I'm slightly surprised (not) that the anti-trans news reporters on here have not picked up on the fact the 16-year girl stabbed to death by two teenagers in a 'targeted attack' in Warrington was transgender.
Who are the “anti-trans” reporters on here?
Until supporters of the GRR Bill actually engage with the arguments rather than simply try to shut down discussion we’re not going to make progress.
(Snip)
You, sadly. If you want to argue you're pro-trans, go ahead - but you've got a hard job ahead of you.
And it's not just about the GRR bill; before that came along, there were all the endless conversations about women's toilets - and as I repeatedly point out, that's a first-class way of preventing trans people from being trans.
BTW, I'm not a supporter of the GRR bill, and have never claimed to be. But I am a supporter of trans people being able to go about their lives - as they have for generations - without this cloud of hate looming over their heads.
An SNP minister has suggested setting up a “Yes Party” to contest the next general election as a de facto referendum on independence.
Ivan McKee is the latest senior party figure to have tried to change Nicola Sturgeon’s plan to force the constitutional issue.
The first minister plans to try and start exit talks with the UK if more than half of the electorate vote for pro-independence parties at the general election. The SNP is set to debate the issue.
Critics of the proposal include Stewart McDonald, the Glasgow South MP, Alex Neil, the former health secretary, and Angus MacNeil, the Western Isles MP who wants a snap Holyrood election to act as the de facto vote.
That's a ballsy idea. Dissolve the government, put it to the people. "A vote for the SNP is an explicit vote for independence".
OK so what would that mean? If re-elected to government would they say "we have our mandate" and immediately press the UK to start the divorce? And when the UK says no would they secede?
I think Sturgeon was bluffing when she said the next election would be a mandate for independence. Because whilst that issue would be important, Scottish voters aren't as insane as the NI Unionist voters who put The Union above all other issues.
A "this is a vote on independence" campaign would be harassed for details about how an independent Scotland would run every and any policy area. And the SNP wouldn't be able to answer.
Doing that mid-term, when you're giving up a clear mandate and majority to government, would as I said be ballsy...
The window is rapidly closing for the SNP. In all likelihood there will be a labour government at the next election, and a possibility of starting to lose some seats both at Westminster and the next Holyrood election.
I'm slightly surprised (not) that the anti-trans news reporters on here have not picked up on the fact the 16-year girl stabbed to death by two teenagers in a 'targeted attack' in Warrington was transgender.
You are really, really dim, aren't you? You seriously think Dolatowski and Bryson stories are "anti-trans." If I am wrong, please point me to a genuinely anti-trans story posted on here.
The genuine trans are an unfortunate minority who are the victims of at least four groups:
1. Genuine trans bashers, like gay bashers, like, possibly, the Warrington murderers. 2. Cynical wankers like Btryson and Dolatowski pretending for obvious purposes to be trans. 3. Medics on the make looking for money and careers in a new field. 4. Dweebish hobbyists like you who, like many on the left, are incapable of *generalising* a principle.
I think weak minorities should be protected: women from men, children from medical experiments, the trans from groups 1-4 above. You have appointed yourself a trans fanboi, so screw the rape victims, screw the children, look at me being all progressive and going WAAAH about the current modish issue for going WAAAH about.
So, that link, please. Won't take you long, as you have IDed " the anti-trans news reporters on here" so you can search both subject and username.
I have not 'appointed' myself anything, and my views are about as far away from the second half of that sentence as you can imagine. If you look at my posting record, I'm very string anti-violence of all sorts, and have repeatedly pointed out the stats on violence, from sexual to domestic, in this country.
And if you want me to ID the two main anti-trans reporters on here: Ms Free and CV. I'll name and *shame* them - if I felt they had any shame, that is.
There. I'm probably going to have lots of sh*t poured over me from the usual suspects, but this story is appalling - and exactly where some of us said it would end up.
The number one reason why it's difficult to buy property these days is because the population has risen from around 55 million in 1990 to around 68 million today.
That's not a reason in itself. Populations increase, but actions can be taken to ensure sufficient housing and other amenities are provided.
We don't appear to have done that, in part because to judge from my local area losing a couple of fields of poor quality scrubland to housing is the most heinous action imaginable.
Or do you believe populations have never increased in the past, even when property was more affordable?
We have also (by "we," I refer to Government flailing around) managed to do our damndest to discourage people from wanting to support any building by pissing all over them when they do.
I've probably mentioned it before, but in my local area, we tried one of these Neighbourhood Development Plans. Basically, calling out on whether people were honest with the "yes, but infrastructure," and "we want the right houses in the right places."
They were requested to have a 20-25% increase in total housing. It was explained that if they wanted their children to actually be able to afford anywhere in the local area, this supply and demand equation had to be resolved.
They came back with a plan for a 30% increase. In locations where there was suitable greenfield land (usually unused for anything else), and with requests for the promised infrastructure. And a push for 2-3 bedroomed houses, as we were short of those, making the rungs of the housing ladder very far apart for those trying to get on it.
It passed a local referendum with well over 90% of the vote.
Infrastructure has been a bastard to get hold of ever since; there are minimal enforcement powers to compel developers to provide what was promised. They can ride roughshod over it, and national legislation gets in the way of trying to enforce.
The two-three bedroomed houses provision was accepted, written into the Local Plan, but then completely ignored. Developers can simply appeal to the Inspector and get any rejection on those grounds overturned.
Controlling where the houses went turned out to be bullshit as well. Yes, you get those 30% in those places, but developers can merrily throw up more in other places. Attempts to reject those get overturned by the Inspector.
So you get scads of unaffordable (to the locals children trying to buy) 4-5 bedroomed houses all over the place without any local control, without the infrastructure. Their children still can't afford to buy anywhere local, the green areas they wanted to preserve vanish, and the roads, surgeries, sewers, and recreation facilities all clog up.
They've rather swung against more development. And feel they were taken for fools. Frankly, I find it hard to blame anyone for that. I rather feel the same when I try to fight their case and get pissed on by the developers going to appeal and winning, or ignoring attempts at enforcement.
The Inspector has to approve the Local Plan. If a Local Plan did not get the Inspector's approval and the Inspector's amendments were not accepted then Developers will be more likely to win on appeal
Yes. Its the developers charter that you made law. House builders donates large sums to the Conservative Party. Said party passes law to allow developers to overrule local planners. Developers throw up shitbox housing at minimal cost with no input to infrastructure.
I'm slightly surprised (not) that the anti-trans news reporters on here have not picked up on the fact the 16-year girl stabbed to death by two teenagers in a 'targeted attack' in Warrington was transgender.
You are really, really dim, aren't you? You seriously think Dolatowski and Bryson stories are "anti-trans." If I am wrong, please point me to a genuinely anti-trans story posted on here.
The genuine trans are an unfortunate minority who are the victims of at least four groups:
1. Genuine trans bashers, like gay bashers, like, possibly, the Warrington murderers. 2. Cynical wankers like Btryson and Dolatowski pretending for obvious purposes to be trans. 3. Medics on the make looking for money and careers in a new field. 4. Dweebish hobbyists like you who, like many on the left, are incapable of *generalising* a principle.
I think weak minorities should be protected: women from men, children from medical experiments, the trans from groups 1-4 above. You have appointed yourself a trans fanboi, so screw the rape victims, screw the children, look at me being all progressive and going WAAAH about the current modish issue for going WAAAH about.
So, that link, please. Won't take you long, as you have IDed " the anti-trans news reporters on here" so you can search both subject and username.
I have not 'appointed' myself anything, and my views are about as far away from the second half of that sentence as you can imagine. If you look at my posting record, I'm very string anti-violence of all sorts, and have repeatedly pointed out the stats on violence, from sexual to domestic, in this country.
And if you want me to ID the two main anti-trans reporters on here: Ms Free and CV. I'll name and *shame* them - if I felt they had any shame, that is.
There. I'm probably going to have lots of sh*t poured over me from the usual suspects, but this story is appalling - and exactly where some of us said it would end up.
Why do you conflate "pro-women" with "anti-trans"?
I don't know if I would call certain posters anti-trans but they are certainly obsessed with the trans issue to a sometimes absurd degree.
If they care about it so much - which is fine - I wonder why they only seem to post about it negatively. As somebody else pointed out, they didn't post anything about the recent attack on a trans person. I wonder why not?
Clearly these kinds of attacks don't happen, trans people don't need any protection, there's only one side to this story right?
The controversy over transgender prisoners only underlines the Scottish Government’s miscalculation.
Second, and perhaps even more damaging, is the message it sends about her administration’s priorities. When we asked Scots what three issues were the most important facing Scotland, they named the NHS, the cost of living and the economy. When we asked what they thought was at the top of the SNP government’s agenda they said Scottish independence, followed by gender recognition and trans rights, with the NHS a distant third.
Wow. That’s quite devastating. That’s actually worse than the headline Indy polls
Wait until you see the numbers….
When asked which three issues they thought Sturgeon and her administration treat as their main concerns, Scottish independence came top (65 per cent), followed by gender recognition and trans rights (46 per cent) and health and the NHS (22 per cent).
In contrast, respondents named their own key priorities as health and the NHS (62 per cent), the cost of living (57 per cent) and the economy and jobs (27 per cent). Gender recognition and trans rights was scored at three per cent, while independence came out at 14 per cent – lower than the figure for “keeping Scotland in the UK” (16 per cent).
There is an opportunity for the unionist parties. A clear opportunity. Talk about issues without belittling the independence piece. Alex Cole-Hamilton isn't capable of the latter, Anas Sarwar isn't capable of the former. Douglass Ross gets called exciting names by fans at Celtic Park.
So the SNP get away with it. Even on the GRR issue there was cross-party support, even from some of the Tories who had a free vote. Nobody gets away from that one. But to move it on there needs to be a "what do we do about education / jobs / the NHS" debate that doesn't get into "we have to be independent / independence is stupid" row as it always does.
The sad and depressing thing is that there is a mutual interest in these topics. If we are ever going to be an independent country we need a working education system and a tax base capable of funding public services but if we remain a part of the UK surely we want to be a vibrant part of it, paying our own way and creating opportunities for our kids?
The independence nonsense drowns this out and we have suffered the consequences for more than 15 years now (and, in fairness, it wasn't great before then either). Instead of addressing matters our MSPs find other displacement activities like GRR to argue about. It's pathetic.
Having experienced service provision both in suburban Teesside and rural Aberdeenshire, I am absolutely clear that its better up here. But "better" isn't "good". There are all kinds of holes both in provision and in budgets. A massive driver of that is the cutting of the budgets available to councils.
In England the local Tories did everything they could to deflect away the hard facts about how much money their government had taken off the council. Some flat out lied. When you challenge them they just lie some more and block people on social media.
And the same denial is strong with the SNP councillors. Not happening. Then if forced to accept that it is happening its the fault of the English. As if Holyrood has no powers at all. And its not as if they are right on half these issues - that the Tories are More Wrong does not make them right. But debate becomes impossible because everything is either Westminster's fault or would be fixed if we had independence.
Well I am glad that i don't live on Teeside. As my kids are somewhat spread out I had nearly 25 years of engagement with the education system in Scotland and the deterioration over that time was palpable and depressing. It is particularly bad for the poor areas with poor schools.
My wife's alma mater was Arbroath Academy. It was an appalling school when she was there more than 40 years ago. It still is with over 1/3 of all bullying cases reported to Angus Council coming from that single school last year. Nothing has changed. It took someone genuinely exceptional like my wife to make it out of there in the 1970s to make something of her life. Now it would take a miracle.
I'm slightly surprised (not) that the anti-trans news reporters on here have not picked up on the fact the 16-year girl stabbed to death by two teenagers in a 'targeted attack' in Warrington was transgender.
You are really, really dim, aren't you? You seriously think Dolatowski and Bryson stories are "anti-trans." If I am wrong, please point me to a genuinely anti-trans story posted on here.
The genuine trans are an unfortunate minority who are the victims of at least four groups:
1. Genuine trans bashers, like gay bashers, like, possibly, the Warrington murderers. 2. Cynical wankers like Btryson and Dolatowski pretending for obvious purposes to be trans. 3. Medics on the make looking for money and careers in a new field. 4. Dweebish hobbyists like you who, like many on the left, are incapable of *generalising* a principle.
I think weak minorities should be protected: women from men, children from medical experiments, the trans from groups 1-4 above. You have appointed yourself a trans fanboi, so screw the rape victims, screw the children, look at me being all progressive and going WAAAH about the current modish issue for going WAAAH about.
So, that link, please. Won't take you long, as you have IDed " the anti-trans news reporters on here" so you can search both subject and username.
I have not 'appointed' myself anything, and my views are about as far away from the second half of that sentence as you can imagine. If you look at my posting record, I'm very string anti-violence of all sorts, and have repeatedly pointed out the stats on violence, from sexual to domestic, in this country.
And if you want me to ID the two main anti-trans reporters on here: Ms Free and CV. I'll name and *shame* them - if I felt they had any shame, that is.
There. I'm probably going to have lots of sh*t poured over me from the usual suspects, but this story is appalling - and exactly where some of us said it would end up.
Ms @Cyclefree and @CarlottaVance are by no rational standards ‘anti trans’. Both are vocal in support for people to be whatever they want to be, within reason, and without pushback or violence from others
However they also recognise that trans rights taken to the limit definitely infringe on the hard won rights of women, and that extreme trans ideology is now negatively impacting kids. Sometimes catastrophically
They probably represent 80% of UK opinion. YOU are on the side of the nutters
I'm slightly surprised (not) that the anti-trans news reporters on here have not picked up on the fact the 16-year girl stabbed to death by two teenagers in a 'targeted attack' in Warrington was transgender.
You are really, really dim, aren't you? You seriously think Dolatowski and Bryson stories are "anti-trans." If I am wrong, please point me to a genuinely anti-trans story posted on here.
The genuine trans are an unfortunate minority who are the victims of at least four groups:
1. Genuine trans bashers, like gay bashers, like, possibly, the Warrington murderers. 2. Cynical wankers like Btryson and Dolatowski pretending for obvious purposes to be trans. 3. Medics on the make looking for money and careers in a new field. 4. Dweebish hobbyists like you who, like many on the left, are incapable of *generalising* a principle.
I think weak minorities should be protected: women from men, children from medical experiments, the trans from groups 1-4 above. You have appointed yourself a trans fanboi, so screw the rape victims, screw the children, look at me being all progressive and going WAAAH about the current modish issue for going WAAAH about.
So, that link, please. Won't take you long, as you have IDed " the anti-trans news reporters on here" so you can search both subject and username.
I have not 'appointed' myself anything, and my views are about as far away from the second half of that sentence as you can imagine. If you look at my posting record, I'm very string anti-violence of all sorts, and have repeatedly pointed out the stats on violence, from sexual to domestic, in this country.
And if you want me to ID the two main anti-trans reporters on here: Ms Free and CV. I'll name and *shame* them - if I felt they had any shame, that is.
There. I'm probably going to have lots of sh*t poured over me from the usual suspects, but this story is appalling - and exactly where some of us said it would end up.
Ms @Cyclefree and @CarlottaVance are by no rational standards ‘anti trans’. Both are vocal in support for people to be whatever they want to be, within reason, and without pushback or violence from others
However they also recognise that trans rights taken to the limit definitely infringe on the hard won rights of women, and that extreme trans ideology is now negatively impacting kids. Sometimes catastrophically
They probably represent 80% of UK opinion. YOU are on the side of the nutters
Says the nutter who advocated internment of muslims.
I'm slightly surprised (not) that the anti-trans news reporters on here have not picked up on the fact the 16-year girl stabbed to death by two teenagers in a 'targeted attack' in Warrington was transgender.
Who are the “anti-trans” reporters on here?
Until supporters of the GRR Bill actually engage with the arguments rather than simply try to shut down discussion we’re not going to make progress.
(Snip)
You, sadly. If you want to argue you're pro-trans, go ahead - but you've got a hard job ahead of you.
And it's not just about the GRR bill; before that came along, there were all the endless conversations about women's toilets - and as I repeatedly point out, that's a first-class way of preventing trans people from being trans.
BTW, I'm not a supporter of the GRR bill, and have never claimed to be. But I am a supporter of trans people being able to go about their lives - as they have for generations - without this cloud of hate looming over their heads.
If we listen to the hysteria, trans women are the number one threat to the safety of women. That they represent a tiny fraction of the cases where women are assaulted / raped / murdered or even fear for their safety with that person walking in lockstep behind them doesn't matter. Unless we're foaming on about the trans risk we're anti-women.
The GRR bill got parts right and parts wrong. As so many laws do. But we can't say that because trans produces absurd levels of absolutism where each noisy extreme screams at each other. This is a societal change thing - despite trans not being a new thing there is a big element within society who think this is a change too far. And perhaps it is, but the response should be to find ways to bring people with them.
I absolutely respect the people arguing for women's safety and safe spaces. And yet all the energy is expended rejecting the trans threat. When the lived and very real threat is men who are men. By endlessly looping back over the GRR thing as a wedge issue we're letting men off the hook.
I'm slightly surprised (not) that the anti-trans news reporters on here have not picked up on the fact the 16-year girl stabbed to death by two teenagers in a 'targeted attack' in Warrington was transgender.
You are really, really dim, aren't you? You seriously think Dolatowski and Bryson stories are "anti-trans." If I am wrong, please point me to a genuinely anti-trans story posted on here.
The genuine trans are an unfortunate minority who are the victims of at least four groups:
1. Genuine trans bashers, like gay bashers, like, possibly, the Warrington murderers. 2. Cynical wankers like Btryson and Dolatowski pretending for obvious purposes to be trans. 3. Medics on the make looking for money and careers in a new field. 4. Dweebish hobbyists like you who, like many on the left, are incapable of *generalising* a principle.
I think weak minorities should be protected: women from men, children from medical experiments, the trans from groups 1-4 above. You have appointed yourself a trans fanboi, so screw the rape victims, screw the children, look at me being all progressive and going WAAAH about the current modish issue for going WAAAH about.
So, that link, please. Won't take you long, as you have IDed " the anti-trans news reporters on here" so you can search both subject and username.
I have not 'appointed' myself anything, and my views are about as far away from the second half of that sentence as you can imagine. If you look at my posting record, I'm very string anti-violence of all sorts, and have repeatedly pointed out the stats on violence, from sexual to domestic, in this country.
And if you want me to ID the two main anti-trans reporters on here: Ms Free and CV. I'll name and *shame* them - if I felt they had any shame, that is.
There. I'm probably going to have lots of sh*t poured over me from the usual suspects, but this story is appalling - and exactly where some of us said it would end up.
Why do you conflate "pro-women" with "anti-trans"?
I don't - and IMV it's perfectly possible to be pro-woman and pro-trans.
But it's also possible to be pro-women and anti-trans, and when people post nothing but negativity about a segment of society, I'd argue they're against that segment.
I'm slightly surprised (not) that the anti-trans news reporters on here have not picked up on the fact the 16-year girl stabbed to death by two teenagers in a 'targeted attack' in Warrington was transgender.
You are really, really dim, aren't you? You seriously think Dolatowski and Bryson stories are "anti-trans." If I am wrong, please point me to a genuinely anti-trans story posted on here.
The genuine trans are an unfortunate minority who are the victims of at least four groups:
1. Genuine trans bashers, like gay bashers, like, possibly, the Warrington murderers. 2. Cynical wankers like Btryson and Dolatowski pretending for obvious purposes to be trans. 3. Medics on the make looking for money and careers in a new field. 4. Dweebish hobbyists like you who, like many on the left, are incapable of *generalising* a principle.
I think weak minorities should be protected: women from men, children from medical experiments, the trans from groups 1-4 above. You have appointed yourself a trans fanboi, so screw the rape victims, screw the children, look at me being all progressive and going WAAAH about the current modish issue for going WAAAH about.
So, that link, please. Won't take you long, as you have IDed " the anti-trans news reporters on here" so you can search both subject and username.
I have not 'appointed' myself anything, and my views are about as far away from the second half of that sentence as you can imagine. If you look at my posting record, I'm very string anti-violence of all sorts, and have repeatedly pointed out the stats on violence, from sexual to domestic, in this country.
And if you want me to ID the two main anti-trans reporters on here: Ms Free and CV. I'll name and *shame* them - if I felt they had any shame, that is.
