Wouldn't checking that you have "standing" be something you might check with your own lawyers before heading to court ?
I don't think the question of whether a charity can properly seek to disqualify a charity has been litigated before. It seems to me that a world in which the Jehovah Witnesses could go to court to remove charity status from York Minster would probably be a less good place.
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.
There is no-one else with standing bringing the same argument.
If there's a hypothetical future argument that will have to be resolved in that hypothetical future, but in the actual present then the LGBA won and the case is closed not ongoing.
These lines pretty damning for Sunak and Hunt 'Tony Blair, for all his faults, was more supportive of market reforms, more “Right-wing” on the NHS than this Government ever was....Margaret Thatcher and John Major handed Blair a nation that had dramatically shifted Right-wards during their rule. The Tories today will bequeath Sir Keir Starmer a far more Left-wing country. It is a historic failure.'
Even on Brexit 'Brexit, the one great restorationist triumph of the past 13 years, was forced on the Tories (and Labour) by popular rebellions. It was opposed by David Cameron; it was sabotaged by Theresa May; and neither Boris Johnson nor Rishi Sunak took proper advantage of our new freedoms to show moderate Remainers why it was worth it. The Tories’ useless execution of Brexit is the greatest missed opportunity since Sir Keith Joseph gave up on education vouchers in 1983.'
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.
The more donations he gets, the bigger the moral victory. Fight the power.
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.
The more donations he gets, the bigger the moral victory. Fight the power.
From the same people who fund the man known as Steve Bray....
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.
It seems fairly straightforward - Mermaids sought a specific remedy, and they're not getting it. That's obviously a loss for them, and a win for the target, who escapes the remedy sought.
Whether you have standing also seems pretty fundamental, so I don't see how it can be that it has nothing to do with merits.
I'd hope the outcome from this is that both Mermaids and LGBAlliance focus on acting as charities, and if either are shit charities they lose funding and support on those merits.
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.
Standing wasn't known before hand, as this is the first case of a charity arguing another charity shouldn't be a charity.
Jeez we should have wrapped up this Aussie side ALREADY
Australia won't give England all these left offs.
Deeply frusrating. Especially when you look at the weather forecast. This is going to be a truncated game. Our only hope of getting the ESSENTIAL victory, keeping the series alive, is a quick 3-4 day win here
I'm kind of curious @148grss why you feel a mythical "person with standing" even exists and can take this back to court once more when its already been dismissed and lost.
Any person trying it for the same reason Mermaids did will lose on the same "technical" grounds because they'll lack standing every bit as much as Mermaids did.
The case is over, any imaginary cases with imaginary people who may or may not have standing are no more relevant than any other imaginary cases people can come up with.
New strategy announced to make York the North's first anti-racist city
Key initiatives of the strategy, developed with academics at York St John University, include asking employers to sign an anti-racist pledge, targeted outreach for underrepresented communities, a racial equity commission to review city policies and unconscious bias training for all city employees.
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.
The more donations he gets, the bigger the moral victory. Fight the power.
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.
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”
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.’
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
I haven't had relationships with lesbians, as a cis man, but I know cis and trans lesbians. I have had relationships with lots of different kinds of people outside of that. I still don't really find your use of "true" in reference to bisexual or homosexual / heterosexual very useful, but hey ho
I don't understand the logic of the short stuff tactic straight after lunch, but having your 95mph bowler not in the action. Then bringing him on when they are now set.
These lines pretty damning for Sunak and Hunt 'Tony Blair, for all his faults, was more supportive of market reforms, more “Right-wing” on the NHS than this Government ever was....Margaret Thatcher and John Major handed Blair a nation that had dramatically shifted Right-wards during their rule. The Tories today will bequeath Sir Keir Starmer a far more Left-wing country. It is a historic failure.'
Even on Brexit 'Brexit, the one great restorationist triumph of the past 13 years, was forced on the Tories (and Labour) by popular rebellions. It was opposed by David Cameron; it was sabotaged by Theresa May; and neither Boris Johnson nor Rishi Sunak took proper advantage of our new freedoms to show moderate Remainers why it was worth it. The Tories’ useless execution of Brexit is the greatest missed opportunity since Sir Keith Joseph gave up on education vouchers in 1983.'
Does Heath actually get paid for writing this guff?
If he posted this nonsense on PB we would be demanding citations.
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.
Yep, probably in excess of half a million quid that could have gone on charitable purposes has been spent on a case that Mermaids now says will have no impact on it - despite that being the reason for them bringing the case in the first place.
Helen Joyce on why the claims of TRA are not going to go away - too many parents invested in irrevocable decisions they’ve taken for their children: [VIDEO]
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.
And the imprisoned Leveller graffiti at Burford parish church, too.
These lines pretty damning for Sunak and Hunt 'Tony Blair, for all his faults, was more supportive of market reforms, more “Right-wing” on the NHS than this Government ever was....Margaret Thatcher and John Major handed Blair a nation that had dramatically shifted Right-wards during their rule. The Tories today will bequeath Sir Keir Starmer a far more Left-wing country. It is a historic failure.'
Even on Brexit 'Brexit, the one great restorationist triumph of the past 13 years, was forced on the Tories (and Labour) by popular rebellions. It was opposed by David Cameron; it was sabotaged by Theresa May; and neither Boris Johnson nor Rishi Sunak took proper advantage of our new freedoms to show moderate Remainers why it was worth it. The Tories’ useless execution of Brexit is the greatest missed opportunity since Sir Keith Joseph gave up on education vouchers in 1983.'
Anyone who thinks Brexit "the one great restorationist triumph of the past 13 years" is a laughable moron who has completely lost the plot, so don't worry, you can put that article in the "Another swiveleyed loon that helped fuck up the Tory Party" file
PS how much further down the path in the direction of the ERG do you think you will head? How long before you will be regarding Mark Francois as a left winger?
