There are a lot of very hostile replies from small-l liberals in response to this tweet from Starmer. It might not filter through to the wider public but it does feel like there’s been a sea change following their ads targeting Sunak and people are less willing to give him a free pass for not being a Tory.
Two pictorial replies under that Tweet - one mocking the original, and the other attacking Sir Keir more directly.
Good morning
It was inevitable that the conservatives would counter labour's posters with a nasty battle looming
Labour have opened a can of worms
Its always offended me that Macdonalds serves breakfast util so late - Breakfast should only be available to those who can get their asses out of bed by 9 imho
Discriminatory against night workers and night owls!
Though being serious for a moment it's weird that surprising numbers can still be weirdly judgy about such a thing. I mean, if someone goes to bed 3 hours after another person of course they're likely to get up later, why wouldn't we, I mean they?
#D-FensWasRight
I've only had a McDonalds breakfast once (I think it was classed as a 'big breakfast'), and I think it was one of the worst breakfasts I can remember having. It was awful. Ever since, I've avoided McDonalds before midday.
I like them myself. The problem is the big binary choice. If you go with a bacon egg macmuffin you don't get the sausage egg macmuffin, and vice versa. Given I only do this about once a quarter that's a very consequential decision to have to make.
Also worth noting that these days the standard side options include things other than hash browns (good news since I'm not keen). As someone who worries about my health I tend to order the 'carrot bag'. This is just what it says on the tin - a little bag of carrots.
Lot of truth in her analysis. Didn't pick you for a Marxist, mind.
Even ignoring the “wonderful working class” stuff, in the real world there is vastly more social integration at all levels than the Guardian type analyses would have you believe.
At my local schools, for example, you nearly never see the tidy, American style grouping of parents by race/culture. I can’t think of any parents who are both from the same country/ethnicity, pretty much.
The flip side of this is, for instance, the savage abuse that some black women get from some other black women, for going out with a non-black man.
An ex, years back, had to endure some nasty shit of this kind.
I think the issue Burchill misses is that this isn't a function of class. It's true. Lots of folk our age grew up in a multi-racial society... In CITIES, and certain other towns. A heck of a lot outside these places rarely saw a non-white face outside of TV. Which points again to the urban/small town cultural divide. It makes little odds what class you were. Far more where you grew up. A Uni friend of mine took his extremely posh Nigerian heritage girlfriend back to Wigan c 1991. More than once they were asked if she was Ellery Hanley's sister. Not through racism. But because that was the only black person within their cultural orbit.
In the medium to long term, it’s a function of how the different groups regard each other. Integration requires two (or more) groups to be willing to integrate.
Well indeed. But it isn't so much groups as individuals. The white Londoners who didn't want to moved to Essex. In many mill towns ethnically pure areas developed around Mosques. Meanwhile. Quite a large number from identical backgrounds got on with it and mixed freely. It is only very recently though that we have seen non-whites in mining and rural areas. So the process is only beginning to play out. Hence much misunderstanding of "Red Wall values." Those values are as varied as the folk who live there.
Lot of truth in her analysis. Didn't pick you for a Marxist, mind.
The political Right are utterly shameless when it comes to class vs race.
They go on and on about the Left being obsessed with race when it's class that should be focussed on. Yet whenever policies are proposed - by the Left naturally since such policies never come from anywhere else - to actually do something serious about eradicating class privilege they scream blue murder about 'politics of envy' and 'marxist madness' and all the rest of it.
Or how about this one? The grooming gangs. People on the Left will make the point that class and misogyny was right there in the mix on why it happened, the police not taking the socially and economically disadvantaged young female victims seriously. And the typical response on the Right? Oh no no no. It was all about 'political correctness' and not wanting to look racist or offend Pakistani Muslims. Very telling. Let's make things all about race so long as it plays to our agenda of targeting blame for our ills on foreigners and minorities.
I find the the 'not wanting to look racist or offend Pakistani Muslims' thing a strange one, because afaics the police record on racism and offending Pakistani Musiims is a wee bit spotty.
Yes, I'm pretty skeptical that 'trying too hard not to look racist' is one of the police's main failings.
The Senior Management Team bang on about it non stop. While strip searching a ton of black female teenagers, without proper safeguarding, goes on. Etc.
Chief Constable Savage is alive, well, and has passed all his diversity courses. He now oversees a program of arresting people for ordering their coffee black. Black people, mostly. At anti-racism demos.
So you do actually believe that a major cause of racism in the police is too much diversity training? Golly. Funny old world.
Super-rich abandoning Norway at record rate as wealth tax rises slightly https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/apr/10/super-rich-abandoning-norway-at-record-rate-as-wealth-tax-rises-slightly More than 30 Norwegian billionaires and multimillionaires left Norway in 2022, according to research by the newspaper Dagens Naeringsliv. This was more than the total number of super-rich people who left the country during the previous 13 years, it added. Even more super-rich individuals are expected to leave this year because of the increase in wealth tax in November, costing the government tens of millions lost tax receipts.
Many have moved to Switzerland, where taxes are much lower. They include billionaire fisher turned industrial tycoon Kjell Inge Røkke who moved to the Italian-speaking canton of Lugano, close to his favoured hangout Lake Como and fashion capital Milan.
Røkke, 64, is the fourth-richest Norwegian, with an estimated fortune of about NOK 19.6bn (£1.5bn). In an open letter, he said: “I’ve chosen Lugano as my new residence – it is neither the cheapest nor has the lowest taxes – but in return, it is a great place with a central location in Europe … For those close to the company and to me, I am just a click away.”
His relocation will cost Norway about NOK 175m in lost tax revenue a year. Last year, Røkke was the country’s highest taxed individual. Dagens Næringsliv calculated that he has paid about NOK 1.5bn in tax since 2008.
His move to Switzerland follows a relatively small increase in tax aimed at the country’s super-rich, who face wealth taxes at both the local and state level. That includes a municipal tax of 0.7% on assets in excess of NOK 1.7m for individuals, or NOK 3.4m for couples. There is also a state wealth tax rate of 0.3% on assets above NOK 1.7m. In November, the government raised the state rate to 0.4% for assets above NOK 20m for individuals, and NOK 40m couples, taking the maximum wealth tax rate to 1.1%.
Ole Gjems-Onstad, a professor emeritus at the Norwegian Business School, said he estimated that those who had left the country had a combined fortune of at least NOK 600bn…
Thanks - often claims are made about the impact of taxation on people’s movements, but it is useful to have some data to see the impact in practice.
So over 15 years he paid just 7.6% of his net current worth in taxes? About 0.5% per year?
Compare to a generic salaried worker with a net worth of £500k, earns £50k and pays approx £15k a year in taxes, average 3% per year.
The billionaire has been treated far too generously.
There are a lot of very hostile replies from small-l liberals in response to this tweet from Starmer. It might not filter through to the wider public but it does feel like there’s been a sea change following their ads targeting Sunak and people are less willing to give him a free pass for not being a Tory.
Two pictorial replies under that Tweet - one mocking the original, and the other attacking Sir Keir more directly.
The second poster highlights the issue well. People on here say: "We don't want to remove rights from trans people!"; yet anyone agreeing with the second poster is calling exactly for rights to be removed from trans people.
Trans people have always existed. Trans people will have been using the toilets of their new gender for as long as there have been gendered toilets.
It is also patently unpoliceable, and the effects of it on women who do not exhibit 'womanly' traits - or who do not fir the bigoted views of bigots on what a woman should look like - might be severe.
Once again you bring it to merely toilets. Few are bothered about trans people using toilets. The issue is women only safe spaces such as refuges, prisons, communal changing rooms, group counselling and for abuse and rape etc.......you presumably hope by trying to equate it to the bare minimum thing some have expressed but not all by a long way, that you can make it sound like its all a bit silly.
Very few people give a shit about toilets on either side.
Lot of truth in her analysis. Didn't pick you for a Marxist, mind.
The political Right are utterly shameless when it comes to class vs race.
They go on and on about the Left being obsessed with race when it's class that should be focussed on. Yet whenever policies are proposed - by the Left naturally since such policies never come from anywhere else - to actually do something serious about eradicating class privilege they scream blue murder about 'politics of envy' and 'marxist madness' and all the rest of it.
Or how about this one? The grooming gangs. People on the Left will make the point that class and misogyny was right there in the mix on why it happened, the police not taking the socially and economically disadvantaged young female victims seriously. And the typical response on the Right? Oh no no no. It was all about 'political correctness' and not wanting to look racist or offend Pakistani Muslims. Very telling. Let's make things all about race so long as it plays to our agenda of targeting blame for our ills on foreigners and minorities.
I find the the 'not wanting to look racist or offend Pakistani Muslims' thing a strange one, because afaics the police record on racism and offending Pakistani Musiims is a wee bit spotty.
Yes, I'm pretty skeptical that 'trying too hard not to look racist' is one of the police's main failings.
Yet, that was indeed, among the findings of the Jay, and Casey reports. It’s about wanting a quiet life, as one coasts towards one’s pension.
And it wasn’t just down to the police. It was down to social workers, and local councillors.
Such a priority also explains why they sent one officer to arrest each golliwog at an Essex pub.
Was that a real story, and not an April 1st prank?
It's real. It took place last Tuesday.
So the police clearly don’t have an inputs problem (a shortage of officers, or of money), they have a serious outputs problem, in that they’re ignoring crimes that actually affect people, and concentrating their efforts on policing social media and people complaining about hurt feelings.
Do we think that, if Starmer employs 10,000 more police, it will result in burglaries and muggings getting cleared up - or that we’ll see even more of this social crap instead?
Don't forget, it wasn't just the golliwogs
They'd also asked on social media why there isn't a White History Month
Obvious racists, clearly asking for a bit of police attention
Either they'd committed a crime, or they had not.
If not, the police had no business being there - whatever their views.
That’s a strange view. The police don’t normally attend incidents knowing whether a crime has been committed or not. They go because a crime may have been or is being committed. And, of course, there are all sorts of other functions the police carry out relating to public safety or order.
Bad taste is not a crime nor should be. I think if they are getting complaints they should simply refer them on to the council who could see whether there is a licensing issue that can be dealt with at renewal.
There are a lot of very hostile replies from small-l liberals in response to this tweet from Starmer. It might not filter through to the wider public but it does feel like there’s been a sea change following their ads targeting Sunak and people are less willing to give him a free pass for not being a Tory.
Two pictorial replies under that Tweet - one mocking the original, and the other attacking Sir Keir more directly.
The second poster highlights the issue well. People on here say: "We don't want to remove rights from trans people!"; yet anyone agreeing with the second poster is calling exactly for rights to be removed from trans people.
Trans people have always existed. Trans people will have been using the toilets of their new gender for as long as there have been gendered toilets.
It is also patently unpoliceable, and the effects of it on women who do not exhibit 'womanly' traits - or who do not fir the bigoted views of bigots on what a woman should look like - might be severe.
The rights of biological women should be paramount. Nothing bigoted in that.
Really? I'd argue it's a classic case of bigotry.
There's a great deal to be said about your comment, but let's take just one point: who polices it? If a woman thinks that another person in the toilet is male, what does she do? Does she call the police? Does she confront the person directly? And what happens when (as happens) they get it wrong? Should women who do not fit the stereotypical views of womanhood - say, butch women - be treated to abuse when they go to the toilet? Or are they not 'women' in your eyes?
And I'd argue that the rights of *no* group should be 'paramount'. Rights are often a balance between competing groups, as rights for one group often impinge (in minor or major ways) on other groups. And we certainly should not have the case where there is a tyranny of the majority: where the 'rights' of a larger group are seen as more critical than those of a minor group, simply because there are more of them. You may note that's been tried in the past; rarely to good consequence.
Then I'm bigoted and proud. What kind of balance is there when the 0.001% are trumping the 99.9%? I'm a proud gay man and I support tolerance for all . I don't support tyranny of the minority. Name calling people for using their common sense is water off this s duck's back. back.
You appear to support tolerance for all - as long as they're not trans...
Please tell me the percentage when the rights of a minority can 'trump' the majority? You say not 0.001%. How about 0.01%? 0.1%? 1%? 10%? 25%
Besides, it's not about 'trumping' rights. It's about compromises that allow people to muddle along together.
(In addition, trans people are much larger than 0.001%...)
I was referring to Starmer of course. As to compromise remind us when Stonewall is interested in compromise. I do not think anyone who still has a fully functioning penis should have any automatic right to enter women's only spaces.
There are a lot of very hostile replies from small-l liberals in response to this tweet from Starmer. It might not filter through to the wider public but it does feel like there’s been a sea change following their ads targeting Sunak and people are less willing to give him a free pass for not being a Tory.
Two pictorial replies under that Tweet - one mocking the original, and the other attacking Sir Keir more directly.
The second poster highlights the issue well. People on here say: "We don't want to remove rights from trans people!"; yet anyone agreeing with the second poster is calling exactly for rights to be removed from trans people.
Trans people have always existed. Trans people will have been using the toilets of their new gender for as long as there have been gendered toilets.
It is also patently unpoliceable, and the effects of it on women who do not exhibit 'womanly' traits - or who do not fir the bigoted views of bigots on what a woman should look like - might be severe.
The rights of biological women should be paramount. Nothing bigoted in that.
Really? I'd argue it's a classic case of bigotry.
There's a great deal to be said about your comment, but let's take just one point: who polices it? If a woman thinks that another person in the toilet is male, what does she do? Does she call the police? Does she confront the person directly? And what happens when (as happens) they get it wrong? Should women who do not fit the stereotypical views of womanhood - say, butch women - be treated to abuse when they go to the toilet? Or are they not 'women' in your eyes?
And I'd argue that the rights of *no* group should be 'paramount'. Rights are often a balance between competing groups, as rights for one group often impinge (in minor or major ways) on other groups. And we certainly should not have the case where there is a tyranny of the majority: where the 'rights' of a larger group are seen as more critical than those of a minor group, simply because there are more of them. You may note that's been tried in the past; rarely to good consequence.
Then I'm bigoted and proud. What kind of balance is there when the 0.001% are trumping the 99.9%? I'm a proud gay man and I support tolerance for all . I don't support tyranny of the minority. Name calling people for using their common sense is water off this s duck's back. back.
You appear to support tolerance for all - as long as they're not trans...
Please tell me the percentage when the rights of a minority can 'trump' the majority? You say not 0.001%. How about 0.01%? 0.1%? 1%? 10%? 25%
Besides, it's not about 'trumping' rights. It's about compromises that allow people to muddle along together.
(In addition, trans people are much larger than 0.001%...)
I was referring to Starmer of course. As to compromise remind us when Stonewall is interested in compromise. I do not think anyone who still has a fully functioning penis should have any automatic right to enter women's only spaces.
Lot of truth in her analysis. Didn't pick you for a Marxist, mind.
The political Right are utterly shameless when it comes to class vs race.
They go on and on about the Left being obsessed with race when it's class that should be focussed on. Yet whenever policies are proposed - by the Left naturally since such policies never come from anywhere else - to actually do something serious about eradicating class privilege they scream blue murder about 'politics of envy' and 'marxist madness' and all the rest of it.