There. I'm probably going to have lots of sh*t poured over me from the usual suspects, but this story is appalling - and exactly where some of us said it would end up.
Ms @Cyclefree and @CarlottaVance are by no rational standards ‘anti trans’. Both are vocal in support for people to be whatever they want to be, within reason, and without pushback or violence from others
However they also recognise that trans rights taken to the limit definitely infringe on the hard won rights of women, and that extreme trans ideology is now negatively impacting kids. Sometimes catastrophically
They probably represent 80% of UK opinion. YOU are on the side of the nutters
You could replace gay for trans here and you'd have a perfect 1980s/1990s post. Congratulations.
Why should he? It was Biden who won back the White House for the Democrats after beating Trump in 2020 after Hillary lost in 2016 to Trump having tied up the Democrat establishment behind her not Biden as VP.
Harris, Biden's VP, polls even worse than Hillary did v Trump. Newsom is a coastal liberal with no connection to the rustbelt swingstates. He might swap Harris with Buttigieg but I see no reason why he would or should not run again, especially given Trump looks likely to be GOP nominee again
You make a good point. If there were a clear alternative, Mike’s argument would have more force; for now, there isn’t.
I note the header doesn’t go into what would happen were Biden to announce he’s not running. He’d need to leave it late in order to avoid a lengthy lame duck presidency - and that would mean a messy scramble for the nomination.
If Harris were a dead cert for the nomination, it might be different. Sadly, she isn’t.
Yes. This is exactly the point. Indeed, it was also the point in 2020, when Biden should also have been too old to run (ditto Sanders, Bloomberg etc).
Those Democrats wanting Biden to not run need to say who they'd prefer to run instead. 'Generic Democrat' isn't an option: it has to be a specific person and all the likely contenders come with flaws and their own polling problems.
Plus, as noted, for Biden to drop out early hugely reduces his authority and ability to act; and to drop out late would cause great problems in terms of candidate selection. He'll run - and from the Democrats' point of view, he probably *should* run.
As with so many of our public services we seem to contrive very little bang for our bucks, literally in this case. Why are our public sector organisations so incredibly inefficient and cash hungry? We really need to find out.
Decades of Tory defence cuts.
Its not the cuts, its what we cut. We still seem to have a Whitehall organisation capable of running a world wide empire which we seem to have misplaced. So we have more admirals than ships, more generals than brigades, more Air Marshalls than operating aircraft. No doubt these are all good people who have dedicated their lives to our defence but the reality is that there is nothing for them to manage or deploy. The current army doesn't need more than 2-3 generals in total and perhaps 2 admirals. The rest, and their staffs, need to go.
There's about 30 Admirals in the RN and maybe 10 are doing 'purple' jobs in the MoD that with responsibilities that span all services. We've got a couple doing Deputy Commander roles in NATO (not Supreme Commander obviously, those are US only posts but we're cool with that.) Most of the rest are in jobs that have to be done at flag rank such as commanding HMNB Clyde, HMNB Portsmouth, etc.
Having only two Admiral posts would be ludicrous and we'd lose a lot of talent of Cdre and Capt ranks because they'd realise that their chances of promotion to flag rank are almost zero so what's the point in staying in?
Even we did decide getting rid of 20+ of the Navy's most experienced officers would improve the service the amount of money saved would be relatively minute. A small fraction of the £15 million recently spent on a completely pointless base in Bahrain, for example.
I don't know if I would call certain posters anti-trans but they are certainly obsessed with the trans issue to a sometimes absurd degree.
If they care about it so much - which is fine - I wonder why they only seem to post about it negatively. As somebody else pointed out, they didn't post anything about the recent attack on a trans person. I wonder why not?
Clearly these kinds of attacks don't happen, trans people don't need any protection, there's only one side to this story right?
It's a political site, and there are already laws against attacking trans people - indeed, it is a more grave crime in law to attack a trans person out of hate than to attack a random person for no reason.
The number one reason why it's difficult to buy property these days is because the population has risen from around 55 million in 1990 to around 68 million today.
That's not a reason in itself. Populations increase, but actions can be taken to ensure sufficient housing and other amenities are provided.
We don't appear to have done that, in part because to judge from my local area losing a couple of fields of poor quality scrubland to housing is the most heinous action imaginable.
Or do you believe populations have never increased in the past, even when property was more affordable?
We have also (by "we," I refer to Government flailing around) managed to do our damndest to discourage people from wanting to support any building by pissing all over them when they do.
I've probably mentioned it before, but in my local area, we tried one of these Neighbourhood Development Plans. Basically, calling out on whether people were honest with the "yes, but infrastructure," and "we want the right houses in the right places."
They were requested to have a 20-25% increase in total housing. It was explained that if they wanted their children to actually be able to afford anywhere in the local area, this supply and demand equation had to be resolved.
They came back with a plan for a 30% increase. In locations where there was suitable greenfield land (usually unused for anything else), and with requests for the promised infrastructure. And a push for 2-3 bedroomed houses, as we were short of those, making the rungs of the housing ladder very far apart for those trying to get on it.
It passed a local referendum with well over 90% of the vote.
Infrastructure has been a bastard to get hold of ever since; there are minimal enforcement powers to compel developers to provide what was promised. They can ride roughshod over it, and national legislation gets in the way of trying to enforce.
The two-three bedroomed houses provision was accepted, written into the Local Plan, but then completely ignored. Developers can simply appeal to the Inspector and get any rejection on those grounds overturned.
Controlling where the houses went turned out to be bullshit as well. Yes, you get those 30% in those places, but developers can merrily throw up more in other places. Attempts to reject those get overturned by the Inspector.
So you get scads of unaffordable (to the locals children trying to buy) 4-5 bedroomed houses all over the place without any local control, without the infrastructure. Their children still can't afford to buy anywhere local, the green areas they wanted to preserve vanish, and the roads, surgeries, sewers, and recreation facilities all clog up.
They've rather swung against more development. And feel they were taken for fools. Frankly, I find it hard to blame anyone for that. I rather feel the same when I try to fight their case and get pissed on by the developers going to appeal and winning, or ignoring attempts at enforcement.
The Inspector has to approve the Local Plan. If a Local Plan did not get the Inspector's approval and the Inspector's amendments were not accepted then Developers will be more likely to win on appeal
Yes. Its the developers charter that you made law. House builders donates large sums to the Conservative Party. Said party passes law to allow developers to overrule local planners. Developers throw up shitbox housing at minimal cost with no input to infrastructure.
Everyone wins! Well, the people who matter win.
No Local Plans came in so developers can't just build where they like in the area. Just Local Plans still need Inspector approval too
I'm slightly surprised (not) that the anti-trans news reporters on here have not picked up on the fact the 16-year girl stabbed to death by two teenagers in a 'targeted attack' in Warrington was transgender.
You are really, really dim, aren't you? You seriously think Dolatowski and Bryson stories are "anti-trans." If I am wrong, please point me to a genuinely anti-trans story posted on here.
The genuine trans are an unfortunate minority who are the victims of at least four groups:
1. Genuine trans bashers, like gay bashers, like, possibly, the Warrington murderers. 2. Cynical wankers like Btryson and Dolatowski pretending for obvious purposes to be trans. 3. Medics on the make looking for money and careers in a new field. 4. Dweebish hobbyists like you who, like many on the left, are incapable of *generalising* a principle.
I think weak minorities should be protected: women from men, children from medical experiments, the trans from groups 1-4 above. You have appointed yourself a trans fanboi, so screw the rape victims, screw the children, look at me being all progressive and going WAAAH about the current modish issue for going WAAAH about.
So, that link, please. Won't take you long, as you have IDed " the anti-trans news reporters on here" so you can search both subject and username.
I have not 'appointed' myself anything, and my views are about as far away from the second half of that sentence as you can imagine. If you look at my posting record, I'm very string anti-violence of all sorts, and have repeatedly pointed out the stats on violence, from sexual to domestic, in this country.
And if you want me to ID the two main anti-trans reporters on here: Ms Free and CV. I'll name and *shame* them - if I felt they had any shame, that is.
There. I'm probably going to have lots of sh*t poured over me from the usual suspects, but this story is appalling - and exactly where some of us said it would end up.
Why do you conflate "pro-women" with "anti-trans"?
I don't - and IMV it's perfectly possible to be pro-woman and pro-trans.
But it's also possible to be pro-women and anti-trans, and when people post nothing but negativity about a segment of society, I'd argue they're against that segment.
As I said above, the idea children are being destroyed, society is going down the pan etc is literally exactly what people used to say about gay people.
I've got no doubt there are issues we need to resolve - including the GRR bill - but the idea trans people are brainwashing kids or it is some extremism that is destroying society I am afraid I find deeply offensive.
I'm slightly surprised (not) that the anti-trans news reporters on here have not picked up on the fact the 16-year girl stabbed to death by two teenagers in a 'targeted attack' in Warrington was transgender.
You are really, really dim, aren't you? You seriously think Dolatowski and Bryson stories are "anti-trans." If I am wrong, please point me to a genuinely anti-trans story posted on here.
The genuine trans are an unfortunate minority who are the victims of at least four groups:
1. Genuine trans bashers, like gay bashers, like, possibly, the Warrington murderers. 2. Cynical wankers like Btryson and Dolatowski pretending for obvious purposes to be trans. 3. Medics on the make looking for money and careers in a new field. 4. Dweebish hobbyists like you who, like many on the left, are incapable of *generalising* a principle.
I think weak minorities should be protected: women from men, children from medical experiments, the trans from groups 1-4 above. You have appointed yourself a trans fanboi, so screw the rape victims, screw the children, look at me being all progressive and going WAAAH about the current modish issue for going WAAAH about.
So, that link, please. Won't take you long, as you have IDed " the anti-trans news reporters on here" so you can search both subject and username.
I have not 'appointed' myself anything, and my views are about as far away from the second half of that sentence as you can imagine. If you look at my posting record, I'm very string anti-violence of all sorts, and have repeatedly pointed out the stats on violence, from sexual to domestic, in this country.
And if you want me to ID the two main anti-trans reporters on here: Ms Free and CV. I'll name and *shame* them - if I felt they had any shame, that is.
There. I'm probably going to have lots of sh*t poured over me from the usual suspects, but this story is appalling - and exactly where some of us said it would end up.
Ms @Cyclefree and @CarlottaVance are by no rational standards ‘anti trans’. Both are vocal in support for people to be whatever they want to be, within reason, and without pushback or violence from others
However they also recognise that trans rights taken to the limit definitely infringe on the hard won rights of women, and that extreme trans ideology is now negatively impacting kids. Sometimes catastrophically
They probably represent 80% of UK opinion. YOU are on the side of the nutters
You could replace gay for trans here and you'd have a perfect 1980s/1990s post. Congratulations.
No, you wouldn’t, because gay rights never impacted on the rights of anyone else in any significant way. Nor did gay rights lead to 15 year old girls having their breasts surgically sliced off
The number one reason why it's difficult to buy property these days is because the population has risen from around 55 million in 1990 to around 68 million today.
That's not a reason in itself. Populations increase, but actions can be taken to ensure sufficient housing and other amenities are provided.
We don't appear to have done that, in part because to judge from my local area losing a couple of fields of poor quality scrubland to housing is the most heinous action imaginable.
Or do you believe populations have never increased in the past, even when property was more affordable?
We have also (by "we," I refer to Government flailing around) managed to do our damndest to discourage people from wanting to support any building by pissing all over them when they do.
I've probably mentioned it before, but in my local area, we tried one of these Neighbourhood Development Plans. Basically, calling out on whether people were honest with the "yes, but infrastructure," and "we want the right houses in the right places."
They were requested to have a 20-25% increase in total housing. It was explained that if they wanted their children to actually be able to afford anywhere in the local area, this supply and demand equation had to be resolved.
They came back with a plan for a 30% increase. In locations where there was suitable greenfield land (usually unused for anything else), and with requests for the promised infrastructure. And a push for 2-3 bedroomed houses, as we were short of those, making the rungs of the housing ladder very far apart for those trying to get on it.
It passed a local referendum with well over 90% of the vote.
Infrastructure has been a bastard to get hold of ever since; there are minimal enforcement powers to compel developers to provide what was promised. They can ride roughshod over it, and national legislation gets in the way of trying to enforce.
The two-three bedroomed houses provision was accepted, written into the Local Plan, but then completely ignored. Developers can simply appeal to the Inspector and get any rejection on those grounds overturned.
Controlling where the houses went turned out to be bullshit as well. Yes, you get those 30% in those places, but developers can merrily throw up more in other places. Attempts to reject those get overturned by the Inspector.
So you get scads of unaffordable (to the locals children trying to buy) 4-5 bedroomed houses all over the place without any local control, without the infrastructure. Their children still can't afford to buy anywhere local, the green areas they wanted to preserve vanish, and the roads, surgeries, sewers, and recreation facilities all clog up.
They've rather swung against more development. And feel they were taken for fools. Frankly, I find it hard to blame anyone for that. I rather feel the same when I try to fight their case and get pissed on by the developers going to appeal and winning, or ignoring attempts at enforcement.
The Inspector has to approve the Local Plan. If a Local Plan did not get the Inspector's approval and the Inspector's amendments were not accepted then Developers will be more likely to win on appeal
The Local Plan was approved. The Neighbourhood Plan was adopted. This all still happened.
It's never simple. The NPPF, the Town and Country Planning Act, and all the accumulated case law still needs to be dealt with.
I don't know if I would call certain posters anti-trans but they are certainly obsessed with the trans issue to a sometimes absurd degree.
If they care about it so much - which is fine - I wonder why they only seem to post about it negatively. As somebody else pointed out, they didn't post anything about the recent attack on a trans person. I wonder why not?
Clearly these kinds of attacks don't happen, trans people don't need any protection, there's only one side to this story right?
It's a political site, and there are already laws against attacking trans people - indeed, it is a more grave crime in law to attack a trans person out of hate than to attack a random person for no reason.
If these people care about the trans issue and they claim to be balanced, I wonder why they only post certain agendas then. I was simply making the point that they didn't post about this yet at the same time posted about something that was anti-trans.
I do not think these people are transphobic, I do however (with the exception of Cyclefree) think these posters would have been the same people arguing against gay rights. They don't like change.
I don't know if I would call certain posters anti-trans but they are certainly obsessed with the trans issue to a sometimes absurd degree.
If they care about it so much - which is fine - I wonder why they only seem to post about it negatively. As somebody else pointed out, they didn't post anything about the recent attack on a trans person. I wonder why not?
Clearly these kinds of attacks don't happen, trans people don't need any protection, there's only one side to this story right?
So, link to a negative post about it so that we can see what you are talking about. Do this in the next 3 minutes please.
This is a politics website, and news is news. There's been a lot of posts this winter about struggles with the cost of living. Would you expect in other winters a stream of posts saying most families are coping just fine with rent and bills, and even putting some money by for a rainy day?
The controversy over transgender prisoners only underlines the Scottish Government’s miscalculation.
Second, and perhaps even more damaging, is the message it sends about her administration’s priorities. When we asked Scots what three issues were the most important facing Scotland, they named the NHS, the cost of living and the economy. When we asked what they thought was at the top of the SNP government’s agenda they said Scottish independence, followed by gender recognition and trans rights, with the NHS a distant third.
Wow. That’s quite devastating. That’s actually worse than the headline Indy polls
Wait until you see the numbers….
When asked which three issues they thought Sturgeon and her administration treat as their main concerns, Scottish independence came top (65 per cent), followed by gender recognition and trans rights (46 per cent) and health and the NHS (22 per cent).
In contrast, respondents named their own key priorities as health and the NHS (62 per cent), the cost of living (57 per cent) and the economy and jobs (27 per cent). Gender recognition and trans rights was scored at three per cent, while independence came out at 14 per cent – lower than the figure for “keeping Scotland in the UK” (16 per cent).
There is an opportunity for the unionist parties. A clear opportunity. Talk about issues without belittling the independence piece. Alex Cole-Hamilton isn't capable of the latter, Anas Sarwar isn't capable of the former. Douglass Ross gets called exciting names by fans at Celtic Park.
So the SNP get away with it. Even on the GRR issue there was cross-party support, even from some of the Tories who had a free vote. Nobody gets away from that one. But to move it on there needs to be a "what do we do about education / jobs / the NHS" debate that doesn't get into "we have to be independent / independence is stupid" row as it always does.
The sad and depressing thing is that there is a mutual interest in these topics. If we are ever going to be an independent country we need a working education system and a tax base capable of funding public services but if we remain a part of the UK surely we want to be a vibrant part of it, paying our own way and creating opportunities for our kids?
The independence nonsense drowns this out and we have suffered the consequences for more than 15 years now (and, in fairness, it wasn't great before then either). Instead of addressing matters our MSPs find other displacement activities like GRR to argue about. It's pathetic.
Having experienced service provision both in suburban Teesside and rural Aberdeenshire, I am absolutely clear that its better up here. But "better" isn't "good". There are all kinds of holes both in provision and in budgets. A massive driver of that is the cutting of the budgets available to councils.
In England the local Tories did everything they could to deflect away the hard facts about how much money their government had taken off the council. Some flat out lied. When you challenge them they just lie some more and block people on social media.
And the same denial is strong with the SNP councillors. Not happening. Then if forced to accept that it is happening its the fault of the English. As if Holyrood has no powers at all. And its not as if they are right on half these issues - that the Tories are More Wrong does not make them right. But debate becomes impossible because everything is either Westminster's fault or would be fixed if we had independence.
Well I am glad that i don't live on Teeside. As my kids are somewhat spread out I had nearly 25 years of engagement with the education system in Scotland and the deterioration over that time was palpable and depressing. It is particularly bad for the poor areas with poor schools.
My wife's alma mater was Arbroath Academy. It was an appalling school when she was there more than 40 years ago. It still is with over 1/3 of all bullying cases reported to Angus Council coming from that single school last year. Nothing has changed. It took someone genuinely exceptional like my wife to make it out of there in the 1970s to make something of her life. Now it would take a miracle.
Bullying is a school management issue. Sadly it appears that the council have little interest in driving changes in how the school is managed. I'm unfamiliar with that particular council - officer led or councillor led? Have seen terrible councils where endless changes of councillors mean that nothing ever changes, and others where its the officers in charge and elect whomever you want and the same keeps happening.
I don't know if I would call certain posters anti-trans but they are certainly obsessed with the trans issue to a sometimes absurd degree.
If they care about it so much - which is fine - I wonder why they only seem to post about it negatively. As somebody else pointed out, they didn't post anything about the recent attack on a trans person. I wonder why not?
Clearly these kinds of attacks don't happen, trans people don't need any protection, there's only one side to this story right?
So, link to a negative post about it so that we can see what you are talking about. Do this in the next 3 minutes please.
This is a politics website, and news is news. There's been a lot of posts this winter about struggles with the cost of living. Would you expect in other winters a stream of posts saying most families are coping just fine with rent and bills, and even putting some money by for a rainy day?
Link to negative post please
The amount two posters post about trans people, I would have expected them to have posted the article about an attack on a trans person, being as it was front page news on the BBC. So yes I stand by what I said.
I'm slightly surprised (not) that the anti-trans news reporters on here have not picked up on the fact the 16-year girl stabbed to death by two teenagers in a 'targeted attack' in Warrington was transgender.
Who are the “anti-trans” reporters on here?
Until supporters of the GRR Bill actually engage with the arguments rather than simply try to shut down discussion we’re not going to make progress.
(Snip)
You, sadly. If you want to argue you're pro-trans, go ahead - but you've got a hard job ahead of you.
And it's not just about the GRR bill; before that came along, there were all the endless conversations about women's toilets - and as I repeatedly point out, that's a first-class way of preventing trans people from being trans.
BTW, I'm not a supporter of the GRR bill, and have never claimed to be. But I am a supporter of trans people being able to go about their lives - as they have for generations - without this cloud of hate looming over their heads.
If we listen to the hysteria, trans women are the number one threat to the safety of women. That they represent a tiny fraction of the cases where women are assaulted / raped / murdered or even fear for their safety with that person walking in lockstep behind them doesn't matter. Unless we're foaming on about the trans risk we're anti-women.
