@Cyclefree mentioned that very grown up tweet by Laura Pidcock yesterday. Sonia Sodha's response to Ben Bradshaw (who I used to think was a very good MP) is equally good:
Sonia Sodha @soniasodha Also: while I’ve got you, your behaviour in the Commons towards women you disagree with from your own party was appalling, and I know many Labour women who share my view.
This citation would be immeasurably improved by including the Ben Bradshaw tweet to which Sonia Sodha is responding (apparently Ben Bradshaw has trans godchild(ren)). Unless you have a twitter account, you may not be able to see it. For all those of you who do not have twitter accounts and so cannot see individual tweets/threads, here is a free view: https://nitter.net/soniasodha/status/1681741925911609347
Fair enough (although I think the contention that all the threats come from one direction is silly). But I was also struck by an earlier reply by Hadley Freeman, thus:
This remark was indicative. I am struck by the resemblance of the Trans-TERF war to a religious conflict, and in our irreligious times we fail to recognise this. Hadley presents the belief that neither souls not angels exist as a given, whereas in fact a majority of the world believe that least one do. (For my belief in the existence of souls, see previous discussions about p-zombies)
Gender ideology, AFAICS, is not only 'like' a belief in souls, it IS a belief in souls: a belief that there is something inside you which IS you, rather than a belief that you are just a bag of biology. (Gender ideology also has the second step which is that your soul - or whatever you call it - has a gender. A belief in souls - or whatever you call them - doesn't necessarily mean you have to believe that your soul has a gender, but a belief in gender does appear to necessitate a belief in souls (or whatever you call them).)
My personal belief is that we are just bags of biology, but I'm not sure how widespread that belief is.
I genuinely don't know the answer to this, which worries me. Does a person have a soul? Does that soul start at conception, on/near birth, other? Does it survive death, even if only as a whisper? Do all people have souls? Do I have one? I accept that logically it is possible that I do not, but I prefer to believe that I have (which is also logically possible), even though I know that belief must be faith-based. I have an interiority, that I know, but the rest is speculation and rather worrying either way.
Jeez. A return to ensoulment. Even the sceptical movement (inc the usually excellent Steven Novella of SGU) has succumbed in some instances. Probably through cowardice and fear.
This is an interesting read about the attempt to ground ideology in biology by claiming that home sapiens is bimodal. This is part of the attempt to switch the claim from "I feel that I am the other sex" to "I AM the other sex" or "there is no such thing as sex".
"Novella’s distortion of biology in the service of ideology does nobody any good, for it involves the fallacious idea that what you think is ideologically correct is what must be seen in nature. Sadly, nature does not conform to gender ideology, and sex is not a spectrum, nor even bimodal."
The world and his wife have heard of William of Ockham and think he said that the most insultingly stupid explanation of any phenomenon is the correct one. Souls and genders seem to me preeminent examples of unnecessary entities (though Will himself would probably disagree about souls).
On 6th May 2021 the Tories gained Hartlepool from Labour.
Who can forget the inflatable Bozo being paraded round the town. However, it then sprung a leak and is now just a pile of crumpled rubber stuffed into the back of someone's shed. Just like the real thing.
Hartlepool was the peak of the Tories hubris, that moment of self assurance and confidence that they were unassailable, just before the fall.
In a similar way the Brown bounce and all that led from it (exemplified by the infamous Sion Simon article) was peak Labour hubris.
It will be a long time til we reach that moment for the Tories again….
Interestingly, Old Trafford (and Edgbaston) are cashless.
Great idea, as speeds up beer purchasing as I noted in Birmingham a few weeks ago.
Presumably several PBers will refuse to attend Test matches because they can't exchange stupid pieces of paper for scraps of metal?
You never did explain how much your watch costs and how many years it lasts and what the annual maintenance is, or if you did I missed it. I'd be genuinely interested. I'm needing to buy a new mobile because the old, and perfectly good, one is no longer supported for updates by the makers.
Sorry, didn't see the post.
Apple Watch Ultra. Absolutely fab.
If you do lots of hiking/back country biking as I do, coupling it with the Outdoor Active Pro downloadable OS and IGN etc topo maps is absolutely awesome.
France, effectively, has a full-size, large, mainland South American colony in the capacity of French Guiana.
They've got away with it by fully integrating its governance with metropolitan France proper post WWII.
So, maybe we should do the same for the Falklands and Gibraltar.
I believe all the French Dom-Toms cost France a large amount of money in subsidy. It’s seen as worth it as this keeps them loyal, to a degree, and unlikely to press for secession. And their nature increases the glory of the French state etc
However the problem arises if the possessions become wealthy in their own right. Then they no longer feel bound to France and - naturally - seek independence from Paris
This has so far only arisen as an issue in New Caledonia - due to its enormous nickel deposits. France nearly lost the last valid indy referendum and will likely lose the next if the nickel wealth keeps coming
Read across for French Guiana. It’s naturally very poor but maintains a decent standard of living from large French subsidy and the presence of the ESA
But there are rumours of enormous oil reserves. See Guyana next door. If these are proven I suspect French Guiana would seek Indy very quickly
Cf Scotland
You eat very well on Martinique, with planes arriving from Paris all day with provisions.
Downside is you have to cross Paris CDG to Orly to get there.
I’ve been to Martinique. The locals were some of the surliest, grumpiest most unfriendly people I’ve ever met. A huge contrast with the usual sunny smiles of the Caribbean
In the end I decided they hated themselves for their own weakness: being dependant on France, and not seen as real French, yet not quite having the will power to thrust away the nipple of the French state and its largesse. They were ashamed of their unmanliness but they sublimated this into aggression
The problem for France is that this nasty attitude is now being into imported into metropolitan France itself
I’ve now been through the NatWest/Coutts dossier on Nigel Farage twice now. It is clear beyond doubt that, even though they could find no real “dirt” on him, they still wanted to “debank” him because they didn’t like his politics — and came up with the ruse of using an expiring mortgage to close his account this month (July). Farage curtailed this process by paying off the mortgage earlier than necessary, unaware of the consequences for his Coutts accounts. On Nov 17 2022 the bank put its plan in place: “Recommendation is to retain N[igel] F[arage] for now. However, it was noted that NF currently has a mortgage with Coutts, which is due to expire in July 2023 and which, on a commercial basis, we would not look to renew and so would suggest winding down the connection on that basis.” The Bank then says it had put great store on his Russia connections but admits it could find “nothing substantive” to pin on him. So the bank then details the fallback plan it has hatched: “Six months before the expiry of NF’s mortgage with Coutts, they would indicate to NF that we are not renewing the mortgage [allowing the Bank to exit] NF next year on commercial grounds when the mortgage rolls off.” The Banks then again admits the real reason: “[It] did not think continuing to bank NF was compatible with Coutts given his publicly-stated views that were at odds with our position as an inclusive organisation.” (Coutts is actually one of the least inclusive banks in the world, as Farage was founding out) Coutts claims “this was not a political decision but one centred around inclusivity and purpose”. Pause for laughter. “The Chair concluded as follows [the Committee was unanimous]: After the expiry of the mortgage with Coutts, NF would not be a criteria client and we should set a glide path to exiting NF when that mortgage expires.” So the mortgage was the pretext. His politics were the real reason.
I wonder if it would be an accurate summary to say that Labour have got to make 2023-4 be like 1996-7 to win? The problem is that Sir Ramsay MacBlair-Kinnock the leader seems to have practically no chance of doing that. A Burnham-Rayner dream team with a Corbynist manifesto, backed by lots of press articles saying how this or that venal Tory got caught with his hand in the till, or with his trousers down, sleaze sleaze sleaze....all the way until the Sun backs a Labour vote and doesn't talk about "the boats" for the time being, and they and the BBC don't push the Tory "anti-Semitism" slur either... Just isn't going to happen. I wish it would, but nope. 2016 happened. 2019 happened. Can't go back to the 1990s, take Camelot and bring it forward to the 2020s.
On 6th May 2021 the Tories gained Hartlepool from Labour.
Who can forget the inflatable Bozo being paraded round the town. However, it then sprung a leak and is now just a pile of crumpled rubber stuffed into the back of someone's shed. Just like the real thing.
Hartlepool was the peak of the Tories hubris, that moment of self assurance and confidence that they were unassailable, just before the fall.
In a similar way the Brown bounce and all that led from it (exemplified by the infamous Sion Simon article) was peak Labour hubris.
It will be a long time til we reach that moment for the Tories again….
I'm not sure Hartlepool was Tory hubris. Certainly the Tory peak. Peak Tory disbelief, too: "How are we winning Hartlepool?"
Interestingly, Old Trafford (and Edgbaston) are cashless.
Great idea, as speeds up beer purchasing as I noted in Birmingham a few weeks ago.
Presumably several PBers will refuse to attend Test matches because they can't exchange stupid pieces of paper for scraps of metal?
You never did explain how much your watch costs and how many years it lasts and what the annual maintenance is, or if you did I missed it. I'd be genuinely interested. I'm needing to buy a new mobile because the old, and perfectly good, one is no longer supported for updates by the makers.
Sorry, didn't see the post.
Apple Watch Ultra. Absolutely fab.
If you do lots of hiking/back country biking as I do, coupling it with the Outdoor Active Pro downloadable OS and IGN etc topo maps is absolutely awesome.
I never go on similar ventures (which I do a lot) without a paper map and and a magnetic compass.
AND A £20 NOTE. Because who knows when they are going to encounter a dodgy ballcock at around say the 2000 ft contour, and a cash in hand tradesman to fix it?
Interestingly, Old Trafford (and Edgbaston) are cashless.
Great idea, as speeds up beer purchasing as I noted in Birmingham a few weeks ago.
Presumably several PBers will refuse to attend Test matches because they can't exchange stupid pieces of paper for scraps of metal?
You never did explain how much your watch costs and how many years it lasts and what the annual maintenance is, or if you did I missed it. I'd be genuinely interested. I'm needing to buy a new mobile because the old, and perfectly good, one is no longer supported for updates by the makers.
Sorry, didn't see the post.
Apple Watch Ultra. Absolutely fab.
If you do lots of hiking/back country biking as I do, coupling it with the Outdoor Active Pro downloadable OS and IGN etc topo maps is absolutely awesome.
I never go on similar ventures (which I do a lot) without a paper map and and a magnetic compass.
AND A £20 NOTE. Because who knows when they are going to encounter a dodgy ballcock at around say the 2000 ft contour, and a cash in hand tradesman to fix it?
Always take a paper map anyway – they are just better for route planning.
I’ve now been through the NatWest/Coutts dossier on Nigel Farage twice now. It is clear beyond doubt that, even though they could find no real “dirt” on him, they still wanted to “debank” him because they didn’t like his politics — and came up with the ruse of using an expiring mortgage to close his account this month (July). Farage curtailed this process by paying off the mortgage earlier than necessary, unaware of the consequences for his Coutts accounts. On Nov 17 2022 the bank put its plan in place: “Recommendation is to retain N[igel] F[arage] for now. However, it was noted that NF currently has a mortgage with Coutts, which is due to expire in July 2023 and which, on a commercial basis, we would not look to renew and so would suggest winding down the connection on that basis.” The Bank then says it had put great store on his Russia connections but admits it could find “nothing substantive” to pin on him. So the bank then details the fallback plan it has hatched: “Six months before the expiry of NF’s mortgage with Coutts, they would indicate to NF that we are not renewing the mortgage [allowing the Bank to exit] NF next year on commercial grounds when the mortgage rolls off.” The Banks then again admits the real reason: “[It] did not think continuing to bank NF was compatible with Coutts given his publicly-stated views that were at odds with our position as an inclusive organisation.” (Coutts is actually one of the least inclusive banks in the world, as Farage was founding out) Coutts claims “this was not a political decision but one centred around inclusivity and purpose”. Pause for laughter. “The Chair concluded as follows [the Committee was unanimous]: After the expiry of the mortgage with Coutts, NF would not be a criteria client and we should set a glide path to exiting NF when that mortgage expires.” So the mortgage was the pretext. His politics were the real reason.
Anti trans activism doesn't have the same kind of backing in the US because the bigotry at its heart is much clearer - firstly because the people advocating against trans people are the same anti LGBT and anti women people who have always campaigned against progress and secondly because those people clearly don't give a damn about women's welfare.
I also find it interesting that the GC movement, that claims to care so greatly about the rights of lesbians, are split over the moves in Italy to remove lesbian mothers who don't give birth to a child from a birth certificate of that child - potentially putting into question the rights of the non biological mother should anything happen to her partner. That prominent anti trans activists like Posie Parker (who has been defended by JKR and others despite openly saying she isn't a feminist, is against feminism and believes that abortion rights have gone too far) are cheering this change on whilst their lesbian supposed fellow travellers look at the movement they've shackled themselves to and ask "how can this have happened to me" should be a damascene moment for some of these people.
The anti trans campaign comes from the same place that always attacks women and their bodily autonomy - the lawyers in the UK who represent against trans rights are the same lawyers who push for rolling back abortion rights and argued against same sex marriage. The same people who fund CPAC and the Heritage Foundation are funding trips for prominent GCs to talk at their and other conferences. The same narrative - that the perverted transes are going to prey on your children and groom them and aren't safe in public toilets - are the same narratives used against gay people in the 50s and 60s. Protection of patriarchy in the face of progress.
Policies like those proposed by the government of banning social transition in schools does nothing but ensure rigid policing of gender norms; if transgirls can't grow out their hair or wear dresses what will stop teachers policing the feminine cisboys GCs claim they are protecting from being "too girly"? If transboys aren't allowed to wear trousers or shorts instead of skirts what will stop head teachers enforcing gendered clothing on cisgirls that demands they look feminine, again punishing those tomboys GCs claim would otherwise be forcibly transed? If a student is gay, and effeminate, would a teacher necessarily know the difference between that and transness, and therefore know if they should out their students to parents anyway? All these moves protect an understanding of strict gender roles and patriarchy - parents owning their children and their roles as boys and girls, men and women strictly enforced. Anti trans activists are not critical of gender - no matter how much they say "wear any clothes you like, just don't claim you're a woman / man" they still hate on drag or gender non conforming people.
You didn’t listen to a word if it, did you?
And as ever, you miss the fundamental point that it’s not “anti-trans” but “pro-women” and based on the view that “you cannot change your sex”.
Why do you think some men want access to women’s spaces and women’s sports?
