the absolutist view is denounced as a transphobe. Those claims are just ridiculous.
The answer has to be that the situation is judged on a case-by-case basis - as it should be for other people as well. For instance, should a person imprisoned for very violent offences be in the same wing as those jailed for non-violent offences?
You seem to denounce everyone here who raises concerns about this issue as a transphobe who is taking us to a very dark place for trans people. (Snip)
"You seem to denounce everyone here who raises concerns about this issue as a transphobe"
That's bullshit.
It's an inference based on your first comment on many mornings, which is often in reply to other posters who share tweets about news on this issue.
For anyone trying to understand opposition to the GRR bill, this contribution from barrister Naomi Cunningham is very useful. (From yesterday’s Women and Equalities Committee meeting at Westminster.)[VIDEO]
The politics of the teacher strike has been interesting this morning. Gillian Keegan on @TimesRadio was very measured, pointed out that most teachers are reasonably well paid and gently disputed the idea that loads are using food banks….
Now the NEU rep on to explain why they are striking is instead going on about the number of food banks, child hunger and austerity. Important issues but this is a pay dispute not an anti-Tory protest. Isn’t it?
Also, I asked Kevin Courtney, joint general secretary of the National Education Union, if NEU staff had been given a 12% pay rise this year (which is what they are asking the government for).
I agree with her. No teachers should be using food banks.
But:
Here is a thought for all of them and you to ponder.
I have just done my accounts for January and projections for February. This month, working one-third of the hours, at times I can negotiate with my pupils, and 50% from my own home, I will earn one hundred pounds less than I did as a Head of Faculty in an outstanding school working 60 hour weeks across six days a week.
If I worked 50 hours a week tutoring, I would be earning around 50% more than I did in a school.
Ok, I don't get pension with that. And I work through the holidays now as well. But there is a fundamental mismatch between what the market will provide and what the government is paying.
So either change the expectations - or change the salaries.
It's not really that hard. Unless you're stupid.
Ah....
Average teacher salary is now £38k in England, £39k in Wales and £40k in Scotland.
Clearly above the average salary in each of those nations.
Teachers are graduates and will be paying an extra 9% graduate income tax on their salary, so is it above the average graduate salary in each of those nations?
Or are you comparing apples and oranges as usual and deflating salary figures by including non-graduates who don't pay 9% graduate tax on their income?
Why do I even ask, we know the answer.
Either way though, teachers are working for a living but are expected to get a real terms pay cut, while the government is giving double-digit pay increases to match inflation to those who aren't working for a living funded by the tax on those who are working like teachers. Those who are working for a living should not get less than those who are not.
You can be a teacher with a 2.2 from an ex polytechnic.
Nobody is getting double digit pay increases except those on benefits, the minimum wage and state pension ie the poorest in society
People who get the state pension aren't the poorest in society. People who get pension credit are among the poorest in society, the average pensioner who receives the state pension and not pension credit is pretty wealthy and has significant private pension or other income.
Thought Steve Reed gave a good answer re trans people in prison.
And then GMB just turned it into do trans women have penises again.
This issue is never going to be dealt with in a grown up way is it?
You mean a political issue won’t be dealt with in a grown up way - but rather on a basis of shouting “You are bad”, “You are worse”, “Your mother smells of Elderberries” etc ?
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.
Let's take an example case. Someone was born as Michael, and aged 25 transitions to be called Mary. She starts a relationship, and 30 years later she realises she is in a abusive relationship that she needs to get out of.
She has spent over half her life as a woman; many of her acquaintances do not know she was born male, the rest don't care.
Should she be able to access a women's refuge?
If he is a functioning male, despite living as a women all those years, the answer should be no. The rights and needs of the other users would override his/hers. If he is no longer a functioning male I think it is harder to justify exclusion but I recognise that some deeply traumatised women simply cannot bear a male in their proximity and their needs must be respected too.
I take your point but wouldn't it be more respectful to refer to Mary as she? Referring to her as he seems to indicate your bias against trans people.
Given she has transitioned I would assume she is no longer a functioning male. Maybe I am misunderstanding the definition of 'transition' here? (IANAE)
This is one of the things at the heart of this issue. 'Trans' covers a shole host of positions - including someone like Eddie Izzard, through Quentin Crisp, to Caitlyn Jenner or Elliot Page or Hari Nef.
Some trans people will just cross-dress; some will have had the full drugs-and-operations treatment. Some will just take the drugs.
Fully transitioning is a lengthy process (rightly, IMO), so someone intending to be fully transitioned may only be partially transitioned at a certain point, but think of themselves as that. Some may decide that the drugs are enough, and they don't want to go through the operations (which are *not* pleasant).
As for sexuality: some will date men. Some will date women. Some will be bisexual. Some will be asexual.
Also, some trans people will be saints. Some will be sinners; in the same way some men are sinners and saints. Or women. Or doctors. Or lawyers. Or PB posters.
'Trans' covers a whole smorgasbord of things and people, and that's one of the major issues with this 'debate'.
The law, however, has to provide categorical outcomes. It has to say, "this person is a man, and should be accommodated in a male prison, but this person is a woman and should be accommodated in a female prison."
The problem is that trans activists are trying to fit a view entirely lacking in nuance - trans women are women - onto a situation which, as you have described, is a lot more complicated than that, and to have that apply to all circumstances - prisons, hospital wards, women refuges, police strip searches, child safeguarding.
If anyone dares to question this absolutist view, then they are denounced as a transphobe, wishing the death of trans people.
How do we get to a more nuanced outcome that combines respect for trans people with a recognition that self-ID is not appropriate for all circumstances, particularly those where the law is involved?
To be fair, that is not the position of all trans 'activists', and not everyone who dares to question the absolutist view is denounced as a transphobe. Those claims are just ridiculous.
The answer has to be that the situation is judged on a case-by-case basis - as it should be for other people as well. For instance, should a person imprisoned for very violent offences be in the same wing as those jailed for non-violent offences?
You seem to denounce everyone here who raises concerns about this issue as a transphobe who is taking us to a very dark place for trans people. (Snip)
"You seem to denounce everyone here who raises concerns about this issue as a transphobe"
That's bullshit.
It's an inference based on your first comment on many mornings, which is often in reply to other posters who share tweets about news on this issue.
His first post this morning wasn't a reply to anyone. Unless you were inferring that.
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.
Let's take an example case. Someone was born as Michael, and aged 25 transitions to be called Mary. She starts a relationship, and 30 years later she realises she is in a abusive relationship that she needs to get out of.
She has spent over half her life as a woman; many of her acquaintances do not know she was born male, the rest don't care.
Should she be able to access a women's refuge?
If he is a functioning male, despite living as a women all those years, the answer should be no. The rights and needs of the other users would override his/hers. If he is no longer a functioning male I think it is harder to justify exclusion but I recognise that some deeply traumatised women simply cannot bear a male in their proximity and their needs must be respected too.
I take your point but wouldn't it be more respectful to refer to Mary as she? Referring to her as he seems to indicate your bias against trans people.
Given she has transitioned I would assume she is no longer a functioning male. Maybe I am misunderstanding the definition of 'transition' here? (IANAE)
This is one of the things at the heart of this issue. 'Trans' covers a shole host of positions - including someone like Eddie Izzard, through Quentin Crisp, to Caitlyn Jenner or Elliot Page or Hari Nef.
Some trans people will just cross-dress; some will have had the full drugs-and-operations treatment. Some will just take the drugs.
Fully transitioning is a lengthy process (rightly, IMO), so someone intending to be fully transitioned may only be partially transitioned at a certain point, but think of themselves as that. Some may decide that the drugs are enough, and they don't want to go through the operations (which are *not* pleasant).
As for sexuality: some will date men. Some will date women. Some will be bisexual. Some will be asexual.
Also, some trans people will be saints. Some will be sinners; in the same way some men are sinners and saints. Or women. Or doctors. Or lawyers. Or PB posters.
'Trans' covers a whole smorgasbord of things and people, and that's one of the major issues with this 'debate'.
The law, however, has to provide categorical outcomes. It has to say, "this person is a man, and should be accommodated in a male prison, but this person is a woman and should be accommodated in a female prison."
The problem is that trans activists are trying to fit a view entirely lacking in nuance - trans women are women - onto a situation which, as you have described, is a lot more complicated than that, and to have that apply to all circumstances - prisons, hospital wards, women refuges, police strip searches, child safeguarding.
If anyone dares to question this absolutist view, then they are denounced as a transphobe, wishing the death of trans people.
How do we get to a more nuanced outcome that combines respect for trans people with a recognition that self-ID is not appropriate for all circumstances, particularly those where the law is involved?
To be fair, that is not the position of all trans 'activists', and not everyone who dares to question the absolutist view is denounced as a transphobe. Those claims are just ridiculous.
The answer has to be that the situation is judged on a case-by-case basis - as it should be for other people as well. For instance, should a person imprisoned for very violent offences be in the same wing as those jailed for non-violent offences?
You seem to denounce everyone here who raises concerns about this issue as a transphobe who is taking us to a very dark place for trans people. (Snip)
"You seem to denounce everyone here who raises concerns about this issue as a transphobe"
That's bullshit.
It's an inference based on your first comment on many mornings, which is often in reply to other posters who share tweets about news on this issue.
His first post this morning wasn't a reply to anyone. Unless you were inferring that.
Yes it was.
It didn't include clicking on the reply button, but it absolutely was and when followed up had a false claim that a Tweet warning about the dangers of "men" abusing the provisions was claiming trans people were dangerous.
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.
Let's take an example case. Someone was born as Michael, and aged 25 transitions to be called Mary. She starts a relationship, and 30 years later she realises she is in a abusive relationship that she needs to get out of.
She has spent over half her life as a woman; many of her acquaintances do not know she was born male, the rest don't care.
Should she be able to access a women's refuge?
If he is a functioning male, despite living as a women all those years, the answer should be no. The rights and needs of the other users would override his/hers. If he is no longer a functioning male I think it is harder to justify exclusion but I recognise that some deeply traumatised women simply cannot bear a male in their proximity and their needs must be respected too.
I take your point but wouldn't it be more respectful to refer to Mary as she? Referring to her as he seems to indicate your bias against trans people.
Given she has transitioned I would assume she is no longer a functioning male. Maybe I am misunderstanding the definition of 'transition' here? (IANAE)
This is one of the things at the heart of this issue. 'Trans' covers a shole host of positions - including someone like Eddie Izzard, through Quentin Crisp, to Caitlyn Jenner or Elliot Page or Hari Nef.
Some trans people will just cross-dress; some will have had the full drugs-and-operations treatment. Some will just take the drugs.
Fully transitioning is a lengthy process (rightly, IMO), so someone intending to be fully transitioned may only be partially transitioned at a certain point, but think of themselves as that. Some may decide that the drugs are enough, and they don't want to go through the operations (which are *not* pleasant).
As for sexuality: some will date men. Some will date women. Some will be bisexual. Some will be asexual.
Also, some trans people will be saints. Some will be sinners; in the same way some men are sinners and saints. Or women. Or doctors. Or lawyers. Or PB posters.
'Trans' covers a whole smorgasbord of things and people, and that's one of the major issues with this 'debate'.
The law, however, has to provide categorical outcomes. It has to say, "this person is a man, and should be accommodated in a male prison, but this person is a woman and should be accommodated in a female prison."
The problem is that trans activists are trying to fit a view entirely lacking in nuance - trans women are women - onto a situation which, as you have described, is a lot more complicated than that, and to have that apply to all circumstances - prisons, hospital wards, women refuges, police strip searches, child safeguarding.
If anyone dares to question this absolutist view, then they are denounced as a transphobe, wishing the death of trans people.
How do we get to a more nuanced outcome that combines respect for trans people with a recognition that self-ID is not appropriate for all circumstances, particularly those where the law is involved?
To be fair, that is not the position of all trans 'activists', and not everyone who dares to question the absolutist view is denounced as a transphobe. Those claims are just ridiculous.
The answer has to be that the situation is judged on a case-by-case basis - as it should be for other people as well. For instance, should a person imprisoned for very violent offences be in the same wing as those jailed for non-violent offences?
You seem to denounce everyone here who raises concerns about this issue as a transphobe who is taking us to a very dark place for trans people. (Snip)
"You seem to denounce everyone here who raises concerns about this issue as a transphobe"
That's bullshit.
It's an inference based on your first comment on many mornings, which is often in reply to other posters who share tweets about news on this issue.
That's odd. So you're saying that my occasional comments of concern that CV posts stuff negative towards trans people frequently (and rarely if ever, supporting trans people) means that I 'denounce' *everyone* who raises concerns?
For example, I disagree with Bart on some of this stuff, but I don't think I've ever said, or implied, that he's a transphobe. I could say the same with DavidL and others.
And when you say 'many mornings' : how many? (I do wonder if you've confused me with another poster)
The politics of the teacher strike has been interesting this morning. Gillian Keegan on @TimesRadio was very measured, pointed out that most teachers are reasonably well paid and gently disputed the idea that loads are using food banks….
Now the NEU rep on to explain why they are striking is instead going on about the number of food banks, child hunger and austerity. Important issues but this is a pay dispute not an anti-Tory protest. Isn’t it?
Also, I asked Kevin Courtney, joint general secretary of the National Education Union, if NEU staff had been given a 12% pay rise this year (which is what they are asking the government for).
I agree with her. No teachers should be using food banks.
But:
Here is a thought for all of them and you to ponder.
I have just done my accounts for January and projections for February. This month, working one-third of the hours, at times I can negotiate with my pupils, and 50% from my own home, I will earn one hundred pounds less than I did as a Head of Faculty in an outstanding school working 60 hour weeks across six days a week.
If I worked 50 hours a week tutoring, I would be earning around 50% more than I did in a school.
Ok, I don't get pension with that. And I work through the holidays now as well. But there is a fundamental mismatch between what the market will provide and what the government is paying.
So either change the expectations - or change the salaries.
It's not really that hard. Unless you're stupid.
Ah....
Average teacher salary is now £38k in England, £39k in Wales and £40k in Scotland.
Clearly above the average salary in each of those nations.
Teachers are graduates and will be paying an extra 9% graduate income tax on their salary, so is it above the average graduate salary in each of those nations?
Or are you comparing apples and oranges as usual and deflating salary figures by including non-graduates who don't pay 9% graduate tax on their income?
Why do I even ask, we know the answer.
Either way though, teachers are working for a living but are expected to get a real terms pay cut, while the government is giving double-digit pay increases to match inflation to those who aren't working for a living funded by the tax on those who are working like teachers. Those who are working for a living should not get less than those who are not.
You can be a teacher with a 2.2 from an ex polytechnic.
Nobody is getting double digit pay increases except those on benefits, the minimum wage and state pension ie the poorest in society
So? Having any sort of degree puts you above the median in terms of academic attainment.