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.
Yep, probably in excess of half a million quid that could have gone on charitable purposes has been spent on a case that Mermaids now says will have no impact on it - despite that being the reason for them bringing the case in the first place.
Helen Joyce on why the claims of TRA are not going to go away - too many parents invested in irrevocable decisions they’ve taken for their children: [VIDEO]
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.
History? Fenland Tech? Doesn't it end in 1688, or am I thinking of Oxford?
Jeez we should have wrapped up this Aussie side ALREADY
It's going to be a whitewashed series - England are better than they were, not but as good as the Aussies, so will get close but not close enough.
Statisticians will see no difference from a hammering, but at least the games have been interesting.
That is ridiculously pessimistic
England are good. Australia are a shade superior, but it is not obvious whitewash territory. We could have won either or both of the first two tests
They're not masses better, but they're better - and our poor discipline will edge all three games - it won't be massively one sided, but the outcome will be the same. Trust me.
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.
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”
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.’
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
I haven't had relationships with lesbians, as a cis man, but I know cis and trans lesbians. I have had relationships with lots of different kinds of people outside of that. I still don't really find your use of "true" in reference to bisexual or homosexual / heterosexual very useful, but hey ho
I readily agree it's not scientific, I use the term "true" in this sense
A true heterosexual is someone who finds the idea of homosexual sex unpleasant-to-repulsive and would never do it
A true bisexual is someone who has absolutely no preferences, would happily have sex with either gender, if they are told you've only got one sex act left, who would it be with: they have no preference
Etc
I am not a sexologist these are just handy terms I use personally, so please do not assail me with pervy papers by Shere Hite and the like
I'm kind of curious @148grss why you feel a mythical "person with standing" even exists and can take this back to court once more when its already been dismissed and lost.
Any person trying it for the same reason Mermaids did will lose on the same "technical" grounds because they'll lack standing every bit as much as Mermaids did.
The case is over, any imaginary cases with imaginary people who may or may not have standing are no more relevant than any other imaginary cases people can come up with.
IIUC the judgment found that Mermaids (and others?) did not have standing. It did not (and could not?) declare that nobody else did (or could). I assume a person/legal entity with standing could bring a case, so the question becomes: is there such a person and/or can such a person exist?
I'm kind of curious @148grss why you feel a mythical "person with standing" even exists and can take this back to court once more when its already been dismissed and lost.
Any person trying it for the same reason Mermaids did will lose on the same "technical" grounds because they'll lack standing every bit as much as Mermaids did.
The case is over, any imaginary cases with imaginary people who may or may not have standing are no more relevant than any other imaginary cases people can come up with.
Maybe I'm just thinking of a different legal argument, and therefore you're right. I would say if the issue is LGBA claims to support LGB people, especially lesbians, and their free speech (which is what their charitable aims are) it would only need a cis lesbian to go to LGBA for support for feeling discriminated against for being pro trans and for them to obviously turn down the case because they only care about anti trans causes and their charitable aims become shown for the charade they are. Maybe that is also not a good enough cause for standing, again, I am not a lawyer, just someone who listens to podcasts and watches lots of videos hosted by lawyers about the law (although primarily US law, and typically SCOTUS stuff).
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.
If you're talking about Charlie Gilmour he's actually a pretty good writer. And having a famous stepfather didn't stop him getting a swingeing sentence for disrespecting ar lads.
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.
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 was born a decade or so too early. A fish out of water in some of the teams he played in, he'd have been immense with contemporary training, and the current license to hit.
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.
Yep, probably in excess of half a million quid that could have gone on charitable purposes has been spent on a case that Mermaids now says will have no impact on it - despite that being the reason for them bringing the case in the first place.
Helen Joyce on why the claims of TRA are not going to go away - too many parents invested in irrevocable decisions they’ve taken for their children: [VIDEO]
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.
And the imprisoned Leveller graffiti at Burford parish church, too.
Stories of imprisonment in churches always reminds me of this
...The case is over, any imaginary cases with imaginary people who may or may not have standing are no more relevant than any other imaginary cases people can come up with...
IIUC the recent case of the Supreme Court in 21-476 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis was based on a hypothetical situation
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.
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”
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.’
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.
I knew a guy who, for many years, had a boyfriend called Gary. But he only dated women before and after. He said he was Garysexual: he liked women and this one bloke. People are complicated. They like different things. They sometimes discover they like something they didn’t know they liked before.
In public health, we talk about MSM (men who have sex with men) and WSW (women who have sex with women). We do this because people identify in all sorts of ways, but what they do doesn’t necessarily match a straightforward interpretation of their identity. Lots of MSM identity as straight. Someone might identify as lesbian, but occasionally have sex with a man. Someone might identify as bi, but be in a lifelong committed relationship with one person, so they only have sex with that one person. We don’t judge how people talk about their sexual identity. We just want to make sure that whatever they’re doing, they’re doing safely.
I'm kind of curious @148grss why you feel a mythical "person with standing" even exists and can take this back to court once more when its already been dismissed and lost.
Any person trying it for the same reason Mermaids did will lose on the same "technical" grounds because they'll lack standing every bit as much as Mermaids did.
The case is over, any imaginary cases with imaginary people who may or may not have standing are no more relevant than any other imaginary cases people can come up with.
When you started that sentence "I'm kind of curious", I thought for a moment you were making an announcement.
Jeez we should have wrapped up this Aussie side ALREADY
It's going to be a whitewashed series - England are better than they were, not but as good as the Aussies, so will get close but not close enough.
Statisticians will see no difference from a hammering, but at least the games have been interesting.
That is ridiculously pessimistic
England are good. Australia are a shade superior, but it is not obvious whitewash territory. We could have won either or both of the first two tests
They're not masses better, but they're better - and our poor discipline will edge all three games - it won't be massively one sided, but the outcome will be the same. Trust me.