Transwomen want to be able to live their lives as women - access to women's spaces is about the fact that many transwomen are indistinguishable from ciswomen and therefore would look out of place in men's spaces and therefore in danger. It's also about not having to out themselves in their daily life - if a transwoman can't use the woman's toilet in their place of work they will have to out themselves to all their colleagues, something they should not be forced to do if they don't want to.
As for women's sports - transpeople want to compete in the sport according to their gender because we have decided to segregate sports based on that criteria. There are transmen who would rather compete against cismen who are forced to compete against ciswomen - are you arguing that transmen want to compete against cismen for unfair advantages?
What is pro-women about demanding that children have to dress in gendered ways? What is pro-women about implementing laws that allow for genital checks if people think you are trans, as has happened in the US? What is pro-women about a movement that led to the killing of a ciswoman because someone thought she was trans?
You can claim disingenuously that it's about "protecting women", but when the movement welcomes Posie Parker and policies that want to erase lesbian families, when the outcomes of the rhetoric is increased attacks against all LGBTQ+ people and the policing of women's femininity, when the clear motivation of many people comes from the same place that attacks women's rights to abortion and bodily autonomy all I see is a reactionary movement that protects patriarchy trying to hide behind "protecting women", as anti gay movements before was about "protecting children" and racist movements before that was about "protecting white women".
@Cyclefree mentioned that very grown up tweet by Laura Pidcock yesterday. Sonia Sodha's response to Ben Bradshaw (who I used to think was a very good MP) is equally good:
Sonia Sodha @soniasodha Also: while I’ve got you, your behaviour in the Commons towards women you disagree with from your own party was appalling, and I know many Labour women who share my view.
This citation would be immeasurably improved by including the Ben Bradshaw tweet to which Sonia Sodha is responding (apparently Ben Bradshaw has trans godchild(ren)). Unless you have a twitter account, you may not be able to see it. For all those of you who do not have twitter accounts and so cannot see individual tweets/threads, here is a free view: https://nitter.net/soniasodha/status/1681741925911609347
Fair enough (although I think the contention that all the threats come from one direction is silly). But I was also struck by an earlier reply by Hadley Freeman, thus:
This remark was indicative. I am struck by the resemblance of the Trans-TERF war to a religious conflict, and in our irreligious times we fail to recognise this. Hadley presents the belief that neither souls not angels exist as a given, whereas in fact a majority of the world believe that least one do. (For my belief in the existence of souls, see previous discussions about p-zombies)
Gender ideology, AFAICS, is not only 'like' a belief in souls, it IS a belief in souls: a belief that there is something inside you which IS you, rather than a belief that you are just a bag of biology. (Gender ideology also has the second step which is that your soul - or whatever you call it - has a gender. A belief in souls - or whatever you call them - doesn't necessarily mean you have to believe that your soul has a gender, but a belief in gender does appear to necessitate a belief in souls (or whatever you call them).)
My personal belief is that we are just bags of biology, but I'm not sure how widespread that belief is.
I genuinely don't know the answer to this, which worries me. Does a person have a soul? Does that soul start at conception, on/near birth, other? Does it survive death, even if only as a whisper? Do all people have souls? Do I have one? I accept that logically it is possible that I do not, but I prefer to believe that I have (which is also logically possible), even though I know that belief must be faith-based. I have an interiority, that I know, but the rest is speculation and rather worrying either way.
Jeez. A return to ensoulment. Even the sceptical movement (inc the usually excellent Steven Novella of SGU) has succumbed in some instances. Probably through cowardice and fear.
This is an interesting read about the attempt to ground ideology in biology by claiming that home sapiens is bimodal. This is part of the attempt to switch the claim from "I feel that I am the other sex" to "I AM the other sex" or "there is no such thing as sex".
"Novella’s distortion of biology in the service of ideology does nobody any good, for it involves the fallacious idea that what you think is ideologically correct is what must be seen in nature. Sadly, nature does not conform to gender ideology, and sex is not a spectrum, nor even bimodal."
The world and his wife have heard of William of Ockham and think he said that the most insultingly stupid explanation of any phenomenon is the correct one. Souls and genders seem to me preeminent examples of unnecessary entities (though Will himself would probably disagree about souls).
The world and their spouse. And they said. For consistency, if gender is unnecessary. How do you get reproduction without gender?
Why is there a revolt of the 'well paid' going on - with permanent strikes from professions and train drivers etc. Here is a simple theory. It's actually because of equalisation. And its startling.
Take a bloke without family wealth in the background. Lives in SE, commutes daily to London, can't live near it. Non working wife and children. Earns £60k, which in my northern world is a lot. he's therefore a middle class professional.
Tax and NI: 17k Mortgage on 200k (modest!) 14k Commute 7k Car costs 5k p.a.
After this he has 17k left. His children are not going to Eton are they?
The non-London benefits cap for those not doing all this getting up at 6 am every day is 22k.
Discuss.
The only people I know with non-working wives earn substantially more than £60k!
Cookie, meet me 👋 (just under £60k, non-working* wife). Mind you, I don't have all those expenses - commute ~ £60 p.a. in bike consumables and car cost under £5k even with depreciation; mortgage more like £11k p.a.
*well, unless you (reasonably) count looking after three children under 6 and doing more than half of running a house as working! She'd also still be on mat leave, just about, if working when number 3 was born.
That's nice to hear, but I don't know how you do it! We have the same number of children, and have two of us earning roughly that amount, no mortgage costs, have only been abroad once in the last five years, rarely eat out, modest taste in discretionary purchases, a worrying vagueness where a pension should be, and still struggle to make it to the end of each month! (I admit I have spent two days watching test cricket this summer; I'm not entirely free of extravagant purchases.)
What on earth do you do with your money? I find it almost inconceivable that, with a joint income of ~£120k and no mortgage, you struggle to make it to the end of the month!
I have no idea, Feersum. We aren't extravagant. We bought a new telly at the weekend, but only because the previous one had utterly packed up beyond repair, and we paid £350 for it, which I think is typical of our level of expenditure. We eat out maybe once a month. I perhaps get out to the pub about once a month.
Biggest expenses, I think, are groceries (I'd say typically now about £180 a week, maybe more (that's gone up a lot recently) - so getting on for £10k a year; and energy (c. £5k a year - though we've got solar panels now so that should come down a lot).
@Cyclefree mentioned that very grown up tweet by Laura Pidcock yesterday. Sonia Sodha's response to Ben Bradshaw (who I used to think was a very good MP) is equally good:
Sonia Sodha @soniasodha Also: while I’ve got you, your behaviour in the Commons towards women you disagree with from your own party was appalling, and I know many Labour women who share my view.
This citation would be immeasurably improved by including the Ben Bradshaw tweet to which Sonia Sodha is responding (apparently Ben Bradshaw has trans godchild(ren)). Unless you have a twitter account, you may not be able to see it. For all those of you who do not have twitter accounts and so cannot see individual tweets/threads, here is a free view: https://nitter.net/soniasodha/status/1681741925911609347
Fair enough (although I think the contention that all the threats come from one direction is silly). But I was also struck by an earlier reply by Hadley Freeman, thus:
This remark was indicative. I am struck by the resemblance of the Trans-TERF war to a religious conflict, and in our irreligious times we fail to recognise this. Hadley presents the belief that neither souls not angels exist as a given, whereas in fact a majority of the world believe that least one do. (For my belief in the existence of souls, see previous discussions about p-zombies)
Gender ideology, AFAICS, is not only 'like' a belief in souls, it IS a belief in souls: a belief that there is something inside you which IS you, rather than a belief that you are just a bag of biology. (Gender ideology also has the second step which is that your soul - or whatever you call it - has a gender. A belief in souls - or whatever you call them - doesn't necessarily mean you have to believe that your soul has a gender, but a belief in gender does appear to necessitate a belief in souls (or whatever you call them).)
My personal belief is that we are just bags of biology, but I'm not sure how widespread that belief is.
Is it not possible that humans (and animals) have souls, but these souls are a construct of the bag of biology. Thoughts and our inner narratives are not located in any single biological location (hence the soul or consiousness aspect) but the soul requires the accumulation of experiences by the body, is constrained by the body (so no out of body experiences) and requires biological effort/energy to keep the soul working, so the soul dies when the body does.
Anti trans activism doesn't have the same kind of backing in the US because the bigotry at its heart is much clearer - firstly because the people advocating against trans people are the same anti LGBT and anti women people who have always campaigned against progress and secondly because those people clearly don't give a damn about women's welfare.
I also find it interesting that the GC movement, that claims to care so greatly about the rights of lesbians, are split over the moves in Italy to remove lesbian mothers who don't give birth to a child from a birth certificate of that child - potentially putting into question the rights of the non biological mother should anything happen to her partner. That prominent anti trans activists like Posie Parker (who has been defended by JKR and others despite openly saying she isn't a feminist, is against feminism and believes that abortion rights have gone too far) are cheering this change on whilst their lesbian supposed fellow travellers look at the movement they've shackled themselves to and ask "how can this have happened to me" should be a damascene moment for some of these people.
The anti trans campaign comes from the same place that always attacks women and their bodily autonomy - the lawyers in the UK who represent against trans rights are the same lawyers who push for rolling back abortion rights and argued against same sex marriage. The same people who fund CPAC and the Heritage Foundation are funding trips for prominent GCs to talk at their and other conferences. The same narrative - that the perverted transes are going to prey on your children and groom them and aren't safe in public toilets - are the same narratives used against gay people in the 50s and 60s. Protection of patriarchy in the face of progress.
Policies like those proposed by the government of banning social transition in schools does nothing but ensure rigid policing of gender norms; if transgirls can't grow out their hair or wear dresses what will stop teachers policing the feminine cisboys GCs claim they are protecting from being "too girly"? If transboys aren't allowed to wear trousers or shorts instead of skirts what will stop head teachers enforcing gendered clothing on cisgirls that demands they look feminine, again punishing those tomboys GCs claim would otherwise be forcibly transed? If a student is gay, and effeminate, would a teacher necessarily know the difference between that and transness, and therefore know if they should out their students to parents anyway? All these moves protect an understanding of strict gender roles and patriarchy - parents owning their children and their roles as boys and girls, men and women strictly enforced. Anti trans activists are not critical of gender - no matter how much they say "wear any clothes you like, just don't claim you're a woman / man" they still hate on drag or gender non conforming people.
You didn’t listen to a word if it, did you?
And as ever, you miss the fundamental point that it’s not “anti-trans” but “pro-women” and based on the view that “you cannot change your sex”.
Why do you think some men want access to women’s spaces and women’s sports?
Transwomen want to be able to live their lives as women - access to women's spaces is about the fact that many transwomen are indistinguishable from ciswomen and therefore would look out of place in men's spaces and therefore in danger. It's also about not having to out themselves in their daily life - if a transwoman can't use the woman's toilet in their place of work they will have to out themselves to all their colleagues, something they should not be forced to do if they don't want to.
As for women's sports - transpeople want to compete in the sport according to their gender because we have decided to segregate sports based on that criteria. There are transmen who would rather compete against cismen who are forced to compete against ciswomen - are you arguing that transmen want to compete against cismen for unfair advantages?
What is pro-women about demanding that children have to dress in gendered ways? What is pro-women about implementing laws that allow for genital checks if people think you are trans, as has happened in the US? What is pro-women about a movement that led to the killing of a ciswoman because someone thought she was trans?
You can claim disingenuously that it's about "protecting women", but when the movement welcomes Posie Parker and policies that want to erase lesbian families, when the outcomes of the rhetoric is increased attacks against all LGBTQ+ people and the policing of women's femininity, when the clear motivation of many people comes from the same place that attacks women's rights to abortion and bodily autonomy all I see is a reactionary movement that protects patriarchy trying to hide behind "protecting women", as anti gay movements before was about "protecting children" and racist movements before that was about "protecting white women".
"What attracts them and excites them sexually is the idea of themselves as women. It's almost as if they're in love with the woman version of themselves.
But what is so unusual and destructive about this sexual desire and urge is that it requires everybody else to play along. That's part of the fantasy.
Without this hard core of men whose dearest and sole desire in life is to force everybody to pretend that they're women, this would not have got so far.
These men are the ones who want children put on sterilizing drugs to validate their sexuality."
@Cyclefree mentioned that very grown up tweet by Laura Pidcock yesterday. Sonia Sodha's response to Ben Bradshaw (who I used to think was a very good MP) is equally good:
Sonia Sodha @soniasodha Also: while I’ve got you, your behaviour in the Commons towards women you disagree with from your own party was appalling, and I know many Labour women who share my view.
This citation would be immeasurably improved by including the Ben Bradshaw tweet to which Sonia Sodha is responding (apparently Ben Bradshaw has trans godchild(ren)). Unless you have a twitter account, you may not be able to see it. For all those of you who do not have twitter accounts and so cannot see individual tweets/threads, here is a free view: https://nitter.net/soniasodha/status/1681741925911609347
Fair enough (although I think the contention that all the threats come from one direction is silly). But I was also struck by an earlier reply by Hadley Freeman, thus:
This remark was indicative. I am struck by the resemblance of the Trans-TERF war to a religious conflict, and in our irreligious times we fail to recognise this. Hadley presents the belief that neither souls not angels exist as a given, whereas in fact a majority of the world believe that least one do. (For my belief in the existence of souls, see previous discussions about p-zombies)
Gender ideology, AFAICS, is not only 'like' a belief in souls, it IS a belief in souls: a belief that there is something inside you which IS you, rather than a belief that you are just a bag of biology. (Gender ideology also has the second step which is that your soul - or whatever you call it - has a gender. A belief in souls - or whatever you call them - doesn't necessarily mean you have to believe that your soul has a gender, but a belief in gender does appear to necessitate a belief in souls (or whatever you call them).)
My personal belief is that we are just bags of biology, but I'm not sure how widespread that belief is.
I genuinely don't know the answer to this, which worries me. Does a person have a soul? Does that soul start at conception, on/near birth, other? Does it survive death, even if only as a whisper? Do all people have souls? Do I have one? I accept that logically it is possible that I do not, but I prefer to believe that I have (which is also logically possible), even though I know that belief must be faith-based. I have an interiority, that I know, but the rest is speculation and rather worrying either way.
Jeez. A return to ensoulment. Even the sceptical movement (inc the usually excellent Steven Novella of SGU) has succumbed in some instances. Probably through cowardice and fear.
