Howdy, Stranger!

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

Betting on a LAB majority reaches a new high – politicalbetting.com

1246710

Comments

  • ChrisChris Posts: 11,779
    Ivan Dimitrov writes to apologise for carving his name on the Colosseum:
    He continues: "I admit with profound embarrassment that only after what regretfully happened did I learn of the antiquity of the monument."

    If not a prison, surely an institution for the mentally disabled?
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 43,395
    Chris said:

    Ivan Dimitrov writes to apologise for carving his name on the Colosseum:
    He continues: "I admit with profound embarrassment that only after what regretfully happened did I learn of the antiquity of the monument."

    If not a prison, surely an institution for the mentally disabled?

    TBF Roman brickwork can often look very modern. Or better, even with its age disadvantage.
  • 148grss148grss Posts: 4,155
    algarkirk said:

    148grss said:

    Can’t copy from the judgement on my phone for some reason - but agree this was also key:

    Worth reading the Mermaids judgment - here are key bits. Note “we found Mermaids has no legal right to operate free of criticism.” A victory for free speech & pluralism.

    Imagine being a charity that wastes this much money on vexatious litigation instead of charitable activity.




    https://twitter.com/soniasodha/status/1676902878714142720?s=20

    RIP “No Debate” - which I think was at the root of this.


    Lol, love how below you quoted the Good Law Project on one thing, and then ignored the point they made before that about whether "this is actually about free speech":

    https://goodlawproject.org/update/mermaids-challenge-lgb-alliance/

    Is the case about free speech?

    The case has nothing to do with free speech – LGBA’s staff and trustees can share their views about trans people whatever their charitable status. The point is that charities are supported – through charitable tax relief – with public money. To be registered as a charity, an organisation must be established, broadly, for the public good. By granting charitable status to LGBA, the Charity Commission decided that its activities were entitled to that public subsidy and satisfied the test of being for the public good. The sector believed that judgment needed to be tested.
    The Good Law Project had so many obtuse takes I was spoiled for choice - I chose the funniest.

    You chose the one contradicted in the judgement.

    To each their own.
    I have no views on whether either of these outfits are a good things or ought to be charities.

    The one thing which is obvious from the nature of charities, (especially clear the charitable purpose of 'advancement of religion' but universal), is that the aims of charity X may rightly be in complete and irreconcilable conflict with the aims of charity Y. X and Y may each believe the other's members all to be hellbound by virtue of their false beliefs, both both may be charitable purposes.

    Disagreement with aims cannot possibly properly found an attack on the validity of a charity.

    I imagine the argument is more "the LGBA claims to be for X but are actually really about Y, which is not an acceptable reason to be a charity, and are using X which does fall within the bounds of law as a mask. We believe this is so because etc. etc."

    Because the judges didn't share their views on the merits, but did disagree, I imagine one judge found that argument at least somewhat persuasive and the other judge didn't.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 56,606

    Leon said:

    This will come as a shock to PB-ers, but I was actually THERE for that iconic final day at Lord’s last Sunday, when Stokes hit the greatest Test century on English soil and there was an iconic cheating allegation that embroiled two prime ministers and was headline news across the cosmos

    ANYWAY at the time I wondered if any other cricketer had ever attained a Test century - hit or passed the 100 - by hitting three consecutive sixes

    Some noble stattonerd is also interested in this. And he’s found - he says - at least one prior example. In South Africa

    The batsman was… Ben Stokes

    I know hyperbole is your thing, but the BIB is not correct. I can think of many others as good, or better. It was a great knock, but no more than that.
    Of course I’m being provocative, but I’m not entirely wrong. How do you judge a great innings? There are multiple objective ways, number of runs, duration at wicket, etc, and even more subjective ways.

    But one objective way is: the number of sixes scored in that one innings. Stokes hit 9, which is the greatest number ever in a Test innings, on English soil

    And, weirdly, I was there
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 10,005
    Farooq said:

    148grss said:

    Cookie said:

    148grss said:

    DougSeal said:

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    Before resident anti trans individuals try to post this with their spin; Mermaids failed on standing to get LGB Alliance's charity status revoked, on the merits, the judges seemed to be split - with one agreeing that LGBA shouldn't have charity status, and one disagreeing.

    https://mermaidsuk.org.uk/news/statement-on-the-ruling-in-mermaids-v-charity-commission-and-lgb-alliance/

    So, whilst many will crow that this is a good thing for LGBA, I would suggest that what it really means is in the case someone who has standing can bring this to trial again, or if on an appeal Mermaids are found to have standing, there seems to be enough of an argument for it to go either way.

    It's interesting that Mermaids are arguing that LGBA's charitable status should be revoked because it has progressed the “pro-LGB” activities it claims to be focused on “only to a limited extent”. If progressing a cause "only to a limited extent" is grounds for revocation, where does it leave a charity like Mermaids that has actually set back its cause?
    As an LGB person, I'd personally argue the LGBA actively is against LGB activities, having had spokespeople and significant members of the organisation, as well as the organisation itself, previously argue that the UK doesn't need conversion therapy bans for LGB people, and arguing against same sex marriage and adoption rights for same sex couples at various time. I don't know the ins and outs of Mermaids legal argument, but that would be mine.
    Worth reading the judgement which goes into 1) what LGBA said before it was a charity, 2) what LGBA has said since it was a charity and 3) what supporters of LGBA have said.

    For example, do you find this hateful?

    During tribunal Kate Harris co founder of LGBA reduced to tears“I’m going to speak for millions of lesbians around the world who are lesbians because we love other women We will not be erased and we will not have any man with a penis tell us he’s a lesbian because he feels he is”

    https://twitter.com/suzanne_moore/status/1676891728370868226?

    And then there’s what one of Mermaids former Trustees wrote.

    Reminder that Mermaids’ trustee Jacob Breslow wrote the following -

    ‘… the queering that ‘queer’ does to the child, is one of resisting the child’s alleged asexuality and heterosexuality; allowing for the child’s pleasures, desires, and perversities; refusing the sexual narrative of growing up and becoming a proper sexual subject; and thwarting the normative frames of sexuality and identity that have constrained the child and the queer.’


    https://twitter.com/OldRoberts953/status/1676887395696877570?s=20

    Which do you find more concerning?

    Mermaids is currently under investigation by the Charity Commission over safeguarding concerns.
    I would say, of the first, that she isn't speaking for millions of lesbians around the world
    You think lesbians like “girl dick”?
    I mean, I am friends and know many cis lesbians who do. Do I think ALL cis lesbians do? Obviously not as some cis lesbians are very loudly anti trans. Do I think ALL cis lesbians who believe trans women are women and can be lesbians do? Probably not, I'm sure even some of them have preferences that don't include that, but some also have other preferences, like for femme or masc lesbians only. But clearly many do.
    That was a very long winded way of saying “Many do” or even just “Yes”
    Maybe I am just long winded. But, like a good product of the English education system, I like to explain my reasoning for things.
    tbh, I appreciated the long-windedness. But the mind boggles. I don't know many lesbians well, but the idea that they'd see a transwoman as an appealing sexual partner seems preposterous. I mean, how is a (pre-op) naked transwoman distinguishable from a man?

    My friend's 19yo stepdaughter now identifies as male and is in a relationship with a 19yo male who identifies as female. But both of them look like the sex they were born as. Basically they are a heterosexual couple in denial.
    I mean, people say the same thing about same sex attraction - "I'm a man, and I just don't understand why a man would find another man attractive".

    Typically attraction, even sexual attraction, doesn't start and end with how the person looks naked. Getting to know someone, finding them attractive when you first meet them, their personality, your interpersonal interactions - all go towards attraction.

    I also have it on good authority that there is a significant difference between cis men and pre operative trans women who are on hormones. Hormones do a lot to change the texture of skin, hair, even the way individuals smell, and the way that different body parts operate. Again, these will be impactful.
    I don't even understand how women can be attracted to men. Men are gross.
    I'm very grateful that enough of them are and that I am seemingly just above the absolute minimum threshold of "oh alright you'll do for now". But I will never understand it.
    A naked man has the look of the last chicken in the chilled aisle imo
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 12,888
    viewcode said:

    Carnyx said:

    viewcode said:

    algarkirk said:

    Disagreement with aims cannot possibly properly found an attack on the validity of a charity.

    So if I founded a charity with the explicit aim of firing all people called "algarkirk" into the sun, that would be valid?
    No, because criminal.
    Fair enough. How about a charity with the explicit aim of preventing people adopting the name "algarkirk" for any purposes?
    Void for uncertainty. Algarkirk is a well established place name in Lincolnshire, it is impossible to specify what 'prevention of adoption for any purposes' could mean. No public benefit.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,032
    Carnyx said:

    Chris said:

    Ivan Dimitrov writes to apologise for carving his name on the Colosseum:
    He continues: "I admit with profound embarrassment that only after what regretfully happened did I learn of the antiquity of the monument."

    If not a prison, surely an institution for the mentally disabled?

    TBF Roman brickwork can often look very modern. Or better, even with its age disadvantage.
    Yeah, but the Colosseum FFS!
  • ChrisChris Posts: 11,779

    Cookie said:

    148grss said:

    DougSeal said:

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    Before resident anti trans individuals try to post this with their spin; Mermaids failed on standing to get LGB Alliance's charity status revoked, on the merits, the judges seemed to be split - with one agreeing that LGBA shouldn't have charity status, and one disagreeing.

    https://mermaidsuk.org.uk/news/statement-on-the-ruling-in-mermaids-v-charity-commission-and-lgb-alliance/

    So, whilst many will crow that this is a good thing for LGBA, I would suggest that what it really means is in the case someone who has standing can bring this to trial again, or if on an appeal Mermaids are found to have standing, there seems to be enough of an argument for it to go either way.

    It's interesting that Mermaids are arguing that LGBA's charitable status should be revoked because it has progressed the “pro-LGB” activities it claims to be focused on “only to a limited extent”. If progressing a cause "only to a limited extent" is grounds for revocation, where does it leave a charity like Mermaids that has actually set back its cause?
    As an LGB person, I'd personally argue the LGBA actively is against LGB activities, having had spokespeople and significant members of the organisation, as well as the organisation itself, previously argue that the UK doesn't need conversion therapy bans for LGB people, and arguing against same sex marriage and adoption rights for same sex couples at various time. I don't know the ins and outs of Mermaids legal argument, but that would be mine.
    Worth reading the judgement which goes into 1) what LGBA said before it was a charity, 2) what LGBA has said since it was a charity and 3) what supporters of LGBA have said.

    For example, do you find this hateful?

    During tribunal Kate Harris co founder of LGBA reduced to tears“I’m going to speak for millions of lesbians around the world who are lesbians because we love other women We will not be erased and we will not have any man with a penis tell us he’s a lesbian because he feels he is”

    https://twitter.com/suzanne_moore/status/1676891728370868226?

    And then there’s what one of Mermaids former Trustees wrote.

    Reminder that Mermaids’ trustee Jacob Breslow wrote the following -

    ‘… the queering that ‘queer’ does to the child, is one of resisting the child’s alleged asexuality and heterosexuality; allowing for the child’s pleasures, desires, and perversities; refusing the sexual narrative of growing up and becoming a proper sexual subject; and thwarting the normative frames of sexuality and identity that have constrained the child and the queer.’


    https://twitter.com/OldRoberts953/status/1676887395696877570?s=20

    Which do you find more concerning?

    Mermaids is currently under investigation by the Charity Commission over safeguarding concerns.
    I would say, of the first, that she isn't speaking for millions of lesbians around the world
    You think lesbians like “girl dick”?
    I mean, I am friends and know many cis lesbians who do. Do I think ALL cis lesbians do? Obviously not as some cis lesbians are very loudly anti trans. Do I think ALL cis lesbians who believe trans women are women and can be lesbians do? Probably not, I'm sure even some of them have preferences that don't include that, but some also have other preferences, like for femme or masc lesbians only. But clearly many do.
    That was a very long winded way of saying “Many do” or even just “Yes”
    Maybe I am just long winded. But, like a good product of the English education system, I like to explain my reasoning for things.
    tbh, I appreciated the long-windedness. But the mind boggles. I don't know many lesbians well, but the idea that they'd see a transwoman as an appealing sexual partner seems preposterous. I mean, how is a (pre-op) naked transwoman distinguishable from a man?

    My friend's 19yo stepdaughter now identifies as male and is in a relationship with a 19yo male who identifies as female. But both of them look like the sex they were born as. Basically they are a heterosexual couple in denial.
    Girls who want boys
    Who like boys to be girls
    Who do boys like they're girls
    Who do girls like they're boys
    Always should be someone you really love

    Hard to argue with Damon Albarn on this one.
    Or even Ray Davies:
    It's a mixed up, muddled up, shook up world
  • 148grss said:

    algarkirk said:

    148grss said:

    Can’t copy from the judgement on my phone for some reason - but agree this was also key:

    Worth reading the Mermaids judgment - here are key bits. Note “we found Mermaids has no legal right to operate free of criticism.” A victory for free speech & pluralism.

    Imagine being a charity that wastes this much money on vexatious litigation instead of charitable activity.




    https://twitter.com/soniasodha/status/1676902878714142720?s=20

    RIP “No Debate” - which I think was at the root of this.


    Lol, love how below you quoted the Good Law Project on one thing, and then ignored the point they made before that about whether "this is actually about free speech":

    https://goodlawproject.org/update/mermaids-challenge-lgb-alliance/

    Is the case about free speech?

    The case has nothing to do with free speech – LGBA’s staff and trustees can share their views about trans people whatever their charitable status. The point is that charities are supported – through charitable tax relief – with public money. To be registered as a charity, an organisation must be established, broadly, for the public good. By granting charitable status to LGBA, the Charity Commission decided that its activities were entitled to that public subsidy and satisfied the test of being for the public good. The sector believed that judgment needed to be tested.
    The Good Law Project had so many obtuse takes I was spoiled for choice - I chose the funniest.

    You chose the one contradicted in the judgement.

    To each their own.
    I have no views on whether either of these outfits are a good things or ought to be charities.

    The one thing which is obvious from the nature of charities, (especially clear the charitable purpose of 'advancement of religion' but universal), is that the aims of charity X may rightly be in complete and irreconcilable conflict with the aims of charity Y. X and Y may each believe the other's members all to be hellbound by virtue of their false beliefs, both both may be charitable purposes.

    Disagreement with aims cannot possibly properly found an attack on the validity of a charity.

    I imagine the argument is more "the LGBA claims to be for X but are actually really about Y, which is not an acceptable reason to be a charity, and are using X which does fall within the bounds of law as a mask. We believe this is so because etc. etc."

    Because the judges didn't share their views on the merits, but did disagree, I imagine one judge found that argument at least somewhat persuasive and the other judge didn't.
    That's reading into it something which isn't said.

    Its entirely possible one judge didn't find the argument at all persuasive, while the other thought it might or might not be persuasive but couldn't determine that without a full hearing (which never happened).

    There's no evidence at all a judge was persuaded. That is not in the text.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 43,395
    DavidL said:

    Carnyx said:

    Chris said:

    Ivan Dimitrov writes to apologise for carving his name on the Colosseum:
    He continues: "I admit with profound embarrassment that only after what regretfully happened did I learn of the antiquity of the monument."

    If not a prison, surely an institution for the mentally disabled?

    TBF Roman brickwork can often look very modern. Or better, even with its age disadvantage.
    Yeah, but the Colosseum FFS!
    Well, quite. Admittedly not exactly a modern display graphic on plastic covered MDF.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 63,137
    Allister Heath tears into the government again...


    Thirteen years of Tory failure
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/07/05/thirteen-years-of-tory-failure-shifted-britain-left/
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 28,437

    DougSeal said:

    Stocky said:

    Right, straight off topic. I've got a serious question about cash. We've sold a plot of land we own to a neighbouring land owner. He's an old school gentleman, doesn't trust banks and wants to pay us in actual cash. I'm fine with that, it'll all be done legally. My issue is, can I just stroll into the bank with a tesco bag with 150 grand in it without alarms ringing and being surrounded by armed rozzers and income tax inspectors?

    Why not pay the cash into the bank account of your solicitor. Then the solicitor transfer to your bank account. Would that work?
    Only if the solicitor was happy to be struck off. We can’t accept any cash.
    Law society disagrees.

    https://www.lawsociety.org.uk/contact-or-visit-us/helplines/practice-advice-service/q-and-as/can-i-accept-my-clients-20000-cash-deposit#:~:text=Cash in itself is legal,to support any statement provided.

    Solicitors choose not to accept cash because its hassle is probably more accurate.
    Because it just pushes the compliance into them. The solicitor then risks being flagged by the banks as a risk - which would put them out of business rather neatly.
    How effective is AML? My guess is not very as the big criminals know exactly how to get around it, but also fairly onerous on business and society, as creates fear, admin, stress and confusion.
    AML thresholds are far too low if ordinary horseracing punters get caught up, but otoh this land sale does sound like textbook money laundering, probably of untaxed income rather than the proceeds of crime. There did used to be a lot of cash flowing round the countryside. This transaction turns cash into land.
    Paying way over the odds for the land is another eyebrow-raiser.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 22,416
    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Carnyx said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Carnyx said:

    viewcode said:

    algarkirk said:

    Disagreement with aims cannot possibly properly found an attack on the validity of a charity.

    So if I founded a charity with the explicit aim of firing all people called "algarkirk" into the sun, that would be valid?
    No, because criminal.
    There would be a strong public good factor however, the technology that would be involved in firing an algakirk into the sun could be repurposed for disposal of nuclear waste etc. Obviously there would be a downside to this for all algakirks
    But the algarkirk is not specific to the tech. A pagan or a strong binliner full of rubbish would do just as well, so that test fails.
    It would hardly be the first time that tech has been developed for one purpose. In this case if there are enough supporters of firing algakirks into the sun to fund the development then it comes to fruition. Perhaps without the lure of firing algakirks into the sun the funding would not be forthcoming.

