Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Options

R&W has the worst voting poll in months for the Tories – politicalbetting.com

12346»

Comments

  • Options
    kamskikamski Posts: 4,371

    HYUFD said:

    WillG said:

    algarkirk said:

    kamski said:

    algarkirk said:

    kamski said:

    algarkirk said:


    Forbes: "In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear." from Kate Forbes SNP leadership candidate
    In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear."

    She has figured this out. Smart cookie. Bodes well for the ret of the campaign.

    I'm not sure that'll be good enough for a fair few people.
    'that marriage is between a man and a woman.' is basically admitting to being a bigot (in their eyes), and anti-gay
    Exactly. “ that marriage is between a man and a woman.' She didn’t really say that did she? Minister for Sixteenth Century stuff. 🤭

    Starmer is a lucky general.
    Loads of people, with lots of different views about gay relationships, nonetheless believe that 'marriage' is properly defined as being between one man and one woman. There are perfectly decent philosophical and/or religious grounds for thinking this. I do, and I am a liberal.

    The law allows something with which I don't fully concur. I can see the case and I don't agree with it. I live in a liberal society and I am a liberal. It has nothing to do with antiquated historicism

    What are your grounds for thinking this?
    Thinking what??

    You said:

    "Loads of people, with lots of different views about gay relationships, nonetheless believe that 'marriage' is properly defined as being between one man and one woman. There are perfectly decent philosophical and/or religious grounds for thinking this. I do"

    Maybe I misunderstood, but I am curious what are your grounds for thinking marriage is properly defined as being between one woman and one man.
    Thanks for the clarification.

    Grounds, each needing essay length expansion:

    History,
    Culture,
    Religious practice,
    Natural law,
    The meaning of words,
    The distinctiveness of institutions,
    The unique nature of a relation bound by promise and open to the transmission of life.

    Obviously we are talking book length stuff here, and none of the arguments on each side are simple. Neither side in this matter has a smoking gun, knock out argument, and I am not pretending that I have.
    Putting it that way would be embarrassingly ignorant of tradition and history around marriage, being the weakness of the rubbish you just offered. Of course there’s a smoking gun and I’m going to give you both barrels of it.

    A member of a church saying they don’t accept same sex marriage, so could never support it is them saying they don’t believe the most sacred bond there can be is love.

    To say it’s about rights, equality, or socio economic benefits misses the main point - not that politicians defending bad stereotypes and inequality ain’t a bad point - truth is these people are too busy trying to enforce stereotypes they don’t understand either their own religion or the history of marriage properly. Arguments scripture and tradition affirm holy nature of marriage as a union between one man and one woman are actually rubbish, they don’t stand in light of the biblical and historical evidence - what I know is history of Church Christianity didn’t own marriage from the start, in fact only through more recent politics, like from 17th C. did procreation and nurture actually actually enter into argument for it.

    Marriage in all religions and communities has always only ever been about a union of two people in a committed, faithful, long-lasting relationship - recognising that is good for them, good for community, good in every way. Unless you can name a downside.

    The biggest upside of same sex marriage is how it strengthens religion. When the same existential reality of love and commitment exists between same-sex couples as exists between heterosexuals, then of course it’s just as sacramental! The wonderful richnesses of sexual intimacy that fosters deep personal affirmation, reconciliation , sexual affirmation, hope and thanksgiving, is never going to only exist between a man and a woman is it? It simply don’t is the fact. What embarrassing pea brained gibberish anyone who claims that such things can only occur between a man and a women? So what ceremony better reflects the nature of God than the tradition of marriage as a symbol of God’s unconditional love for us, and of our faithful pledge to love God? The more people entering into that the better for any religion.
    "Marriage in all religions and communities has always only ever been about a union of two people in a committed, faithful, long-lasting relationship - recognising that is good for them, good for community, good in every way. Unless you can name a downside."