This is an interesting read about the attempt to ground ideology in biology by claiming that home sapiens is bimodal. This is part of the attempt to switch the claim from "I feel that I am the other sex" to "I AM the other sex" or "there is no such thing as sex".
"Novella’s distortion of biology in the service of ideology does nobody any good, for it involves the fallacious idea that what you think is ideologically correct is what must be seen in nature. Sadly, nature does not conform to gender ideology, and sex is not a spectrum, nor even bimodal."
The world and his wife have heard of William of Ockham and think he said that the most insultingly stupid explanation of any phenomenon is the correct one. Souls and genders seem to me preeminent examples of unnecessary entities (though Will himself would probably disagree about souls).
The world and their spouse. And they said. For consistency, if gender is unnecessary. How do you get reproduction without gender?
Therefore the cost of constructing the line would be paid off in around 10 years if each passenger pays an average of £10 per journey, or about 15 years if it's around £7 per journey. I haven't been able to find out what the average journey ticket price is so far.
You should only count additional passengers. I have been an Elizabeth Line user for 25 years, only they didn't call it that back then. Any journey I make on it now, I would have made anyway.
Although the central section is superb, in fact it has lengthened my commute to work - an extra stop and the station is now deep level and it takes longer to get from platform to street.
Interestingly, Old Trafford (and Edgbaston) are cashless.
Great idea, as speeds up beer purchasing as I noted in Birmingham a few weeks ago.
Presumably several PBers will refuse to attend Test matches because they can't exchange stupid pieces of paper for scraps of metal?
You never did explain how much your watch costs and how many years it lasts and what the annual maintenance is, or if you did I missed it. I'd be genuinely interested. I'm needing to buy a new mobile because the old, and perfectly good, one is no longer supported for updates by the makers.
Sorry, didn't see the post.
Apple Watch Ultra. Absolutely fab.
If you do lots of hiking/back country biking as I do, coupling it with the Outdoor Active Pro downloadable OS and IGN etc topo maps is absolutely awesome.
*looks up: blinks in surprise*
Interesting. And thanks.
My previous, and not entirely serious, inquiry whether it measured the H2S content in one's eructations is actually much closer to the mark than I had thought. It will certainly tell me if I am ovulating, though I can work that out quite easily without spending between 500 to 1000 metal beer tokens.
Labour ought to make the most of the spotlight on access to banking services by talking about the hundreds of thousands of people who cannot access a mortgage and are stuck in an insecure and expensive rental sector, shifting the focus away from whinging toads like Nige.
@Cyclefree mentioned that very grown up tweet by Laura Pidcock yesterday. Sonia Sodha's response to Ben Bradshaw (who I used to think was a very good MP) is equally good:
Sonia Sodha @soniasodha Also: while I’ve got you, your behaviour in the Commons towards women you disagree with from your own party was appalling, and I know many Labour women who share my view.
This citation would be immeasurably improved by including the Ben Bradshaw tweet to which Sonia Sodha is responding (apparently Ben Bradshaw has trans godchild(ren)). Unless you have a twitter account, you may not be able to see it. For all those of you who do not have twitter accounts and so cannot see individual tweets/threads, here is a free view: https://nitter.net/soniasodha/status/1681741925911609347
Fair enough (although I think the contention that all the threats come from one direction is silly). But I was also struck by an earlier reply by Hadley Freeman, thus:
This remark was indicative. I am struck by the resemblance of the Trans-TERF war to a religious conflict, and in our irreligious times we fail to recognise this. Hadley presents the belief that neither souls not angels exist as a given, whereas in fact a majority of the world believe that least one do. (For my belief in the existence of souls, see previous discussions about p-zombies)
Gender ideology, AFAICS, is not only 'like' a belief in souls, it IS a belief in souls: a belief that there is something inside you which IS you, rather than a belief that you are just a bag of biology. (Gender ideology also has the second step which is that your soul - or whatever you call it - has a gender. A belief in souls - or whatever you call them - doesn't necessarily mean you have to believe that your soul has a gender, but a belief in gender does appear to necessitate a belief in souls (or whatever you call them).)
My personal belief is that we are just bags of biology, but I'm not sure how widespread that belief is.
I agree with you about us being bags of biology.
Could either of you explain what that actually means. Is biology the objective reality of something, or is it the study of something, or is it a set of ideas about something that has something to do with Linnaeus and the Comte de Buffon or maybe goes back to Alexander the Great's famous tutor, or what? The use of words like "biology" and "psychology" and "physics" as if they were objective realities rather than sets of ideas is confused and confusing.
Are you saying anything more than in your opinion we're no more than bits of material, that we are machines basically?
I’ve now been through the NatWest/Coutts dossier on Nigel Farage twice now. It is clear beyond doubt that, even though they could find no real “dirt” on him, they still wanted to “debank” him because they didn’t like his politics — and came up with the ruse of using an expiring mortgage to close his account this month (July). Farage curtailed this process by paying off the mortgage earlier than necessary, unaware of the consequences for his Coutts accounts. On Nov 17 2022 the bank put its plan in place: “Recommendation is to retain N[igel] F[arage] for now. However, it was noted that NF currently has a mortgage with Coutts, which is due to expire in July 2023 and which, on a commercial basis, we would not look to renew and so would suggest winding down the connection on that basis.” The Bank then says it had put great store on his Russia connections but admits it could find “nothing substantive” to pin on him. So the bank then details the fallback plan it has hatched: “Six months before the expiry of NF’s mortgage with Coutts, they would indicate to NF that we are not renewing the mortgage [allowing the Bank to exit] NF next year on commercial grounds when the mortgage rolls off.” The Banks then again admits the real reason: “[It] did not think continuing to bank NF was compatible with Coutts given his publicly-stated views that were at odds with our position as an inclusive organisation.” (Coutts is actually one of the least inclusive banks in the world, as Farage was founding out) Coutts claims “this was not a political decision but one centred around inclusivity and purpose”. Pause for laughter. “The Chair concluded as follows [the Committee was unanimous]: After the expiry of the mortgage with Coutts, NF would not be a criteria client and we should set a glide path to exiting NF when that mortgage expires.” So the mortgage was the pretext. His politics were the real reason.
Labour ought to make the most of the spotlight on access to banking services by talking about the hundreds of thousands of people who cannot access a mortgage and are stuck in an insecure and expensive rental sector, shifting the focus away from whinging toads like Nige.
They should highlight many of the ordinary people who have been affected by the same problem as Farage. People of no fixed abode, people who lost their jobs and missed payments, people who have otherwise fallen through the cracks and found themselves de-banked.
Interestingly, Old Trafford (and Edgbaston) are cashless.
Great idea, as speeds up beer purchasing as I noted in Birmingham a few weeks ago.
Presumably several PBers will refuse to attend Test matches because they can't exchange stupid pieces of paper for scraps of metal?
You never did explain how much your watch costs and how many years it lasts and what the annual maintenance is, or if you did I missed it. I'd be genuinely interested. I'm needing to buy a new mobile because the old, and perfectly good, one is no longer supported for updates by the makers.
Sorry, didn't see the post.
Apple Watch Ultra. Absolutely fab.
If you do lots of hiking/back country biking as I do, coupling it with the Outdoor Active Pro downloadable OS and IGN etc topo maps is absolutely awesome.
*looks up: blinks in surprise*
Interesting. And thanks.
My previous, and not entirely serious, inquiry whether it measured the H2S content in one's eructations is actually much closer to the mark than I had thought. It will certainly tell me if I am ovulating, though I can work that out quite easily without spending between 500 to 1000 metal beer tokens.
But I wonder how long it will be supported.
Outdoor Active Pro is only £26/year and – amazingly – has OS, IGN, the US topo maps and lots of other major countries too. You can download massive maps straight to the phone to use offline, and have live topo maps on your watch face.
I’ve now been through the NatWest/Coutts dossier on Nigel Farage twice now. It is clear beyond doubt that, even though they could find no real “dirt” on him, they still wanted to “debank” him because they didn’t like his politics — and came up with the ruse of using an expiring mortgage to close his account this month (July). Farage curtailed this process by paying off the mortgage earlier than necessary, unaware of the consequences for his Coutts accounts. On Nov 17 2022 the bank put its plan in place: “Recommendation is to retain N[igel] F[arage] for now. However, it was noted that NF currently has a mortgage with Coutts, which is due to expire in July 2023 and which, on a commercial basis, we would not look to renew and so would suggest winding down the connection on that basis.” The Bank then says it had put great store on his Russia connections but admits it could find “nothing substantive” to pin on him. So the bank then details the fallback plan it has hatched: “Six months before the expiry of NF’s mortgage with Coutts, they would indicate to NF that we are not renewing the mortgage [allowing the Bank to exit] NF next year on commercial grounds when the mortgage rolls off.” The Banks then again admits the real reason: “[It] did not think continuing to bank NF was compatible with Coutts given his publicly-stated views that were at odds with our position as an inclusive organisation.” (Coutts is actually one of the least inclusive banks in the world, as Farage was founding out) Coutts claims “this was not a political decision but one centred around inclusivity and purpose”. Pause for laughter. “The Chair concluded as follows [the Committee was unanimous]: After the expiry of the mortgage with Coutts, NF would not be a criteria client and we should set a glide path to exiting NF when that mortgage expires.” So the mortgage was the pretext. His politics were the real reason.
Anti trans activism doesn't have the same kind of backing in the US because the bigotry at its heart is much clearer - firstly because the people advocating against trans people are the same anti LGBT and anti women people who have always campaigned against progress and secondly because those people clearly don't give a damn about women's welfare.
I also find it interesting that the GC movement, that claims to care so greatly about the rights of lesbians, are split over the moves in Italy to remove lesbian mothers who don't give birth to a child from a birth certificate of that child - potentially putting into question the rights of the non biological mother should anything happen to her partner. That prominent anti trans activists like Posie Parker (who has been defended by JKR and others despite openly saying she isn't a feminist, is against feminism and believes that abortion rights have gone too far) are cheering this change on whilst their lesbian supposed fellow travellers look at the movement they've shackled themselves to and ask "how can this have happened to me" should be a damascene moment for some of these people.
The anti trans campaign comes from the same place that always attacks women and their bodily autonomy - the lawyers in the UK who represent against trans rights are the same lawyers who push for rolling back abortion rights and argued against same sex marriage. The same people who fund CPAC and the Heritage Foundation are funding trips for prominent GCs to talk at their and other conferences. The same narrative - that the perverted transes are going to prey on your children and groom them and aren't safe in public toilets - are the same narratives used against gay people in the 50s and 60s. Protection of patriarchy in the face of progress.
Policies like those proposed by the government of banning social transition in schools does nothing but ensure rigid policing of gender norms; if transgirls can't grow out their hair or wear dresses what will stop teachers policing the feminine cisboys GCs claim they are protecting from being "too girly"? If transboys aren't allowed to wear trousers or shorts instead of skirts what will stop head teachers enforcing gendered clothing on cisgirls that demands they look feminine, again punishing those tomboys GCs claim would otherwise be forcibly transed? If a student is gay, and effeminate, would a teacher necessarily know the difference between that and transness, and therefore know if they should out their students to parents anyway? All these moves protect an understanding of strict gender roles and patriarchy - parents owning their children and their roles as boys and girls, men and women strictly enforced. Anti trans activists are not critical of gender - no matter how much they say "wear any clothes you like, just don't claim you're a woman / man" they still hate on drag or gender non conforming people.
You didn’t listen to a word if it, did you?
And as ever, you miss the fundamental point that it’s not “anti-trans” but “pro-women” and based on the view that “you cannot change your sex”.
Why do you think some men want access to women’s spaces and women’s sports?
Transwomen want to be able to live their lives as women - access to women's spaces is about the fact that many transwomen are indistinguishable from ciswomen and therefore would look out of place in men's spaces and therefore in danger. It's also about not having to out themselves in their daily life - if a transwoman can't use the woman's toilet in their place of work they will have to out themselves to all their colleagues, something they should not be forced to do if they don't want to.
As for women's sports - transpeople want to compete in the sport according to their gender because we have decided to segregate sports based on that criteria. There are transmen who would rather compete against cismen who are forced to compete against ciswomen - are you arguing that transmen want to compete against cismen for unfair advantages?
What is pro-women about demanding that children have to dress in gendered ways? What is pro-women about implementing laws that allow for genital checks if people think you are trans, as has happened in the US? What is pro-women about a movement that led to the killing of a ciswoman because someone thought she was trans?
You can claim disingenuously that it's about "protecting women", but when the movement welcomes Posie Parker and policies that want to erase lesbian families, when the outcomes of the rhetoric is increased attacks against all LGBTQ+ people and the policing of women's femininity, when the clear motivation of many people comes from the same place that attacks women's rights to abortion and bodily autonomy all I see is a reactionary movement that protects patriarchy trying to hide behind "protecting women", as anti gay movements before was about "protecting children" and racist movements before that was about "protecting white women".
So, why do so many feminists, many of them very firmly on the left, reject that analysis?
You want to divide the argument into the right, who hate women, gays, transwomen, etc. and progressives, who champion their interests, when the actual participants in this debate cannot be neatly divided into those categories at all.
Interestingly, Old Trafford (and Edgbaston) are cashless.
Great idea, as speeds up beer purchasing as I noted in Birmingham a few weeks ago.
Presumably several PBers will refuse to attend Test matches because they can't exchange stupid pieces of paper for scraps of metal?
You never did explain how much your watch costs and how many years it lasts and what the annual maintenance is, or if you did I missed it. I'd be genuinely interested. I'm needing to buy a new mobile because the old, and perfectly good, one is no longer supported for updates by the makers.
Sorry, didn't see the post.
Apple Watch Ultra. Absolutely fab.
If you do lots of hiking/back country biking as I do, coupling it with the Outdoor Active Pro downloadable OS and IGN etc topo maps is absolutely awesome.
*looks up: blinks in surprise*
Interesting. And thanks.
My previous, and not entirely serious, inquiry whether it measured the H2S content in one's eructations is actually much closer to the mark than I had thought. It will certainly tell me if I am ovulating, though I can work that out quite easily without spending between 500 to 1000 metal beer tokens.
But I wonder how long it will be supported.
Outdoor Active Pro is only £26/year and – amazingly – has OS, IGN, the US topo maps and lots of other major countries too. You can download massive maps straight to the phone to use offline, and have live topo maps on your watch face.