    *For reference I have absolutely nothing against algakirk nor any desire to fire him into the sun
    If you want to get the technology for firing objects into the sun developed, then history shows there's one clear way to get that achieved: Find a pornographic use for projectiles being fired into the sun.
    Very true you only need to view the increasing use of teledildonics to see that
    Point of order: teledidonics is not taking off. Many of the sex predictions regarding the internet either did not come to pass or did so in different ways. VR keeps being proposed and keeps dying, the metaverse being only the most recent example. The combination of masturbation, online sex people on Onlyfans/Teams/Skype/whatever and transnational payments via patreon/other made overcomplicated solutions involving VR glasses and weird rubber attachments unnecessary.

    This may be the weirdest post in the history of PB

    :)
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 12,888
    148grss said:

    algarkirk said:

    148grss said:

    Can’t copy from the judgement on my phone for some reason - but agree this was also key:

    Worth reading the Mermaids judgment - here are key bits. Note “we found Mermaids has no legal right to operate free of criticism.” A victory for free speech & pluralism.

    Imagine being a charity that wastes this much money on vexatious litigation instead of charitable activity.




    https://twitter.com/soniasodha/status/1676902878714142720?s=20

    RIP “No Debate” - which I think was at the root of this.


    Lol, love how below you quoted the Good Law Project on one thing, and then ignored the point they made before that about whether "this is actually about free speech":

    https://goodlawproject.org/update/mermaids-challenge-lgb-alliance/

    Is the case about free speech?

    The case has nothing to do with free speech – LGBA’s staff and trustees can share their views about trans people whatever their charitable status. The point is that charities are supported – through charitable tax relief – with public money. To be registered as a charity, an organisation must be established, broadly, for the public good. By granting charitable status to LGBA, the Charity Commission decided that its activities were entitled to that public subsidy and satisfied the test of being for the public good. The sector believed that judgment needed to be tested.
    The Good Law Project had so many obtuse takes I was spoiled for choice - I chose the funniest.

    You chose the one contradicted in the judgement.

    To each their own.
    I have no views on whether either of these outfits are a good things or ought to be charities.

    The one thing which is obvious from the nature of charities, (especially clear the charitable purpose of 'advancement of religion' but universal), is that the aims of charity X may rightly be in complete and irreconcilable conflict with the aims of charity Y. X and Y may each believe the other's members all to be hellbound by virtue of their false beliefs, both both may be charitable purposes.

    Disagreement with aims cannot possibly properly found an attack on the validity of a charity.

    I imagine the argument is more "the LGBA claims to be for X but are actually really about Y, which is not an acceptable reason to be a charity, and are using X which does fall within the bounds of law as a mask. We believe this is so because etc. etc."

    Because the judges didn't share their views on the merits, but did disagree, I imagine one judge found that argument at least somewhat persuasive and the other judge didn't.
    Dangerous ground. "The Roman Catholic church is ostensibly a charity on advancement of religion grounds, but actually it's a money making scam and none of its leaders or followers believe in God. Remove it from the register of charities."

    I don't think think this will run, despite those who think it should.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 43,395

    Allister Heath tears into the government again...


    Thirteen years of Tory failure
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/07/05/thirteen-years-of-tory-failure-shifted-britain-left/

    "The Tories can’t even explain why a competitive private sector could deliver cheaper energy, better rail and roads, plentiful water, and zero raw sewage discharges."

    Bit late now ...

    And "There is still a minority of principled Tory MPs, but far too many others seem only interested in the trappings of office."
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 72,263
    .

    FPT: The US and the UK banned the international slave trade at almost the same time.

    1806 "In a message to Congress, Thomas Jefferson calls for criminalizing the international slave trade, asking Congress to "withdraw the citizens of the United States from all further participation in those violations of human rights ... which the morality, the reputation, and the best of our country have long been eager to proscribe."
    1807 International slave trade made a felony in Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves; this act takes effect on 1 January 1808, the earliest date permitted under the Constitution."
    source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_abolition_of_slavery_and_serfdom

    (Congress passed that act on March 2nd, 1807. The similar bill passed by your parliament "received Royal Assent on 25 March 1807". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave_Trade_Act_1807 )

    Yes, Jefferson can be charged with hypocrisy. But he can also be seen as a man trying to end slavery, gradually.

    I think, were he alive today, he would oppose the Gulag, the Laogai, and all the other modern forms of slavery.

    That would depend upon whether or not he derived benefit from any of the above.
    History suggests that would sway his actions, though not necessarily his fine words on the matter.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    Winning would have made all the difference in the world to Mermaids as a charity, but losing makes no difference at all. Go figure.

    https://twitter.com/docstockk/status/1676901129420980224
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 42,167
    edited July 2023
    Chris said:

    Ivan Dimitrov writes to apologise for carving his name on the Colosseum:
    He continues: "I admit with profound embarrassment that only after what regretfully happened did I learn of the antiquity of the monument."

    If not a prison, surely an institution for the mentally disabled?

    Tbf worse things happened at the Colosseum.
    Am I making it up in my head or does some graffiti from the gladiators survive?
  • TimSTimS Posts: 13,215
    Pagan2 said:

    Farooq said:

    148grss said:

    Cookie said:

    148grss said:

    DougSeal said:

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    Before resident anti trans individuals try to post this with their spin; Mermaids failed on standing to get LGB Alliance's charity status revoked, on the merits, the judges seemed to be split - with one agreeing that LGBA shouldn't have charity status, and one disagreeing.

    https://mermaidsuk.org.uk/news/statement-on-the-ruling-in-mermaids-v-charity-commission-and-lgb-alliance/

    So, whilst many will crow that this is a good thing for LGBA, I would suggest that what it really means is in the case someone who has standing can bring this to trial again, or if on an appeal Mermaids are found to have standing, there seems to be enough of an argument for it to go either way.

    It's interesting that Mermaids are arguing that LGBA's charitable status should be revoked because it has progressed the “pro-LGB” activities it claims to be focused on “only to a limited extent”. If progressing a cause "only to a limited extent" is grounds for revocation, where does it leave a charity like Mermaids that has actually set back its cause?
    As an LGB person, I'd personally argue the LGBA actively is against LGB activities, having had spokespeople and significant members of the organisation, as well as the organisation itself, previously argue that the UK doesn't need conversion therapy bans for LGB people, and arguing against same sex marriage and adoption rights for same sex couples at various time. I don't know the ins and outs of Mermaids legal argument, but that would be mine.
    Worth reading the judgement which goes into 1) what LGBA said before it was a charity, 2) what LGBA has said since it was a charity and 3) what supporters of LGBA have said.

    For example, do you find this hateful?

    During tribunal Kate Harris co founder of LGBA reduced to tears“I’m going to speak for millions of lesbians around the world who are lesbians because we love other women We will not be erased and we will not have any man with a penis tell us he’s a lesbian because he feels he is”

    https://twitter.com/suzanne_moore/status/1676891728370868226?

    And then there’s what one of Mermaids former Trustees wrote.

    Reminder that Mermaids’ trustee Jacob Breslow wrote the following -

    ‘… the queering that ‘queer’ does to the child, is one of resisting the child’s alleged asexuality and heterosexuality; allowing for the child’s pleasures, desires, and perversities; refusing the sexual narrative of growing up and becoming a proper sexual subject; and thwarting the normative frames of sexuality and identity that have constrained the child and the queer.’


    https://twitter.com/OldRoberts953/status/1676887395696877570?s=20

    Which do you find more concerning?

    Mermaids is currently under investigation by the Charity Commission over safeguarding concerns.
    I would say, of the first, that she isn't speaking for millions of lesbians around the world
    You think lesbians like “girl dick”?
    I mean, I am friends and know many cis lesbians who do. Do I think ALL cis lesbians do? Obviously not as some cis lesbians are very loudly anti trans. Do I think ALL cis lesbians who believe trans women are women and can be lesbians do? Probably not, I'm sure even some of them have preferences that don't include that, but some also have other preferences, like for femme or masc lesbians only. But clearly many do.
    That was a very long winded way of saying “Many do” or even just “Yes”
    Maybe I am just long winded. But, like a good product of the English education system, I like to explain my reasoning for things.
    tbh, I appreciated the long-windedness. But the mind boggles. I don't know many lesbians well, but the idea that they'd see a transwoman as an appealing sexual partner seems preposterous. I mean, how is a (pre-op) naked transwoman distinguishable from a man?

    My friend's 19yo stepdaughter now identifies as male and is in a relationship with a 19yo male who identifies as female. But both of them look like the sex they were born as. Basically they are a heterosexual couple in denial.
    I mean, people say the same thing about same sex attraction - "I'm a man, and I just don't understand why a man would find another man attractive".

    Typically attraction, even sexual attraction, doesn't start and end with how the person looks naked. Getting to know someone, finding them attractive when you first meet them, their personality, your interpersonal interactions - all go towards attraction.

    I also have it on good authority that there is a significant difference between cis men and pre operative trans women who are on hormones. Hormones do a lot to change the texture of skin, hair, even the way individuals smell, and the way that different body parts operate. Again, these will be impactful.
    I don't even understand how women can be attracted to men. Men are gross.
    I'm very grateful that enough of them are and that I am seemingly just above the absolute minimum threshold of "oh alright you'll do for now". But I will never understand it.
    A naked man has the look of the last chicken in the chilled aisle imo
    And if that's a corn-fed chicken it's probably time for him to get his liver function tested.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 11,947
    Chris said:

    Ivan Dimitrov writes to apologise for carving his name on the Colosseum:
    He continues: "I admit with profound embarrassment that only after what regretfully happened did I learn of the antiquity of the monument."

    If not a prison, surely an institution for the mentally disabled?

    One wonders why he was there if he didn't realise what the Colosseum was. Just getting in the way of others basically.
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 10,005
    viewcode said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Carnyx said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Carnyx said:

    viewcode said:

    algarkirk said:

    Disagreement with aims cannot possibly properly found an attack on the validity of a charity.

    So if I founded a charity with the explicit aim of firing all people called "algarkirk" into the sun, that would be valid?
    No, because criminal.
    There would be a strong public good factor however, the technology that would be involved in firing an algakirk into the sun could be repurposed for disposal of nuclear waste etc. Obviously there would be a downside to this for all algakirks
    But the algarkirk is not specific to the tech. A pagan or a strong binliner full of rubbish would do just as well, so that test fails.
    It would hardly be the first time that tech has been developed for one purpose. In this case if there are enough supporters of firing algakirks into the sun to fund the development then it comes to fruition. Perhaps without the lure of firing algakirks into the sun the funding would not be forthcoming.

    *For reference I have absolutely nothing against algakirk nor any desire to fire him into the sun
    If you want to get the technology for firing objects into the sun developed, then history shows there's one clear way to get that achieved: Find a pornographic use for projectiles being fired into the sun.
    Very true you only need to view the increasing use of teledildonics to see that
    Point of order: teledidonics is not taking off. Many of the sex predictions regarding the internet either did not come to pass or did so in different ways. VR keeps being proposed and keeps dying, the metaverse being only the most recent example. The combination of masturbation, online sex people on Onlyfans/Teams/Skype/whatever and transnational payments via patreon/other made overcomplicated solutions involving VR glasses and weird rubber attachments unnecessary.

    This may be the weirdest post in the history of PB

    :)
    Point of order teledildonics is certainly taking off, ten years ago I knew next to no women with remote controlled vibrators now I know about ten. Many online sites now provide the connecting bridge to utilize them.
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 12,541
    edited July 2023

    FPT: The US and the UK banned the international slave trade at almost the same time.

    1806 "In a message to Congress, Thomas Jefferson calls for criminalizing the international slave trade, asking Congress to "withdraw the citizens of the United States from all further participation in those violations of human rights ... which the morality, the reputation, and the best of our country have long been eager to proscribe."
    1807 International slave trade made a felony in Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves; this act takes effect on 1 January 1808, the earliest date permitted under the Constitution."
    source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_abolition_of_slavery_and_serfdom

    (Congress passed that act on March 2nd, 1807. The similar bill passed by your parliament "received Royal Assent on 25 March 1807". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave_Trade_Act_1807 )

    Yes, Jefferson can be charged with hypocrisy. But he can also be seen as a man trying to end slavery, gradually.

    I think, were he alive today, he would oppose the Gulag, the Laogai, and all the other modern forms of slavery.

    Jefferson was, like most great men, deeply flawed. For me (as someone interested in medieval and early modern history) his most troubling aspect was his deeply conflicted concurrent Anglo-Saxonism and Anglophobia.

    He was slightly obsessed by what he saw as the corruption of perfect ancient Anglo-Saxon liberties by those pesky Normans - he wanted a relief of Hengest and Horsa coming ashore at Pegwell Bay in Kent on the reverse of the new Great Seal of the USA. That resulted in the first draft of the Declaration of Independence reading like a break up letter from someone who hasn’t quite got over their soon-to-be ex.

    https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-01-02-0206-0002
  • 148grss148grss Posts: 4,155
    algarkirk said:

    148grss said:

    algarkirk said:

    148grss said:

    Can’t copy from the judgement on my phone for some reason - but agree this was also key:

    Worth reading the Mermaids judgment - here are key bits. Note “we found Mermaids has no legal right to operate free of criticism.” A victory for free speech & pluralism.

    Imagine being a charity that wastes this much money on vexatious litigation instead of charitable activity.




    https://twitter.com/soniasodha/status/1676902878714142720?s=20

    RIP “No Debate” - which I think was at the root of this.


    Lol, love how below you quoted the Good Law Project on one thing, and then ignored the point they made before that about whether "this is actually about free speech":

    https://goodlawproject.org/update/mermaids-challenge-lgb-alliance/

    Is the case about free speech?

    The case has nothing to do with free speech – LGBA’s staff and trustees can share their views about trans people whatever their charitable status. The point is that charities are supported – through charitable tax relief – with public money. To be registered as a charity, an organisation must be established, broadly, for the public good. By granting charitable status to LGBA, the Charity Commission decided that its activities were entitled to that public subsidy and satisfied the test of being for the public good. The sector believed that judgment needed to be tested.
    The Good Law Project had so many obtuse takes I was spoiled for choice - I chose the funniest.

    You chose the one contradicted in the judgement.

    To each their own.
    I have no views on whether either of these outfits are a good things or ought to be charities.

    The one thing which is obvious from the nature of charities, (especially clear the charitable purpose of 'advancement of religion' but universal), is that the aims of charity X may rightly be in complete and irreconcilable conflict with the aims of charity Y. X and Y may each believe the other's members all to be hellbound by virtue of their false beliefs, both both may be charitable purposes.

    Disagreement with aims cannot possibly properly found an attack on the validity of a charity.

    I imagine the argument is more "the LGBA claims to be for X but are actually really about Y, which is not an acceptable reason to be a charity, and are using X which does fall within the bounds of law as a mask. We believe this is so because etc. etc."

    Because the judges didn't share their views on the merits, but did disagree, I imagine one judge found that argument at least somewhat persuasive and the other judge didn't.
    Dangerous ground. "The Roman Catholic church is ostensibly a charity on advancement of religion grounds, but actually it's a money making scam and none of its leaders or followers believe in God. Remove it from the register of charities."

    I don't think think this will run, despite those who think it should.
    I mean, surely this is the only acceptable grounds such a charity should be run, especially if you can prove it? Otherwise anyone could set up a fake charity, making charitable aims that fit within the realms of law, and then use that status to do whatever it wants?
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,546
    Nigelb said:

    .

    FPT: The US and the UK banned the international slave trade at almost the same time.

    1806 "In a message to Congress, Thomas Jefferson calls for criminalizing the international slave trade, asking Congress to "withdraw the citizens of the United States from all further participation in those violations of human rights ... which the morality, the reputation, and the best of our country have long been eager to proscribe."
    1807 International slave trade made a felony in Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves; this act takes effect on 1 January 1808, the earliest date permitted under the Constitution."
    source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_abolition_of_slavery_and_serfdom

    (Congress passed that act on March 2nd, 1807. The similar bill passed by your parliament "received Royal Assent on 25 March 1807". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave_Trade_Act_1807 )

    Yes, Jefferson can be charged with hypocrisy. But he can also be seen as a man trying to end slavery, gradually.

    I think, were he alive today, he would oppose the Gulag, the Laogai, and all the other modern forms of slavery.

    That would depend upon whether or not he derived benefit from any of the above.
    History suggests that would sway his actions, though not necessarily his fine words on the matter.
    Jefferson would happily have voted for abolition *if* he had been fully compensated.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 43,395
    edited July 2023

    Chris said:

    Ivan Dimitrov writes to apologise for carving his name on the Colosseum:
    He continues: "I admit with profound embarrassment that only after what regretfully happened did I learn of the antiquity of the monument."

    If not a prison, surely an institution for the mentally disabled?

    Tbf worse things happened at the Colosseum.
    Am I making it up in my head or is there does some graffiti from the gladiators survive?
    Sure does. Though not the [edit] apocryphal Leones XXXII, Christiani Nullus.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 55,035
    edited July 2023
    If I use less cocaine than Shane Warne, maybe I can live to be 55.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 43,395
    Pagan2 said:

    viewcode said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Carnyx said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Carnyx said:

    viewcode said:

    algarkirk said:

    Disagreement with aims cannot possibly properly found an attack on the validity of a charity.

    So if I founded a charity with the explicit aim of firing all people called "algarkirk" into the sun, that would be valid?
    No, because criminal.
    There would be a strong public good factor however, the technology that would be involved in firing an algakirk into the sun could be repurposed for disposal of nuclear waste etc. Obviously there would be a downside to this for all algakirks
    But the algarkirk is not specific to the tech. A pagan or a strong binliner full of rubbish would do just as well, so that test fails.
    It would hardly be the first time that tech has been developed for one purpose. In this case if there are enough supporters of firing algakirks into the sun to fund the development then it comes to fruition. Perhaps without the lure of firing algakirks into the sun the funding would not be forthcoming.