Or how about this one? The grooming gangs. People on the Left will make the point that class and misogyny was right there in the mix on why it happened, the police not taking the socially and economically disadvantaged young female victims seriously. And the typical response on the Right? Oh no no no. It was all about 'political correctness' and not wanting to look racist or offend Pakistani Muslims. Very telling. Let's make things all about race so long as it plays to our agenda of targeting blame for our ills on foreigners and minorities.
I find the the 'not wanting to look racist or offend Pakistani Muslims' thing a strange one, because afaics the police record on racism and offending Pakistani Musiims is a wee bit spotty.
Yes, I'm pretty skeptical that 'trying too hard not to look racist' is one of the police's main failings.
Yet, that was indeed, among the findings of the Jay, and Casey reports. It’s about wanting a quiet life, as one coasts towards one’s pension.
And it wasn’t just down to the police. It was down to social workers, and local councillors.
The 'too PC' angle probably does have more validity in non-police orgs such as social services and councils.
But on the general point. One of the MAIN failings of many of our institutions is they are so obsessed with not looking racist and sexist and homophobic that they forget about doing their job properly and not being racist and sexist and homophobic? I don't think so. That rings false to me. It's unnecessarily meta for one thing. And it's too convenient a fit with the preconceived sentiments of those who claim it to be the case.
From the reporting of those cases, in respect of the police it appeared rather that they just didn’t give an damn about the young victims.
Lot of truth in her analysis. Didn't pick you for a Marxist, mind.
The political Right are utterly shameless when it comes to class vs race.
They go on and on about the Left being obsessed with race when it's class that should be focussed on. Yet whenever policies are proposed - by the Left naturally since such policies never come from anywhere else - to actually do something serious about eradicating class privilege they scream blue murder about 'politics of envy' and 'marxist madness' and all the rest of it.
Or how about this one? The grooming gangs. People on the Left will make the point that class and misogyny was right there in the mix on why it happened, the police not taking the socially and economically disadvantaged young female victims seriously. And the typical response on the Right? Oh no no no. It was all about 'political correctness' and not wanting to look racist or offend Pakistani Muslims. Very telling. Let's make things all about race so long as it plays to our agenda of targeting blame for our ills on foreigners and minorities.
I find the the 'not wanting to look racist or offend Pakistani Muslims' thing a strange one, because afaics the police record on racism and offending Pakistani Musiims is a wee bit spotty.
Yes, I'm pretty skeptical that 'trying too hard not to look racist' is one of the police's main failings.
Yet, that was indeed, among the findings of the Jay, and Casey reports. It’s about wanting a quiet life, as one coasts towards one’s pension.
And it wasn’t just down to the police. It was down to social workers, and local councillors.
The 'too PC' angle probably does have more validity in non-police orgs such as social services and councils.
But on the general point. One of the MAIN failings of many of our institutions is they are so obsessed with not looking racist and sexist and homophobic that they forget about doing their job properly and not being racist and sexist and homophobic? I don't think so. That rings false to me. It's unnecessarily meta for one thing. And it's too convenient a fit with the preconceived sentiments of those who claim it to be the case.
I know it’s not quite the same, but in state schools the obsession of SLT (assistant heads and up) is making sure that we look good for OFSTEAD; in other words we need to be seen to be doing the “right” things irrespective of the effect those things actually have on the education of our pupils.
I have a theory that if the DfE put “abolishing OFSTEAD” on the negotiating table they could probably get away with an actual pay cut…
Lot of truth in her analysis. Didn't pick you for a Marxist, mind.
The political Right are utterly shameless when it comes to class vs race.
They go on and on about the Left being obsessed with race when it's class that should be focussed on. Yet whenever policies are proposed - by the Left naturally since such policies never come from anywhere else - to actually do something serious about eradicating class privilege they scream blue murder about 'politics of envy' and 'marxist madness' and all the rest of it.
Or how about this one? The grooming gangs. People on the Left will make the point that class and misogyny was right there in the mix on why it happened, the police not taking the socially and economically disadvantaged young female victims seriously. And the typical response on the Right? Oh no no no. It was all about 'political correctness' and not wanting to look racist or offend Pakistani Muslims. Very telling. Let's make things all about race so long as it plays to our agenda of targeting blame for our ills on foreigners and minorities.
I find the the 'not wanting to look racist or offend Pakistani Muslims' thing a strange one, because afaics the police record on racism and offending Pakistani Musiims is a wee bit spotty.
Yes, I'm pretty skeptical that 'trying too hard not to look racist' is one of the police's main failings.
Yet, that was indeed, among the findings of the Jay, and Casey reports. It’s about wanting a quiet life, as one coasts towards one’s pension.
And it wasn’t just down to the police. It was down to social workers, and local councillors.
Such a priority also explains why they sent one officer to arrest each golliwog at an Essex pub.
Was that a real story, and not an April 1st prank?
It's real. It took place last Tuesday.
So the police clearly don’t have an inputs problem (a shortage of officers, or of money), they have a serious outputs problem, in that they’re ignoring crimes that actually affect people, and concentrating their efforts on policing social media and people complaining about hurt feelings.
Do we think that, if Starmer employs 10,000 more police, it will result in burglaries and muggings getting cleared up - or that we’ll see even more of this social crap instead?
Don't forget, it wasn't just the golliwogs
They'd also asked on social media why there isn't a White History Month
Obvious racists, clearly asking for a bit of police attention
Either they'd committed a crime, or they had not.
If not, the police had no business being there - whatever their views.
That’s a strange view. The police don’t normally attend incidents knowing whether a crime has been committed or not. They go because a crime may have been or is being committed. And, of course, there are all sorts of other functions the police carry out relating to public safety or order.
Bad taste is not a crime nor should be. I think if they are getting complaints they should simply refer them on to the council who could see whether there is a licensing issue that can be dealt with at renewal.
I have no opinion about the specific incident in question. Merely questioning Casino’s rather odd generalisation of what the police do.
There are a lot of very hostile replies from small-l liberals in response to this tweet from Starmer. It might not filter through to the wider public but it does feel like there’s been a sea change following their ads targeting Sunak and people are less willing to give him a free pass for not being a Tory.
Two pictorial replies under that Tweet - one mocking the original, and the other attacking Sir Keir more directly.
The second poster highlights the issue well. People on here say: "We don't want to remove rights from trans people!"; yet anyone agreeing with the second poster is calling exactly for rights to be removed from trans people.
Trans people have always existed. Trans people will have been using the toilets of their new gender for as long as there have been gendered toilets.
It is also patently unpoliceable, and the effects of it on women who do not exhibit 'womanly' traits - or who do not fir the bigoted views of bigots on what a woman should look like - might be severe.
The rights of biological women should be paramount. Nothing bigoted in that.
But it is interesting to me that the position of the pro-woman movement on this is more draconian than mine would be - an unusual thing for me. Personally, I'd make gender reassignment only legal with a medical diagnosis, and after surgery, but following that legal and physical change, I think it's right that those people have the legal status of women and can use women's toilets etc. The risk to women is virtually nil.
I don’t know how the numbers actually stack up, but recent reporting would suggest that a woman is more likely to be assaulted by a police officer than by a trans individual.
Male officers are not allowed into womens safe places are they?
Male officers are not allowed to assault women, or sexually harass them, or use police resources to find information on them, or all sorts of things that have nonetheless been going on.
No-one should be assaulting anyone. I was trying to understand the impact of different things we hear about in the news. If someone has actual numbers, I’m all ears, but I’ve seen much more reporting of serving police officers assaulting women than of trans individuals doing so.
That is a bit like saying how many people are cutting their legs off because some people are cutting their arms off. Given in their PC woke mode they were recording the crimes as being by women then there may well not be much evidence about, however after the hullabaloo up here several became obvious as media started reporting on it. So who knows.
Lot of truth in her analysis. Didn't pick you for a Marxist, mind.
The political Right are utterly shameless when it comes to class vs race.
They go on and on about the Left being obsessed with race when it's class that should be focussed on. Yet whenever policies are proposed - by the Left naturally since such policies never come from anywhere else - to actually do something serious about eradicating class privilege they scream blue murder about 'politics of envy' and 'marxist madness' and all the rest of it.
Or how about this one? The grooming gangs. People on the Left will make the point that class and misogyny was right there in the mix on why it happened, the police not taking the socially and economically disadvantaged young female victims seriously. And the typical response on the Right? Oh no no no. It was all about 'political correctness' and not wanting to look racist or offend Pakistani Muslims. Very telling. Let's make things all about race so long as it plays to our agenda of targeting blame for our ills on foreigners and minorities.
I find the the 'not wanting to look racist or offend Pakistani Muslims' thing a strange one, because afaics the police record on racism and offending Pakistani Musiims is a wee bit spotty.
Yes, I'm pretty skeptical that 'trying too hard not to look racist' is one of the police's main failings.
Yet, that was indeed, among the findings of the Jay, and Casey reports. It’s about wanting a quiet life, as one coasts towards one’s pension.
And it wasn’t just down to the police. It was down to social workers, and local councillors.
Such a priority also explains why they sent one officer to arrest each golliwog at an Essex pub.
Was that a real story, and not an April 1st prank?
It's real. It took place last Tuesday.
So the police clearly don’t have an inputs problem (a shortage of officers, or of money), they have a serious outputs problem, in that they’re ignoring crimes that actually affect people, and concentrating their efforts on policing social media and people complaining about hurt feelings.
Do we think that, if Starmer employs 10,000 more police, it will result in burglaries and muggings getting cleared up - or that we’ll see even more of this social crap instead?
Don't forget, it wasn't just the golliwogs
They'd also asked on social media why there isn't a White History Month
Obvious racists, clearly asking for a bit of police attention
Either they'd committed a crime, or they had not.
If not, the police had no business being there - whatever their views.
That’s a strange view. The police don’t normally attend incidents knowing whether a crime has been committed or not. They go because a crime may have been or is being committed. And, of course, there are all sorts of other functions the police carry out relating to public safety or order.
Bad taste is not a crime nor should be. I think if they are getting complaints they should simply refer them on to the council who could see whether there is a licensing issue that can be dealt with at renewal.
I have no opinion about the specific incident in question. Merely questioning Casino’s rather odd generalisation of what the police do.
Odd? This is a party who claim police don't investigate crimes that have happened in the past.
There are a lot of very hostile replies from small-l liberals in response to this tweet from Starmer. It might not filter through to the wider public but it does feel like there’s been a sea change following their ads targeting Sunak and people are less willing to give him a free pass for not being a Tory.
Two pictorial replies under that Tweet - one mocking the original, and the other attacking Sir Keir more directly.
The second poster highlights the issue well. People on here say: "We don't want to remove rights from trans people!"; yet anyone agreeing with the second poster is calling exactly for rights to be removed from trans people.
Trans people have always existed. Trans people will have been using the toilets of their new gender for as long as there have been gendered toilets.
It is also patently unpoliceable, and the effects of it on women who do not exhibit 'womanly' traits - or who do not fir the bigoted views of bigots on what a woman should look like - might be severe.
The rights of biological women should be paramount. Nothing bigoted in that.
But it is interesting to me that the position of the pro-woman movement on this is more draconian than mine would be - an unusual thing for me. Personally, I'd make gender reassignment only legal with a medical diagnosis, and after surgery, but following that legal and physical change, I think it's right that those people have the legal status of women and can use women's toilets etc. The risk to women is virtually nil.
I don't think after the reassignment anyone actually has an issue with the exception of sports....putting someone however who is still a functioning male in a womens prison because he says "I am a women" on the other hand....yes people do think that is an issue
Lot of truth in her analysis. Didn't pick you for a Marxist, mind.
The political Right are utterly shameless when it comes to class vs race.
They go on and on about the Left being obsessed with race when it's class that should be focussed on. Yet whenever policies are proposed - by the Left naturally since such policies never come from anywhere else - to actually do something serious about eradicating class privilege they scream blue murder about 'politics of envy' and 'marxist madness' and all the rest of it.
Or how about this one? The grooming gangs. People on the Left will make the point that class and misogyny was right there in the mix on why it happened, the police not taking the socially and economically disadvantaged young female victims seriously. And the typical response on the Right? Oh no no no. It was all about 'political correctness' and not wanting to look racist or offend Pakistani Muslims. Very telling. Let's make things all about race so long as it plays to our agenda of targeting blame for our ills on foreigners and minorities.
I find the the 'not wanting to look racist or offend Pakistani Muslims' thing a strange one, because afaics the police record on racism and offending Pakistani Musiims is a wee bit spotty.
Yes, I'm pretty skeptical that 'trying too hard not to look racist' is one of the police's main failings.
Yet, that was indeed, among the findings of the Jay, and Casey reports. It’s about wanting a quiet life, as one coasts towards one’s pension.
And it wasn’t just down to the police. It was down to social workers, and local councillors.
The 'too PC' angle probably does have more validity in non-police orgs such as social services and councils.
But on the general point. One of the MAIN failings of many of our institutions is they are so obsessed with not looking racist and sexist and homophobic that they forget about doing their job properly and not being racist and sexist and homophobic? I don't think so. That rings false to me. It's unnecessarily meta for one thing. And it's too convenient a fit with the preconceived sentiments of those who claim it to be the case.
Look at the police
1) Senior Management bang on about diversity. 2) All officers have to do multiple diversity courses 3) various organisations and initiatives within the police force to “stamp out racism”. Conferences and posters…. 4) Driving while black is a thing 5) Teenage black girls being strip searched without *legally required* safeguarding 6) etc
Organisations tend towards bike shedding. That is, when tasked with something complex like getting rid of racism, or building a nuclear power station, they will do the easy bit. Like building a bike shed.
Indeed. In response to multiple staff quitting, reporting dreadful mental health, lack of resources, repairs, staff numbers, bending over backwards to assuage parental complaints and an utter laissez-faire attitude towards pupil behaviour, our SLT has decided that a bigger staff room is the answer.
Lot of truth in her analysis. Didn't pick you for a Marxist, mind.
The political Right are utterly shameless when it comes to class vs race.
They go on and on about the Left being obsessed with race when it's class that should be focussed on. Yet whenever policies are proposed - by the Left naturally since such policies never come from anywhere else - to actually do something serious about eradicating class privilege they scream blue murder about 'politics of envy' and 'marxist madness' and all the rest of it.
Or how about this one? The grooming gangs. People on the Left will make the point that class and misogyny was right there in the mix on why it happened, the police not taking the socially and economically disadvantaged young female victims seriously. And the typical response on the Right? Oh no no no. It was all about 'political correctness' and not wanting to look racist or offend Pakistani Muslims. Very telling. Let's make things all about race so long as it plays to our agenda of targeting blame for our ills on foreigners and minorities.
I find the the 'not wanting to look racist or offend Pakistani Muslims' thing a strange one, because afaics the police record on racism and offending Pakistani Musiims is a wee bit spotty.
Yes, I'm pretty skeptical that 'trying too hard not to look racist' is one of the police's main failings.
Yet, that was indeed, among the findings of the Jay, and Casey reports. It’s about wanting a quiet life, as one coasts towards one’s pension.
And it wasn’t just down to the police. It was down to social workers, and local councillors.
Such a priority also explains why they sent one officer to arrest each golliwog at an Essex pub.
Was that a real story, and not an April 1st prank?
It's real. It took place last Tuesday.