    Religions have frequently defined marriage as being between a man and many women, often with the allowance of concubines too.
    How can the reality of love and commitment only exist between a man and a women not same-sex couples too? How can believing what you are suggesting actually be the basis for anything strong or good?
    It isn't for Lutherans, increasing numbers of western Anglican churches, Methodists and members of the Church of Scotland, Quakers, Unitarians and some reformist Buddhists and Jews.

    Even if it is by most other religions and Christian denominations
    The Church of Scotland permits gay marriages, unlike your own state sect.
    As do most mainstream European protestant churches. The Church of England is a bit out of line on this.

    And the argument for marriage being defined as "one woman and one man" because that is how it's traditionally defined ignores all the traditions that don't define it that way.

    And it ignores the many changes that have been made to marriage. For example, in English law before 1882 a married woman couldn't own property - everything belonged to the husband. She couldn't write a will or enter into a contract without her husband's consent. That is a traditional marriage. And it has some scriptural support in the bible. But who would defend a politician who claimed their faith meant they found that married women having property rights is immoral?
  • Options
    Jim_MillerJim_Miller Posts: 2,600
    To add a little bit to an earlier discussion: The elementary school a few blocks from me, Lakeview, has a number of portable classrooms. There aren't any visible problems with them, and I have little doubt they are better than the ones used in some American schools, decades ago. https://lakeview.lwsd.org/ (The school site has enough pictures so that you can see what the students and teachers look like.)

    Some context: The Lake Washington school district includes a number of Seattle suburbs, and a small farm town you may have heard of, Redmond. (All right, it was a small farm town when I first saw it, more than 60 years ago.) Recently, Google moved into a location right next to Lakeview, on the northwest side.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 118,214
    edited February 2023
    kamski said:

    HYUFD said:

    WillG said:

    algarkirk said:

    kamski said:

    algarkirk said:

    kamski said:

    algarkirk said:


    Forbes: "In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear." from Kate Forbes SNP leadership candidate
    In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear."

    She has figured this out. Smart cookie. Bodes well for the ret of the campaign.

    I'm not sure that'll be good enough for a fair few people.
    'that marriage is between a man and a woman.' is basically admitting to being a bigot (in their eyes), and anti-gay
    Exactly. “ that marriage is between a man and a woman.' She didn’t really say that did she? Minister for Sixteenth Century stuff. 🤭

    Starmer is a lucky general.
    Loads of people, with lots of different views about gay relationships, nonetheless believe that 'marriage' is properly defined as being between one man and one woman. There are perfectly decent philosophical and/or religious grounds for thinking this. I do, and I am a liberal.

    The law allows something with which I don't fully concur. I can see the case and I don't agree with it. I live in a liberal society and I am a liberal. It has nothing to do with antiquated historicism

    What are your grounds for thinking this?
    Thinking what??

    You said:

    "Loads of people, with lots of different views about gay relationships, nonetheless believe that 'marriage' is properly defined as being between one man and one woman. There are perfectly decent philosophical and/or religious grounds for thinking this. I do"

    Maybe I misunderstood, but I am curious what are your grounds for thinking marriage is properly defined as being between one woman and one man.
    Thanks for the clarification.

    Grounds, each needing essay length expansion:

    History,
    Culture,
    Religious practice,
    Natural law,
    The meaning of words,
    The distinctiveness of institutions,
    The unique nature of a relation bound by promise and open to the transmission of life.

    Obviously we are talking book length stuff here, and none of the arguments on each side are simple. Neither side in this matter has a smoking gun, knock out argument, and I am not pretending that I have.
    Putting it that way would be embarrassingly ignorant of tradition and history around marriage, being the weakness of the rubbish you just offered. Of course there’s a smoking gun and I’m going to give you both barrels of it.

    A member of a church saying they don’t accept same sex marriage, so could never support it is them saying they don’t believe the most sacred bond there can be is love.

    To say it’s about rights, equality, or socio economic benefits misses the main point - not that politicians defending bad stereotypes and inequality ain’t a bad point - truth is these people are too busy trying to enforce stereotypes they don’t understand either their own religion or the history of marriage properly. Arguments scripture and tradition affirm holy nature of marriage as a union between one man and one woman are actually rubbish, they don’t stand in light of the biblical and historical evidence - what I know is history of Church Christianity didn’t own marriage from the start, in fact only through more recent politics, like from 17th C. did procreation and nurture actually actually enter into argument for it.