A friend of mine was using that - or something similar - on our last hols. It's the watch I'm thinking of, its basic OS and security updates, though.
Why is there a revolt of the 'well paid' going on - with permanent strikes from professions and train drivers etc. Here is a simple theory. It's actually because of equalisation. And its startling.
Take a bloke without family wealth in the background. Lives in SE, commutes daily to London, can't live near it. Non working wife and children. Earns £60k, which in my northern world is a lot. he's therefore a middle class professional.
Tax and NI: 17k Mortgage on 200k (modest!) 14k Commute 7k Car costs 5k p.a.
After this he has 17k left. His children are not going to Eton are they?
The non-London benefits cap for those not doing all this getting up at 6 am every day is 22k.
Discuss.
The only people I know with non-working wives earn substantially more than £60k!
Cookie, meet me 👋 (just under £60k, non-working* wife). Mind you, I don't have all those expenses - commute ~ £60 p.a. in bike consumables and car cost under £5k even with depreciation; mortgage more like £11k p.a.
*well, unless you (reasonably) count looking after three children under 6 and doing more than half of running a house as working! She'd also still be on mat leave, just about, if working when number 3 was born.
That's nice to hear, but I don't know how you do it! We have the same number of children, and have two of us earning roughly that amount, no mortgage costs, have only been abroad once in the last five years, rarely eat out, modest taste in discretionary purchases, a worrying vagueness where a pension should be, and still struggle to make it to the end of each month! (I admit I have spent two days watching test cricket this summer; I'm not entirely free of extravagant purchases.)
What on earth do you do with your money? I find it almost inconceivable that, with a joint income of ~£120k and no mortgage, you struggle to make it to the end of the month!
I have no idea, Feersum. We aren't extravagant. We bought a new telly at the weekend, but only because the previous one had utterly packed up beyond repair, and we paid £350 for it, which I think is typical of our level of expenditure. We eat out maybe once a month. I perhaps get out to the pub about once a month.
Biggest expenses, I think, are groceries (I'd say typically now about £180 a week, maybe more (that's gone up a lot recently) - so getting on for £10k a year; and energy (c. £5k a year - though we've got solar panels now so that should come down a lot).
£5k? Crikey. We thought our energy costs were pretty shocking at about £2.2k (peak with energy prices around £2.5k). That's for a three bed 1920s semi, although we do have solar panels. Couple of years back it was £800.
Are you using a cash-burning stove or something?
ETA: Groceries expenditure not that much more than ours, FWIW (we're probably more around £160)
Anti trans activism doesn't have the same kind of backing in the US because the bigotry at its heart is much clearer - firstly because the people advocating against trans people are the same anti LGBT and anti women people who have always campaigned against progress and secondly because those people clearly don't give a damn about women's welfare.
I also find it interesting that the GC movement, that claims to care so greatly about the rights of lesbians, are split over the moves in Italy to remove lesbian mothers who don't give birth to a child from a birth certificate of that child - potentially putting into question the rights of the non biological mother should anything happen to her partner. That prominent anti trans activists like Posie Parker (who has been defended by JKR and others despite openly saying she isn't a feminist, is against feminism and believes that abortion rights have gone too far) are cheering this change on whilst their lesbian supposed fellow travellers look at the movement they've shackled themselves to and ask "how can this have happened to me" should be a damascene moment for some of these people.
The anti trans campaign comes from the same place that always attacks women and their bodily autonomy - the lawyers in the UK who represent against trans rights are the same lawyers who push for rolling back abortion rights and argued against same sex marriage. The same people who fund CPAC and the Heritage Foundation are funding trips for prominent GCs to talk at their and other conferences. The same narrative - that the perverted transes are going to prey on your children and groom them and aren't safe in public toilets - are the same narratives used against gay people in the 50s and 60s. Protection of patriarchy in the face of progress.
Policies like those proposed by the government of banning social transition in schools does nothing but ensure rigid policing of gender norms; if transgirls can't grow out their hair or wear dresses what will stop teachers policing the feminine cisboys GCs claim they are protecting from being "too girly"? If transboys aren't allowed to wear trousers or shorts instead of skirts what will stop head teachers enforcing gendered clothing on cisgirls that demands they look feminine, again punishing those tomboys GCs claim would otherwise be forcibly transed? If a student is gay, and effeminate, would a teacher necessarily know the difference between that and transness, and therefore know if they should out their students to parents anyway? All these moves protect an understanding of strict gender roles and patriarchy - parents owning their children and their roles as boys and girls, men and women strictly enforced. Anti trans activists are not critical of gender - no matter how much they say "wear any clothes you like, just don't claim you're a woman / man" they still hate on drag or gender non conforming people.
You didn’t listen to a word if it, did you?
And as ever, you miss the fundamental point that it’s not “anti-trans” but “pro-women” and based on the view that “you cannot change your sex”.
Why do you think some men want access to women’s spaces and women’s sports?
Transwomen want to be able to live their lives as women - access to women's spaces is about the fact that many transwomen are indistinguishable from ciswomen and therefore would look out of place in men's spaces and therefore in danger. It's also about not having to out themselves in their daily life - if a transwoman can't use the woman's toilet in their place of work they will have to out themselves to all their colleagues, something they should not be forced to do if they don't want to.
As for women's sports - transpeople want to compete in the sport according to their gender because we have decided to segregate sports based on that criteria. There are transmen who would rather compete against cismen who are forced to compete against ciswomen - are you arguing that transmen want to compete against cismen for unfair advantages?
What is pro-women about demanding that children have to dress in gendered ways? What is pro-women about implementing laws that allow for genital checks if people think you are trans, as has happened in the US? What is pro-women about a movement that led to the killing of a ciswoman because someone thought she was trans?
You can claim disingenuously that it's about "protecting women", but when the movement welcomes Posie Parker and policies that want to erase lesbian families, when the outcomes of the rhetoric is increased attacks against all LGBTQ+ people and the policing of women's femininity, when the clear motivation of many people comes from the same place that attacks women's rights to abortion and bodily autonomy all I see is a reactionary movement that protects patriarchy trying to hide behind "protecting women", as anti gay movements before was about "protecting children" and racist movements before that was about "protecting white women".
"As for women's sports - transpeople want to compete in the sport according to their gender because we have decided to segregate sports based on that criteria. There are transmen who would rather compete against cismen who are forced to compete against ciswomen - are you arguing that transmen want to compete against cismen for unfair advantages?"
This makes no sense. No - we haven't. We have decided to segregate sports on the basis of physical differences that accord to each sex not gender - just as we separate children's age groups, boxing weights, and paralympic classifications based on different physical characteristics. The fact that some transmen are happy to compete against cismen is neither here nor there. I'm sure that some middleweight boxers fancy their chances against heavyweights, and before his incarceration Oscar Pestorius was happy to run against able bodied athletes, but that is not a reason to force all paralympians to complete against their able-bodied counterparts or underweight boxers to fight against heavier categories.
Transwomen have an unfair advantage, it's not their fault, but they do. East German teens being pumped full of hormones against their will was not their fault either but they should not have been able to compete. In this arena rights collide and it is not transphobic to prefer the right of females to compete against those who share their specific characteristics.
I’ve now been through the NatWest/Coutts dossier on Nigel Farage twice now. It is clear beyond doubt that, even though they could find no real “dirt” on him, they still wanted to “debank” him because they didn’t like his politics — and came up with the ruse of using an expiring mortgage to close his account this month (July). Farage curtailed this process by paying off the mortgage earlier than necessary, unaware of the consequences for his Coutts accounts. On Nov 17 2022 the bank put its plan in place: “Recommendation is to retain N[igel] F[arage] for now. However, it was noted that NF currently has a mortgage with Coutts, which is due to expire in July 2023 and which, on a commercial basis, we would not look to renew and so would suggest winding down the connection on that basis.” The Bank then says it had put great store on his Russia connections but admits it could find “nothing substantive” to pin on him. So the bank then details the fallback plan it has hatched: “Six months before the expiry of NF’s mortgage with Coutts, they would indicate to NF that we are not renewing the mortgage [allowing the Bank to exit] NF next year on commercial grounds when the mortgage rolls off.” The Banks then again admits the real reason: “[It] did not think continuing to bank NF was compatible with Coutts given his publicly-stated views that were at odds with our position as an inclusive organisation.” (Coutts is actually one of the least inclusive banks in the world, as Farage was founding out) Coutts claims “this was not a political decision but one centred around inclusivity and purpose”. Pause for laughter. “The Chair concluded as follows [the Committee was unanimous]: After the expiry of the mortgage with Coutts, NF would not be a criteria client and we should set a glide path to exiting NF when that mortgage expires.” So the mortgage was the pretext. His politics were the real reason.
@Cyclefree mentioned that very grown up tweet by Laura Pidcock yesterday. Sonia Sodha's response to Ben Bradshaw (who I used to think was a very good MP) is equally good:
Sonia Sodha @soniasodha Also: while I’ve got you, your behaviour in the Commons towards women you disagree with from your own party was appalling, and I know many Labour women who share my view.
This citation would be immeasurably improved by including the Ben Bradshaw tweet to which Sonia Sodha is responding (apparently Ben Bradshaw has trans godchild(ren)). Unless you have a twitter account, you may not be able to see it. For all those of you who do not have twitter accounts and so cannot see individual tweets/threads, here is a free view: https://nitter.net/soniasodha/status/1681741925911609347
Fair enough (although I think the contention that all the threats come from one direction is silly). But I was also struck by an earlier reply by Hadley Freeman, thus:
This remark was indicative. I am struck by the resemblance of the Trans-TERF war to a religious conflict, and in our irreligious times we fail to recognise this. Hadley presents the belief that neither souls not angels exist as a given, whereas in fact a majority of the world believe that least one do. (For my belief in the existence of souls, see previous discussions about p-zombies)
Gender ideology, AFAICS, is not only 'like' a belief in souls, it IS a belief in souls: a belief that there is something inside you which IS you, rather than a belief that you are just a bag of biology. (Gender ideology also has the second step which is that your soul - or whatever you call it - has a gender. A belief in souls - or whatever you call them - doesn't necessarily mean you have to believe that your soul has a gender, but a belief in gender does appear to necessitate a belief in souls (or whatever you call them).)
My personal belief is that we are just bags of biology, but I'm not sure how widespread that belief is.
I genuinely don't know the answer to this, which worries me. Does a person have a soul? Does that soul start at conception, on/near birth, other? Does it survive death, even if only as a whisper? Do all people have souls? Do I have one? I accept that logically it is possible that I do not, but I prefer to believe that I have (which is also logically possible), even though I know that belief must be faith-based. I have an interiority, that I know, but the rest is speculation and rather worrying either way.
Jeez. A return to ensoulment. Even the sceptical movement (inc the usually excellent Steven Novella of SGU) has succumbed in some instances. Probably through cowardice and fear.
This is an interesting read about the attempt to ground ideology in biology by claiming that home sapiens is bimodal. This is part of the attempt to switch the claim from "I feel that I am the other sex" to "I AM the other sex" or "there is no such thing as sex".
"Novella’s distortion of biology in the service of ideology does nobody any good, for it involves the fallacious idea that what you think is ideologically correct is what must be seen in nature. Sadly, nature does not conform to gender ideology, and sex is not a spectrum, nor even bimodal."
The world and his wife have heard of William of Ockham and think he said that the most insultingly stupid explanation of any phenomenon is the correct one. Souls and genders seem to me preeminent examples of unnecessary entities (though Will himself would probably disagree about souls).
The world and their spouse. And they said. For consistency, if gender is unnecessary. How do you get reproduction without gender?
Gender exists only as a grammatical concept partly correlated with sex. the thing you get reproduction from, is sex.
Anti trans activism doesn't have the same kind of backing in the US because the bigotry at its heart is much clearer - firstly because the people advocating against trans people are the same anti LGBT and anti women people who have always campaigned against progress and secondly because those people clearly don't give a damn about women's welfare.
I also find it interesting that the GC movement, that claims to care so greatly about the rights of lesbians, are split over the moves in Italy to remove lesbian mothers who don't give birth to a child from a birth certificate of that child - potentially putting into question the rights of the non biological mother should anything happen to her partner. That prominent anti trans activists like Posie Parker (who has been defended by JKR and others despite openly saying she isn't a feminist, is against feminism and believes that abortion rights have gone too far) are cheering this change on whilst their lesbian supposed fellow travellers look at the movement they've shackled themselves to and ask "how can this have happened to me" should be a damascene moment for some of these people.
The anti trans campaign comes from the same place that always attacks women and their bodily autonomy - the lawyers in the UK who represent against trans rights are the same lawyers who push for rolling back abortion rights and argued against same sex marriage. The same people who fund CPAC and the Heritage Foundation are funding trips for prominent GCs to talk at their and other conferences. The same narrative - that the perverted transes are going to prey on your children and groom them and aren't safe in public toilets - are the same narratives used against gay people in the 50s and 60s. Protection of patriarchy in the face of progress.
Policies like those proposed by the government of banning social transition in schools does nothing but ensure rigid policing of gender norms; if transgirls can't grow out their hair or wear dresses what will stop teachers policing the feminine cisboys GCs claim they are protecting from being "too girly"? If transboys aren't allowed to wear trousers or shorts instead of skirts what will stop head teachers enforcing gendered clothing on cisgirls that demands they look feminine, again punishing those tomboys GCs claim would otherwise be forcibly transed? If a student is gay, and effeminate, would a teacher necessarily know the difference between that and transness, and therefore know if they should out their students to parents anyway? All these moves protect an understanding of strict gender roles and patriarchy - parents owning their children and their roles as boys and girls, men and women strictly enforced. Anti trans activists are not critical of gender - no matter how much they say "wear any clothes you like, just don't claim you're a woman / man" they still hate on drag or gender non conforming people.
You didn’t listen to a word if it, did you?
And as ever, you miss the fundamental point that it’s not “anti-trans” but “pro-women” and based on the view that “you cannot change your sex”.
Why do you think some men want access to women’s spaces and women’s sports?
Transwomen want to be able to live their lives as women - access to women's spaces is about the fact that many transwomen are indistinguishable from ciswomen and therefore would look out of place in men's spaces and therefore in danger. It's also about not having to out themselves in their daily life - if a transwoman can't use the woman's toilet in their place of work they will have to out themselves to all their colleagues, something they should not be forced to do if they don't want to.