The GRR bill got parts right and parts wrong. As so many laws do. But we can't say that because trans produces absurd levels of absolutism where each noisy extreme screams at each other. This is a societal change thing - despite trans not being a new thing there is a big element within society who think this is a change too far. And perhaps it is, but the response should be to find ways to bring people with them.
I absolutely respect the people arguing for women's safety and safe spaces. And yet all the energy is expended rejecting the trans threat. When the lived and very real threat is men who are men. By endlessly looping back over the GRR thing as a wedge issue we're letting men off the hook.
Funny how so many of the “pro-women” (sic) activists are rampant misogynists.
Those Democrats wanting Biden to not run need to say who they'd prefer to run instead. 'Generic Democrat' isn't an option: it has to be a specific person and all the likely contenders come with flaws and their own polling problems.
TBF plenty of them probably do have a preferred alternative -- it's just that they don't as a group have a single consensus preferred alternative. Plus "I think Biden shouldn't run again" doesn't imply "and I won't vote for him in the general if he does".
Isn't the very definition of NIMBY a plan to build on greenfield sites far from infrastructure? I don't see the story as a refutation and origin justification of Nimbyism, so much as an example of it in practice.
Time to be a bit more realistic about our capacities...? Scrap vanity aircraft carriers and invest the money elsewhere.
Fucking around with continuously changing priorties is one of the reasons we are in this mess. You can't really bin £6 billion worth of ships with three years to go until Full Operating Capability.
PoW seems to have scrapped herself though. I wouldn't be surprised if she stays at Rosyth at 'extended readiness' until QE needs to go in dry dock.
It is; but you have to start somewhere.
A complete rethink of defence is required since the Ukraine invasion. And that includes setting aside the sunk cost argument.
I do agree that piecemeal tinkering with individual programs is also likely to be a further waste of money. In isolation, scraping carriers would just mean blowing any 'savings' elsewhere.
I'm slightly surprised (not) that the anti-trans news reporters on here have not picked up on the fact the 16-year girl stabbed to death by two teenagers in a 'targeted attack' in Warrington was transgender.
You are really, really dim, aren't you? You seriously think Dolatowski and Bryson stories are "anti-trans." If I am wrong, please point me to a genuinely anti-trans story posted on here.
The genuine trans are an unfortunate minority who are the victims of at least four groups:
1. Genuine trans bashers, like gay bashers, like, possibly, the Warrington murderers. 2. Cynical wankers like Btryson and Dolatowski pretending for obvious purposes to be trans. 3. Medics on the make looking for money and careers in a new field. 4. Dweebish hobbyists like you who, like many on the left, are incapable of *generalising* a principle.
I think weak minorities should be protected: women from men, children from medical experiments, the trans from groups 1-4 above. You have appointed yourself a trans fanboi, so screw the rape victims, screw the children, look at me being all progressive and going WAAAH about the current modish issue for going WAAAH about.
So, that link, please. Won't take you long, as you have IDed " the anti-trans news reporters on here" so you can search both subject and username.
I have not 'appointed' myself anything, and my views are about as far away from the second half of that sentence as you can imagine. If you look at my posting record, I'm very string anti-violence of all sorts, and have repeatedly pointed out the stats on violence, from sexual to domestic, in this country.
And if you want me to ID the two main anti-trans reporters on here: Ms Free and CV. I'll name and *shame* them - if I felt they had any shame, that is.
There. I'm probably going to have lots of sh*t poured over me from the usual suspects, but this story is appalling - and exactly where some of us said it would end up.
Ms @Cyclefree and @CarlottaVance are by no rational standards ‘anti trans’. Both are vocal in support for people to be whatever they want to be, within reason, and without pushback or violence from others
However they also recognise that trans rights taken to the limit definitely infringe on the hard won rights of women, and that extreme trans ideology is now negatively impacting kids. Sometimes catastrophically
They probably represent 80% of UK opinion. YOU are on the side of the nutters
You could replace gay for trans here and you'd have a perfect 1980s/1990s post. Congratulations.
No, you wouldn’t, because gay rights never impacted on the rights of anyone else in any significant way. Nor did gay rights lead to 15 year old girls having their breasts surgically sliced off
You are totally incorrect.
People said if gay people got rights, paedophiles would be let into schools, the concept of marriage would cease to exist, amongst many other things. It is exactly the same.
I don't know if I would call certain posters anti-trans but they are certainly obsessed with the trans issue to a sometimes absurd degree.
If they care about it so much - which is fine - I wonder why they only seem to post about it negatively. As somebody else pointed out, they didn't post anything about the recent attack on a trans person. I wonder why not?
Clearly these kinds of attacks don't happen, trans people don't need any protection, there's only one side to this story right?
It's a political site, and there are already laws against attacking trans people - indeed, it is a more grave crime in law to attack a trans person out of hate than to attack a random person for no reason.
If these people care about the trans issue and they claim to be balanced, I wonder why they only post certain agendas then. I was simply making the point that they didn't post about this yet at the same time posted about something that was anti-trans.
I do not think these people are transphobic, I do however (with the exception of Cyclefree) think these posters would have been the same people arguing against gay rights. They don't like change.
You revolting little creep. I was campaigning for gay rights before your parents were born, despite not being gay myself, and in the days when it took a bit of courage.
Lovely play of the "I can't substantiate my claim so I'll pretend I am off to work" card though. Well done.
I don't know if I would call certain posters anti-trans but they are certainly obsessed with the trans issue to a sometimes absurd degree.
If they care about it so much - which is fine - I wonder why they only seem to post about it negatively. As somebody else pointed out, they didn't post anything about the recent attack on a trans person. I wonder why not?
Clearly these kinds of attacks don't happen, trans people don't need any protection, there's only one side to this story right?
So, link to a negative post about it so that we can see what you are talking about. Do this in the next 3 minutes please.
This is a politics website, and news is news. There's been a lot of posts this winter about struggles with the cost of living. Would you expect in other winters a stream of posts saying most families are coping just fine with rent and bills, and even putting some money by for a rainy day?
Link to negative post please
The amount two posters post about trans people, I would have expected them to have posted the article about an attack on a trans person, being as it was front page news on the BBC. So yes I stand by what I said.
I'm slightly surprised (not) that the anti-trans news reporters on here have not picked up on the fact the 16-year girl stabbed to death by two teenagers in a 'targeted attack' in Warrington was transgender.
I'm slightly surprised (not) that the anti-trans news reporters on here have not picked up on the fact the 16-year girl stabbed to death by two teenagers in a 'targeted attack' in Warrington was transgender.
You are really, really dim, aren't you? You seriously think Dolatowski and Bryson stories are "anti-trans." If I am wrong, please point me to a genuinely anti-trans story posted on here.
The genuine trans are an unfortunate minority who are the victims of at least four groups:
1. Genuine trans bashers, like gay bashers, like, possibly, the Warrington murderers. 2. Cynical wankers like Btryson and Dolatowski pretending for obvious purposes to be trans. 3. Medics on the make looking for money and careers in a new field. 4. Dweebish hobbyists like you who, like many on the left, are incapable of *generalising* a principle.
I think weak minorities should be protected: women from men, children from medical experiments, the trans from groups 1-4 above. You have appointed yourself a trans fanboi, so screw the rape victims, screw the children, look at me being all progressive and going WAAAH about the current modish issue for going WAAAH about.
So, that link, please. Won't take you long, as you have IDed " the anti-trans news reporters on here" so you can search both subject and username.
I have not 'appointed' myself anything, and my views are about as far away from the second half of that sentence as you can imagine. If you look at my posting record, I'm very string anti-violence of all sorts, and have repeatedly pointed out the stats on violence, from sexual to domestic, in this country.
And if you want me to ID the two main anti-trans reporters on here: Ms Free and CV. I'll name and *shame* them - if I felt they had any shame, that is.
There. I'm probably going to have lots of sh*t poured over me from the usual suspects, but this story is appalling - and exactly where some of us said it would end up.
Ms @Cyclefree and @CarlottaVance are by no rational standards ‘anti trans’. Both are vocal in support for people to be whatever they want to be, within reason, and without pushback or violence from others
However they also recognise that trans rights taken to the limit definitely infringe on the hard won rights of women, and that extreme trans ideology is now negatively impacting kids. Sometimes catastrophically
They probably represent 80% of UK opinion. YOU are on the side of the nutters
You could replace gay for trans here and you'd have a perfect 1980s/1990s post. Congratulations.
No, you wouldn’t, because gay rights never impacted on the rights of anyone else in any significant way. Nor did gay rights lead to 15 year old girls having their breasts surgically sliced off
You are totally incorrect.
People said if gay people got rights, paedophiles would be let into schools, the concept of marriage would cease to exist, amongst many other things. It is exactly the same.
And are still saying the second of those; see the gay blessings debate in the Church of England.
Those Democrats wanting Biden to not run need to say who they'd prefer to run instead. 'Generic Democrat' isn't an option: it has to be a specific person and all the likely contenders come with flaws and their own polling problems.
TBF plenty of them probably do have a preferred alternative -- it's just that they don't as a group have a single consensus preferred alternative. Plus "I think Biden shouldn't run again" doesn't imply "and I won't vote for him in the general if he does".
Agreed. I suppose to rephrase my earlier point, where there is a preferred alternative candidate to Biden, they need to explain if that preference is on ideological / capability grounds, or electoral ones. If the former, well, fair enough but they need to accept the risk they'd be running. If the latter, where's the evidence?
Why should he? It was Biden who won back the White House for the Democrats after beating Trump in 2020 after Hillary lost in 2016 to Trump having tied up the Democrat establishment behind her not Biden as VP.
Harris, Biden's VP, polls even worse than Hillary did v Trump. Newsom is a coastal liberal with no connection to the rustbelt swingstates. He might swap Harris with Buttigieg but I see no reason why he would or should not run again, especially given Trump looks likely to be GOP nominee again
You make a good point. If there were a clear alternative, Mike’s argument would have more force; for now, there isn’t.
I note the header doesn’t go into what would happen were Biden to announce he’s not running. He’d need to leave it late in order to avoid a lengthy lame duck presidency - and that would mean a messy scramble for the nomination.
If Harris were a dead cert for the nomination, it might be different. Sadly, she isn’t.
Sadly? She’s useless (as I said when she was appointed) and she has proved me right.
It would be far more depressing if she was a dead feet for the nomination
It is the quintessence of wasted time, and life is brutally short. Later
Whilst I sympathise with the desire to move on from the bloody GRR, it takes Leon-levels of comedy to describe wastes of time whilst posting endlessly about how Aliens / AI are here to kill us.
We all have our interest areas. Yours are "interesting", best not to complain about the same for others.
Also, on the "just leave the most productive part of the UK to earn less at a job with worse prospects so you can afford to buy a two bed terrace in Stockton when you're 35" discourse, over the past five years rents have exploded in the UK's second cities and rural areas. Manchester and Birmingham aren't much cheaper than outer London, and housing availability in the countryside has collapsed, so if you're young you'll have to fight over the few houses that are available. It doesn't really matter where I live - huge amounts of my salary will be drained by people who haven't worked for it, who aren't contributing, who aren't productive, who can extract rent simply due to the fact they were born 40 years before I was. And it's shit.
It's extremely upsetting that this is the case and not just for you but for millions of 20 and 30 somethings who are stuck not being able to buy because incomes are being sucked into rents.
We need a national renewal and a party that gives a fuck about the future of the nation rather than just the 60+ selfish old people who have decided to live with their hands in our pockets.
Until the 1980s most of the country rented all their lives. Including the parents of today's 60 somethings. Not just renting in their 20s and early 30s, their entire lives.
It was only Thatcher's council house sales and mortgage expansion via the old building societies that ensured the majority now own property.
Yes, and the Tories have allowed that revolution to be halted by selfish old people. Thatcher was right that people should own their homes, you seem to think that she was only right for people aged 60+ and everyone else either needs to leave where they grew up if it's too expensive, needs to have some kind of inheritance in their 30s (lol) or have extremely high incomes. You and your party don't seem to realise that 30 somethings are abandoning the Tories forever right now and unless you turn them into homeowners by the time they are 40 you're out of power forever after this election loss. There's no way back for the Tory party unless it becomes the party of those who work hard and want to get on in life, not the party of those who think they worked hard and want to leech off younger generations.
They are homowners by the time they are 40, average age most own a property is 39.
Of course the Tories also won from 1970-1974, 1951-1964 and in most of the 1920s and 1930s even when most rented. Plus 45s to 60s will inherit more than any generation before them. The average voter is now 50 not 30
You're delusional HYFUD. That number is rising, a decade ago the age of a first time buyer was 32, now it's 39 and home ownership rates are significantly lower, so on average they're older than ever and fewer of them actually buy.
The average age of inheritance is about to go over 60 as well, very few under 40s inherit substantially and the older generations are pretty selfish, I wouldn't be shocked if inheritance was a lot lower than you expect it to be as older generations go for equity release schemes and piss away their money instead of passing it on. Their choice, for sure, but I wouldn't expect people aged 50+ to inherit substantially.
Wrong, most under 40s I know who have bought have also got gifts from parents or inheritances from grandparents too to help with deposits so don't give me your usual crap about over 60s being selfish. If they were they would spend all their kids and grandkids inheritance on expensive cruises or expensive meals even if they downsized or used equity release.
If more of my generation got married and stayed married like their parents and grandparents did their would also be less demand for property. If fewer of them had voted for Blair we wouldn't have had the uncontrolled immigration we had in the 2000s which drove up house prices either.
So no, the issue of home ownership is not all NIMBY over 60s opposing any new housing near them, in fact most polling shows they back new housing, just focused on affordable starter homes not expensive luxury properties and with appropriate infrastructure and not all in the greenbelt
Again you're missing the wood for the trees, fewer under 40s are homeowners now than ever. The average age is higher and the proportion is lower than any prior generation. Substantially lower. The Tories are dusted.
Whilst I do agree with what you are saying to some extent, I think it is worth pointing out that mass home ownership is a fairly recent phenomena - a post WW2 one. In 1918 less than 25% of homes were owner occupied, in the late 40s about a third. The vast majority of people rented. It was only in the 1970s that the number of owner occupiers first exceeded renters. The Baby Boomer generation have certainly lived in the sweet spot historically and whilst clearly I think the change to home ownership is a good one, that state of affairs is historically the exception rather than the norm.
Penicillin, the jet plane, and computer chips are also post WW2 phenomena.
I don’t think you mean to suggest this, but the idea we should settle for less than people living in the 1930s is obscene.
Germany does quite well with a low level of owner occupation
More than one power is muddying the waters here. It's not even clear who the main target is for the ongoing US military announcements.
"The military had downed the 'object', shaped like an octagon and flying at an altitude of 20,000ft over Lake Huron in Michigan, on Sunday afternoon by a missile launched from an F-16 fighter jet at the direction of president Joe Biden, based on the military’s recommendations.
'We are calling them objects, not balloons, for a reason,' US Air Force General Glen VanHerck told reporters.
'I’ll let the intel community and the counterintelligence community figure that out,' he said, on being asked about the possibility of the object being a UFO.
'I am not able to categorise how they stay aloft. It could be a gaseous type of balloon inside a structure or it could be some type of propulsion system. But clearly, they’re able to stay aloft.'"
2. The asteroid. Fortunately it did not strike the earth but exploded in the atmosphere.
Is it actually true that rocks of this size that have only been noticed a few hours before come so close to the earth's surface as frequently as several times a year?
Much bigger rocks explode at altitude all the time. When NORAD first started looking at the upper atmosphere for missile warning filtering out the rocks and the bangs they make was a serious task.
1m is tiny.
Sky News:
“US on heightened state of alert over flying objects - and it hasn't ruled out extra-terrestrials”
The statement actually said that they hadn't ruled out anything, but there was no evidence which suggested extra terrestrial origin.
The most exciting thing you will ever hear from a ‘Pentagon spokesman’ or a ‘White House source’ on this issue is: ‘we don’t rule anything out’
Imagine if they said the opposite - ‘we have evidence this is of non human origins’ or ‘this technology appears to be extra-terrestrial’ - even the mildest positive hint would be globally explosive. Could set off worldwide panic, stock market meltdowns, even war
So no one will ever say that, unless they have to. And if they have to it will sure come from the President, probably in concert with other major world leaders - China, UK, Russia, Germany, France - so as to frame it in the calmest possible way and avoid a trillion heart attacks
So when they establish that they're something perfectly mundane, will it shut you up with your incessant bandwagon-jumping on every passing conspiracy theory?
I'm slightly surprised (not) that the anti-trans news reporters on here have not picked up on the fact the 16-year girl stabbed to death by two teenagers in a 'targeted attack' in Warrington was transgender.
You are really, really dim, aren't you? You seriously think Dolatowski and Bryson stories are "anti-trans." If I am wrong, please point me to a genuinely anti-trans story posted on here.
The genuine trans are an unfortunate minority who are the victims of at least four groups:
1. Genuine trans bashers, like gay bashers, like, possibly, the Warrington murderers. 2. Cynical wankers like Btryson and Dolatowski pretending for obvious purposes to be trans. 3. Medics on the make looking for money and careers in a new field. 4. Dweebish hobbyists like you who, like many on the left, are incapable of *generalising* a principle.
I think weak minorities should be protected: women from men, children from medical experiments, the trans from groups 1-4 above. You have appointed yourself a trans fanboi, so screw the rape victims, screw the children, look at me being all progressive and going WAAAH about the current modish issue for going WAAAH about.
So, that link, please. Won't take you long, as you have IDed " the anti-trans news reporters on here" so you can search both subject and username.
And if you want me to ID the two main anti-trans reporters on here: Ms Free and CV. I'll name and *shame* them - if I felt they had any shame, that is.
No doubt you can immediately link to posts demonstrating your point?
I’m sure you wouldn’t want to utter a baseless smear…
I'm slightly surprised (not) that the anti-trans news reporters on here have not picked up on the fact the 16-year girl stabbed to death by two teenagers in a 'targeted attack' in Warrington was transgender.
Who are the “anti-trans” reporters on here?
Until supporters of the GRR Bill actually engage with the arguments rather than simply try to shut down discussion we’re not going to make progress.
(Snip)
You, sadly. If you want to argue you're pro-trans, go ahead - but you've got a hard job ahead of you.
And it's not just about the GRR bill; before that came along, there were all the endless conversations about women's toilets - and as I repeatedly point out, that's a first-class way of preventing trans people from being trans.
BTW, I'm not a supporter of the GRR bill, and have never claimed to be. But I am a supporter of trans people being able to go about their lives - as they have for generations - without this cloud of hate looming over their heads.
If we listen to the hysteria, trans women are the number one threat to the safety of women. That they represent a tiny fraction of the cases where women are assaulted / raped / murdered or even fear for their safety with that person walking in lockstep behind them doesn't matter. Unless we're foaming on about the trans risk we're anti-women.
The GRR bill got parts right and parts wrong. As so many laws do. But we can't say that because trans produces absurd levels of absolutism where each noisy extreme screams at each other. This is a societal change thing - despite trans not being a new thing there is a big element within society who think this is a change too far. And perhaps it is, but the response should be to find ways to bring people with them.
I absolutely respect the people arguing for women's safety and safe spaces. And yet all the energy is expended rejecting the trans threat. When the lived and very real threat is men who are men. By endlessly looping back over the GRR thing as a wedge issue we're letting men off the hook.
Funny how so many of the “pro-women” (sic) activists are rampant misogynists.
I would not describe Ben Bradshaw and Lloyd Russell-Moyle as “pro-women”, despite their being misogynists.
I'm slightly surprised (not) that the anti-trans news reporters on here have not picked up on the fact the 16-year girl stabbed to death by two teenagers in a 'targeted attack' in Warrington was transgender.
I'm slightly surprised (not) that the anti-trans news reporters on here have not picked up on the fact the 16-year girl stabbed to death by two teenagers in a 'targeted attack' in Warrington was transgender.
You are really, really dim, aren't you? You seriously think Dolatowski and Bryson stories are "anti-trans." If I am wrong, please point me to a genuinely anti-trans story posted on here.
The genuine trans are an unfortunate minority who are the victims of at least four groups:
1. Genuine trans bashers, like gay bashers, like, possibly, the Warrington murderers. 2. Cynical wankers like Btryson and Dolatowski pretending for obvious purposes to be trans. 3. Medics on the make looking for money and careers in a new field. 4. Dweebish hobbyists like you who, like many on the left, are incapable of *generalising* a principle.