    Marriage in all religions and communities has always only ever been about a union of two people in a committed, faithful, long-lasting relationship - recognising that is good for them, good for community, good in every way. Unless you can name a downside.

    The biggest upside of same sex marriage is how it strengthens religion. When the same existential reality of love and commitment exists between same-sex couples as exists between heterosexuals, then of course it’s just as sacramental! The wonderful richnesses of sexual intimacy that fosters deep personal affirmation, reconciliation , sexual affirmation, hope and thanksgiving, is never going to only exist between a man and a woman is it? It simply don’t is the fact. What embarrassing pea brained gibberish anyone who claims that such things can only occur between a man and a women? So what ceremony better reflects the nature of God than the tradition of marriage as a symbol of God’s unconditional love for us, and of our faithful pledge to love God? The more people entering into that the better for any religion.
    "Marriage in all religions and communities has always only ever been about a union of two people in a committed, faithful, long-lasting relationship - recognising that is good for them, good for community, good in every way. Unless you can name a downside."

    Religions have frequently defined marriage as being between a man and many women, often with the allowance of concubines too.
    How can the reality of love and commitment only exist between a man and a women not same-sex couples too? How can believing what you are suggesting actually be the basis for anything strong or good?
    It isn't for Lutherans, increasing numbers of western Anglican churches, Methodists and members of the Church of Scotland, Quakers, Unitarians and some reformist Buddhists and Jews.

    Even if it is by most other religions and Christian denominations
    The Church of Scotland permits gay marriages, unlike your own state sect.
    As do most mainstream European protestant churches. The Church of England is a bit out of line on this.

    And the argument for marriage being defined as "one woman and one man" because that is how it's traditionally defined ignores all the traditions that don't define it that way.

    And it ignores the many changes that have been made to marriage. For example, in English law before 1882 a married woman couldn't own property - everything belonged to the husband. She couldn't write a will or enter into a contract without her husband's consent. That is a traditional marriage. And it has some scriptural support in the bible. But who would defend a politician who claimed their faith meant they found that married women having property rights is immoral?
    Only the Lutherans and Methodists and Quakers and Unitarians do. Baptists don't, Presbyterians outside the Church of Scotland don't and Pentecostals and independent evangelicals don't and nor do many Calvinists. Roman Catholics don't and nor do Muslims and Hindus and Orthodox Jews perform homosexual marriages.

    In fact most don't even bless homosexual unions as the Church of England now does.

    Jesus didn't say anything against women owning property. At Matthew 19 though he says “Have you not read that He Who made them in the first place made them man and woman? 5 It says, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and his mother and will live with his wife. The two will become one.’ 6 So they are no longer two but one. Let no man divide what God has put together.”

    So marriage suggested to be only between a man and his wife for life. However Jesus never said anything against homosexual unions which were not marriages
  • Options
    AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 21,386
    HYUFD said:

    Eabhal said:

    Scott_xP said:

    @BrianSpanner1: Bloody hell.
    He was in the Parliament building.
    Well played Team Forbes.
    https://twitter.com/BrianSpanner1/status/1627782499232350209/photo/1

    Somebody will have to explain the significance of that one to me.
    Something to do with Yousaf missing a vote for gay marriage back in 2014 (explanation is attending to some sort of official business). Not sure it will go anywhere.
    Hardly surprising, Yousaf is Muslim, Forbes Free Church of Scotland.

    Neither are exactly known for their fullsome support for homosexual unions and marriages
    It’s extraordinary how so many people seek to blame their homophobia on superstition
  • Options
    MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 26,101
    ...