Attainment yes, but not necessarily intelligence or work quality. Of my team there are 3 who didn't go to uni and 2 of those are easily the top performers every year out of about 25 in total. I think, as a society, we need to move beyond the outmoded thinking that most jobs require a degree to do well, it's completely poisonous to the working classes who are priced out of degrees, especially from universities that count, as they then get excluded from some of the best careers in the country.
My chemistry degree has had zero use since I graduated, if I gave it to Jen to rip into a million pieces as she's begun doing with anything you give her it would make precisely zero difference to my life. I only paid £1.2k per year for it and left uni with ca. £15k in loans which I paid back within a few years as we had fair interest rates. Other than opening the door for my first job, I can't think of any situation where it has been necessary, even that first job didn't do any checks, they simply accepted that I have the degree and didn't ask for any transcripts or a copy of my certificate, it was only when I wore my old uni hoody to work a few months later that the HR person said, "oh yeah we were supposed to ask you for a copy of it, oh well, too late now anyway".
The degree bar need to be removed from the majority of non-vocational jobs. The best quant in our company is an Italian guy who dropped out of uni.
The politics of the teacher strike has been interesting this morning. Gillian Keegan on @TimesRadio was very measured, pointed out that most teachers are reasonably well paid and gently disputed the idea that loads are using food banks….
Now the NEU rep on to explain why they are striking is instead going on about the number of food banks, child hunger and austerity. Important issues but this is a pay dispute not an anti-Tory protest. Isn’t it?
Also, I asked Kevin Courtney, joint general secretary of the National Education Union, if NEU staff had been given a 12% pay rise this year (which is what they are asking the government for).
I agree with her. No teachers should be using food banks.
But:
Here is a thought for all of them and you to ponder.
I have just done my accounts for January and projections for February. This month, working one-third of the hours, at times I can negotiate with my pupils, and 50% from my own home, I will earn one hundred pounds less than I did as a Head of Faculty in an outstanding school working 60 hour weeks across six days a week.
If I worked 50 hours a week tutoring, I would be earning around 50% more than I did in a school.
Ok, I don't get pension with that. And I work through the holidays now as well. But there is a fundamental mismatch between what the market will provide and what the government is paying.
So either change the expectations - or change the salaries.
It's not really that hard. Unless you're stupid.
Ah....
Average teacher salary is now £38k in England, £39k in Wales and £40k in Scotland.
Clearly above the average salary in each of those nations.
Teachers are graduates and will be paying an extra 9% graduate income tax on their salary, so is it above the average graduate salary in each of those nations?
Or are you comparing apples and oranges as usual and deflating salary figures by including non-graduates who don't pay 9% graduate tax on their income?
Why do I even ask, we know the answer.
Either way though, teachers are working for a living but are expected to get a real terms pay cut, while the government is giving double-digit pay increases to match inflation to those who aren't working for a living funded by the tax on those who are working like teachers. Those who are working for a living should not get less than those who are not.
You can be a teacher with a 2.2 from an ex polytechnic.
Nobody is getting double digit pay increases except those on benefits, the minimum wage and state pension ie the poorest in society
People who get the state pension aren't the poorest in society. People who get pension credit are among the poorest in society, the average pensioner who receives the state pension and not pension credit is pretty wealthy and has significant private pension or other income.
They certainly are amongst the poorest in society if they don't have a significant private pension too
More or Less explore the claim that more pensioners are living in “millionaire households” than in poverty. This includes the value of your house and your pension. So this could be for example two pensioners with pensions and a home they own or a single pensioner in a £500,000 house with £30k/year pension. These amount to 22% of pensioners have assets over £1million - while those living in relative poverty (income after housing below 60% of median income) amount to 15% - half the level of the late 1990s. Most pensioners fall into neither category.
They are the richest generation ever and will be richer than their successors. I guess such generations are inevitable occassionally but it would be better for society if they understood and accepted:
this has been down mostly to demographics rather than their generation working harder than others the real economic and housing problems faced by their children and grandchildren that their generation needs to share the pain of demographic changes immigration is a necessary and significant part of dealing with those demographic changes
Why would their children and granchildren be faced with housing and economic problems when they will inherit all the houses and money of the richest generation ever.
Because people need a house when they are young adults starting their own family and bringing up their own children, not by the time they themselves are already old when their parents and grandparents have pegged it and they now have grandchildren of their own.
Inheritance should never be anything anyone ever expects of right, or depends upon. Everyone should be able to get a job and support themselves.
You are assuming that they will be old themselves when grandparents peg it. I doubt many plan their lives on inheritances given most people peg it with washers in the bank. Still does not get away with fact that they are unlikely to be in poverty in later life if they are families of the richest generation ever. You missed the irony that some eejit thinks every pensioner is a millionaire.
Not every pensioner is a millionaire. If you believe in redistribution, then we ought to be able to tax well off pensioners and give the money to provide for pensioners who are struggling.
Merging the various forms of income tax (ie Income Tax, NI and "Student Loans") all into one single income tax that is paid by everyone the same regardless of how you earn your money, would enable more taxation on the millionaire pensioners and enable more support for struggling pensioners.
So pick your poison, do you want to support redistribution or not?
I hav eworked all my life and paid shedloads of tax, still do so doing plenty of redistribution. I don't want to fund Tory crooks and grifters which I do just now given you rats are emptying the public purse
The politics of the teacher strike has been interesting this morning. Gillian Keegan on @TimesRadio was very measured, pointed out that most teachers are reasonably well paid and gently disputed the idea that loads are using food banks….
Now the NEU rep on to explain why they are striking is instead going on about the number of food banks, child hunger and austerity. Important issues but this is a pay dispute not an anti-Tory protest. Isn’t it?
Also, I asked Kevin Courtney, joint general secretary of the National Education Union, if NEU staff had been given a 12% pay rise this year (which is what they are asking the government for).
I agree with her. No teachers should be using food banks.
But:
Here is a thought for all of them and you to ponder.
I have just done my accounts for January and projections for February. This month, working one-third of the hours, at times I can negotiate with my pupils, and 50% from my own home, I will earn one hundred pounds less than I did as a Head of Faculty in an outstanding school working 60 hour weeks across six days a week.
If I worked 50 hours a week tutoring, I would be earning around 50% more than I did in a school.
Ok, I don't get pension with that. And I work through the holidays now as well. But there is a fundamental mismatch between what the market will provide and what the government is paying.
So either change the expectations - or change the salaries.
It's not really that hard. Unless you're stupid.
Ah....
Average teacher salary is now £38k in England, £39k in Wales and £40k in Scotland.
Clearly above the average salary in each of those nations.
Teachers are graduates and will be paying an extra 9% graduate income tax on their salary, so is it above the average graduate salary in each of those nations?
Or are you comparing apples and oranges as usual and deflating salary figures by including non-graduates who don't pay 9% graduate tax on their income?
Why do I even ask, we know the answer.
Either way though, teachers are working for a living but are expected to get a real terms pay cut, while the government is giving double-digit pay increases to match inflation to those who aren't working for a living funded by the tax on those who are working like teachers. Those who are working for a living should not get less than those who are not.
You can be a teacher with a 2.2 from an ex polytechnic.
Nobody is getting double digit pay increases except those on benefits, the minimum wage and state pension ie the poorest in society
So? Having any sort of degree puts you above the median in terms of academic attainment.
Attainment yes, but not necessarily intelligence or work quality. Of my team there are 3 who didn't go to uni and 2 of those are easily the top performers every year out of about 25 in total. I think, as a society, we need to move beyond the outmoded thinking that most jobs require a degree to do well, it's completely poisonous to the working classes who are priced out of degrees, especially from universities that count, as they then get excluded from some of the best careers in the country.
My chemistry degree has had zero use since I graduated, if I gave it to Jen to rip into a million pieces as she's begun doing with anything you give her it would make precisely zero difference to my life. I only paid £1.2k per year for it and left uni with ca. £15k in loans which I paid back within a few years as we had fair interest rates. Other than opening the door for my first job, I can't think of any situation where it has been necessary, even that first job didn't do any checks, they simply accepted that I have the degree and didn't ask for any transcripts or a copy of my certificate, it was only when I wore my old uni hoody to work a few months later that the HR person said, "oh yeah we were supposed to ask you for a copy of it, oh well, too late now anyway".
The degree bar need to be removed from the majority of non-vocational jobs. The best quant in our company is an Italian guy who dropped out of uni.
Your chemistry degree should be about more than just chemistry. It will, I hope, have taught you analysis, deduction, critical thinking, the ability to write reports etc. We train many more chemists in this country than we need for chemistry roles, but the rest are sought after graduates for a reason.
The politics of the teacher strike has been interesting this morning. Gillian Keegan on @TimesRadio was very measured, pointed out that most teachers are reasonably well paid and gently disputed the idea that loads are using food banks….
Now the NEU rep on to explain why they are striking is instead going on about the number of food banks, child hunger and austerity. Important issues but this is a pay dispute not an anti-Tory protest. Isn’t it?
Also, I asked Kevin Courtney, joint general secretary of the National Education Union, if NEU staff had been given a 12% pay rise this year (which is what they are asking the government for).
I agree with her. No teachers should be using food banks.
But:
Here is a thought for all of them and you to ponder.
I have just done my accounts for January and projections for February. This month, working one-third of the hours, at times I can negotiate with my pupils, and 50% from my own home, I will earn one hundred pounds less than I did as a Head of Faculty in an outstanding school working 60 hour weeks across six days a week.
If I worked 50 hours a week tutoring, I would be earning around 50% more than I did in a school.
Ok, I don't get pension with that. And I work through the holidays now as well. But there is a fundamental mismatch between what the market will provide and what the government is paying.
So either change the expectations - or change the salaries.
It's not really that hard. Unless you're stupid.
Ah....
Average teacher salary is now £38k in England, £39k in Wales and £40k in Scotland.
Clearly above the average salary in each of those nations.
Teachers are graduates and will be paying an extra 9% graduate income tax on their salary, so is it above the average graduate salary in each of those nations?
Or are you comparing apples and oranges as usual and deflating salary figures by including non-graduates who don't pay 9% graduate tax on their income?
Why do I even ask, we know the answer.
Either way though, teachers are working for a living but are expected to get a real terms pay cut, while the government is giving double-digit pay increases to match inflation to those who aren't working for a living funded by the tax on those who are working like teachers. Those who are working for a living should not get less than those who are not.
You can be a teacher with a 2.2 from an ex polytechnic.
Nobody is getting double digit pay increases except those on benefits, the minimum wage and state pension ie the poorest in society
So? Having any sort of degree puts you above the median in terms of academic attainment.
Not necessarily intelligence though.
Someone with straight A* at GCSE and A level from a low income background could have decided to train to be an accountant or start their own business after school rather than go to university and start earning with no graduate debt.
Someone with C grade GCSES and A levels could still have a degree from a lower ranked university now
The politics of the teacher strike has been interesting this morning. Gillian Keegan on @TimesRadio was very measured, pointed out that most teachers are reasonably well paid and gently disputed the idea that loads are using food banks….
Now the NEU rep on to explain why they are striking is instead going on about the number of food banks, child hunger and austerity. Important issues but this is a pay dispute not an anti-Tory protest. Isn’t it?
Also, I asked Kevin Courtney, joint general secretary of the National Education Union, if NEU staff had been given a 12% pay rise this year (which is what they are asking the government for).
I agree with her. No teachers should be using food banks.
But:
Here is a thought for all of them and you to ponder.
I have just done my accounts for January and projections for February. This month, working one-third of the hours, at times I can negotiate with my pupils, and 50% from my own home, I will earn one hundred pounds less than I did as a Head of Faculty in an outstanding school working 60 hour weeks across six days a week.
If I worked 50 hours a week tutoring, I would be earning around 50% more than I did in a school.
Ok, I don't get pension with that. And I work through the holidays now as well. But there is a fundamental mismatch between what the market will provide and what the government is paying.
So either change the expectations - or change the salaries.
It's not really that hard. Unless you're stupid.
Ah....
Average teacher salary is now £38k in England, £39k in Wales and £40k in Scotland.
Clearly above the average salary in each of those nations.
Teachers are graduates and will be paying an extra 9% graduate income tax on their salary, so is it above the average graduate salary in each of those nations?
Or are you comparing apples and oranges as usual and deflating salary figures by including non-graduates who don't pay 9% graduate tax on their income?
Why do I even ask, we know the answer.
Either way though, teachers are working for a living but are expected to get a real terms pay cut, while the government is giving double-digit pay increases to match inflation to those who aren't working for a living funded by the tax on those who are working like teachers. Those who are working for a living should not get less than those who are not.
You can be a teacher with a 2.2 from an ex polytechnic.
Nobody is getting double digit pay increases except those on benefits, the minimum wage and state pension ie the poorest in society
So? Having any sort of degree puts you above the median in terms of academic attainment.
Attainment yes, but not necessarily intelligence or work quality. Of my team there are 3 who didn't go to uni and 2 of those are easily the top performers every year out of about 25 in total. I think, as a society, we need to move beyond the outmoded thinking that most jobs require a degree to do well, it's completely poisonous to the working classes who are priced out of degrees, especially from universities that count, as they then get excluded from some of the best careers in the country.
My chemistry degree has had zero use since I graduated, if I gave it to Jen to rip into a million pieces as she's begun doing with anything you give her it would make precisely zero difference to my life. I only paid £1.2k per year for it and left uni with ca. £15k in loans which I paid back within a few years as we had fair interest rates. Other than opening the door for my first job, I can't think of any situation where it has been necessary, even that first job didn't do any checks, they simply accepted that I have the degree and didn't ask for any transcripts or a copy of my certificate, it was only when I wore my old uni hoody to work a few months later that the HR person said, "oh yeah we were supposed to ask you for a copy of it, oh well, too late now anyway".
The degree bar need to be removed from the majority of non-vocational jobs. The best quant in our company is an Italian guy who dropped out of uni.
Your chemistry degree should be about more than just chemistry. It will, I hope, have taught you analysis, deduction, critical thinking, the ability to write reports etc. We train many more chemists in this country than we need for chemistry roles, but the rest are sought after graduates for a reason.
All that might be true (probably is), but it doesn't negate Max's point.
The politics of the teacher strike has been interesting this morning. Gillian Keegan on @TimesRadio was very measured, pointed out that most teachers are reasonably well paid and gently disputed the idea that loads are using food banks….
Now the NEU rep on to explain why they are striking is instead going on about the number of food banks, child hunger and austerity. Important issues but this is a pay dispute not an anti-Tory protest. Isn’t it?
Also, I asked Kevin Courtney, joint general secretary of the National Education Union, if NEU staff had been given a 12% pay rise this year (which is what they are asking the government for).
I agree with her. No teachers should be using food banks.
But:
Here is a thought for all of them and you to ponder.