English weather makes at least one drawn game a reasomable likelihood. I wonder what odds you can get on a 5-0 win?
If you're that confident you should have a punt, perhaps
These lines pretty damning for Sunak and Hunt 'Tony Blair, for all his faults, was more supportive of market reforms, more “Right-wing” on the NHS than this Government ever was....Margaret Thatcher and John Major handed Blair a nation that had dramatically shifted Right-wards during their rule. The Tories today will bequeath Sir Keir Starmer a far more Left-wing country. It is a historic failure.'
Even on Brexit 'Brexit, the one great restorationist triumph of the past 13 years, was forced on the Tories (and Labour) by popular rebellions. It was opposed by David Cameron; it was sabotaged by Theresa May; and neither Boris Johnson nor Rishi Sunak took proper advantage of our new freedoms to show moderate Remainers why it was worth it. The Tories’ useless execution of Brexit is the greatest missed opportunity since Sir Keith Joseph gave up on education vouchers in 1983.'
Anyone who thinks Brexit "the one great restorationist triumph of the past 13 years" is a laughable moron who has completely lost the plot, so don't worry, you can put that article in the "Another swiveleyed loon that helped fuck up the Tory Party" file
PS how much further down the path in the direction of the ERG do you think you will head? How long before you will be regarding Mark Francois as a left winger?
For rightwingers this government taxes and spends and regulates too much and is too socially liberal and has not cut immigration enough. Nor has it even matched the market reforms in healthcare Blair was proposing.
Brexit for them is the only big rightwing achievement of this government, expect therefore the right to completely blame Sunak and Hunt for a general election defeat, saying they were too wet. The ERG will want a leadership candidate offering real rightwing redmeat to take over as leader in opposition.
Leftwingers of course also felt New Labour was way too centrist and when it was defeated in 2010 demanded more leftwing redmeat as the party firstly shifted to Ed Miliband as leader then to Corbyn
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.
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”
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.’
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
I haven't had relationships with lesbians, as a cis man, but I know cis and trans lesbians. I have had relationships with lots of different kinds of people outside of that. I still don't really find your use of "true" in reference to bisexual or homosexual / heterosexual very useful, but hey ho
I readily agree it's not scientific, I use the term "true" in this sense
A true heterosexual is someone who finds the idea of homosexual sex unpleasant-to-repulsive and would never do it
A true bisexual is someone who has absolutely no preferences, would happily have sex with either gender, if they are told you've only got one sex act left, who would it be with: they have no preference
Etc
I am not a sexologist these are just handy terms I use personally, so please do not assail me with pervy papers by Shere Hite and the like
Okay, that's useful to know. I guess I agree with @bondegezou that these things are more wibbly wobbly and, as someone who knows lots of other queer people, that seems to be pretty true within that population of people.
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.
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”
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.’
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
I haven't had relationships with lesbians, as a cis man, but I know cis and trans lesbians. I have had relationships with lots of different kinds of people outside of that. I still don't really find your use of "true" in reference to bisexual or homosexual / heterosexual very useful, but hey ho
I readily agree it's not scientific, I use the term "true" in this sense
A true heterosexual is someone who finds the idea of homosexual sex unpleasant-to-repulsive and would never do it
A true bisexual is someone who has absolutely no preferences, would happily have sex with either gender, if they are told you've only got one sex act left, who would it be with: they have no preference
Etc
I am not a sexologist these are just handy terms I use personally, so please do not assail me with pervy papers by Shere Hite and the like
Okay, that's useful to know. I guess I agree with @bondegezou that these things are more wibbly wobbly and, as someone who knows lots of other queer people, that seems to be pretty true within that population of people.
I don't disagree, I am a self-confessed kinkster with a Fetlife page, I have met all kinds of weird and wonderful folk
These lines pretty damning for Sunak and Hunt 'Tony Blair, for all his faults, was more supportive of market reforms, more “Right-wing” on the NHS than this Government ever was....Margaret Thatcher and John Major handed Blair a nation that had dramatically shifted Right-wards during their rule. The Tories today will bequeath Sir Keir Starmer a far more Left-wing country. It is a historic failure.'
Even on Brexit 'Brexit, the one great restorationist triumph of the past 13 years, was forced on the Tories (and Labour) by popular rebellions. It was opposed by David Cameron; it was sabotaged by Theresa May; and neither Boris Johnson nor Rishi Sunak took proper advantage of our new freedoms to show moderate Remainers why it was worth it. The Tories’ useless execution of Brexit is the greatest missed opportunity since Sir Keith Joseph gave up on education vouchers in 1983.'
Anyone who thinks Brexit "the one great restorationist triumph of the past 13 years" is a laughable moron who has completely lost the plot, so don't worry, you can put that article in the "Another swiveleyed loon that helped fuck up the Tory Party" file
PS how much further down the path in the direction of the ERG do you think you will head? How long before you will be regarding Mark Francois as a left winger?
For rightwingers this government taxes and spends and regulates too much and is too socially liberal and has not cut immigration enough. Nor has it even matched the market reforms in healthcare Blair was proposing.
Brexit for them is the only big rightwing achievement of this government, expect therefore the right to completely blame Sunak and Hunt for a general election defeat, saying they were too wet. The ERG will want a leadership candidate offering real rightwing redmeat.
Leftwingers of course also felt New Labour was way too centrist and when it was defeated in 2010 demanded more leftwing redmeat as the party firsty shifted to Ed Miliband then to Corbyn
But where are you? You used to be quite moderate, and what has happened to the "my party right or wrong" that you used to use in your justification of not criticising the Clown? Now you seem to revel in anything that criticises Sunak. Surely it can't be Sunak's supposed disloyalty to The Liar, because The Liar was disloyal to everyone and you thought that OK, because he was The Leader? Maybe you are a bellwether for the Tory Party generally; where moderation and sensible approaches have passed into history to be replaced by salivating swiveleyed fanaticism? I hope not, because if Sunak is replaced by a rightwing loon we are doomed to a decade or more of nanny state anti-business Labour.