    MJW said:

    Yes. The weirdest thing about the 'culture wars' is that the Tories seem to be repeating the mistakes of those they claim to oppose. There are some fair and reasonable criticisms of what gets called 'wokeness' - basically ultra progressive stances that won't brook dissent. But if you're constantly wanging on about it, lumping in any attitude to the left of Genghis Khan with it and deliberately doing stuff designed to 'own the libs' you look deeply weird and are as irritating if not more as those who hectored from the other side in the first place. I think paradoxically, you win culture wars by defusing them as makes the other side look like the mad extremists while the public, who largely want to get on with life in peace, side with those who seem more reasonable. Sunak's big asset was supposed to be pouring oil on troubled waters, but he's so weak at running his party has basically been led into inflaming matters by promoting or re-promoting some of the most gleefully obnoxious of his party's MPs.

    You saw it today, Rishi wading into a book being re-published: how wokeness is destroying the planet. FFS the NHS is on its knees and half the country is on strike. It is pathetic.

    If the next election gets rid of this rubbish I will be thankful. Trans people don't scare me, they don't impact my life whatsoever. Apparently I can't say anything anymore, I still say what I want and am not in jail yet. They are totally on another planet.
    I have to admit that I was earlier of the opinion "what a storm in a woke teacup", Augustus Gloop for example, is characterised by his over indulgence and as such he is f**. But later I learned the amendments were agreed between Puffin Books and the Dahl Estate and not the Great Socialist Conspiracy. Apparently raging anti-Semite as he was, Dahl was involved in his own PC related amendments during his lifetime. It's a funny old game Saint.
    Many book publishers will refuse to publish books seen as 'controversial' (which are always right-wing or which are viewed to express non-progressive views), in part because their junior staff refuse to be associated with it and / or the senior publishers don't get the backlash.

    JK Rowling only gets away with it because Bloomsbury's share price would be down 25% in the morning if they stopped their deal with her and the management team would be kicked out by investors. Which just goes to show how principles can easily be trumped by good old money .
    Apparently the Dahl Estate are pretty chipper as the book re-edits have coincided with a big contract with Netflix.

    Anyway, I first heard about the shock and awe wokery on Nick Ferrari this morning. Like Nick, I too was outraged until I realised the whole affair was a media confection. I can just hear the ghost of the old anti-Semite chuckling as he studies the uptick on the sales graph.
  • Options
    MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 13,147

    On topic. “Generally speaking we can partly explain poll shifts as being within the margin of error but not so with tonight’s R&W survey which came out this afternoon.”

    I wouldn’t go that far myself. I would caution not to read too much into week by week poll by poll movements, instead average out a trend from pollsters over half a dozen or more polls, average of all polls over month or more not week by week - sampling is not an exact science, and how the margin of errors bounce back in the next sample, and evens out with more samples is how we should follow polling trends.

    We know going 24% is on the low side of what this firm normally find, let’s see if next poll lifts Tory’s +2 or 3 to correct this sampling error.

    What we do know of trend is Tories still stuck somewhere between 26 and 27. The Sunak bounce the Tory MPs bet the house on when they moved against Boris to have Sunak has yet to happen (ignore that they got Truss and so got rid of her to get what they really wanted) In fact the trend is Sunak’s personal ratings on slide with the voters, as is the party’s month by month polling average.

    “Quite what has been driving this is hard to explain but these are the worst numbers from this pollster since Sunak became leader last October.”

    The most likely answer to that question is how sleazy the Tories have been in recent years, and Sunak ever present in centre of all that up to his eyebrows in Tory sleaze revelations week by week.

    It’s a party existing to line it’s own pockets with the power of government, by fleecing everything they can, in which instance there’s no floor to their fall. Reform could get 20% and Tories 8% at the next election. Who is eager to vote for sleaze and corruption?

    Taking your advice to "average out a trend from pollsters over half a dozen or more polls" applied to R&W polls, it does not look that much of a rogue poll at all.

    Look at the graph in the thread header. You can put a straight line through the level of Tory support going all the way to June 21 when it stood at 45%. Their support has been declining at a rate of roughly 1% a month ever since
    then, the only major departure being a temporary collapse during Truss premiership before a reversion to the underlying downward trend in Nov 22. R&W also had the Tories at 24% two weeks ago before a recovery last week that has now proved to be temporary.