So the police clearly don’t have an inputs problem (a shortage of officers, or of money), they have a serious outputs problem, in that they’re ignoring crimes that actually affect people, and concentrating their efforts on policing social media and people complaining about hurt feelings.
Do we think that, if Starmer employs 10,000 more police, it will result in burglaries and muggings getting cleared up - or that we’ll see even more of this social crap instead?
Don't forget, it wasn't just the golliwogs
They'd also asked on social media why there isn't a White History Month
Obvious racists, clearly asking for a bit of police attention
Absolutely shocking, you are unlikely to get them out as you are being robbed , beaten up , etc but someone has some dolls, get a big squad over there pronto.
Lot of truth in her analysis. Didn't pick you for a Marxist, mind.
The political Right are utterly shameless when it comes to class vs race.
They go on and on about the Left being obsessed with race when it's class that should be focussed on. Yet whenever policies are proposed - by the Left naturally since such policies never come from anywhere else - to actually do something serious about eradicating class privilege they scream blue murder about 'politics of envy' and 'marxist madness' and all the rest of it.
Or how about this one? The grooming gangs. People on the Left will make the point that class and misogyny was right there in the mix on why it happened, the police not taking the socially and economically disadvantaged young female victims seriously. And the typical response on the Right? Oh no no no. It was all about 'political correctness' and not wanting to look racist or offend Pakistani Muslims. Very telling. Let's make things all about race so long as it plays to our agenda of targeting blame for our ills on foreigners and minorities.
I find the the 'not wanting to look racist or offend Pakistani Muslims' thing a strange one, because afaics the police record on racism and offending Pakistani Musiims is a wee bit spotty.
Yes, I'm pretty skeptical that 'trying too hard not to look racist' is one of the police's main failings.
Yet, that was indeed, among the findings of the Jay, and Casey reports. It’s about wanting a quiet life, as one coasts towards one’s pension.
And it wasn’t just down to the police. It was down to social workers, and local councillors.
The 'too PC' angle probably does have more validity in non-police orgs such as social services and councils.
But on the general point. One of the MAIN failings of many of our institutions is they are so obsessed with not looking racist and sexist and homophobic that they forget about doing their job properly and not being racist and sexist and homophobic? I don't think so. That rings false to me. It's unnecessarily meta for one thing. And it's too convenient a fit with the preconceived sentiments of those who claim it to be the case.
Is it the whole of the problem? No. But I think the dismissal of it is, itself, a bit too convenient.
It's hard to be definitive about, but we do have official reports citing that sort of concern as having had a real impact, and anecdotally we've all seen the phenomenom of the online 'anti-racist' who then comes out with something racist as shit, utterly convinced they cannot have been so.
It is not much of a leap to believe that a wafer thin facade of 'correctness' can cover for failings - because that is human nature. A detailed emergency plan or policy that means people claim they are prepared for something, which is then ignored or never implemented in practice. A rule against bullying which has no teeth because the culture of the organisation does not recognise common bullying behaviour as bullying.
And yes, quite possibly, people thinking they do not need to adjust their behaviour or properly consider some issues such as relating to race, because they've attended (and barely paid attention) to some utterly asisine and simplistic course or online module.
I'm not dismissing it as a total non-problem. I'm just saying there's no way imo that cutting diversity training or reducing their sensitivity to racial minorities are amongst the police's main challenges going forward.
Had to pay EUR48 for my three kids to visit Knossos and the Archaeological Museum in Heraklion. EU citizens under 26 go free. Another fantastic Brexit dividend.
Any Labourite in Scotland who votes Tory at the GE to keep the SNP out is an idiot.
Do they want 5 more years of Conservative government?
This overlooks the 'All politics is relative' rule. A Labourite will vote Lab if they could win, or of course can do so anyway out of principle.
But otherwise, the tactical vote issue raises 2 questions, not just the one.
The second is: Should a Labourite vote SNP to keep the Tories out. Do they want 5 more years of SNP being the largest party in Scotland. Would that not be idiotic too?
In Scotland, both Labour and Conservatives see their mission to defeat the SNP. It is more important to them than defeating each other. In the UK generally, Labour and Conservatives see their mission to defeat each other. The SNP are irrelevant. As neither Labour nor the Conservatives have separate parties in Scotland, despite what they tell voters, UK priorities will always outweigh Scottish priorities.
When the Scottish Tories had an argument over whether or not to divorce the UK party, the wrong side won. There's no reason at all why there couldn't have been two separate organisations, possibly with a CDU/CSU-type relationship. There's also nothing inconsistent with the notion that a heavily autonomous Scotland can have a party that both caters to its own interest, and thinks that that interest would not be well served by putting up an international border with England.
I imagine a lot of that has to do with some Scottish Tory politicians fantasising about getting rid of devolution and/or becoming Prime Minister one day. There is, of course, no realistic prospect of the former and very little of the latter either, given how devolution is structured. But people will nurture their own delusions.
There are a lot of very hostile replies from small-l liberals in response to this tweet from Starmer. It might not filter through to the wider public but it does feel like there’s been a sea change following their ads targeting Sunak and people are less willing to give him a free pass for not being a Tory.
Two pictorial replies under that Tweet - one mocking the original, and the other attacking Sir Keir more directly.
The second poster highlights the issue well. People on here say: "We don't want to remove rights from trans people!"; yet anyone agreeing with the second poster is calling exactly for rights to be removed from trans people.
Trans people have always existed. Trans people will have been using the toilets of their new gender for as long as there have been gendered toilets.
It is also patently unpoliceable, and the effects of it on women who do not exhibit 'womanly' traits - or who do not fir the bigoted views of bigots on what a woman should look like - might be severe.
The rights of biological women should be paramount. Nothing bigoted in that.
Really? I'd argue it's a classic case of bigotry.
There's a great deal to be said about your comment, but let's take just one point: who polices it? If a woman thinks that another person in the toilet is male, what does she do? Does she call the police? Does she confront the person directly? And what happens when (as happens) they get it wrong? Should women who do not fit the stereotypical views of womanhood - say, butch women - be treated to abuse when they go to the toilet? Or are they not 'women' in your eyes?
And I'd argue that the rights of *no* group should be 'paramount'. Rights are often a balance between competing groups, as rights for one group often impinge (in minor or major ways) on other groups. And we certainly should not have the case where there is a tyranny of the majority: where the 'rights' of a larger group are seen as more critical than those of a minor group, simply because there are more of them. You may note that's been tried in the past; rarely to good consequence.
Then I'm bigoted and proud. What kind of balance is there when the 0.001% are trumping the 99.9%? I'm a proud gay man and I support tolerance for all . I don't support tyranny of the minority. Name calling people for using their common sense is water off this s duck's back. back.
You appear to support tolerance for all - as long as they're not trans...
Please tell me the percentage when the rights of a minority can 'trump' the majority? You say not 0.001%. How about 0.01%? 0.1%? 1%? 10%? 25%
Besides, it's not about 'trumping' rights. It's about compromises that allow people to muddle along together.
(In addition, trans people are much larger than 0.001%...)
I was referring to Starmer of course. As to compromise remind us when Stonewall is interested in compromise. I do not think anyone who still has a fully functioning penis should have any automatic right to enter women's only spaces.
A recoverer from prostate cancer wants to know what a fully functioning penis is!
Lot of truth in her analysis. Didn't pick you for a Marxist, mind.
The political Right are utterly shameless when it comes to class vs race.
They go on and on about the Left being obsessed with race when it's class that should be focussed on. Yet whenever policies are proposed - by the Left naturally since such policies never come from anywhere else - to actually do something serious about eradicating class privilege they scream blue murder about 'politics of envy' and 'marxist madness' and all the rest of it.
Or how about this one? The grooming gangs. People on the Left will make the point that class and misogyny was right there in the mix on why it happened, the police not taking the socially and economically disadvantaged young female victims seriously. And the typical response on the Right? Oh no no no. It was all about 'political correctness' and not wanting to look racist or offend Pakistani Muslims. Very telling. Let's make things all about race so long as it plays to our agenda of targeting blame for our ills on foreigners and minorities.
I find the the 'not wanting to look racist or offend Pakistani Muslims' thing a strange one, because afaics the police record on racism and offending Pakistani Musiims is a wee bit spotty.
Yes, I'm pretty skeptical that 'trying too hard not to look racist' is one of the police's main failings.
Yet, that was indeed, among the findings of the Jay, and Casey reports. It’s about wanting a quiet life, as one coasts towards one’s pension.
And it wasn’t just down to the police. It was down to social workers, and local councillors.
The 'too PC' angle probably does have more validity in non-police orgs such as social services and councils.
But on the general point. One of the MAIN failings of many of our institutions is they are so obsessed with not looking racist and sexist and homophobic that they forget about doing their job properly and not being racist and sexist and homophobic? I don't think so. That rings false to me. It's unnecessarily meta for one thing. And it's too convenient a fit with the preconceived sentiments of those who claim it to be the case.
That's exactly what it is.
Like so many of your posts they start well and then you dismiss it and draw totally the wrong conclusion. Because it doesn't accord with what you want to be true.
Well we're accusing each other of the same thing, aren't we - preferring the explanation (for a problem) which accords with our brain chemistry and worldview. Apart from the (relatively few) areas where there is an overwhelming objective set of facts on one side or another this is where all political debates between opposing views logically end up.
Please find me a Labour voter who will say , I’m so outraged I’ll forget the last 13 years of the Tories destruction of public services and will now vote for them because I’m so upset over some digital ad by Labour !
There are a lot of very hostile replies from small-l liberals in response to this tweet from Starmer. It might not filter through to the wider public but it does feel like there’s been a sea change following their ads targeting Sunak and people are less willing to give him a free pass for not being a Tory.
Two pictorial replies under that Tweet - one mocking the original, and the other attacking Sir Keir more directly.
The second poster highlights the issue well. People on here say: "We don't want to remove rights from trans people!"; yet anyone agreeing with the second poster is calling exactly for rights to be removed from trans people.
Trans people have always existed. Trans people will have been using the toilets of their new gender for as long as there have been gendered toilets.
It is also patently unpoliceable, and the effects of it on women who do not exhibit 'womanly' traits - or who do not fir the bigoted views of bigots on what a woman should look like - might be severe.
The rights of biological women should be paramount. Nothing bigoted in that.
But it is interesting to me that the position of the pro-woman movement on this is more draconian than mine would be - an unusual thing for me. Personally, I'd make gender reassignment only legal with a medical diagnosis, and after surgery, but following that legal and physical change, I think it's right that those people have the legal status of women and can use women's toilets etc. The risk to women is virtually nil.
I don’t know how the numbers actually stack up, but recent reporting would suggest that a woman is more likely to be assaulted by a police officer than by a trans individual.
Male officers are not allowed into womens safe places are they?
Male officers are not allowed to assault women, or sexually harass them, or use police resources to find information on them, or all sorts of things that have nonetheless been going on.
No-one should be assaulting anyone. I was trying to understand the impact of different things we hear about in the news. If someone has actual numbers, I’m all ears, but I’ve seen much more reporting of serving police officers assaulting women than of trans individuals doing so.
That is a bit like saying how many people are cutting their legs off because some peple ar
Any Labourite in Scotland who votes Tory at the GE to keep the SNP out is an idiot.
Do they want 5 more years of Conservative government?
This overlooks the 'All politics is relative' rule. A Labourite will vote Lab if they could win, or of course can do so anyway out of principle.
But otherwise, the tactical vote issue raises 2 questions, not just the one.
The second is: Should a Labourite vote SNP to keep the Tories out. Do they want 5 more years of SNP being the largest party in Scotland. Would that not be idiotic too?
In Scotland, both Labour and Conservatives see their mission to defeat the SNP. It is more important to them than defeating each other. In the UK generally, Labour and Conservatives see their mission to defeat each other. The SNP are irrelevant. As neither Labour nor the Conservatives have separate parties in Scotland, despite what they tell voters, UK priorities will always outweigh Scottish priorities.
When the Scottish Tories had an argument over whether or not to divorce the UK party, the wrong side won. There's no reason at all why there couldn't have been two separate organisations, possibly with a CDU/CSU-type relationship. There's also nothing inconsistent with the notion that a heavily autonomous Scotland can have a party that both caters to its own interest, and thinks that that interest would not be well served by putting up an international border with England.
I imagine a lot of that has to do with some Scottish Tory politicians fantasising about getting rid of devolution and/or becoming Prime Minister one day. There is, of course, no realistic prospect of the former and very little of the latter either, given how devolution is structured. But people will nurture their own delusions.
None of the opposition parties will ever do well as long as they are London sockpuppets. If they had had any brains they would have real Scottish parties.
Had to pay EUR48 for my three kids to visit Knossos and the Archaeological Museum in Heraklion. EU citizens under 26 go free. Another fantastic Brexit dividend.
"We give the EU £350 million each week so that middle class students can visit Greek museums for free. Let's give it to the NHS instead."
Please find me a Labour voter who will say , I’m so outraged I’ll forget the last 13 years of the Tories destruction of public services and will now vote for them because I’m so upset over some digital ad by Labour !
My concern is the following: if this is the sort of stuff they do when wanting power, it's the sort of thing they'll do when they have power. And I'd argue it matters much more then.
As we saw with McBride (and Campbell over Iraq), when combined with power, Labour nastiness can be potent.
Yes, I know, Tories nadadada. But if you don't like what the Tories do, it's a good idea not to be like them.
There are a lot of very hostile replies from small-l liberals in response to this tweet from Starmer. It might not filter through to the wider public but it does feel like there’s been a sea change following their ads targeting Sunak and people are less willing to give him a free pass for not being a Tory.
Two pictorial replies under that Tweet - one mocking the original, and the other attacking Sir Keir more directly.
The second poster highlights the issue well. People on here say: "We don't want to remove rights from trans people!"; yet anyone agreeing with the second poster is calling exactly for rights to be removed from trans people.
Trans people have always existed. Trans people will have been using the toilets of their new gender for as long as there have been gendered toilets.
It is also patently unpoliceable, and the effects of it on women who do not exhibit 'womanly' traits - or who do not fir the bigoted views of bigots on what a woman should look like - might be severe.
The rights of biological women should be paramount. Nothing bigoted in that.
But it is interesting to me that the position of the pro-woman movement on this is more draconian than mine would be - an unusual thing for me. Personally, I'd make gender reassignment only legal with a medical diagnosis, and after surgery, but following that legal and physical change, I think it's right that those people have the legal status of women and can use women's toilets etc. The risk to women is virtually nil.
I don’t know how the numbers actually stack up, but recent reporting would suggest that a woman is more likely to be assaulted by a police officer than by a trans individual.
Male officers are not allowed into womens safe places are they?
Male officers are not allowed to assault women, or sexually harass them, or use police resources to find information on them, or all sorts of things that have nonetheless been going on.
No-one should be assaulting anyone. I was trying to understand the impact of different things we hear about in the news. If someone has actual numbers, I’m all ears, but I’ve seen much more reporting of serving police officers assaulting women than of trans individuals doing so.
That is a bit like saying how many people are cutting their legs off because some peple ar
Any Labourite in Scotland who votes Tory at the GE to keep the SNP out is an idiot.
Do they want 5 more years of Conservative government?
This overlooks the 'All politics is relative' rule. A Labourite will vote Lab if they could win, or of course can do so anyway out of principle.