By the way. Please read your history on Mrs T. She did not bring in tax cuts until it was economically sensible to do so. To do so now after Johnson splurged money everywhere would be insane.
I predict Australia recover to 400, then England can't handle the seaming pitch and struggle to 250....and the rest is inevitable praying on a Root or Stokes miracle to chase down a big total to win.
'Johnson’s lawyer supported the inquiry, and warned there was a “real danger” of undermining public confidence in the process if the Cabinet Office was successful.'
Hmm. Commendable support for democracy and openness.
I predict Australia recover to 400, then England can't handle the seaming pitch and struggle to 250....and the rest is inevitable praying on a Root or Stokes miracle to chase down a big total to win.
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.
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”
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.’
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
I haven't had relationships with lesbians, as a cis man, but I know cis and trans lesbians. I have had relationships with lots of different kinds of people outside of that. I still don't really find your use of "true" in reference to bisexual or homosexual / heterosexual very useful, but hey ho
I readily agree it's not scientific, I use the term "true" in this sense
A true heterosexual is someone who finds the idea of homosexual sex unpleasant-to-repulsive and would never do it
A true bisexual is someone who has absolutely no preferences, would happily have sex with either gender, if they are told you've only got one sex act left, who would it be with: they have no preference
Etc
I am not a sexologist these are just handy terms I use personally, so please do not assail me with pervy papers by Shere Hite and the like
Okay, that's useful to know. I guess I agree with @bondegezou that these things are more wibbly wobbly and, as someone who knows lots of other queer people, that seems to be pretty true within that population of people.
I don't disagree, I am a self-confessed kinkster with a Fetlife page, I have met all kinds of weird and wonderful folk
Apparerntly there are those rather short and skinny folk in grey rubber suits with large eyes. Might be interesting?
A question for those who consider it to be highly likely that Labour will win a majority: do you think the Sun newspaper will back Labour, or on the contrary will the pattern of half a century be broken? The last time the Sun didn't back the winner was in 1974.
I predict Australia recover to 400, then England can't handle the seaming pitch and struggle to 250....and the rest is inevitable praying on a Root or Stokes miracle to chase down a big total to win.
A question for those who consider it to be highly likely that Labour will win a majority: do you think the Sun newspaper will back Labour, or on the contrary will the pattern of half a century be broken? The last time the Sun didn't back the winner was in 1974.
I think they will, albeit with a polly trademark nosepeg / we are watching you on EU stuff. I think the question is rather what paper won't back Labour. I wouldn't be surprised if they don't all say time for a change / the most tepid support of Sunak.
'Johnson’s lawyer supported the inquiry, and warned there was a “real danger” of undermining public confidence in the process if the Cabinet Office was successful.'
Hmm. Commendable support for democracy and openness.
Bit hard on Mr Sunak, though, I suspect.
So, what do we think: did Sunak openly say that he didn't like the idea of furlough and let them eat cake, or is it just that he is such a odious lick spittle that we will see more evidence of him tonguing Johnson's boots? Or some wild cards, like rating women out of 10 over text?
Bizarrely, it doesn't offer the single feature which made Twitter so useful - being able to see all the tweets from those you follow, as they happen.
Instead the algo decides what it thinks you should see. No thanks.
What a preposterous error
Also not available in the EU. Tbh I can see Twitter binning off the EU too mind, and possibly us. I'm sure Americans have a massively greater propensity to buy any old shit advertised to them on social media which is probably why their economy has gone gangbusters recently.
A question for those who consider it to be highly likely that Labour will win a majority: do you think the Sun newspaper will back Labour, or on the contrary will the pattern of half a century be broken? The last time the Sun didn't back the winner was in 1974.
I suspect they will pile in to support Labour if they think it inevitable
'Johnson’s lawyer supported the inquiry, and warned there was a “real danger” of undermining public confidence in the process if the Cabinet Office was successful.'
Hmm. Commendable support for democracy and openness.
Bit hard on Mr Sunak, though, I suspect.
So, what do we think: did Sunak openly say that he didn't like the idea of furlough and let them eat cake, or is it just that he is such a odious lick spittle that we will see more evidence of him tonguing Johnson's boots? Or some wild cards, like rating women out of 10 over text?
My expectation is something along the lines of number one.
An embarrassing message in there that far from furlough being his idea, it was something he was ordered to do instead.
A question for those who consider it to be highly likely that Labour will win a majority: do you think the Sun newspaper will back Labour, or on the contrary will the pattern of half a century be broken? The last time the Sun didn't back the winner was in 1974.
I think they will, albeit with a polly trademark nosepeg / we are watching you on EU stuff.
I think it depends. If SKS is willing to do a big splashy culture war olive branch (along with promises to not regulate media, and to not do anything on taxes) then maybe? But I think the Sun has gone a bit far to turn back now - it would be a jarring about face for the readership, and it's more important to keep loyal readers than it is to back the right horse (especially when you might get policy wins even if you don't back them).
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.
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”
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.’
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
I haven't had relationships with lesbians, as a cis man, but I know cis and trans lesbians. I have had relationships with lots of different kinds of people outside of that. I still don't really find your use of "true" in reference to bisexual or homosexual / heterosexual very useful, but hey ho
I readily agree it's not scientific, I use the term "true" in this sense
A true heterosexual is someone who finds the idea of homosexual sex unpleasant-to-repulsive and would never do it
A true bisexual is someone who has absolutely no preferences, would happily have sex with either gender, if they are told you've only got one sex act left, who would it be with: they have no preference
Etc
I am not a sexologist these are just handy terms I use personally, so please do not assail me with pervy papers by Shere Hite and the like
I can only comment on personal experience, but I find myself 100% heterosexual. The idea of sex with another man physically repulses me. I never see an attractive man and think I'd like to have sex with him.