    A steady underlying upward trend in Labour support is also apparent, although it starts later in about Sept 21.

    I did say General poll of poll trend is down for Tories over last 3 months, but if you exclude this poll and draw a second line it will be less steep, the real damage done is to left of the line. More recently the Tory trend is down, but not by much, if you look at the graph in the header it is displaying what I am calling “Hanging Tits Effect” (c) sample error down, up, down up, across recent polls, if the next one is +2 or 3 for Tory then you have the classic “Two Titty” formation on this graph too, and not going anywhere much over month or two.
  • Options
    kamskikamski Posts: 4,371
    HYUFD said:

    kamski said:

    HYUFD said:

    WillG said:

    algarkirk said:

    kamski said:

    algarkirk said:

    kamski said:

    algarkirk said:


    Forbes: "In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear." from Kate Forbes SNP leadership candidate
    In terms of the morality of the issue I am a practicing Christian and I practice the teachings of most mainstream religions - whether that is Islam, Judaism or Christianity - that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that's what I practice. As a servant of democracy in a country where there is law I would defend to the hilt your right and anybody else's right to live and to love without harassment or fear."

    She has figured this out. Smart cookie. Bodes well for the ret of the campaign.

    I'm not sure that'll be good enough for a fair few people.
    'that marriage is between a man and a woman.' is basically admitting to being a bigot (in their eyes), and anti-gay
    Exactly. “ that marriage is between a man and a woman.' She didn’t really say that did she? Minister for Sixteenth Century stuff. 🤭

    Starmer is a lucky general.
    Loads of people, with lots of different views about gay relationships, nonetheless believe that 'marriage' is properly defined as being between one man and one woman. There are perfectly decent philosophical and/or religious grounds for thinking this. I do, and I am a liberal.

    The law allows something with which I don't fully concur. I can see the case and I don't agree with it. I live in a liberal society and I am a liberal. It has nothing to do with antiquated historicism

    What are your grounds for thinking this?
    Thinking what??

    You said:

    "Loads of people, with lots of different views about gay relationships, nonetheless believe that 'marriage' is properly defined as being between one man and one woman. There are perfectly decent philosophical and/or religious grounds for thinking this. I do"

    Maybe I misunderstood, but I am curious what are your grounds for thinking marriage is properly defined as being between one woman and one man.
    Thanks for the clarification.

    Grounds, each needing essay length expansion:

    History,
    Culture,
    Religious practice,
    Natural law,
    The meaning of words,
    The distinctiveness of institutions,
    The unique nature of a relation bound by promise and open to the transmission of life.

    Obviously we are talking book length stuff here, and none of the arguments on each side are simple. Neither side in this matter has a smoking gun, knock out argument, and I am not pretending that I have.
    Putting it that way would be embarrassingly ignorant of tradition and history around marriage, being the weakness of the rubbish you just offered. Of course there’s a smoking gun and I’m going to give you both barrels of it.

    A member of a church saying they don’t accept same sex marriage, so could never support it is them saying they don’t believe the most sacred bond there can be is love.

    To say it’s about rights, equality, or socio economic benefits misses the main point - not that politicians defending bad stereotypes and inequality ain’t a bad point - truth is these people are too busy trying to enforce stereotypes they don’t understand either their own religion or the history of marriage properly. Arguments scripture and tradition affirm holy nature of marriage as a union between one man and one woman are actually rubbish, they don’t stand in light of the biblical and historical evidence - what I know is history of Church Christianity didn’t own marriage from the start, in fact only through more recent politics, like from 17th C. did procreation and nurture actually actually enter into argument for it.

    Marriage in all religions and communities has always only ever been about a union of two people in a committed, faithful, long-lasting relationship - recognising that is good for them, good for community, good in every way. Unless you can name a downside.