    *For reference I have absolutely nothing against algakirk nor any desire to fire him into the sun
    If you want to get the technology for firing objects into the sun developed, then history shows there's one clear way to get that achieved: Find a pornographic use for projectiles being fired into the sun.
    Very true you only need to view the increasing use of teledildonics to see that
    Point of order: teledidonics is not taking off. Many of the sex predictions regarding the internet either did not come to pass or did so in different ways. VR keeps being proposed and keeps dying, the metaverse being only the most recent example. The combination of masturbation, online sex people on Onlyfans/Teams/Skype/whatever and transnational payments via patreon/other made overcomplicated solutions involving VR glasses and weird rubber attachments unnecessary.

    This may be the weirdest post in the history of PB

    :)
    Point of order teledildonics is certainly taking off, ten years ago I knew next to no women with remote controlled vibrators now I know about ten. Many online sites now provide the connecting bridge to utilize them.
    As someone was saying a few moments ago, the collective circle of PBers is extraordinary ...
  • eekeek Posts: 28,592
    Pagan2 said:

    viewcode said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Carnyx said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Carnyx said:

    viewcode said:

    algarkirk said:

    Disagreement with aims cannot possibly properly found an attack on the validity of a charity.

    So if I founded a charity with the explicit aim of firing all people called "algarkirk" into the sun, that would be valid?
    No, because criminal.
    There would be a strong public good factor however, the technology that would be involved in firing an algakirk into the sun could be repurposed for disposal of nuclear waste etc. Obviously there would be a downside to this for all algakirks
    But the algarkirk is not specific to the tech. A pagan or a strong binliner full of rubbish would do just as well, so that test fails.
    It would hardly be the first time that tech has been developed for one purpose. In this case if there are enough supporters of firing algakirks into the sun to fund the development then it comes to fruition. Perhaps without the lure of firing algakirks into the sun the funding would not be forthcoming.

    *For reference I have absolutely nothing against algakirk nor any desire to fire him into the sun
    If you want to get the technology for firing objects into the sun developed, then history shows there's one clear way to get that achieved: Find a pornographic use for projectiles being fired into the sun.
    Very true you only need to view the increasing use of teledildonics to see that
    Point of order: teledidonics is not taking off. Many of the sex predictions regarding the internet either did not come to pass or did so in different ways. VR keeps being proposed and keeps dying, the metaverse being only the most recent example. The combination of masturbation, online sex people on Onlyfans/Teams/Skype/whatever and transnational payments via patreon/other made overcomplicated solutions involving VR glasses and weird rubber attachments unnecessary.

    This may be the weirdest post in the history of PB

    :)
    Point of order teledildonics is certainly taking off, ten years ago I knew next to no women with remote controlled vibrators now I know about ten. Many online sites now provide the connecting bridge to utilize them.
    Got to say there is a distinct cross over between teledildonics and some sites similar to Onlyfans - because people love the instant feedback loop...

    At least some research I have had to do in a professional capacity tells me...
  • LeonLeon Posts: 56,606
    Farooq said:

    148grss said:

    Cookie said:

    148grss said:

    DougSeal said:

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    Before resident anti trans individuals try to post this with their spin; Mermaids failed on standing to get LGB Alliance's charity status revoked, on the merits, the judges seemed to be split - with one agreeing that LGBA shouldn't have charity status, and one disagreeing.

    https://mermaidsuk.org.uk/news/statement-on-the-ruling-in-mermaids-v-charity-commission-and-lgb-alliance/

    So, whilst many will crow that this is a good thing for LGBA, I would suggest that what it really means is in the case someone who has standing can bring this to trial again, or if on an appeal Mermaids are found to have standing, there seems to be enough of an argument for it to go either way.

    It's interesting that Mermaids are arguing that LGBA's charitable status should be revoked because it has progressed the “pro-LGB” activities it claims to be focused on “only to a limited extent”. If progressing a cause "only to a limited extent" is grounds for revocation, where does it leave a charity like Mermaids that has actually set back its cause?
    As an LGB person, I'd personally argue the LGBA actively is against LGB activities, having had spokespeople and significant members of the organisation, as well as the organisation itself, previously argue that the UK doesn't need conversion therapy bans for LGB people, and arguing against same sex marriage and adoption rights for same sex couples at various time. I don't know the ins and outs of Mermaids legal argument, but that would be mine.
    Worth reading the judgement which goes into 1) what LGBA said before it was a charity, 2) what LGBA has said since it was a charity and 3) what supporters of LGBA have said.

    For example, do you find this hateful?

    During tribunal Kate Harris co founder of LGBA reduced to tears“I’m going to speak for millions of lesbians around the world who are lesbians because we love other women We will not be erased and we will not have any man with a penis tell us he’s a lesbian because he feels he is”

    https://twitter.com/suzanne_moore/status/1676891728370868226?

    And then there’s what one of Mermaids former Trustees wrote.

    Reminder that Mermaids’ trustee Jacob Breslow wrote the following -

    ‘… the queering that ‘queer’ does to the child, is one of resisting the child’s alleged asexuality and heterosexuality; allowing for the child’s pleasures, desires, and perversities; refusing the sexual narrative of growing up and becoming a proper sexual subject; and thwarting the normative frames of sexuality and identity that have constrained the child and the queer.’


    https://twitter.com/OldRoberts953/status/1676887395696877570?s=20

    Which do you find more concerning?

    Mermaids is currently under investigation by the Charity Commission over safeguarding concerns.
    I would say, of the first, that she isn't speaking for millions of lesbians around the world
    You think lesbians like “girl dick”?
    I mean, I am friends and know many cis lesbians who do. Do I think ALL cis lesbians do? Obviously not as some cis lesbians are very loudly anti trans. Do I think ALL cis lesbians who believe trans women are women and can be lesbians do? Probably not, I'm sure even some of them have preferences that don't include that, but some also have other preferences, like for femme or masc lesbians only. But clearly many do.
    That was a very long winded way of saying “Many do” or even just “Yes”
    Maybe I am just long winded. But, like a good product of the English education system, I like to explain my reasoning for things.
    tbh, I appreciated the long-windedness. But the mind boggles. I don't know many lesbians well, but the idea that they'd see a transwoman as an appealing sexual partner seems preposterous. I mean, how is a (pre-op) naked transwoman distinguishable from a man?

    My friend's 19yo stepdaughter now identifies as male and is in a relationship with a 19yo male who identifies as female. But both of them look like the sex they were born as. Basically they are a heterosexual couple in denial.
    I mean, people say the same thing about same sex attraction - "I'm a man, and I just don't understand why a man would find another man attractive".

    Typically attraction, even sexual attraction, doesn't start and end with how the person looks naked. Getting to know someone, finding them attractive when you first meet them, their personality, your interpersonal interactions - all go towards attraction.

    I also have it on good authority that there is a significant difference between cis men and pre operative trans women who are on hormones. Hormones do a lot to change the texture of skin, hair, even the way individuals smell, and the way that different body parts operate. Again, these will be impactful.
    I don't even understand how women can be attracted to men. Men are gross.
    I'm very grateful that enough of them are and that I am seemingly just above the absolute minimum threshold of "oh alright you'll do for now". But I will never understand it.
    If you are truly heterosexual you often find your own sex repulsive, I do not believe it is conditioned, as is sometimes alleged, it's something intrinsic. Is my guess. So you are hetero and you find the idea of sex with men, or naked men, quite UGH

    Same goes for homosexuals of either gender. They can find the idea of sex with the opposite gender YUK. True lesbians simply do not desire biological men

    True bisexuality, where you find both sexes equally appealing, is really quite rare, I suspect. However it does exist, and I know this because I had a truly bisexual girlfriend. We'd be talking in a bar then suddenly her eyes would glaze over and she'd stop chatting entirely as she looked past my shoulder, then I'd turn - and I'd realise she had spotted some hot girl walking to a table or whatever. Then the red mist would lift and my GF would say, Er, what were we talking about?

    It was rather disconcerting but it gave me an insight into how trying it must be for women, dealing with the male libido

  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,546

    Winning would have made all the difference in the world to Mermaids as a charity, but losing makes no difference at all. Go figure.

    https://twitter.com/docstockk/status/1676901129420980224

    Jolyon considers himself to be a barrister. He should know that standing is more than a “technical matter.”

    It’s like saying “I’d have won the case, had I only brought it within the limitation period.”
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 22,416
    edited July 2023
    algarkirk said:

    viewcode said:

    Carnyx said:

    viewcode said:

    algarkirk said:

    Disagreement with aims cannot possibly properly found an attack on the validity of a charity.

    So if I founded a charity with the explicit aim of firing all people called "algarkirk" into the sun, that would be valid?
    No, because criminal.
    Fair enough. How about a charity with the explicit aim of preventing people adopting the name "algarkirk" for any purposes?
    Void for uncertainty. Algarkirk is a well established place name in Lincolnshire, it is impossible to specify what 'prevention of adoption for any purposes' could mean. No public benefit.
    I genuinely did not know that Algarkirk is a village in Lincolnshire. I thought it was a reference to agar. I had this picture of a Star Trek character in a petri dish. You'll be telling me next that @Cookie is not an American biscuit that looks like Ron Swanson. :)
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 72,263
    edited July 2023
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    This will come as a shock to PB-ers, but I was actually THERE for that iconic final day at Lord’s last Sunday, when Stokes hit the greatest Test century on English soil and there was an iconic cheating allegation that embroiled two prime ministers and was headline news across the cosmos

    ANYWAY at the time I wondered if any other cricketer had ever attained a Test century - hit or passed the 100 - by hitting three consecutive sixes

    Some noble stattonerd is also interested in this. And he’s found - he says - at least one prior example. In South Africa

    The batsman was… Ben Stokes

    I know hyperbole is your thing, but the BIB is not correct. I can think of many others as good, or better. It was a great knock, but no more than that.
    Of course I’m being provocative, but I’m not entirely wrong. How do you judge a great innings? There are multiple objective ways, number of runs, duration at wicket, etc, and even more subjective ways.

    But one objective way is: the number of sixes scored in that one innings. Stokes hit 9, which is the greatest number ever in a Test innings, on English soil

    And, weirdly, I was there
    I think cricket pundits generally agree that match wining innings have a significant premium over those made in a losing cause - which does make a great deal of sense, since in the latter case, the element of pressure isn't quite the same.

    Which is why Stokes' pervious masterpiece is rated so highly.
    https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2019/aug/26/ben-stokes-hundred-greatest-test-innings

    Personally, I might rate Gooch's Headingly knock above either, since the bowling was close to unplayable (and certainly was by any of his teammates).

    Weirdly...
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 22,416
    Pagan2 said:

    viewcode said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Carnyx said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Carnyx said:

    viewcode said:

    algarkirk said:

    Disagreement with aims cannot possibly properly found an attack on the validity of a charity.

    So if I founded a charity with the explicit aim of firing all people called "algarkirk" into the sun, that would be valid?
    No, because criminal.
    There would be a strong public good factor however, the technology that would be involved in firing an algakirk into the sun could be repurposed for disposal of nuclear waste etc. Obviously there would be a downside to this for all algakirks
    But the algarkirk is not specific to the tech. A pagan or a strong binliner full of rubbish would do just as well, so that test fails.
    It would hardly be the first time that tech has been developed for one purpose. In this case if there are enough supporters of firing algakirks into the sun to fund the development then it comes to fruition. Perhaps without the lure of firing algakirks into the sun the funding would not be forthcoming.

    *For reference I have absolutely nothing against algakirk nor any desire to fire him into the sun
    If you want to get the technology for firing objects into the sun developed, then history shows there's one clear way to get that achieved: Find a pornographic use for projectiles being fired into the sun.
    Very true you only need to view the increasing use of teledildonics to see that
    Point of order: teledidonics is not taking off. Many of the sex predictions regarding the internet either did not come to pass or did so in different ways. VR keeps being proposed and keeps dying, the metaverse being only the most recent example. The combination of masturbation, online sex people on Onlyfans/Teams/Skype/whatever and transnational payments via patreon/other made overcomplicated solutions involving VR glasses and weird rubber attachments unnecessary.

    This may be the weirdest post in the history of PB

    :)
    Point of order teledildonics is certainly taking off, ten years ago I knew next to no women with remote controlled vibrators now I know about ten. Many online sites now provide the connecting bridge to utilize them.
    I. Need. To. Get. Out. More. :)
  • ChrisChris Posts: 11,779

    Chris said:

    Ivan Dimitrov writes to apologise for carving his name on the Colosseum:
    He continues: "I admit with profound embarrassment that only after what regretfully happened did I learn of the antiquity of the monument."

    If not a prison, surely an institution for the mentally disabled?

    Tbf worse things happened at the Colosseum.
    Am I making it up in my head or is there does some graffiti from the gladiators survive?
    Graffiti is to be found all over ancient monuments.

    Tourists in Italy who don't know the Colosseum is old are rather rare, I think.
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 10,005
    eek said:

    Pagan2 said:

    viewcode said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Carnyx said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Carnyx said:

    viewcode said:

    algarkirk said:

    Disagreement with aims cannot possibly properly found an attack on the validity of a charity.

    So if I founded a charity with the explicit aim of firing all people called "algarkirk" into the sun, that would be valid?
    No, because criminal.
    There would be a strong public good factor however, the technology that would be involved in firing an algakirk into the sun could be repurposed for disposal of nuclear waste etc. Obviously there would be a downside to this for all algakirks
    But the algarkirk is not specific to the tech. A pagan or a strong binliner full of rubbish would do just as well, so that test fails.
    It would hardly be the first time that tech has been developed for one purpose. In this case if there are enough supporters of firing algakirks into the sun to fund the development then it comes to fruition. Perhaps without the lure of firing algakirks into the sun the funding would not be forthcoming.

    *For reference I have absolutely nothing against algakirk nor any desire to fire him into the sun
    If you want to get the technology for firing objects into the sun developed, then history shows there's one clear way to get that achieved: Find a pornographic use for projectiles being fired into the sun.
    Very true you only need to view the increasing use of teledildonics to see that
    Point of order: teledidonics is not taking off. Many of the sex predictions regarding the internet either did not come to pass or did so in different ways. VR keeps being proposed and keeps dying, the metaverse being only the most recent example. The combination of masturbation, online sex people on Onlyfans/Teams/Skype/whatever and transnational payments via patreon/other made overcomplicated solutions involving VR glasses and weird rubber attachments unnecessary.

    This may be the weirdest post in the history of PB

    :)
    Point of order teledildonics is certainly taking off, ten years ago I knew next to no women with remote controlled vibrators now I know about ten. Many online sites now provide the connecting bridge to utilize them.
    Got to say there is a distinct cross over between teledildonics and some sites similar to Onlyfans - because people love the instant feedback loop...

    At least some research I have had to do in a professional capacity tells me...
    Also many sites that consider themselves more social media sites than sites to have sex on. It is helped by the manufacturers of teledildonic apparatus providing api's to use them quite freely. I suspect however there is a data scandal in the making somewhere along the line
  • sarissasarissa Posts: 2,003
    Carnyx said:

    Chris said:

    Ivan Dimitrov writes to apologise for carving his name on the Colosseum:
    He continues: "I admit with profound embarrassment that only after what regretfully happened did I learn of the antiquity of the monument."

    If not a prison, surely an institution for the mentally disabled?

    TBF Roman brickwork can often look very modern. Or better, even with its age disadvantage.
    There are also several section of modern rebuild with old-style brickwork
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 10,005
    viewcode said:

    Pagan2 said:

    viewcode said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Carnyx said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Carnyx said:

    viewcode said:

    algarkirk said:

    Disagreement with aims cannot possibly properly found an attack on the validity of a charity.

    So if I founded a charity with the explicit aim of firing all people called "algarkirk" into the sun, that would be valid?
    No, because criminal.
    There would be a strong public good factor however, the technology that would be involved in firing an algakirk into the sun could be repurposed for disposal of nuclear waste etc. Obviously there would be a downside to this for all algakirks
    But the algarkirk is not specific to the tech. A pagan or a strong binliner full of rubbish would do just as well, so that test fails.
    It would hardly be the first time that tech has been developed for one purpose. In this case if there are enough supporters of firing algakirks into the sun to fund the development then it comes to fruition. Perhaps without the lure of firing algakirks into the sun the funding would not be forthcoming.

    *For reference I have absolutely nothing against algakirk nor any desire to fire him into the sun
    If you want to get the technology for firing objects into the sun developed, then history shows there's one clear way to get that achieved: Find a pornographic use for projectiles being fired into the sun.
    Very true you only need to view the increasing use of teledildonics to see that
    Point of order: teledidonics is not taking off. Many of the sex predictions regarding the internet either did not come to pass or did so in different ways. VR keeps being proposed and keeps dying, the metaverse being only the most recent example. The combination of masturbation, online sex people on Onlyfans/Teams/Skype/whatever and transnational payments via patreon/other made overcomplicated solutions involving VR glasses and weird rubber attachments unnecessary.

    This may be the weirdest post in the history of PB

    :)
    Point of order teledildonics is certainly taking off, ten years ago I knew next to no women with remote controlled vibrators now I know about ten. Many online sites now provide the connecting bridge to utilize them.
    I. Need. To. Get. Out. More. :)
    There are very many strange people in cyberspace, PB hardly scratches the surface of the insanity out there
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 52,149
    Pagan2 said:

    Farooq said:

    148grss said:

    Cookie said:

    148grss said:

    DougSeal said:

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    Before resident anti trans individuals try to post this with their spin; Mermaids failed on standing to get LGB Alliance's charity status revoked, on the merits, the judges seemed to be split - with one agreeing that LGBA shouldn't have charity status, and one disagreeing.

    https://mermaidsuk.org.uk/news/statement-on-the-ruling-in-mermaids-v-charity-commission-and-lgb-alliance/

    So, whilst many will crow that this is a good thing for LGBA, I would suggest that what it really means is in the case someone who has standing can bring this to trial again, or if on an appeal Mermaids are found to have standing, there seems to be enough of an argument for it to go either way.