As for women's sports - transpeople want to compete in the sport according to their gender because we have decided to segregate sports based on that criteria. There are transmen who would rather compete against cismen who are forced to compete against ciswomen - are you arguing that transmen want to compete against cismen for unfair advantages?
What is pro-women about demanding that children have to dress in gendered ways? What is pro-women about implementing laws that allow for genital checks if people think you are trans, as has happened in the US? What is pro-women about a movement that led to the killing of a ciswoman because someone thought she was trans?
You can claim disingenuously that it's about "protecting women", but when the movement welcomes Posie Parker and policies that want to erase lesbian families, when the outcomes of the rhetoric is increased attacks against all LGBTQ+ people and the policing of women's femininity, when the clear motivation of many people comes from the same place that attacks women's rights to abortion and bodily autonomy all I see is a reactionary movement that protects patriarchy trying to hide behind "protecting women", as anti gay movements before was about "protecting children" and racist movements before that was about "protecting white women".
So, why do so many feminists, many of them very firmly on the left, reject that analysis?
Isn't it obvious? There is a rising tide of fascism and they are its handmaidens like liberals throughout history!!
I’ve now been through the NatWest/Coutts dossier on Nigel Farage twice now. It is clear beyond doubt that, even though they could find no real “dirt” on him, they still wanted to “debank” him because they didn’t like his politics — and came up with the ruse of using an expiring mortgage to close his account this month (July). Farage curtailed this process by paying off the mortgage earlier than necessary, unaware of the consequences for his Coutts accounts. On Nov 17 2022 the bank put its plan in place: “Recommendation is to retain N[igel] F[arage] for now. However, it was noted that NF currently has a mortgage with Coutts, which is due to expire in July 2023 and which, on a commercial basis, we would not look to renew and so would suggest winding down the connection on that basis.” The Bank then says it had put great store on his Russia connections but admits it could find “nothing substantive” to pin on him. So the bank then details the fallback plan it has hatched: “Six months before the expiry of NF’s mortgage with Coutts, they would indicate to NF that we are not renewing the mortgage [allowing the Bank to exit] NF next year on commercial grounds when the mortgage rolls off.” The Banks then again admits the real reason: “[It] did not think continuing to bank NF was compatible with Coutts given his publicly-stated views that were at odds with our position as an inclusive organisation.” (Coutts is actually one of the least inclusive banks in the world, as Farage was founding out) Coutts claims “this was not a political decision but one centred around inclusivity and purpose”. Pause for laughter. “The Chair concluded as follows [the Committee was unanimous]: After the expiry of the mortgage with Coutts, NF would not be a criteria client and we should set a glide path to exiting NF when that mortgage expires.” So the mortgage was the pretext. His politics were the real reason.
I’ve now been through the NatWest/Coutts dossier on Nigel Farage twice now. It is clear beyond doubt that, even though they could find no real “dirt” on him, they still wanted to “debank” him because they didn’t like his politics — and came up with the ruse of using an expiring mortgage to close his account this month (July). Farage curtailed this process by paying off the mortgage earlier than necessary, unaware of the consequences for his Coutts accounts. On Nov 17 2022 the bank put its plan in place: “Recommendation is to retain N[igel] F[arage] for now. However, it was noted that NF currently has a mortgage with Coutts, which is due to expire in July 2023 and which, on a commercial basis, we would not look to renew and so would suggest winding down the connection on that basis.” The Bank then says it had put great store on his Russia connections but admits it could find “nothing substantive” to pin on him. So the bank then details the fallback plan it has hatched: “Six months before the expiry of NF’s mortgage with Coutts, they would indicate to NF that we are not renewing the mortgage [allowing the Bank to exit] NF next year on commercial grounds when the mortgage rolls off.” The Banks then again admits the real reason: “[It] did not think continuing to bank NF was compatible with Coutts given his publicly-stated views that were at odds with our position as an inclusive organisation.” (Coutts is actually one of the least inclusive banks in the world, as Farage was founding out) Coutts claims “this was not a political decision but one centred around inclusivity and purpose”. Pause for laughter. “The Chair concluded as follows [the Committee was unanimous]: After the expiry of the mortgage with Coutts, NF would not be a criteria client and we should set a glide path to exiting NF when that mortgage expires.” So the mortgage was the pretext. His politics were the real reason.
So? It's a private bank. They can pick and choose who they will give accounts to. That's what being a private bank is all about.
Except it's not a private bank in that sense. It's a subsidiary of NatWest.
And they offered him a regular Natwest account, no?
I believe that was only after the fact.
Who knows. Farage shouldn't be denied a normal bank account. But a private banking relationship isn't a human right, it's a purely commercial decision (and banks can take into account reputational concerns in that context if they want to, as private profit maximising businesses).
Interestingly, Old Trafford (and Edgbaston) are cashless.
Great idea, as speeds up beer purchasing as I noted in Birmingham a few weeks ago.
Presumably several PBers will refuse to attend Test matches because they can't exchange stupid pieces of paper for scraps of metal?
You never did explain how much your watch costs and how many years it lasts and what the annual maintenance is, or if you did I missed it. I'd be genuinely interested. I'm needing to buy a new mobile because the old, and perfectly good, one is no longer supported for updates by the makers.
Sorry, didn't see the post.
Apple Watch Ultra. Absolutely fab.
If you do lots of hiking/back country biking as I do, coupling it with the Outdoor Active Pro downloadable OS and IGN etc topo maps is absolutely awesome.
*looks up: blinks in surprise*
Interesting. And thanks.
My previous, and not entirely serious, inquiry whether it measured the H2S content in one's eructations is actually much closer to the mark than I had thought. It will certainly tell me if I am ovulating, though I can work that out quite easily without spending between 500 to 1000 metal beer tokens.
But I wonder how long it will be supported.
I used to have fitbits, they generally lasted about 18 months before going south, via obsolescence or shite components. I've now had a Samsung Watch 4 for a couple of years, and very happy with it for its health monitoring (not completely accurate, but enough to use as a base for fitness tracking) and its GPS and functions like operating phone camera, linking wirh headphones to control media and the like. Crap battery, though. Have to charge it every morning.
"What attracts them and excites them sexually is the idea of themselves as women. It's almost as if they're in love with the woman version of themselves.
Christ on a bike. Have you ever actually met any transwomen? What attracts them and excites them is board games, open source software, and kayaking, pretty much.
I’ve now been through the NatWest/Coutts dossier on Nigel Farage twice now. It is clear beyond doubt that, even though they could find no real “dirt” on him, they still wanted to “debank” him because they didn’t like his politics — and came up with the ruse of using an expiring mortgage to close his account this month (July). Farage curtailed this process by paying off the mortgage earlier than necessary, unaware of the consequences for his Coutts accounts. On Nov 17 2022 the bank put its plan in place: “Recommendation is to retain N[igel] F[arage] for now. However, it was noted that NF currently has a mortgage with Coutts, which is due to expire in July 2023 and which, on a commercial basis, we would not look to renew and so would suggest winding down the connection on that basis.” The Bank then says it had put great store on his Russia connections but admits it could find “nothing substantive” to pin on him. So the bank then details the fallback plan it has hatched: “Six months before the expiry of NF’s mortgage with Coutts, they would indicate to NF that we are not renewing the mortgage [allowing the Bank to exit] NF next year on commercial grounds when the mortgage rolls off.” The Banks then again admits the real reason: “[It] did not think continuing to bank NF was compatible with Coutts given his publicly-stated views that were at odds with our position as an inclusive organisation.” (Coutts is actually one of the least inclusive banks in the world, as Farage was founding out) Coutts claims “this was not a political decision but one centred around inclusivity and purpose”. Pause for laughter. “The Chair concluded as follows [the Committee was unanimous]: After the expiry of the mortgage with Coutts, NF would not be a criteria client and we should set a glide path to exiting NF when that mortgage expires.” So the mortgage was the pretext. His politics were the real reason.
Why is there a revolt of the 'well paid' going on - with permanent strikes from professions and train drivers etc. Here is a simple theory. It's actually because of equalisation. And its startling.
Take a bloke without family wealth in the background. Lives in SE, commutes daily to London, can't live near it. Non working wife and children. Earns £60k, which in my northern world is a lot. he's therefore a middle class professional.
Tax and NI: 17k Mortgage on 200k (modest!) 14k Commute 7k Car costs 5k p.a.
After this he has 17k left. His children are not going to Eton are they?
The non-London benefits cap for those not doing all this getting up at 6 am every day is 22k.
Discuss.
The only people I know with non-working wives earn substantially more than £60k!
Cookie, meet me 👋 (just under £60k, non-working* wife). Mind you, I don't have all those expenses - commute ~ £60 p.a. in bike consumables and car cost under £5k even with depreciation; mortgage more like £11k p.a.
*well, unless you (reasonably) count looking after three children under 6 and doing more than half of running a house as working! She'd also still be on mat leave, just about, if working when number 3 was born.
That's nice to hear, but I don't know how you do it! We have the same number of children, and have two of us earning roughly that amount, no mortgage costs, have only been abroad once in the last five years, rarely eat out, modest taste in discretionary purchases, a worrying vagueness where a pension should be, and still struggle to make it to the end of each month! (I admit I have spent two days watching test cricket this summer; I'm not entirely free of extravagant purchases.)
What on earth do you do with your money? I find it almost inconceivable that, with a joint income of ~£120k and no mortgage, you struggle to make it to the end of the month!
I have no idea, Feersum. We aren't extravagant. We bought a new telly at the weekend, but only because the previous one had utterly packed up beyond repair, and we paid £350 for it, which I think is typical of our level of expenditure. We eat out maybe once a month. I perhaps get out to the pub about once a month.
Biggest expenses, I think, are groceries (I'd say typically now about £180 a week, maybe more (that's gone up a lot recently) - so getting on for £10k a year; and energy (c. £5k a year - though we've got solar panels now so that should come down a lot).
£5k? Crikey. We thought our energy costs were pretty shocking at about £2.2k (peak with energy prices around £2.5k). That's for a three bed 1920s semi, although we do have solar panels. Couple of years back it was £800.
Are you using a cash-burning stove or something?
ETA: Groceries expenditure not that much more than ours, FWIW (we're probably more around £160)
We live in a large bungalow with a low quality roof. We've had the roof replaced, so, again, I'm hoping for better things next year.
Anti trans activism doesn't have the same kind of backing in the US because the bigotry at its heart is much clearer - firstly because the people advocating against trans people are the same anti LGBT and anti women people who have always campaigned against progress and secondly because those people clearly don't give a damn about women's welfare.
I also find it interesting that the GC movement, that claims to care so greatly about the rights of lesbians, are split over the moves in Italy to remove lesbian mothers who don't give birth to a child from a birth certificate of that child - potentially putting into question the rights of the non biological mother should anything happen to her partner. That prominent anti trans activists like Posie Parker (who has been defended by JKR and others despite openly saying she isn't a feminist, is against feminism and believes that abortion rights have gone too far) are cheering this change on whilst their lesbian supposed fellow travellers look at the movement they've shackled themselves to and ask "how can this have happened to me" should be a damascene moment for some of these people.
The anti trans campaign comes from the same place that always attacks women and their bodily autonomy - the lawyers in the UK who represent against trans rights are the same lawyers who push for rolling back abortion rights and argued against same sex marriage. The same people who fund CPAC and the Heritage Foundation are funding trips for prominent GCs to talk at their and other conferences. The same narrative - that the perverted transes are going to prey on your children and groom them and aren't safe in public toilets - are the same narratives used against gay people in the 50s and 60s. Protection of patriarchy in the face of progress.
Policies like those proposed by the government of banning social transition in schools does nothing but ensure rigid policing of gender norms; if transgirls can't grow out their hair or wear dresses what will stop teachers policing the feminine cisboys GCs claim they are protecting from being "too girly"? If transboys aren't allowed to wear trousers or shorts instead of skirts what will stop head teachers enforcing gendered clothing on cisgirls that demands they look feminine, again punishing those tomboys GCs claim would otherwise be forcibly transed? If a student is gay, and effeminate, would a teacher necessarily know the difference between that and transness, and therefore know if they should out their students to parents anyway? All these moves protect an understanding of strict gender roles and patriarchy - parents owning their children and their roles as boys and girls, men and women strictly enforced. Anti trans activists are not critical of gender - no matter how much they say "wear any clothes you like, just don't claim you're a woman / man" they still hate on drag or gender non conforming people.
You didn’t listen to a word if it, did you?
And as ever, you miss the fundamental point that it’s not “anti-trans” but “pro-women” and based on the view that “you cannot change your sex”.
Why do you think some men want access to women’s spaces and women’s sports?
Transwomen want to be able to live their lives as women - access to women's spaces is about the fact that many transwomen are indistinguishable from ciswomen and therefore would look out of place in men's spaces and therefore in danger. It's also about not having to out themselves in their daily life - if a transwoman can't use the woman's toilet in their place of work they will have to out themselves to all their colleagues, something they should not be forced to do if they don't want to.
As for women's sports - transpeople want to compete in the sport according to their gender because we have decided to segregate sports based on that criteria. There are transmen who would rather compete against cismen who are forced to compete against ciswomen - are you arguing that transmen want to compete against cismen for unfair advantages?
What is pro-women about demanding that children have to dress in gendered ways? What is pro-women about implementing laws that allow for genital checks if people think you are trans, as has happened in the US? What is pro-women about a movement that led to the killing of a ciswoman because someone thought she was trans?
You can claim disingenuously that it's about "protecting women", but when the movement welcomes Posie Parker and policies that want to erase lesbian families, when the outcomes of the rhetoric is increased attacks against all LGBTQ+ people and the policing of women's femininity, when the clear motivation of many people comes from the same place that attacks women's rights to abortion and bodily autonomy all I see is a reactionary movement that protects patriarchy trying to hide behind "protecting women", as anti gay movements before was about "protecting children" and racist movements before that was about "protecting white women".
And yet at the moment my daughter as a lesbian feels she has far more to fear from the extremist Trans movement than from their mainstream opponents.