I think weak minorities should be protected: women from men, children from medical experiments, the trans from groups 1-4 above. You have appointed yourself a trans fanboi, so screw the rape victims, screw the children, look at me being all progressive and going WAAAH about the current modish issue for going WAAAH about.
So, that link, please. Won't take you long, as you have IDed " the anti-trans news reporters on here" so you can search both subject and username.
I have not 'appointed' myself anything, and my views are about as far away from the second half of that sentence as you can imagine. If you look at my posting record, I'm very string anti-violence of all sorts, and have repeatedly pointed out the stats on violence, from sexual to domestic, in this country.
And if you want me to ID the two main anti-trans reporters on here: Ms Free and CV. I'll name and *shame* them - if I felt they had any shame, that is.
There. I'm probably going to have lots of sh*t poured over me from the usual suspects, but this story is appalling - and exactly where some of us said it would end up.
Ms @Cyclefree and @CarlottaVance are by no rational standards ‘anti trans’. Both are vocal in support for people to be whatever they want to be, within reason, and without pushback or violence from others
However they also recognise that trans rights taken to the limit definitely infringe on the hard won rights of women, and that extreme trans ideology is now negatively impacting kids. Sometimes catastrophically
They probably represent 80% of UK opinion. YOU are on the side of the nutters
I think your posts from yesterday show that you have very little connection with the word 'rational'.
CV and Ms Free are *not* vocal supporters of allowing people to be whatever they want to be - at least, if that's their position, then they express it in exactly the opposite way when it comes to trans.
I recognise that there are compromises, and have stated this repeatedly. But anyone who says trans people cannot use womens' toilets - as they have for generations without a fuss - then they're taking massive strides over the line IMO.
I'll repeat part of my position. Just under ten years ago, a friend I had known (and worked with at 2 different companies) committed suicide. He was trans (ftom). In our view there were many reasons for the long-standing depression that led to his taking his life, but I saw him (and other trans people) be bullied needlessly for what they were, and I'm 100% sure that didn't help. It wasn't *big* bullying, but it's enough if it drives someone to tears.
So yes, when I see people being snide about trans people, or insinuating that they're threats, or inferior, I think of the trans people I have known, and how those words may affect them.
Why are you ramping an old poll with fieldwork nearly a fortnight out of date?
6th Feb is "nearly a fortnight" ago?
1st Feb is nearly a fortnight ago.
The other thing to say is that 42% looks like the one-in-twenty outlier when compared to polls just before and just after.
Having said that, we do get a lot of polls now from firms whose pedigree hasn't been tested against a real election. Intuitively, I want to think "even if the absolute values are off, most of the long term moves are probably solid".
But then Chris Curtis makes comments like this;
This is a really important point. One of the most important trends in polling right now is that online panel samples are dramatically decreasing in quality. Increasingly, people who take part in online surveys are not people who are real people giving high quality responses.
I'm slightly surprised (not) that the anti-trans news reporters on here have not picked up on the fact the 16-year girl stabbed to death by two teenagers in a 'targeted attack' in Warrington was transgender.
You are really, really dim, aren't you? You seriously think Dolatowski and Bryson stories are "anti-trans." If I am wrong, please point me to a genuinely anti-trans story posted on here.
The genuine trans are an unfortunate minority who are the victims of at least four groups:
1. Genuine trans bashers, like gay bashers, like, possibly, the Warrington murderers. 2. Cynical wankers like Btryson and Dolatowski pretending for obvious purposes to be trans. 3. Medics on the make looking for money and careers in a new field. 4. Dweebish hobbyists like you who, like many on the left, are incapable of *generalising* a principle.
I think weak minorities should be protected: women from men, children from medical experiments, the trans from groups 1-4 above. You have appointed yourself a trans fanboi, so screw the rape victims, screw the children, look at me being all progressive and going WAAAH about the current modish issue for going WAAAH about.
So, that link, please. Won't take you long, as you have IDed " the anti-trans news reporters on here" so you can search both subject and username.
I have not 'appointed' myself anything, and my views are about as far away from the second half of that sentence as you can imagine. If you look at my posting record, I'm very string anti-violence of all sorts, and have repeatedly pointed out the stats on violence, from sexual to domestic, in this country.
And if you want me to ID the two main anti-trans reporters on here: Ms Free and CV. I'll name and *shame* them - if I felt they had any shame, that is.
There. I'm probably going to have lots of sh*t poured over me from the usual suspects, but this story is appalling - and exactly where some of us said it would end up.
Right, we have narrowed it down.
It is so easy, so necessary in the interests of justice to those individuals, and so crucial to your case, that you now link to posts by them which are "anti trans", that as I see it the options open to you are 1. post links or 2. withdraw from the site.
I'm slightly surprised (not) that the anti-trans news reporters on here have not picked up on the fact the 16-year girl stabbed to death by two teenagers in a 'targeted attack' in Warrington was transgender.
You are really, really dim, aren't you? You seriously think Dolatowski and Bryson stories are "anti-trans." If I am wrong, please point me to a genuinely anti-trans story posted on here.
The genuine trans are an unfortunate minority who are the victims of at least four groups:
1. Genuine trans bashers, like gay bashers, like, possibly, the Warrington murderers. 2. Cynical wankers like Btryson and Dolatowski pretending for obvious purposes to be trans. 3. Medics on the make looking for money and careers in a new field. 4. Dweebish hobbyists like you who, like many on the left, are incapable of *generalising* a principle.
I think weak minorities should be protected: women from men, children from medical experiments, the trans from groups 1-4 above. You have appointed yourself a trans fanboi, so screw the rape victims, screw the children, look at me being all progressive and going WAAAH about the current modish issue for going WAAAH about.
So, that link, please. Won't take you long, as you have IDed " the anti-trans news reporters on here" so you can search both subject and username.
And if you want me to ID the two main anti-trans reporters on here: Ms Free and CV. I'll name and *shame* them - if I felt they had any shame, that is.
No doubt you can immediately link to posts demonstrating your point?
I’m sure you wouldn’t want to utter a baseless smear…
As I've said previously, its the totality of your output. The only smearing comes from you, I'm afraid, on a near-daily basis.
Let me ask a question: when do you think you last posted something positive about trans people? How they should be allowed to live their lives as they want as long as they don't harm others?
Why are you ramping an old poll with fieldwork nearly a fortnight out of date?
6th Feb is "nearly a fortnight" ago?
1st Feb is nearly a fortnight ago.
The other thing to say is that 42% looks like the one-in-twenty outlier when compared to polls just before and just after.
Having said that, we do get a lot of polls now from firms whose pedigree hasn't been tested against a real election. Intuitively, I want to think "even if the absolute values are off, most of the long term moves are probably solid".
But then Chris Curtis makes comments like this;
This is a really important point. One of the most important trends in polling right now is that online panel samples are dramatically decreasing in quality. Increasingly, people who take part in online surveys are not people who are real people giving high quality responses.
I'm slightly surprised (not) that the anti-trans news reporters on here have not picked up on the fact the 16-year girl stabbed to death by two teenagers in a 'targeted attack' in Warrington was transgender.
You are really, really dim, aren't you? You seriously think Dolatowski and Bryson stories are "anti-trans." If I am wrong, please point me to a genuinely anti-trans story posted on here.
The genuine trans are an unfortunate minority who are the victims of at least four groups:
1. Genuine trans bashers, like gay bashers, like, possibly, the Warrington murderers. 2. Cynical wankers like Btryson and Dolatowski pretending for obvious purposes to be trans. 3. Medics on the make looking for money and careers in a new field. 4. Dweebish hobbyists like you who, like many on the left, are incapable of *generalising* a principle.
I think weak minorities should be protected: women from men, children from medical experiments, the trans from groups 1-4 above. You have appointed yourself a trans fanboi, so screw the rape victims, screw the children, look at me being all progressive and going WAAAH about the current modish issue for going WAAAH about.
So, that link, please. Won't take you long, as you have IDed " the anti-trans news reporters on here" so you can search both subject and username.
And if you want me to ID the two main anti-trans reporters on here: Ms Free and CV. I'll name and *shame* them - if I felt they had any shame, that is.
No doubt you can immediately link to posts demonstrating your point?
I’m sure you wouldn’t want to utter a baseless smear…
As I've said previously, its the totality of your output. The only smearing comes from you, I'm afraid, on a near-daily basis.
Let me ask a question: when do you think you last posted something positive about trans people? How they should be allowed to live their lives as they want as long as they don't harm others?
When did he last post a positive link to snowdrops, or whiskers on kittens, or Mother Theresa of Calcutta?
Your pivot from anti trans to not pro trans is pitiful and hilarious in equal measure.
People like you are the worst enemies of the trans, for whom you do not, fortunately, speak.
I'm slightly surprised (not) that the anti-trans news reporters on here have not picked up on the fact the 16-year girl stabbed to death by two teenagers in a 'targeted attack' in Warrington was transgender.
You are really, really dim, aren't you? You seriously think Dolatowski and Bryson stories are "anti-trans." If I am wrong, please point me to a genuinely anti-trans story posted on here.
The genuine trans are an unfortunate minority who are the victims of at least four groups:
1. Genuine trans bashers, like gay bashers, like, possibly, the Warrington murderers. 2. Cynical wankers like Btryson and Dolatowski pretending for obvious purposes to be trans. 3. Medics on the make looking for money and careers in a new field. 4. Dweebish hobbyists like you who, like many on the left, are incapable of *generalising* a principle.
I think weak minorities should be protected: women from men, children from medical experiments, the trans from groups 1-4 above. You have appointed yourself a trans fanboi, so screw the rape victims, screw the children, look at me being all progressive and going WAAAH about the current modish issue for going WAAAH about.
So, that link, please. Won't take you long, as you have IDed " the anti-trans news reporters on here" so you can search both subject and username.
I have not 'appointed' myself anything, and my views are about as far away from the second half of that sentence as you can imagine. If you look at my posting record, I'm very string anti-violence of all sorts, and have repeatedly pointed out the stats on violence, from sexual to domestic, in this country.
And if you want me to ID the two main anti-trans reporters on here: Ms Free and CV. I'll name and *shame* them - if I felt they had any shame, that is.
There. I'm probably going to have lots of sh*t poured over me from the usual suspects, but this story is appalling - and exactly where some of us said it would end up.
Ms @Cyclefree and @CarlottaVance are by no rational standards ‘anti trans’. Both are vocal in support for people to be whatever they want to be, within reason, and without pushback or violence from others
However they also recognise that trans rights taken to the limit definitely infringe on the hard won rights of women, and that extreme trans ideology is now negatively impacting kids. Sometimes catastrophically
They probably represent 80% of UK opinion. YOU are on the side of the nutters
You could replace gay for trans here and you'd have a perfect 1980s/1990s post. Congratulations.
No, you wouldn’t, because gay rights never impacted on the rights of anyone else in any significant way. Nor did gay rights lead to 15 year old girls having their breasts surgically sliced off
Think you have to be an adult for gender surgery? Not sure but I think that's the case here.
Re gay rights what you say is correct and the vast majority accept it as correct these days - but back when reforms were being enacted many people were of the view they were a threat to others. It wasn't a slam dunk whereby after a civilized debate everybody suddenly went "Ah ok, yes we see, that's all fine then". There were a lot of concerns and a lot of pushback.
Why are you ramping an old poll with fieldwork nearly a fortnight out of date?
6th Feb is "nearly a fortnight" ago?
1st Feb is nearly a fortnight ago.
The other thing to say is that 42% looks like the one-in-twenty outlier when compared to polls just before and just after.
Having said that, we do get a lot of polls now from firms whose pedigree hasn't been tested against a real election. Intuitively, I want to think "even if the absolute values are off, most of the long term moves are probably solid".
But then Chris Curtis makes comments like this;
This is a really important point. One of the most important trends in polling right now is that online panel samples are dramatically decreasing in quality. Increasingly, people who take part in online surveys are not people who are real people giving high quality responses.
I'm a bit dim about statistical methodology, but I live in a WWC northern town. I just find it impossible to understand how online panels, surveys etc can be representative of the broad mass of the excellent, lovely people who would neither want to nor remember to do such a thing and are just too busy living lives except perhaps in the week coming up to GE day to think about it.
How is it done so as to include the indifferent, non engaged, etc? (Most people)
The controversy over transgender prisoners only underlines the Scottish Government’s miscalculation.
Second, and perhaps even more damaging, is the message it sends about her administration’s priorities. When we asked Scots what three issues were the most important facing Scotland, they named the NHS, the cost of living and the economy. When we asked what they thought was at the top of the SNP government’s agenda they said Scottish independence, followed by gender recognition and trans rights, with the NHS a distant third.
Wow. That’s quite devastating. That’s actually worse than the headline Indy polls
Wait until you see the numbers….
When asked which three issues they thought Sturgeon and her administration treat as their main concerns, Scottish independence came top (65 per cent), followed by gender recognition and trans rights (46 per cent) and health and the NHS (22 per cent).
In contrast, respondents named their own key priorities as health and the NHS (62 per cent), the cost of living (57 per cent) and the economy and jobs (27 per cent). Gender recognition and trans rights was scored at three per cent, while independence came out at 14 per cent – lower than the figure for “keeping Scotland in the UK” (16 per cent).
There is an opportunity for the unionist parties. A clear opportunity. Talk about issues without belittling the independence piece. Alex Cole-Hamilton isn't capable of the latter, Anas Sarwar isn't capable of the former. Douglass Ross gets called exciting names by fans at Celtic Park.
So the SNP get away with it. Even on the GRR issue there was cross-party support, even from some of the Tories who had a free vote. Nobody gets away from that one. But to move it on there needs to be a "what do we do about education / jobs / the NHS" debate that doesn't get into "we have to be independent / independence is stupid" row as it always does.
The sad and depressing thing is that there is a mutual interest in these topics. If we are ever going to be an independent country we need a working education system and a tax base capable of funding public services but if we remain a part of the UK surely we want to be a vibrant part of it, paying our own way and creating opportunities for our kids?
The independence nonsense drowns this out and we have suffered the consequences for more than 15 years now (and, in fairness, it wasn't great before then either). Instead of addressing matters our MSPs find other displacement activities like GRR to argue about. It's pathetic.
Having experienced service provision both in suburban Teesside and rural Aberdeenshire, I am absolutely clear that its better up here. But "better" isn't "good". There are all kinds of holes both in provision and in budgets. A massive driver of that is the cutting of the budgets available to councils.
In England the local Tories did everything they could to deflect away the hard facts about how much money their government had taken off the council. Some flat out lied. When you challenge them they just lie some more and block people on social media.
And the same denial is strong with the SNP councillors. Not happening. Then if forced to accept that it is happening its the fault of the English. As if Holyrood has no powers at all. And its not as if they are right on half these issues - that the Tories are More Wrong does not make them right. But debate becomes impossible because everything is either Westminster's fault or would be fixed if we had independence.
Well I am glad that i don't live on Teeside. As my kids are somewhat spread out I had nearly 25 years of engagement with the education system in Scotland and the deterioration over that time was palpable and depressing. It is particularly bad for the poor areas with poor schools.
My wife's alma mater was Arbroath Academy. It was an appalling school when she was there more than 40 years ago. It still is with over 1/3 of all bullying cases reported to Angus Council coming from that single school last year. Nothing has changed. It took someone genuinely exceptional like my wife to make it out of there in the 1970s to make something of her life. Now it would take a miracle.
I'm slightly surprised (not) that the anti-trans news reporters on here have not picked up on the fact the 16-year girl stabbed to death by two teenagers in a 'targeted attack' in Warrington was transgender.
Det Ch Supt Mike Evans said a number of inquiries were under way and police were trying to establish the "exact circumstances".
"At this time, there is no evidence to suggest that the circumstances surrounding Brianna's death are hate related," he said.
So, as in all these things, it is best to wait and see what evidence actually emerges.
Yeah, but where's the fun in that?
To describe a murder in general terms as either 'hate related' or 'non hate related' is a demonstration of how official and regulated forms of language have departed from common sense and reality. It is entirely without meaning.
The controversy over transgender prisoners only underlines the Scottish Government’s miscalculation.
Second, and perhaps even more damaging, is the message it sends about her administration’s priorities. When we asked Scots what three issues were the most important facing Scotland, they named the NHS, the cost of living and the economy. When we asked what they thought was at the top of the SNP government’s agenda they said Scottish independence, followed by gender recognition and trans rights, with the NHS a distant third.
Wow. That’s quite devastating. That’s actually worse than the headline Indy polls
Wait until you see the numbers….
When asked which three issues they thought Sturgeon and her administration treat as their main concerns, Scottish independence came top (65 per cent), followed by gender recognition and trans rights (46 per cent) and health and the NHS (22 per cent).
In contrast, respondents named their own key priorities as health and the NHS (62 per cent), the cost of living (57 per cent) and the economy and jobs (27 per cent). Gender recognition and trans rights was scored at three per cent, while independence came out at 14 per cent – lower than the figure for “keeping Scotland in the UK” (16 per cent).
There is an opportunity for the unionist parties. A clear opportunity. Talk about issues without belittling the independence piece. Alex Cole-Hamilton isn't capable of the latter, Anas Sarwar isn't capable of the former. Douglass Ross gets called exciting names by fans at Celtic Park.
So the SNP get away with it. Even on the GRR issue there was cross-party support, even from some of the Tories who had a free vote. Nobody gets away from that one. But to move it on there needs to be a "what do we do about education / jobs / the NHS" debate that doesn't get into "we have to be independent / independence is stupid" row as it always does.
The sad and depressing thing is that there is a mutual interest in these topics. If we are ever going to be an independent country we need a working education system and a tax base capable of funding public services but if we remain a part of the UK surely we want to be a vibrant part of it, paying our own way and creating opportunities for our kids?
The independence nonsense drowns this out and we have suffered the consequences for more than 15 years now (and, in fairness, it wasn't great before then either). Instead of addressing matters our MSPs find other displacement activities like GRR to argue about. It's pathetic.
Having experienced service provision both in suburban Teesside and rural Aberdeenshire, I am absolutely clear that its better up here. But "better" isn't "good". There are all kinds of holes both in provision and in budgets. A massive driver of that is the cutting of the budgets available to councils.
In England the local Tories did everything they could to deflect away the hard facts about how much money their government had taken off the council. Some flat out lied. When you challenge them they just lie some more and block people on social media.
And the same denial is strong with the SNP councillors. Not happening. Then if forced to accept that it is happening its the fault of the English. As if Holyrood has no powers at all. And its not as if they are right on half these issues - that the Tories are More Wrong does not make them right. But debate becomes impossible because everything is either Westminster's fault or would be fixed if we had independence.
Well I am glad that i don't live on Teeside. As my kids are somewhat spread out I had nearly 25 years of engagement with the education system in Scotland and the deterioration over that time was palpable and depressing. It is particularly bad for the poor areas with poor schools.
My wife's alma mater was Arbroath Academy. It was an appalling school when she was there more than 40 years ago. It still is with over 1/3 of all bullying cases reported to Angus Council coming from that single school last year. Nothing has changed. It took someone genuinely exceptional like my wife to make it out of there in the 1970s to make something of her life. Now it would take a miracle.
I've added your name to the list...
...of PBers who can't spell Teesside!
Once upon a time I reviewed an application for school headship from someone who was a head in Middlesbrough and spelt it Middlesborough. I am not making this up.
And once again we drift onto the GRR and end up with entrenched absolutists screaming at each other.
Meanwhile Mr Incel Tateist considers which woman he will harass today, knowing that he will get away with it. He isn't a threat to these slags, they love being put in their place. Naah mate, look at those freaks in a dress, there's yer threat.
The issue for Biden is there is no obvious successor that the Dem Party would rally around. Kamala is the most likely, but she is bad at campaigning and hasn't been a massively popular VP. Buttigieg is popular amongst party elites, but doesn't have the support of African Americans. You have Raphael Warnock (Georgia) who is a good communicator and has one a purple state, but he is a relatively new face with limited experience, and Abrams still hasn't ever won in Georgia. Warren or Sanders are still too old (and potentially too left wing) for the party to support. So who is left? I think 2028 we might see some more contenders - AOC will be that much older, a few more Dem governors will have flexed their muscles on Roe v Wade (see Gretchen Whitmer), and Boomers ('46-'64) will likely not be the biggest generational voting block and possibly may become a minority within the parties elected officials as well.