    It's interesting that Mermaids are arguing that LGBA's charitable status should be revoked because it has progressed the “pro-LGB” activities it claims to be focused on “only to a limited extent”. If progressing a cause "only to a limited extent" is grounds for revocation, where does it leave a charity like Mermaids that has actually set back its cause?
    As an LGB person, I'd personally argue the LGBA actively is against LGB activities, having had spokespeople and significant members of the organisation, as well as the organisation itself, previously argue that the UK doesn't need conversion therapy bans for LGB people, and arguing against same sex marriage and adoption rights for same sex couples at various time. I don't know the ins and outs of Mermaids legal argument, but that would be mine.
    Worth reading the judgement which goes into 1) what LGBA said before it was a charity, 2) what LGBA has said since it was a charity and 3) what supporters of LGBA have said.

    For example, do you find this hateful?

    During tribunal Kate Harris co founder of LGBA reduced to tears“I’m going to speak for millions of lesbians around the world who are lesbians because we love other women We will not be erased and we will not have any man with a penis tell us he’s a lesbian because he feels he is”

    https://twitter.com/suzanne_moore/status/1676891728370868226?

    And then there’s what one of Mermaids former Trustees wrote.

    Reminder that Mermaids’ trustee Jacob Breslow wrote the following -

    ‘… the queering that ‘queer’ does to the child, is one of resisting the child’s alleged asexuality and heterosexuality; allowing for the child’s pleasures, desires, and perversities; refusing the sexual narrative of growing up and becoming a proper sexual subject; and thwarting the normative frames of sexuality and identity that have constrained the child and the queer.’


    https://twitter.com/OldRoberts953/status/1676887395696877570?s=20

    Which do you find more concerning?

    Mermaids is currently under investigation by the Charity Commission over safeguarding concerns.
    I would say, of the first, that she isn't speaking for millions of lesbians around the world
    You think lesbians like “girl dick”?
    I mean, I am friends and know many cis lesbians who do. Do I think ALL cis lesbians do? Obviously not as some cis lesbians are very loudly anti trans. Do I think ALL cis lesbians who believe trans women are women and can be lesbians do? Probably not, I'm sure even some of them have preferences that don't include that, but some also have other preferences, like for femme or masc lesbians only. But clearly many do.
    That was a very long winded way of saying “Many do” or even just “Yes”
    Maybe I am just long winded. But, like a good product of the English education system, I like to explain my reasoning for things.
    tbh, I appreciated the long-windedness. But the mind boggles. I don't know many lesbians well, but the idea that they'd see a transwoman as an appealing sexual partner seems preposterous. I mean, how is a (pre-op) naked transwoman distinguishable from a man?

    My friend's 19yo stepdaughter now identifies as male and is in a relationship with a 19yo male who identifies as female. But both of them look like the sex they were born as. Basically they are a heterosexual couple in denial.
    I mean, people say the same thing about same sex attraction - "I'm a man, and I just don't understand why a man would find another man attractive".

    Typically attraction, even sexual attraction, doesn't start and end with how the person looks naked. Getting to know someone, finding them attractive when you first meet them, their personality, your interpersonal interactions - all go towards attraction.

    I also have it on good authority that there is a significant difference between cis men and pre operative trans women who are on hormones. Hormones do a lot to change the texture of skin, hair, even the way individuals smell, and the way that different body parts operate. Again, these will be impactful.
    I don't even understand how women can be attracted to men. Men are gross.
    I'm very grateful that enough of them are and that I am seemingly just above the absolute minimum threshold of "oh alright you'll do for now". But I will never understand it.
    A naked man has the look of the last chicken in the chilled aisle imo
    "Joey, have you ever seen a grown man naked?"
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 63,137
    Andrew Lilico
    @andrew_lilico
    ·
    1h
    Has British politics, economics & policymaking ever witnessed a more "Après moi, le déluge" sequence than Blair's departure & what followed?

    https://twitter.com/andrew_lilico
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 52,149
    edited July 2023
    DavidL said:

    Carnyx said:

    Chris said:

    Ivan Dimitrov writes to apologise for carving his name on the Colosseum:
    He continues: "I admit with profound embarrassment that only after what regretfully happened did I learn of the antiquity of the monument."

    If not a prison, surely an institution for the mentally disabled?

    TBF Roman brickwork can often look very modern. Or better, even with its age disadvantage.
    Yeah, but the Colosseum FFS!
    “You should see the Colosseum, Spaniard. Fifty-thousand Romans watching every movement of your sword, willing you to make that killer blow. The silence before you strike and the noise afterwards. It rises. It rises up like a storm. As if you were the thunder god himself.”
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 72,263

    Andrew Lilico
    @andrew_lilico
    ·
    1h
    Has British politics, economics & policymaking ever witnessed a more "Après moi, le déluge" sequence than Blair's departure & what followed?

    https://twitter.com/andrew_lilico

    Yes: Boris.

    What followed Blair will seem a light squall in comparison, I suspect.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 12,888
    edited July 2023
    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    Ivan Dimitrov writes to apologise for carving his name on the Colosseum:
    He continues: "I admit with profound embarrassment that only after what regretfully happened did I learn of the antiquity of the monument."

    If not a prison, surely an institution for the mentally disabled?

    Tbf worse things happened at the Colosseum.
    Am I making it up in my head or is there does some graffiti from the gladiators survive?
    Graffiti is to be found all over ancient monuments.

    Tourists in Italy who don't know the Colosseum is old are rather rare, I think.
    Once old enough graffiti itself becomes protected ancient artifact. The Coronation throne in Westminster Abbey, the Tower of London, Carlisle Castle, and, my favourite example, the graffiti of passing ships in the choirstalls at Salthouse, Norfolk.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 22,416
    Pagan2 said:

    eek said:

    Pagan2 said:

    viewcode said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Carnyx said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Carnyx said:

    viewcode said:

    algarkirk said:

    Disagreement with aims cannot possibly properly found an attack on the validity of a charity.

    So if I founded a charity with the explicit aim of firing all people called "algarkirk" into the sun, that would be valid?
    No, because criminal.
    There would be a strong public good factor however, the technology that would be involved in firing an algakirk into the sun could be repurposed for disposal of nuclear waste etc. Obviously there would be a downside to this for all algakirks
    But the algarkirk is not specific to the tech. A pagan or a strong binliner full of rubbish would do just as well, so that test fails.
    It would hardly be the first time that tech has been developed for one purpose. In this case if there are enough supporters of firing algakirks into the sun to fund the development then it comes to fruition. Perhaps without the lure of firing algakirks into the sun the funding would not be forthcoming.

    *For reference I have absolutely nothing against algakirk nor any desire to fire him into the sun
    If you want to get the technology for firing objects into the sun developed, then history shows there's one clear way to get that achieved: Find a pornographic use for projectiles being fired into the sun.
    Very true you only need to view the increasing use of teledildonics to see that
    Point of order: teledidonics is not taking off. Many of the sex predictions regarding the internet either did not come to pass or did so in different ways. VR keeps being proposed and keeps dying, the metaverse being only the most recent example. The combination of masturbation, online sex people on Onlyfans/Teams/Skype/whatever and transnational payments via patreon/other made overcomplicated solutions involving VR glasses and weird rubber attachments unnecessary.

    This may be the weirdest post in the history of PB

    :)
    Point of order teledildonics is certainly taking off, ten years ago I knew next to no women with remote controlled vibrators now I know about ten. Many online sites now provide the connecting bridge to utilize them.
    Got to say there is a distinct cross over between teledildonics and some sites similar to Onlyfans - because people love the instant feedback loop...

    At least some research I have had to do in a professional capacity tells me...
    Also many sites that consider themselves more social media sites than sites to have sex on. It is helped by the manufacturers of teledildonic apparatus providing api's to use them quite freely. I suspect however there is a data scandal in the making somewhere along the line
    I am in danger of taking this seriously. What information would you compile, and what use could you put it to? Is there a specific time of day for this? Is the purchase limited to certain social classes? Are the wearer and the button-presser the same person? If not, can we split it male/male, male/female, or female/female? Can they be sold associated goods? ("Other people who bought this product also bought..."). Can we do a age/sex/location breakdown? IS THERE A CHOROPLETH?
  • LeonLeon Posts: 56,606
    eek said:

    Pagan2 said:

    viewcode said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Carnyx said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Carnyx said:

    viewcode said:

    algarkirk said:

    Disagreement with aims cannot possibly properly found an attack on the validity of a charity.

    So if I founded a charity with the explicit aim of firing all people called "algarkirk" into the sun, that would be valid?
    No, because criminal.
    There would be a strong public good factor however, the technology that would be involved in firing an algakirk into the sun could be repurposed for disposal of nuclear waste etc. Obviously there would be a downside to this for all algakirks
    But the algarkirk is not specific to the tech. A pagan or a strong binliner full of rubbish would do just as well, so that test fails.
    It would hardly be the first time that tech has been developed for one purpose. In this case if there are enough supporters of firing algakirks into the sun to fund the development then it comes to fruition. Perhaps without the lure of firing algakirks into the sun the funding would not be forthcoming.

    *For reference I have absolutely nothing against algakirk nor any desire to fire him into the sun
    If you want to get the technology for firing objects into the sun developed, then history shows there's one clear way to get that achieved: Find a pornographic use for projectiles being fired into the sun.
    Very true you only need to view the increasing use of teledildonics to see that
    Point of order: teledidonics is not taking off. Many of the sex predictions regarding the internet either did not come to pass or did so in different ways. VR keeps being proposed and keeps dying, the metaverse being only the most recent example. The combination of masturbation, online sex people on Onlyfans/Teams/Skype/whatever and transnational payments via patreon/other made overcomplicated solutions involving VR glasses and weird rubber attachments unnecessary.

    This may be the weirdest post in the history of PB

    :)
    Point of order teledildonics is certainly taking off, ten years ago I knew next to no women with remote controlled vibrators now I know about ten. Many online sites now provide the connecting bridge to utilize them.
    Got to say there is a distinct cross over between teledildonics and some sites similar to Onlyfans - because people love the instant feedback loop...

    At least some research I have had to do in a professional capacity tells me...
    The Hitachi Wand has slowly revolutionised vibrators, as knowledge has grown. Pretty much guarantees orgasm for many women who otherwise struggle

    It has, some say a fascinating backstory. Weird puritan Japanese laws (the same that demand pixilation of naughty bits) insisted that sex toys like vibes cannot resemble the sexual organ too closely

    This forced Hitachi engineers to focus on other factors, like the best vibrations possible, the shape of the vibrating surface for maximum orgasmality, and so on - they didn't simply presume a penis-like vibrator must be best

    Thus, the Wand. And a lot of happy women

    The more boring story is that they first made it as a back massager, and then someone else realised it was OOOOOOH! in bed

    Perhaps it is a bit of both?

    This information was brought to you by the history department of LEON'S FLINT DILDOS INC
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 15,903
    viewcode said:

    Pagan2 said:

    viewcode said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Carnyx said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Carnyx said:

    viewcode said:

    algarkirk said:

    Disagreement with aims cannot possibly properly found an attack on the validity of a charity.

    So if I founded a charity with the explicit aim of firing all people called "algarkirk" into the sun, that would be valid?
    No, because criminal.
    There would be a strong public good factor however, the technology that would be involved in firing an algakirk into the sun could be repurposed for disposal of nuclear waste etc. Obviously there would be a downside to this for all algakirks
    But the algarkirk is not specific to the tech. A pagan or a strong binliner full of rubbish would do just as well, so that test fails.
    It would hardly be the first time that tech has been developed for one purpose. In this case if there are enough supporters of firing algakirks into the sun to fund the development then it comes to fruition. Perhaps without the lure of firing algakirks into the sun the funding would not be forthcoming.

    *For reference I have absolutely nothing against algakirk nor any desire to fire him into the sun
    If you want to get the technology for firing objects into the sun developed, then history shows there's one clear way to get that achieved: Find a pornographic use for projectiles being fired into the sun.
    Very true you only need to view the increasing use of teledildonics to see that
    Point of order: teledidonics is not taking off. Many of the sex predictions regarding the internet either did not come to pass or did so in different ways. VR keeps being proposed and keeps dying, the metaverse being only the most recent example. The combination of masturbation, online sex people on Onlyfans/Teams/Skype/whatever and transnational payments via patreon/other made overcomplicated solutions involving VR glasses and weird rubber attachments unnecessary.

    This may be the weirdest post in the history of PB

    :)
    Point of order teledildonics is certainly taking off, ten years ago I knew next to no women with remote controlled vibrators now I know about ten. Many online sites now provide the connecting bridge to utilize them.
    I. Need. To. Get. Out. More. :)
    Or stay in more?
  • LeonLeon Posts: 56,606
    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    This will come as a shock to PB-ers, but I was actually THERE for that iconic final day at Lord’s last Sunday, when Stokes hit the greatest Test century on English soil and there was an iconic cheating allegation that embroiled two prime ministers and was headline news across the cosmos

    ANYWAY at the time I wondered if any other cricketer had ever attained a Test century - hit or passed the 100 - by hitting three consecutive sixes

    Some noble stattonerd is also interested in this. And he’s found - he says - at least one prior example. In South Africa

    The batsman was… Ben Stokes

    I know hyperbole is your thing, but the BIB is not correct. I can think of many others as good, or better. It was a great knock, but no more than that.
    Of course I’m being provocative, but I’m not entirely wrong. How do you judge a great innings? There are multiple objective ways, number of runs, duration at wicket, etc, and even more subjective ways.

    But one objective way is: the number of sixes scored in that one innings. Stokes hit 9, which is the greatest number ever in a Test innings, on English soil

    And, weirdly, I was there
    I think cricket pundits generally agree that match wining innings have a significant premium over those made in a losing cause - which does make a great deal of sense, since in the latter case, the element of pressure isn't quite the same.

    Which is why Stokes' pervious masterpiece is rated so highly.
    https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2019/aug/26/ben-stokes-hundred-greatest-test-innings

    Personally, I might rate Gooch's Headingly knock above either, since the bowling was close to unplayable (and certainly was by any of his teammates).

    Weirdly...
    TBF I would agree. A winning innings is always going to be better. If you were there for the Gooch innings, bravo and I'm well jel

    However the addition of that superb cheating story - biggest since Bodyline? - ALONG with the innings, does make that Sunday at Lord's pretty iconic. And to think I was edxpecting forty minutes and all out!
  • FossFoss Posts: 1,030
    .
    viewcode said:

    Pagan2 said:

    eek said:

    Pagan2 said:

    viewcode said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Carnyx said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Carnyx said:

    viewcode said:

    algarkirk said:

    Disagreement with aims cannot possibly properly found an attack on the validity of a charity.

    So if I founded a charity with the explicit aim of firing all people called "algarkirk" into the sun, that would be valid?
    No, because criminal.
    There would be a strong public good factor however, the technology that would be involved in firing an algakirk into the sun could be repurposed for disposal of nuclear waste etc. Obviously there would be a downside to this for all algakirks
    But the algarkirk is not specific to the tech. A pagan or a strong binliner full of rubbish would do just as well, so that test fails.
    It would hardly be the first time that tech has been developed for one purpose. In this case if there are enough supporters of firing algakirks into the sun to fund the development then it comes to fruition. Perhaps without the lure of firing algakirks into the sun the funding would not be forthcoming.

    *For reference I have absolutely nothing against algakirk nor any desire to fire him into the sun
    If you want to get the technology for firing objects into the sun developed, then history shows there's one clear way to get that achieved: Find a pornographic use for projectiles being fired into the sun.
    Very true you only need to view the increasing use of teledildonics to see that
    Point of order: teledidonics is not taking off. Many of the sex predictions regarding the internet either did not come to pass or did so in different ways. VR keeps being proposed and keeps dying, the metaverse being only the most recent example. The combination of masturbation, online sex people on Onlyfans/Teams/Skype/whatever and transnational payments via patreon/other made overcomplicated solutions involving VR glasses and weird rubber attachments unnecessary.

    This may be the weirdest post in the history of PB

    :)
    Point of order teledildonics is certainly taking off, ten years ago I knew next to no women with remote controlled vibrators now I know about ten. Many online sites now provide the connecting bridge to utilize them.
    Got to say there is a distinct cross over between teledildonics and some sites similar to Onlyfans - because people love the instant feedback loop...

    At least some research I have had to do in a professional capacity tells me...
    Also many sites that consider themselves more social media sites than sites to have sex on. It is helped by the manufacturers of teledildonic apparatus providing api's to use them quite freely. I suspect however there is a data scandal in the making somewhere along the line
    I am in danger of taking this seriously. What information would you compile, and what use could you put it to? Is there a specific time of day for this? Is the purchase limited to certain social classes? Are the wearer and the button-presser the same person? If not, can we split it male/male, male/female, or female/female? Can they be sold associated goods? ("Other people who bought this product also bought..."). Can we do a age/sex/location breakdown? IS THERE A CHOROPLETH?
    "You were wearing WHAT in a school?"
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 42,167
    algarkirk said:

    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    Ivan Dimitrov writes to apologise for carving his name on the Colosseum:
    He continues: "I admit with profound embarrassment that only after what regretfully happened did I learn of the antiquity of the monument."

    If not a prison, surely an institution for the mentally disabled?

    Tbf worse things happened at the Colosseum.
    Am I making it up in my head or is there does some graffiti from the gladiators survive?
    Graffiti is to be found all over ancient monuments.

    Tourists in Italy who don't know the Colosseum is old are rather rare, I think.
    Once old enough graffiti itself becomes protected ancient artifact. The Coronation throne in Westminster Abbey, the Tower of London, Carlisle Castle, and, my favourite example, the graffiti of passing ships in the choirstalls at Salthouse, Norfolk.
    The preserved graffiti in the Reichstag is much more recent but it still seems from a different, alien world. Ukrainian visitors may feel differently, mind.
  • 148grss148grss Posts: 4,155
    Leon said:

    Farooq said:

    148grss said:

    Cookie said:

    148grss said:

    DougSeal said:

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    Before resident anti trans individuals try to post this with their spin; Mermaids failed on standing to get LGB Alliance's charity status revoked, on the merits, the judges seemed to be split - with one agreeing that LGBA shouldn't have charity status, and one disagreeing.

    https://mermaidsuk.org.uk/news/statement-on-the-ruling-in-mermaids-v-charity-commission-and-lgb-alliance/

    So, whilst many will crow that this is a good thing for LGBA, I would suggest that what it really means is in the case someone who has standing can bring this to trial again, or if on an appeal Mermaids are found to have standing, there seems to be enough of an argument for it to go either way.