I’ve now been through the NatWest/Coutts dossier on Nigel Farage twice now. It is clear beyond doubt that, even though they could find no real “dirt” on him, they still wanted to “debank” him because they didn’t like his politics — and came up with the ruse of using an expiring mortgage to close his account this month (July). Farage curtailed this process by paying off the mortgage earlier than necessary, unaware of the consequences for his Coutts accounts. On Nov 17 2022 the bank put its plan in place: “Recommendation is to retain N[igel] F[arage] for now. However, it was noted that NF currently has a mortgage with Coutts, which is due to expire in July 2023 and which, on a commercial basis, we would not look to renew and so would suggest winding down the connection on that basis.” The Bank then says it had put great store on his Russia connections but admits it could find “nothing substantive” to pin on him. So the bank then details the fallback plan it has hatched: “Six months before the expiry of NF’s mortgage with Coutts, they would indicate to NF that we are not renewing the mortgage [allowing the Bank to exit] NF next year on commercial grounds when the mortgage rolls off.” The Banks then again admits the real reason: “[It] did not think continuing to bank NF was compatible with Coutts given his publicly-stated views that were at odds with our position as an inclusive organisation.” (Coutts is actually one of the least inclusive banks in the world, as Farage was founding out) Coutts claims “this was not a political decision but one centred around inclusivity and purpose”. Pause for laughter. “The Chair concluded as follows [the Committee was unanimous]: After the expiry of the mortgage with Coutts, NF would not be a criteria client and we should set a glide path to exiting NF when that mortgage expires.” So the mortgage was the pretext. His politics were the real reason.
We are incredibly disappointed that the High Court has ruled against a legal challenge we are supporting, brought by @ProtectDunsfold, to force the Government to reconsider its approval of a gas exploration scheme on the edge of the Surrey Hills
I’ve now been through the NatWest/Coutts dossier on Nigel Farage twice now. It is clear beyond doubt that, even though they could find no real “dirt” on him, they still wanted to “debank” him because they didn’t like his politics — and came up with the ruse of using an expiring mortgage to close his account this month (July). Farage curtailed this process by paying off the mortgage earlier than necessary, unaware of the consequences for his Coutts accounts. On Nov 17 2022 the bank put its plan in place: “Recommendation is to retain N[igel] F[arage] for now. However, it was noted that NF currently has a mortgage with Coutts, which is due to expire in July 2023 and which, on a commercial basis, we would not look to renew and so would suggest winding down the connection on that basis.” The Bank then says it had put great store on his Russia connections but admits it could find “nothing substantive” to pin on him. So the bank then details the fallback plan it has hatched: “Six months before the expiry of NF’s mortgage with Coutts, they would indicate to NF that we are not renewing the mortgage [allowing the Bank to exit] NF next year on commercial grounds when the mortgage rolls off.” The Banks then again admits the real reason: “[It] did not think continuing to bank NF was compatible with Coutts given his publicly-stated views that were at odds with our position as an inclusive organisation.” (Coutts is actually one of the least inclusive banks in the world, as Farage was founding out) Coutts claims “this was not a political decision but one centred around inclusivity and purpose”. Pause for laughter. “The Chair concluded as follows [the Committee was unanimous]: After the expiry of the mortgage with Coutts, NF would not be a criteria client and we should set a glide path to exiting NF when that mortgage expires.” So the mortgage was the pretext. His politics were the real reason.
I’ve now been through the NatWest/Coutts dossier on Nigel Farage twice now. It is clear beyond doubt that, even though they could find no real “dirt” on him, they still wanted to “debank” him because they didn’t like his politics — and came up with the ruse of using an expiring mortgage to close his account this month (July). Farage curtailed this process by paying off the mortgage earlier than necessary, unaware of the consequences for his Coutts accounts. On Nov 17 2022 the bank put its plan in place: “Recommendation is to retain N[igel] F[arage] for now. However, it was noted that NF currently has a mortgage with Coutts, which is due to expire in July 2023 and which, on a commercial basis, we would not look to renew and so would suggest winding down the connection on that basis.” The Bank then says it had put great store on his Russia connections but admits it could find “nothing substantive” to pin on him. So the bank then details the fallback plan it has hatched: “Six months before the expiry of NF’s mortgage with Coutts, they would indicate to NF that we are not renewing the mortgage [allowing the Bank to exit] NF next year on commercial grounds when the mortgage rolls off.” The Banks then again admits the real reason: “[It] did not think continuing to bank NF was compatible with Coutts given his publicly-stated views that were at odds with our position as an inclusive organisation.” (Coutts is actually one of the least inclusive banks in the world, as Farage was founding out) Coutts claims “this was not a political decision but one centred around inclusivity and purpose”. Pause for laughter. “The Chair concluded as follows [the Committee was unanimous]: After the expiry of the mortgage with Coutts, NF would not be a criteria client and we should set a glide path to exiting NF when that mortgage expires.” So the mortgage was the pretext. His politics were the real reason.
So? It's a private bank. They can pick and choose who they will give accounts to. That's what being a private bank is all about.
Except it's not a private bank in that sense. It's a subsidiary of NatWest.
And they offered him a regular Natwest account, no?
I believe that was only after the fact.
Who knows. Farage shouldn't be denied a normal bank account. But a private banking relationship isn't a human right, it's a purely commercial decision (and banks can take into account reputational concerns in that context if they want to, as private profit maximising businesses).
It follows that Farage is also within his rights to attempt to impose a reputational cost on them for their handling of it.
On this "Malvinas" stooshie, I see that Spain became current President of the EU three weeks ago on 1st July 2023, and they have been stirring this particular pot for decades as an attempted lever wrt Gibraltar.
So I predict a minor flap, and it will be repeated in about 2037-2040, when they next hold the Presidency.
My suggestion is that the UK should offer far closer ties to both the Falklands and GIbraltar, and other overseas dependencies - rather more on the French model than at present, and including stronger representation at Westminster, to put this to bed.
Not sure any if them actually want that.
But I've always likes that the argentine claim is rather more technical than casual observers of the 'it's closer to them' school realise.
Do many people now a days care? I think if Argentina pressed their claim on Falkalnds, or Spain their claim on Gibraltar, most people would shrug and be like "I have no idea why we have these territories and I suppose it probably makes more sense to hand them to countries geographically closer". I understand that they have military and economic significance, and the UK likes having territories for tax loophole purposes, but I would imagine most people under 50 see them as relics of imperialism that we just happened to keep hold of.
No, I think that's wrong. Most people would support the government defending these territories, for as long as it's clear that their local populations want to maintain ties with Britain.
Indeed. Even Foot supported retaking the Falklands so to ensure he kept the redwall Starmer would need to lead a nuclear sub or aircraft carrier himself if Argentina invaded again which is unlikely given their military even weaker than 1982 and no junta
I am 100% behind the Falkland Islanders' right to self determination and to live in peace on the islands that their forebears have lived on for generations.
I just don't understand why the Chagos MIslanders aren't treated the same. I'm sure the colour of their skin has absolutely Lnothing to do with it.
You’re right. The colour of their skin has nothing to do with it.
The Chagos Islands have strategic value empty (apart from a submarine and air base). If they had the same strategic value as the Falklands the UK would be a lot less fussed.
But generally the concept of the “right of return” causes all sorts of issues. At some point the reality on the ground has to matter
Anyone who believes "stopping the boats" won't net a lot of votes needs to get out of their bubble and meet more people - and perhaps to stop giving stock to polls that ask what people think the important issues are and give them a list to choose from that includes "health", "employment", "housing", "Brexit", and "the economy". "The boats" and "Rwanda" are winning issues for the Tories. A big fight will be started. Whether it will be two Union Jack-tattooed fingers up to the "enemies of the people" at the Supreme Court, or the same to the ECHR (note the "E"), or a provoked violent incident or "tragedy" at sea (as emotion-inducing as possible, preferably involving "our boys" in uniform), or a Cologne railway station-type incident, or something different, or some combination of the above, remains to be seen. But Labour and the LibDems have FA cards to play, and the Tories are going to win this because they can chime with crowd emotions better.
Given the number of conspiracy theories you believe in, maybe it’s you who needs to get out of your bubble.
So Corbyn stands and hands the win to the Tories .
Not a good look !
As for the Farage bank drama , does anyone care . Of course we wouldn’t have heard anything from the cesspit government if some leftie had been denied an account .
I think the reason people should care is because these high profile cases reveal the way 'normal' people get treated day in and day out.
I remember at the time of the Andrew Mitchell case where the police lied both about what had been said and then subsequently at a senior level about the meeting held with Mitchell, lots of people I know who didn't in any way like Mitchell or the Tories were looking at the case and saying that this just showed how the police lie day in and day out. The difference of course being that none celebrity/high profile people are not believed and have no recourse. High profile cases reveal the underlying issues that normal people deal with on a daily basis.
Your political sympathies with the victim are skewing your analysis I fear. The evidence that Coutts provided came about as a result of a Data Subject Access Request under U.K. GDPR (ironically an EU Regulation) and the DPA 2018 but will not, necessarily, be all the documents that Coutts hold about him. For example personal data processed for taxation-related purposes is exempt from the right of access. Farage’s personal data that is a record of Coutts intentions in negotiations with him is exempt from the right of access. As are documents that are subject to legal professional privilege and those that contain the personal data of others (although that can be redacted).
Coutts, when they say that there are confidentiality issues that stop them telling the full story, are quite right. Farage, by definition, likely got the most anodyne papers regarding his relationship via a DSAR. There’s all sorts of stuff that Coutts can’t release or, rightly, won’t as it will impinge upon their ability to operate as an organisation that is required to keep confidences. Farage doesn’t even have to release all the information he got, just the material that supports his side. He has a significant advantage in the court of public opinion.
So you are effctively choosing to ignore what is said in the released documents - which is quite damning for Coutts - in favour of an assumption about what might be said in unrealeased documents. That certainly sounds like skewed analysis to me.
Anti trans activism doesn't have the same kind of backing in the US because the bigotry at its heart is much clearer - firstly because the people advocating against trans people are the same anti LGBT and anti women people who have always campaigned against progress and secondly because those people clearly don't give a damn about women's welfare.
I also find it interesting that the GC movement, that claims to care so greatly about the rights of lesbians, are split over the moves in Italy to remove lesbian mothers who don't give birth to a child from a birth certificate of that child - potentially putting into question the rights of the non biological mother should anything happen to her partner. That prominent anti trans activists like Posie Parker (who has been defended by JKR and others despite openly saying she isn't a feminist, is against feminism and believes that abortion rights have gone too far) are cheering this change on whilst their lesbian supposed fellow travellers look at the movement they've shackled themselves to and ask "how can this have happened to me" should be a damascene moment for some of these people.
The anti trans campaign comes from the same place that always attacks women and their bodily autonomy - the lawyers in the UK who represent against trans rights are the same lawyers who push for rolling back abortion rights and argued against same sex marriage. The same people who fund CPAC and the Heritage Foundation are funding trips for prominent GCs to talk at their and other conferences. The same narrative - that the perverted transes are going to prey on your children and groom them and aren't safe in public toilets - are the same narratives used against gay people in the 50s and 60s. Protection of patriarchy in the face of progress.
Policies like those proposed by the government of banning social transition in schools does nothing but ensure rigid policing of gender norms; if transgirls can't grow out their hair or wear dresses what will stop teachers policing the feminine cisboys GCs claim they are protecting from being "too girly"? If transboys aren't allowed to wear trousers or shorts instead of skirts what will stop head teachers enforcing gendered clothing on cisgirls that demands they look feminine, again punishing those tomboys GCs claim would otherwise be forcibly transed? If a student is gay, and effeminate, would a teacher necessarily know the difference between that and transness, and therefore know if they should out their students to parents anyway? All these moves protect an understanding of strict gender roles and patriarchy - parents owning their children and their roles as boys and girls, men and women strictly enforced. Anti trans activists are not critical of gender - no matter how much they say "wear any clothes you like, just don't claim you're a woman / man" they still hate on drag or gender non conforming people.
You didn’t listen to a word if it, did you?
And as ever, you miss the fundamental point that it’s not “anti-trans” but “pro-women” and based on the view that “you cannot change your sex”.
Why do you think some men want access to women’s spaces and women’s sports?
Transwomen want to be able to live their lives as women - access to women's spaces is about the fact that many transwomen are indistinguishable from ciswomen and therefore would look out of place in men's spaces and therefore in danger. It's also about not having to out themselves in their daily life - if a transwoman can't use the woman's toilet in their place of work they will have to out themselves to all their colleagues, something they should not be forced to do if they don't want to.
As for women's sports - transpeople want to compete in the sport according to their gender because we have decided to segregate sports based on that criteria. There are transmen who would rather compete against cismen who are forced to compete against ciswomen - are you arguing that transmen want to compete against cismen for unfair advantages?
What is pro-women about demanding that children have to dress in gendered ways? What is pro-women about implementing laws that allow for genital checks if people think you are trans, as has happened in the US? What is pro-women about a movement that led to the killing of a ciswoman because someone thought she was trans?
You can claim disingenuously that it's about "protecting women", but when the movement welcomes Posie Parker and policies that want to erase lesbian families, when the outcomes of the rhetoric is increased attacks against all LGBTQ+ people and the policing of women's femininity, when the clear motivation of many people comes from the same place that attacks women's rights to abortion and bodily autonomy all I see is a reactionary movement that protects patriarchy trying to hide behind "protecting women", as anti gay movements before was about "protecting children" and racist movements before that was about "protecting white women".
"What attracts them and excites them sexually is the idea of themselves as women. It's almost as if they're in love with the woman version of themselves.
But what is so unusual and destructive about this sexual desire and urge is that it requires everybody else to play along. That's part of the fantasy.
Without this hard core of men whose dearest and sole desire in life is to force everybody to pretend that they're women, this would not have got so far.
These men are the ones who want children put on sterilizing drugs to validate their sexuality."
I mean, that’s just the old debunked claim of autogynophillia which is not backed up by any evidence. This is the same argument which said LGB relationships were just perversions and should be treated as such. It boils down to “I find it ikky, so I have to justify it beyond that”. This is a continuation of the “think of the children” narrative of social contagion for transnes and queerness in general. Abortions have a slight chance of causing sterility - would you not find anyone claiming those arguing for abortion rights for young women are being disingenuous if they said “you are advocating for the sterilisation of children” by supporting abortion access for 15 yos?