I have just done my accounts for January and projections for February. This month, working one-third of the hours, at times I can negotiate with my pupils, and 50% from my own home, I will earn one hundred pounds less than I did as a Head of Faculty in an outstanding school working 60 hour weeks across six days a week.
If I worked 50 hours a week tutoring, I would be earning around 50% more than I did in a school.
Ok, I don't get pension with that. And I work through the holidays now as well. But there is a fundamental mismatch between what the market will provide and what the government is paying.
So either change the expectations - or change the salaries.
It's not really that hard. Unless you're stupid.
Ah....
Average teacher salary is now £38k in England, £39k in Wales and £40k in Scotland.
Clearly above the average salary in each of those nations.
Teachers are graduates and will be paying an extra 9% graduate income tax on their salary, so is it above the average graduate salary in each of those nations?
Or are you comparing apples and oranges as usual and deflating salary figures by including non-graduates who don't pay 9% graduate tax on their income?
Why do I even ask, we know the answer.
Either way though, teachers are working for a living but are expected to get a real terms pay cut, while the government is giving double-digit pay increases to match inflation to those who aren't working for a living funded by the tax on those who are working like teachers. Those who are working for a living should not get less than those who are not.
You can be a teacher with a 2.2 from an ex polytechnic.
Nobody is getting double digit pay increases except those on benefits, the minimum wage and state pension ie the poorest in society
So? Having any sort of degree puts you above the median in terms of academic attainment.
Attainment yes, but not necessarily intelligence or work quality. Of my team there are 3 who didn't go to uni and 2 of those are easily the top performers every year out of about 25 in total. I think, as a society, we need to move beyond the outmoded thinking that most jobs require a degree to do well, it's completely poisonous to the working classes who are priced out of degrees, especially from universities that count, as they then get excluded from some of the best careers in the country.
My chemistry degree has had zero use since I graduated, if I gave it to Jen to rip into a million pieces as she's begun doing with anything you give her it would make precisely zero difference to my life. I only paid £1.2k per year for it and left uni with ca. £15k in loans which I paid back within a few years as we had fair interest rates. Other than opening the door for my first job, I can't think of any situation where it has been necessary, even that first job didn't do any checks, they simply accepted that I have the degree and didn't ask for any transcripts or a copy of my certificate, it was only when I wore my old uni hoody to work a few months later that the HR person said, "oh yeah we were supposed to ask you for a copy of it, oh well, too late now anyway".
The degree bar need to be removed from the majority of non-vocational jobs. The best quant in our company is an Italian guy who dropped out of uni.
Your chemistry degree should be about more than just chemistry. It will, I hope, have taught you analysis, deduction, critical thinking, the ability to write reports etc. We train many more chemists in this country than we need for chemistry roles, but the rest are sought after graduates for a reason.
Chemistry grads always get a good reaction.
Although I sometimes feel electrical engineering grads have higher potential.
And everyone knows it's the maths grads who really count.
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.
Let's take an example case. Someone was born as Michael, and aged 25 transitions to be called Mary. She starts a relationship, and 30 years later she realises she is in a abusive relationship that she needs to get out of.
She has spent over half her life as a woman; many of her acquaintances do not know she was born male, the rest don't care.
Should she be able to access a women's refuge?
If he is a functioning male, despite living as a women all those years, the answer should be no. The rights and needs of the other users would override his/hers. If he is no longer a functioning male I think it is harder to justify exclusion but I recognise that some deeply traumatised women simply cannot bear a male in their proximity and their needs must be respected too.
I take your point but wouldn't it be more respectful to refer to Mary as she? Referring to her as he seems to indicate your bias against trans people.
Given she has transitioned I would assume she is no longer a functioning male. Maybe I am misunderstanding the definition of 'transition' here? (IANAE)
This is one of the things at the heart of this issue. 'Trans' covers a shole host of positions - including someone like Eddie Izzard, through Quentin Crisp, to Caitlyn Jenner or Elliot Page or Hari Nef.
Some trans people will just cross-dress; some will have had the full drugs-and-operations treatment. Some will just take the drugs.
Fully transitioning is a lengthy process (rightly, IMO), so someone intending to be fully transitioned may only be partially transitioned at a certain point, but think of themselves as that. Some may decide that the drugs are enough, and they don't want to go through the operations (which are *not* pleasant).
As for sexuality: some will date men. Some will date women. Some will be bisexual. Some will be asexual.
Also, some trans people will be saints. Some will be sinners; in the same way some men are sinners and saints. Or women. Or doctors. Or lawyers. Or PB posters.
'Trans' covers a whole smorgasbord of things and people, and that's one of the major issues with this 'debate'.
The law, however, has to provide categorical outcomes. It has to say, "this person is a man, and should be accommodated in a male prison, but this person is a woman and should be accommodated in a female prison."
The problem is that trans activists are trying to fit a view entirely lacking in nuance - trans women are women - onto a situation which, as you have described, is a lot more complicated than that, and to have that apply to all circumstances - prisons, hospital wards, women refuges, police strip searches, child safeguarding.
If anyone dares to question this absolutist view, then they are denounced as a transphobe, wishing the death of trans people.
How do we get to a more nuanced outcome that combines respect for trans people with a recognition that self-ID is not appropriate for all circumstances, particularly those where the law is involved?
To be fair, that is not the position of all trans 'activists', and not everyone who dares to question the absolutist view is denounced as a transphobe. Those claims are just ridiculous.
The answer has to be that the situation is judged on a case-by-case basis - as it should be for other people as well. For instance, should a person imprisoned for very violent offences be in the same wing as those jailed for non-violent offences?
You seem to denounce everyone here who raises concerns about this issue as a transphobe who is taking us to a very dark place for trans people. (Snip)
"You seem to denounce everyone here who raises concerns about this issue as a transphobe"
That's bullshit.
It's an inference based on your first comment on many mornings, which is often in reply to other posters who share tweets about news on this issue.
CV posts stuff negative towards trans people frequently (and rarely if ever, supporting trans people.
1. I post stuff critical of the Scottish Governments badly thought through GRR bill - which is a position also shared by Labour and SNP MPs so hardly a “Tory Culture War”. 2. I don’t need to post “positive stuff about trans people” - classic whataboutary, although: 3. This morning I presented the case that the crude statistics which could suggest trans women were more likely to be sex offenders than men, in fact suggested that male sex offenders were falsely claiming to be trans. How is that “anti trans”? 4. The defence of this badly thought through incompetent legislation is that it’s “not valid” (until it was) and any criticism of it is transphobic. As someone with trans friends I am surprised you don’t recognise the damage this is doing to the genuinely trans.
The politics of the teacher strike has been interesting this morning. Gillian Keegan on @TimesRadio was very measured, pointed out that most teachers are reasonably well paid and gently disputed the idea that loads are using food banks….
Now the NEU rep on to explain why they are striking is instead going on about the number of food banks, child hunger and austerity. Important issues but this is a pay dispute not an anti-Tory protest. Isn’t it?
Also, I asked Kevin Courtney, joint general secretary of the National Education Union, if NEU staff had been given a 12% pay rise this year (which is what they are asking the government for).
I agree with her. No teachers should be using food banks.
But:
Here is a thought for all of them and you to ponder.
I have just done my accounts for January and projections for February. This month, working one-third of the hours, at times I can negotiate with my pupils, and 50% from my own home, I will earn one hundred pounds less than I did as a Head of Faculty in an outstanding school working 60 hour weeks across six days a week.
If I worked 50 hours a week tutoring, I would be earning around 50% more than I did in a school.
Ok, I don't get pension with that. And I work through the holidays now as well. But there is a fundamental mismatch between what the market will provide and what the government is paying.
So either change the expectations - or change the salaries.
It's not really that hard. Unless you're stupid.
Ah....
Average teacher salary is now £38k in England, £39k in Wales and £40k in Scotland.
Clearly above the average salary in each of those nations.
Teachers are graduates and will be paying an extra 9% graduate income tax on their salary, so is it above the average graduate salary in each of those nations?
Or are you comparing apples and oranges as usual and deflating salary figures by including non-graduates who don't pay 9% graduate tax on their income?
Why do I even ask, we know the answer.
Either way though, teachers are working for a living but are expected to get a real terms pay cut, while the government is giving double-digit pay increases to match inflation to those who aren't working for a living funded by the tax on those who are working like teachers. Those who are working for a living should not get less than those who are not.
You can be a teacher with a 2.2 from an ex polytechnic.
Nobody is getting double digit pay increases except those on benefits, the minimum wage and state pension ie the poorest in society
So? Having any sort of degree puts you above the median in terms of academic attainment.
Attainment yes, but not necessarily intelligence or work quality. Of my team there are 3 who didn't go to uni and 2 of those are easily the top performers every year out of about 25 in total. I think, as a society, we need to move beyond the outmoded thinking that most jobs require a degree to do well, it's completely poisonous to the working classes who are priced out of degrees, especially from universities that count, as they then get excluded from some of the best careers in the country.
My chemistry degree has had zero use since I graduated, if I gave it to Jen to rip into a million pieces as she's begun doing with anything you give her it would make precisely zero difference to my life. I only paid £1.2k per year for it and left uni with ca. £15k in loans which I paid back within a few years as we had fair interest rates. Other than opening the door for my first job, I can't think of any situation where it has been necessary, even that first job didn't do any checks, they simply accepted that I have the degree and didn't ask for any transcripts or a copy of my certificate, it was only when I wore my old uni hoody to work a few months later that the HR person said, "oh yeah we were supposed to ask you for a copy of it, oh well, too late now anyway".
The degree bar need to be removed from the majority of non-vocational jobs. The best quant in our company is an Italian guy who dropped out of uni.
Your chemistry degree should be about more than just chemistry. It will, I hope, have taught you analysis, deduction, critical thinking, the ability to write reports etc. We train many more chemists in this country than we need for chemistry roles, but the rest are sought after graduates for a reason.
Chemistry grads always get a good reaction.
Although I sometimes feel electrical engineering grads have higher potential.
And everyone knows it's the maths grads who really count.
If it bubbles and smells, it's chemistry. If it wriggles and smells, it's biology. If it doesn't work, then it must be physics...
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.
Let's take an example case. Someone was born as Michael, and aged 25 transitions to be called Mary. She starts a relationship, and 30 years later she realises she is in a abusive relationship that she needs to get out of.
She has spent over half her life as a woman; many of her acquaintances do not know she was born male, the rest don't care.
Should she be able to access a women's refuge?
If he is a functioning male, despite living as a women all those years, the answer should be no. The rights and needs of the other users would override his/hers. If he is no longer a functioning male I think it is harder to justify exclusion but I recognise that some deeply traumatised women simply cannot bear a male in their proximity and their needs must be respected too.
I take your point but wouldn't it be more respectful to refer to Mary as she? Referring to her as he seems to indicate your bias against trans people.
Given she has transitioned I would assume she is no longer a functioning male. Maybe I am misunderstanding the definition of 'transition' here? (IANAE)
This is one of the things at the heart of this issue. 'Trans' covers a shole host of positions - including someone like Eddie Izzard, through Quentin Crisp, to Caitlyn Jenner or Elliot Page or Hari Nef.
Some trans people will just cross-dress; some will have had the full drugs-and-operations treatment. Some will just take the drugs.
Fully transitioning is a lengthy process (rightly, IMO), so someone intending to be fully transitioned may only be partially transitioned at a certain point, but think of themselves as that. Some may decide that the drugs are enough, and they don't want to go through the operations (which are *not* pleasant).
As for sexuality: some will date men. Some will date women. Some will be bisexual. Some will be asexual.
Also, some trans people will be saints. Some will be sinners; in the same way some men are sinners and saints. Or women. Or doctors. Or lawyers. Or PB posters.
'Trans' covers a whole smorgasbord of things and people, and that's one of the major issues with this 'debate'.
The law, however, has to provide categorical outcomes. It has to say, "this person is a man, and should be accommodated in a male prison, but this person is a woman and should be accommodated in a female prison."
The problem is that trans activists are trying to fit a view entirely lacking in nuance - trans women are women - onto a situation which, as you have described, is a lot more complicated than that, and to have that apply to all circumstances - prisons, hospital wards, women refuges, police strip searches, child safeguarding.
If anyone dares to question this absolutist view, then they are denounced as a transphobe, wishing the death of trans people.
How do we get to a more nuanced outcome that combines respect for trans people with a recognition that self-ID is not appropriate for all circumstances, particularly those where the law is involved?
To be fair, that is not the position of all trans 'activists', and not everyone who dares to question the absolutist view is denounced as a transphobe. Those claims are just ridiculous.
The answer has to be that the situation is judged on a case-by-case basis - as it should be for other people as well. For instance, should a person imprisoned for very violent offences be in the same wing as those jailed for non-violent offences?
You seem to denounce everyone here who raises concerns about this issue as a transphobe who is taking us to a very dark place for trans people. (Snip)
"You seem to denounce everyone here who raises concerns about this issue as a transphobe"
That's bullshit.
It's an inference based on your first comment on many mornings, which is often in reply to other posters who share tweets about news on this issue.
CV posts stuff negative towards trans people frequently (and rarely if ever, supporting trans people.
1. I post stuff critical of the Scottish Governments badly thought through GRR bill - which is a position also shared by Labour and SNP MPs so hardly a “Tory Culture War”.
What the fuck are you hoping to achieve with this relentless jihad? Apart from boring us all into catatonia.
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.
Let's take an example case. Someone was born as Michael, and aged 25 transitions to be called Mary. She starts a relationship, and 30 years later she realises she is in a abusive relationship that she needs to get out of.
She has spent over half her life as a woman; many of her acquaintances do not know she was born male, the rest don't care.
Should she be able to access a women's refuge?
If he is a functioning male, despite living as a women all those years, the answer should be no. The rights and needs of the other users would override his/hers. If he is no longer a functioning male I think it is harder to justify exclusion but I recognise that some deeply traumatised women simply cannot bear a male in their proximity and their needs must be respected too.
I take your point but wouldn't it be more respectful to refer to Mary as she? Referring to her as he seems to indicate your bias against trans people.
Given she has transitioned I would assume she is no longer a functioning male. Maybe I am misunderstanding the definition of 'transition' here? (IANAE)
This is one of the things at the heart of this issue. 'Trans' covers a shole host of positions - including someone like Eddie Izzard, through Quentin Crisp, to Caitlyn Jenner or Elliot Page or Hari Nef.
Some trans people will just cross-dress; some will have had the full drugs-and-operations treatment. Some will just take the drugs.
Fully transitioning is a lengthy process (rightly, IMO), so someone intending to be fully transitioned may only be partially transitioned at a certain point, but think of themselves as that. Some may decide that the drugs are enough, and they don't want to go through the operations (which are *not* pleasant).