And I think this is why people like me find it difficult to imagine how others are different. And yet they are.
A question for those who consider it to be highly likely that Labour will win a majority: do you think the Sun newspaper will back Labour, or on the contrary will the pattern of half a century be broken? The last time the Sun didn't back the winner was in 1974.
I think they will, albeit with a polly trademark nosepeg / we are watching you on EU stuff.
I think it depends. If SKS is willing to do a big splashy culture war olive branch (along with promises to not regulate media, and to not do anything on taxes) then maybe? But I think the Sun has gone a bit far to turn back now - it would be a jarring about face for the readership, and it's more important to keep loyal readers than it is to back the right horse (especially when you might get policy wins even if you don't back them).
I doubt Sunak is very popular with Sun readers, so i don't think that is an issue. And bread and butter issues for your typical Sun reader are all bad for government, interest rates, inflation, crime, immigration, NHS....
A question for those who consider it to be highly likely that Labour will win a majority: do you think the Sun newspaper will back Labour, or on the contrary will the pattern of half a century be broken? The last time the Sun didn't back the winner was in 1974.
I suspect they will pile in to support Labour if they think it inevitable
The Sun may back Labour but the Times will still probably back Sunak so Murdoch hedges his bets
Bizarrely, it doesn't offer the single feature which made Twitter so useful - being able to see all the tweets from those you follow, as they happen.
Instead the algo decides what it thinks you should see. No thanks.
What a preposterous error
Also not available in the EU. Tbh I can see Twitter binning off the EU too mind, and possibly us. I'm sure Americans have a massively greater propensity to buy any old shit advertised to them on social media which is probably why their economy has gone gangbusters recently.
Why on earth would Twitter quit the UK? We are a big influential market, we have no data issues. It's not like it costs them money to offer Twitter in the Yook
A question for those who consider it to be highly likely that Labour will win a majority: do you think the Sun newspaper will back Labour, or on the contrary will the pattern of half a century be broken? The last time the Sun didn't back the winner was in 1974.
I think they will if it looks obvious at the time. Might hedge it as not fulsome support, but 'The Sun believes is is time for change and Sir Keir Starmer is no radical' etc etc.
'Johnson’s lawyer supported the inquiry, and warned there was a “real danger” of undermining public confidence in the process if the Cabinet Office was successful.'
Hmm. Commendable support for democracy and openness.
Bit hard on Mr Sunak, though, I suspect.
So, what do we think: did Sunak openly say that he didn't like the idea of furlough and let them eat cake, or is it just that he is such a odious lick spittle that we will see more evidence of him tonguing Johnson's boots? Or some wild cards, like rating women out of 10 over text?
I'd go for an admission that inflation and fraud were inevitable.
New strategy announced to make York the North's first anti-racist city
Key initiatives of the strategy, developed with academics at York St John University, include asking employers to sign an anti-racist pledge, targeted outreach for underrepresented communities, a racial equity commission to review city policies and unconscious bias training for all city employees.
Given how white York is, this all feels a little bit like a setup for Brass Eye or maybe Alan Partridge.
Not a criticism, per se - maybe this kind of initiative is all the more important in cities where the minorities are very much in the minority - but some of it sounds a bit tick-boxy. The unconscious bias training for 'city employees' (Council employees?) sounds sensible.
On topic: How accurate is the assumption of a uniform swing to Labour? Are there any good analyses of regional polls that give you some idea on that question.
It is, I understand, a difficult problem, especially with the boundary changes. But some knowledge on that accuracy would seem essential for serious bettors.
These lines pretty damning for Sunak and Hunt 'Tony Blair, for all his faults, was more supportive of market reforms, more “Right-wing” on the NHS than this Government ever was....Margaret Thatcher and John Major handed Blair a nation that had dramatically shifted Right-wards during their rule. The Tories today will bequeath Sir Keir Starmer a far more Left-wing country. It is a historic failure.'
Even on Brexit 'Brexit, the one great restorationist triumph of the past 13 years, was forced on the Tories (and Labour) by popular rebellions. It was opposed by David Cameron; it was sabotaged by Theresa May; and neither Boris Johnson nor Rishi Sunak took proper advantage of our new freedoms to show moderate Remainers why it was worth it. The Tories’ useless execution of Brexit is the greatest missed opportunity since Sir Keith Joseph gave up on education vouchers in 1983.'
Anyone who thinks Brexit "the one great restorationist triumph of the past 13 years" is a laughable moron who has completely lost the plot, so don't worry, you can put that article in the "Another swiveleyed loon that helped fuck up the Tory Party" file
PS how much further down the path in the direction of the ERG do you think you will head? How long before you will be regarding Mark Francois as a left winger?
For rightwingers this government taxes and spends and regulates too much and is too socially liberal and has not cut immigration enough. Nor has it even matched the market reforms in healthcare Blair was proposing.
Brexit for them is the only big rightwing achievement of this government, expect therefore the right to completely blame Sunak and Hunt for a general election defeat, saying they were too wet. The ERG will want a leadership candidate offering real rightwing redmeat.
Leftwingers of course also felt New Labour was way too centrist and when it was defeated in 2010 demanded more leftwing redmeat as the party firsty shifted to Ed Miliband then to Corbyn
But where are you? You used to be quite moderate, and what has happened to the "my party right or wrong" that you used to use in your justification of not criticising the Clown? Now you seem to revel in anything that criticises Sunak. Surely it can't be Sunak's supposed disloyalty to The Liar, because The Liar was disloyal to everyone and you thought that OK, because he was The Leader? Maybe you are a bellwether for the Tory Party generally; where moderation and sensible approaches have passed into history to be replaced by salivating swiveleyed fanaticism? I hope not, because if Sunak is replaced by a rightwing loon we are doomed to a decade or more of nanny state anti-business Labour.