But otherwise, the tactical vote issue raises 2 questions, not just the one.
The second is: Should a Labourite vote SNP to keep the Tories out. Do they want 5 more years of SNP being the largest party in Scotland. Would that not be idiotic too?
In Scotland, both Labour and Conservatives see their mission to defeat the SNP. It is more important to them than defeating each other. In the UK generally, Labour and Conservatives see their mission to defeat each other. The SNP are irrelevant. As neither Labour nor the Conservatives have separate parties in Scotland, despite what they tell voters, UK priorities will always outweigh Scottish priorities.
When the Scottish Tories had an argument over whether or not to divorce the UK party, the wrong side won. There's no reason at all why there couldn't have been two separate organisations, possibly with a CDU/CSU-type relationship. There's also nothing inconsistent with the notion that a heavily autonomous Scotland can have a party that both caters to its own interest, and thinks that that interest would not be well served by putting up an international border with England.
I imagine a lot of that has to do with some Scottish Tory politicians fantasising about getting rid of devolution and/or becoming Prime Minister one day. There is, of course, no realistic prospect of the former and very little of the latter either, given how devolution is structured. But people will nurture their own delusions.
None of the opposition parties will ever do well as long as they are London sockpuppets. If they had had any brains they would have real Scottish parties.
AIUI the Liberals did so. I get the impression the LibDems are somewhat less relaxed.
There are a lot of very hostile replies from small-l liberals in response to this tweet from Starmer. It might not filter through to the wider public but it does feel like there’s been a sea change following their ads targeting Sunak and people are less willing to give him a free pass for not being a Tory.
Two pictorial replies under that Tweet - one mocking the original, and the other attacking Sir Keir more directly.
The second poster highlights the issue well. People on here say: "We don't want to remove rights from trans people!"; yet anyone agreeing with the second poster is calling exactly for rights to be removed from trans people.
Trans people have always existed. Trans people will have been using the toilets of their new gender for as long as there have been gendered toilets.
It is also patently unpoliceable, and the effects of it on women who do not exhibit 'womanly' traits - or who do not fir the bigoted views of bigots on what a woman should look like - might be severe.
The rights of biological women should be paramount. Nothing bigoted in that.
Really? I'd argue it's a classic case of bigotry.
There's a great deal to be said about your comment, but let's take just one point: who polices it? If a woman thinks that another person in the toilet is male, what does she do? Does she call the police? Does she confront the person directly? And what happens when (as happens) they get it wrong? Should women who do not fit the stereotypical views of womanhood - say, butch women - be treated to abuse when they go to the toilet? Or are they not 'women' in your eyes?
And I'd argue that the rights of *no* group should be 'paramount'. Rights are often a balance between competing groups, as rights for one group often impinge (in minor or major ways) on other groups. And we certainly should not have the case where there is a tyranny of the majority: where the 'rights' of a larger group are seen as more critical than those of a minor group, simply because there are more of them. You may note that's been tried in the past; rarely to good consequence.
Then I'm bigoted and proud. What kind of balance is there when the 0.001% are trumping the 99.9%? I'm a proud gay man and I support tolerance for all . I don't support tyranny of the minority. Name calling people for using their common sense is water off this s duck's back. back.
You appear to support tolerance for all - as long as they're not trans...
Please tell me the percentage when the rights of a minority can 'trump' the majority? You say not 0.001%. How about 0.01%? 0.1%? 1%? 10%? 25%
Besides, it's not about 'trumping' rights. It's about compromises that allow people to muddle along together.
(In addition, trans people are much larger than 0.001%...)
I was referring to Starmer of course. As to compromise remind us when Stonewall is interested in compromise. I do not think anyone who still has a fully functioning penis should have any automatic right to enter women's only spaces.
A recoverer from prostate cancer wants to know what a fully functioning penis is!
Please find me a Labour voter who will say , I’m so outraged I’ll forget the last 13 years of the Tories destruction of public services and will now vote for them because I’m so upset over some digital ad by Labour !
My concern is the following: if this is the sort of stuff they do when wanting power, it's the sort of thing they'll do when they have power. And I'd argue it matters much more then.
As we saw with McBride (and Campbell over Iraq), when combined with power, Labour nastiness can be potent.
Yes, I know, Tories nadadada. But if you don't like what the Tories do, it's a good idea not to be like them.
Please find me a Labour voter who will say , I’m so outraged I’ll forget the last 13 years of the Tories destruction of public services and will now vote for them because I’m so upset over some digital ad by Labour !
Pretty naive if you've only discovered the confected outrage segment of UK politics.
Had to pay EUR48 for my three kids to visit Knossos and the Archaeological Museum in Heraklion. EU citizens under 26 go free. Another fantastic Brexit dividend.
"We give the EU £350 million each week so that middle class students can visit Greek museums for free. Let's give it to the NHS instead."
Correct. One of the reasons the referendum was lost was the gap between what the UK paid in compared to what we got back.
Had to pay EUR48 for my three kids to visit Knossos and the Archaeological Museum in Heraklion. EU citizens under 26 go free. Another fantastic Brexit dividend.
"We give the EU £350 million each week so that middle class students can visit Greek museums for free. Let's give it to the NHS instead."
I always find the idea that only middle class people want to visit museums slightly bizarre. Growing up in a working class family, I used to love our trips to the British Museum, the Imperial War Museum and all the museums on Exhibition Road. I doubt we would have been able to go if we'd had to pay.
Had to pay EUR48 for my three kids to visit Knossos and the Archaeological Museum in Heraklion. EU citizens under 26 go free. Another fantastic Brexit dividend.
"We give the EU £350 million each week so that middle class students can visit Greek museums for free. Let's give it to the NHS instead."
Correct. One of the reasons the referendum was lost was the gap between what the UK paid in compared to what we got back.
The perceived gap, I'd say. We are now finding out what we did actually get back. Hence the current polling on Brexit.
Lot of truth in her analysis. Didn't pick you for a Marxist, mind.
The political Right are utterly shameless when it comes to class vs race.
They go on and on about the Left being obsessed with race when it's class that should be focussed on. Yet whenever policies are proposed - by the Left naturally since such policies never come from anywhere else - to actually do something serious about eradicating class privilege they scream blue murder about 'politics of envy' and 'marxist madness' and all the rest of it.
Or how about this one? The grooming gangs. People on the Left will make the point that class and misogyny was right there in the mix on why it happened, the police not taking the socially and economically disadvantaged young female victims seriously. And the typical response on the Right? Oh no no no. It was all about 'political correctness' and not wanting to look racist or offend Pakistani Muslims. Very telling. Let's make things all about race so long as it plays to our agenda of targeting blame for our ills on foreigners and minorities.
I find the the 'not wanting to look racist or offend Pakistani Muslims' thing a strange one, because afaics the police record on racism and offending Pakistani Musiims is a wee bit spotty.
Yes, I'm pretty skeptical that 'trying too hard not to look racist' is one of the police's main failings.
Yet, that was indeed, among the findings of the Jay, and Casey reports. It’s about wanting a quiet life, as one coasts towards one’s pension.
And it wasn’t just down to the police. It was down to social workers, and local councillors.
Such a priority also explains why they sent one officer to arrest each golliwog at an Essex pub.
Was that a real story, and not an April 1st prank?
It's real. It took place last Tuesday.
So the police clearly don’t have an inputs problem (a shortage of officers, or of money), they have a serious outputs problem, in that they’re ignoring crimes that actually affect people, and concentrating their efforts on policing social media and people complaining about hurt feelings.
Do we think that, if Starmer employs 10,000 more police, it will result in burglaries and muggings getting cleared up - or that we’ll see even more of this social crap instead?
Don't forget, it wasn't just the golliwogs
They'd also asked on social media why there isn't a White History Month
Obvious racists, clearly asking for a bit of police attention
Either they'd committed a crime, or they had not.
If not, the police had no business being there - whatever their views.
That’s a strange view. The police don’t normally attend incidents knowing whether a crime has been committed or not. They go because a crime may have been or is being committed. And, of course, there are all sorts of other functions the police carry out relating to public safety or order.
Actually , as @Cyclefree has often pointed out, enforcing good manners is none of the business of the police. Sending six officers to deal with a non-violent, non-crime, is ridiculous.
Lot of truth in her analysis. Didn't pick you for a Marxist, mind.
Even ignoring the “wonderful working class” stuff, in the real world there is vastly more social integration at all levels than the Guardian type analyses would have you believe.
At my local schools, for example, you nearly never see the tidy, American style grouping of parents by race/culture. I can’t think of any parents who are both from the same country/ethnicity, pretty much.
The flip side of this is, for instance, the savage abuse that some black women get from some other black women, for going out with a non-black man.
An ex, years back, had to endure some nasty shit of this kind.
A personal anecdote to underline this. My son when 15 started dating a lovely girl called Samira from his school and she would be over saturday and sunday to visit. After a year though I had to have one of the more painful conversations I have ever had to do with them. They were getting serious and I felt it had to be done so I told them both if they were to continue she had to talk to her parents about them dating. She did and her parents went ballistic. A couple of months later she left school for several months having been sent back home to india before returning married
Had to pay EUR48 for my three kids to visit Knossos and the Archaeological Museum in Heraklion. EU citizens under 26 go free. Another fantastic Brexit dividend.
That sounds like excellent value to me.
I had to pay £50 for me and my wife to visit the Royal Academy recently.
Had to pay EUR48 for my three kids to visit Knossos and the Archaeological Museum in Heraklion. EU citizens under 26 go free. Another fantastic Brexit dividend.
"We give the EU £350 million each week so that middle class students can visit Greek museums for free. Let's give it to the NHS instead."
Correct. One of the reasons the referendum was lost was the gap between what the UK paid in compared to what we got back.
We did, as I recall. Drowned out by Leavers shouting their lies.
Had to pay EUR48 for my three kids to visit Knossos and the Archaeological Museum in Heraklion. EU citizens under 26 go free. Another fantastic Brexit dividend.
EU citizens under 26 go free because the Greek government want Greek citizens under 26 to be able to see their history for free. Sadly, they are forced by EU law to therefore allow all EU citizens under 26, even from rich countries like Germany and (formerly) the UK to go free too.
Greece is a poor country (partly thanks to the EU) and your 48 EUR will help them to preserve their heritage.
Lot of truth in her analysis. Didn't pick you for a Marxist, mind.
The political Right are utterly shameless when it comes to class vs race.
They go on and on about the Left being obsessed with race when it's class that should be focussed on. Yet whenever policies are proposed - by the Left naturally since such policies never come from anywhere else - to actually do something serious about eradicating class privilege they scream blue murder about 'politics of envy' and 'marxist madness' and all the rest of it.
Or how about this one? The grooming gangs. People on the Left will make the point that class and misogyny was right there in the mix on why it happened, the police not taking the socially and economically disadvantaged young female victims seriously. And the typical response on the Right? Oh no no no. It was all about 'political correctness' and not wanting to look racist or offend Pakistani Muslims. Very telling. Let's make things all about race so long as it plays to our agenda of targeting blame for our ills on foreigners and minorities.
I find the the 'not wanting to look racist or offend Pakistani Muslims' thing a strange one, because afaics the police record on racism and offending Pakistani Musiims is a wee bit spotty.
Yes, I'm pretty skeptical that 'trying too hard not to look racist' is one of the police's main failings.
Yet, that was indeed, among the findings of the Jay, and Casey reports. It’s about wanting a quiet life, as one coasts towards one’s pension.
And it wasn’t just down to the police. It was down to social workers, and local councillors.
The 'too PC' angle probably does have more validity in non-police orgs such as social services and councils.
But on the general point. One of the MAIN failings of many of our institutions is they are so obsessed with not looking racist and sexist and homophobic that they forget about doing their job properly and not being racist and sexist and homophobic? I don't think so. That rings false to me. It's unnecessarily meta for one thing. And it's too convenient a fit with the preconceived sentiments of those who claim it to be the case.
Is it the whole of the problem? No. But I think the dismissal of it is, itself, a bit too convenient.
It's hard to be definitive about, but we do have official reports citing that sort of concern as having had a real impact, and anecdotally we've all seen the phenomenom of the online 'anti-racist' who then comes out with something racist as shit, utterly convinced they cannot have been so.
It is not much of a leap to believe that a wafer thin facade of 'correctness' can cover for failings - because that is human nature. A detailed emergency plan or policy that means people claim they are prepared for something, which is then ignored or never implemented in practice. A rule against bullying which has no teeth because the culture of the organisation does not recognise common bullying behaviour as bullying.
And yes, quite possibly, people thinking they do not need to adjust their behaviour or properly consider some issues such as relating to race, because they've attended (and barely paid attention) to some utterly asisine and simplistic course or online module.
I'm not dismissing it as a total non-problem. I'm just saying there's no way imo that cutting diversity training or reducing their sensitivity to racial minorities are amongst the police's main challenges going forward.
The problem is that the senior managers *only* care about the training courses being attended, and the boxes being ticked. They don’t care at all, about what actually happens on the front line.
Lot of truth in her analysis. Didn't pick you for a Marxist, mind.
Even ignoring the “wonderful working class” stuff, in the real world there is vastly more social integration at all levels than the Guardian type analyses would have you believe.
At my local schools, for example, you nearly never see the tidy, American style grouping of parents by race/culture. I can’t think of any parents who are both from the same country/ethnicity, pretty much.
The flip side of this is, for instance, the savage abuse that some black women get from some other black women, for going out with a non-black man.
An ex, years back, had to endure some nasty shit of this kind.
I think the issue Burchill misses is that this isn't a function of class. It's true. Lots of folk our age grew up in a multi-racial society... In CITIES, and certain other towns. A heck of a lot outside these places rarely saw a non-white face outside of TV. Which points again to the urban/small town cultural divide. It makes little odds what class you were. Far more where you grew up. A Uni friend of mine took his extremely posh Nigerian heritage girlfriend back to Wigan c 1991. More than once they were asked if she was Ellery Hanley's sister. Not through racism. But because that was the only black person within their cultural orbit.
In the medium to long term, it’s a function of how the different groups regard each other. Integration requires two (or more) groups to be willing to integrate.
Well indeed. But it isn't so much groups as individuals. The white Londoners who didn't want to moved to Essex. In many mill towns ethnically pure areas developed around Mosques. Meanwhile. Quite a large number from identical backgrounds got on with it and mixed freely. It is only very recently though that we have seen non-whites in mining and rural areas. So the process is only beginning to play out. Hence much misunderstanding of "Red Wall values." Those values are as varied as the folk who live there.
Lot of truth in her analysis. Didn't pick you for a Marxist, mind.
The political Right are utterly shameless when it comes to class vs race.
They go on and on about the Left being obsessed with race when it's class that should be focussed on. Yet whenever policies are proposed - by the Left naturally since such policies never come from anywhere else - to actually do something serious about eradicating class privilege they scream blue murder about 'politics of envy' and 'marxist madness' and all the rest of it.
Or how about this one? The grooming gangs. People on the Left will make the point that class and misogyny was right there in the mix on why it happened, the police not taking the socially and economically disadvantaged young female victims seriously. And the typical response on the Right? Oh no no no. It was all about 'political correctness' and not wanting to look racist or offend Pakistani Muslims. Very telling. Let's make things all about race so long as it plays to our agenda of targeting blame for our ills on foreigners and minorities.