    It's interesting that Mermaids are arguing that LGBA's charitable status should be revoked because it has progressed the “pro-LGB” activities it claims to be focused on “only to a limited extent”. If progressing a cause "only to a limited extent" is grounds for revocation, where does it leave a charity like Mermaids that has actually set back its cause?
    As an LGB person, I'd personally argue the LGBA actively is against LGB activities, having had spokespeople and significant members of the organisation, as well as the organisation itself, previously argue that the UK doesn't need conversion therapy bans for LGB people, and arguing against same sex marriage and adoption rights for same sex couples at various time. I don't know the ins and outs of Mermaids legal argument, but that would be mine.
    Worth reading the judgement which goes into 1) what LGBA said before it was a charity, 2) what LGBA has said since it was a charity and 3) what supporters of LGBA have said.

    For example, do you find this hateful?

    During tribunal Kate Harris co founder of LGBA reduced to tears“I’m going to speak for millions of lesbians around the world who are lesbians because we love other women We will not be erased and we will not have any man with a penis tell us he’s a lesbian because he feels he is”

    https://twitter.com/suzanne_moore/status/1676891728370868226?

    And then there’s what one of Mermaids former Trustees wrote.

    Reminder that Mermaids’ trustee Jacob Breslow wrote the following -

    ‘… the queering that ‘queer’ does to the child, is one of resisting the child’s alleged asexuality and heterosexuality; allowing for the child’s pleasures, desires, and perversities; refusing the sexual narrative of growing up and becoming a proper sexual subject; and thwarting the normative frames of sexuality and identity that have constrained the child and the queer.’


    https://twitter.com/OldRoberts953/status/1676887395696877570?s=20

    Which do you find more concerning?

    Mermaids is currently under investigation by the Charity Commission over safeguarding concerns.
    I would say, of the first, that she isn't speaking for millions of lesbians around the world
    You think lesbians like “girl dick”?
    I mean, I am friends and know many cis lesbians who do. Do I think ALL cis lesbians do? Obviously not as some cis lesbians are very loudly anti trans. Do I think ALL cis lesbians who believe trans women are women and can be lesbians do? Probably not, I'm sure even some of them have preferences that don't include that, but some also have other preferences, like for femme or masc lesbians only. But clearly many do.
    That was a very long winded way of saying “Many do” or even just “Yes”
    Maybe I am just long winded. But, like a good product of the English education system, I like to explain my reasoning for things.
    tbh, I appreciated the long-windedness. But the mind boggles. I don't know many lesbians well, but the idea that they'd see a transwoman as an appealing sexual partner seems preposterous. I mean, how is a (pre-op) naked transwoman distinguishable from a man?

    My friend's 19yo stepdaughter now identifies as male and is in a relationship with a 19yo male who identifies as female. But both of them look like the sex they were born as. Basically they are a heterosexual couple in denial.
    I mean, people say the same thing about same sex attraction - "I'm a man, and I just don't understand why a man would find another man attractive".

    Typically attraction, even sexual attraction, doesn't start and end with how the person looks naked. Getting to know someone, finding them attractive when you first meet them, their personality, your interpersonal interactions - all go towards attraction.

    I also have it on good authority that there is a significant difference between cis men and pre operative trans women who are on hormones. Hormones do a lot to change the texture of skin, hair, even the way individuals smell, and the way that different body parts operate. Again, these will be impactful.
    I don't even understand how women can be attracted to men. Men are gross.
    I'm very grateful that enough of them are and that I am seemingly just above the absolute minimum threshold of "oh alright you'll do for now". But I will never understand it.
    If you are truly heterosexual you often find your own sex repulsive, I do not believe it is conditioned, as is sometimes alleged, it's something intrinsic. Is my guess. So you are hetero and you find the idea of sex with men, or naked men, quite UGH

    Same goes for homosexuals of either gender. They can find the idea of sex with the opposite gender YUK. True lesbians simply do not desire biological men

    True bisexuality, where you find both sexes equally appealing, is really quite rare, I suspect. However it does exist, and I know this because I had a truly bisexual girlfriend. We'd be talking in a bar then suddenly her eyes would glaze over and she'd stop chatting entirely as she looked past my shoulder, then I'd turn - and I'd realise she had spotted some hot girl walking to a table or whatever. Then the red mist would lift and my GF would say, Er, what were we talking about?

    It was rather disconcerting but it gave me an insight into how trying it must be for women, dealing with the male libido

    "True bisexuality, where you find both sexes equally appealing, is really quite rare, I suspect."

    I don't know anyone who described "true bisexuality" and finding sexes "equally" appealing, just that they are attracted to men or women (and even non binary people). Indeed, a lot of bisexual people who grew up with that term and didn't know about "pansexual" (like myself) still use bisexual as a self descriptor and define it as "attraction to people of their own gender and not of their own gender" (that being the binary in question), whereas pan typically suggests attraction "regardless" of gender, and I don't think regardless of quite works for my experiences, but I know I'm attracted to cis, trans and non binary people.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 13,778
    Meanwhile on Completely Normal Island, N****rgate rumbles on.

    https://amp.theguardian.com/culture/2023/jul/05/dambusters-dog-grave-raf-proposal-rejected

    A 50m tall black marble ossuary with gilded domes on Trafalgar Square may be the best option.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 12,888

    DavidL said:

    Carnyx said:

    Chris said:

    Ivan Dimitrov writes to apologise for carving his name on the Colosseum:
    He continues: "I admit with profound embarrassment that only after what regretfully happened did I learn of the antiquity of the monument."

    If not a prison, surely an institution for the mentally disabled?

    TBF Roman brickwork can often look very modern. Or better, even with its age disadvantage.
    Yeah, but the Colosseum FFS!
    “You should see the Colosseum, Spaniard. Fifty-thousand Romans watching every movement of your sword, willing you to make that killer blow. The silence before you strike and the noise afterwards. It rises. It rises up like a storm. As if you were the thunder god himself.”
    There is a fabulous description of the gladiator contest, the blood lust and the crowd in Augustine's Confessions, Bk 6. Chapter 8.

  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 51,153

    Pagan2 said:

    Carnyx said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Carnyx said:

    viewcode said:

    algarkirk said:

    Disagreement with aims cannot possibly properly found an attack on the validity of a charity.

    So if I founded a charity with the explicit aim of firing all people called "algarkirk" into the sun, that would be valid?
    No, because criminal.
    There would be a strong public good factor however, the technology that would be involved in firing an algakirk into the sun could be repurposed for disposal of nuclear waste etc. Obviously there would be a downside to this for all algakirks
    But the algarkirk is not specific to the tech. A pagan or a strong binliner full of rubbish would do just as well, so that test fails.
    It would hardly be the first time that tech has been developed for one purpose. In this case if there are enough supporters of firing algakirks into the sun to fund the development then it comes to fruition. Perhaps without the lure of firing algakirks into the sun the funding would not be forthcoming.

    *For reference I have absolutely nothing against algakirk nor any desire to fire him into the sun
    If you want to get the technology for firing objects into the sun developed, then history shows there's one clear way to get that achieved: Find a pornographic use for projectiles being fired into the sun.
    You forgot intellectual property theft as the other technology enabler.

    I recall certain shops (in 1991 or so) on Tottenham Court Road were selling “Video CDs” - I actually told friends that a new technology was emerging and that it was would be The Next Thing.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 56,606
    algarkirk said:

    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    Ivan Dimitrov writes to apologise for carving his name on the Colosseum:
    He continues: "I admit with profound embarrassment that only after what regretfully happened did I learn of the antiquity of the monument."

    If not a prison, surely an institution for the mentally disabled?

    Tbf worse things happened at the Colosseum.
    Am I making it up in my head or is there does some graffiti from the gladiators survive?
    Graffiti is to be found all over ancient monuments.

    Tourists in Italy who don't know the Colosseum is old are rather rare, I think.
    Once old enough graffiti itself becomes protected ancient artifact. The Coronation throne in Westminster Abbey, the Tower of London, Carlisle Castle, and, my favourite example, the graffiti of passing ships in the choirstalls at Salthouse, Norfolk.
    It is a noble tradition. The poet Rimbaud carved his name on the 3000 year old pillars of Karnak temple at Luxor. I know this coz I took a photo


  • 148grss148grss Posts: 4,155
    Pagan2 said:

    Farooq said:

    148grss said:

    Cookie said:

    148grss said:

    DougSeal said:

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    Before resident anti trans individuals try to post this with their spin; Mermaids failed on standing to get LGB Alliance's charity status revoked, on the merits, the judges seemed to be split - with one agreeing that LGBA shouldn't have charity status, and one disagreeing.

    https://mermaidsuk.org.uk/news/statement-on-the-ruling-in-mermaids-v-charity-commission-and-lgb-alliance/

    So, whilst many will crow that this is a good thing for LGBA, I would suggest that what it really means is in the case someone who has standing can bring this to trial again, or if on an appeal Mermaids are found to have standing, there seems to be enough of an argument for it to go either way.

    It's interesting that Mermaids are arguing that LGBA's charitable status should be revoked because it has progressed the “pro-LGB” activities it claims to be focused on “only to a limited extent”. If progressing a cause "only to a limited extent" is grounds for revocation, where does it leave a charity like Mermaids that has actually set back its cause?
    As an LGB person, I'd personally argue the LGBA actively is against LGB activities, having had spokespeople and significant members of the organisation, as well as the organisation itself, previously argue that the UK doesn't need conversion therapy bans for LGB people, and arguing against same sex marriage and adoption rights for same sex couples at various time. I don't know the ins and outs of Mermaids legal argument, but that would be mine.
    Worth reading the judgement which goes into 1) what LGBA said before it was a charity, 2) what LGBA has said since it was a charity and 3) what supporters of LGBA have said.

    For example, do you find this hateful?

    During tribunal Kate Harris co founder of LGBA reduced to tears“I’m going to speak for millions of lesbians around the world who are lesbians because we love other women We will not be erased and we will not have any man with a penis tell us he’s a lesbian because he feels he is”

    https://twitter.com/suzanne_moore/status/1676891728370868226?

    And then there’s what one of Mermaids former Trustees wrote.

    Reminder that Mermaids’ trustee Jacob Breslow wrote the following -

    ‘… the queering that ‘queer’ does to the child, is one of resisting the child’s alleged asexuality and heterosexuality; allowing for the child’s pleasures, desires, and perversities; refusing the sexual narrative of growing up and becoming a proper sexual subject; and thwarting the normative frames of sexuality and identity that have constrained the child and the queer.’


    https://twitter.com/OldRoberts953/status/1676887395696877570?s=20

    Which do you find more concerning?

    Mermaids is currently under investigation by the Charity Commission over safeguarding concerns.
    I would say, of the first, that she isn't speaking for millions of lesbians around the world
    You think lesbians like “girl dick”?
    I mean, I am friends and know many cis lesbians who do. Do I think ALL cis lesbians do? Obviously not as some cis lesbians are very loudly anti trans. Do I think ALL cis lesbians who believe trans women are women and can be lesbians do? Probably not, I'm sure even some of them have preferences that don't include that, but some also have other preferences, like for femme or masc lesbians only. But clearly many do.
    That was a very long winded way of saying “Many do” or even just “Yes”
    Maybe I am just long winded. But, like a good product of the English education system, I like to explain my reasoning for things.
    tbh, I appreciated the long-windedness. But the mind boggles. I don't know many lesbians well, but the idea that they'd see a transwoman as an appealing sexual partner seems preposterous. I mean, how is a (pre-op) naked transwoman distinguishable from a man?

    My friend's 19yo stepdaughter now identifies as male and is in a relationship with a 19yo male who identifies as female. But both of them look like the sex they were born as. Basically they are a heterosexual couple in denial.
    I mean, people say the same thing about same sex attraction - "I'm a man, and I just don't understand why a man would find another man attractive".

    Typically attraction, even sexual attraction, doesn't start and end with how the person looks naked. Getting to know someone, finding them attractive when you first meet them, their personality, your interpersonal interactions - all go towards attraction.

    I also have it on good authority that there is a significant difference between cis men and pre operative trans women who are on hormones. Hormones do a lot to change the texture of skin, hair, even the way individuals smell, and the way that different body parts operate. Again, these will be impactful.
    I don't even understand how women can be attracted to men. Men are gross.
    I'm very grateful that enough of them are and that I am seemingly just above the absolute minimum threshold of "oh alright you'll do for now". But I will never understand it.
    A naked man has the look of the last chicken in the chilled aisle imo
    Hello Diogenes!
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 51,153
    Dura_Ace said:

    Meanwhile on Completely Normal Island, N****rgate rumbles on.

    https://amp.theguardian.com/culture/2023/jul/05/dambusters-dog-grave-raf-proposal-rejected

    A 50m tall black marble ossuary with gilded domes on Trafalgar Square may be the best option.

    Sounds a bit quiet.

    What we need is this

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_Emmanuel_II_Monument

    But five times the size.
  • 148grss148grss Posts: 4,155
    Leon said:

    Farooq said:

    148grss said:

    Cookie said:

    148grss said:

    DougSeal said:

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    Before resident anti trans individuals try to post this with their spin; Mermaids failed on standing to get LGB Alliance's charity status revoked, on the merits, the judges seemed to be split - with one agreeing that LGBA shouldn't have charity status, and one disagreeing.

    https://mermaidsuk.org.uk/news/statement-on-the-ruling-in-mermaids-v-charity-commission-and-lgb-alliance/

    So, whilst many will crow that this is a good thing for LGBA, I would suggest that what it really means is in the case someone who has standing can bring this to trial again, or if on an appeal Mermaids are found to have standing, there seems to be enough of an argument for it to go either way.

    It's interesting that Mermaids are arguing that LGBA's charitable status should be revoked because it has progressed the “pro-LGB” activities it claims to be focused on “only to a limited extent”. If progressing a cause "only to a limited extent" is grounds for revocation, where does it leave a charity like Mermaids that has actually set back its cause?
    As an LGB person, I'd personally argue the LGBA actively is against LGB activities, having had spokespeople and significant members of the organisation, as well as the organisation itself, previously argue that the UK doesn't need conversion therapy bans for LGB people, and arguing against same sex marriage and adoption rights for same sex couples at various time. I don't know the ins and outs of Mermaids legal argument, but that would be mine.
    Worth reading the judgement which goes into 1) what LGBA said before it was a charity, 2) what LGBA has said since it was a charity and 3) what supporters of LGBA have said.

    For example, do you find this hateful?

    During tribunal Kate Harris co founder of LGBA reduced to tears“I’m going to speak for millions of lesbians around the world who are lesbians because we love other women We will not be erased and we will not have any man with a penis tell us he’s a lesbian because he feels he is”

    https://twitter.com/suzanne_moore/status/1676891728370868226?

    And then there’s what one of Mermaids former Trustees wrote.

    Reminder that Mermaids’ trustee Jacob Breslow wrote the following -

    ‘… the queering that ‘queer’ does to the child, is one of resisting the child’s alleged asexuality and heterosexuality; allowing for the child’s pleasures, desires, and perversities; refusing the sexual narrative of growing up and becoming a proper sexual subject; and thwarting the normative frames of sexuality and identity that have constrained the child and the queer.’


    https://twitter.com/OldRoberts953/status/1676887395696877570?s=20

    Which do you find more concerning?

    Mermaids is currently under investigation by the Charity Commission over safeguarding concerns.
    I would say, of the first, that she isn't speaking for millions of lesbians around the world
    You think lesbians like “girl dick”?
    I mean, I am friends and know many cis lesbians who do. Do I think ALL cis lesbians do? Obviously not as some cis lesbians are very loudly anti trans. Do I think ALL cis lesbians who believe trans women are women and can be lesbians do? Probably not, I'm sure even some of them have preferences that don't include that, but some also have other preferences, like for femme or masc lesbians only. But clearly many do.
    That was a very long winded way of saying “Many do” or even just “Yes”
    Maybe I am just long winded. But, like a good product of the English education system, I like to explain my reasoning for things.
    tbh, I appreciated the long-windedness. But the mind boggles. I don't know many lesbians well, but the idea that they'd see a transwoman as an appealing sexual partner seems preposterous. I mean, how is a (pre-op) naked transwoman distinguishable from a man?

    My friend's 19yo stepdaughter now identifies as male and is in a relationship with a 19yo male who identifies as female. But both of them look like the sex they were born as. Basically they are a heterosexual couple in denial.
    I mean, people say the same thing about same sex attraction - "I'm a man, and I just don't understand why a man would find another man attractive".

    Typically attraction, even sexual attraction, doesn't start and end with how the person looks naked. Getting to know someone, finding them attractive when you first meet them, their personality, your interpersonal interactions - all go towards attraction.

    I also have it on good authority that there is a significant difference between cis men and pre operative trans women who are on hormones. Hormones do a lot to change the texture of skin, hair, even the way individuals smell, and the way that different body parts operate. Again, these will be impactful.
    I don't even understand how women can be attracted to men. Men are gross.
    I'm very grateful that enough of them are and that I am seemingly just above the absolute minimum threshold of "oh alright you'll do for now". But I will never understand it.
    If you are truly heterosexual you often find your own sex repulsive, I do not believe it is conditioned, as is sometimes alleged, it's something intrinsic. Is my guess. So you are hetero and you find the idea of sex with men, or naked men, quite UGH

    Same goes for homosexuals of either gender. They can find the idea of sex with the opposite gender YUK. True lesbians simply do not desire biological men

    True bisexuality, where you find both sexes equally appealing, is really quite rare, I suspect. However it does exist, and I know this because I had a truly bisexual girlfriend. We'd be talking in a bar then suddenly her eyes would glaze over and she'd stop chatting entirely as she looked past my shoulder, then I'd turn - and I'd realise she had spotted some hot girl walking to a table or whatever. Then the red mist would lift and my GF would say, Er, what were we talking about?