And hanging over everything is beating Trump - I think if DeSantis was the clear favourite, then Biden would be bowing out, but he believes that only he can beat Trump by being the only Dem who can appeal to some of the same people with a similar message (his SOTU was very protectionist and very populist). I think Dem party elite (and even the members) fear that having a woman or POC vs Trump would make the POTUS race about culture war things, which they feel they would lose. Keeping Biden makes it about who is the more competent / respectable populist.
Why are you ramping an old poll with fieldwork nearly a fortnight out of date?
6th Feb is "nearly a fortnight" ago?
1st Feb is nearly a fortnight ago.
The other thing to say is that 42% looks like the one-in-twenty outlier when compared to polls just before and just after.
Having said that, we do get a lot of polls now from firms whose pedigree hasn't been tested against a real election. Intuitively, I want to think "even if the absolute values are off, most of the long term moves are probably solid".
But then Chris Curtis makes comments like this;
This is a really important point. One of the most important trends in polling right now is that online panel samples are dramatically decreasing in quality. Increasingly, people who take part in online surveys are not people who are real people giving high quality responses.
The controversy over transgender prisoners only underlines the Scottish Government’s miscalculation.
Second, and perhaps even more damaging, is the message it sends about her administration’s priorities. When we asked Scots what three issues were the most important facing Scotland, they named the NHS, the cost of living and the economy. When we asked what they thought was at the top of the SNP government’s agenda they said Scottish independence, followed by gender recognition and trans rights, with the NHS a distant third.
Wow. That’s quite devastating. That’s actually worse than the headline Indy polls
Wait until you see the numbers….
When asked which three issues they thought Sturgeon and her administration treat as their main concerns, Scottish independence came top (65 per cent), followed by gender recognition and trans rights (46 per cent) and health and the NHS (22 per cent).
In contrast, respondents named their own key priorities as health and the NHS (62 per cent), the cost of living (57 per cent) and the economy and jobs (27 per cent). Gender recognition and trans rights was scored at three per cent, while independence came out at 14 per cent – lower than the figure for “keeping Scotland in the UK” (16 per cent).
There is an opportunity for the unionist parties. A clear opportunity. Talk about issues without belittling the independence piece. Alex Cole-Hamilton isn't capable of the latter, Anas Sarwar isn't capable of the former. Douglass Ross gets called exciting names by fans at Celtic Park.
So the SNP get away with it. Even on the GRR issue there was cross-party support, even from some of the Tories who had a free vote. Nobody gets away from that one. But to move it on there needs to be a "what do we do about education / jobs / the NHS" debate that doesn't get into "we have to be independent / independence is stupid" row as it always does.
The sad and depressing thing is that there is a mutual interest in these topics. If we are ever going to be an independent country we need a working education system and a tax base capable of funding public services but if we remain a part of the UK surely we want to be a vibrant part of it, paying our own way and creating opportunities for our kids?
The independence nonsense drowns this out and we have suffered the consequences for more than 15 years now (and, in fairness, it wasn't great before then either). Instead of addressing matters our MSPs find other displacement activities like GRR to argue about. It's pathetic.
Having experienced service provision both in suburban Teesside and rural Aberdeenshire, I am absolutely clear that its better up here. But "better" isn't "good". There are all kinds of holes both in provision and in budgets. A massive driver of that is the cutting of the budgets available to councils.
In England the local Tories did everything they could to deflect away the hard facts about how much money their government had taken off the council. Some flat out lied. When you challenge them they just lie some more and block people on social media.
And the same denial is strong with the SNP councillors. Not happening. Then if forced to accept that it is happening its the fault of the English. As if Holyrood has no powers at all. And its not as if they are right on half these issues - that the Tories are More Wrong does not make them right. But debate becomes impossible because everything is either Westminster's fault or would be fixed if we had independence.
Well I am glad that i don't live on Teeside. As my kids are somewhat spread out I had nearly 25 years of engagement with the education system in Scotland and the deterioration over that time was palpable and depressing. It is particularly bad for the poor areas with poor schools.
My wife's alma mater was Arbroath Academy. It was an appalling school when she was there more than 40 years ago. It still is with over 1/3 of all bullying cases reported to Angus Council coming from that single school last year. Nothing has changed. It took someone genuinely exceptional like my wife to make it out of there in the 1970s to make something of her life. Now it would take a miracle.
I've added your name to the list...
...of PBers who can't spell Teesside!
The real Teeside is just the other side of Coffeeside
Why are you ramping an old poll with fieldwork nearly a fortnight out of date?
6th Feb is "nearly a fortnight" ago?
1st Feb is nearly a fortnight ago.
The other thing to say is that 42% looks like the one-in-twenty outlier when compared to polls just before and just after.
Having said that, we do get a lot of polls now from firms whose pedigree hasn't been tested against a real election. Intuitively, I want to think "even if the absolute values are off, most of the long term moves are probably solid".
But then Chris Curtis makes comments like this;
This is a really important point. One of the most important trends in polling right now is that online panel samples are dramatically decreasing in quality. Increasingly, people who take part in online surveys are not people who are real people giving high quality responses.
I'm slightly surprised (not) that the anti-trans news reporters on here have not picked up on the fact the 16-year girl stabbed to death by two teenagers in a 'targeted attack' in Warrington was transgender.
You are really, really dim, aren't you? You seriously think Dolatowski and Bryson stories are "anti-trans." If I am wrong, please point me to a genuinely anti-trans story posted on here.
The genuine trans are an unfortunate minority who are the victims of at least four groups:
1. Genuine trans bashers, like gay bashers, like, possibly, the Warrington murderers. 2. Cynical wankers like Btryson and Dolatowski pretending for obvious purposes to be trans. 3. Medics on the make looking for money and careers in a new field. 4. Dweebish hobbyists like you who, like many on the left, are incapable of *generalising* a principle.
I think weak minorities should be protected: women from men, children from medical experiments, the trans from groups 1-4 above. You have appointed yourself a trans fanboi, so screw the rape victims, screw the children, look at me being all progressive and going WAAAH about the current modish issue for going WAAAH about.
So, that link, please. Won't take you long, as you have IDed " the anti-trans news reporters on here" so you can search both subject and username.
I have not 'appointed' myself anything, and my views are about as far away from the second half of that sentence as you can imagine. If you look at my posting record, I'm very string anti-violence of all sorts, and have repeatedly pointed out the stats on violence, from sexual to domestic, in this country.
And if you want me to ID the two main anti-trans reporters on here: Ms Free and CV. I'll name and *shame* them - if I felt they had any shame, that is.
There. I'm probably going to have lots of sh*t poured over me from the usual suspects, but this story is appalling - and exactly where some of us said it would end up.
Ms @Cyclefree and @CarlottaVance are by no rational standards ‘anti trans’. Both are vocal in support for people to be whatever they want to be, within reason, and without pushback or violence from others
However they also recognise that trans rights taken to the limit definitely infringe on the hard won rights of women, and that extreme trans ideology is now negatively impacting kids. Sometimes catastrophically
They probably represent 80% of UK opinion. YOU are on the side of the nutters
I think your posts from yesterday show that you have very little connection with the word 'rational'.
CV and Ms Free are *not* vocal supporters of allowing people to be whatever they want to be - at least, if that's their position, then they express it in exactly the opposite way when it comes to trans.
I recognise that there are compromises, and have stated this repeatedly. But anyone who says trans people cannot use womens' toilets - as they have for generations without a fuss - then they're taking massive strides over the line IMO.
I'll repeat part of my position. Just under ten years ago, a friend I had known (and worked with at 2 different companies) committed suicide. He was trans (ftom). In our view there were many reasons for the long-standing depression that led to his taking his life, but I saw him (and other trans people) be bullied needlessly for what they were, and I'm 100% sure that didn't help. It wasn't *big* bullying, but it's enough if it drives someone to tears.
So yes, when I see people being snide about trans people, or insinuating that they're threats, or inferior, I think of the trans people I have known, and how those words may affect them.
And I think of the kids I KNOW and their FAMILIES, that are right now being destroyed by the extreme trans ideology, by Mermaids and Stonewall and all of the rest of that diseased, malignant gibberish
I'm slightly surprised (not) that the anti-trans news reporters on here have not picked up on the fact the 16-year girl stabbed to death by two teenagers in a 'targeted attack' in Warrington was transgender.
You are really, really dim, aren't you? You seriously think Dolatowski and Bryson stories are "anti-trans." If I am wrong, please point me to a genuinely anti-trans story posted on here.
The genuine trans are an unfortunate minority who are the victims of at least four groups:
1. Genuine trans bashers, like gay bashers, like, possibly, the Warrington murderers. 2. Cynical wankers like Btryson and Dolatowski pretending for obvious purposes to be trans. 3. Medics on the make looking for money and careers in a new field. 4. Dweebish hobbyists like you who, like many on the left, are incapable of *generalising* a principle.
I think weak minorities should be protected: women from men, children from medical experiments, the trans from groups 1-4 above. You have appointed yourself a trans fanboi, so screw the rape victims, screw the children, look at me being all progressive and going WAAAH about the current modish issue for going WAAAH about.
So, that link, please. Won't take you long, as you have IDed " the anti-trans news reporters on here" so you can search both subject and username.
I have not 'appointed' myself anything, and my views are about as far away from the second half of that sentence as you can imagine. If you look at my posting record, I'm very string anti-violence of all sorts, and have repeatedly pointed out the stats on violence, from sexual to domestic, in this country.
And if you want me to ID the two main anti-trans reporters on here: Ms Free and CV. I'll name and *shame* them - if I felt they had any shame, that is.
There. I'm probably going to have lots of sh*t poured over me from the usual suspects, but this story is appalling - and exactly where some of us said it would end up.
Right, we have narrowed it down.
It is so easy, so necessary in the interests of justice to those individuals, and so crucial to your case, that you now link to posts by them which are "anti trans", that as I see it the options open to you are 1. post links or 2. withdraw from the site.
So do this now.
Okay, here's a classic from Ms Free: "Women can always tell when a man pretends to be a woman. And I'd tell them to use the men's."
This particular comment is incredible and I'd firmly call it anti-trans. Firstly, she claims to *always* be able to tell when a person is trans. She also pretends to speak for all women. She then compounds that by saying she would confront them and tell them to use a men's. Which is nasty enough, until you realise she has no magic abilities, and will have false positives, such as happens to the following lady and many more: https://inews.co.uk/news/uk/butch-lesbian-public-toilet-women-abuse-government-review-gender-neutral-facilities-833787
Ms Free is a lovely lady, and very forceful in her views - and fair enough. It's just I fear in her belief about this topic she strays over the line all too easily - as we all do at times.
And BTW, it's not up to you to order me to 'withdraw from the site'. I'm amused by the fact you think you have the ability to do so. It's also interesting that the anti-trans people accuse others of trying to stifle debate, and you say something like that!
I'm slightly surprised (not) that the anti-trans news reporters on here have not picked up on the fact the 16-year girl stabbed to death by two teenagers in a 'targeted attack' in Warrington was transgender.
You are really, really dim, aren't you? You seriously think Dolatowski and Bryson stories are "anti-trans." If I am wrong, please point me to a genuinely anti-trans story posted on here.
The genuine trans are an unfortunate minority who are the victims of at least four groups:
1. Genuine trans bashers, like gay bashers, like, possibly, the Warrington murderers. 2. Cynical wankers like Btryson and Dolatowski pretending for obvious purposes to be trans. 3. Medics on the make looking for money and careers in a new field. 4. Dweebish hobbyists like you who, like many on the left, are incapable of *generalising* a principle.
I think weak minorities should be protected: women from men, children from medical experiments, the trans from groups 1-4 above. You have appointed yourself a trans fanboi, so screw the rape victims, screw the children, look at me being all progressive and going WAAAH about the current modish issue for going WAAAH about.
So, that link, please. Won't take you long, as you have IDed " the anti-trans news reporters on here" so you can search both subject and username.
I have not 'appointed' myself anything, and my views are about as far away from the second half of that sentence as you can imagine. If you look at my posting record, I'm very string anti-violence of all sorts, and have repeatedly pointed out the stats on violence, from sexual to domestic, in this country.
And if you want me to ID the two main anti-trans reporters on here: Ms Free and CV. I'll name and *shame* them - if I felt they had any shame, that is.
There. I'm probably going to have lots of sh*t poured over me from the usual suspects, but this story is appalling - and exactly where some of us said it would end up.
Ms @Cyclefree and @CarlottaVance are by no rational standards ‘anti trans’. Both are vocal in support for people to be whatever they want to be, within reason, and without pushback or violence from others
However they also recognise that trans rights taken to the limit definitely infringe on the hard won rights of women, and that extreme trans ideology is now negatively impacting kids. Sometimes catastrophically
They probably represent 80% of UK opinion. YOU are on the side of the nutters
I think your posts from yesterday show that you have very little connection with the word 'rational'.
CV and Ms Free are *not* vocal supporters of allowing people to be whatever they want to be - at least, if that's their position, then they express it in exactly the opposite way when it comes to trans.
I recognise that there are compromises, and have stated this repeatedly. But anyone who says trans people cannot use womens' toilets - as they have for generations without a fuss - then they're taking massive strides over the line IMO.
I'll repeat part of my position. Just under ten years ago, a friend I had known (and worked with at 2 different companies) committed suicide. He was trans (ftom). In our view there were many reasons for the long-standing depression that led to his taking his life, but I saw him (and other trans people) be bullied needlessly for what they were, and I'm 100% sure that didn't help. It wasn't *big* bullying, but it's enough if it drives someone to tears.
So yes, when I see people being snide about trans people, or insinuating that they're threats, or inferior, I think of the trans people I have known, and how those words may affect them.
And I think of the kids I KNOW and their FAMILIES, that are right now being destroyed by the extreme trans ideology, by Mermaids and Stonewall and all of the rest of that diseased, malignant gibberish
I'm slightly surprised (not) that the anti-trans news reporters on here have not picked up on the fact the 16-year girl stabbed to death by two teenagers in a 'targeted attack' in Warrington was transgender.
You are really, really dim, aren't you? You seriously think Dolatowski and Bryson stories are "anti-trans." If I am wrong, please point me to a genuinely anti-trans story posted on here.
The genuine trans are an unfortunate minority who are the victims of at least four groups:
1. Genuine trans bashers, like gay bashers, like, possibly, the Warrington murderers. 2. Cynical wankers like Btryson and Dolatowski pretending for obvious purposes to be trans. 3. Medics on the make looking for money and careers in a new field. 4. Dweebish hobbyists like you who, like many on the left, are incapable of *generalising* a principle.
I think weak minorities should be protected: women from men, children from medical experiments, the trans from groups 1-4 above. You have appointed yourself a trans fanboi, so screw the rape victims, screw the children, look at me being all progressive and going WAAAH about the current modish issue for going WAAAH about.
So, that link, please. Won't take you long, as you have IDed " the anti-trans news reporters on here" so you can search both subject and username.
And if you want me to ID the two main anti-trans reporters on here: Ms Free and CV. I'll name and *shame* them - if I felt they had any shame, that is.
No doubt you can immediately link to posts demonstrating your point?
I’m sure you wouldn’t want to utter a baseless smear…
As I've said previously, its the totality of your output. The only smearing comes from you, I'm afraid, on a near-daily basis.
Let me ask a question: when do you think you last posted something positive about trans people? How they should be allowed to live their lives as they want as long as they don't harm others?
When did he last post a positive link to snowdrops, or whiskers on kittens, or Mother Theresa of Calcutta?
Your pivot from anti trans to not pro trans is pitiful and hilarious in equal measure.
People like you are the worst enemies of the trans, for whom you do not, fortunately, speak.
I'm slightly surprised (not) that the anti-trans news reporters on here have not picked up on the fact the 16-year girl stabbed to death by two teenagers in a 'targeted attack' in Warrington was transgender.
Det Ch Supt Mike Evans said a number of inquiries were under way and police were trying to establish the "exact circumstances".
"At this time, there is no evidence to suggest that the circumstances surrounding Brianna's death are hate related," he said.
So, as in all these things, it is best to wait and see what evidence actually emerges.
Yeah, but where's the fun in that?
To describe a murder in general terms as either 'hate related' or 'non hate related' is a demonstration of how official and regulated forms of language have departed from common sense and reality. It is entirely without meaning.
It's clearly not 'entirely without meaning', since definitions exist for the phrase. What you mean is that you don't like them.
I'm slightly surprised (not) that the anti-trans news reporters on here have not picked up on the fact the 16-year girl stabbed to death by two teenagers in a 'targeted attack' in Warrington was transgender.
You are really, really dim, aren't you? You seriously think Dolatowski and Bryson stories are "anti-trans." If I am wrong, please point me to a genuinely anti-trans story posted on here.
The genuine trans are an unfortunate minority who are the victims of at least four groups:
1. Genuine trans bashers, like gay bashers, like, possibly, the Warrington murderers. 2. Cynical wankers like Btryson and Dolatowski pretending for obvious purposes to be trans. 3. Medics on the make looking for money and careers in a new field. 4. Dweebish hobbyists like you who, like many on the left, are incapable of *generalising* a principle.
I think weak minorities should be protected: women from men, children from medical experiments, the trans from groups 1-4 above. You have appointed yourself a trans fanboi, so screw the rape victims, screw the children, look at me being all progressive and going WAAAH about the current modish issue for going WAAAH about.
So, that link, please. Won't take you long, as you have IDed " the anti-trans news reporters on here" so you can search both subject and username.
I have not 'appointed' myself anything, and my views are about as far away from the second half of that sentence as you can imagine. If you look at my posting record, I'm very string anti-violence of all sorts, and have repeatedly pointed out the stats on violence, from sexual to domestic, in this country.
And if you want me to ID the two main anti-trans reporters on here: Ms Free and CV. I'll name and *shame* them - if I felt they had any shame, that is.
There. I'm probably going to have lots of sh*t poured over me from the usual suspects, but this story is appalling - and exactly where some of us said it would end up.
Right, we have narrowed it down.
It is so easy, so necessary in the interests of justice to those individuals, and so crucial to your case, that you now link to posts by them which are "anti trans", that as I see it the options open to you are 1. post links or 2. withdraw from the site.
So do this now.
Okay, here's a classic from Ms Free: "Women can always tell when a man pretends to be a woman. And I'd tell them to use the men's."
This particular comment is incredible and I'd firmly call it anti-trans. Firstly, she claims to *always* be able to tell when a person is trans. She also pretends to speak for all women. She then compounds that by saying she would confront them and tell them to use a men's. Which is nasty enough, until you realise she has no magic abilities, and will have false positives, such as happens to the following lady and many more: https://inews.co.uk/news/uk/butch-lesbian-public-toilet-women-abuse-government-review-gender-neutral-facilities-833787
Ms Free is a lovely lady, and very forceful in her views - and fair enough. It's just I fear in her belief about this topic she strays over the line all too easily - as we all do at times.
And BTW, it's not up to you to order me to 'withdraw from the site'. I'm amused by the fact you think you have the ability to do so. It's also interesting that the anti-trans people accuse others of trying to stifle debate, and you say something like that!
Further evidence of your being an arse, then. I did not order you to do anything, I suggested that you had backed yourself into a corner from which your only way out is voluntary withdrawal. This is the same sort of logic fail as the one which makes you think that to be against Isla Bryson is to be "anti trans."
I'm slightly surprised (not) that the anti-trans news reporters on here have not picked up on the fact the 16-year girl stabbed to death by two teenagers in a 'targeted attack' in Warrington was transgender.
You are really, really dim, aren't you? You seriously think Dolatowski and Bryson stories are "anti-trans." If I am wrong, please point me to a genuinely anti-trans story posted on here.
The genuine trans are an unfortunate minority who are the victims of at least four groups:
1. Genuine trans bashers, like gay bashers, like, possibly, the Warrington murderers. 2. Cynical wankers like Btryson and Dolatowski pretending for obvious purposes to be trans. 3. Medics on the make looking for money and careers in a new field. 4. Dweebish hobbyists like you who, like many on the left, are incapable of *generalising* a principle.