I find the the 'not wanting to look racist or offend Pakistani Muslims' thing a strange one, because afaics the police record on racism and offending Pakistani Musiims is a wee bit spotty.
Yes, I'm pretty skeptical that 'trying too hard not to look racist' is one of the police's main failings.
The Senior Management Team bang on about it non stop. While strip searching a ton of black female teenagers, without proper safeguarding, goes on. Etc.
Chief Constable Savage is alive, well, and has passed all his diversity courses. He now oversees a program of arresting people for ordering their coffee black. Black people, mostly. At anti-racism demos.
So you do actually believe that a major cause of racism in the police is too much diversity training? Golly. Funny old world.
No, the cause of racism is racists.
Papering over the cracks with performative bullshit won't improve the situation, much. Which is exactly what has happened to date.
There are a lot of very hostile replies from small-l liberals in response to this tweet from Starmer. It might not filter through to the wider public but it does feel like there’s been a sea change following their ads targeting Sunak and people are less willing to give him a free pass for not being a Tory.
Two pictorial replies under that Tweet - one mocking the original, and the other attacking Sir Keir more directly.
The second poster highlights the issue well. People on here say: "We don't want to remove rights from trans people!"; yet anyone agreeing with the second poster is calling exactly for rights to be removed from trans people.
Trans people have always existed. Trans people will have been using the toilets of their new gender for as long as there have been gendered toilets.
It is also patently unpoliceable, and the effects of it on women who do not exhibit 'womanly' traits - or who do not fir the bigoted views of bigots on what a woman should look like - might be severe.
The rights of biological women should be paramount. Nothing bigoted in that.
But it is interesting to me that the position of the pro-woman movement on this is more draconian than mine would be - an unusual thing for me. Personally, I'd make gender reassignment only legal with a medical diagnosis, and after surgery, but following that legal and physical change, I think it's right that those people have the legal status of women and can use women's toilets etc. The risk to women is virtually nil.
I don't think after the reassignment anyone actually has an issue with the exception of sports....putting someone however who is still a functioning male in a womens prison because he says "I am a women" on the other hand....yes people do think that is an issue
Actually, the radical feminist movement exemplified by 'Parker Posey' (that is a pen name, I can't remember what the lady's name is) who was recently assaulted in New Zealand, would ban all mtf transsexuals from women's spaces, regardless of surgeries, so it is a radicalisation of approach. She would not be in favour of any recognition of a reassigned gender at all - it's interesting to see how far this will get, and potentially quite concerning for transsexual people. Though it's unquestionably a reaction to extremism the other way.
Lot of truth in her analysis. Didn't pick you for a Marxist, mind.
The political Right are utterly shameless when it comes to class vs race.
They go on and on about the Left being obsessed with race when it's class that should be focussed on. Yet whenever policies are proposed - by the Left naturally since such policies never come from anywhere else - to actually do something serious about eradicating class privilege they scream blue murder about 'politics of envy' and 'marxist madness' and all the rest of it.
Or how about this one? The grooming gangs. People on the Left will make the point that class and misogyny was right there in the mix on why it happened, the police not taking the socially and economically disadvantaged young female victims seriously. And the typical response on the Right? Oh no no no. It was all about 'political correctness' and not wanting to look racist or offend Pakistani Muslims. Very telling. Let's make things all about race so long as it plays to our agenda of targeting blame for our ills on foreigners and minorities.
I find the the 'not wanting to look racist or offend Pakistani Muslims' thing a strange one, because afaics the police record on racism and offending Pakistani Musiims is a wee bit spotty.
Yes, I'm pretty skeptical that 'trying too hard not to look racist' is one of the police's main failings.
Yet, that was indeed, among the findings of the Jay, and Casey reports. It’s about wanting a quiet life, as one coasts towards one’s pension.
And it wasn’t just down to the police. It was down to social workers, and local councillors.
The 'too PC' angle probably does have more validity in non-police orgs such as social services and councils.
But on the general point. One of the MAIN failings of many of our institutions is they are so obsessed with not looking racist and sexist and homophobic that they forget about doing their job properly and not being racist and sexist and homophobic? I don't think so. That rings false to me. It's unnecessarily meta for one thing. And it's too convenient a fit with the preconceived sentiments of those who claim it to be the case.
Is it the whole of the problem? No. But I think the dismissal of it is, itself, a bit too convenient.
It's hard to be definitive about, but we do have official reports citing that sort of concern as having had a real impact, and anecdotally we've all seen the phenomenom of the online 'anti-racist' who then comes out with something racist as shit, utterly convinced they cannot have been so.
It is not much of a leap to believe that a wafer thin facade of 'correctness' can cover for failings - because that is human nature. A detailed emergency plan or policy that means people claim they are prepared for something, which is then ignored or never implemented in practice. A rule against bullying which has no teeth because the culture of the organisation does not recognise common bullying behaviour as bullying.
And yes, quite possibly, people thinking they do not need to adjust their behaviour or properly consider some issues such as relating to race, because they've attended (and barely paid attention) to some utterly asisine and simplistic course or online module.
I'm not dismissing it as a total non-problem. I'm just saying there's no way imo that cutting diversity training or reducing their sensitivity to racial minorities are amongst the police's main challenges going forward.
The problem is that the senior managers *only* care about the training courses being attended, and the boxes being ticked. They don’t care at all, about what actually happens on the front line.
The exact same thing that happens in finance. As long as there aren't too many bad headlines, we're all good, right?
Ghastly woman, the Royal Family condone the killing of elephants.
Queen Camilla has already avoided controversy by choosing not to use a crown embellished with the Koh-i-noor diamond at the coronation. However, she may find herself facing criticism from wildlife activists instead when she is presented with a sceptre made of ivory at the ceremony at Westminster Abbey next month.
Palace sources have confirmed that Camilla will brandish the ivory rod with dove, which was made for Mary of Modena when she was crowned alongside her husband, James II, in 1685. There had been speculation that the rod — one of two sceptres used by the Queen at the coronation — would not feature because of sensitivities about the use of ivory.
The Prince of Wales has been a vocal critic of the ivory trade and other illegal wildlife products. William reportedly once said that he would like all the ivory owned by Buckingham Palace to be destroyed.
Lot of truth in her analysis. Didn't pick you for a Marxist, mind.
Even ignoring the “wonderful working class” stuff, in the real world there is vastly more social integration at all levels than the Guardian type analyses would have you believe.
At my local schools, for example, you nearly never see the tidy, American style grouping of parents by race/culture. I can’t think of any parents who are both from the same country/ethnicity, pretty much.
The flip side of this is, for instance, the savage abuse that some black women get from some other black women, for going out with a non-black man.
An ex, years back, had to endure some nasty shit of this kind.
A personal anecdote to underline this. My son when 15 started dating a lovely girl called Samira from his school and she would be over saturday and sunday to visit. After a year though I had to have one of the more painful conversations I have ever had to do with them. They were getting serious and I felt it had to be done so I told them both if they were to continue she had to talk to her parents about them dating. She did and her parents went ballistic. A couple of months later she left school for several months having been sent back home to india before returning married
That's very sad.
I had a huge crush on a Libyan Muslim girl once, and she her me, but it was very clear that was a barrier that couldn't be breached.
Had to pay EUR48 for my three kids to visit Knossos and the Archaeological Museum in Heraklion. EU citizens under 26 go free. Another fantastic Brexit dividend.
"We give the EU £350 million each week so that middle class students can visit Greek museums for free. Let's give it to the NHS instead."
I always find the idea that only middle class people want to visit museums slightly bizarre. Growing up in a working class family, I used to love our trips to the British Museum, the Imperial War Museum and all the museums on Exhibition Road. I doubt we would have been able to go if we'd had to pay.
Greek museums. Slightly more expensive to get to than those in London.
Ghastly woman, the Royal Family condone the killing of elephants.
Queen Camilla has already avoided controversy by choosing not to use a crown embellished with the Koh-i-noor diamond at the coronation. However, she may find herself facing criticism from wildlife activists instead when she is presented with a sceptre made of ivory at the ceremony at Westminster Abbey next month.
Palace sources have confirmed that Camilla will brandish the ivory rod with dove, which was made for Mary of Modena when she was crowned alongside her husband, James II, in 1685. There had been speculation that the rod — one of two sceptres used by the Queen at the coronation — would not feature because of sensitivities about the use of ivory.
Lot of truth in her analysis. Didn't pick you for a Marxist, mind.
Even ignoring the “wonderful working class” stuff, in the real world there is vastly more social integration at all levels than the Guardian type analyses would have you believe.
At my local schools, for example, you nearly never see the tidy, American style grouping of parents by race/culture. I can’t think of any parents who are both from the same country/ethnicity, pretty much.
The flip side of this is, for instance, the savage abuse that some black women get from some other black women, for going out with a non-black man.
An ex, years back, had to endure some nasty shit of this kind.
A personal anecdote to underline this. My son when 15 started dating a lovely girl called Samira from his school and she would be over saturday and sunday to visit. After a year though I had to have one of the more painful conversations I have ever had to do with them. They were getting serious and I felt it had to be done so I told them both if they were to continue she had to talk to her parents about them dating. She did and her parents went ballistic. A couple of months later she left school for several months having been sent back home to india before returning married
That's very sad.
I had a huge crush on a Libyan Muslim girl once, and she her me, but it was very clear that was a barrier that couldn't be breached.
Had to pay EUR48 for my three kids to visit Knossos and the Archaeological Museum in Heraklion. EU citizens under 26 go free. Another fantastic Brexit dividend.
They tell you this, but it isn’t true. The Cretan minor tour is a myth.
Lot of truth in her analysis. Didn't pick you for a Marxist, mind.
The political Right are utterly shameless when it comes to class vs race.
They go on and on about the Left being obsessed with race when it's class that should be focussed on. Yet whenever policies are proposed - by the Left naturally since such policies never come from anywhere else - to actually do something serious about eradicating class privilege they scream blue murder about 'politics of envy' and 'marxist madness' and all the rest of it.
Or how about this one? The grooming gangs. People on the Left will make the point that class and misogyny was right there in the mix on why it happened, the police not taking the socially and economically disadvantaged young female victims seriously. And the typical response on the Right? Oh no no no. It was all about 'political correctness' and not wanting to look racist or offend Pakistani Muslims. Very telling. Let's make things all about race so long as it plays to our agenda of targeting blame for our ills on foreigners and minorities.
I find the the 'not wanting to look racist or offend Pakistani Muslims' thing a strange one, because afaics the police record on racism and offending Pakistani Musiims is a wee bit spotty.
Yes, I'm pretty skeptical that 'trying too hard not to look racist' is one of the police's main failings.
Yet, that was indeed, among the findings of the Jay, and Casey reports. It’s about wanting a quiet life, as one coasts towards one’s pension.
And it wasn’t just down to the police. It was down to social workers, and local councillors.
The 'too PC' angle probably does have more validity in non-police orgs such as social services and councils.
But on the general point. One of the MAIN failings of many of our institutions is they are so obsessed with not looking racist and sexist and homophobic that they forget about doing their job properly and not being racist and sexist and homophobic? I don't think so. That rings false to me. It's unnecessarily meta for one thing. And it's too convenient a fit with the preconceived sentiments of those who claim it to be the case.
Is it the whole of the problem? No. But I think the dismissal of it is, itself, a bit too convenient.
It's hard to be definitive about, but we do have official reports citing that sort of concern as having had a real impact, and anecdotally we've all seen the phenomenom of the online 'anti-racist' who then comes out with something racist as shit, utterly convinced they cannot have been so.
It is not much of a leap to believe that a wafer thin facade of 'correctness' can cover for failings - because that is human nature. A detailed emergency plan or policy that means people claim they are prepared for something, which is then ignored or never implemented in practice. A rule against bullying which has no teeth because the culture of the organisation does not recognise common bullying behaviour as bullying.
And yes, quite possibly, people thinking they do not need to adjust their behaviour or properly consider some issues such as relating to race, because they've attended (and barely paid attention) to some utterly asisine and simplistic course or online module.
I'm not dismissing it as a total non-problem. I'm just saying there's no way imo that cutting diversity training or reducing their sensitivity to racial minorities are amongst the police's main challenges going forward.
The problem is that the senior managers *only* care about the training courses being attended, and the boxes being ticked. They don’t care at all, about what actually happens on the front line.
The exact same thing that happens in finance. As long as there aren't too many bad headlines, we're all good, right?
Ghastly woman, the Royal Family condone the killing of elephants.
Queen Camilla has already avoided controversy by choosing not to use a crown embellished with the Koh-i-noor diamond at the coronation. However, she may find herself facing criticism from wildlife activists instead when she is presented with a sceptre made of ivory at the ceremony at Westminster Abbey next month.
Palace sources have confirmed that Camilla will brandish the ivory rod with dove, which was made for Mary of Modena when she was crowned alongside her husband, James II, in 1685. There had been speculation that the rod — one of two sceptres used by the Queen at the coronation — would not feature because of sensitivities about the use of ivory.
Have you ever thought of applying for a job as a Labour Party advertisement copywriter?
What makes you think I'm not already working for them?
I'd just use the comments attributed to the current The Prince of Wales
The Prince of Wales has been a vocal critic of the ivory trade and other illegal wildlife products. William reportedly once said that he would like all the ivory owned by Buckingham Palace to be destroyed.
There are a lot of very hostile replies from small-l liberals in response to this tweet from Starmer. It might not filter through to the wider public but it does feel like there’s been a sea change following their ads targeting Sunak and people are less willing to give him a free pass for not being a Tory.
Two pictorial replies under that Tweet - one mocking the original, and the other attacking Sir Keir more directly.
The second poster highlights the issue well. People on here say: "We don't want to remove rights from trans people!"; yet anyone agreeing with the second poster is calling exactly for rights to be removed from trans people.
Trans people have always existed. Trans people will have been using the toilets of their new gender for as long as there have been gendered toilets.
It is also patently unpoliceable, and the effects of it on women who do not exhibit 'womanly' traits - or who do not fir the bigoted views of bigots on what a woman should look like - might be severe.
The rights of biological women should be paramount. Nothing bigoted in that.
But it is interesting to me that the position of the pro-woman movement on this is more draconian than mine would be - an unusual thing for me. Personally, I'd make gender reassignment only legal with a medical diagnosis, and after surgery, but following that legal and physical change, I think it's right that those people have the legal status of women and can use women's toilets etc. The risk to women is virtually nil.
I don't think after the reassignment anyone actually has an issue with the exception of sports....putting someone however who is still a functioning male in a womens prison because he says "I am a women" on the other hand....yes people do think that is an issue
Actually, the radical feminist movement exemplified by 'Parker Posey' (that is a pen name, I can't remember what the lady's name is) who was recently assaulted in New Zealand, would ban all mtf transsexuals from women's spaces, regardless of surgeries, so it is a radicalisation of approach. She would not be in favour of any recognition of a reassigned gender at all - it's interesting to see how far this will get, and potentially quite concerning for transsexual people. Though it's unquestionably a reaction to extremism the other way.
There are idiots on both sides of the debate, you seem shocked to find that out. Most people on both sides however are not out to penalize anyone, however the strident shrieks of nutters on both sides prevents us from having a sensible national debate about it.