As for sexuality: some will date men. Some will date women. Some will be bisexual. Some will be asexual.
Also, some trans people will be saints. Some will be sinners; in the same way some men are sinners and saints. Or women. Or doctors. Or lawyers. Or PB posters.
'Trans' covers a whole smorgasbord of things and people, and that's one of the major issues with this 'debate'.
The law, however, has to provide categorical outcomes. It has to say, "this person is a man, and should be accommodated in a male prison, but this person is a woman and should be accommodated in a female prison."
The problem is that trans activists are trying to fit a view entirely lacking in nuance - trans women are women - onto a situation which, as you have described, is a lot more complicated than that, and to have that apply to all circumstances - prisons, hospital wards, women refuges, police strip searches, child safeguarding.
If anyone dares to question this absolutist view, then they are denounced as a transphobe, wishing the death of trans people.
How do we get to a more nuanced outcome that combines respect for trans people with a recognition that self-ID is not appropriate for all circumstances, particularly those where the law is involved?
To be fair, that is not the position of all trans 'activists', and not everyone who dares to question the absolutist view is denounced as a transphobe. Those claims are just ridiculous.
The answer has to be that the situation is judged on a case-by-case basis - as it should be for other people as well. For instance, should a person imprisoned for very violent offences be in the same wing as those jailed for non-violent offences?
You seem to denounce everyone here who raises concerns about this issue as a transphobe who is taking us to a very dark place for trans people. (Snip)
"You seem to denounce everyone here who raises concerns about this issue as a transphobe"
That's bullshit.
It's an inference based on your first comment on many mornings, which is often in reply to other posters who share tweets about news on this issue.
That's odd. So you're saying that my occasional comments of concern that CV posts stuff negative towards trans people frequently (and rarely if ever, supporting trans people) means that I 'denounce' *everyone* who raises concerns?
For example, I disagree with Bart on some of this stuff, but I don't think I've ever said, or implied, that he's a transphobe. I could say the same with DavidL and others.
And when you say 'many mornings' : how many? (I do wonder if you've confused me with another poster)
But Carlotta never said anything negative about trans people, she merely raised concerns that "men" would abuse the GRR and you denounced her as transphobic for that, simply because the word cross-dressers were there.
How would you feel if the shoe was on the other foot and she called you misogynistic for disregarding the very valid concerns of women?
If anyone is being transphobic ironically its you, by claiming that a reference to men “who cross-dress for erotic purposes” is about trans people, when its not, its about 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.
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.
Let's take an example case. Someone was born as Michael, and aged 25 transitions to be called Mary. She starts a relationship, and 30 years later she realises she is in a abusive relationship that she needs to get out of.
She has spent over half her life as a woman; many of her acquaintances do not know she was born male, the rest don't care.
Should she be able to access a women's refuge?
If he is a functioning male, despite living as a women all those years, the answer should be no. The rights and needs of the other users would override his/hers. If he is no longer a functioning male I think it is harder to justify exclusion but I recognise that some deeply traumatised women simply cannot bear a male in their proximity and their needs must be respected too.
I take your point but wouldn't it be more respectful to refer to Mary as she? Referring to her as he seems to indicate your bias against trans people.
Given she has transitioned I would assume she is no longer a functioning male. Maybe I am misunderstanding the definition of 'transition' here? (IANAE)
This is one of the things at the heart of this issue. 'Trans' covers a shole host of positions - including someone like Eddie Izzard, through Quentin Crisp, to Caitlyn Jenner or Elliot Page or Hari Nef.
Some trans people will just cross-dress; some will have had the full drugs-and-operations treatment. Some will just take the drugs.
Fully transitioning is a lengthy process (rightly, IMO), so someone intending to be fully transitioned may only be partially transitioned at a certain point, but think of themselves as that. Some may decide that the drugs are enough, and they don't want to go through the operations (which are *not* pleasant).
As for sexuality: some will date men. Some will date women. Some will be bisexual. Some will be asexual.
Also, some trans people will be saints. Some will be sinners; in the same way some men are sinners and saints. Or women. Or doctors. Or lawyers. Or PB posters.
'Trans' covers a whole smorgasbord of things and people, and that's one of the major issues with this 'debate'.
The law, however, has to provide categorical outcomes. It has to say, "this person is a man, and should be accommodated in a male prison, but this person is a woman and should be accommodated in a female prison."
The problem is that trans activists are trying to fit a view entirely lacking in nuance - trans women are women - onto a situation which, as you have described, is a lot more complicated than that, and to have that apply to all circumstances - prisons, hospital wards, women refuges, police strip searches, child safeguarding.
If anyone dares to question this absolutist view, then they are denounced as a transphobe, wishing the death of trans people.
How do we get to a more nuanced outcome that combines respect for trans people with a recognition that self-ID is not appropriate for all circumstances, particularly those where the law is involved?
To be fair, that is not the position of all trans 'activists', and not everyone who dares to question the absolutist view is denounced as a transphobe. Those claims are just ridiculous.
The answer has to be that the situation is judged on a case-by-case basis - as it should be for other people as well. For instance, should a person imprisoned for very violent offences be in the same wing as those jailed for non-violent offences?
You seem to denounce everyone here who raises concerns about this issue as a transphobe who is taking us to a very dark place for trans people. (Snip)
"You seem to denounce everyone here who raises concerns about this issue as a transphobe"
That's bullshit.
It's an inference based on your first comment on many mornings, which is often in reply to other posters who share tweets about news on this issue.
CV posts stuff negative towards trans people frequently (and rarely if ever, supporting trans people.
1. I post stuff critical of the Scottish Governments badly thought through GRR bill - which is a position also shared by Labour and SNP MPs so hardly a “Tory Culture War”. 2. I don’t need to post “positive stuff about trans people” - classic whataboutary, although: 3. This morning I presented the case that the crude statistics which could suggest trans women were more likely to be sex offenders than men, in fact suggested that male sex offenders were falsely claiming to be trans. How is that “anti trans”? 4. The defence of this badly thought through incompetent legislation is that it’s “not valid” (until it was) and any criticism of it is transphobic. As someone with trans friends I am surprised you don’t recognise the damage this is doing to the genuinely trans.
All Sturgeon has done through her pig headedness and unwillingness to listen to other people outside her wierd coterie is demonise transwomen. If she had listened to all teh public and produced a sensible bill with safeguards there woudl have been no issues. Those clowns doubling down on their stupidity has caused an outroar and caused issues for all transpeople.
More or Less explore the claim that more pensioners are living in “millionaire households” than in poverty. This includes the value of your house and your pension. So this could be for example two pensioners with pensions and a home they own or a single pensioner in a £500,000 house with £30k/year pension. These amount to 22% of pensioners have assets over £1million - while those living in relative poverty (income after housing below 60% of median income) amount to 15% - half the level of the late 1990s. Most pensioners fall into neither category.
They are the richest generation ever and will be richer than their successors. I guess such generations are inevitable occassionally but it would be better for society if they understood and accepted:
this has been down mostly to demographics rather than their generation working harder than others the real economic and housing problems faced by their children and grandchildren that their generation needs to share the pain of demographic changes immigration is a necessary and significant part of dealing with those demographic changes
Why would their children and granchildren be faced with housing and economic problems when they will inherit all the houses and money of the richest generation ever.
Because people need a house when they are young adults starting their own family and bringing up their own children, not by the time they themselves are already old when their parents and grandparents have pegged it and they now have grandchildren of their own.
Inheritance should never be anything anyone ever expects of right, or depends upon. Everyone should be able to get a job and support themselves.
You are assuming that they will be old themselves when grandparents peg it. I doubt many plan their lives on inheritances given most people peg it with washers in the bank. Still does not get away with fact that they are unlikely to be in poverty in later life if they are families of the richest generation ever. You missed the irony that some eejit thinks every pensioner is a millionaire.
Not every pensioner is a millionaire. If you believe in redistribution, then we ought to be able to tax well off pensioners and give the money to provide for pensioners who are struggling.
Merging the various forms of income tax (ie Income Tax, NI and "Student Loans") all into one single income tax that is paid by everyone the same regardless of how you earn your money, would enable more taxation on the millionaire pensioners and enable more support for struggling pensioners.
So pick your poison, do you want to support redistribution or not?
I hav eworked all my life and paid shedloads of tax, still do so doing plenty of redistribution. I don't want to fund Tory crooks and grifters which I do just now given you rats are emptying the public purse
Good for you, then you won't have a reason to object to paying the same tax rate as everyone else then?
NI is a tax, not insurance, in case you're still too thick to figure it out. It being called insurance is just marketing purposes, its still a HMRC levied income tax.
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.
Let's take an example case. Someone was born as Michael, and aged 25 transitions to be called Mary. She starts a relationship, and 30 years later she realises she is in a abusive relationship that she needs to get out of.
She has spent over half her life as a woman; many of her acquaintances do not know she was born male, the rest don't care.
Should she be able to access a women's refuge?
If he is a functioning male, despite living as a women all those years, the answer should be no. The rights and needs of the other users would override his/hers. If he is no longer a functioning male I think it is harder to justify exclusion but I recognise that some deeply traumatised women simply cannot bear a male in their proximity and their needs must be respected too.
I take your point but wouldn't it be more respectful to refer to Mary as she? Referring to her as he seems to indicate your bias against trans people.
Given she has transitioned I would assume she is no longer a functioning male. Maybe I am misunderstanding the definition of 'transition' here? (IANAE)
This is one of the things at the heart of this issue. 'Trans' covers a shole host of positions - including someone like Eddie Izzard, through Quentin Crisp, to Caitlyn Jenner or Elliot Page or Hari Nef.
Some trans people will just cross-dress; some will have had the full drugs-and-operations treatment. Some will just take the drugs.
Fully transitioning is a lengthy process (rightly, IMO), so someone intending to be fully transitioned may only be partially transitioned at a certain point, but think of themselves as that. Some may decide that the drugs are enough, and they don't want to go through the operations (which are *not* pleasant).
As for sexuality: some will date men. Some will date women. Some will be bisexual. Some will be asexual.
Also, some trans people will be saints. Some will be sinners; in the same way some men are sinners and saints. Or women. Or doctors. Or lawyers. Or PB posters.
'Trans' covers a whole smorgasbord of things and people, and that's one of the major issues with this 'debate'.
The law, however, has to provide categorical outcomes. It has to say, "this person is a man, and should be accommodated in a male prison, but this person is a woman and should be accommodated in a female prison."
The problem is that trans activists are trying to fit a view entirely lacking in nuance - trans women are women - onto a situation which, as you have described, is a lot more complicated than that, and to have that apply to all circumstances - prisons, hospital wards, women refuges, police strip searches, child safeguarding.
If anyone dares to question this absolutist view, then they are denounced as a transphobe, wishing the death of trans people.
How do we get to a more nuanced outcome that combines respect for trans people with a recognition that self-ID is not appropriate for all circumstances, particularly those where the law is involved?
To be fair, that is not the position of all trans 'activists', and not everyone who dares to question the absolutist view is denounced as a transphobe. Those claims are just ridiculous.
The answer has to be that the situation is judged on a case-by-case basis - as it should be for other people as well. For instance, should a person imprisoned for very violent offences be in the same wing as those jailed for non-violent offences?
You seem to denounce everyone here who raises concerns about this issue as a transphobe who is taking us to a very dark place for trans people. (Snip)
"You seem to denounce everyone here who raises concerns about this issue as a transphobe"
That's bullshit.
It's an inference based on your first comment on many mornings, which is often in reply to other posters who share tweets about news on this issue.
CV posts stuff negative towards trans people frequently (and rarely if ever, supporting trans people.
1. I post stuff critical of the Scottish Governments badly thought through GRR bill - which is a position also shared by Labour and SNP MPs so hardly a “Tory Culture War”.
What the fuck are you hoping to achieve with this relentless jihad? Apart from boring us all into catatonia.
Not seen the news recently? Why are you trying to control what others post?
The politics of the teacher strike has been interesting this morning. Gillian Keegan on @TimesRadio was very measured, pointed out that most teachers are reasonably well paid and gently disputed the idea that loads are using food banks….
Now the NEU rep on to explain why they are striking is instead going on about the number of food banks, child hunger and austerity. Important issues but this is a pay dispute not an anti-Tory protest. Isn’t it?
Also, I asked Kevin Courtney, joint general secretary of the National Education Union, if NEU staff had been given a 12% pay rise this year (which is what they are asking the government for).
I agree with her. No teachers should be using food banks.
But:
Here is a thought for all of them and you to ponder.
I have just done my accounts for January and projections for February. This month, working one-third of the hours, at times I can negotiate with my pupils, and 50% from my own home, I will earn one hundred pounds less than I did as a Head of Faculty in an outstanding school working 60 hour weeks across six days a week.
If I worked 50 hours a week tutoring, I would be earning around 50% more than I did in a school.
Ok, I don't get pension with that. And I work through the holidays now as well. But there is a fundamental mismatch between what the market will provide and what the government is paying.
So either change the expectations - or change the salaries.
It's not really that hard. Unless you're stupid.
Ah....
Average teacher salary is now £38k in England, £39k in Wales and £40k in Scotland.
Clearly above the average salary in each of those nations.
Teachers are graduates and will be paying an extra 9% graduate income tax on their salary, so is it above the average graduate salary in each of those nations?
Or are you comparing apples and oranges as usual and deflating salary figures by including non-graduates who don't pay 9% graduate tax on their income?
Why do I even ask, we know the answer.
Either way though, teachers are working for a living but are expected to get a real terms pay cut, while the government is giving double-digit pay increases to match inflation to those who aren't working for a living funded by the tax on those who are working like teachers. Those who are working for a living should not get less than those who are not.
You can be a teacher with a 2.2 from an ex polytechnic.
Nobody is getting double digit pay increases except those on benefits, the minimum wage and state pension ie the poorest in society
So? Having any sort of degree puts you above the median in terms of academic attainment.
Attainment yes, but not necessarily intelligence or work quality. Of my team there are 3 who didn't go to uni and 2 of those are easily the top performers every year out of about 25 in total. I think, as a society, we need to move beyond the outmoded thinking that most jobs require a degree to do well, it's completely poisonous to the working classes who are priced out of degrees, especially from universities that count, as they then get excluded from some of the best careers in the country.
My chemistry degree has had zero use since I graduated, if I gave it to Jen to rip into a million pieces as she's begun doing with anything you give her it would make precisely zero difference to my life. I only paid £1.2k per year for it and left uni with ca. £15k in loans which I paid back within a few years as we had fair interest rates. Other than opening the door for my first job, I can't think of any situation where it has been necessary, even that first job didn't do any checks, they simply accepted that I have the degree and didn't ask for any transcripts or a copy of my certificate, it was only when I wore my old uni hoody to work a few months later that the HR person said, "oh yeah we were supposed to ask you for a copy of it, oh well, too late now anyway".