    It was rather disconcerting but it gave me an insight into how trying it must be for women, dealing with the male libido

    Also, where did you get your qualifications to define true sexuality? Can I do that course?
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,533
    edited July 2023
    FFS 3rd catch dropped.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    edited July 2023
    Chew on this. A view that has multiple applications.

    “Demonising and undermining those who think differently is not acceptable behaviour from any charity on our register.”…..

    There’s only one charity that’s been demonising another charity. And they just lost their case. The words were aimed at them.


    https://twitter.com/colwight/status/1676926468620976128?s=20

    And also, I suspect at LGBA so they remain on best behaviour…..
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,533
    edited July 2023
    13 drops & a missed stumping in 5 Innings. We have given Australia nearly 1.5 free Innings.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 72,263
    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    This will come as a shock to PB-ers, but I was actually THERE for that iconic final day at Lord’s last Sunday, when Stokes hit the greatest Test century on English soil and there was an iconic cheating allegation that embroiled two prime ministers and was headline news across the cosmos

    ANYWAY at the time I wondered if any other cricketer had ever attained a Test century - hit or passed the 100 - by hitting three consecutive sixes

    Some noble stattonerd is also interested in this. And he’s found - he says - at least one prior example. In South Africa

    The batsman was… Ben Stokes

    I know hyperbole is your thing, but the BIB is not correct. I can think of many others as good, or better. It was a great knock, but no more than that.
    Of course I’m being provocative, but I’m not entirely wrong. How do you judge a great innings? There are multiple objective ways, number of runs, duration at wicket, etc, and even more subjective ways.

    But one objective way is: the number of sixes scored in that one innings. Stokes hit 9, which is the greatest number ever in a Test innings, on English soil

    And, weirdly, I was there
    I think cricket pundits generally agree that match wining innings have a significant premium over those made in a losing cause - which does make a great deal of sense, since in the latter case, the element of pressure isn't quite the same.

    Which is why Stokes' pervious masterpiece is rated so highly.
    https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2019/aug/26/ben-stokes-hundred-greatest-test-innings

    Personally, I might rate Gooch's Headingly knock above either, since the bowling was close to unplayable (and certainly was by any of his teammates).

    Weirdly...
    TBF I would agree. A winning innings is always going to be better. If you were there for the Gooch innings, bravo and I'm well jel

    However the addition of that superb cheating story - biggest since Bodyline? - ALONG with the innings, does make that Sunday at Lord's pretty iconic. And to think I was edxpecting forty minutes and all out!
    No doubt - and I'm equally envious of your being there to see it.
    In the final analysis, there's no one 'greatest innings', since conditions, players and circumstances will always be different.

    Pietersen in Mumbai is another one I wish I'd seen.
    Up there somewhere, even if not right at the top, but quite remarkable for his taking on and conquering his spin demon, and the manner of his doing so.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 52,302
    Nigelb said:

    Andrew Lilico
    @andrew_lilico
    ·
    1h
    Has British politics, economics & policymaking ever witnessed a more "Après moi, le déluge" sequence than Blair's departure & what followed?

    https://twitter.com/andrew_lilico

    Yes: Boris.

    What followed Blair will seem a light squall in comparison, I suspect.
    Cameron, surely?
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 36,106
    Dura_Ace said:

    Meanwhile on Completely Normal Island, N****rgate rumbles on.

    https://amp.theguardian.com/culture/2023/jul/05/dambusters-dog-grave-raf-proposal-rejected

    A 50m tall black marble ossuary with gilded domes on Trafalgar Square may be the best option.

    The Times yesterday was a masterclass in writing an entire article about a particular word without being able to use the word anywhere in the text.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 52,149
    Dura_Ace said:

    Meanwhile on Completely Normal Island, N****rgate rumbles on.

    https://amp.theguardian.com/culture/2023/jul/05/dambusters-dog-grave-raf-proposal-rejected

    A 50m tall black marble ossuary with gilded domes on Trafalgar Square may be the best option.

    I'm guessing your definition of "Completely Normal" is Putin's Russia?
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 51,153
    Carnyx said:

    Chris said:

    Ivan Dimitrov writes to apologise for carving his name on the Colosseum:
    He continues: "I admit with profound embarrassment that only after what regretfully happened did I learn of the antiquity of the monument."

    If not a prison, surely an institution for the mentally disabled?

    TBF Roman brickwork can often look very modern. Or better, even with its age disadvantage.
    Mind you, a history undergrad at Cambridge, told a judge that he didn’t know what the Cenotaph signified.

    Then again it didn’t go well for him.

    Then again, again, he did further argue that he wasn’t responsible for his actions, having voluntarily taken large quantities of alcohol and illegal drugs.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,533
    Oh shit, Stokes is hobbling.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,415
    Christ this is clearly a 4. How long does the third umpire need.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 52,149
    edited July 2023
    Leon said:

    algarkirk said:

    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    Ivan Dimitrov writes to apologise for carving his name on the Colosseum:
    He continues: "I admit with profound embarrassment that only after what regretfully happened did I learn of the antiquity of the monument."

    If not a prison, surely an institution for the mentally disabled?

    Tbf worse things happened at the Colosseum.
    Am I making it up in my head or is there does some graffiti from the gladiators survive?
    Graffiti is to be found all over ancient monuments.

    Tourists in Italy who don't know the Colosseum is old are rather rare, I think.
    Once old enough graffiti itself becomes protected ancient artifact. The Coronation throne in Westminster Abbey, the Tower of London, Carlisle Castle, and, my favourite example, the graffiti of passing ships in the choirstalls at Salthouse, Norfolk.
    It is a noble tradition. The poet Rimbaud carved his name on the 3000 year old pillars of Karnak temple at Luxor. I know this coz I took a photo


    I raise you the graffiti in the 4,500 year old Great Pyramid of Giza.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,533
    edited July 2023

    Carnyx said:

    Chris said:

    Ivan Dimitrov writes to apologise for carving his name on the Colosseum:
    He continues: "I admit with profound embarrassment that only after what regretfully happened did I learn of the antiquity of the monument."

    If not a prison, surely an institution for the mentally disabled?

    TBF Roman brickwork can often look very modern. Or better, even with its age disadvantage.
    Mind you, a history undergrad at Cambridge, told a judge that he didn’t know what the Cenotaph signified.

    Then again it didn’t go well for him.

    Then again, again, he did further argue that he wasn’t responsible for his actions, having voluntarily taken large quantities of alcohol and illegal drugs.
    And somehow is now a "respected" journalist and writer....

    Nothing to do with having a famous father I am sure.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,976

    Carnyx said:

    Chris said:

    Ivan Dimitrov writes to apologise for carving his name on the Colosseum:
    He continues: "I admit with profound embarrassment that only after what regretfully happened did I learn of the antiquity of the monument."

    If not a prison, surely an institution for the mentally disabled?

    TBF Roman brickwork can often look very modern. Or better, even with its age disadvantage.
    Mind you, a history undergrad at Cambridge, told a judge that he didn’t know what the Cenotaph signified.

    Then again it didn’t go well for him.

    Then again, again, he did further argue that he wasn’t responsible for his actions, having voluntarily taken large quantities of alcohol and illegal drugs.
    And somehow is now a "respected" journalist and writer....

    Nothing to do with having a famous father I am sure.
    Famous stepfather.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,591
    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    Ivan Dimitrov writes to apologise for carving his name on the Colosseum:
    He continues: "I admit with profound embarrassment that only after what regretfully happened did I learn of the antiquity of the monument."

    If not a prison, surely an institution for the mentally disabled?

    Tbf worse things happened at the Colosseum.
    Am I making it up in my head or is there does some graffiti from the gladiators survive?
    Graffiti is to be found all over ancient monuments.

    Tourists in Italy who don't know the Colosseum is old are rather rare, I think.
    Which is why he should have just said the ancient Romans would have been fine with putting graffiti on things, rather than pretend to not know that crumbling ruin was pretty old.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,533

    Carnyx said:

    Chris said:

    Ivan Dimitrov writes to apologise for carving his name on the Colosseum:
    He continues: "I admit with profound embarrassment that only after what regretfully happened did I learn of the antiquity of the monument."

    If not a prison, surely an institution for the mentally disabled?

    TBF Roman brickwork can often look very modern. Or better, even with its age disadvantage.
    Mind you, a history undergrad at Cambridge, told a judge that he didn’t know what the Cenotaph signified.

    Then again it didn’t go well for him.

    Then again, again, he did further argue that he wasn’t responsible for his actions, having voluntarily taken large quantities of alcohol and illegal drugs.
    And somehow is now a "respected" journalist and writer....

    Nothing to do with having a famous father I am sure.
    Famous stepfather.
    Non-birthing parent ;-)
  • LeonLeon Posts: 56,606
    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    This will come as a shock to PB-ers, but I was actually THERE for that iconic final day at Lord’s last Sunday, when Stokes hit the greatest Test century on English soil and there was an iconic cheating allegation that embroiled two prime ministers and was headline news across the cosmos

    ANYWAY at the time I wondered if any other cricketer had ever attained a Test century - hit or passed the 100 - by hitting three consecutive sixes

    Some noble stattonerd is also interested in this. And he’s found - he says - at least one prior example. In South Africa

    The batsman was… Ben Stokes

    I know hyperbole is your thing, but the BIB is not correct. I can think of many others as good, or better. It was a great knock, but no more than that.
    Of course I’m being provocative, but I’m not entirely wrong. How do you judge a great innings? There are multiple objective ways, number of runs, duration at wicket, etc, and even more subjective ways.

    But one objective way is: the number of sixes scored in that one innings. Stokes hit 9, which is the greatest number ever in a Test innings, on English soil

    And, weirdly, I was there
    I think cricket pundits generally agree that match wining innings have a significant premium over those made in a losing cause - which does make a great deal of sense, since in the latter case, the element of pressure isn't quite the same.

    Which is why Stokes' pervious masterpiece is rated so highly.
    https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2019/aug/26/ben-stokes-hundred-greatest-test-innings

    Personally, I might rate Gooch's Headingly knock above either, since the bowling was close to unplayable (and certainly was by any of his teammates).

    Weirdly...
    TBF I would agree. A winning innings is always going to be better. If you were there for the Gooch innings, bravo and I'm well jel

    However the addition of that superb cheating story - biggest since Bodyline? - ALONG with the innings, does make that Sunday at Lord's pretty iconic. And to think I was edxpecting forty minutes and all out!
    No doubt - and I'm equally envious of your being there to see it.
    In the final analysis, there's no one 'greatest innings', since conditions, players and circumstances will always be different.

    Pietersen in Mumbai is another one I wish I'd seen.
    Up there somewhere, even if not right at the top, but quite remarkable for his taking on and conquering his spin demon, and the manner of his doing so.
    Yes. We forget how good Pietersen was

    Also Brian Lara's 400 against England for sheer scale: the biggest total ever. Such a shame the Windies have declined so far
  • LeonLeon Posts: 56,606
    148grss said:

    Leon said:

    Farooq said:

    148grss said:

    Cookie said:

    148grss said:

    DougSeal said:

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    Before resident anti trans individuals try to post this with their spin; Mermaids failed on standing to get LGB Alliance's charity status revoked, on the merits, the judges seemed to be split - with one agreeing that LGBA shouldn't have charity status, and one disagreeing.

    https://mermaidsuk.org.uk/news/statement-on-the-ruling-in-mermaids-v-charity-commission-and-lgb-alliance/

    So, whilst many will crow that this is a good thing for LGBA, I would suggest that what it really means is in the case someone who has standing can bring this to trial again, or if on an appeal Mermaids are found to have standing, there seems to be enough of an argument for it to go either way.

    It's interesting that Mermaids are arguing that LGBA's charitable status should be revoked because it has progressed the “pro-LGB” activities it claims to be focused on “only to a limited extent”. If progressing a cause "only to a limited extent" is grounds for revocation, where does it leave a charity like Mermaids that has actually set back its cause?
    As an LGB person, I'd personally argue the LGBA actively is against LGB activities, having had spokespeople and significant members of the organisation, as well as the organisation itself, previously argue that the UK doesn't need conversion therapy bans for LGB people, and arguing against same sex marriage and adoption rights for same sex couples at various time. I don't know the ins and outs of Mermaids legal argument, but that would be mine.
    Worth reading the judgement which goes into 1) what LGBA said before it was a charity, 2) what LGBA has said since it was a charity and 3) what supporters of LGBA have said.

    For example, do you find this hateful?

    During tribunal Kate Harris co founder of LGBA reduced to tears“I’m going to speak for millions of lesbians around the world who are lesbians because we love other women We will not be erased and we will not have any man with a penis tell us he’s a lesbian because he feels he is”

    https://twitter.com/suzanne_moore/status/1676891728370868226?

    And then there’s what one of Mermaids former Trustees wrote.

    Reminder that Mermaids’ trustee Jacob Breslow wrote the following -

    ‘… the queering that ‘queer’ does to the child, is one of resisting the child’s alleged asexuality and heterosexuality; allowing for the child’s pleasures, desires, and perversities; refusing the sexual narrative of growing up and becoming a proper sexual subject; and thwarting the normative frames of sexuality and identity that have constrained the child and the queer.’


    https://twitter.com/OldRoberts953/status/1676887395696877570?s=20

    Which do you find more concerning?

    Mermaids is currently under investigation by the Charity Commission over safeguarding concerns.
    I would say, of the first, that she isn't speaking for millions of lesbians around the world
    You think lesbians like “girl dick”?
    I mean, I am friends and know many cis lesbians who do. Do I think ALL cis lesbians do? Obviously not as some cis lesbians are very loudly anti trans. Do I think ALL cis lesbians who believe trans women are women and can be lesbians do? Probably not, I'm sure even some of them have preferences that don't include that, but some also have other preferences, like for femme or masc lesbians only. But clearly many do.
    That was a very long winded way of saying “Many do” or even just “Yes”
    Maybe I am just long winded. But, like a good product of the English education system, I like to explain my reasoning for things.
    tbh, I appreciated the long-windedness. But the mind boggles. I don't know many lesbians well, but the idea that they'd see a transwoman as an appealing sexual partner seems preposterous. I mean, how is a (pre-op) naked transwoman distinguishable from a man?

    My friend's 19yo stepdaughter now identifies as male and is in a relationship with a 19yo male who identifies as female. But both of them look like the sex they were born as. Basically they are a heterosexual couple in denial.
    I mean, people say the same thing about same sex attraction - "I'm a man, and I just don't understand why a man would find another man attractive".

    Typically attraction, even sexual attraction, doesn't start and end with how the person looks naked. Getting to know someone, finding them attractive when you first meet them, their personality, your interpersonal interactions - all go towards attraction.

    I also have it on good authority that there is a significant difference between cis men and pre operative trans women who are on hormones. Hormones do a lot to change the texture of skin, hair, even the way individuals smell, and the way that different body parts operate. Again, these will be impactful.
    I don't even understand how women can be attracted to men. Men are gross.
    I'm very grateful that enough of them are and that I am seemingly just above the absolute minimum threshold of "oh alright you'll do for now". But I will never understand it.
    If you are truly heterosexual you often find your own sex repulsive, I do not believe it is conditioned, as is sometimes alleged, it's something intrinsic. Is my guess. So you are hetero and you find the idea of sex with men, or naked men, quite UGH

    Same goes for homosexuals of either gender. They can find the idea of sex with the opposite gender YUK. True lesbians simply do not desire biological men

    True bisexuality, where you find both sexes equally appealing, is really quite rare, I suspect. However it does exist, and I know this because I had a truly bisexual girlfriend. We'd be talking in a bar then suddenly her eyes would glaze over and she'd stop chatting entirely as she looked past my shoulder, then I'd turn - and I'd realise she had spotted some hot girl walking to a table or whatever. Then the red mist would lift and my GF would say, Er, what were we talking about?

    It was rather disconcerting but it gave me an insight into how trying it must be for women, dealing with the male libido

    Also, where did you get your qualifications to define true sexuality? Can I do that course?
    The degree involves enormous levels on in-the-field, hands-on research. It's quite gruelling
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,533
    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    This will come as a shock to PB-ers, but I was actually THERE for that iconic final day at Lord’s last Sunday, when Stokes hit the greatest Test century on English soil and there was an iconic cheating allegation that embroiled two prime ministers and was headline news across the cosmos

    ANYWAY at the time I wondered if any other cricketer had ever attained a Test century - hit or passed the 100 - by hitting three consecutive sixes

    Some noble stattonerd is also interested in this. And he’s found - he says - at least one prior example. In South Africa

    The batsman was… Ben Stokes

    I know hyperbole is your thing, but the BIB is not correct. I can think of many others as good, or better. It was a great knock, but no more than that.
    Of course I’m being provocative, but I’m not entirely wrong. How do you judge a great innings? There are multiple objective ways, number of runs, duration at wicket, etc, and even more subjective ways.

    But one objective way is: the number of sixes scored in that one innings. Stokes hit 9, which is the greatest number ever in a Test innings, on English soil

    And, weirdly, I was there
    I think cricket pundits generally agree that match wining innings have a significant premium over those made in a losing cause - which does make a great deal of sense, since in the latter case, the element of pressure isn't quite the same.

    Which is why Stokes' pervious masterpiece is rated so highly.
    https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2019/aug/26/ben-stokes-hundred-greatest-test-innings

    Personally, I might rate Gooch's Headingly knock above either, since the bowling was close to unplayable (and certainly was by any of his teammates).

    Weirdly...
    TBF I would agree. A winning innings is always going to be better. If you were there for the Gooch innings, bravo and I'm well jel

    However the addition of that superb cheating story - biggest since Bodyline? - ALONG with the innings, does make that Sunday at Lord's pretty iconic. And to think I was edxpecting forty minutes and all out!
    No doubt - and I'm equally envious of your being there to see it.
    In the final analysis, there's no one 'greatest innings', since conditions, players and circumstances will always be different.