On the pro side you have the everything must be allowed On the anti side you have the nothing must be allowed
I personally suspect most people would agree with the following
People can use any toilet regardless...indeed I dont think its illegal currently
Sex specific places like communal changing rooms, refuges, prisons, and group counselling are available only to those of that sex or those that have actually transitioned to that sex.
For those not transitioned they can have their own versions of those sex specific places. ie a trans wing in a prison where they are totally segregated from the general community.
Sports to decide on a sport by sport basis. Some their are no advantages to gain by being born male.
It is also I have noted curious that the talk is always of men going into these sex specific places. So a question for all, you have a daughter that has decided she is actually a he but has not transitioned so still physically a female. She commits a crime for which she is imprisoned.....would anyone here want to insist she should be placed in a male prison? I certainly wouldn't.
Lot of truth in her analysis. Didn't pick you for a Marxist, mind.
The political Right are utterly shameless when it comes to class vs race.
They go on and on about the Left being obsessed with race when it's class that should be focussed on. Yet whenever policies are proposed - by the Left naturally since such policies never come from anywhere else - to actually do something serious about eradicating class privilege they scream blue murder about 'politics of envy' and 'marxist madness' and all the rest of it.
Or how about this one? The grooming gangs. People on the Left will make the point that class and misogyny was right there in the mix on why it happened, the police not taking the socially and economically disadvantaged young female victims seriously. And the typical response on the Right? Oh no no no. It was all about 'political correctness' and not wanting to look racist or offend Pakistani Muslims. Very telling. Let's make things all about race so long as it plays to our agenda of targeting blame for our ills on foreigners and minorities.
I find the the 'not wanting to look racist or offend Pakistani Muslims' thing a strange one, because afaics the police record on racism and offending Pakistani Musiims is a wee bit spotty.
Yes, I'm pretty skeptical that 'trying too hard not to look racist' is one of the police's main failings.
Yet, that was indeed, among the findings of the Jay, and Casey reports. It’s about wanting a quiet life, as one coasts towards one’s pension.
And it wasn’t just down to the police. It was down to social workers, and local councillors.
The 'too PC' angle probably does have more validity in non-police orgs such as social services and councils.
But on the general point. One of the MAIN failings of many of our institutions is they are so obsessed with not looking racist and sexist and homophobic that they forget about doing their job properly and not being racist and sexist and homophobic? I don't think so. That rings false to me. It's unnecessarily meta for one thing. And it's too convenient a fit with the preconceived sentiments of those who claim it to be the case.
I know it’s not quite the same, but in state schools the obsession of SLT (assistant heads and up) is making sure that we look good for OFSTEAD; in other words we need to be seen to be doing the “right” things irrespective of the effect those things actually have on the education of our pupils.
I have a theory that if the DfE put “abolishing OFSTEAD” on the negotiating table they could probably get away with an actual pay cut…
If they put ‘abolishing the DfE itself, with us all resigning and forfeiting our unearned pensions while agreeing not to work in any public sector job again including cleaning the public toilets in Bury’ they might even get people working for free…
There are a lot of very hostile replies from small-l liberals in response to this tweet from Starmer. It might not filter through to the wider public but it does feel like there’s been a sea change following their ads targeting Sunak and people are less willing to give him a free pass for not being a Tory.
Two pictorial replies under that Tweet - one mocking the original, and the other attacking Sir Keir more directly.
The second poster highlights the issue well. People on here say: "We don't want to remove rights from trans people!"; yet anyone agreeing with the second poster is calling exactly for rights to be removed from trans people.
Trans people have always existed. Trans people will have been using the toilets of their new gender for as long as there have been gendered toilets.
It is also patently unpoliceable, and the effects of it on women who do not exhibit 'womanly' traits - or who do not fir the bigoted views of bigots on what a woman should look like - might be severe.
The rights of biological women should be paramount. Nothing bigoted in that.
But it is interesting to me that the position of the pro-woman movement on this is more draconian than mine would be - an unusual thing for me. Personally, I'd make gender reassignment only legal with a medical diagnosis, and after surgery, but following that legal and physical change, I think it's right that those people have the legal status of women and can use women's toilets etc. The risk to women is virtually nil.
I don't think after the reassignment anyone actually has an issue with the exception of sports....putting someone however who is still a functioning male in a womens prison because he says "I am a women" on the other hand....yes people do think that is an issue
Actually, the radical feminist movement exemplified by 'Parker Posey' (that is a pen name, I can't remember what the lady's name is) who was recently assaulted in New Zealand, would ban all mtf transsexuals from women's spaces, regardless of surgeries, so it is a radicalisation of approach. She would not be in favour of any recognition of a reassigned gender at all - it's interesting to see how far this will get, and potentially quite concerning for transsexual people. Though it's unquestionably a reaction to extremism the other way.
There are idiots on both sides of the debate, you seem shocked to find that out. Most people on both sides however are not out to penalize anyone, however the strident shrieks of nutters on both sides prevents us from having a sensible national debate about it.
On the pro side you have the everything must be allowed On the anti side you have the nothing must be allowed
I personally suspect most people would agree with the following
People can use any toilet regardless...indeed I dont think its illegal currently
Sex specific places like communal changing rooms, refuges, prisons, and group counselling are available only to those of that sex or those that have actually transitioned to that sex.
For those not transitioned they can have their own versions of those sex specific places. ie a trans wing in a prison where they are totally segregated from the general community.
Sports to decide on a sport by sport basis. Some their are no advantages to gain by being born male.
It is also I have noted curious that the talk is always of men going into these sex specific places. So a question for all, you have a daughter that has decided she is actually a he but has not transitioned so still physically a female. She commits a crime for which she is imprisoned.....would anyone here want to insist she should be placed in a male prison? I certainly wouldn't.
No, I don't seem 'shocked' to 'find' anything out. We're having a conversation, I would appreciate it if you didn't assume automatically that we're having an irate argument.
Please find me a Labour voter who will say , I’m so outraged I’ll forget the last 13 years of the Tories destruction of public services and will now vote for them because I’m so upset over some digital ad by Labour !
My concern is the following: if this is the sort of stuff they do when wanting power, it's the sort of thing they'll do when they have power. And I'd argue it matters much more then.
As we saw with McBride (and Campbell over Iraq), when combined with power, Labour nastiness can be potent.
Yes, I know, Tories nadadada. But if you don't like what the Tories do, it's a good idea not to be like them.
Ghastly woman, the Royal Family condone the killing of elephants.
Queen Camilla has already avoided controversy by choosing not to use a crown embellished with the Koh-i-noor diamond at the coronation. However, she may find herself facing criticism from wildlife activists instead when she is presented with a sceptre made of ivory at the ceremony at Westminster Abbey next month.
Palace sources have confirmed that Camilla will brandish the ivory rod with dove, which was made for Mary of Modena when she was crowned alongside her husband, James II, in 1685. There had been speculation that the rod — one of two sceptres used by the Queen at the coronation — would not feature because of sensitivities about the use of ivory.
Have you ever thought of applying for a job as a Labour Party advertisement copywriter?
What makes you think I'm not already working for them?
I'd just use the comments attributed to the current The Prince of Wales
The Prince of Wales has been a vocal critic of the ivory trade and other illegal wildlife products. William reportedly once said that he would like all the ivory owned by Buckingham Palace to be destroyed.
Lack of awesome puns and colourful similies in recent Labour campaigning materials?
There are a lot of very hostile replies from small-l liberals in response to this tweet from Starmer. It might not filter through to the wider public but it does feel like there’s been a sea change following their ads targeting Sunak and people are less willing to give him a free pass for not being a Tory.
Two pictorial replies under that Tweet - one mocking the original, and the other attacking Sir Keir more directly.
The second poster highlights the issue well. People on here say: "We don't want to remove rights from trans people!"; yet anyone agreeing with the second poster is calling exactly for rights to be removed from trans people.
Trans people have always existed. Trans people will have been using the toilets of their new gender for as long as there have been gendered toilets.
It is also patently unpoliceable, and the effects of it on women who do not exhibit 'womanly' traits - or who do not fir the bigoted views of bigots on what a woman should look like - might be severe.
The rights of biological women should be paramount. Nothing bigoted in that.
But it is interesting to me that the position of the pro-woman movement on this is more draconian than mine would be - an unusual thing for me. Personally, I'd make gender reassignment only legal with a medical diagnosis, and after surgery, but following that legal and physical change, I think it's right that those people have the legal status of women and can use women's toilets etc. The risk to women is virtually nil.
I don't think after the reassignment anyone actually has an issue with the exception of sports....putting someone however who is still a functioning male in a womens prison because he says "I am a women" on the other hand....yes people do think that is an issue
Actually, the radical feminist movement exemplified by 'Parker Posey' (that is a pen name, I can't remember what the lady's name is) who was recently assaulted in New Zealand, would ban all mtf transsexuals from women's spaces, regardless of surgeries, so it is a radicalisation of approach. She would not be in favour of any recognition of a reassigned gender at all - it's interesting to see how far this will get, and potentially quite concerning for transsexual people. Though it's unquestionably a reaction to extremism the other way.
There are idiots on both sides of the debate, you seem shocked to find that out. Most people on both sides however are not out to penalize anyone, however the strident shrieks of nutters on both sides prevents us from having a sensible national debate about it.
On the pro side you have the everything must be allowed On the anti side you have the nothing must be allowed
I personally suspect most people would agree with the following
People can use any toilet regardless...indeed I dont think its illegal currently
Sex specific places like communal changing rooms, refuges, prisons, and group counselling are available only to those of that sex or those that have actually transitioned to that sex.
For those not transitioned they can have their own versions of those sex specific places. ie a trans wing in a prison where they are totally segregated from the general community.
Sports to decide on a sport by sport basis. Some their are no advantages to gain by being born male.
It is also I have noted curious that the talk is always of men going into these sex specific places. So a question for all, you have a daughter that has decided she is actually a he but has not transitioned so still physically a female. She commits a crime for which she is imprisoned.....would anyone here want to insist she should be placed in a male prison? I certainly wouldn't.
No, I don't seem 'shocked' to 'find' anything out. We're having a conversation, I would appreciate it if you didn't assume automatically that we're having an irate argument.
Having a conversation is good, however highlighting the extremists on either side and their position does not particularly help. They are people we should instead as a civillised society point at them and laugh. They are nothing more than flat earthers
Lot of truth in her analysis. Didn't pick you for a Marxist, mind.
The political Right are utterly shameless when it comes to class vs race.
They go on and on about the Left being obsessed with race when it's class that should be focussed on. Yet whenever policies are proposed - by the Left naturally since such policies never come from anywhere else - to actually do something serious about eradicating class privilege they scream blue murder about 'politics of envy' and 'marxist madness' and all the rest of it.
Or how about this one? The grooming gangs. People on the Left will make the point that class and misogyny was right there in the mix on why it happened, the police not taking the socially and economically disadvantaged young female victims seriously. And the typical response on the Right? Oh no no no. It was all about 'political correctness' and not wanting to look racist or offend Pakistani Muslims. Very telling. Let's make things all about race so long as it plays to our agenda of targeting blame for our ills on foreigners and minorities.
I find the the 'not wanting to look racist or offend Pakistani Muslims' thing a strange one, because afaics the police record on racism and offending Pakistani Musiims is a wee bit spotty.
Yes, I'm pretty skeptical that 'trying too hard not to look racist' is one of the police's main failings.
Yet, that was indeed, among the findings of the Jay, and Casey reports. It’s about wanting a quiet life, as one coasts towards one’s pension.
And it wasn’t just down to the police. It was down to social workers, and local councillors.
The 'too PC' angle probably does have more validity in non-police orgs such as social services and councils.
But on the general point. One of the MAIN failings of many of our institutions is they are so obsessed with not looking racist and sexist and homophobic that they forget about doing their job properly and not being racist and sexist and homophobic? I don't think so. That rings false to me. It's unnecessarily meta for one thing. And it's too convenient a fit with the preconceived sentiments of those who claim it to be the case.
That's exactly what it is.
Like so many of your posts they start well and then you dismiss it and draw totally the wrong conclusion. Because it doesn't accord with what you want to be true.
Well we're accusing each other of the same thing, aren't we - preferring the explanation (for a problem) which accords with our brain chemistry and worldview. Apart from the (relatively few) areas where there is an overwhelming objective set of facts on one side or another this is where all political debates between opposing views logically end up.
Well said. A saying involving pots and kettles came to mind when I read CR's post, but then I realised that (a) I'm probably pretty much the same colour as both the pot and the kettle myself and (b) the word 'black' in that old saying might offend CR's sensitivities.
Ghastly woman, the Royal Family condone the killing of elephants.
Queen Camilla has already avoided controversy by choosing not to use a crown embellished with the Koh-i-noor diamond at the coronation. However, she may find herself facing criticism from wildlife activists instead when she is presented with a sceptre made of ivory at the ceremony at Westminster Abbey next month.
Palace sources have confirmed that Camilla will brandish the ivory rod with dove, which was made for Mary of Modena when she was crowned alongside her husband, James II, in 1685. There had been speculation that the rod — one of two sceptres used by the Queen at the coronation — would not feature because of sensitivities about the use of ivory.
Have you ever thought of applying for a job as a Labour Party advertisement copywriter?
What makes you think I'm not already working for them?
I'd just use the comments attributed to the current The Prince of Wales
The Prince of Wales has been a vocal critic of the ivory trade and other illegal wildlife products. William reportedly once said that he would like all the ivory owned by Buckingham Palace to be destroyed.
Lack of awesome puns and colourful similies in recent Labour campaigning materials?
Had to pay EUR48 for my three kids to visit Knossos and the Archaeological Museum in Heraklion. EU citizens under 26 go free. Another fantastic Brexit dividend.
"We give the EU £350 million each week so that middle class students can visit Greek museums for free. Let's give it to the NHS instead."
I always find the idea that only middle class people want to visit museums slightly bizarre. Growing up in a working class family, I used to love our trips to the British Museum, the Imperial War Museum and all the museums on Exhibition Road. I doubt we would have been able to go if we'd had to pay.
Greek museums. Slightly more expensive to get to than those in London.
Depends on where in the UK you live! If you are outside London and factoring in overnight accommodation, I would not be surprised if flying to Crete and staying there is not a fair bit cheaper than getting the train to London and staying there.
Ghastly woman, the Royal Family condone the killing of elephants.
Queen Camilla has already avoided controversy by choosing not to use a crown embellished with the Koh-i-noor diamond at the coronation. However, she may find herself facing criticism from wildlife activists instead when she is presented with a sceptre made of ivory at the ceremony at Westminster Abbey next month.
Palace sources have confirmed that Camilla will brandish the ivory rod with dove, which was made for Mary of Modena when she was crowned alongside her husband, James II, in 1685. There had been speculation that the rod — one of two sceptres used by the Queen at the coronation — would not feature because of sensitivities about the use of ivory.
The Prince of Wales has been a vocal critic of the ivory trade and other illegal wildlife products. William reportedly once said that he would like all the ivory owned by Buckingham Palace to be destroyed.
That 17th century elephant has been dead for quite a time now. The past is a foreign country, they do thing differently there.