By the way. Please read your history on Mrs T. She did not bring in tax cuts until it was economically sensible to do so. To do so now after Johnson splurged money everywhere would be insane.
I am loyal to Sunak but there is no doubt this government has been much too high spend and high tax than she would ultimately have liked. Even Sunak has increased corporation tax again.
Of course in the late 1970s most commentators believed Thatcher herself was a 'rightwing loon' unelectable against the more centrist Callaghan. Yet the poor economic performance of his Labour government enabled her to win in 1979
Bizarrely, it doesn't offer the single feature which made Twitter so useful - being able to see all the tweets from those you follow, as they happen.
Instead the algo decides what it thinks you should see. No thanks.
What a preposterous error
Also not available in the EU. Tbh I can see Twitter binning off the EU too mind, and possibly us. I'm sure Americans have a massively greater propensity to buy any old shit advertised to them on social media which is probably why their economy has gone gangbusters recently.
Why on earth would Twitter quit the UK? We are a big influential market, we have no data issues. It's not like it costs them money to offer Twitter in the Yook
Depends how onerous for social media cos our "online safety" stuff (And or data regs) get. Clearly US companies are happy to bin off the EU and that's a much bigger market.
'Johnson’s lawyer supported the inquiry, and warned there was a “real danger” of undermining public confidence in the process if the Cabinet Office was successful.'
Hmm. Commendable support for democracy and openness.
Bit hard on Mr Sunak, though, I suspect.
So, what do we think: did Sunak openly say that he didn't like the idea of furlough and let them eat cake, or is it just that he is such a odious lick spittle that we will see more evidence of him tonguing Johnson's boots? Or some wild cards, like rating women out of 10 over text?
Jokes about Johnson being so skint that he had to slum it in an NHS hospital for his covid treatment?
'Johnson’s lawyer supported the inquiry, and warned there was a “real danger” of undermining public confidence in the process if the Cabinet Office was successful.'
Hmm. Commendable support for democracy and openness.
Bit hard on Mr Sunak, though, I suspect.
So, what do we think: did Sunak openly say that he didn't like the idea of furlough and let them eat cake, or is it just that he is such a odious lick spittle that we will see more evidence of him tonguing Johnson's boots? Or some wild cards, like rating women out of 10 over text?
Could be a formal warning over the risks of the Eat Out To catcH cOvid scheme, one of us thought? But it could be anything down to the sex habits of the Downing St cat (which would fit in well with PB at the moment).
A question for those who consider it to be highly likely that Labour will win a majority: do you think the Sun newspaper will back Labour, or on the contrary will the pattern of half a century be broken? The last time the Sun didn't back the winner was in 1974.
I suspect they will pile in to support Labour if they think it inevitable
The Sun may back Labour but the Times will still probably back Sunak so Murdoch hedges his bets
Murdoch is 92. He could keel over before the election.
A question for those who consider it to be highly likely that Labour will win a majority: do you think the Sun newspaper will back Labour, or on the contrary will the pattern of half a century be broken? The last time the Sun didn't back the winner was in 1974.
I suspect they will pile in to support Labour if they think it inevitable
Yes, me too. Albeit in a qualified way. It'll be a 'he's rubbish, but I suppose he'll do. But watch out' type endorsement. Because that's what they think (probably correctly) their readership are thinking.
Honestly, the Sun isn't and never has acted as some sort of Prime-Minister-picking Svengali. It just writes what it thinks will most encourage people to buy (or click on) the Sun. It follows its readership.
These lines pretty damning for Sunak and Hunt 'Tony Blair, for all his faults, was more supportive of market reforms, more “Right-wing” on the NHS than this Government ever was....Margaret Thatcher and John Major handed Blair a nation that had dramatically shifted Right-wards during their rule. The Tories today will bequeath Sir Keir Starmer a far more Left-wing country. It is a historic failure.'
Even on Brexit 'Brexit, the one great restorationist triumph of the past 13 years, was forced on the Tories (and Labour) by popular rebellions. It was opposed by David Cameron; it was sabotaged by Theresa May; and neither Boris Johnson nor Rishi Sunak took proper advantage of our new freedoms to show moderate Remainers why it was worth it. The Tories’ useless execution of Brexit is the greatest missed opportunity since Sir Keith Joseph gave up on education vouchers in 1983.'
Anyone who thinks Brexit "the one great restorationist triumph of the past 13 years" is a laughable moron who has completely lost the plot, so don't worry, you can put that article in the "Another swiveleyed loon that helped fuck up the Tory Party" file
PS how much further down the path in the direction of the ERG do you think you will head? How long before you will be regarding Mark Francois as a left winger?
For rightwingers this government taxes and spends and regulates too much and is too socially liberal and has not cut immigration enough. Nor has it even matched the market reforms in healthcare Blair was proposing.
Brexit for them is the only big rightwing achievement of this government, expect therefore the right to completely blame Sunak and Hunt for a general election defeat, saying they were too wet. The ERG will want a leadership candidate offering real rightwing redmeat.
Leftwingers of course also felt New Labour was way too centrist and when it was defeated in 2010 demanded more leftwing redmeat as the party firsty shifted to Ed Miliband then to Corbyn
But where are you? You used to be quite moderate, and what has happened to the "my party right or wrong" that you used to use in your justification of not criticising the Clown? Now you seem to revel in anything that criticises Sunak. Surely it can't be Sunak's supposed disloyalty to The Liar, because The Liar was disloyal to everyone and you thought that OK, because he was The Leader? Maybe you are a bellwether for the Tory Party generally; where moderation and sensible approaches have passed into history to be replaced by salivating swiveleyed fanaticism? I hope not, because if Sunak is replaced by a rightwing loon we are doomed to a decade or more of nanny state anti-business Labour.