The degree bar need to be removed from the majority of non-vocational jobs. The best quant in our company is an Italian guy who dropped out of uni.
Your chemistry degree should be about more than just chemistry. It will, I hope, have taught you analysis, deduction, critical thinking, the ability to write reports etc. We train many more chemists in this country than we need for chemistry roles, but the rest are sought after graduates for a reason.
Yes, it did, but I also learned that at school which is why I managed to actually get a degree rather than just give up because I hated it. I think that's the bigger failing here, schools no longer do these things well and we rely on workplaces and universities to do it. School just seems to have become an exercise of passing exams, it was already heading that way when I did my A-Levels, I can't imagine how bad it is now.
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.
Let's take an example case. Someone was born as Michael, and aged 25 transitions to be called Mary. She starts a relationship, and 30 years later she realises she is in a abusive relationship that she needs to get out of.
She has spent over half her life as a woman; many of her acquaintances do not know she was born male, the rest don't care.
Should she be able to access a women's refuge?
If he is a functioning male, despite living as a women all those years, the answer should be no. The rights and needs of the other users would override his/hers. If he is no longer a functioning male I think it is harder to justify exclusion but I recognise that some deeply traumatised women simply cannot bear a male in their proximity and their needs must be respected too.
I take your point but wouldn't it be more respectful to refer to Mary as she? Referring to her as he seems to indicate your bias against trans people.
Given she has transitioned I would assume she is no longer a functioning male. Maybe I am misunderstanding the definition of 'transition' here? (IANAE)
This is one of the things at the heart of this issue. 'Trans' covers a shole host of positions - including someone like Eddie Izzard, through Quentin Crisp, to Caitlyn Jenner or Elliot Page or Hari Nef.
Some trans people will just cross-dress; some will have had the full drugs-and-operations treatment. Some will just take the drugs.
Fully transitioning is a lengthy process (rightly, IMO), so someone intending to be fully transitioned may only be partially transitioned at a certain point, but think of themselves as that. Some may decide that the drugs are enough, and they don't want to go through the operations (which are *not* pleasant).
As for sexuality: some will date men. Some will date women. Some will be bisexual. Some will be asexual.
Also, some trans people will be saints. Some will be sinners; in the same way some men are sinners and saints. Or women. Or doctors. Or lawyers. Or PB posters.
'Trans' covers a whole smorgasbord of things and people, and that's one of the major issues with this 'debate'.
The law, however, has to provide categorical outcomes. It has to say, "this person is a man, and should be accommodated in a male prison, but this person is a woman and should be accommodated in a female prison."
The problem is that trans activists are trying to fit a view entirely lacking in nuance - trans women are women - onto a situation which, as you have described, is a lot more complicated than that, and to have that apply to all circumstances - prisons, hospital wards, women refuges, police strip searches, child safeguarding.
If anyone dares to question this absolutist view, then they are denounced as a transphobe, wishing the death of trans people.
How do we get to a more nuanced outcome that combines respect for trans people with a recognition that self-ID is not appropriate for all circumstances, particularly those where the law is involved?
To be fair, that is not the position of all trans 'activists', and not everyone who dares to question the absolutist view is denounced as a transphobe. Those claims are just ridiculous.
The answer has to be that the situation is judged on a case-by-case basis - as it should be for other people as well. For instance, should a person imprisoned for very violent offences be in the same wing as those jailed for non-violent offences?
You seem to denounce everyone here who raises concerns about this issue as a transphobe who is taking us to a very dark place for trans people. (Snip)
"You seem to denounce everyone here who raises concerns about this issue as a transphobe"
That's bullshit.
It's an inference based on your first comment on many mornings, which is often in reply to other posters who share tweets about news on this issue.
CV posts stuff negative towards trans people frequently (and rarely if ever, supporting trans people.
1. I post stuff critical of the Scottish Governments badly thought through GRR bill - which is a position also shared by Labour and SNP MPs so hardly a “Tory Culture War”.
What the fuck are you hoping to achieve with this relentless jihad? Apart from boring us all into catatonia.
Things are getting strange, I'm starting to worry - this could be a case for Mulder and Scully?
More or Less explore the claim that more pensioners are living in “millionaire households” than in poverty. This includes the value of your house and your pension. So this could be for example two pensioners with pensions and a home they own or a single pensioner in a £500,000 house with £30k/year pension. These amount to 22% of pensioners have assets over £1million - while those living in relative poverty (income after housing below 60% of median income) amount to 15% - half the level of the late 1990s. Most pensioners fall into neither category.
They are the richest generation ever and will be richer than their successors. I guess such generations are inevitable occassionally but it would be better for society if they understood and accepted:
this has been down mostly to demographics rather than their generation working harder than others the real economic and housing problems faced by their children and grandchildren that their generation needs to share the pain of demographic changes immigration is a necessary and significant part of dealing with those demographic changes
Why would their children and granchildren be faced with housing and economic problems when they will inherit all the houses and money of the richest generation ever.
Because people need a house when they are young adults starting their own family and bringing up their own children, not by the time they themselves are already old when their parents and grandparents have pegged it and they now have grandchildren of their own.
Inheritance should never be anything anyone ever expects of right, or depends upon. Everyone should be able to get a job and support themselves.
You are assuming that they will be old themselves when grandparents peg it. I doubt many plan their lives on inheritances given most people peg it with washers in the bank. Still does not get away with fact that they are unlikely to be in poverty in later life if they are families of the richest generation ever. You missed the irony that some eejit thinks every pensioner is a millionaire.
Not every pensioner is a millionaire. If you believe in redistribution, then we ought to be able to tax well off pensioners and give the money to provide for pensioners who are struggling.
Merging the various forms of income tax (ie Income Tax, NI and "Student Loans") all into one single income tax that is paid by everyone the same regardless of how you earn your money, would enable more taxation on the millionaire pensioners and enable more support for struggling pensioners.
So pick your poison, do you want to support redistribution or not?
I hav eworked all my life and paid shedloads of tax, still do so doing plenty of redistribution. I don't want to fund Tory crooks and grifters which I do just now given you rats are emptying the public purse
Good for you, then you won't have a reason to object to paying the same tax rate as everyone else then?
NI is a tax, not insurance, in case you're still too thick to figure it out. It being called insurance is just marketing purposes, its still a HMRC levied income tax.
No, NI was created as an insurance solely to fund health insurance and contributory unemployment benefits
Interesting that Zahawi was the only Education Secretary of this parliament who held the job for any length of time.
Kit Malthouse 49 days James Cleverly 61 days Michelle Donelan 2 days Nadhim Zahawi 293 days Gillian Keegan 98 days (and counting)
I genuinely believe this current Government - which I would include back to the start of Johnson's tenure - simply don't care about education. For all that teachers on here have been critical of previous ministers from the Cameron and May periods at least you got the impression that they, and their PMs, did actually care about education and wanted to improve it even if they were criticised for doing the wrong things. These days I just get the impression Secretary of State for Education is just another post to fill to give someone that coveted cabinet seat.
More or Less explore the claim that more pensioners are living in “millionaire households” than in poverty. This includes the value of your house and your pension. So this could be for example two pensioners with pensions and a home they own or a single pensioner in a £500,000 house with £30k/year pension. These amount to 22% of pensioners have assets over £1million - while those living in relative poverty (income after housing below 60% of median income) amount to 15% - half the level of the late 1990s. Most pensioners fall into neither category.
They are the richest generation ever and will be richer than their successors. I guess such generations are inevitable occassionally but it would be better for society if they understood and accepted:
this has been down mostly to demographics rather than their generation working harder than others the real economic and housing problems faced by their children and grandchildren that their generation needs to share the pain of demographic changes immigration is a necessary and significant part of dealing with those demographic changes
Why would their children and granchildren be faced with housing and economic problems when they will inherit all the houses and money of the richest generation ever.
Because people need a house when they are young adults starting their own family and bringing up their own children, not by the time they themselves are already old when their parents and grandparents have pegged it and they now have grandchildren of their own.
Inheritance should never be anything anyone ever expects of right, or depends upon. Everyone should be able to get a job and support themselves.
You are assuming that they will be old themselves when grandparents peg it. I doubt many plan their lives on inheritances given most people peg it with washers in the bank. Still does not get away with fact that they are unlikely to be in poverty in later life if they are families of the richest generation ever. You missed the irony that some eejit thinks every pensioner is a millionaire.
Not every pensioner is a millionaire. If you believe in redistribution, then we ought to be able to tax well off pensioners and give the money to provide for pensioners who are struggling.
Merging the various forms of income tax (ie Income Tax, NI and "Student Loans") all into one single income tax that is paid by everyone the same regardless of how you earn your money, would enable more taxation on the millionaire pensioners and enable more support for struggling pensioners.
So pick your poison, do you want to support redistribution or not?
I hav eworked all my life and paid shedloads of tax, still do so doing plenty of redistribution. I don't want to fund Tory crooks and grifters which I do just now given you rats are emptying the public purse
Good for you, then you won't have a reason to object to paying the same tax rate as everyone else then?
NI is a tax, not insurance, in case you're still too thick to figure it out. It being called insurance is just marketing purposes, its still a HMRC levied income tax.
No, NI was created as an insurance solely to fund health insurance and contributory unemployment benefits
No, it was created as a tax, hence why its levied by HMRC.
An insurance policy would be based upon your risks, like do you smoke, rather than your income which taxes are concerned about.
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.
Let's take an example case. Someone was born as Michael, and aged 25 transitions to be called Mary. She starts a relationship, and 30 years later she realises she is in a abusive relationship that she needs to get out of.
She has spent over half her life as a woman; many of her acquaintances do not know she was born male, the rest don't care.
Should she be able to access a women's refuge?
If he is a functioning male, despite living as a women all those years, the answer should be no. The rights and needs of the other users would override his/hers. If he is no longer a functioning male I think it is harder to justify exclusion but I recognise that some deeply traumatised women simply cannot bear a male in their proximity and their needs must be respected too.
I take your point but wouldn't it be more respectful to refer to Mary as she? Referring to her as he seems to indicate your bias against trans people.
Given she has transitioned I would assume she is no longer a functioning male. Maybe I am misunderstanding the definition of 'transition' here? (IANAE)
This is one of the things at the heart of this issue. 'Trans' covers a shole host of positions - including someone like Eddie Izzard, through Quentin Crisp, to Caitlyn Jenner or Elliot Page or Hari Nef.
Some trans people will just cross-dress; some will have had the full drugs-and-operations treatment. Some will just take the drugs.
Fully transitioning is a lengthy process (rightly, IMO), so someone intending to be fully transitioned may only be partially transitioned at a certain point, but think of themselves as that. Some may decide that the drugs are enough, and they don't want to go through the operations (which are *not* pleasant).
As for sexuality: some will date men. Some will date women. Some will be bisexual. Some will be asexual.
Also, some trans people will be saints. Some will be sinners; in the same way some men are sinners and saints. Or women. Or doctors. Or lawyers. Or PB posters.
'Trans' covers a whole smorgasbord of things and people, and that's one of the major issues with this 'debate'.
The law, however, has to provide categorical outcomes. It has to say, "this person is a man, and should be accommodated in a male prison, but this person is a woman and should be accommodated in a female prison."
The problem is that trans activists are trying to fit a view entirely lacking in nuance - trans women are women - onto a situation which, as you have described, is a lot more complicated than that, and to have that apply to all circumstances - prisons, hospital wards, women refuges, police strip searches, child safeguarding.
If anyone dares to question this absolutist view, then they are denounced as a transphobe, wishing the death of trans people.
How do we get to a more nuanced outcome that combines respect for trans people with a recognition that self-ID is not appropriate for all circumstances, particularly those where the law is involved?
To be fair, that is not the position of all trans 'activists', and not everyone who dares to question the absolutist view is denounced as a transphobe. Those claims are just ridiculous.
The answer has to be that the situation is judged on a case-by-case basis - as it should be for other people as well. For instance, should a person imprisoned for very violent offences be in the same wing as those jailed for non-violent offences?
You seem to denounce everyone here who raises concerns about this issue as a transphobe who is taking us to a very dark place for trans people. (Snip)
"You seem to denounce everyone here who raises concerns about this issue as a transphobe"
That's bullshit.
It's an inference based on your first comment on many mornings, which is often in reply to other posters who share tweets about news on this issue.
That's odd. So you're saying that my occasional comments of concern that CV posts stuff negative towards trans people frequently (and rarely if ever, supporting trans people) means that I 'denounce' *everyone* who raises concerns?
For example, I disagree with Bart on some of this stuff, but I don't think I've ever said, or implied, that he's a transphobe. I could say the same with DavidL and others.
And when you say 'many mornings' : how many? (I do wonder if you've confused me with another poster)
Dim. Do you really think these blonde multiple rapists are genuinely trans? Do you think their claims advance or harm the cause of the genuinely trans?
The politics of the teacher strike has been interesting this morning. Gillian Keegan on @TimesRadio was very measured, pointed out that most teachers are reasonably well paid and gently disputed the idea that loads are using food banks….
Now the NEU rep on to explain why they are striking is instead going on about the number of food banks, child hunger and austerity. Important issues but this is a pay dispute not an anti-Tory protest. Isn’t it?
Also, I asked Kevin Courtney, joint general secretary of the National Education Union, if NEU staff had been given a 12% pay rise this year (which is what they are asking the government for).
I agree with her. No teachers should be using food banks.
But:
Here is a thought for all of them and you to ponder.
I have just done my accounts for January and projections for February. This month, working one-third of the hours, at times I can negotiate with my pupils, and 50% from my own home, I will earn one hundred pounds less than I did as a Head of Faculty in an outstanding school working 60 hour weeks across six days a week.
If I worked 50 hours a week tutoring, I would be earning around 50% more than I did in a school.
Ok, I don't get pension with that. And I work through the holidays now as well. But there is a fundamental mismatch between what the market will provide and what the government is paying.
So either change the expectations - or change the salaries.
It's not really that hard. Unless you're stupid.
Ah....
Average teacher salary is now £38k in England, £39k in Wales and £40k in Scotland.
Clearly above the average salary in each of those nations.
Teachers are graduates and will be paying an extra 9% graduate income tax on their salary, so is it above the average graduate salary in each of those nations?
Or are you comparing apples and oranges as usual and deflating salary figures by including non-graduates who don't pay 9% graduate tax on their income?
Why do I even ask, we know the answer.
Either way though, teachers are working for a living but are expected to get a real terms pay cut, while the government is giving double-digit pay increases to match inflation to those who aren't working for a living funded by the tax on those who are working like teachers. Those who are working for a living should not get less than those who are not.
You can be a teacher with a 2.2 from an ex polytechnic.
Nobody is getting double digit pay increases except those on benefits, the minimum wage and state pension ie the poorest in society
So? Having any sort of degree puts you above the median in terms of academic attainment.