If each pressure group and awareness raising enterprise had their way the coronation would consist of sitting on a recycled and recyclable cardboard box wearing nothing but a pair of socks made of bamboo with the A o C reading highlights from the Guardian.
Ghastly woman, the Royal Family condone the killing of elephants.
Queen Camilla has already avoided controversy by choosing not to use a crown embellished with the Koh-i-noor diamond at the coronation. However, she may find herself facing criticism from wildlife activists instead when she is presented with a sceptre made of ivory at the ceremony at Westminster Abbey next month.
Palace sources have confirmed that Camilla will brandish the ivory rod with dove, which was made for Mary of Modena when she was crowned alongside her husband, James II, in 1685. There had been speculation that the rod — one of two sceptres used by the Queen at the coronation — would not feature because of sensitivities about the use of ivory.
The Prince of Wales has been a vocal critic of the ivory trade and other illegal wildlife products. William reportedly once said that he would like all the ivory owned by Buckingham Palace to be destroyed.
That 17th century elephant has been dead for quite a time now. The past is a foreign country, they do thing differently there.
If each pressure group and awareness raising enterprise had their way the coronation would consist of sitting on a recycled and recyclable cardboard box wearing nothing but a pair of socks made of bamboo with the A o C reading highlights from the Guardian.
Elephants are being killed this very day for their ivory.
I would bring back the death penalty for trophy hunters and ivory users.
Ghastly woman, the Royal Family condone the killing of elephants.
Queen Camilla has already avoided controversy by choosing not to use a crown embellished with the Koh-i-noor diamond at the coronation. However, she may find herself facing criticism from wildlife activists instead when she is presented with a sceptre made of ivory at the ceremony at Westminster Abbey next month.
Palace sources have confirmed that Camilla will brandish the ivory rod with dove, which was made for Mary of Modena when she was crowned alongside her husband, James II, in 1685. There had been speculation that the rod — one of two sceptres used by the Queen at the coronation — would not feature because of sensitivities about the use of ivory.
The Prince of Wales has been a vocal critic of the ivory trade and other illegal wildlife products. William reportedly once said that he would like all the ivory owned by Buckingham Palace to be destroyed.
That 17th century elephant has been dead for quite a time now. The past is a foreign country, they do thing differently there.
If each pressure group and awareness raising enterprise had their way the coronation would consist of sitting on a recycled and recyclable cardboard box wearing nothing but a pair of socks made of bamboo with the A o C reading highlights from the Guardian.
Ghastly woman, the Royal Family condone the killing of elephants.
Queen Camilla has already avoided controversy by choosing not to use a crown embellished with the Koh-i-noor diamond at the coronation. However, she may find herself facing criticism from wildlife activists instead when she is presented with a sceptre made of ivory at the ceremony at Westminster Abbey next month.
Palace sources have confirmed that Camilla will brandish the ivory rod with dove, which was made for Mary of Modena when she was crowned alongside her husband, James II, in 1685. There had been speculation that the rod — one of two sceptres used by the Queen at the coronation — would not feature because of sensitivities about the use of ivory.
The Prince of Wales has been a vocal critic of the ivory trade and other illegal wildlife products. William reportedly once said that he would like all the ivory owned by Buckingham Palace to be destroyed.
That 17th century elephant has been dead for quite a time now. The past is a foreign country, they do thing differently there.
If each pressure group and awareness raising enterprise had their way the coronation would consist of sitting on a recycled and recyclable cardboard box wearing nothing but a pair of socks made of bamboo with the A o C reading highlights from the Guardian.
That might actually be a coronation I would watch
I want a coronation with an actual elephant in the room.
Ghastly woman, the Royal Family condone the killing of elephants.
Queen Camilla has already avoided controversy by choosing not to use a crown embellished with the Koh-i-noor diamond at the coronation. However, she may find herself facing criticism from wildlife activists instead when she is presented with a sceptre made of ivory at the ceremony at Westminster Abbey next month.
Palace sources have confirmed that Camilla will brandish the ivory rod with dove, which was made for Mary of Modena when she was crowned alongside her husband, James II, in 1685. There had been speculation that the rod — one of two sceptres used by the Queen at the coronation — would not feature because of sensitivities about the use of ivory.
The Prince of Wales has been a vocal critic of the ivory trade and other illegal wildlife products. William reportedly once said that he would like all the ivory owned by Buckingham Palace to be destroyed.
That 17th century elephant has been dead for quite a time now. The past is a foreign country, they do thing differently there.
If each pressure group and awareness raising enterprise had their way the coronation would consist of sitting on a recycled and recyclable cardboard box wearing nothing but a pair of socks made of bamboo with the A o C reading highlights from the Guardian.
Whilst chomping down on a still-bleeding leg of venison, no doubt.
There are a lot of very hostile replies from small-l liberals in response to this tweet from Starmer. It might not filter through to the wider public but it does feel like there’s been a sea change following their ads targeting Sunak and people are less willing to give him a free pass for not being a Tory.
Two pictorial replies under that Tweet - one mocking the original, and the other attacking Sir Keir more directly.
The second poster highlights the issue well. People on here say: "We don't want to remove rights from trans people!"; yet anyone agreeing with the second poster is calling exactly for rights to be removed from trans people.
Trans people have always existed. Trans people will have been using the toilets of their new gender for as long as there have been gendered toilets.
It is also patently unpoliceable, and the effects of it on women who do not exhibit 'womanly' traits - or who do not fir the bigoted views of bigots on what a woman should look like - might be severe.
The rights of biological women should be paramount. Nothing bigoted in that.
Really? I'd argue it's a classic case of bigotry.
There's a great deal to be said about your comment, but let's take just one point: who polices it? If a woman thinks that another person in the toilet is male, what does she do? Does she call the police? Does she confront the person directly? And what happens when (as happens) they get it wrong? Should women who do not fit the stereotypical views of womanhood - say, butch women - be treated to abuse when they go to the toilet? Or are they not 'women' in your eyes?
And I'd argue that the rights of *no* group should be 'paramount'. Rights are often a balance between competing groups, as rights for one group often impinge (in minor or major ways) on other groups. And we certainly should not have the case where there is a tyranny of the majority: where the 'rights' of a larger group are seen as more critical than those of a minor group, simply because there are more of them. You may note that's been tried in the past; rarely to good consequence.
Then I'm bigoted and proud. What kind of balance is there when the 0.001% are trumping the 99.9%? I'm a proud gay man and I support tolerance for all . I don't support tyranny of the minority. Name calling people for using their common sense is water off this s duck's back. back.
You appear to support tolerance for all - as long as they're not trans...
Please tell me the percentage when the rights of a minority can 'trump' the majority? You say not 0.001%. How about 0.01%? 0.1%? 1%? 10%? 25%
Besides, it's not about 'trumping' rights. It's about compromises that allow people to muddle along together.
(In addition, trans people are much larger than 0.001%...)
I was referring to Starmer of course. As to compromise remind us when Stonewall is interested in compromise. I do not think anyone who still has a fully functioning penis should have any automatic right to enter women's only spaces.
Who checks whether the penis is fully functioning or not...
This is a complex issue (I might suggest, as ever, you consider what a trans person has to do to become trans, and see how they might just be inconsistent with what you say). But your view will lead to pain and hurt for a small minority - as it already is.
And that's why there needs to be a compromise of their rights, with the rights of women, and of other groups, that is workable. And that's where the devil is.
Ghastly woman, the Royal Family condone the killing of elephants.
Queen Camilla has already avoided controversy by choosing not to use a crown embellished with the Koh-i-noor diamond at the coronation. However, she may find herself facing criticism from wildlife activists instead when she is presented with a sceptre made of ivory at the ceremony at Westminster Abbey next month.
Palace sources have confirmed that Camilla will brandish the ivory rod with dove, which was made for Mary of Modena when she was crowned alongside her husband, James II, in 1685. There had been speculation that the rod — one of two sceptres used by the Queen at the coronation — would not feature because of sensitivities about the use of ivory.
The Prince of Wales has been a vocal critic of the ivory trade and other illegal wildlife products. William reportedly once said that he would like all the ivory owned by Buckingham Palace to be destroyed.
Please find me a Labour voter who will say , I’m so outraged I’ll forget the last 13 years of the Tories destruction of public services and will now vote for them because I’m so upset over some digital ad by Labour !
My concern is the following: if this is the sort of stuff they do when wanting power, it's the sort of thing they'll do when they have power. And I'd argue it matters much more then.
As we saw with McBride (and Campbell over Iraq), when combined with power, Labour nastiness can be potent.
Yes, I know, Tories nadadada. But if you don't like what the Tories do, it's a good idea not to be like them.
Alternatively, don't bring piss to a shit fight.
Well, if you're a monkey, that's fine.
Most of us are a little more evolved than that...
Depends what zoological philosophy one has. On one approach, you are (presumably!) a fish which happens also to be a tetrapod which ..... [several iterations] ... a monkey which happens to be an ape which happens to be a chimpanzee which happens to be a particularly infantile morph therof ...
Lot of truth in her analysis. Didn't pick you for a Marxist, mind.
Even ignoring the “wonderful working class” stuff, in the real world there is vastly more social integration at all levels than the Guardian type analyses would have you believe.
At my local schools, for example, you nearly never see the tidy, American style grouping of parents by race/culture. I can’t think of any parents who are both from the same country/ethnicity, pretty much.
The flip side of this is, for instance, the savage abuse that some black women get from some other black women, for going out with a non-black man.
An ex, years back, had to endure some nasty shit of this kind.
I think the issue Burchill misses is that this isn't a function of class. It's true. Lots of folk our age grew up in a multi-racial society... In CITIES, and certain other towns. A heck of a lot outside these places rarely saw a non-white face outside of TV. Which points again to the urban/small town cultural divide. It makes little odds what class you were. Far more where you grew up. A Uni friend of mine took his extremely posh Nigerian heritage girlfriend back to Wigan c 1991. More than once they were asked if she was Ellery Hanley's sister. Not through racism. But because that was the only black person within their cultural orbit.
In the medium to long term, it’s a function of how the different groups regard each other. Integration requires two (or more) groups to be willing to integrate.
Well indeed. But it isn't so much groups as individuals. The white Londoners who didn't want to moved to Essex. In many mill towns ethnically pure areas developed around Mosques. Meanwhile. Quite a large number from identical backgrounds got on with it and mixed freely. It is only very recently though that we have seen non-whites in mining and rural areas. So the process is only beginning to play out. Hence much misunderstanding of "Red Wall values." Those values are as varied as the folk who live there.
Lot of truth in her analysis. Didn't pick you for a Marxist, mind.
The political Right are utterly shameless when it comes to class vs race.
They go on and on about the Left being obsessed with race when it's class that should be focussed on. Yet whenever policies are proposed - by the Left naturally since such policies never come from anywhere else - to actually do something serious about eradicating class privilege they scream blue murder about 'politics of envy' and 'marxist madness' and all the rest of it.
Or how about this one? The grooming gangs. People on the Left will make the point that class and misogyny was right there in the mix on why it happened, the police not taking the socially and economically disadvantaged young female victims seriously. And the typical response on the Right? Oh no no no. It was all about 'political correctness' and not wanting to look racist or offend Pakistani Muslims. Very telling. Let's make things all about race so long as it plays to our agenda of targeting blame for our ills on foreigners and minorities.
I find the the 'not wanting to look racist or offend Pakistani Muslims' thing a strange one, because afaics the police record on racism and offending Pakistani Musiims is a wee bit spotty.
Yes, I'm pretty skeptical that 'trying too hard not to look racist' is one of the police's main failings.
The Senior Management Team bang on about it non stop. While strip searching a ton of black female teenagers, without proper safeguarding, goes on. Etc.
Chief Constable Savage is alive, well, and has passed all his diversity courses. He now oversees a program of arresting people for ordering their coffee black. Black people, mostly. At anti-racism demos.
So you do actually believe that a major cause of racism in the police is too much diversity training? Golly. Funny old world.
It's not a cause, but they do appear to have been complacent about what is needed by thinking a course means all is well.
Ghastly woman, the Royal Family condone the killing of elephants.
Queen Camilla has already avoided controversy by choosing not to use a crown embellished with the Koh-i-noor diamond at the coronation. However, she may find herself facing criticism from wildlife activists instead when she is presented with a sceptre made of ivory at the ceremony at Westminster Abbey next month.
Palace sources have confirmed that Camilla will brandish the ivory rod with dove, which was made for Mary of Modena when she was crowned alongside her husband, James II, in 1685. There had been speculation that the rod — one of two sceptres used by the Queen at the coronation — would not feature because of sensitivities about the use of ivory.
Have you ever thought of applying for a job as a Labour Party advertisement copywriter?
What makes you think I'm not already working for them?
I'd just use the comments attributed to the current The Prince of Wales
The Prince of Wales has been a vocal critic of the ivory trade and other illegal wildlife products. William reportedly once said that he would like all the ivory owned by Buckingham Palace to be destroyed.
I could believe that you wrote the Rishi loves paedos ad
There are a lot of very hostile replies from small-l liberals in response to this tweet from Starmer. It might not filter through to the wider public but it does feel like there’s been a sea change following their ads targeting Sunak and people are less willing to give him a free pass for not being a Tory.
Two pictorial replies under that Tweet - one mocking the original, and the other attacking Sir Keir more directly.
The second poster highlights the issue well. People on here say: "We don't want to remove rights from trans people!"; yet anyone agreeing with the second poster is calling exactly for rights to be removed from trans people.
Trans people have always existed. Trans people will have been using the toilets of their new gender for as long as there have been gendered toilets.
It is also patently unpoliceable, and the effects of it on women who do not exhibit 'womanly' traits - or who do not fir the bigoted views of bigots on what a woman should look like - might be severe.
The rights of biological women should be paramount. Nothing bigoted in that.
But it is interesting to me that the position of the pro-woman movement on this is more draconian than mine would be - an unusual thing for me. Personally, I'd make gender reassignment only legal with a medical diagnosis, and after surgery, but following that legal and physical change, I think it's right that those people have the legal status of women and can use women's toilets etc. The risk to women is virtually nil.
I don't think after the reassignment anyone actually has an issue with the exception of sports....putting someone however who is still a functioning male in a womens prison because he says "I am a women" on the other hand....yes people do think that is an issue
Actually, the radical feminist movement exemplified by 'Parker Posey' (that is a pen name, I can't remember what the lady's name is) who was recently assaulted in New Zealand, would ban all mtf transsexuals from women's spaces, regardless of surgeries, so it is a radicalisation of approach. She would not be in favour of any recognition of a reassigned gender at all - it's interesting to see how far this will get, and potentially quite concerning for transsexual people. Though it's unquestionably a reaction to extremism the other way.
There are idiots on both sides of the debate, you seem shocked to find that out. Most people on both sides however are not out to penalize anyone, however the strident shrieks of nutters on both sides prevents us from having a sensible national debate about it.
On the pro side you have the everything must be allowed On the anti side you have the nothing must be allowed
I personally suspect most people would agree with the following
People can use any toilet regardless...indeed I dont think its illegal currently
Sex specific places like communal changing rooms, refuges, prisons, and group counselling are available only to those of that sex or those that have actually transitioned to that sex.
For those not transitioned they can have their own versions of those sex specific places. ie a trans wing in a prison where they are totally segregated from the general community.