    Pietersen in Mumbai is another one I wish I'd seen.
    Up there somewhere, even if not right at the top, but quite remarkable for his taking on and conquering his spin demon, and the manner of his doing so.
    Yes. We forget how good Pietersen was

    Also Brian Lara's 400 against England for sheer scale: the biggest total ever. Such a shame the Windies have declined so far
    Pietersen being such a massive cock most of his own team mates hated him so ran a twitter account slagging him off ensures large number of demerit points in standings.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 56,606

    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    This will come as a shock to PB-ers, but I was actually THERE for that iconic final day at Lord’s last Sunday, when Stokes hit the greatest Test century on English soil and there was an iconic cheating allegation that embroiled two prime ministers and was headline news across the cosmos

    ANYWAY at the time I wondered if any other cricketer had ever attained a Test century - hit or passed the 100 - by hitting three consecutive sixes

    Some noble stattonerd is also interested in this. And he’s found - he says - at least one prior example. In South Africa

    The batsman was… Ben Stokes

    I know hyperbole is your thing, but the BIB is not correct. I can think of many others as good, or better. It was a great knock, but no more than that.
    Of course I’m being provocative, but I’m not entirely wrong. How do you judge a great innings? There are multiple objective ways, number of runs, duration at wicket, etc, and even more subjective ways.

    But one objective way is: the number of sixes scored in that one innings. Stokes hit 9, which is the greatest number ever in a Test innings, on English soil

    And, weirdly, I was there
    I think cricket pundits generally agree that match wining innings have a significant premium over those made in a losing cause - which does make a great deal of sense, since in the latter case, the element of pressure isn't quite the same.

    Which is why Stokes' pervious masterpiece is rated so highly.
    https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2019/aug/26/ben-stokes-hundred-greatest-test-innings

    Personally, I might rate Gooch's Headingly knock above either, since the bowling was close to unplayable (and certainly was by any of his teammates).

    Weirdly...
    TBF I would agree. A winning innings is always going to be better. If you were there for the Gooch innings, bravo and I'm well jel

    However the addition of that superb cheating story - biggest since Bodyline? - ALONG with the innings, does make that Sunday at Lord's pretty iconic. And to think I was edxpecting forty minutes and all out!
    No doubt - and I'm equally envious of your being there to see it.
    In the final analysis, there's no one 'greatest innings', since conditions, players and circumstances will always be different.

    Pietersen in Mumbai is another one I wish I'd seen.
    Up there somewhere, even if not right at the top, but quite remarkable for his taking on and conquering his spin demon, and the manner of his doing so.
    Yes. We forget how good Pietersen was

    Also Brian Lara's 400 against England for sheer scale: the biggest total ever. Such a shame the Windies have declined so far
    Pietersen being such a massive cock most of his own team mates hated him so ran a twitter account slagging him off ensures large number of demerit points in standings.
    You heard the rumours, right?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,415
    edited July 2023
    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    This will come as a shock to PB-ers, but I was actually THERE for that iconic final day at Lord’s last Sunday, when Stokes hit the greatest Test century on English soil and there was an iconic cheating allegation that embroiled two prime ministers and was headline news across the cosmos

    ANYWAY at the time I wondered if any other cricketer had ever attained a Test century - hit or passed the 100 - by hitting three consecutive sixes

    Some noble stattonerd is also interested in this. And he’s found - he says - at least one prior example. In South Africa

    The batsman was… Ben Stokes

    I know hyperbole is your thing, but the BIB is not correct. I can think of many others as good, or better. It was a great knock, but no more than that.
    Of course I’m being provocative, but I’m not entirely wrong. How do you judge a great innings? There are multiple objective ways, number of runs, duration at wicket, etc, and even more subjective ways.

    But one objective way is: the number of sixes scored in that one innings. Stokes hit 9, which is the greatest number ever in a Test innings, on English soil

    And, weirdly, I was there
    I think cricket pundits generally agree that match wining innings have a significant premium over those made in a losing cause - which does make a great deal of sense, since in the latter case, the element of pressure isn't quite the same.

    Which is why Stokes' pervious masterpiece is rated so highly.
    https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2019/aug/26/ben-stokes-hundred-greatest-test-innings

    Personally, I might rate Gooch's Headingly knock above either, since the bowling was close to unplayable (and certainly was by any of his teammates).

    Weirdly...
    TBF I would agree. A winning innings is always going to be better. If you were there for the Gooch innings, bravo and I'm well jel

    However the addition of that superb cheating story - biggest since Bodyline? - ALONG with the innings, does make that Sunday at Lord's pretty iconic. And to think I was edxpecting forty minutes and all out!
    No doubt - and I'm equally envious of your being there to see it.
    In the final analysis, there's no one 'greatest innings', since conditions, players and circumstances will always be different.

    Pietersen in Mumbai is another one I wish I'd seen.
    Up there somewhere, even if not right at the top, but quite remarkable for his taking on and conquering his spin demon, and the manner of his doing so.
    Yes. We forget how good Pietersen was

    Also Brian Lara's 400 against England for sheer scale: the biggest total ever. Such a shame the Windies have declined so far
    Laxman's knock at Eden Gardens ?

    Enormous double, took India from losing by an innings position to a winning one. Not just for the match, but for the series.
    Off the back of a 10 wicket defeat.
    Against the convicts.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,591
    Sean_F said:

    Winning would have made all the difference in the world to Mermaids as a charity, but losing makes no difference at all. Go figure.

    https://twitter.com/docstockk/status/1676901129420980224

    Jolyon considers himself to be a barrister. He should know that standing is more than a “technical matter.”

    It’s like saying “I’d have won the case, had I only brought it within the limitation period.”
    I'm not a lawyer, but I'd think technical matters are rather significant when it comes to the law in any case.

    It's that kind of thinking that has people online saying Banks didn't win his case against Cadwalladr, because he 'only' won on a few grounds.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    The Good Law Project website explains Mermaids lost on the "technical ground" of standing. The GLP says they "signalled the case is not straightforward" when they began which is "reflected in the time taken by the Tribunal to make its decision".

    Let's unpack three key errors:

    (1) The word "technical" does not diminish anything as almost all legal arguments may be so described. Standing is a critical prerequisite to being heard, to being *relevant*. So Mermaids "technically" should never have brought the case. So Mermaids "technically" lost.

    (2) On analysis, the case *was* straightforward. Mermaids didn't have standing to bring it. There is literally no more straightforward point I think of on which to lose a case.

    (3) There is no necessary connection at all between the complexity of a case and the time taken to produce judgment. There might just be a lot to say about how obviously wrong you are. Or the judge might have had a big caseload. Or went on holiday for a bit.


    https://twitter.com/jeremybrier/status/1676938248617091072?s=20
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,533
    edited July 2023
    The Bad Law Project losing in court on " technical grounds" is as regular as an MP by-election. But morons keep donating to them. Its a cracking business, where you keep getting rewarded for consistent failure.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    The unsophisticated might think Jolyon has had his arse handed to him on a plate, but it's important to remember that losing is on a spectrum, and Jolyon identifies as someone who would have won if only his side weren't trying to exercise legal rights they didn't have. #binary

    https://twitter.com/jk_rowling/status/1676939701712744448?s=20
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,591

    The Good Law Project website explains Mermaids lost on the "technical ground" of standing. The GLP says they "signalled the case is not straightforward" when they began which is "reflected in the time taken by the Tribunal to make its decision".

    Let's unpack three key errors:

    (1) The word "technical" does not diminish anything as almost all legal arguments may be so described. Standing is a critical prerequisite to being heard, to being *relevant*. So Mermaids "technically" should never have brought the case. So Mermaids "technically" lost.

    (2) On analysis, the case *was* straightforward. Mermaids didn't have standing to bring it. There is literally no more straightforward point I think of on which to lose a case.

    (3) There is no necessary connection at all between the complexity of a case and the time taken to produce judgment. There might just be a lot to say about how obviously wrong you are. Or the judge might have had a big caseload. Or went on holiday for a bit.


    https://twitter.com/jeremybrier/status/1676938248617091072?s=20

    This is the problem with lawfare I guess - it becomes politically imperative not to admit losses, it might also impact funding drives for the next one. Sometimes they just go straight to implying judges are corrupt and kowtowing to government of course, not relevant in this case I suppose.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,415
    Just imagine how good we'd be if we could catch :D
  • LeonLeon Posts: 56,606
    BETTING TIP

    You can get 13/2 on a draw at Headingley. Looking at the depressing weather forecast, that might be VALUE, despite England's speedy start

    Tomorrow looks fine all day, but after that it is touch and go
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,533

    The unsophisticated might think Jolyon has had his arse handed to him on a plate, but it's important to remember that losing is on a spectrum, and Jolyon identifies as someone who would have won if only his side weren't trying to exercise legal rights they didn't have. #binary

    https://twitter.com/jk_rowling/status/1676939701712744448?s=20

    By the same logic England aren't 2-0 down in the Ashes....
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,415
    Wouldn't checking that you have "standing" be something you might check with your own lawyers before heading to court ?
  • Pulpstar said:

    Just imagine how good we'd be if we could catch :D

    Like saying just imagine how good the Good Law Project would be if only they could understand such "technical" arguments as how the law works, and what standing is.
  • 148grss148grss Posts: 4,155
    Leon said:

    148grss said:

    Leon said:

    Farooq said:

    148grss said:

    Cookie said:

    148grss said:

    DougSeal said:

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    Before resident anti trans individuals try to post this with their spin; Mermaids failed on standing to get LGB Alliance's charity status revoked, on the merits, the judges seemed to be split - with one agreeing that LGBA shouldn't have charity status, and one disagreeing.

    https://mermaidsuk.org.uk/news/statement-on-the-ruling-in-mermaids-v-charity-commission-and-lgb-alliance/

    So, whilst many will crow that this is a good thing for LGBA, I would suggest that what it really means is in the case someone who has standing can bring this to trial again, or if on an appeal Mermaids are found to have standing, there seems to be enough of an argument for it to go either way.

    It's interesting that Mermaids are arguing that LGBA's charitable status should be revoked because it has progressed the “pro-LGB” activities it claims to be focused on “only to a limited extent”. If progressing a cause "only to a limited extent" is grounds for revocation, where does it leave a charity like Mermaids that has actually set back its cause?
    As an LGB person, I'd personally argue the LGBA actively is against LGB activities, having had spokespeople and significant members of the organisation, as well as the organisation itself, previously argue that the UK doesn't need conversion therapy bans for LGB people, and arguing against same sex marriage and adoption rights for same sex couples at various time. I don't know the ins and outs of Mermaids legal argument, but that would be mine.
    Worth reading the judgement which goes into 1) what LGBA said before it was a charity, 2) what LGBA has said since it was a charity and 3) what supporters of LGBA have said.

    For example, do you find this hateful?

    During tribunal Kate Harris co founder of LGBA reduced to tears“I’m going to speak for millions of lesbians around the world who are lesbians because we love other women We will not be erased and we will not have any man with a penis tell us he’s a lesbian because he feels he is”

    https://twitter.com/suzanne_moore/status/1676891728370868226?

    And then there’s what one of Mermaids former Trustees wrote.

    Reminder that Mermaids’ trustee Jacob Breslow wrote the following -

    ‘… the queering that ‘queer’ does to the child, is one of resisting the child’s alleged asexuality and heterosexuality; allowing for the child’s pleasures, desires, and perversities; refusing the sexual narrative of growing up and becoming a proper sexual subject; and thwarting the normative frames of sexuality and identity that have constrained the child and the queer.’


    https://twitter.com/OldRoberts953/status/1676887395696877570?s=20

    Which do you find more concerning?

    Mermaids is currently under investigation by the Charity Commission over safeguarding concerns.
    I would say, of the first, that she isn't speaking for millions of lesbians around the world
    You think lesbians like “girl dick”?
    I mean, I am friends and know many cis lesbians who do. Do I think ALL cis lesbians do? Obviously not as some cis lesbians are very loudly anti trans. Do I think ALL cis lesbians who believe trans women are women and can be lesbians do? Probably not, I'm sure even some of them have preferences that don't include that, but some also have other preferences, like for femme or masc lesbians only. But clearly many do.
    That was a very long winded way of saying “Many do” or even just “Yes”
    Maybe I am just long winded. But, like a good product of the English education system, I like to explain my reasoning for things.
    tbh, I appreciated the long-windedness. But the mind boggles. I don't know many lesbians well, but the idea that they'd see a transwoman as an appealing sexual partner seems preposterous. I mean, how is a (pre-op) naked transwoman distinguishable from a man?

    My friend's 19yo stepdaughter now identifies as male and is in a relationship with a 19yo male who identifies as female. But both of them look like the sex they were born as. Basically they are a heterosexual couple in denial.
    I mean, people say the same thing about same sex attraction - "I'm a man, and I just don't understand why a man would find another man attractive".

    Typically attraction, even sexual attraction, doesn't start and end with how the person looks naked. Getting to know someone, finding them attractive when you first meet them, their personality, your interpersonal interactions - all go towards attraction.

    I also have it on good authority that there is a significant difference between cis men and pre operative trans women who are on hormones. Hormones do a lot to change the texture of skin, hair, even the way individuals smell, and the way that different body parts operate. Again, these will be impactful.
    I don't even understand how women can be attracted to men. Men are gross.
    I'm very grateful that enough of them are and that I am seemingly just above the absolute minimum threshold of "oh alright you'll do for now". But I will never understand it.
    If you are truly heterosexual you often find your own sex repulsive, I do not believe it is conditioned, as is sometimes alleged, it's something intrinsic. Is my guess. So you are hetero and you find the idea of sex with men, or naked men, quite UGH

    Same goes for homosexuals of either gender. They can find the idea of sex with the opposite gender YUK. True lesbians simply do not desire biological men

    True bisexuality, where you find both sexes equally appealing, is really quite rare, I suspect. However it does exist, and I know this because I had a truly bisexual girlfriend. We'd be talking in a bar then suddenly her eyes would glaze over and she'd stop chatting entirely as she looked past my shoulder, then I'd turn - and I'd realise she had spotted some hot girl walking to a table or whatever. Then the red mist would lift and my GF would say, Er, what were we talking about?

    It was rather disconcerting but it gave me an insight into how trying it must be for women, dealing with the male libido

    Also, where did you get your qualifications to define true sexuality? Can I do that course?
    The degree involves enormous levels on in-the-field, hands-on research. It's quite gruelling
    Oh, maybe I'm already qualified then, as I've been involved with people across the spectrum of genders and sexuality... maybe I've just lost the certificate...
  • Absolutely fantastic diving catch from Bairstow.

    Just a shame it was off a ball the player never hit.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 51,153
    kle4 said:

    The Good Law Project website explains Mermaids lost on the "technical ground" of standing. The GLP says they "signalled the case is not straightforward" when they began which is "reflected in the time taken by the Tribunal to make its decision".

    Let's unpack three key errors:

    (1) The word "technical" does not diminish anything as almost all legal arguments may be so described. Standing is a critical prerequisite to being heard, to being *relevant*. So Mermaids "technically" should never have brought the case. So Mermaids "technically" lost.

    (2) On analysis, the case *was* straightforward. Mermaids didn't have standing to bring it. There is literally no more straightforward point I think of on which to lose a case.

    (3) There is no necessary connection at all between the complexity of a case and the time taken to produce judgment. There might just be a lot to say about how obviously wrong you are. Or the judge might have had a big caseload. Or went on holiday for a bit.


    https://twitter.com/jeremybrier/status/1676938248617091072?s=20

    This is the problem with lawfare I guess - it becomes politically imperative not to admit losses, it might also impact funding drives for the next one. Sometimes they just go straight to implying judges are corrupt and kowtowing to government of course, not relevant in this case I suppose.
    Isn’t that Disrespecting The Courts? Which is Neon Fascism & An Attack On Democracy punishable with summary cremation, without the option of a fine?
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,533
    Bairstow only catches them when they haven't hit it.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,591
    Pulpstar said:

    Wouldn't checking that you have "standing" be something you might check with your own lawyers before heading to court ?

    In fairness I presume sometimes there is a question about that, but it is not the first time Good Law (never mind Mermaids) have incorrectly asserted standing, I believe.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,533
    148grss said:

    Leon said:

    148grss said:

    Leon said:

    Farooq said:

    148grss said:

    Cookie said:

    148grss said:

    DougSeal said:

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    Before resident anti trans individuals try to post this with their spin; Mermaids failed on standing to get LGB Alliance's charity status revoked, on the merits, the judges seemed to be split - with one agreeing that LGBA shouldn't have charity status, and one disagreeing.

    https://mermaidsuk.org.uk/news/statement-on-the-ruling-in-mermaids-v-charity-commission-and-lgb-alliance/

    So, whilst many will crow that this is a good thing for LGBA, I would suggest that what it really means is in the case someone who has standing can bring this to trial again, or if on an appeal Mermaids are found to have standing, there seems to be enough of an argument for it to go either way.

    It's interesting that Mermaids are arguing that LGBA's charitable status should be revoked because it has progressed the “pro-LGB” activities it claims to be focused on “only to a limited extent”. If progressing a cause "only to a limited extent" is grounds for revocation, where does it leave a charity like Mermaids that has actually set back its cause?
    As an LGB person, I'd personally argue the LGBA actively is against LGB activities, having had spokespeople and significant members of the organisation, as well as the organisation itself, previously argue that the UK doesn't need conversion therapy bans for LGB people, and arguing against same sex marriage and adoption rights for same sex couples at various time. I don't know the ins and outs of Mermaids legal argument, but that would be mine.
    Worth reading the judgement which goes into 1) what LGBA said before it was a charity, 2) what LGBA has said since it was a charity and 3) what supporters of LGBA have said.

    For example, do you find this hateful?

    During tribunal Kate Harris co founder of LGBA reduced to tears“I’m going to speak for millions of lesbians around the world who are lesbians because we love other women We will not be erased and we will not have any man with a penis tell us he’s a lesbian because he feels he is”

    https://twitter.com/suzanne_moore/status/1676891728370868226?