I think weak minorities should be protected: women from men, children from medical experiments, the trans from groups 1-4 above. You have appointed yourself a trans fanboi, so screw the rape victims, screw the children, look at me being all progressive and going WAAAH about the current modish issue for going WAAAH about.
So, that link, please. Won't take you long, as you have IDed " the anti-trans news reporters on here" so you can search both subject and username.
And if you want me to ID the two main anti-trans reporters on here: Ms Free and CV. I'll name and *shame* them - if I felt they had any shame, that is.
No doubt you can immediately link to posts demonstrating your point?
I’m sure you wouldn’t want to utter a baseless smear…
As I've said previously, its the totality of your output. The only smearing comes from you, I'm afraid, on a near-daily basis.
Should be easy to find a link to a smearing post of mine then, shouldn’t it?
The controversy over transgender prisoners only underlines the Scottish Government’s miscalculation.
Second, and perhaps even more damaging, is the message it sends about her administration’s priorities. When we asked Scots what three issues were the most important facing Scotland, they named the NHS, the cost of living and the economy. When we asked what they thought was at the top of the SNP government’s agenda they said Scottish independence, followed by gender recognition and trans rights, with the NHS a distant third.
Wow. That’s quite devastating. That’s actually worse than the headline Indy polls
Wait until you see the numbers….
When asked which three issues they thought Sturgeon and her administration treat as their main concerns, Scottish independence came top (65 per cent), followed by gender recognition and trans rights (46 per cent) and health and the NHS (22 per cent).
In contrast, respondents named their own key priorities as health and the NHS (62 per cent), the cost of living (57 per cent) and the economy and jobs (27 per cent). Gender recognition and trans rights was scored at three per cent, while independence came out at 14 per cent – lower than the figure for “keeping Scotland in the UK” (16 per cent).
There is an opportunity for the unionist parties. A clear opportunity. Talk about issues without belittling the independence piece. Alex Cole-Hamilton isn't capable of the latter, Anas Sarwar isn't capable of the former. Douglass Ross gets called exciting names by fans at Celtic Park.
So the SNP get away with it. Even on the GRR issue there was cross-party support, even from some of the Tories who had a free vote. Nobody gets away from that one. But to move it on there needs to be a "what do we do about education / jobs / the NHS" debate that doesn't get into "we have to be independent / independence is stupid" row as it always does.
The sad and depressing thing is that there is a mutual interest in these topics. If we are ever going to be an independent country we need a working education system and a tax base capable of funding public services but if we remain a part of the UK surely we want to be a vibrant part of it, paying our own way and creating opportunities for our kids?
The independence nonsense drowns this out and we have suffered the consequences for more than 15 years now (and, in fairness, it wasn't great before then either). Instead of addressing matters our MSPs find other displacement activities like GRR to argue about. It's pathetic.
Having experienced service provision both in suburban Teesside and rural Aberdeenshire, I am absolutely clear that its better up here. But "better" isn't "good". There are all kinds of holes both in provision and in budgets. A massive driver of that is the cutting of the budgets available to councils.
In England the local Tories did everything they could to deflect away the hard facts about how much money their government had taken off the council. Some flat out lied. When you challenge them they just lie some more and block people on social media.
And the same denial is strong with the SNP councillors. Not happening. Then if forced to accept that it is happening its the fault of the English. As if Holyrood has no powers at all. And its not as if they are right on half these issues - that the Tories are More Wrong does not make them right. But debate becomes impossible because everything is either Westminster's fault or would be fixed if we had independence.
Well I am glad that i don't live on Teeside. As my kids are somewhat spread out I had nearly 25 years of engagement with the education system in Scotland and the deterioration over that time was palpable and depressing. It is particularly bad for the poor areas with poor schools.
My wife's alma mater was Arbroath Academy. It was an appalling school when she was there more than 40 years ago. It still is with over 1/3 of all bullying cases reported to Angus Council coming from that single school last year. Nothing has changed. It took someone genuinely exceptional like my wife to make it out of there in the 1970s to make something of her life. Now it would take a miracle.
I've added your name to the list...
...of PBers who can't spell Teesside!
The real Teeside is just the other side of Coffeeside
Added you to the list of PBers who can't spell 'tea'. Teeside is where golfers stand.
I'm slightly surprised (not) that the anti-trans news reporters on here have not picked up on the fact the 16-year girl stabbed to death by two teenagers in a 'targeted attack' in Warrington was transgender.
You are really, really dim, aren't you? You seriously think Dolatowski and Bryson stories are "anti-trans." If I am wrong, please point me to a genuinely anti-trans story posted on here.
The genuine trans are an unfortunate minority who are the victims of at least four groups:
1. Genuine trans bashers, like gay bashers, like, possibly, the Warrington murderers. 2. Cynical wankers like Btryson and Dolatowski pretending for obvious purposes to be trans. 3. Medics on the make looking for money and careers in a new field. 4. Dweebish hobbyists like you who, like many on the left, are incapable of *generalising* a principle.
I think weak minorities should be protected: women from men, children from medical experiments, the trans from groups 1-4 above. You have appointed yourself a trans fanboi, so screw the rape victims, screw the children, look at me being all progressive and going WAAAH about the current modish issue for going WAAAH about.
So, that link, please. Won't take you long, as you have IDed " the anti-trans news reporters on here" so you can search both subject and username.
I have not 'appointed' myself anything, and my views are about as far away from the second half of that sentence as you can imagine. If you look at my posting record, I'm very string anti-violence of all sorts, and have repeatedly pointed out the stats on violence, from sexual to domestic, in this country.
And if you want me to ID the two main anti-trans reporters on here: Ms Free and CV. I'll name and *shame* them - if I felt they had any shame, that is.
There. I'm probably going to have lots of sh*t poured over me from the usual suspects, but this story is appalling - and exactly where some of us said it would end up.
Ms @Cyclefree and @CarlottaVance are by no rational standards ‘anti trans’. Both are vocal in support for people to be whatever they want to be, within reason, and without pushback or violence from others
However they also recognise that trans rights taken to the limit definitely infringe on the hard won rights of women, and that extreme trans ideology is now negatively impacting kids. Sometimes catastrophically
They probably represent 80% of UK opinion. YOU are on the side of the nutters
I think your posts from yesterday show that you have very little connection with the word 'rational'.
CV and Ms Free are *not* vocal supporters of allowing people to be whatever they want to be - at least, if that's their position, then they express it in exactly the opposite way when it comes to trans.
I recognise that there are compromises, and have stated this repeatedly. But anyone who says trans people cannot use womens' toilets - as they have for generations without a fuss - then they're taking massive strides over the line IMO.
I'll repeat part of my position. Just under ten years ago, a friend I had known (and worked with at 2 different companies) committed suicide. He was trans (ftom). In our view there were many reasons for the long-standing depression that led to his taking his life, but I saw him (and other trans people) be bullied needlessly for what they were, and I'm 100% sure that didn't help. It wasn't *big* bullying, but it's enough if it drives someone to tears.
So yes, when I see people being snide about trans people, or insinuating that they're threats, or inferior, I think of the trans people I have known, and how those words may affect them.
And I think of the kids I KNOW and their FAMILIES, that are right now being destroyed by the extreme trans ideology, by Mermaids and Stonewall and all of the rest of that diseased, malignant gibberish
You really should listen to yourself.
Are you doubting my word? Are you doubting that I have friends with kids who have been brainwashed by this sinister gender nastiness, resulting in the inappropriate use of puberty blockers, breast suppression clothes, weirdly early surgery, all the rest of it, the result of which is a shattered family, divorce and despair, suicide bids, and a now-miserable child at the centre of it all? Are you doubting that? Or is it only your “lived experience” that counts?
The controversy over transgender prisoners only underlines the Scottish Government’s miscalculation.
Second, and perhaps even more damaging, is the message it sends about her administration’s priorities. When we asked Scots what three issues were the most important facing Scotland, they named the NHS, the cost of living and the economy. When we asked what they thought was at the top of the SNP government’s agenda they said Scottish independence, followed by gender recognition and trans rights, with the NHS a distant third.
Wow. That’s quite devastating. That’s actually worse than the headline Indy polls
Wait until you see the numbers….
When asked which three issues they thought Sturgeon and her administration treat as their main concerns, Scottish independence came top (65 per cent), followed by gender recognition and trans rights (46 per cent) and health and the NHS (22 per cent).
In contrast, respondents named their own key priorities as health and the NHS (62 per cent), the cost of living (57 per cent) and the economy and jobs (27 per cent). Gender recognition and trans rights was scored at three per cent, while independence came out at 14 per cent – lower than the figure for “keeping Scotland in the UK” (16 per cent).
There is an opportunity for the unionist parties. A clear opportunity. Talk about issues without belittling the independence piece. Alex Cole-Hamilton isn't capable of the latter, Anas Sarwar isn't capable of the former. Douglass Ross gets called exciting names by fans at Celtic Park.
So the SNP get away with it. Even on the GRR issue there was cross-party support, even from some of the Tories who had a free vote. Nobody gets away from that one. But to move it on there needs to be a "what do we do about education / jobs / the NHS" debate that doesn't get into "we have to be independent / independence is stupid" row as it always does.
The sad and depressing thing is that there is a mutual interest in these topics. If we are ever going to be an independent country we need a working education system and a tax base capable of funding public services but if we remain a part of the UK surely we want to be a vibrant part of it, paying our own way and creating opportunities for our kids?
The independence nonsense drowns this out and we have suffered the consequences for more than 15 years now (and, in fairness, it wasn't great before then either). Instead of addressing matters our MSPs find other displacement activities like GRR to argue about. It's pathetic.
Having experienced service provision both in suburban Teesside and rural Aberdeenshire, I am absolutely clear that its better up here. But "better" isn't "good". There are all kinds of holes both in provision and in budgets. A massive driver of that is the cutting of the budgets available to councils.
In England the local Tories did everything they could to deflect away the hard facts about how much money their government had taken off the council. Some flat out lied. When you challenge them they just lie some more and block people on social media.
And the same denial is strong with the SNP councillors. Not happening. Then if forced to accept that it is happening its the fault of the English. As if Holyrood has no powers at all. And its not as if they are right on half these issues - that the Tories are More Wrong does not make them right. But debate becomes impossible because everything is either Westminster's fault or would be fixed if we had independence.
Well I am glad that i don't live on Teeside. As my kids are somewhat spread out I had nearly 25 years of engagement with the education system in Scotland and the deterioration over that time was palpable and depressing. It is particularly bad for the poor areas with poor schools.
My wife's alma mater was Arbroath Academy. It was an appalling school when she was there more than 40 years ago. It still is with over 1/3 of all bullying cases reported to Angus Council coming from that single school last year. Nothing has changed. It took someone genuinely exceptional like my wife to make it out of there in the 1970s to make something of her life. Now it would take a miracle.
I've added your name to the list...
...of PBers who can't spell Teesside!
The real Teeside is just the other side of Coffeeside
Presumably Coffeeside is twinned with Morningside?
Why are you ramping an old poll with fieldwork nearly a fortnight out of date?
6th Feb is "nearly a fortnight" ago?
1st Feb is nearly a fortnight ago.
The other thing to say is that 42% looks like the one-in-twenty outlier when compared to polls just before and just after.
Having said that, we do get a lot of polls now from firms whose pedigree hasn't been tested against a real election. Intuitively, I want to think "even if the absolute values are off, most of the long term moves are probably solid".
But then Chris Curtis makes comments like this;
This is a really important point. One of the most important trends in polling right now is that online panel samples are dramatically decreasing in quality. Increasingly, people who take part in online surveys are not people who are real people giving high quality responses.
I think Labour are well ahead and will win, next time.
I also think the Conservatives will win 200 + seats.
I agree that there fundamental selection issues with online polling. I work with a market research agency who also conduct political polling and chatted about this casually - the response was professionally cagey but tellingly not a bullish, 'No, we have complete confidence'.
FWIW (and IMVHO) they reflect trends well - especially in aggregate across multiple credible pollsters - but less reliable in absolute terms.
I'm slightly surprised (not) that the anti-trans news reporters on here have not picked up on the fact the 16-year girl stabbed to death by two teenagers in a 'targeted attack' in Warrington was transgender.
Det Ch Supt Mike Evans said a number of inquiries were under way and police were trying to establish the "exact circumstances".
"At this time, there is no evidence to suggest that the circumstances surrounding Brianna's death are hate related," he said.
So, as in all these things, it is best to wait and see what evidence actually emerges.
Yeah, but where's the fun in that?
There is a man on twitter who is claiming to be a father of kids who went to school with Brianna, who is aware of intense bullying and has been to court with the county council and local police over what he says were safeguarding concerns - he also makes it pretty clear that over a year ago he said if this behaviour wasn't dealt with he thought a child at the school would get killed.
I'm slightly surprised (not) that the anti-trans news reporters on here have not picked up on the fact the 16-year girl stabbed to death by two teenagers in a 'targeted attack' in Warrington was transgender.
You are really, really dim, aren't you? You seriously think Dolatowski and Bryson stories are "anti-trans." If I am wrong, please point me to a genuinely anti-trans story posted on here.
The genuine trans are an unfortunate minority who are the victims of at least four groups:
1. Genuine trans bashers, like gay bashers, like, possibly, the Warrington murderers. 2. Cynical wankers like Btryson and Dolatowski pretending for obvious purposes to be trans. 3. Medics on the make looking for money and careers in a new field. 4. Dweebish hobbyists like you who, like many on the left, are incapable of *generalising* a principle.
I think weak minorities should be protected: women from men, children from medical experiments, the trans from groups 1-4 above. You have appointed yourself a trans fanboi, so screw the rape victims, screw the children, look at me being all progressive and going WAAAH about the current modish issue for going WAAAH about.
So, that link, please. Won't take you long, as you have IDed " the anti-trans news reporters on here" so you can search both subject and username.
I have not 'appointed' myself anything, and my views are about as far away from the second half of that sentence as you can imagine. If you look at my posting record, I'm very string anti-violence of all sorts, and have repeatedly pointed out the stats on violence, from sexual to domestic, in this country.
And if you want me to ID the two main anti-trans reporters on here: Ms Free and CV. I'll name and *shame* them - if I felt they had any shame, that is.
There. I'm probably going to have lots of sh*t poured over me from the usual suspects, but this story is appalling - and exactly where some of us said it would end up.
Ms @Cyclefree and @CarlottaVance are by no rational standards ‘anti trans’. Both are vocal in support for people to be whatever they want to be, within reason, and without pushback or violence from others
However they also recognise that trans rights taken to the limit definitely infringe on the hard won rights of women, and that extreme trans ideology is now negatively impacting kids. Sometimes catastrophically
They probably represent 80% of UK opinion. YOU are on the side of the nutters
You could replace gay for trans here and you'd have a perfect 1980s/1990s post. Congratulations.
No, you wouldn’t, because gay rights never impacted on the rights of anyone else in any significant way. Nor did gay rights lead to 15 year old girls having their breasts surgically sliced off
Think you have to be an adult for gender surgery? Not sure but I think that's the case here.
Re gay rights what you say is correct and the vast majority accept it as correct these days - but back when reforms were being enacted many people were of the view they were a threat to others. It wasn't a slam dunk whereby after a civilized debate everybody suddenly went "Ah ok, yes we see, that's all fine then". There were a lot of concerns and a lot of pushback.
Yes, you do, in England at least. My 17-year-old relative (female by birth, identifies as male) can't wait to get them sliced off. He finds them repulsive and is counting down the days (and saving money for the op) until he turns 18.
The controversy over transgender prisoners only underlines the Scottish Government’s miscalculation.
Second, and perhaps even more damaging, is the message it sends about her administration’s priorities. When we asked Scots what three issues were the most important facing Scotland, they named the NHS, the cost of living and the economy. When we asked what they thought was at the top of the SNP government’s agenda they said Scottish independence, followed by gender recognition and trans rights, with the NHS a distant third.
Wow. That’s quite devastating. That’s actually worse than the headline Indy polls
Wait until you see the numbers….
When asked which three issues they thought Sturgeon and her administration treat as their main concerns, Scottish independence came top (65 per cent), followed by gender recognition and trans rights (46 per cent) and health and the NHS (22 per cent).
In contrast, respondents named their own key priorities as health and the NHS (62 per cent), the cost of living (57 per cent) and the economy and jobs (27 per cent). Gender recognition and trans rights was scored at three per cent, while independence came out at 14 per cent – lower than the figure for “keeping Scotland in the UK” (16 per cent).
There is an opportunity for the unionist parties. A clear opportunity. Talk about issues without belittling the independence piece. Alex Cole-Hamilton isn't capable of the latter, Anas Sarwar isn't capable of the former. Douglass Ross gets called exciting names by fans at Celtic Park.
So the SNP get away with it. Even on the GRR issue there was cross-party support, even from some of the Tories who had a free vote. Nobody gets away from that one. But to move it on there needs to be a "what do we do about education / jobs / the NHS" debate that doesn't get into "we have to be independent / independence is stupid" row as it always does.
The sad and depressing thing is that there is a mutual interest in these topics. If we are ever going to be an independent country we need a working education system and a tax base capable of funding public services but if we remain a part of the UK surely we want to be a vibrant part of it, paying our own way and creating opportunities for our kids?
The independence nonsense drowns this out and we have suffered the consequences for more than 15 years now (and, in fairness, it wasn't great before then either). Instead of addressing matters our MSPs find other displacement activities like GRR to argue about. It's pathetic.
Having experienced service provision both in suburban Teesside and rural Aberdeenshire, I am absolutely clear that its better up here. But "better" isn't "good". There are all kinds of holes both in provision and in budgets. A massive driver of that is the cutting of the budgets available to councils.
In England the local Tories did everything they could to deflect away the hard facts about how much money their government had taken off the council. Some flat out lied. When you challenge them they just lie some more and block people on social media.
And the same denial is strong with the SNP councillors. Not happening. Then if forced to accept that it is happening its the fault of the English. As if Holyrood has no powers at all. And its not as if they are right on half these issues - that the Tories are More Wrong does not make them right. But debate becomes impossible because everything is either Westminster's fault or would be fixed if we had independence.
Well I am glad that i don't live on Teeside. As my kids are somewhat spread out I had nearly 25 years of engagement with the education system in Scotland and the deterioration over that time was palpable and depressing. It is particularly bad for the poor areas with poor schools.
My wife's alma mater was Arbroath Academy. It was an appalling school when she was there more than 40 years ago. It still is with over 1/3 of all bullying cases reported to Angus Council coming from that single school last year. Nothing has changed. It took someone genuinely exceptional like my wife to make it out of there in the 1970s to make something of her life. Now it would take a miracle.
I've added your name to the list...
...of PBers who can't spell Teesside!
The two most common geographical misspellings in the UK: Teeside and Middlesborough!
I'm slightly surprised (not) that the anti-trans news reporters on here have not picked up on the fact the 16-year girl stabbed to death by two teenagers in a 'targeted attack' in Warrington was transgender.
You are really, really dim, aren't you? You seriously think Dolatowski and Bryson stories are "anti-trans." If I am wrong, please point me to a genuinely anti-trans story posted on here.
The genuine trans are an unfortunate minority who are the victims of at least four groups:
1. Genuine trans bashers, like gay bashers, like, possibly, the Warrington murderers. 2. Cynical wankers like Btryson and Dolatowski pretending for obvious purposes to be trans. 3. Medics on the make looking for money and careers in a new field. 4. Dweebish hobbyists like you who, like many on the left, are incapable of *generalising* a principle.
I think weak minorities should be protected: women from men, children from medical experiments, the trans from groups 1-4 above. You have appointed yourself a trans fanboi, so screw the rape victims, screw the children, look at me being all progressive and going WAAAH about the current modish issue for going WAAAH about.
So, that link, please. Won't take you long, as you have IDed " the anti-trans news reporters on here" so you can search both subject and username.
I have not 'appointed' myself anything, and my views are about as far away from the second half of that sentence as you can imagine. If you look at my posting record, I'm very string anti-violence of all sorts, and have repeatedly pointed out the stats on violence, from sexual to domestic, in this country.
And if you want me to ID the two main anti-trans reporters on here: Ms Free and CV. I'll name and *shame* them - if I felt they had any shame, that is.