Attainment yes, but not necessarily intelligence or work quality. Of my team there are 3 who didn't go to uni and 2 of those are easily the top performers every year out of about 25 in total. I think, as a society, we need to move beyond the outmoded thinking that most jobs require a degree to do well, it's completely poisonous to the working classes who are priced out of degrees, especially from universities that count, as they then get excluded from some of the best careers in the country.
My chemistry degree has had zero use since I graduated, if I gave it to Jen to rip into a million pieces as she's begun doing with anything you give her it would make precisely zero difference to my life. I only paid £1.2k per year for it and left uni with ca. £15k in loans which I paid back within a few years as we had fair interest rates. Other than opening the door for my first job, I can't think of any situation where it has been necessary, even that first job didn't do any checks, they simply accepted that I have the degree and didn't ask for any transcripts or a copy of my certificate, it was only when I wore my old uni hoody to work a few months later that the HR person said, "oh yeah we were supposed to ask you for a copy of it, oh well, too late now anyway".
The degree bar need to be removed from the majority of non-vocational jobs. The best quant in our company is an Italian guy who dropped out of uni.
Your chemistry degree should be about more than just chemistry. It will, I hope, have taught you analysis, deduction, critical thinking, the ability to write reports etc. We train many more chemists in this country than we need for chemistry roles, but the rest are sought after graduates for a reason.
Yes, it did, but I also learned that at school which is why I managed to actually get a degree rather than just give up because I hated it. I think that's the bigger failing here, schools no longer do these things well and we rely on workplaces and universities to do it. School just seems to have become an exercise of passing exams, it was already heading that way when I did my A-Levels, I can't imagine how bad it is now.
We spend a lot of time trying to prise students away from what school has taught them. In particular they have a love of example questions/past papers as the answer to how to do well in exams. We emphasise understanding, rather than rite learning, in order that the student may encounter a new situation and be able to cope with it. Schools seem driven by the need to get as good grades in exams as possible, no matter what that does to the students understanding of a subject. I believe this is driven by league tables. As ever, measuring something distorts the system.
More or Less explore the claim that more pensioners are living in “millionaire households” than in poverty. This includes the value of your house and your pension. So this could be for example two pensioners with pensions and a home they own or a single pensioner in a £500,000 house with £30k/year pension. These amount to 22% of pensioners have assets over £1million - while those living in relative poverty (income after housing below 60% of median income) amount to 15% - half the level of the late 1990s. Most pensioners fall into neither category.
They are the richest generation ever and will be richer than their successors. I guess such generations are inevitable occassionally but it would be better for society if they understood and accepted:
this has been down mostly to demographics rather than their generation working harder than others the real economic and housing problems faced by their children and grandchildren that their generation needs to share the pain of demographic changes immigration is a necessary and significant part of dealing with those demographic changes
Why would their children and granchildren be faced with housing and economic problems when they will inherit all the houses and money of the richest generation ever.
Because people need a house when they are young adults starting their own family and bringing up their own children, not by the time they themselves are already old when their parents and grandparents have pegged it and they now have grandchildren of their own.
Inheritance should never be anything anyone ever expects of right, or depends upon. Everyone should be able to get a job and support themselves.
You are assuming that they will be old themselves when grandparents peg it. I doubt many plan their lives on inheritances given most people peg it with washers in the bank. Still does not get away with fact that they are unlikely to be in poverty in later life if they are families of the richest generation ever. You missed the irony that some eejit thinks every pensioner is a millionaire.
Not every pensioner is a millionaire. If you believe in redistribution, then we ought to be able to tax well off pensioners and give the money to provide for pensioners who are struggling.
Merging the various forms of income tax (ie Income Tax, NI and "Student Loans") all into one single income tax that is paid by everyone the same regardless of how you earn your money, would enable more taxation on the millionaire pensioners and enable more support for struggling pensioners.
So pick your poison, do you want to support redistribution or not?
I hav eworked all my life and paid shedloads of tax, still do so doing plenty of redistribution. I don't want to fund Tory crooks and grifters which I do just now given you rats are emptying the public purse
Good for you, then you won't have a reason to object to paying the same tax rate as everyone else then?
NI is a tax, not insurance, in case you're still too thick to figure it out. It being called insurance is just marketing purposes, its still a HMRC levied income tax.
No, NI was created as an insurance solely to fund health insurance and contributory unemployment benefits
No, it was created as a tax, hence why its levied by HMRC.
An insurance policy would be based upon your risks, like do you smoke, rather than your income which taxes are concerned about.
Not right. Fixed premium insurance is very common. AA membership for instance.
Attainment yes, but not necessarily intelligence or work quality. Of my team there are 3 who didn't go to uni and 2 of those are easily the top performers every year out of about 25 in total. I think, as a society, we need to move beyond the outmoded thinking that most jobs require a degree to do well, it's completely poisonous to the working classes who are priced out of degrees, especially from universities that count, as they then get excluded from some of the best careers in the country.
My chemistry degree has had zero use since I graduated, if I gave it to Jen to rip into a million pieces as she's begun doing with anything you give her it would make precisely zero difference to my life. I only paid £1.2k per year for it and left uni with ca. £15k in loans which I paid back within a few years as we had fair interest rates. Other than opening the door for my first job, I can't think of any situation where it has been necessary, even that first job didn't do any checks, they simply accepted that I have the degree and didn't ask for any transcripts or a copy of my certificate, it was only when I wore my old uni hoody to work a few months later that the HR person said, "oh yeah we were supposed to ask you for a copy of it, oh well, too late now anyway".
The degree bar need to be removed from the majority of non-vocational jobs. The best quant in our company is an Italian guy who dropped out of uni.
I'm a uni drop out, I can tell you for a fact the best engineers I've met don't have degrees
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.
Let's take an example case. Someone was born as Michael, and aged 25 transitions to be called Mary. She starts a relationship, and 30 years later she realises she is in a abusive relationship that she needs to get out of.
She has spent over half her life as a woman; many of her acquaintances do not know she was born male, the rest don't care.
Should she be able to access a women's refuge?
If he is a functioning male, despite living as a women all those years, the answer should be no. The rights and needs of the other users would override his/hers. If he is no longer a functioning male I think it is harder to justify exclusion but I recognise that some deeply traumatised women simply cannot bear a male in their proximity and their needs must be respected too.
I take your point but wouldn't it be more respectful to refer to Mary as she? Referring to her as he seems to indicate your bias against trans people.
Given she has transitioned I would assume she is no longer a functioning male. Maybe I am misunderstanding the definition of 'transition' here? (IANAE)
This is one of the things at the heart of this issue. 'Trans' covers a shole host of positions - including someone like Eddie Izzard, through Quentin Crisp, to Caitlyn Jenner or Elliot Page or Hari Nef.
Some trans people will just cross-dress; some will have had the full drugs-and-operations treatment. Some will just take the drugs.
Fully transitioning is a lengthy process (rightly, IMO), so someone intending to be fully transitioned may only be partially transitioned at a certain point, but think of themselves as that. Some may decide that the drugs are enough, and they don't want to go through the operations (which are *not* pleasant).
As for sexuality: some will date men. Some will date women. Some will be bisexual. Some will be asexual.
Also, some trans people will be saints. Some will be sinners; in the same way some men are sinners and saints. Or women. Or doctors. Or lawyers. Or PB posters.
'Trans' covers a whole smorgasbord of things and people, and that's one of the major issues with this 'debate'.
The law, however, has to provide categorical outcomes. It has to say, "this person is a man, and should be accommodated in a male prison, but this person is a woman and should be accommodated in a female prison."
The problem is that trans activists are trying to fit a view entirely lacking in nuance - trans women are women - onto a situation which, as you have described, is a lot more complicated than that, and to have that apply to all circumstances - prisons, hospital wards, women refuges, police strip searches, child safeguarding.
If anyone dares to question this absolutist view, then they are denounced as a transphobe, wishing the death of trans people.
How do we get to a more nuanced outcome that combines respect for trans people with a recognition that self-ID is not appropriate for all circumstances, particularly those where the law is involved?
To be fair, that is not the position of all trans 'activists', and not everyone who dares to question the absolutist view is denounced as a transphobe. Those claims are just ridiculous.
The answer has to be that the situation is judged on a case-by-case basis - as it should be for other people as well. For instance, should a person imprisoned for very violent offences be in the same wing as those jailed for non-violent offences?
You seem to denounce everyone here who raises concerns about this issue as a transphobe who is taking us to a very dark place for trans people. (Snip)
"You seem to denounce everyone here who raises concerns about this issue as a transphobe"
That's bullshit.
It's an inference based on your first comment on many mornings, which is often in reply to other posters who share tweets about news on this issue.
CV posts stuff negative towards trans people frequently (and rarely if ever, supporting trans people.
1. I post stuff critical of the Scottish Governments badly thought through GRR bill - which is a position also shared by Labour and SNP MPs so hardly a “Tory Culture War”.
What the fuck are you hoping to achieve with this relentless jihad? Apart from boring us all into catatonia.
Things are getting strange, I'm starting to worry - this could be a case for Mulder and Scully?
I think Dura Ace is well placed for some Road Rage.
1. I post stuff critical of the Scottish Governments badly thought through GRR bill - which is a position also shared by Labour and SNP MPs so hardly a “Tory Culture War”. 2. I don’t need to post “positive stuff about trans people” - classic whataboutary, although: 3. This morning I presented the case that the crude statistics which could suggest trans women were more likely to be sex offenders than men, in fact suggested that male sex offenders were falsely claiming to be trans. How is that “anti trans”? 4. The defence of this badly thought through incompetent legislation is that it’s “not valid” (until it was) and any criticism of it is transphobic. As someone with trans friends I am surprised you don’t recognise the damage this is doing to the genuinely trans.
No you don't need to do anything - but I like to try and treat everyone with compassion, love and respect. And some of your posts do the opposite in the attempt to score political points.
It shows how pathetic your party now is, that you can't talk about the economy, because it's failing. Can't talk about growth, because it's negative. Can't talk about small boats, because you don't know how to solve it. Can't talk about jobs because everyone is on strike.
So instead every topic of yours is about trans people. Because that is all your party has left - it is pathetic. It really is.
HYUFD's point is really horrible if you think about it.
His point is that teachers should only earn the average salary or below it.
I ask, why? These people are raising the next generation of bankers, lawyers, software engineers, politicians...
How can you sit here and say what a teacher should or should not earn? It's exactly the same thing with train drivers, why shouldn't they earn £60K a year? Why should anyone ever earn anything?
Where did I say that? I said they already earn above the average salary and did not say that was a bad thing. Plus they get a good pension.
Indeed headteachers can earn up to 6 figure salaries.
However you can be a teacher in a state comprehensive or academy with a 2.2 from an ex polytechnic. Most banks and corporate law firms and tech firms demand at least a 2.1 from a Russell Group university and doctors need 7 years of medical school after top A levels.
That is why on average the latter pay more
Although TBF some very thick people get top degrees at Russell Group Unis, which shows it’s as much about snobbery as about academic rigour.
Interesting that Zahawi was the only Education Secretary of this parliament who held the job for any length of time.
Kit Malthouse 49 days James Cleverly 61 days Michelle Donelan 2 days Nadhim Zahawi 293 days Gillian Keegan 98 days (and counting)
I genuinely believe this current Government - which I would include back to the start of Johnson's tenure - simply don't care about education. For all that teachers on here have been critical of previous ministers from the Cameron and May periods at least you got the impression that they, and their PMs, did actually care about education and wanted to improve it even if they were criticised for doing the wrong things. These days I just get the impression Secretary of State for Education is just another post to fill to give someone that coveted cabinet seat.
I was actually shocked listening to Keegan on the radio this morning. She's either genuinely stupid, or just regards interviewer and listeners with contempt (both is also possible, I suppose).
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.
Let's take an example case. Someone was born as Michael, and aged 25 transitions to be called Mary. She starts a relationship, and 30 years later she realises she is in a abusive relationship that she needs to get out of.
She has spent over half her life as a woman; many of her acquaintances do not know she was born male, the rest don't care.
Should she be able to access a women's refuge?
If he is a functioning male, despite living as a women all those years, the answer should be no. The rights and needs of the other users would override his/hers. If he is no longer a functioning male I think it is harder to justify exclusion but I recognise that some deeply traumatised women simply cannot bear a male in their proximity and their needs must be respected too.
I take your point but wouldn't it be more respectful to refer to Mary as she? Referring to her as he seems to indicate your bias against trans people.
Given she has transitioned I would assume she is no longer a functioning male. Maybe I am misunderstanding the definition of 'transition' here? (IANAE)
This is one of the things at the heart of this issue. 'Trans' covers a shole host of positions - including someone like Eddie Izzard, through Quentin Crisp, to Caitlyn Jenner or Elliot Page or Hari Nef.
Some trans people will just cross-dress; some will have had the full drugs-and-operations treatment. Some will just take the drugs.
Fully transitioning is a lengthy process (rightly, IMO), so someone intending to be fully transitioned may only be partially transitioned at a certain point, but think of themselves as that. Some may decide that the drugs are enough, and they don't want to go through the operations (which are *not* pleasant).
As for sexuality: some will date men. Some will date women. Some will be bisexual. Some will be asexual.
Also, some trans people will be saints. Some will be sinners; in the same way some men are sinners and saints. Or women. Or doctors. Or lawyers. Or PB posters.
'Trans' covers a whole smorgasbord of things and people, and that's one of the major issues with this 'debate'.
The law, however, has to provide categorical outcomes. It has to say, "this person is a man, and should be accommodated in a male prison, but this person is a woman and should be accommodated in a female prison."
The problem is that trans activists are trying to fit a view entirely lacking in nuance - trans women are women - onto a situation which, as you have described, is a lot more complicated than that, and to have that apply to all circumstances - prisons, hospital wards, women refuges, police strip searches, child safeguarding.
If anyone dares to question this absolutist view, then they are denounced as a transphobe, wishing the death of trans people.
How do we get to a more nuanced outcome that combines respect for trans people with a recognition that self-ID is not appropriate for all circumstances, particularly those where the law is involved?
To be fair, that is not the position of all trans 'activists', and not everyone who dares to question the absolutist view is denounced as a transphobe. Those claims are just ridiculous.
The answer has to be that the situation is judged on a case-by-case basis - as it should be for other people as well. For instance, should a person imprisoned for very violent offences be in the same wing as those jailed for non-violent offences?
You seem to denounce everyone here who raises concerns about this issue as a transphobe who is taking us to a very dark place for trans people. (Snip)
"You seem to denounce everyone here who raises concerns about this issue as a transphobe"
That's bullshit.
It's an inference based on your first comment on many mornings, which is often in reply to other posters who share tweets about news on this issue.