By the way. Please read your history on Mrs T. She did not bring in tax cuts until it was economically sensible to do so. To do so now after Johnson splurged money everywhere would be insane.
Well said, and there is little doubt @HYUFD has not got over Johnson and is very much in to RefUK, indeed quoting them and Farage as if they are a force in UK politics
He also is a Trump fan and most certainly is nearer to the conservative party's membership, but also a million miles away from many conservatives attitudes including mine and which would attract centre support of the country
I hope and pray the ERG are decimated in GE24 and the party wakes up from its present nightmare
The country needs a sensible centre conservative party to provide an acceptable opposition to a labour party that is almost certain to win next year
A question for those who consider it to be highly likely that Labour will win a majority: do you think the Sun newspaper will back Labour, or on the contrary will the pattern of half a century be broken? The last time the Sun didn't back the winner was in 1974.
I suspect they will pile in to support Labour if they think it inevitable
The Sun may back Labour but the Times will still probably back Sunak so Murdoch hedges his bets
Murdock is 92. He could keel over before the election.
Bizarrely, it doesn't offer the single feature which made Twitter so useful - being able to see all the tweets from those you follow, as they happen.
Instead the algo decides what it thinks you should see. No thanks.
What a preposterous error
Also not available in the EU. Tbh I can see Twitter binning off the EU too mind, and possibly us. I'm sure Americans have a massively greater propensity to buy any old shit advertised to them on social media which is probably why their economy has gone gangbusters recently.
Why on earth would Twitter quit the UK? We are a big influential market, we have no data issues. It's not like it costs them money to offer Twitter in the Yook
Depends how onerous for social media cos our "online safety" stuff (And or data regs) get. Clearly US companies are happy to bin off the EU and that's a much bigger market.
I really don't believe they are "happy to bin off the EU", they would love to be in a rich market of 450m people - the size of the USA or more. But they are genuinely wary of EU data regs
Hopefully we can make them more welcome: a Brexit Benefit
New strategy announced to make York the North's first anti-racist city
Key initiatives of the strategy, developed with academics at York St John University, include asking employers to sign an anti-racist pledge, targeted outreach for underrepresented communities, a racial equity commission to review city policies and unconscious bias training for all city employees.
Given how white York is, this all feels a little bit like a setup for Brass Eye or maybe Alan Partridge.
Not a criticism, per se - maybe this kind of initiative is all the more important in cities where the minorities are very much in the minority - but some of it sounds a bit tick-boxy. The unconscious bias training for 'city employees' (Council employees?) sounds sensible.
It's vaguely surprising that a public sectory-organisation will have got to 2023 without doing all the unconscious bias stuff.
A question for those who consider it to be highly likely that Labour will win a majority: do you think the Sun newspaper will back Labour, or on the contrary will the pattern of half a century be broken? The last time the Sun didn't back the winner was in 1974.
I suspect they will pile in to support Labour if they think it inevitable
Yes, me too. Albeit in a qualified way. It'll be a 'he's rubbish, but I suppose he'll do. But watch out' type endorsement. Because that's what they think (probably correctly) their readership are thinking.
Honestly, the Sun isn't and never has acted as some sort of Prime-Minister-picking Svengali. It just writes what it thinks will most encourage people to buy (or click on) the Sun. It follows its readership.
Sun readers don't care who runs the country as long as she's got big tits.
New strategy announced to make York the North's first anti-racist city
Key initiatives of the strategy, developed with academics at York St John University, include asking employers to sign an anti-racist pledge, targeted outreach for underrepresented communities, a racial equity commission to review city policies and unconscious bias training for all city employees.
Given how white York is, this all feels a little bit like a setup for Brass Eye or maybe Alan Partridge.
Not a criticism, per se - maybe this kind of initiative is all the more important in cities where the minorities are very much in the minority - but some of it sounds a bit tick-boxy. The unconscious bias training for 'city employees' (Council employees?) sounds sensible.
It's vaguely surprising that a public sectory-organisation will have got to 2023 without doing all the unconscious bias stuff.
The good councillors of York were not aware that there were other folk to be unconsciously biased against
A question for those who consider it to be highly likely that Labour will win a majority: do you think the Sun newspaper will back Labour, or on the contrary will the pattern of half a century be broken? The last time the Sun didn't back the winner was in 1974.
I suspect they will pile in to support Labour if they think it inevitable
Yes, me too. Albeit in a qualified way. It'll be a 'he's rubbish, but I suppose he'll do. But watch out' type endorsement. Because that's what they think (probably correctly) their readership are thinking.
Honestly, the Sun isn't and never has acted as some sort of Prime-Minister-picking Svengali. It just writes what it thinks will most encourage people to buy (or click on) the Sun. It follows its readership.
Sun readers don't care who runs the country as long as she's got big tits.
Ah, so that explains Johnson's appeal with that demographic
People are just going to head onto trackers when their fixed rate ends I expect. At which point the economy WILL actually become sensitive to interest rate rises. With a most colossal crunch. So a few years of inflation still being out of control followed by a mahoosive recession.
Will Liz Truss win the Spectator's Prime Minister of the Year award?
I hope the future of the magazine is very short. That twat Thomas they keep publishing, sending him to fancy foreign climes or letting him witter on gibberish about AI and UFOs, he does my fucking head in. Glad that shite doesn’t happen on here.
Comments
That's the Charity Commission's job.
If there's a hypothetical future argument that will have to be resolved in that hypothetical future, but in the actual present then the LGBA won and the case is closed not ongoing.
Even on Brexit 'Brexit, the one great restorationist triumph of the past 13 years, was forced on the Tories (and Labour) by popular rebellions. It was opposed by David Cameron; it was sabotaged by Theresa May; and neither Boris Johnson nor Rishi Sunak took proper advantage of our new freedoms to show moderate Remainers why it was worth it. The Tories’ useless execution of Brexit is the greatest missed opportunity since Sir Keith Joseph gave up on education vouchers in 1983.'