    And then there’s what one of Mermaids former Trustees wrote.

    Reminder that Mermaids’ trustee Jacob Breslow wrote the following -

    ‘… the queering that ‘queer’ does to the child, is one of resisting the child’s alleged asexuality and heterosexuality; allowing for the child’s pleasures, desires, and perversities; refusing the sexual narrative of growing up and becoming a proper sexual subject; and thwarting the normative frames of sexuality and identity that have constrained the child and the queer.’


    https://twitter.com/OldRoberts953/status/1676887395696877570?s=20

    Which do you find more concerning?

    Mermaids is currently under investigation by the Charity Commission over safeguarding concerns.
    I would say, of the first, that she isn't speaking for millions of lesbians around the world
    You think lesbians like “girl dick”?
    I mean, I am friends and know many cis lesbians who do. Do I think ALL cis lesbians do? Obviously not as some cis lesbians are very loudly anti trans. Do I think ALL cis lesbians who believe trans women are women and can be lesbians do? Probably not, I'm sure even some of them have preferences that don't include that, but some also have other preferences, like for femme or masc lesbians only. But clearly many do.
    That was a very long winded way of saying “Many do” or even just “Yes”
    Maybe I am just long winded. But, like a good product of the English education system, I like to explain my reasoning for things.
    tbh, I appreciated the long-windedness. But the mind boggles. I don't know many lesbians well, but the idea that they'd see a transwoman as an appealing sexual partner seems preposterous. I mean, how is a (pre-op) naked transwoman distinguishable from a man?

    My friend's 19yo stepdaughter now identifies as male and is in a relationship with a 19yo male who identifies as female. But both of them look like the sex they were born as. Basically they are a heterosexual couple in denial.
    I mean, people say the same thing about same sex attraction - "I'm a man, and I just don't understand why a man would find another man attractive".

    Typically attraction, even sexual attraction, doesn't start and end with how the person looks naked. Getting to know someone, finding them attractive when you first meet them, their personality, your interpersonal interactions - all go towards attraction.

    I also have it on good authority that there is a significant difference between cis men and pre operative trans women who are on hormones. Hormones do a lot to change the texture of skin, hair, even the way individuals smell, and the way that different body parts operate. Again, these will be impactful.
    I don't even understand how women can be attracted to men. Men are gross.
    I'm very grateful that enough of them are and that I am seemingly just above the absolute minimum threshold of "oh alright you'll do for now". But I will never understand it.
    If you are truly heterosexual you often find your own sex repulsive, I do not believe it is conditioned, as is sometimes alleged, it's something intrinsic. Is my guess. So you are hetero and you find the idea of sex with men, or naked men, quite UGH

    Same goes for homosexuals of either gender. They can find the idea of sex with the opposite gender YUK. True lesbians simply do not desire biological men

    True bisexuality, where you find both sexes equally appealing, is really quite rare, I suspect. However it does exist, and I know this because I had a truly bisexual girlfriend. We'd be talking in a bar then suddenly her eyes would glaze over and she'd stop chatting entirely as she looked past my shoulder, then I'd turn - and I'd realise she had spotted some hot girl walking to a table or whatever. Then the red mist would lift and my GF would say, Er, what were we talking about?

    It was rather disconcerting but it gave me an insight into how trying it must be for women, dealing with the male libido

    Also, where did you get your qualifications to define true sexuality? Can I do that course?
    The degree involves enormous levels on in-the-field, hands-on research. It's quite gruelling
    Oh, maybe I'm already qualified then, as I've been involved with people across the spectrum of genders and sexuality... maybe I've just lost the certificate...
    I believe you have to do a regular refresher course to keep the qualification.
  • AlistairMAlistairM Posts: 2,005
    Ukrainian Counteroffensive Update:

    Russian channels claim there are serious issues on the Bakhmut axis and that Ukrainian forces are achieving multiple breakthroughs on the front.

    The 106th Guards Airborne Division reportedly lost over 50 men in one day near Klishchiivka and very few active personnel were left in one of the battalions.

    Sources within the 106th complained that their field commanders were neglecting their duties and that no decisions were being made.

    The 72nd IMRB have fled their positions and were replaced by rifle battalions, which were instantly hit by HIMARS.

    #Ukraine #UkraineWar

    https://twitter.com/WhereisRussia/status/1676931336240611333?s=20
  • 148grss148grss Posts: 4,155
    Pulpstar said:

    Wouldn't checking that you have "standing" be something you might check with your own lawyers before heading to court ?

    I mean, if such a lawsuit has never been brought before, then standing is an unknown. Standing is technical, in the sense that it has nothing to do with the merits of the case, and therefore is not substantive. Sure, getting it thrown out on standing is not a win for Mermaids, but it isn't a win for LGBA.

    Again why my position has been should someone be found with standing I imagine the merits could go either way.
  • 148grss said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Wouldn't checking that you have "standing" be something you might check with your own lawyers before heading to court ?

    I mean, if such a lawsuit has never been brought before, then standing is an unknown. Standing is technical, in the sense that it has nothing to do with the merits of the case, and therefore is not substantive. Sure, getting it thrown out on standing is not a win for Mermaids, but it isn't a win for LGBA.

    Again why my position has been should someone be found with standing I imagine the merits could go either way.
    It absolutely is a win for the LGBA.

    Stop grasping at straws.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,533
    Get Woody on....
  • 148grss148grss Posts: 4,155

    148grss said:

    Leon said:

    148grss said:

    Leon said:

    Farooq said:

    148grss said:

    Cookie said:

    148grss said:

    DougSeal said:

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    Before resident anti trans individuals try to post this with their spin; Mermaids failed on standing to get LGB Alliance's charity status revoked, on the merits, the judges seemed to be split - with one agreeing that LGBA shouldn't have charity status, and one disagreeing.

    https://mermaidsuk.org.uk/news/statement-on-the-ruling-in-mermaids-v-charity-commission-and-lgb-alliance/

    So, whilst many will crow that this is a good thing for LGBA, I would suggest that what it really means is in the case someone who has standing can bring this to trial again, or if on an appeal Mermaids are found to have standing, there seems to be enough of an argument for it to go either way.

    It's interesting that Mermaids are arguing that LGBA's charitable status should be revoked because it has progressed the “pro-LGB” activities it claims to be focused on “only to a limited extent”. If progressing a cause "only to a limited extent" is grounds for revocation, where does it leave a charity like Mermaids that has actually set back its cause?
    As an LGB person, I'd personally argue the LGBA actively is against LGB activities, having had spokespeople and significant members of the organisation, as well as the organisation itself, previously argue that the UK doesn't need conversion therapy bans for LGB people, and arguing against same sex marriage and adoption rights for same sex couples at various time. I don't know the ins and outs of Mermaids legal argument, but that would be mine.
    Worth reading the judgement which goes into 1) what LGBA said before it was a charity, 2) what LGBA has said since it was a charity and 3) what supporters of LGBA have said.

    For example, do you find this hateful?

    During tribunal Kate Harris co founder of LGBA reduced to tears“I’m going to speak for millions of lesbians around the world who are lesbians because we love other women We will not be erased and we will not have any man with a penis tell us he’s a lesbian because he feels he is”

    https://twitter.com/suzanne_moore/status/1676891728370868226?

    And then there’s what one of Mermaids former Trustees wrote.

    Reminder that Mermaids’ trustee Jacob Breslow wrote the following -

    ‘… the queering that ‘queer’ does to the child, is one of resisting the child’s alleged asexuality and heterosexuality; allowing for the child’s pleasures, desires, and perversities; refusing the sexual narrative of growing up and becoming a proper sexual subject; and thwarting the normative frames of sexuality and identity that have constrained the child and the queer.’


    https://twitter.com/OldRoberts953/status/1676887395696877570?s=20

    Which do you find more concerning?

    Mermaids is currently under investigation by the Charity Commission over safeguarding concerns.
    I would say, of the first, that she isn't speaking for millions of lesbians around the world
    You think lesbians like “girl dick”?
    I mean, I am friends and know many cis lesbians who do. Do I think ALL cis lesbians do? Obviously not as some cis lesbians are very loudly anti trans. Do I think ALL cis lesbians who believe trans women are women and can be lesbians do? Probably not, I'm sure even some of them have preferences that don't include that, but some also have other preferences, like for femme or masc lesbians only. But clearly many do.
    That was a very long winded way of saying “Many do” or even just “Yes”
    Maybe I am just long winded. But, like a good product of the English education system, I like to explain my reasoning for things.
    tbh, I appreciated the long-windedness. But the mind boggles. I don't know many lesbians well, but the idea that they'd see a transwoman as an appealing sexual partner seems preposterous. I mean, how is a (pre-op) naked transwoman distinguishable from a man?

    My friend's 19yo stepdaughter now identifies as male and is in a relationship with a 19yo male who identifies as female. But both of them look like the sex they were born as. Basically they are a heterosexual couple in denial.
    I mean, people say the same thing about same sex attraction - "I'm a man, and I just don't understand why a man would find another man attractive".

    Typically attraction, even sexual attraction, doesn't start and end with how the person looks naked. Getting to know someone, finding them attractive when you first meet them, their personality, your interpersonal interactions - all go towards attraction.

    I also have it on good authority that there is a significant difference between cis men and pre operative trans women who are on hormones. Hormones do a lot to change the texture of skin, hair, even the way individuals smell, and the way that different body parts operate. Again, these will be impactful.
    I don't even understand how women can be attracted to men. Men are gross.
    I'm very grateful that enough of them are and that I am seemingly just above the absolute minimum threshold of "oh alright you'll do for now". But I will never understand it.
    If you are truly heterosexual you often find your own sex repulsive, I do not believe it is conditioned, as is sometimes alleged, it's something intrinsic. Is my guess. So you are hetero and you find the idea of sex with men, or naked men, quite UGH

    Same goes for homosexuals of either gender. They can find the idea of sex with the opposite gender YUK. True lesbians simply do not desire biological men

    True bisexuality, where you find both sexes equally appealing, is really quite rare, I suspect. However it does exist, and I know this because I had a truly bisexual girlfriend. We'd be talking in a bar then suddenly her eyes would glaze over and she'd stop chatting entirely as she looked past my shoulder, then I'd turn - and I'd realise she had spotted some hot girl walking to a table or whatever. Then the red mist would lift and my GF would say, Er, what were we talking about?

    It was rather disconcerting but it gave me an insight into how trying it must be for women, dealing with the male libido

    Also, where did you get your qualifications to define true sexuality? Can I do that course?
    The degree involves enormous levels on in-the-field, hands-on research. It's quite gruelling
    Oh, maybe I'm already qualified then, as I've been involved with people across the spectrum of genders and sexuality... maybe I've just lost the certificate...
    I believe you have to do a regular refresher course to keep the qualification.
    Ah, therein lies the problem. I did do much of the hands on research at university in correct research environments - I don't have to refresh my degree...
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,415
    148grss said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Wouldn't checking that you have "standing" be something you might check with your own lawyers before heading to court ?

    I mean, if such a lawsuit has never been brought before, then standing is an unknown. Standing is technical, in the sense that it has nothing to do with the merits of the case, and therefore is not substantive. Sure, getting it thrown out on standing is not a win for Mermaids, but it isn't a win for LGBA.

    Again why my position has been should someone be found with standing I imagine the merits could go either way.
    Legal action isn't cheap, and I'd have thought ones own solicitors could have a well educated guess about a client's "standing" in a case.

    If standing was denied for some particularly novel reason then I'll demure from the argument.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 56,606
    148grss said:

    Leon said:

    148grss said:

    Leon said:

    Farooq said:

    148grss said:

    Cookie said:

    148grss said:

    DougSeal said:

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    Before resident anti trans individuals try to post this with their spin; Mermaids failed on standing to get LGB Alliance's charity status revoked, on the merits, the judges seemed to be split - with one agreeing that LGBA shouldn't have charity status, and one disagreeing.

    https://mermaidsuk.org.uk/news/statement-on-the-ruling-in-mermaids-v-charity-commission-and-lgb-alliance/

    So, whilst many will crow that this is a good thing for LGBA, I would suggest that what it really means is in the case someone who has standing can bring this to trial again, or if on an appeal Mermaids are found to have standing, there seems to be enough of an argument for it to go either way.

    It's interesting that Mermaids are arguing that LGBA's charitable status should be revoked because it has progressed the “pro-LGB” activities it claims to be focused on “only to a limited extent”. If progressing a cause "only to a limited extent" is grounds for revocation, where does it leave a charity like Mermaids that has actually set back its cause?
    As an LGB person, I'd personally argue the LGBA actively is against LGB activities, having had spokespeople and significant members of the organisation, as well as the organisation itself, previously argue that the UK doesn't need conversion therapy bans for LGB people, and arguing against same sex marriage and adoption rights for same sex couples at various time. I don't know the ins and outs of Mermaids legal argument, but that would be mine.
    Worth reading the judgement which goes into 1) what LGBA said before it was a charity, 2) what LGBA has said since it was a charity and 3) what supporters of LGBA have said.

    For example, do you find this hateful?

    During tribunal Kate Harris co founder of LGBA reduced to tears“I’m going to speak for millions of lesbians around the world who are lesbians because we love other women We will not be erased and we will not have any man with a penis tell us he’s a lesbian because he feels he is”

    https://twitter.com/suzanne_moore/status/1676891728370868226?

    And then there’s what one of Mermaids former Trustees wrote.

    Reminder that Mermaids’ trustee Jacob Breslow wrote the following -

    ‘… the queering that ‘queer’ does to the child, is one of resisting the child’s alleged asexuality and heterosexuality; allowing for the child’s pleasures, desires, and perversities; refusing the sexual narrative of growing up and becoming a proper sexual subject; and thwarting the normative frames of sexuality and identity that have constrained the child and the queer.’


    https://twitter.com/OldRoberts953/status/1676887395696877570?s=20

    Which do you find more concerning?

    Mermaids is currently under investigation by the Charity Commission over safeguarding concerns.
    I would say, of the first, that she isn't speaking for millions of lesbians around the world
    You think lesbians like “girl dick”?
    I mean, I am friends and know many cis lesbians who do. Do I think ALL cis lesbians do? Obviously not as some cis lesbians are very loudly anti trans. Do I think ALL cis lesbians who believe trans women are women and can be lesbians do? Probably not, I'm sure even some of them have preferences that don't include that, but some also have other preferences, like for femme or masc lesbians only. But clearly many do.
    That was a very long winded way of saying “Many do” or even just “Yes”
    Maybe I am just long winded. But, like a good product of the English education system, I like to explain my reasoning for things.
    tbh, I appreciated the long-windedness. But the mind boggles. I don't know many lesbians well, but the idea that they'd see a transwoman as an appealing sexual partner seems preposterous. I mean, how is a (pre-op) naked transwoman distinguishable from a man?

    My friend's 19yo stepdaughter now identifies as male and is in a relationship with a 19yo male who identifies as female. But both of them look like the sex they were born as. Basically they are a heterosexual couple in denial.
    I mean, people say the same thing about same sex attraction - "I'm a man, and I just don't understand why a man would find another man attractive".

    Typically attraction, even sexual attraction, doesn't start and end with how the person looks naked. Getting to know someone, finding them attractive when you first meet them, their personality, your interpersonal interactions - all go towards attraction.

    I also have it on good authority that there is a significant difference between cis men and pre operative trans women who are on hormones. Hormones do a lot to change the texture of skin, hair, even the way individuals smell, and the way that different body parts operate. Again, these will be impactful.
    I don't even understand how women can be attracted to men. Men are gross.
    I'm very grateful that enough of them are and that I am seemingly just above the absolute minimum threshold of "oh alright you'll do for now". But I will never understand it.
    If you are truly heterosexual you often find your own sex repulsive, I do not believe it is conditioned, as is sometimes alleged, it's something intrinsic. Is my guess. So you are hetero and you find the idea of sex with men, or naked men, quite UGH

    Same goes for homosexuals of either gender. They can find the idea of sex with the opposite gender YUK. True lesbians simply do not desire biological men

    True bisexuality, where you find both sexes equally appealing, is really quite rare, I suspect. However it does exist, and I know this because I had a truly bisexual girlfriend. We'd be talking in a bar then suddenly her eyes would glaze over and she'd stop chatting entirely as she looked past my shoulder, then I'd turn - and I'd realise she had spotted some hot girl walking to a table or whatever. Then the red mist would lift and my GF would say, Er, what were we talking about?

    It was rather disconcerting but it gave me an insight into how trying it must be for women, dealing with the male libido

    Also, where did you get your qualifications to define true sexuality? Can I do that course?
    The degree involves enormous levels on in-the-field, hands-on research. It's quite gruelling
    Oh, maybe I'm already qualified then, as I've been involved with people across the spectrum of genders and sexuality... maybe I've just lost the certificate...
    In all seriousness, I've had a deal of girlfriends/partners - to be perfectly blunt - and a fair number of them have been bisexual, either in reality, or at least bi-curious. I'm inquisitive on this point so I often ask them "do you ultimately have a preference" and all of them said, Yes, men, in the end - but that one girl said No, I like both exactly the same. And that is certainly how she behaved. She was also hypersexual. Absolutely adored sex, in itself, at all times, sometimes putting herself in danger thereby

    Of course it's ridiculously subjective anecdata but it's something to talk about as we keep NEARLY getting wickets
  • 148grss148grss Posts: 4,155

    148grss said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Wouldn't checking that you have "standing" be something you might check with your own lawyers before heading to court ?

    I mean, if such a lawsuit has never been brought before, then standing is an unknown. Standing is technical, in the sense that it has nothing to do with the merits of the case, and therefore is not substantive. Sure, getting it thrown out on standing is not a win for Mermaids, but it isn't a win for LGBA.

    Again why my position has been should someone be found with standing I imagine the merits could go either way.
    It absolutely is a win for the LGBA.

    Stop grasping at straws.
    Do you think if someone else with standing brings the same argument, from the judgement, we know which way the court would rule? Because I don't.
This discussion has been closed.