Sports to decide on a sport by sport basis. Some their are no advantages to gain by being born male.
It is also I have noted curious that the talk is always of men going into these sex specific places. So a question for all, you have a daughter that has decided she is actually a he but has not transitioned so still physically a female. She commits a crime for which she is imprisoned.....would anyone here want to insist she should be placed in a male prison? I certainly wouldn't.
No, I don't seem 'shocked' to 'find' anything out. We're having a conversation, I would appreciate it if you didn't assume automatically that we're having an irate argument.
Having a conversation is good, however highlighting the extremists on either side and their position does not particularly help. They are people we should instead as a civillised society point at them and laugh. They are nothing more than flat earthers
I don't think that's right, Pagan. Not trying to speak for LuckyGuy (goodness knows he doesn't need that) but I liked his post because I agree that the extremist positions on both sides of this debate do risk crowding out more sensible positions, and he was refuting your point that 'noone has an issue after re-assignment' with a factual point that some do.
FWIW I agree with much of what you suggest (with the caveat that as a cisgender male I am not sure I have the experience to propose solutions), although I wouldn't be surprised if the daughter themselves, once deciding they want to be a he, would want to be in a male prison. Whether that's a sensible desire or not is another question.
There are a lot of very hostile replies from small-l liberals in response to this tweet from Starmer. It might not filter through to the wider public but it does feel like there’s been a sea change following their ads targeting Sunak and people are less willing to give him a free pass for not being a Tory.
Two pictorial replies under that Tweet - one mocking the original, and the other attacking Sir Keir more directly.
The second poster highlights the issue well. People on here say: "We don't want to remove rights from trans people!"; yet anyone agreeing with the second poster is calling exactly for rights to be removed from trans people.
Trans people have always existed. Trans people will have been using the toilets of their new gender for as long as there have been gendered toilets.
It is also patently unpoliceable, and the effects of it on women who do not exhibit 'womanly' traits - or who do not fir the bigoted views of bigots on what a woman should look like - might be severe.
The rights of biological women should be paramount. Nothing bigoted in that.
But it is interesting to me that the position of the pro-woman movement on this is more draconian than mine would be - an unusual thing for me. Personally, I'd make gender reassignment only legal with a medical diagnosis, and after surgery, but following that legal and physical change, I think it's right that those people have the legal status of women and can use women's toilets etc. The risk to women is virtually nil.
I don't think after the reassignment anyone actually has an issue with the exception of sports....putting someone however who is still a functioning male in a womens prison because he says "I am a women" on the other hand....yes people do think that is an issue
Actually, the radical feminist movement exemplified by 'Parker Posey' (that is a pen name, I can't remember what the lady's name is) who was recently assaulted in New Zealand, would ban all mtf transsexuals from women's spaces, regardless of surgeries, so it is a radicalisation of approach. She would not be in favour of any recognition of a reassigned gender at all - it's interesting to see how far this will get, and potentially quite concerning for transsexual people. Though it's unquestionably a reaction to extremism the other way.
There are idiots on both sides of the debate, you seem
There are a lot of very hostile replies from small-l liberals in response to this tweet from Starmer. It might not filter through to the wider public but it does feel like there’s been a sea change following their ads targeting Sunak and people are less willing to give him a free pass for not being a Tory.
Two pictorial replies under that Tweet - one mocking the original, and the other attacking Sir Keir more directly.
The second poster highlights the issue well. People on here say: "We don't want to remove rights from trans people!"; yet anyone agreeing with the second poster is calling exactly for rights to be removed from trans people.
Trans people have always existed. Trans people will have been using the toilets of their new gender for as long as there have been gendered toilets.
It is also patently unpoliceable, and the effects of it on women who do not exhibit 'womanly' traits - or who do not fir the bigoted views of bigots on what a woman should look like - might be severe.
The rights of biological women should be paramount. Nothing bigoted in that.
Really? I'd argue it's a classic case of bigotry.
There's a great deal to be said about your comment, but let's take just one point: who polices it? If a woman thinks that another person in the toilet is male, what does she do? Does she call the police? Does she confront the person directly? And what happens when (as happens) they get it wrong? Should women who do not fit the stereotypical views of womanhood - say, butch women - be treated to abuse when they go to the toilet? Or are they not 'women' in your eyes?
And I'd argue that the rights of *no* group should be 'paramount'. Rights are often a balance between competing groups, as rights for one group often impinge (in minor or major ways) on other groups. And we certainly should not have the case where there is a tyranny of the majority: where the 'rights' of a larger group are seen as more critical than those of a minor group, simply because there are more of them. You may note that's been tried in the past; rarely to good consequence.
Then I'm bigoted and proud. What kind of balance is there when the 0.001% are trumping the 99.9%? I'm a proud gay man and I support tolerance for all . I don't support tyranny of the minority. Name calling people for using their common sense is water off this s duck's back. back.
You appear to support tolerance for all - as long as they're not trans...
Please tell me the percentage when the rights of a minority can 'trump' the majority? You say not 0.001%. How about 0.01%? 0.1%? 1%? 10%? 25%
Besides, it's not about 'trumping' rights. It's about compromises that allow people to muddle along together.
(In addition, trans people are much larger than 0.001%...)
I was referring to Starmer of course. As to compromise remind us when Stonewall is interested in compromise. I do not think anyone who still has a fully functioning penis should have any automatic right to enter women's only spaces.
Who checks whether the penis is fully functioning or not...
This is a complex issue (I might suggest, as ever, you consider what a trans person has to do to become trans, and see how they might just be inconsistent with what you say). But your view will lead to pain and hurt for a small minority - as it already is.
And that's why there needs to be a compromise of their rights, with the rights of women, and of other groups, that is workable. And that's where the devil is.
I know exactly what trans people need to go through as I have a couple of trans friends that have been that way for years.
I would retort consider what a woman who has been raped or abused has to go through and you give some sympathy to the thought why they might not be comfortable to relate their experiences in group counselling where there is someone who is obviously a man but say "no I am a women", or encounters someone who is obviously a man in the corridor of the battered womans refuge or is incarcerated with someone that is obviously a male etc.
Sorry no there cannot be a compromise with that. By all means give trans people their own safe spaces. That is the compromise. I notice you also didn't respond on whether you would insist on an ftm offender being placed in a male prison if he was still physically female.
Papering over the cracks with performative bullshit won't improve the situation, much. Which is exactly what has happened to date.
True, but this doesn't imply "therefore the problem is the performative bullshit and if we just stop doing that then everything will be great"...
I don't think the argument is do nothing, the argument is the performative bullshit gives a false sense to an organisation that something has been done and therefore nothing more need to be.
In many organisations if you transgress the solution seems to be send you on a refresher course going over things you already went over and that didn't do the job last time
Lot of truth in her analysis. Didn't pick you for a Marxist, mind.
The political Right are utterly shameless when it comes to class vs race.
They go on and on about the Left being obsessed with race when it's class that should be focussed on. Yet whenever policies are proposed - by the Left naturally since such policies never come from anywhere else - to actually do something serious about eradicating class privilege they scream blue murder about 'politics of envy' and 'marxist madness' and all the rest of it.
Or how about this one? The grooming gangs. People on the Left will make the point that class and misogyny was right there in the mix on why it happened, the police not taking the socially and economically disadvantaged young female victims seriously. And the typical response on the Right? Oh no no no. It was all about 'political correctness' and not wanting to look racist or offend Pakistani Muslims. Very telling. Let's make things all about race so long as it plays to our agenda of targeting blame for our ills on foreigners and minorities.
I find the the 'not wanting to look racist or offend Pakistani Muslims' thing a strange one, because afaics the police record on racism and offending Pakistani Musiims is a wee bit spotty.
Yes, I'm pretty skeptical that 'trying too hard not to look racist' is one of the police's main failings.
Yet, that was indeed, among the findings of the Jay, and Casey reports. It’s about wanting a quiet life, as one coasts towards one’s pension.
And it wasn’t just down to the police. It was down to social workers, and local councillors.
The 'too PC' angle probably does have more validity in non-police orgs such as social services and councils.
But on the general point. One of the MAIN failings of many of our institutions is they are so obsessed with not looking racist and sexist and homophobic that they forget about doing their job properly and not being racist and sexist and homophobic? I don't think so. That rings false to me. It's unnecessarily meta for one thing. And it's too convenient a fit with the preconceived sentiments of those who claim it to be the case.
Look at the police
1) Senior Management bang on about diversity. 2) All officers have to do multiple diversity courses 3) various organisations and initiatives within the police force to “stamp out racism”. Conferences and posters…. 4) Driving while black is a thing 5) Teenage black girls being strip searched without *legally required* safeguarding 6) etc
Organisations tend towards bike shedding. That is, when tasked with something complex like getting rid of racism, or building a nuclear power station, they will do the easy bit. Like building a bike shed.
Indeed. In response to multiple staff quitting, reporting dreadful mental health, lack of resources, repairs, staff numbers, bending over backwards to assuage parental complaints and an utter laissez-faire attitude towards pupil behaviour, our SLT has decided that a bigger staff room is the answer.
Ours have decided that a smaller staff room is the answer. Some consultant must be peddling CPD on the dimensions of staff communal spaces as a motivational method.
Comments
Compare to a generic salaried worker with a net worth of £500k, earns £50k and pays approx £15k a year in taxes, average 3% per year.
The billionaire has been treated far too generously.
https://politicaladvertising.co.uk/2010/03/29/conservative-poster-80000-criminals-out-early/
Very few people give a shit about toilets on either side.
In line to replace him on the sideline for upcoming games are Khabib Nurmagomedov, Anthony Joshua and The Rock.
https://twitter.com/paddypower/status/1645387741171970048?s=46
To an extent, it worked didn’t it?
Utterly shameless, though. Tories in conjunction with the LDs went on to launch an outright assault on the criminal justice system.
No wonder people are cynical about politicians.
I have a theory that if the DfE put “abolishing OFSTEAD” on the negotiating table they could probably get away with an actual pay cut…
In response to multiple staff quitting, reporting dreadful mental health, lack of resources, repairs, staff numbers, bending over backwards to assuage parental complaints and an utter laissez-faire attitude towards pupil behaviour, our SLT has decided that a bigger staff room is the answer.
I imagine a lot of that has to do with some Scottish Tory politicians fantasising about getting rid of devolution and/or becoming Prime Minister one day. There is, of course, no realistic prospect of the former and very little of the latter either, given how devolution is structured. But people will nurture their own delusions.
Please find me a Labour voter who will say , I’m so outraged I’ll forget the last 13 years of the Tories destruction of public services and will now vote for them because I’m so upset over some digital ad by Labour !
Let's give it to the NHS instead."
As we saw with McBride (and Campbell over Iraq), when combined with power, Labour nastiness can be potent.
Yes, I know, Tories nadadada. But if you don't like what the Tories do, it's a good idea not to be like them.
I had to pay £50 for me and my wife to visit the Royal Academy recently.
Greece is a poor country (partly thanks to the EU) and your 48 EUR will help them to preserve their heritage.
Papering over the cracks with performative bullshit won't improve the situation, much. Which is exactly what has happened to date.
Incredible.
Queen Camilla has already avoided controversy by choosing not to use a crown embellished with the Koh-i-noor diamond at the coronation. However, she may find herself facing criticism from wildlife activists instead when she is presented with a sceptre made of ivory at the ceremony at Westminster Abbey next month.
Palace sources have confirmed that Camilla will brandish the ivory rod with dove, which was made for Mary of Modena when she was crowned alongside her husband, James II, in 1685. There had been speculation that the rod — one of two sceptres used by the Queen at the coronation — would not feature because of sensitivities about the use of ivory.
The Prince of Wales has been a vocal critic of the ivory trade and other illegal wildlife products. William reportedly once said that he would like all the ivory owned by Buckingham Palace to be destroyed.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/queen-camilla-risks-backlash-over-ivory-coronation-sceptre-g5nps0wns
I had a huge crush on a Libyan Muslim girl once, and she her me, but it was very clear that was a barrier that couldn't be breached.
HM Revenue & Customs
Sorry, the service is unavailable
You will be able to use the service from 11am on Tuesday 11 April 2023
Even governments are at it now - Sri Lanka has a 95% DEI score, but a failed harvest last year.
I'd just use the comments attributed to the current The Prince of Wales
The Prince of Wales has been a vocal critic of the ivory trade and other illegal wildlife products. William reportedly once said that he would like all the ivory owned by Buckingham Palace to be destroyed.
On the pro side you have the everything must be allowed
On the anti side you have the nothing must be allowed
I personally suspect most people would agree with the following
People can use any toilet regardless...indeed I dont think its illegal currently
Sex specific places like communal changing rooms, refuges, prisons, and group counselling are available only to those of that sex or those that have actually transitioned to that sex.
For those not transitioned they can have their own versions of those sex specific places. ie a trans wing in a prison where they are totally segregated from the general community.
Sports to decide on a sport by sport basis. Some their are no advantages to gain by being born male.
It is also I have noted curious that the talk is always of men going into these sex specific places. So a question for all, you have a daughter that has decided she is actually a he but has not transitioned so still physically a female. She commits a crime for which she is imprisoned.....would anyone here want to insist she should be placed in a male prison? I certainly wouldn't.
Ladbrokes have not offered me the option to close the bet early now he is running, but I suspect they will, and I will probably take it.
Most of us are a little more evolved than that...
So I decided not to repl...oh.
If each pressure group and awareness raising enterprise had their way the coronation would consist of sitting on a recycled and recyclable cardboard box wearing nothing but a pair of socks made of bamboo with the A o C reading highlights from the Guardian.
I would bring back the death penalty for trophy hunters and ivory users.
Just staring at Camilla.
This is a complex issue (I might suggest, as ever, you consider what a trans person has to do to become trans, and see how they might just be inconsistent with what you say). But your view will lead to pain and hurt for a small minority - as it already is.
And that's why there needs to be a compromise of their rights, with the rights of women, and of other groups, that is workable. And that's where the devil is.
A total absence of meerkat garden ornaments. 2017 they were everywhere. Still a few in 2019. Now? Gone.
Don't seem to have been replaced by anything. Cost of living crisis?
(The tackiest thing I did see was a larger than life-size light-up Buddha head. It appeared to have a timer on it.)
You can't live your live self-censoring what you do and say just because a loud special interest group might not like it.
Otherwise there will never be any end to it and you'll forever be a prisoner.
FWIW I agree with much of what you suggest (with the caveat that as a cisgender male I am not sure I have the experience to propose solutions), although I wouldn't be surprised if the daughter themselves, once deciding they want to be a he, would want to be in a male prison. Whether that's a sensible desire or not is another question.
I would retort consider what a woman who has been raped or abused has to go through and you give some sympathy to the thought why they might not be comfortable to relate their experiences in group counselling where there is someone who is obviously a man but say "no I am a women", or encounters someone who is obviously a man in the corridor of the battered womans refuge or is incarcerated with someone that is obviously a male etc.
Sorry no there cannot be a compromise with that. By all means give trans people their own safe spaces. That is the compromise. I notice you also didn't respond on whether you would insist on an ftm offender being placed in a male prison if he was still physically female.
NEW THREAD
In many organisations if you transgress the solution seems to be send you on a refresher course going over things you already went over and that didn't do the job last time