Whether you have standing also seems pretty fundamental, so I don't see how it can be that it has nothing to do with merits.
I'd hope the outcome from this is that both Mermaids and LGBAlliance focus on acting as charities, and if either are shit charities they lose funding and support on those merits.
So I guess it is novel?
Statisticians will see no difference from a hammering, but at least the games have been interesting.
Any person trying it for the same reason Mermaids did will lose on the same "technical" grounds because they'll lack standing every bit as much as Mermaids did.
The case is over, any imaginary cases with imaginary people who may or may not have standing are no more relevant than any other imaginary cases people can come up with.
New strategy announced to make York the North's first anti-racist city
Key initiatives of the strategy, developed with academics at York St John University, include asking employers to sign an anti-racist pledge, targeted outreach for underrepresented communities, a racial equity commission to review city policies and unconscious bias training for all city employees.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U35MvblI4og
England are good. Australia are a shade superior, but it is not obvious whitewash territory. We could have won either or both of the first two tests
If he posted this nonsense on PB we would be demanding citations.
Helen Joyce on why the claims of TRA are not going to go away - too many parents invested in irrevocable decisions they’ve taken for their children: [VIDEO]
https://twitter.com/wordeths/status/1676163485191766017?s=20
PS how much further down the path in the direction of the ERG do you think you will head? How long before you will be regarding Mark Francois as a left winger?
That's why they lacked standing.
They should have realised that before today though. As should the Bad Law Project.
A true heterosexual is someone who finds the idea of homosexual sex unpleasant-to-repulsive and would never do it
A true bisexual is someone who has absolutely no preferences, would happily have sex with either gender, if they are told you've only got one sex act left, who would it be with: they have no preference
Etc
I am not a sexologist these are just handy terms I use personally, so please do not assail me with pervy papers by Shere Hite and the like
Again, am not a lawyer.
And having a famous stepfather didn't stop him getting a swingeing sentence for disrespecting ar lads.
A fish out of water in some of the teams he played in, he'd have been immense with contemporary training, and the current license to hit.
Imagine slotting him in for the injured Pope.
And Stonewall’s “No Debate” is dead and buried at a crossroads with a stake through its heart.
http://cryptiana.web.fc2.com/code/trevanion.htm
In public health, we talk about MSM (men who have sex with men) and WSW (women who have sex with women). We do this because people identify in all sorts of ways, but what they do doesn’t necessarily match a straightforward interpretation of their identity. Lots of MSM identity as straight. Someone might identify as lesbian, but occasionally have sex with a man. Someone might identify as bi, but be in a lifelong committed relationship with one person, so they only have sex with that one person. We don’t judge how people talk about their sexual identity. We just want to make sure that whatever they’re doing, they’re doing safely.
If you're that confident you should have a punt, perhaps
Brexit for them is the only big rightwing achievement of this government, expect therefore the right to completely blame Sunak and Hunt for a general election defeat, saying they were too wet. The ERG will want a leadership candidate offering real rightwing redmeat to take over as leader in opposition.
Leftwingers of course also felt New Labour was way too centrist and when it was defeated in 2010 demanded more leftwing redmeat as the party firstly shifted to Ed Miliband as leader then to Corbyn
We've needed this
BREAKING: Cabinet Office Loses Fight to Withhold Boris’s WhatsApps from Covid Inquiry
By the way. Please read your history on Mrs T. She did not bring in tax cuts until it was economically sensible to do so. To do so now after Johnson splurged money everywhere would be insane.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-66112648
Bizarrely, it doesn't offer the single feature which made Twitter so useful - being able to see all the tweets from those you follow, as they happen.
Instead the algo decides what it thinks you should see. No thanks.
'Johnson’s lawyer supported the inquiry, and warned there was a “real danger” of undermining public confidence in the process if the Cabinet Office was successful.'
Hmm. Commendable support for democracy and openness.
Bit hard on Mr Sunak, though, I suspect.
Also at the Spectator summer party: Suella Braverman’s summer plans, Labour beef and the future of the magazine itself
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/londoners-diary/spectator-summer-party-liz-truss-rishi-sunak-suella-braverman-matt-hancock-b1092630.html
Will Liz Truss win the Spectator's Prime Minister of the Year award?
An embarrassing message in there that far from furlough being his idea, it was something he was ordered to do instead.
Can't argue with much of it.
Bypassing Biden: Democrats Think of What Could Have Been
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/07/06/bypassing-biden-democrats-think-of-what-could-have-been-00104803
I predict a future nomination battle between her and Slotkin.
Either would be a formidable candidate.
And I think this is why people like me find it difficult to imagine how others are different. And yet they are.
Not a criticism, per se - maybe this kind of initiative is all the more important in cities where the minorities are very much in the minority - but some of it sounds a bit tick-boxy. The unconscious bias training for 'city employees' (Council employees?) sounds sensible.
It is, I understand, a difficult problem, especially with the boundary changes. But some knowledge on that accuracy would seem essential for serious bettors.
Of course in the late 1970s most commentators believed Thatcher herself was a 'rightwing loon' unelectable against the more centrist Callaghan. Yet the poor economic performance of his Labour government enabled her to win in 1979
Honestly, the Sun isn't and never has acted as some sort of Prime-Minister-picking Svengali. It just writes what it thinks will most encourage people to buy (or click on) the Sun. It follows its readership.
He also is a Trump fan and most certainly is nearer to the conservative party's membership, but also a million miles away from many conservatives attitudes including mine and which would attract centre support of the country
I hope and pray the ERG are decimated in GE24 and the party wakes up from its present nightmare
The country needs a sensible centre conservative party to provide an acceptable opposition to a labour party that is almost certain to win next year
Hopefully we can make them more welcome: a Brexit Benefit
Joy