I’ve now been through the NatWest/Coutts dossier on Nigel Farage twice now. It is clear beyond doubt that, even though they could find no real “dirt” on him, they still wanted to “debank” him because they didn’t like his politics — and came up with the ruse of using an expiring mortgage to close his account this month (July). Farage curtailed this process by paying off the mortgage earlier than necessary, unaware of the consequences for his Coutts accounts. On Nov 17 2022 the bank put its plan in place: “Recommendation is to retain N[igel] F[arage] for now. However, it was noted that NF currently has a mortgage with Coutts, which is due to expire in July 2023 and which, on a commercial basis, we would not look to renew and so would suggest winding down the connection on that basis.” The Bank then says it had put great store on his Russia connections but admits it could find “nothing substantive” to pin on him. So the bank then details the fallback plan it has hatched: “Six months before the expiry of NF’s mortgage with Coutts, they would indicate to NF that we are not renewing the mortgage [allowing the Bank to exit] NF next year on commercial grounds when the mortgage rolls off.” The Banks then again admits the real reason: “[It] did not think continuing to bank NF was compatible with Coutts given his publicly-stated views that were at odds with our position as an inclusive organisation.” (Coutts is actually one of the least inclusive banks in the world, as Farage was founding out) Coutts claims “this was not a political decision but one centred around inclusivity and purpose”. Pause for laughter. “The Chair concluded as follows [the Committee was unanimous]: After the expiry of the mortgage with Coutts, NF would not be a criteria client and we should set a glide path to exiting NF when that mortgage expires.” So the mortgage was the pretext. His politics were the real reason.
So? It's a private bank. They can pick and choose who they will give accounts to. That's what being a private bank is all about.
Except it's not a private bank in that sense. It's a subsidiary of NatWest.
And they offered him a regular Natwest account, no?
I believe that was only after the fact.
Doesn't it work that way? He had to be refused a Coutts one before the NW option became an option, so to speak.
And for the peeps who can't get their bank account closure on the front page of the news?
I can see why plenty have no sympathy for Farage. Disappointed that most of those are wilfully dismissing a serious issue.
I was pointing out the issue some time back. In this case, there's no point overegging the Farage situation for political reasons - it doesn't help the wider problem.
On this "Malvinas" stooshie, I see that Spain became current President of the EU three weeks ago on 1st July 2023, and they have been stirring this particular pot for decades as an attempted lever wrt Gibraltar.
So I predict a minor flap, and it will be repeated in about 2037-2040, when they next hold the Presidency.
My suggestion is that the UK should offer far closer ties to both the Falklands and GIbraltar, and other overseas dependencies - rather more on the French model than at present, and including stronger representation at Westminster, to put this to bed.
Not sure any if them actually want that.
But I've always likes that the argentine claim is rather more technical than casual observers of the 'it's closer to them' school realise.
Do many people now a days care? I think if Argentina pressed their claim on Falkalnds, or Spain their claim on Gibraltar, most people would shrug and be like "I have no idea why we have these territories and I suppose it probably makes more sense to hand them to countries geographically closer". I understand that they have military and economic significance, and the UK likes having territories for tax loophole purposes, but I would imagine most people under 50 see them as relics of imperialism that we just happened to keep hold of.
No, I think that's wrong. Most people would support the government defending these territories, for as long as it's clear that their local populations want to maintain ties with Britain.
Indeed. Even Foot supported retaking the Falklands so to ensure he kept the redwall Starmer would need to lead a nuclear sub or aircraft carrier himself if Argentina invaded again which is unlikely given their military even weaker than 1982 and no junta
I am 100% behind the Falkland Islanders' right to self determination and to live in peace on the islands that their forebears have lived on for generations.
I just don't understand why the Chagos MIslanders aren't treated the same. I'm sure the colour of their skin has absolutely Lnothing to do with it.
You’re right. The colour of their skin has nothing to do with it.
The Chagos Islands have strategic value empty (apart from a submarine and air base). If they had the same strategic value as the Falklands the UK would be a lot less fussed.
But generally the concept of the “right of return” causes all sorts of issues. At some point the reality on the ground has to matter
To my mind, the Chagossians were treated like shit. It's one of the very few issues I agree with Jeremy Corbyn about.
If they had to be moved, they ought to have received generous compensation from the British government.
I’ve now been through the NatWest/Coutts dossier on Nigel Farage twice now. It is clear beyond doubt that, even though they could find no real “dirt” on him, they still wanted to “debank” him because they didn’t like his politics — and came up with the ruse of using an expiring mortgage to close his account this month (July). Farage curtailed this process by paying off the mortgage earlier than necessary, unaware of the consequences for his Coutts accounts. On Nov 17 2022 the bank put its plan in place: “Recommendation is to retain N[igel] F[arage] for now. However, it was noted that NF currently has a mortgage with Coutts, which is due to expire in July 2023 and which, on a commercial basis, we would not look to renew and so would suggest winding down the connection on that basis.” The Bank then says it had put great store on his Russia connections but admits it could find “nothing substantive” to pin on him. So the bank then details the fallback plan it has hatched: “Six months before the expiry of NF’s mortgage with Coutts, they would indicate to NF that we are not renewing the mortgage [allowing the Bank to exit] NF next year on commercial grounds when the mortgage rolls off.” The Banks then again admits the real reason: “[It] did not think continuing to bank NF was compatible with Coutts given his publicly-stated views that were at odds with our position as an inclusive organisation.” (Coutts is actually one of the least inclusive banks in the world, as Farage was founding out) Coutts claims “this was not a political decision but one centred around inclusivity and purpose”. Pause for laughter. “The Chair concluded as follows [the Committee was unanimous]: After the expiry of the mortgage with Coutts, NF would not be a criteria client and we should set a glide path to exiting NF when that mortgage expires.” So the mortgage was the pretext. His politics were the real reason.
So? It's a private bank. They can pick and choose who they will give accounts to. That's what being a private bank is all about.
Except it's not a private bank in that sense. It's a subsidiary of NatWest.
And they offered him a regular Natwest account, no?
I believe that was only after the fact.
Who knows. Farage shouldn't be denied a normal bank account. But a private banking relationship isn't a human right, it's a purely commercial decision (and banks can take into account reputational concerns in that context if they want to, as private profit maximising businesses).
It follows that Farage is also within his rights to attempt to impose a reputational cost on them for their handling of it.
Farage will do whatever is in his own interests, as per usual. Why anyone else wants to go along with it is beyond me.
"What attracts them and excites them sexually is the idea of themselves as women. It's almost as if they're in love with the woman version of themselves.
Christ on a bike. Have you ever actually met any transwomen? What attracts them and excites them is board games, open source software, and kayaking, pretty much.
Joyce was talking about autogynephiles who are prominent in some Trans Rights groups. I fear genuine trans people have been very badly served by some of their so called allies.
Anti trans activism doesn't have the same kind of backing in the US because the bigotry at its heart is much clearer - firstly because the people advocating against trans people are the same anti LGBT and anti women people who have always campaigned against progress and secondly because those people clearly don't give a damn about women's welfare.
I also find it interesting that the GC movement, that claims to care so greatly about the rights of lesbians, are split over the moves in Italy to remove lesbian mothers who don't give birth to a child from a birth certificate of that child - potentially putting into question the rights of the non biological mother should anything happen to her partner. That prominent anti trans activists like Posie Parker (who has been defended by JKR and others despite openly saying she isn't a feminist, is against feminism and believes that abortion rights have gone too far) are cheering this change on whilst their lesbian supposed fellow travellers look at the movement they've shackled themselves to and ask "how can this have happened to me" should be a damascene moment for some of these people.
The anti trans campaign comes from the same place that always attacks women and their bodily autonomy - the lawyers in the UK who represent against trans rights are the same lawyers who push for rolling back abortion rights and argued against same sex marriage. The same people who fund CPAC and the Heritage Foundation are funding trips for prominent GCs to talk at their and other conferences. The same narrative - that the perverted transes are going to prey on your children and groom them and aren't safe in public toilets - are the same narratives used against gay people in the 50s and 60s. Protection of patriarchy in the face of progress.
Policies like those proposed by the government of banning social transition in schools does nothing but ensure rigid policing of gender norms; if transgirls can't grow out their hair or wear dresses what will stop teachers policing the feminine cisboys GCs claim they are protecting from being "too girly"? If transboys aren't allowed to wear trousers or shorts instead of skirts what will stop head teachers enforcing gendered clothing on cisgirls that demands they look feminine, again punishing those tomboys GCs claim would otherwise be forcibly transed? If a student is gay, and effeminate, would a teacher necessarily know the difference between that and transness, and therefore know if they should out their students to parents anyway? All these moves protect an understanding of strict gender roles and patriarchy - parents owning their children and their roles as boys and girls, men and women strictly enforced. Anti trans activists are not critical of gender - no matter how much they say "wear any clothes you like, just don't claim you're a woman / man" they still hate on drag or gender non conforming people.
You didn’t listen to a word if it, did you?
And as ever, you miss the fundamental point that it’s not “anti-trans” but “pro-women” and based on the view that “you cannot change your sex”.
Why do you think some men want access to women’s spaces and women’s sports?
Transwomen want to be able to live their lives as women - access to women's spaces is about the fact that many transwomen are indistinguishable from ciswomen and therefore would look out of place in men's spaces and therefore in danger. It's also about not having to out themselves in their daily life - if a transwoman can't use the woman's toilet in their place of work they will have to out themselves to all their colleagues, something they should not be forced to do if they don't want to.
As for women's sports - transpeople want to compete in the sport according to their gender because we have decided to segregate sports based on that criteria. There are transmen who would rather compete against cismen who are forced to compete against ciswomen - are you arguing that transmen want to compete against cismen for unfair advantages?
What is pro-women about demanding that children have to dress in gendered ways? What is pro-women about implementing laws that allow for genital checks if people think you are trans, as has happened in the US? What is pro-women about a movement that led to the killing of a ciswoman because someone thought she was trans?
You can claim disingenuously that it's about "protecting women", but when the movement welcomes Posie Parker and policies that want to erase lesbian families, when the outcomes of the rhetoric is increased attacks against all LGBTQ+ people and the policing of women's femininity, when the clear motivation of many people comes from the same place that attacks women's rights to abortion and bodily autonomy all I see is a reactionary movement that protects patriarchy trying to hide behind "protecting women", as anti gay movements before was about "protecting children" and racist movements before that was about "protecting white women".
And yet at the moment my daughter as a lesbian feels she has far more to fear from the extremist Trans movement than from their mainstream opponents.
So she is likely amongst the 12% of cis lesbians who don’t consider themselves accepting fully of trans people.
So Corbyn stands and hands the win to the Tories .
Not a good look !
As for the Farage bank drama , does anyone care . Of course we wouldn’t have heard anything from the cesspit government if some leftie had been denied an account .
I think the reason people should care is because these high profile cases reveal the way 'normal' people get treated day in and day out.
I remember at the time of the Andrew Mitchell case where the police lied both about what had been said and then subsequently at a senior level about the meeting held with Mitchell, lots of people I know who didn't in any way like Mitchell or the Tories were looking at the case and saying that this just showed how the police lie day in and day out. The difference of course being that none celebrity/high profile people are not believed and have no recourse. High profile cases reveal the underlying issues that normal people deal with on a daily basis.
Your political sympathies with the victim are skewing your analysis I fear. The evidence that Coutts provided came about as a result of a Data Subject Access Request under U.K. GDPR (ironically an EU Regulation) and the DPA 2018 but will not, necessarily, be all the documents that Coutts hold about him. For example personal data processed for taxation-related purposes is exempt from the right of access. Farage’s personal data that is a record of Coutts intentions in negotiations with him is exempt from the right of access. As are documents that are subject to legal professional privilege and those that contain the personal data of others (although that can be redacted).
Coutts, when they say that there are confidentiality issues that stop them telling the full story, are quite right. Farage, by definition, likely got the most anodyne papers regarding his relationship via a DSAR. There’s all sorts of stuff that Coutts can’t release or, rightly, won’t as it will impinge upon their ability to operate as an organisation that is required to keep confidences. Farage doesn’t even have to release all the information he got, just the material that supports his side. He has a significant advantage in the court of public opinion.
So you are effctively choosing to ignore what is said in the released documents - which is quite damning for Coutts - in favour of an assumption about what might be said in unrealeased documents. That certainly sounds like skewed analysis to me.
Not really. I'm making no assumptions. I'm making an accusation. I'm accusing you of making assumptions (or conclusions) based on incomplete evidence.
I’ve now been through the NatWest/Coutts dossier on Nigel Farage twice now. It is clear beyond doubt that, even though they could find no real “dirt” on him, they still wanted to “debank” him because they didn’t like his politics — and came up with the ruse of using an expiring mortgage to close his account this month (July). Farage curtailed this process by paying off the mortgage earlier than necessary, unaware of the consequences for his Coutts accounts. On Nov 17 2022 the bank put its plan in place: “Recommendation is to retain N[igel] F[arage] for now. However, it was noted that NF currently has a mortgage with Coutts, which is due to expire in July 2023 and which, on a commercial basis, we would not look to renew and so would suggest winding down the connection on that basis.” The Bank then says it had put great store on his Russia connections but admits it could find “nothing substantive” to pin on him. So the bank then details the fallback plan it has hatched: “Six months before the expiry of NF’s mortgage with Coutts, they would indicate to NF that we are not renewing the mortgage [allowing the Bank to exit] NF next year on commercial grounds when the mortgage rolls off.” The Banks then again admits the real reason: “[It] did not think continuing to bank NF was compatible with Coutts given his publicly-stated views that were at odds with our position as an inclusive organisation.” (Coutts is actually one of the least inclusive banks in the world, as Farage was founding out) Coutts claims “this was not a political decision but one centred around inclusivity and purpose”. Pause for laughter. “The Chair concluded as follows [the Committee was unanimous]: After the expiry of the mortgage with Coutts, NF would not be a criteria client and we should set a glide path to exiting NF when that mortgage expires.” So the mortgage was the pretext. His politics were the real reason.
We are incredibly disappointed that the High Court has ruled against a legal challenge we are supporting, brought by @ProtectDunsfold, to force the Government to reconsider its approval of a gas exploration scheme on the edge of the Surrey Hills
On this "Malvinas" stooshie, I see that Spain became current President of the EU three weeks ago on 1st July 2023, and they have been stirring this particular pot for decades as an attempted lever wrt Gibraltar.
So I predict a minor flap, and it will be repeated in about 2037-2040, when they next hold the Presidency.
My suggestion is that the UK should offer far closer ties to both the Falklands and GIbraltar, and other overseas dependencies - rather more on the French model than at present, and including stronger representation at Westminster, to put this to bed.