There. I'm probably going to have lots of sh*t poured over me from the usual suspects, but this story is appalling - and exactly where some of us said it would end up.
Ms @Cyclefree and @CarlottaVance are by no rational standards ‘anti trans’. Both are vocal in support for people to be whatever they want to be, within reason, and without pushback or violence from others
However they also recognise that trans rights taken to the limit definitely infringe on the hard won rights of women, and that extreme trans ideology is now negatively impacting kids. Sometimes catastrophically
They probably represent 80% of UK opinion. YOU are on the side of the nutters
I think your posts from yesterday show that you have very little connection with the word 'rational'.
CV and Ms Free are *not* vocal supporters of allowing people to be whatever they want to be - at least, if that's their position, then they express it in exactly the opposite way when it comes to trans.
I recognise that there are compromises, and have stated this repeatedly. But anyone who says trans people cannot use womens' toilets - as they have for generations without a fuss - then they're taking massive strides over the line IMO.
I'll repeat part of my position. Just under ten years ago, a friend I had known (and worked with at 2 different companies) committed suicide. He was trans (ftom). In our view there were many reasons for the long-standing depression that led to his taking his life, but I saw him (and other trans people) be bullied needlessly for what they were, and I'm 100% sure that didn't help. It wasn't *big* bullying, but it's enough if it drives someone to tears.
So yes, when I see people being snide about trans people, or insinuating that they're threats, or inferior, I think of the trans people I have known, and how those words may affect them.
And I think of the kids I KNOW and their FAMILIES, that are right now being destroyed by the extreme trans ideology, by Mermaids and Stonewall and all of the rest of that diseased, malignant gibberish
You really should listen to yourself.
Are you doubting my word? Are you doubting that I have friends with kids who have been brainwashed by this sinister gender nastiness, resulting in the inappropriate use of puberty blockers, breast suppression clothes, weirdly early surgery, all the rest of it, the result of which is a shattered family, divorce and despair, suicide bids, and a now-miserable child at the centre of it all? Are you doubting that? Or is it only your “lived experience” that counts?
Occam's razor* would suggest doing so for any of your posts, TBF.
I'm slightly surprised (not) that the anti-trans news reporters on here have not picked up on the fact the 16-year girl stabbed to death by two teenagers in a 'targeted attack' in Warrington was transgender.
You are really, really dim, aren't you? You seriously think Dolatowski and Bryson stories are "anti-trans." If I am wrong, please point me to a genuinely anti-trans story posted on here.
The genuine trans are an unfortunate minority who are the victims of at least four groups:
1. Genuine trans bashers, like gay bashers, like, possibly, the Warrington murderers. 2. Cynical wankers like Btryson and Dolatowski pretending for obvious purposes to be trans. 3. Medics on the make looking for money and careers in a new field. 4. Dweebish hobbyists like you who, like many on the left, are incapable of *generalising* a principle.
I think weak minorities should be protected: women from men, children from medical experiments, the trans from groups 1-4 above. You have appointed yourself a trans fanboi, so screw the rape victims, screw the children, look at me being all progressive and going WAAAH about the current modish issue for going WAAAH about.
So, that link, please. Won't take you long, as you have IDed " the anti-trans news reporters on here" so you can search both subject and username.
I have not 'appointed' myself anything, and my views are about as far away from the second half of that sentence as you can imagine. If you look at my posting record, I'm very string anti-violence of all sorts, and have repeatedly pointed out the stats on violence, from sexual to domestic, in this country.
And if you want me to ID the two main anti-trans reporters on here: Ms Free and CV. I'll name and *shame* them - if I felt they had any shame, that is.
There. I'm probably going to have lots of sh*t poured over me from the usual suspects, but this story is appalling - and exactly where some of us said it would end up.
Ms @Cyclefree and @CarlottaVance are by no rational standards ‘anti trans’. Both are vocal in support for people to be whatever they want to be, within reason, and without pushback or violence from others
However they also recognise that trans rights taken to the limit definitely infringe on the hard won rights of women, and that extreme trans ideology is now negatively impacting kids. Sometimes catastrophically
They probably represent 80% of UK opinion. YOU are on the side of the nutters
You could replace gay for trans here and you'd have a perfect 1980s/1990s post. Congratulations.
No, you wouldn’t, because gay rights never impacted on the rights of anyone else in any significant way. Nor did gay rights lead to 15 year old girls having their breasts surgically sliced off
Think you have to be an adult for gender surgery? Not sure but I think that's the case here.
Re gay rights what you say is correct and the vast majority accept it as correct these days - but back when reforms were being enacted many people were of the view they were a threat to others. It wasn't a slam dunk whereby after a civilized debate everybody suddenly went "Ah ok, yes we see, that's all fine then". There were a lot of concerns and a lot of pushback.
In the 70s and 80s gay rights were routinely conflated with paedophilia and child-indoctrination by their opposition, amplifying and generalising massively niche cases to be presented as a the both the norm for the group in question, the aim being to focus debate on these issues.
I'm slightly surprised (not) that the anti-trans news reporters on here have not picked up on the fact the 16-year girl stabbed to death by two teenagers in a 'targeted attack' in Warrington was transgender.
You are really, really dim, aren't you? You seriously think Dolatowski and Bryson stories are "anti-trans." If I am wrong, please point me to a genuinely anti-trans story posted on here.
The genuine trans are an unfortunate minority who are the victims of at least four groups:
1. Genuine trans bashers, like gay bashers, like, possibly, the Warrington murderers. 2. Cynical wankers like Btryson and Dolatowski pretending for obvious purposes to be trans. 3. Medics on the make looking for money and careers in a new field. 4. Dweebish hobbyists like you who, like many on the left, are incapable of *generalising* a principle.
I think weak minorities should be protected: women from men, children from medical experiments, the trans from groups 1-4 above. You have appointed yourself a trans fanboi, so screw the rape victims, screw the children, look at me being all progressive and going WAAAH about the current modish issue for going WAAAH about.
So, that link, please. Won't take you long, as you have IDed " the anti-trans news reporters on here" so you can search both subject and username.
I have not 'appointed' myself anything, and my views are about as far away from the second half of that sentence as you can imagine. If you look at my posting record, I'm very string anti-violence of all sorts, and have repeatedly pointed out the stats on violence, from sexual to domestic, in this country.
And if you want me to ID the two main anti-trans reporters on here: Ms Free and CV. I'll name and *shame* them - if I felt they had any shame, that is.
There. I'm probably going to have lots of sh*t poured over me from the usual suspects, but this story is appalling - and exactly where some of us said it would end up.
Ms @Cyclefree and @CarlottaVance are by no rational standards ‘anti trans’. Both are vocal in support for people to be whatever they want to be, within reason, and without pushback or violence from others
However they also recognise that trans rights taken to the limit definitely infringe on the hard won rights of women, and that extreme trans ideology is now negatively impacting kids. Sometimes catastrophically
They probably represent 80% of UK opinion. YOU are on the side of the nutters
I think your posts from yesterday show that you have very little connection with the word 'rational'.
CV and Ms Free are *not* vocal supporters of allowing people to be whatever they want to be - at least, if that's their position, then they express it in exactly the opposite way when it comes to trans.
I recognise that there are compromises, and have stated this repeatedly. But anyone who says trans people cannot use womens' toilets - as they have for generations without a fuss - then they're taking massive strides over the line IMO.
I'll repeat part of my position. Just under ten years ago, a friend I had known (and worked with at 2 different companies) committed suicide. He was trans (ftom). In our view there were many reasons for the long-standing depression that led to his taking his life, but I saw him (and other trans people) be bullied needlessly for what they were, and I'm 100% sure that didn't help. It wasn't *big* bullying, but it's enough if it drives someone to tears.
So yes, when I see people being snide about trans people, or insinuating that they're threats, or inferior, I think of the trans people I have known, and how those words may affect them.
And I think of the kids I KNOW and their FAMILIES, that are right now being destroyed by the extreme trans ideology, by Mermaids and Stonewall and all of the rest of that diseased, malignant gibberish
You really should listen to yourself.
Indeed. Whereas in the real world another example came up on my twitter feed. A woman who's friend called her late one night to loudly talk about where she was and that she would be back shortly because she was threatened by the man in the shadows walking lockstep behind her.
The thread is then an avalanche of women who have done the same, or having been attacked wish they had. And this is just women in fear of attack, not women who have actually been dragged off.
So what is the percentage of pubescent girls (like my daughter) being "destroyed by the extreme trans ideology" vs the percentage who are taught to fear being attacked and to ensure they think safety and let people know where they are. Who are actually harassed and abused and mildly assaulted as salutatory lessons. Whats the percentage who sadly do go on to get attacked. Assaulted. Raped. Murdered.
Trans ideology is not a threat to my daughter. Men are. Can we please end this distraction and lip service concern for the safety of women and girls and actually address the problem - men.
The Andrew Tate thing has ripped the lid off all kinds of issues of young men who are having their gender weaponised. Their so-called Rights to sex, to respect, to dominance. Spilling over into real world incidents in high schools and beyond. A misogynistic time bomb being fuelled and exploded, yet we shouldn't be focused on that mega threat when we can expend so much fury distracting people with the largely fantasy threat of "extreme trans ideology".
I'm slightly surprised (not) that the anti-trans news reporters on here have not picked up on the fact the 16-year girl stabbed to death by two teenagers in a 'targeted attack' in Warrington was transgender.
Who are the “anti-trans” reporters on here?
Until supporters of the GRR Bill actually engage with the arguments rather than simply try to shut down discussion we’re not going to make progress.
(Snip)
You, sadly. If you want to argue you're pro-trans, go ahead - but you've got a hard job ahead of you.
And it's not just about the GRR bill; before that came along, there were all the endless conversations about women's toilets - and as I repeatedly point out, that's a first-class way of preventing trans people from being trans.
BTW, I'm not a supporter of the GRR bill, and have never claimed to be. But I am a supporter of trans people being able to go about their lives - as they have for generations - without this cloud of hate looming over their heads.
I have just seen this news. It is very sad. The police have said, apparently, that it is not a hate crime though it seems early in the investigation to say that unless they have evidence they have not released.
As for women's loos, keeping men who claim to be women out of them does not, as you claim, stop trans people from being trans because, as has been repeated ad nauseam, it is lawful (using the proportionate means for a legitimate aim test) to keep men, even those who claim to be women, out of single sex spaces, under the Equality Act. See schedule 3, part 7, sections 26, 27 & 28.
There has also been a recent case in the Employment Appeal Tribunal which stated that failure to provide women only loos could amount to indirect sex discrimination.
I'm slightly surprised (not) that the anti-trans news reporters on here have not picked up on the fact the 16-year girl stabbed to death by two teenagers in a 'targeted attack' in Warrington was transgender.
You are really, really dim, aren't you? You seriously think Dolatowski and Bryson stories are "anti-trans." If I am wrong, please point me to a genuinely anti-trans story posted on here.
The genuine trans are an unfortunate minority who are the victims of at least four groups:
1. Genuine trans bashers, like gay bashers, like, possibly, the Warrington murderers. 2. Cynical wankers like Btryson and Dolatowski pretending for obvious purposes to be trans. 3. Medics on the make looking for money and careers in a new field. 4. Dweebish hobbyists like you who, like many on the left, are incapable of *generalising* a principle.
I think weak minorities should be protected: women from men, children from medical experiments, the trans from groups 1-4 above. You have appointed yourself a trans fanboi, so screw the rape victims, screw the children, look at me being all progressive and going WAAAH about the current modish issue for going WAAAH about.
So, that link, please. Won't take you long, as you have IDed " the anti-trans news reporters on here" so you can search both subject and username.
I have not 'appointed' myself anything, and my views are about as far away from the second half of that sentence as you can imagine. If you look at my posting record, I'm very string anti-violence of all sorts, and have repeatedly pointed out the stats on violence, from sexual to domestic, in this country.
And if you want me to ID the two main anti-trans reporters on here: Ms Free and CV. I'll name and *shame* them - if I felt they had any shame, that is.
There. I'm probably going to have lots of sh*t poured over me from the usual suspects, but this story is appalling - and exactly where some of us said it would end up.
Ms @Cyclefree and @CarlottaVance are by no rational standards ‘anti trans’. Both are vocal in support for people to be whatever they want to be, within reason, and without pushback or violence from others
However they also recognise that trans rights taken to the limit definitely infringe on the hard won rights of women, and that extreme trans ideology is now negatively impacting kids. Sometimes catastrophically
They probably represent 80% of UK opinion. YOU are on the side of the nutters
You could replace gay for trans here and you'd have a perfect 1980s/1990s post. Congratulations.
No, you wouldn’t, because gay rights never impacted on the rights of anyone else in any significant way. Nor did gay rights lead to 15 year old girls having their breasts surgically sliced off
Think you have to be an adult for gender surgery? Not sure but I think that's the case here.
Re gay rights what you say is correct and the vast majority accept it as correct these days - but back when reforms were being enacted many people were of the view they were a threat to others. It wasn't a slam dunk whereby after a civilized debate everybody suddenly went "Ah ok, yes we see, that's all fine then". There were a lot of concerns and a lot of pushback.
In the 70s and 80s gay rights were routinely conflated with paedophilia and child-indoctrination by their opposition, amplifying and generalising massively niche cases to be presented as a the both the norm for the group in question, the aim being to focus debate on these issues.
You don't even have to go back to the 70s and 80s - this conflation is back for many on the right wing in the US and here in the UK with all the accusations of "groomers" if adults even mention that they have a same sex partner to kids. As I've mentioned before, the moral panic around LGBTQ+ people and children is very clear projection:
I'm slightly surprised (not) that the anti-trans news reporters on here have not picked up on the fact the 16-year girl stabbed to death by two teenagers in a 'targeted attack' in Warrington was transgender.
Who are the “anti-trans” reporters on here?
Until supporters of the GRR Bill actually engage with the arguments rather than simply try to shut down discussion we’re not going to make progress.
(Snip)
You, sadly. If you want to argue you're pro-trans, go ahead - but you've got a hard job ahead of you.
And it's not just about the GRR bill; before that came along, there were all the endless conversations about women's toilets - and as I repeatedly point out, that's a first-class way of preventing trans people from being trans.
BTW, I'm not a supporter of the GRR bill, and have never claimed to be. But I am a supporter of trans people being able to go about their lives - as they have for generations - without this cloud of hate looming over their heads.
I have just seen this news. It is very sad. The police have said, apparently, that it is not a hate crime though it seems early in the investigation to say that unless they have evidence they have not released.
As for women's loos, keeping men who claim to be women out of them does not, as you claim, stop trans people from being trans because, as has been repeated ad nauseam, it is lawful (using the proportionate means for a legitimate aim test) to keep men, even those who claim to be women, out of single sex spaces, under the Equality Act. See schedule 3, part 7, sections 26, 27 & 28.
There has also been a recent case in the Employment Appeal Tribunal which stated that failure to provide women only loos could amount to indirect sex discrimination.
And I've pointed out to you what those sections say: and (from memory) I cannot see how living as a woman involves going into men's toilets. But I don't have time to go into it at the moment (it's half term, and I've got to practice being a Hyena).
As for your last paragraph: have you considered the effect this would have on trans people?
The controversy over transgender prisoners only underlines the Scottish Government’s miscalculation.
Second, and perhaps even more damaging, is the message it sends about her administration’s priorities. When we asked Scots what three issues were the most important facing Scotland, they named the NHS, the cost of living and the economy. When we asked what they thought was at the top of the SNP government’s agenda they said Scottish independence, followed by gender recognition and trans rights, with the NHS a distant third.
Wow. That’s quite devastating. That’s actually worse than the headline Indy polls
Wait until you see the numbers….
When asked which three issues they thought Sturgeon and her administration treat as their main concerns, Scottish independence came top (65 per cent), followed by gender recognition and trans rights (46 per cent) and health and the NHS (22 per cent).
In contrast, respondents named their own key priorities as health and the NHS (62 per cent), the cost of living (57 per cent) and the economy and jobs (27 per cent). Gender recognition and trans rights was scored at three per cent, while independence came out at 14 per cent – lower than the figure for “keeping Scotland in the UK” (16 per cent).
There is an opportunity for the unionist parties. A clear opportunity. Talk about issues without belittling the independence piece. Alex Cole-Hamilton isn't capable of the latter, Anas Sarwar isn't capable of the former. Douglass Ross gets called exciting names by fans at Celtic Park.
So the SNP get away with it. Even on the GRR issue there was cross-party support, even from some of the Tories who had a free vote. Nobody gets away from that one. But to move it on there needs to be a "what do we do about education / jobs / the NHS" debate that doesn't get into "we have to be independent / independence is stupid" row as it always does.
The sad and depressing thing is that there is a mutual interest in these topics. If we are ever going to be an independent country we need a working education system and a tax base capable of funding public services but if we remain a part of the UK surely we want to be a vibrant part of it, paying our own way and creating opportunities for our kids?
The independence nonsense drowns this out and we have suffered the consequences for more than 15 years now (and, in fairness, it wasn't great before then either). Instead of addressing matters our MSPs find other displacement activities like GRR to argue about. It's pathetic.
Having experienced service provision both in suburban Teesside and rural Aberdeenshire, I am absolutely clear that its better up here. But "better" isn't "good". There are all kinds of holes both in provision and in budgets. A massive driver of that is the cutting of the budgets available to councils.
In England the local Tories did everything they could to deflect away the hard facts about how much money their government had taken off the council. Some flat out lied. When you challenge them they just lie some more and block people on social media.
And the same denial is strong with the SNP councillors. Not happening. Then if forced to accept that it is happening its the fault of the English. As if Holyrood has no powers at all. And its not as if they are right on half these issues - that the Tories are More Wrong does not make them right. But debate becomes impossible because everything is either Westminster's fault or would be fixed if we had independence.
Well I am glad that i don't live on Teeside. As my kids are somewhat spread out I had nearly 25 years of engagement with the education system in Scotland and the deterioration over that time was palpable and depressing. It is particularly bad for the poor areas with poor schools.
My wife's alma mater was Arbroath Academy. It was an appalling school when she was there more than 40 years ago. It still is with over 1/3 of all bullying cases reported to Angus Council coming from that single school last year. Nothing has changed. It took someone genuinely exceptional like my wife to make it out of there in the 1970s to make something of her life. Now it would take a miracle.
I've added your name to the list...
...of PBers who can't spell Teesside!
The two most common geographical misspellings in the UK: Teeside and Middlesborough!
The real issue is whether they are actually just errant bits of Yorkshire anyway.
I'm slightly surprised (not) that the anti-trans news reporters on here have not picked up on the fact the 16-year girl stabbed to death by two teenagers in a 'targeted attack' in Warrington was transgender.
Who are the “anti-trans” reporters on here?
Until supporters of the GRR Bill actually engage with the arguments rather than simply try to shut down discussion we’re not going to make progress.
(Snip)
You, sadly. If you want to argue you're pro-trans, go ahead - but you've got a hard job ahead of you.
And it's not just about the GRR bill; before that came along, there were all the endless conversations about women's toilets - and as I repeatedly point out, that's a first-class way of preventing trans people from being trans.
BTW, I'm not a supporter of the GRR bill, and have never claimed to be. But I am a supporter of trans people being able to go about their lives - as they have for generations - without this cloud of hate looming over their heads.
I have just seen this news. It is very sad. The police have said, apparently, that it is not a hate crime though it seems early in the investigation to say that unless they have evidence they have not released.
As for women's loos, keeping men who claim to be women out of them does not, as you claim, stop trans people from being trans because, as has been repeated ad nauseam, it is lawful (using the proportionate means for a legitimate aim test) to keep men, even those who claim to be women, out of single sex spaces, under the Equality Act. See schedule 3, part 7, sections 26, 27 & 28.
There has also been a recent case in the Employment Appeal Tribunal which stated that failure to provide women only loos could amount to indirect sex discrimination.
There is a man on twitter who is claiming to be a father of kids who went to school with Brianna, who is aware of intense bullying and has been to court with the county council and local police over what he says were safeguarding concerns - he also makes it pretty clear that over a year ago he said if this behaviour wasn't dealt with he thought a child at the school would get killed.