That's odd. So you're saying that my occasional comments of concern that CV posts stuff negative towards trans people frequently (and rarely if ever, supporting trans people) means that I 'denounce' *everyone* who raises concerns?
For example, I disagree with Bart on some of this stuff, but I don't think I've ever said, or implied, that he's a transphobe. I could say the same with DavidL and others.
And when you say 'many mornings' : how many? (I do wonder if you've confused me with another poster)
Perhaps I have made the mistake of merging your occasional behaviour with the occasional interventions by some other posters, to create a gestalt entity in my head.
As a rule I try not to comment on other people's posting behaviour, as it rarely adds much to the discussion, and it was a mistake to do so in this case.
The politics of the teacher strike has been interesting this morning. Gillian Keegan on @TimesRadio was very measured, pointed out that most teachers are reasonably well paid and gently disputed the idea that loads are using food banks….
Now the NEU rep on to explain why they are striking is instead going on about the number of food banks, child hunger and austerity. Important issues but this is a pay dispute not an anti-Tory protest. Isn’t it?
Also, I asked Kevin Courtney, joint general secretary of the National Education Union, if NEU staff had been given a 12% pay rise this year (which is what they are asking the government for).
I agree with her. No teachers should be using food banks.
But:
Here is a thought for all of them and you to ponder.
I have just done my accounts for January and projections for February. This month, working one-third of the hours, at times I can negotiate with my pupils, and 50% from my own home, I will earn one hundred pounds less than I did as a Head of Faculty in an outstanding school working 60 hour weeks across six days a week.
If I worked 50 hours a week tutoring, I would be earning around 50% more than I did in a school.
Ok, I don't get pension with that. And I work through the holidays now as well. But there is a fundamental mismatch between what the market will provide and what the government is paying.
So either change the expectations - or change the salaries.
It's not really that hard. Unless you're stupid.
Ah....
Average teacher salary is now £38k in England, £39k in Wales and £40k in Scotland.
Clearly above the average salary in each of those nations.
Teachers are graduates and will be paying an extra 9% graduate income tax on their salary, so is it above the average graduate salary in each of those nations?
Or are you comparing apples and oranges as usual and deflating salary figures by including non-graduates who don't pay 9% graduate tax on their income?
Why do I even ask, we know the answer.
Either way though, teachers are working for a living but are expected to get a real terms pay cut, while the government is giving double-digit pay increases to match inflation to those who aren't working for a living funded by the tax on those who are working like teachers. Those who are working for a living should not get less than those who are not.
You can be a teacher with a 2.2 from an ex polytechnic.
Nobody is getting double digit pay increases except those on benefits, the minimum wage and state pension ie the poorest in society
So? Having any sort of degree puts you above the median in terms of academic attainment.
Attainment yes, but not necessarily intelligence or work quality. Of my team there are 3 who didn't go to uni and 2 of those are easily the top performers every year out of about 25 in total. I think, as a society, we need to move beyond the outmoded thinking that most jobs require a degree to do well, it's completely poisonous to the working classes who are priced out of degrees, especially from universities that count, as they then get excluded from some of the best careers in the country.
My chemistry degree has had zero use since I graduated, if I gave it to Jen to rip into a million pieces as she's begun doing with anything you give her it would make precisely zero difference to my life. I only paid £1.2k per year for it and left uni with ca. £15k in loans which I paid back within a few years as we had fair interest rates. Other than opening the door for my first job, I can't think of any situation where it has been necessary, even that first job didn't do any checks, they simply accepted that I have the degree and didn't ask for any transcripts or a copy of my certificate, it was only when I wore my old uni hoody to work a few months later that the HR person said, "oh yeah we were supposed to ask you for a copy of it, oh well, too late now anyway".
The degree bar need to be removed from the majority of non-vocational jobs. The best quant in our company is an Italian guy who dropped out of uni.
Your chemistry degree should be about more than just chemistry. It will, I hope, have taught you analysis, deduction, critical thinking, the ability to write reports etc. We train many more chemists in this country than we need for chemistry roles, but the rest are sought after graduates for a reason.
Yes, it did, but I also learned that at school which is why I managed to actually get a degree rather than just give up because I hated it. I think that's the bigger failing here, schools no longer do these things well and we rely on workplaces and universities to do it. School just seems to have become an exercise of passing exams, it was already heading that way when I did my A-Levels, I can't imagine how bad it is now.
We spend a lot of time trying to prise students away from what school has taught them. In particular they have a love of example questions/past papers as the answer to how to do well in exams. We emphasise understanding, rather than rite learning, in order that the student may encounter a new situation and be able to cope with it. Schools seem driven by the need to get as good grades in exams as possible, no matter what that does to the students understanding of a subject. I believe this is driven by league tables. As ever, measuring something distorts the system.
Schools do short term results stuff because it delivers what the powers that be want, which is good results. League tables don't help, but the football manager syndrome in school leadership ("Improve things in 18 months or you will be sacked") makes it worse.
And once some schools went down the path of prioritising results over learning, everyone else had to join in to keep up.
The politics of the teacher strike has been interesting this morning. Gillian Keegan on @TimesRadio was very measured, pointed out that most teachers are reasonably well paid and gently disputed the idea that loads are using food banks….
Now the NEU rep on to explain why they are striking is instead going on about the number of food banks, child hunger and austerity. Important issues but this is a pay dispute not an anti-Tory protest. Isn’t it?
Also, I asked Kevin Courtney, joint general secretary of the National Education Union, if NEU staff had been given a 12% pay rise this year (which is what they are asking the government for).
I agree with her. No teachers should be using food banks.
But:
Here is a thought for all of them and you to ponder.
I have just done my accounts for January and projections for February. This month, working one-third of the hours, at times I can negotiate with my pupils, and 50% from my own home, I will earn one hundred pounds less than I did as a Head of Faculty in an outstanding school working 60 hour weeks across six days a week.
If I worked 50 hours a week tutoring, I would be earning around 50% more than I did in a school.
Ok, I don't get pension with that. And I work through the holidays now as well. But there is a fundamental mismatch between what the market will provide and what the government is paying.
So either change the expectations - or change the salaries.
It's not really that hard. Unless you're stupid.
Ah....
Average teacher salary is now £38k in England, £39k in Wales and £40k in Scotland.
Clearly above the average salary in each of those nations.
Teachers are graduates and will be paying an extra 9% graduate income tax on their salary, so is it above the average graduate salary in each of those nations?
Or are you comparing apples and oranges as usual and deflating salary figures by including non-graduates who don't pay 9% graduate tax on their income?
Why do I even ask, we know the answer.
Either way though, teachers are working for a living but are expected to get a real terms pay cut, while the government is giving double-digit pay increases to match inflation to those who aren't working for a living funded by the tax on those who are working like teachers. Those who are working for a living should not get less than those who are not.
You can be a teacher with a 2.2 from an ex polytechnic.
Nobody is getting double digit pay increases except those on benefits, the minimum wage and state pension ie the poorest in society
So? Having any sort of degree puts you above the median in terms of academic attainment.
Attainment yes, but not necessarily intelligence or work quality. Of my team there are 3 who didn't go to uni and 2 of those are easily the top performers every year out of about 25 in total. I think, as a society, we need to move beyond the outmoded thinking that most jobs require a degree to do well, it's completely poisonous to the working classes who are priced out of degrees, especially from universities that count, as they then get excluded from some of the best careers in the country.
My chemistry degree has had zero use since I graduated, if I gave it to Jen to rip into a million pieces as she's begun doing with anything you give her it would make precisely zero difference to my life. I only paid £1.2k per year for it and left uni with ca. £15k in loans which I paid back within a few years as we had fair interest rates. Other than opening the door for my first job, I can't think of any situation where it has been necessary, even that first job didn't do any checks, they simply accepted that I have the degree and didn't ask for any transcripts or a copy of my certificate, it was only when I wore my old uni hoody to work a few months later that the HR person said, "oh yeah we were supposed to ask you for a copy of it, oh well, too late now anyway".
The degree bar need to be removed from the majority of non-vocational jobs. The best quant in our company is an Italian guy who dropped out of uni.
Your chemistry degree should be about more than just chemistry. It will, I hope, have taught you analysis, deduction, critical thinking, the ability to write reports etc. We train many more chemists in this country than we need for chemistry roles, but the rest are sought after graduates for a reason.
Yes, it did, but I also learned that at school which is why I managed to actually get a degree rather than just give up because I hated it. I think that's the bigger failing here, schools no longer do these things well and we rely on workplaces and universities to do it. School just seems to have become an exercise of passing exams, it was already heading that way when I did my A-Levels, I can't imagine how bad it is now.
We spend a lot of time trying to prise students away from what school has taught them. In particular they have a love of example questions/past papers as the answer to how to do well in exams. We emphasise understanding, rather than rite learning...
More or Less explore the claim that more pensioners are living in “millionaire households” than in poverty. This includes the value of your house and your pension. So this could be for example two pensioners with pensions and a home they own or a single pensioner in a £500,000 house with £30k/year pension. These amount to 22% of pensioners have assets over £1million - while those living in relative poverty (income after housing below 60% of median income) amount to 15% - half the level of the late 1990s. Most pensioners fall into neither category.
They are the richest generation ever and will be richer than their successors. I guess such generations are inevitable occassionally but it would be better for society if they understood and accepted:
this has been down mostly to demographics rather than their generation working harder than others the real economic and housing problems faced by their children and grandchildren that their generation needs to share the pain of demographic changes immigration is a necessary and significant part of dealing with those demographic changes
Why would their children and granchildren be faced with housing and economic problems when they will inherit all the houses and money of the richest generation ever.
Because people need a house when they are young adults starting their own family and bringing up their own children, not by the time they themselves are already old when their parents and grandparents have pegged it and they now have grandchildren of their own.
Inheritance should never be anything anyone ever expects of right, or depends upon. Everyone should be able to get a job and support themselves.
You are assuming that they will be old themselves when grandparents peg it. I doubt many plan their lives on inheritances given most people peg it with washers in the bank. Still does not get away with fact that they are unlikely to be in poverty in later life if they are families of the richest generation ever. You missed the irony that some eejit thinks every pensioner is a millionaire.
Not every pensioner is a millionaire. If you believe in redistribution, then we ought to be able to tax well off pensioners and give the money to provide for pensioners who are struggling.
Merging the various forms of income tax (ie Income Tax, NI and "Student Loans") all into one single income tax that is paid by everyone the same regardless of how you earn your money, would enable more taxation on the millionaire pensioners and enable more support for struggling pensioners.
So pick your poison, do you want to support redistribution or not?
I hav eworked all my life and paid shedloads of tax, still do so doing plenty of redistribution. I don't want to fund Tory crooks and grifters which I do just now given you rats are emptying the public purse
Good for you, then you won't have a reason to object to paying the same tax rate as everyone else then?
NI is a tax, not insurance, in case you're still too thick to figure it out. It being called insurance is just marketing purposes, its still a HMRC levied income tax.
No, NI was created as an insurance solely to fund health insurance and contributory unemployment benefits
No, it was created as a tax, hence why its levied by HMRC.
An insurance policy would be based upon your risks, like do you smoke, rather than your income which taxes are concerned about.
Not right. Fixed premium insurance is very common. AA membership for instance.
HMRC collects other stuff. Excise duty frinstance
AA membership is still risk-based, even if its relatively fixed. Commercial AA membership, being riskier, will cost a different amount to regular AA membership. I'm with the RAC and they have multiple tiers of membership options, such as whether you want at-home cover or only for breakdowns away from home (lower risk, so lower premium).
Its certainly not income-based. I've never had to give a copy of my payslips to the RAC and had premiums go up or down dependent upon my earnings.
Excises are a form of taxation. Its literally in the definition of the word.
Interesting that Zahawi was the only Education Secretary of this parliament who held the job for any length of time.
Kit Malthouse 49 days James Cleverly 61 days Michelle Donelan 2 days Nadhim Zahawi 293 days Gillian Keegan 98 days (and counting)
I genuinely believe this current Government - which I would include back to the start of Johnson's tenure - simply don't care about education. For all that teachers on here have been critical of previous ministers from the Cameron and May periods at least you got the impression that they, and their PMs, did actually care about education and wanted to improve it even if they were criticised for doing the wrong things. These days I just get the impression Secretary of State for Education is just another post to fill to give someone that coveted cabinet seat.
I was actually shocked listening to Keegan on the radio this morning. She's either genuinely stupid, or just regards interviewer and listeners with contempt (both is also possible, I suppose).
That's a shame. Top podcaster Rory Stewart rates her.
But to be fair to her, she's only been an MP since 2017. That's hardly any time at all to learn to be any good, and even less time to learn from anyone any good, because Boris sacked them all.
Interesting that Zahawi was the only Education Secretary of this parliament who held the job for any length of time.
Kit Malthouse 49 days James Cleverly 61 days Michelle Donelan 2 days Nadhim Zahawi 293 days Gillian Keegan 98 days (and counting)
I genuinely believe this current Government - which I would include back to the start of Johnson's tenure - simply don't care about education. For all that teachers on here have been critical of previous ministers from the Cameron and May periods at least you got the impression that they, and their PMs, did actually care about education and wanted to improve it even if they were criticised for doing the wrong things. These days I just get the impression Secretary of State for Education is just another post to fill to give someone that coveted cabinet seat.
I was actually shocked listening to Keegan on the radio this morning. She's either genuinely stupid, or just regards interviewer and listeners with contempt (both is also possible, I suppose).
That's a shame. Top podcaster Rory Stewart rates her.
But to be fair to her, she's only been an MP since 2017. That's hardly any time at all to learn to be any good, and even less time to learn from anyone any good, because Boris sacked them all.
It was her comments with regard to inflation that were most ridiculous. That's not about learning the job.
HYUFD's point is really horrible if you think about it.
His point is that teachers should only earn the average salary or below it.
I ask, why? These people are raising the next generation of bankers, lawyers, software engineers, politicians...
How can you sit here and say what a teacher should or should not earn? It's exactly the same thing with train drivers, why shouldn't they earn £60K a year? Why should anyone ever earn anything?
Where did I say that? I said they already earn above the average salary and did not say that was a bad thing. Plus they get a good pension.
Indeed headteachers can earn up to 6 figure salaries.
However you can be a teacher in a state comprehensive or academy with a 2.2 from an ex polytechnic. Most banks and corporate law firms and tech firms demand at least a 2.1 from a Russell Group university and doctors need 7 years of medical school after top A levels.
That is why on average the latter pay more
Although TBF some very thick people get top degrees at Russell Group Unis, which shows it’s as much about snobbery as about academic rigour.
The irony is that that post won't be understood by the one person who needs to understand it.
The politics of the teacher strike has been interesting this morning. Gillian Keegan on @TimesRadio was very measured, pointed out that most teachers are reasonably well paid and gently disputed the idea that loads are using food banks….