    The biggest upside of same sex marriage is how it strengthens religion. When the same existential reality of love and commitment exists between same-sex couples as exists between heterosexuals, then of course it’s just as sacramental! The wonderful richnesses of sexual intimacy that fosters deep personal affirmation, reconciliation , sexual affirmation, hope and thanksgiving, is never going to only exist between a man and a woman is it? It simply don’t is the fact. What embarrassing pea brained gibberish anyone who claims that such things can only occur between a man and a women? So what ceremony better reflects the nature of God than the tradition of marriage as a symbol of God’s unconditional love for us, and of our faithful pledge to love God? The more people entering into that the better for any religion.
    "Marriage in all religions and communities has always only ever been about a union of two people in a committed, faithful, long-lasting relationship - recognising that is good for them, good for community, good in every way. Unless you can name a downside."

    Religions have frequently defined marriage as being between a man and many women, often with the allowance of concubines too.
    How can the reality of love and commitment only exist between a man and a women not same-sex couples too? How can believing what you are suggesting actually be the basis for anything strong or good?
    It isn't for Lutherans, increasing numbers of western Anglican churches, Methodists and members of the Church of Scotland, Quakers, Unitarians and some reformist Buddhists and Jews.

    Even if it is by most other religions and Christian denominations
    The Church of Scotland permits gay marriages, unlike your own state sect.
    As do most mainstream European protestant churches. The Church of England is a bit out of line on this.

    And the argument for marriage being defined as "one woman and one man" because that is how it's traditionally defined ignores all the traditions that don't define it that way.

    And it ignores the many changes that have been made to marriage. For example, in English law before 1882 a married woman couldn't own property - everything belonged to the husband. She couldn't write a will or enter into a contract without her husband's consent. That is a traditional marriage. And it has some scriptural support in the bible. But who would defend a politician who claimed their faith meant they found that married women having property rights is immoral?
    Only the Lutherans and Methodists and Quakers and Unitarians do. Baptists don't, Presbyterians outside the Church of Scotland don't and Pentecostals and independent evangelicals don't and nor do many Calvinists. Roman Catholics don't and nor do Muslims and Hindus and Orthodox Jews perform homosexual marriages.

    In fact most don't even bless homosexual unions as the Church of England now does.

    Jesus didn't say anything against women owning property. At Matthew 19 though he says “Have you not read that He Who made them in the first place made them man and woman? 5 It says, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and his mother and will live with his wife. The two will become one.’ 6 So they are no longer two but one. Let no man divide what God has put together.”

    So marriage suggested to be only between a man and his wife for life. However Jesus never said anything against homosexual unions which were not marriages
    You're don't seem very familiar with European protestant churches.


    And there is more in the bible than what Jesus is supposed to have said.
  • Options
    pingping Posts: 3,804
    edited February 2023
    Interview with Robert Papp (former senior CIA bod) on Russia/Ukraine;

    https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/odd-lots/id1056200096

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-02-20/one-year-of-war-in-ukraine-former-cia-official-on-russia-s-invasion?srnd=oddlots-podcast

    He knows his shit, that guy.

    Well worth 45 mins of your time.

    He makes some excellent points, including a couple that I’ve raised, cf; The absurd (and totally counterproductive) media / popular backlash against anything Russian / culture / literature etc etc, here in the West.
  • Options
    malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 42,518

    malcolmg said:

    Carnyx said:

    malcolmg said:

    According to YouGov, support for same sex marriage across the UK is at 77% as of 9th January 2023, this number is 79% in the Scotland subsample.

    https://twitter.com/electpoliticsuk/status/1627747506992947201

    I wonder how has that changed over the last three decades?

    Sadly, the recent hysteria over trans people (see (*)) shows that liberal progress can be reversed.

    (*) https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/brianna-ghey-vigil-disrupted-after-26278191
    what bollox is that re trans losing rights. Can you name a right they have lost.
    I think he means hostility to trans folk e.g. from the ned element.
    That is down to Sturgeon and her pals stirring it up with her crap policy. Also many of the Trans supporters are the most violent so still bollox, there are people on both sides that are just violent neds.
    What violence? I've seen some nasty threats, but actual violence?
    there was one in papers just yesterday , woman had the crap beaten out of her.
This discussion has been closed.