Is framing department procurement card spending as 'waste' really a pandora's box Labour wants to open to wide? It's simply a fact that when they're in government many of the same spending items will appear and there'll be a stick to hit them that they can't make go away
I don't know if I would call certain posters anti-trans but they are certainly obsessed with the trans issue to a sometimes absurd degree.
If they care about it so much - which is fine - I wonder why they only seem to post about it negatively. As somebody else pointed out, they didn't post anything about the recent attack on a trans person. I wonder why not?
Clearly these kinds of attacks don't happen, trans people don't need any protection, there's only one side to this story right?
I don't think certain posters on this site are "anti-trans", as such. They are actually indifferent. It's more they have a political agenda where consideration for trans people is the collateral damage.
I'm slightly surprised (not) that the anti-trans news reporters on here have not picked up on the fact the 16-year girl stabbed to death by two teenagers in a 'targeted attack' in Warrington was transgender.
You are really, really dim, aren't you? You seriously think Dolatowski and Bryson stories are "anti-trans." If I am wrong, please point me to a genuinely anti-trans story posted on here.
The genuine trans are an unfortunate minority who are the victims of at least four groups:
1. Genuine trans bashers, like gay bashers, like, possibly, the Warrington murderers. 2. Cynical wankers like Btryson and Dolatowski pretending for obvious purposes to be trans. 3. Medics on the make looking for money and careers in a new field. 4. Dweebish hobbyists like you who, like many on the left, are incapable of *generalising* a principle.
I think weak minorities should be protected: women from men, children from medical experiments, the trans from groups 1-4 above. You have appointed yourself a trans fanboi, so screw the rape victims, screw the children, look at me being all progressive and going WAAAH about the current modish issue for going WAAAH about.
So, that link, please. Won't take you long, as you have IDed " the anti-trans news reporters on here" so you can search both subject and username.
I have not 'appointed' myself anything, and my views are about as far away from the second half of that sentence as you can imagine. If you look at my posting record, I'm very string anti-violence of all sorts, and have repeatedly pointed out the stats on violence, from sexual to domestic, in this country.
And if you want me to ID the two main anti-trans reporters on here: Ms Free and CV. I'll name and *shame* them - if I felt they had any shame, that is.
There. I'm probably going to have lots of sh*t poured over me from the usual suspects, but this story is appalling - and exactly where some of us said it would end up.
Ms @Cyclefree and @CarlottaVance are by no rational standards ‘anti trans’. Both are vocal in support for people to be whatever they want to be, within reason, and without pushback or violence from others
However they also recognise that trans rights taken to the limit definitely infringe on the hard won rights of women, and that extreme trans ideology is now negatively impacting kids. Sometimes catastrophically
They probably represent 80% of UK opinion. YOU are on the side of the nutters
I think your posts from yesterday show that you have very little connection with the word 'rational'.
CV and Ms Free are *not* vocal supporters of allowing people to be whatever they want to be - at least, if that's their position, then they express it in exactly the opposite way when it comes to trans.
I recognise that there are compromises, and have stated this repeatedly. But anyone who says trans people cannot use womens' toilets - as they have for generations without a fuss - then they're taking massive strides over the line IMO.
I'll repeat part of my position. Just under ten years ago, a friend I had known (and worked with at 2 different companies) committed suicide. He was trans (ftom). In our view there were many reasons for the long-standing depression that led to his taking his life, but I saw him (and other trans people) be bullied needlessly for what they were, and I'm 100% sure that didn't help. It wasn't *big* bullying, but it's enough if it drives someone to tears.
So yes, when I see people being snide about trans people, or insinuating that they're threats, or inferior, I think of the trans people I have known, and how those words may affect them.
And I think of the kids I KNOW and their FAMILIES, that are right now being destroyed by the extreme trans ideology, by Mermaids and Stonewall and all of the rest of that diseased, malignant gibberish
You really should listen to yourself.
Indeed. Whereas in the real world another example came up on my twitter feed. A woman who's friend called her late one night to loudly talk about where she was and that she would be back shortly because she was threatened by the man in the shadows walking lockstep behind her.
The thread is then an avalanche of women who have done the same, or having been attacked wish they had. And this is just women in fear of attack, not women who have actually been dragged off.
So what is the percentage of pubescent girls (like my daughter) being "destroyed by the extreme trans ideology" vs the percentage who are taught to fear being attacked and to ensure they think safety and let people know where they are. Who are actually harassed and abused and mildly assaulted as salutatory lessons. Whats the percentage who sadly do go on to get attacked. Assaulted. Raped. Murdered.
Trans ideology is not a threat to my daughter. Men are. Can we please end this distraction and lip service concern for the safety of women and girls and actually address the problem - men.
The Andrew Tate thing has ripped the lid off all kinds of issues of young men who are having their gender weaponised. Their so-called Rights to sex, to respect, to dominance. Spilling over into real world incidents in high schools and beyond. A misogynistic time bomb being fuelled and exploded, yet we shouldn't be focused on that mega threat when we can expend so much fury distracting people with the largely fantasy threat of "extreme trans ideology".
Several girls in my daughter’s school class have identified as genderqueer and non binary and are now at war with their families/parents and worse, and I have seen the social pressures on these girls (and it is mainly girls) to head off down this road, when all that they are really enduring is normal teenage angst/ASD, etc. Yet they might now get life changing drugs and treatments which they will bitterly regret. Because there is a cottage industry devoted into pushing them into gender reassignment
This might not be happening in Lower McFucknows, that tartan toilet where ever you live, but it is absolutely happening in London and other big cities - and in America too, of course
Also seems to be hitting German car production numbers for some reason...
Apart from the chip shortage, people WFH and not needing a company car, and people delaying buying a new car in the hope that there will be a viable alternative to diesel, petrol and electric cars, I can’t think why that would be.
Also seems to be hitting German car production numbers for some reason...
There is a minor difference. The UK doesn't own its bulk car production facilities. Mini. Nissan. JLR. All here at the behest of a foreign company who have all kinds of non-UK alternatives to remove production to. As Honda did. As Mini are. Germany owns its bulk car producers. So a dip in outputs of BMWs doesn't threaten the presence of BMW in Germany. Whereas the downturn DOES threaten the production of Minis and BWM engines in the UK.
You see the difference? Your chart whataboutery only highlights even more just how precarious our position is compared to theirs. This isn't about only Brexit - we've run our whole industry down for decades. But we are where we are, and what we're doing today just accelerates the risk of the remaining bits shutting down.
I don't know if I would call certain posters anti-trans but they are certainly obsessed with the trans issue to a sometimes absurd degree.
If they care about it so much - which is fine - I wonder why they only seem to post about it negatively. As somebody else pointed out, they didn't post anything about the recent attack on a trans person. I wonder why not?
Clearly these kinds of attacks don't happen, trans people don't need any protection, there's only one side to this story right?
It's a political site, and there are already laws against attacking trans people - indeed, it is a more grave crime in law to attack a trans person out of hate than to attack a random person for no reason.
If these people care about the trans issue and they claim to be balanced, I wonder why they only post certain agendas then. I was simply making the point that they didn't post about this yet at the same time posted about something that was anti-trans.
I do not think these people are transphobic, I do however (with the exception of Cyclefree) think these posters would have been the same people arguing against gay rights. They don't like change.
I've posted fairly often on the trans issue. I've also posted recently in defence of drag queens, that the Republicans seem determined to cast as somehow sinister as part of the same issue, which I reject.
The implication in your post that I would have been against gay rights in the past is deeply offensive.
The murder of Brianna Ghey in Warrington is a shocking and upsetting event. I can understand why it could make trans people and young women feel particularly vulnerable, and I've posted before about the radical steps I believe we should consider taking so that women can be safer from the threat posed by men.
An event like this is an opportunity to take some time to reflect, to do things differently. I cannot currently see any logical connection between my posts on the trans issue and women's rights and the appalling tragedy of Brianna Ghey's murder, but I am willing to consider any argument you advance. I hope that you will also consider the possibility that your are doing a grave disservice to a number of posters, and reflect on whether you owe them an apology.
Comments
You are in denial.
The clock is definitely ticking.
And if you want me to ID the two main anti-trans reporters on here: Ms Free and CV. I'll name and *shame* them - if I felt they had any shame, that is.
There. I'm probably going to have lots of sh*t poured over me from the usual suspects, but this story is appalling - and exactly where some of us said it would end up.
Everyone wins! Well, the people who matter win.
If they care about it so much - which is fine - I wonder why they only seem to post about it negatively. As somebody else pointed out, they didn't post anything about the recent attack on a trans person. I wonder why not?
Clearly these kinds of attacks don't happen, trans people don't need any protection, there's only one side to this story right?
My wife's alma mater was Arbroath Academy. It was an appalling school when she was there more than 40 years ago. It still is with over 1/3 of all bullying cases reported to Angus Council coming from that single school last year. Nothing has changed. It took someone genuinely exceptional like my wife to make it out of there in the 1970s to make something of her life. Now it would take a miracle.
However they also recognise that trans rights taken to the limit definitely infringe on the hard won rights of women, and that extreme trans ideology is now negatively impacting kids. Sometimes catastrophically
They probably represent 80% of UK opinion. YOU are on the side of the nutters
The GRR bill got parts right and parts wrong. As so many laws do. But we can't say that because trans produces absurd levels of absolutism where each noisy extreme screams at each other. This is a societal change thing - despite trans not being a new thing there is a big element within society who think this is a change too far. And perhaps it is, but the response should be to find ways to bring people with them.
I absolutely respect the people arguing for women's safety and safe spaces. And yet all the energy is expended rejecting the trans threat. When the lived and very real threat is men who are men. By endlessly looping back over the GRR thing as a wedge issue we're letting men off the hook.
But it's also possible to be pro-women and anti-trans, and when people post nothing but negativity about a segment of society, I'd argue they're against that segment.
(Previous poll was taken shortly after the mini-budget / Truss fiasco, hence the dramatic changes).
https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1624827398087647232
Those Democrats wanting Biden to not run need to say who they'd prefer to run instead. 'Generic Democrat' isn't an option: it has to be a specific person and all the likely contenders come with flaws and their own polling problems.
Plus, as noted, for Biden to drop out early hugely reduces his authority and ability to act; and to drop out late would cause great problems in terms of candidate selection. He'll run - and from the Democrats' point of view, he probably *should* run.
Having only two Admiral posts would be ludicrous and we'd lose a lot of talent of Cdre and Capt ranks because they'd realise that their chances of promotion to flag rank are almost zero so what's the point in staying in?
Even we did decide getting rid of 20+ of the Navy's most experienced officers would improve the service the amount of money saved would be relatively minute. A small fraction of the £15 million recently spent on a completely pointless base in Bahrain, for example.
I've got no doubt there are issues we need to resolve - including the GRR bill - but the idea trans people are brainwashing kids or it is some extremism that is destroying society I am afraid I find deeply offensive.
This all still happened.
It's never simple. The NPPF, the Town and Country Planning Act, and all the accumulated case law still needs to be dealt with.
I do not think these people are transphobic, I do however (with the exception of Cyclefree) think these posters would have been the same people arguing against gay rights. They don't like change.
1) I would have never talked to Zelensky
2) Ukraine should stop fighting because Ukraine is destroyed by Zelensky policy
3) Luhansk and Donetsk are independent republics
4) Biden should buy Zelensky with some money
https://twitter.com/davcarretta/status/1624843472401231872?s=46&t=QWJJXcNqXwfL7oVA8UurMw
This is a politics website, and news is news. There's been a lot of posts this winter about struggles with the cost of living. Would you expect in other winters a stream of posts saying most families are coping just fine with rent and bills, and even putting some money by for a rainy day?
Link to negative post please
Must be off now, work to do.
A complete rethink of defence is required since the Ukraine invasion. And that includes setting aside the sunk cost argument.
I do agree that piecemeal tinkering with individual programs is also likely to be a further waste of money. In isolation, scraping carriers would just mean blowing any 'savings' elsewhere.
People said if gay people got rights, paedophiles would be let into schools, the concept of marriage would cease to exist, amongst many other things. It is exactly the same.
Lovely play of the "I can't substantiate my claim so I'll pretend I am off to work" card though. Well done.
It is the quintessence of wasted time, and life is brutally short. Later
Link please.
Det Ch Supt Mike Evans said a number of inquiries were under way and police were trying to establish the "exact circumstances".
"At this time, there is no evidence to suggest that the circumstances surrounding Brianna's death are hate related," he said.
So, as in all these things, it is best to wait and see what evidence actually emerges.
It would be far more depressing if she was a dead feet for the nomination
We all have our interest areas. Yours are "interesting", best not to complain about the same for others.
I’m sure you wouldn’t want to utter a baseless smear…
CV and Ms Free are *not* vocal supporters of allowing people to be whatever they want to be - at least, if that's their position, then they express it in exactly the opposite way when it comes to trans.
I recognise that there are compromises, and have stated this repeatedly. But anyone who says trans people cannot use womens' toilets - as they have for generations without a fuss - then they're taking massive strides over the line IMO.
I'll repeat part of my position. Just under ten years ago, a friend I had known (and worked with at 2 different companies) committed suicide. He was trans (ftom). In our view there were many reasons for the long-standing depression that led to his taking his life, but I saw him (and other trans people) be bullied needlessly for what they were, and I'm 100% sure that didn't help. It wasn't *big* bullying, but it's enough if it drives someone to tears.
So yes, when I see people being snide about trans people, or insinuating that they're threats, or inferior, I think of the trans people I have known, and how those words may affect them.
Having said that, we do get a lot of polls now from firms whose pedigree hasn't been tested against a real election. Intuitively, I want to think "even if the absolute values are off, most of the long term moves are probably solid".
But then Chris Curtis makes comments like this;
This is a really important point. One of the most important trends in polling right now is that online panel samples are dramatically decreasing in quality. Increasingly, people who take part in online surveys are not people who are real people giving high quality responses.
https://twitter.com/chriscurtis94/status/1623465691016753157
What does the team think?
It is so easy, so necessary in the interests of justice to those individuals, and so crucial to your case, that you now link to posts by them which are "anti trans", that as I see it the options open to you are 1. post links or 2. withdraw from the site.
So do this now.
Let me ask a question: when do you think you last posted something positive about trans people? How they should be allowed to live their lives as they want as long as they don't harm others?
I also think the Conservatives will win 200 + seats.
Your pivot from anti trans to not pro trans is pitiful and hilarious in equal measure.
People like you are the worst enemies of the trans, for whom you do not, fortunately, speak.
Re gay rights what you say is correct and the vast majority accept it as correct these days - but back when reforms were being enacted many people were of the view they were a threat to others. It wasn't a slam dunk whereby after a civilized debate everybody suddenly went "Ah ok, yes we see, that's all fine then". There were a lot of concerns and a lot of pushback.
How is it done so as to include the indifferent, non engaged, etc? (Most people)
...of PBers who can't spell Teesside!
Meanwhile Mr Incel Tateist considers which woman he will harass today, knowing that he will get away with it. He isn't a threat to these slags, they love being put in their place. Naah mate, look at those freaks in a dress, there's yer threat.
And hanging over everything is beating Trump - I think if DeSantis was the clear favourite, then Biden would be bowing out, but he believes that only he can beat Trump by being the only Dem who can appeal to some of the same people with a similar message (his SOTU was very protectionist and very populist). I think Dem party elite (and even the members) fear that having a woman or POC vs Trump would make the POTUS race about culture war things, which they feel they would lose. Keeping Biden makes it about who is the more competent / respectable populist.
LAB will win. About 8% clear in the GE and about 340 seats for a 30 majority.
About 230 seats for CON so no extinction level.
Tories Labour
Mori 44 36
BMG 46 33
Survation 41 40
ICM 44 34
Yougov 42 35
Comes 44 34
Panel base 44 36
Opinium 43 36
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2017_United_Kingdom_general_election
Who was the outlier? Survation.
Who was most accurate on general election night? Survation
"Women can always tell when a man pretends to be a woman. And I'd tell them to use the men's."
https://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2022/07/11/should-we-be-following-gove-backing-kemi-badenoch/
This particular comment is incredible and I'd firmly call it anti-trans. Firstly, she claims to *always* be able to tell when a person is trans. She also pretends to speak for all women. She then compounds that by saying she would confront them and tell them to use a men's. Which is nasty enough, until you realise she has no magic abilities, and will have false positives, such as happens to the following lady and many more:
https://inews.co.uk/news/uk/butch-lesbian-public-toilet-women-abuse-government-review-gender-neutral-facilities-833787
Ms Free is a lovely lady, and very forceful in her views - and fair enough. It's just I fear in her belief about this topic she strays over the line all too easily - as we all do at times.
And BTW, it's not up to you to order me to 'withdraw from the site'. I'm amused by the fact you think you have the ability to do so. It's also interesting that the anti-trans people accuse others of trying to stifle debate, and you say something like that!
What you mean is that you don't like them.
Post away.
Teeside is where golfers stand.
They celebrate with an annual Coffee Morning.
FWIW (and IMVHO) they reflect trends well - especially in aggregate across multiple credible pollsters - but less reliable in absolute terms.
https://twitter.com/damian17236445
*Admittedly a fallible heuristic.
The thread is then an avalanche of women who have done the same, or having been attacked wish they had. And this is just women in fear of attack, not women who have actually been dragged off.
So what is the percentage of pubescent girls (like my daughter) being "destroyed by the extreme trans ideology" vs the percentage who are taught to fear being attacked and to ensure they think safety and let people know where they are. Who are actually harassed and abused and mildly assaulted as salutatory lessons. Whats the percentage who sadly do go on to get attacked. Assaulted. Raped. Murdered.
Trans ideology is not a threat to my daughter. Men are. Can we please end this distraction and lip service concern for the safety of women and girls and actually address the problem - men.
The Andrew Tate thing has ripped the lid off all kinds of issues of young men who are having their gender weaponised. Their so-called Rights to sex, to respect, to dominance. Spilling over into real world incidents in high schools and beyond. A misogynistic time bomb being fuelled and exploded, yet we shouldn't be focused on that mega threat when we can expend so much fury distracting people with the largely fantasy threat of "extreme trans ideology".
As for women's loos, keeping men who claim to be women out of them does not, as you claim, stop trans people from being trans because, as has been repeated ad nauseam, it is lawful (using the proportionate means for a legitimate aim test) to keep men, even those who claim to be women, out of single sex spaces, under the Equality Act. See schedule 3, part 7, sections 26, 27 & 28.
There has also been a recent case in the Employment Appeal Tribunal which stated that failure to provide women only loos could amount to indirect sex discrimination.
https://twitter.com/ChudsOfTikTok/status/1624813272300982273?s=20&t=135te2j6xDJug38Xby42Mw
As for your last paragraph: have you considered the effect this would have on trans people?
https://twitter.com/damian17236445
Is framing department procurement card spending as 'waste' really a pandora's box Labour wants to open to wide? It's simply a fact that when they're in government many of the same spending items will appear and there'll be a stick to hit them that they can't make go away
https://twitter.com/joncstone/status/1625082265079369729
This might not be happening in Lower McFucknows, that tartan toilet where ever you live, but it is absolutely happening in London and other big cities - and in America too, of course
The UK doesn't own its bulk car production facilities. Mini. Nissan. JLR. All here at the behest of a foreign company who have all kinds of non-UK alternatives to remove production to. As Honda did. As Mini are.
Germany owns its bulk car producers. So a dip in outputs of BMWs doesn't threaten the presence of BMW in Germany. Whereas the downturn DOES threaten the production of Minis and BWM engines in the UK.
You see the difference? Your chart whataboutery only highlights even more just how precarious our position is compared to theirs. This isn't about only Brexit - we've run our whole industry down for decades. But we are where we are, and what we're doing today just accelerates the risk of the remaining bits shutting down.
The implication in your post that I would have been against gay rights in the past is deeply offensive.
The murder of Brianna Ghey in Warrington is a shocking and upsetting event. I can understand why it could make trans people and young women feel particularly vulnerable, and I've posted before about the radical steps I believe we should consider taking so that women can be safer from the threat posed by men.
An event like this is an opportunity to take some time to reflect, to do things differently. I cannot currently see any logical connection between my posts on the trans issue and women's rights and the appalling tragedy of Brianna Ghey's murder, but I am willing to consider any argument you advance. I hope that you will also consider the possibility that your are doing a grave disservice to a number of posters, and reflect on whether you owe them an apology.