Now the NEU rep on to explain why they are striking is instead going on about the number of food banks, child hunger and austerity. Important issues but this is a pay dispute not an anti-Tory protest. Isn’t it?
Also, I asked Kevin Courtney, joint general secretary of the National Education Union, if NEU staff had been given a 12% pay rise this year (which is what they are asking the government for).
I agree with her. No teachers should be using food banks.
But:
Here is a thought for all of them and you to ponder.
I have just done my accounts for January and projections for February. This month, working one-third of the hours, at times I can negotiate with my pupils, and 50% from my own home, I will earn one hundred pounds less than I did as a Head of Faculty in an outstanding school working 60 hour weeks across six days a week.
If I worked 50 hours a week tutoring, I would be earning around 50% more than I did in a school.
Ok, I don't get pension with that. And I work through the holidays now as well. But there is a fundamental mismatch between what the market will provide and what the government is paying.
So either change the expectations - or change the salaries.
It's not really that hard. Unless you're stupid.
Ah....
Average teacher salary is now £38k in England, £39k in Wales and £40k in Scotland.
Clearly above the average salary in each of those nations.
Teachers are graduates and will be paying an extra 9% graduate income tax on their salary, so is it above the average graduate salary in each of those nations?
Or are you comparing apples and oranges as usual and deflating salary figures by including non-graduates who don't pay 9% graduate tax on their income?
Why do I even ask, we know the answer.
Either way though, teachers are working for a living but are expected to get a real terms pay cut, while the government is giving double-digit pay increases to match inflation to those who aren't working for a living funded by the tax on those who are working like teachers. Those who are working for a living should not get less than those who are not.
You can be a teacher with a 2.2 from an ex polytechnic.
Nobody is getting double digit pay increases except those on benefits, the minimum wage and state pension ie the poorest in society
People who get the state pension aren't the poorest in society. People who get pension credit are among the poorest in society, the average pensioner who receives the state pension and not pension credit is pretty wealthy and has significant private pension or other income.
They certainly are amongst the poorest in society if they don't have a significant private pension too
Comments
Lab 450 seats (+247)
Con 112 seats (-253)
SNP 47 seats (-1)
LD 17 seats (+6)
PC 4 seats (nc)
Grn 1 seat (nc)
NI 18 seats (nc)
Speaker 1 seat (+1)
https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/prediction_main.html
London is even higher at £47k
https://www.totaljobs.com/salary-checker/average-teacher-salary-central-london
The problem is that trans activists are trying to fit a view entirely lacking in nuance - trans women are women - onto a situation which, as you have described, is a lot more complicated than that, and to have that apply to all circumstances - prisons, hospital wards, women refuges, police strip searches, child safeguarding.
If anyone dares to question this absolutist view, then they are denounced as a transphobe, wishing the death of trans people.
How do we get to a more nuanced outcome that combines respect for trans people with a recognition that self-ID is not appropriate for all circumstances, particularly those where the law is involved?
Hope it is going well for you.
https://www.wikihow.com/Be-a-Lady
Boris Johnson - he's been on manoeuvres (including in Ukraine), but he is a serial liar.
Priti Patel - also a known liar.
Justin Tomlinson - was once suspended from the Commons for sending a copy of a draft committee report to payday loan company Wonga.
Penny Mordaunt - perhaps it will be her. She claimed pre-Brexit that Britain couldn't stop Turkey joining the EU, but that type of political campaign lie might be assessed in her favour.
The answer has to be that the situation is judged on a case-by-case basis - as it should be for other people as well. For instance, should a person imprisoned for very violent offences be in the same wing as those jailed for non-violent offences?
Trans is currently defined in law by the term "gender reassignment" in the GRA & EA. A man wearing women's clothes from time to time does not automatically fall within the legal definition of gender reassignment.
There are 2 difficulties:
1.The use of the word "trans" is now used to mean anyone who says they are. Not the legal definition.
2. The GRR Bill contains no definition of trans at all. In fact it doesn't use the word anywhere in the Bill.
You asked about men who dress up for "erotic" purposes. There is a category - autogynephilia - which refers to men who obtain an erotic thrill from pretending to be & dressing up women, masturbating while dressed up & doing so in female spaces often in front of women & posting those videos. There is a porn category devoted to this activity. They are not men with gender dysphoria. They are not "trans" as defined by the law.
Under the GRR Bill they would get a GRC - no questions asked - and it would then become easier for them to get access to women's spaces to carry out their fetish. Doing what they are doing in the presence of others is not deserving of compassion but a criminal offence.
There is currently a debate into whether adult men who suddenly claim they are trans are actually autogynephiles rather than men with dysphoria. This is very different to the issue of people who have felt dysphoric from a young age, where it is more likely - though not inevitable - that they are genuinely suffering from gender dysphoria.
One of the reasons for the concerns is that one of the SNP MSPs was filmed saying that he was glad to pass the Bill because it was for people like "Claire". "Claire" is a male prostitute posing as a woman who has posted on social media pictures of himself with knives threatening women. He is not trans in the genuine legal sense.Allowing him & others like him to claim to be women & access female spaces should raise very serious concerns indeed.
Frankly I am not going to respect - or be told to respect - people like "Claire" or those who enable him, like those SNP MSPs.
So I agree with you that genuine trans people should not be attacked. But you also need not to confuse those who genuinely have gender dysphoria (what I mean when I use the term "trans" - as per the law) with men with disturbing sexual fetishes who seek to shelter under the undefined trans umbrella. You also need to accept 2 propositions:
1. All groups - no matter who they are (women, trans etc) will contain bad actors.
2. If a group is given privileges or special rights - especially without any safeguards - then there will be others (bad actors) who will seek to pretend to be part of that group in order to benefit from those privileges.
It is the refusal of the SNP to do this which has led to Sturgeon getting her knickers in a twist over this and come out with an incoherent policy on prison placement which completely undermines the rationale for her Bill.
I had no cravings for alcohol over the month, and despite drinking no alcohol, and running four marathons, I've put on a kilo of weight.
(The reason probably being that despite running the marathons, I've been less active than usual.)
I don´t think they used a Pritt stick in the submarine. Although who knows? What with the country the state it is in under the Tories...
Seriously though, incredible to find such a tiny radiation source in such a very very big search area. Impressive.
Just as someone who was born Michael who realises he is in an abusive relationship that he needs to get out of, may require a refuge to and ought to be able to access a refuge.
However women's-only refuges may be reserved only for women, which could exclude your Mary example. There should be plenty of alternative support available to Mary though, just as there should be plenty of alternative support available to Michael.
Give Mary the support she requires, but that doesn't mean violating the safeguarding available to women.
Prisons do already have, for example, different categories so that prisoners can be held in facilities with a level of security appropriate to the risk of them attempting to escape, or otherwise causing trouble.
If this matter is to be judged on a case-by-case basis, then what is the point of being able to legally change one's sex/gender? What effect does doing so have? How would that relate to a claim for discrimination on the basis of sex under the Equality Act?
What does you waist size tell you?
Or are you comparing apples and oranges as usual and deflating salary figures by including non-graduates who don't pay 9% graduate tax on their income?
Why do I even ask, we know the answer.
Either way though, teachers are working for a living but are expected to get a real terms pay cut, while the government is giving double-digit pay increases to match inflation to those who aren't working for a living funded by the tax on those who are working like teachers. Those who are working for a living should not get less than those who are not.
Inheritance should never be anything anyone ever expects of right, or depends upon. Everyone should be able to get a job and support themselves.
(And BTW, refuges for men are woefully underfunded and AIUI there are very few places. to complicate matters, I also believe some womens' refuges provide a few places for men as well - though not necessarily in the same place.)
Farmers, many family owned businesses, aristocratic estates and our Royal family of course all rely on inheritance in large part too
Not all refuges are women-only, many as you say contain both sexes. If they do, Mary ought to be more than welcome there.
The figures from the Ministry of Justice for 2019 show that men who claim to be trans form a higher proportion of those convicted of sexual offences than for the non-trans male prisoner population or the female prisoner population.
Men who claim to be trans have the same offending pattern as non-trans men. In other words, merely saying that they are women does not mean that they offend like women.
Much more research is needed. But we need to be wary of saying what we would like to be true. What evidence there is suggests that trans identified mean are as much of a risk as other men and may, possibly, be a greater risk. What we do not know is whether that greater risk is coming from men who wrongly claim to be dysphoric rather than from men who genuinely are so.
One of the amendments Holyrood rejected was one which would have permitted evidence to be collected on the consequences of the Bill precisely in order to understand questions like these.
Nobody is getting double digit pay increases except those on benefits, the minimum wage and state pension ie the poorest in society
https://twitter.com/holyroodmandy/status/1620730404134354946
If they're in their 40s and 50s their parents presumably are in their 60s and 70s and could easily live another 30+ years, which then takes them into their 70s and 80s before any potential inheritance they may or may not receive.
Far better to rely upon your own earnings. If you can't be bothered to rely upon your own earnings because you want to rely on someone else's, then you put yourself at the mercy of others if you don't get what you haven't earned. Get a job and work for it.
If you have got a job, and can't support yourself as you're taxed too much to pay for those who aren't paying for themselves, then that's a problem.
Lies, damned lies and statistics?
When my wife was 38 we realised that we risked leaving it too late if we waited to buy a house to start trying for a baby. That was 30 months ago. Reader, we left it too late. I am lucky to have a daughter from a previous relationship, but many will not.
That's bullshit.
Merging the various forms of income tax (ie Income Tax, NI and "Student Loans") all into one single income tax that is paid by everyone the same regardless of how you earn your money, would enable more taxation on the millionaire pensioners and enable more support for struggling pensioners.
So pick your poison, do you want to support redistribution or not?
Football: I can't remember the odds, but I think it was circa 11/1 or such, but if you followed my Napoli Serie A title tip you can hold onto it (they're 13 points clear) or lay them at 1.09 on Betfair.
Edited extra bit: Arsenal title bet, odds also unknown, looking good too, though Borussia Dortmund less so. And the Napoli bet was only made because they finished 4th, then 3rd, then 2nd...
And then GMB just turned it into do trans women have penises again.
This issue is never going to be dealt with in a grown up way is it?
The state pension is not given to the poorest in society, pension credit is given to poor pensioners not the state pension.
https://twitter.com/staylorish/status/1620713421472948227
I am shocked, shocked etc….
Unless you were inferring that.
Kit Malthouse 49 days
James Cleverly 61 days
Michelle Donelan 2 days
Nadhim Zahawi 293 days
Gillian Keegan 98 days (and counting)
It didn't include clicking on the reply button, but it absolutely was and when followed up had a false claim that a Tweet warning about the dangers of "men" abusing the provisions was claiming trans people were dangerous.
For example, I disagree with Bart on some of this stuff, but I don't think I've ever said, or implied, that he's a transphobe. I could say the same with DavidL and others.
And when you say 'many mornings' : how many? (I do wonder if you've confused me with another poster)
My chemistry degree has had zero use since I graduated, if I gave it to Jen to rip into a million pieces as she's begun doing with anything you give her it would make precisely zero difference to my life. I only paid £1.2k per year for it and left uni with ca. £15k in loans which I paid back within a few years as we had fair interest rates. Other than opening the door for my first job, I can't think of any situation where it has been necessary, even that first job didn't do any checks, they simply accepted that I have the degree and didn't ask for any transcripts or a copy of my certificate, it was only when I wore my old uni hoody to work a few months later that the HR person said, "oh yeah we were supposed to ask you for a copy of it, oh well, too late now anyway".
The degree bar need to be removed from the majority of non-vocational jobs. The best quant in our company is an Italian guy who dropped out of uni.
Someone with straight A* at GCSE and A level from a low income background could have decided to train to be an accountant or start their own business after school rather than go to university and start earning with no graduate debt.
Someone with C grade GCSES and A levels could still have a degree from a lower ranked university now
Although I sometimes feel electrical engineering grads have higher potential.
And everyone knows it's the maths grads who really count.
2. I don’t need to post “positive stuff about trans people” - classic whataboutary, although:
3. This morning I presented the case that the crude statistics which could suggest trans women were more likely to be sex offenders than men, in fact suggested that male sex offenders were falsely claiming to be trans. How is that “anti trans”?
4. The defence of this badly thought through incompetent legislation is that it’s “not valid” (until it was) and any criticism of it is transphobic. As someone with trans friends I am surprised you don’t recognise the damage this is doing to the genuinely trans.
If it wriggles and smells, it's biology.
If it doesn't work, then it must be physics...
How would you feel if the shoe was on the other foot and she called you misogynistic for disregarding the very valid concerns of women?
If anyone is being transphobic ironically its you, by claiming that a reference to men “who cross-dress for erotic purposes” is about trans people, when its not, its about men.
If she had listened to all teh public and produced a sensible bill with safeguards there woudl have been no issues. Those clowns doubling down on their stupidity has caused an outroar and caused issues for all transpeople.
NI is a tax, not insurance, in case you're still too thick to figure it out. It being called insurance is just marketing purposes, its still a HMRC levied income tax.
An insurance policy would be based upon your risks, like do you smoke, rather than your income which taxes are concerned about.
HMRC collects other stuff. Excise duty frinstance
It shows how pathetic your party now is, that you can't talk about the economy, because it's failing. Can't talk about growth, because it's negative. Can't talk about small boats, because you don't know how to solve it. Can't talk about jobs because everyone is on strike.
So instead every topic of yours is about trans people. Because that is all your party has left - it is pathetic. It really is.
She's either genuinely stupid, or just regards interviewer and listeners with contempt (both is also possible, I suppose).
As a rule I try not to comment on other people's posting behaviour, as it rarely adds much to the discussion, and it was a mistake to do so in this case.
And once some schools went down the path of prioritising results over learning, everyone else had to join in to keep up.
Its certainly not income-based. I've never had to give a copy of my payslips to the RAC and had premiums go up or down dependent upon my earnings.
Excises are a form of taxation. Its literally in the definition of the word.
I’m still confident.
Add Bairstow, Root, and Wood to this team and we’ll be world champions again.
But to be fair to her, she's only been an MP since 2017. That's hardly any time at all to learn to be any good, and even less time to learn from anyone any good, because Boris sacked them all.
That's not about learning the job.
Latest Westminster voting intention (24-25 Jan)
Con: 26% (no change from 18-19 Jan)
Lab: 45% (-3)
Lib Dem: 10% (+2)
Reform UK: 6% (-1)
Green: 7% (+2)
SNP: 4% (=)
Yet
Which of the following do you think would make the best Prime Minister? (24-25 Jan)
Keir Starmer: 34% (+1 from 18-19 Jan)
Rishi Sunak: 22% (-2)
Not sure: 42% (+4)
https://twitter.com/yougov/status/1620739129695928323?s=46&t=SPMeaMUuDpehyzPgbmec0A