Not sure any if them actually want that.
But I've always likes that the argentine claim is rather more technical than casual observers of the 'it's closer to them' school realise.
Do many people now a days care? I think if Argentina pressed their claim on Falkalnds, or Spain their claim on Gibraltar, most people would shrug and be like "I have no idea why we have these territories and I suppose it probably makes more sense to hand them to countries geographically closer". I understand that they have military and economic significance, and the UK likes having territories for tax loophole purposes, but I would imagine most people under 50 see them as relics of imperialism that we just happened to keep hold of.
No, I think that's wrong. Most people would support the government defending these territories, for as long as it's clear that their local populations want to maintain ties with Britain.
Indeed. Even Foot supported retaking the Falklands so to ensure he kept the redwall Starmer would need to lead a nuclear sub or aircraft carrier himself if Argentina invaded again which is unlikely given their military even weaker than 1982 and no junta
I am 100% behind the Falkland Islanders' right to self determination and to live in peace on the islands that their forebears have lived on for generations.
I just don't understand why the Chagos MIslanders aren't treated the same. I'm sure the colour of their skin has absolutely Lnothing to do with it.
You’re right. The colour of their skin has nothing to do with it.
The Chagos Islands have strategic value empty (apart from a submarine and air base). If they had the same strategic value as the Falklands the UK would be a lot less fussed.
But generally the concept of the “right of return” causes all sorts of issues. At some point the reality on the ground has to matter
So if it becomes in the UK's strategic interest to sell the Falklanders down the river we should do it?
@Cyclefree mentioned that very grown up tweet by Laura Pidcock yesterday. Sonia Sodha's response to Ben Bradshaw (who I used to think was a very good MP) is equally good:
Sonia Sodha @soniasodha Also: while I’ve got you, your behaviour in the Commons towards women you disagree with from your own party was appalling, and I know many Labour women who share my view.
This citation would be immeasurably improved by including the Ben Bradshaw tweet to which Sonia Sodha is responding (apparently Ben Bradshaw has trans godchild(ren)). Unless you have a twitter account, you may not be able to see it. For all those of you who do not have twitter accounts and so cannot see individual tweets/threads, here is a free view: https://nitter.net/soniasodha/status/1681741925911609347
Fair enough (although I think the contention that all the threats come from one direction is silly). But I was also struck by an earlier reply by Hadley Freeman, thus:
This remark was indicative. I am struck by the resemblance of the Trans-TERF war to a religious conflict, and in our irreligious times we fail to recognise this. Hadley presents the belief that neither souls not angels exist as a given, whereas in fact a majority of the world believe that least one do. (For my belief in the existence of souls, see previous discussions about p-zombies)
Gender ideology, AFAICS, is not only 'like' a belief in souls, it IS a belief in souls: a belief that there is something inside you which IS you, rather than a belief that you are just a bag of biology. (Gender ideology also has the second step which is that your soul - or whatever you call it - has a gender. A belief in souls - or whatever you call them - doesn't necessarily mean you have to believe that your soul has a gender, but a belief in gender does appear to necessitate a belief in souls (or whatever you call them).)
My personal belief is that we are just bags of biology, but I'm not sure how widespread that belief is.
We can be both bags of biology and complex social beings that create meaning in many things that aren’t rooted in simple physical reality, like religion, the market, money, a sense of purpose etc.
I’ve now been through the NatWest/Coutts dossier on Nigel Farage twice now. It is clear beyond doubt that, even though they could find no real “dirt” on him, they still wanted to “debank” him because they didn’t like his politics — and came up with the ruse of using an expiring mortgage to close his account this month (July). Farage curtailed this process by paying off the mortgage earlier than necessary, unaware of the consequences for his Coutts accounts. On Nov 17 2022 the bank put its plan in place: “Recommendation is to retain N[igel] F[arage] for now. However, it was noted that NF currently has a mortgage with Coutts, which is due to expire in July 2023 and which, on a commercial basis, we would not look to renew and so would suggest winding down the connection on that basis.” The Bank then says it had put great store on his Russia connections but admits it could find “nothing substantive” to pin on him. So the bank then details the fallback plan it has hatched: “Six months before the expiry of NF’s mortgage with Coutts, they would indicate to NF that we are not renewing the mortgage [allowing the Bank to exit] NF next year on commercial grounds when the mortgage rolls off.” The Banks then again admits the real reason: “[It] did not think continuing to bank NF was compatible with Coutts given his publicly-stated views that were at odds with our position as an inclusive organisation.” (Coutts is actually one of the least inclusive banks in the world, as Farage was founding out) Coutts claims “this was not a political decision but one centred around inclusivity and purpose”. Pause for laughter. “The Chair concluded as follows [the Committee was unanimous]: After the expiry of the mortgage with Coutts, NF would not be a criteria client and we should set a glide path to exiting NF when that mortgage expires.” So the mortgage was the pretext. His politics were the real reason.
On this "Malvinas" stooshie, I see that Spain became current President of the EU three weeks ago on 1st July 2023, and they have been stirring this particular pot for decades as an attempted lever wrt Gibraltar.
So I predict a minor flap, and it will be repeated in about 2037-2040, when they next hold the Presidency.
My suggestion is that the UK should offer far closer ties to both the Falklands and GIbraltar, and other overseas dependencies - rather more on the French model than at present, and including stronger representation at Westminster, to put this to bed.
Not sure any if them actually want that.
But I've always likes that the argentine claim is rather more technical than casual observers of the 'it's closer to them' school realise.
Do many people now a days care? I think if Argentina pressed their claim on Falkalnds, or Spain their claim on Gibraltar, most people would shrug and be like "I have no idea why we have these territories and I suppose it probably makes more sense to hand them to countries geographically closer". I understand that they have military and economic significance, and the UK likes having territories for tax loophole purposes, but I would imagine most people under 50 see them as relics of imperialism that we just happened to keep hold of.
Which shows a lack of education and understanding of what 'makes sebse'when the argentine claim is based on an imperialist Spanish legacy.
It seems pretty colonially minded to me to assume if a place is near another place it must make sense for it to be a part of it. Could we apply that to ROI, Cyprus, Madagascar, where does it end?
It's like when people argue islands should be united as thar makes sense, as if there are no counter examples where it might not, like hispaniola.
Why is there a revolt of the 'well paid' going on - with permanent strikes from professions and train drivers etc. Here is a simple theory. It's actually because of equalisation. And its startling.
Take a bloke without family wealth in the background. Lives in SE, commutes daily to London, can't live near it. Non working wife and children. Earns £60k, which in my northern world is a lot. he's therefore a middle class professional.
Tax and NI: 17k Mortgage on 200k (modest!) 14k Commute 7k Car costs 5k p.a.
After this he has 17k left. His children are not going to Eton are they?
The non-London benefits cap for those not doing all this getting up at 6 am every day is 22k.
Discuss.
The only people I know with non-working wives earn substantially more than £60k!
Cookie, meet me 👋 (just under £60k, non-working* wife). Mind you, I don't have all those expenses - commute ~ £60 p.a. in bike consumables and car cost under £5k even with depreciation; mortgage more like £11k p.a.
*well, unless you (reasonably) count looking after three children under 6 and doing more than half of running a house as working! She'd also still be on mat leave, just about, if working when number 3 was born.
That's nice to hear, but I don't know how you do it! We have the same number of children, and have two of us earning roughly that amount, no mortgage costs, have only been abroad once in the last five years, rarely eat out, modest taste in discretionary purchases, a worrying vagueness where a pension should be, and still struggle to make it to the end of each month! (I admit I have spent two days watching test cricket this summer; I'm not entirely free of extravagant purchases.)
What on earth do you do with your money? I find it almost inconceivable that, with a joint income of ~£120k and no mortgage, you struggle to make it to the end of the month!
I have no idea, Feersum. We aren't extravagant. We bought a new telly at the weekend, but only because the previous one had utterly packed up beyond repair, and we paid £350 for it, which I think is typical of our level of expenditure. We eat out maybe once a month. I perhaps get out to the pub about once a month.
Biggest expenses, I think, are groceries (I'd say typically now about £180 a week, maybe more (that's gone up a lot recently) - so getting on for £10k a year; and energy (c. £5k a year - though we've got solar panels now so that should come down a lot).
£5k? Crikey. We thought our energy costs were pretty shocking at about £2.2k (peak with energy prices around £2.5k). That's for a three bed 1920s semi, although we do have solar panels. Couple of years back it was £800.
Are you using a cash-burning stove or something?
ETA: Groceries expenditure not that much more than ours, FWIW (we're probably more around £160)
July looks decidedly meh for solar generation, probably going to end up matching April for yield though consumption will be lower as it's spread over longer in the day.
I’ve now been through the NatWest/Coutts dossier on Nigel Farage twice now. It is clear beyond doubt that, even though they could find no real “dirt” on him, they still wanted to “debank” him because they didn’t like his politics — and came up with the ruse of using an expiring mortgage to close his account this month (July). Farage curtailed this process by paying off the mortgage earlier than necessary, unaware of the consequences for his Coutts accounts. On Nov 17 2022 the bank put its plan in place: “Recommendation is to retain N[igel] F[arage] for now. However, it was noted that NF currently has a mortgage with Coutts, which is due to expire in July 2023 and which, on a commercial basis, we would not look to renew and so would suggest winding down the connection on that basis.” The Bank then says it had put great store on his Russia connections but admits it could find “nothing substantive” to pin on him. So the bank then details the fallback plan it has hatched: “Six months before the expiry of NF’s mortgage with Coutts, they would indicate to NF that we are not renewing the mortgage [allowing the Bank to exit] NF next year on commercial grounds when the mortgage rolls off.” The Banks then again admits the real reason: “[It] did not think continuing to bank NF was compatible with Coutts given his publicly-stated views that were at odds with our position as an inclusive organisation.” (Coutts is actually one of the least inclusive banks in the world, as Farage was founding out) Coutts claims “this was not a political decision but one centred around inclusivity and purpose”. Pause for laughter. “The Chair concluded as follows [the Committee was unanimous]: After the expiry of the mortgage with Coutts, NF would not be a criteria client and we should set a glide path to exiting NF when that mortgage expires.” So the mortgage was the pretext. His politics were the real reason.
So? It's a private bank. They can pick and choose who they will give accounts to. That's what being a private bank is all about.
Except it's not a private bank in that sense. It's a subsidiary of NatWest.
And they offered him a regular Natwest account, no?
I believe that was only after the fact.
Who knows. Farage shouldn't be denied a normal bank account. But a private banking relationship isn't a human right, it's a purely commercial decision (and banks can take into account reputational concerns in that context if they want to, as private profit maximising businesses).
It follows that Farage is also within his rights to attempt to impose a reputational cost on them for their handling of it.
Are you kidding? He's all over the news! Nigel the Martyr! They should be billing him...
Anti trans activism doesn't have the same kind of backing in the US because the bigotry at its heart is much clearer - firstly because the people advocating against trans people are the same anti LGBT and anti women people who have always campaigned against progress and secondly because those people clearly don't give a damn about women's welfare.
I also find it interesting that the GC movement, that claims to care so greatly about the rights of lesbians, are split over the moves in Italy to remove lesbian mothers who don't give birth to a child from a birth certificate of that child - potentially putting into question the rights of the non biological mother should anything happen to her partner. That prominent anti trans activists like Posie Parker (who has been defended by JKR and others despite openly saying she isn't a feminist, is against feminism and believes that abortion rights have gone too far) are cheering this change on whilst their lesbian supposed fellow travellers look at the movement they've shackled themselves to and ask "how can this have happened to me" should be a damascene moment for some of these people.
The anti trans campaign comes from the same place that always attacks women and their bodily autonomy - the lawyers in the UK who represent against trans rights are the same lawyers who push for rolling back abortion rights and argued against same sex marriage. The same people who fund CPAC and the Heritage Foundation are funding trips for prominent GCs to talk at their and other conferences. The same narrative - that the perverted transes are going to prey on your children and groom them and aren't safe in public toilets - are the same narratives used against gay people in the 50s and 60s. Protection of patriarchy in the face of progress.
Policies like those proposed by the government of banning social transition in schools does nothing but ensure rigid policing of gender norms; if transgirls can't grow out their hair or wear dresses what will stop teachers policing the feminine cisboys GCs claim they are protecting from being "too girly"? If transboys aren't allowed to wear trousers or shorts instead of skirts what will stop head teachers enforcing gendered clothing on cisgirls that demands they look feminine, again punishing those tomboys GCs claim would otherwise be forcibly transed? If a student is gay, and effeminate, would a teacher necessarily know the difference between that and transness, and therefore know if they should out their students to parents anyway? All these moves protect an understanding of strict gender roles and patriarchy - parents owning their children and their roles as boys and girls, men and women strictly enforced. Anti trans activists are not critical of gender - no matter how much they say "wear any clothes you like, just don't claim you're a woman / man" they still hate on drag or gender non conforming people.
You didn’t listen to a word if it, did you?
And as ever, you miss the fundamental point that it’s not “anti-trans” but “pro-women” and based on the view that “you cannot change your sex”.
Why do you think some men want access to women’s spaces and women’s sports?
Transwomen want to be able to live their lives as women - access to women's spaces is about the fact that many transwomen are indistinguishable from ciswomen and therefore would look out of place in men's spaces and therefore in danger. It's also about not having to out themselves in their daily life - if a transwoman can't use the woman's toilet in their place of work they will have to out themselves to all their colleagues, something they should not be forced to do if they don't want to.
As for women's sports - transpeople want to compete in the sport according to their gender because we have decided to segregate sports based on that criteria. There are transmen who would rather compete against cismen who are forced to compete against ciswomen - are you arguing that transmen want to compete against cismen for unfair advantages?
What is pro-women about demanding that children have to dress in gendered ways? What is pro-women about implementing laws that allow for genital checks if people think you are trans, as has happened in the US? What is pro-women about a movement that led to the killing of a ciswoman because someone thought she was trans?
You can claim disingenuously that it's about "protecting women", but when the movement welcomes Posie Parker and policies that want to erase lesbian families, when the outcomes of the rhetoric is increased attacks against all LGBTQ+ people and the policing of women's femininity, when the clear motivation of many people comes from the same place that attacks women's rights to abortion and bodily autonomy all I see is a reactionary movement that protects patriarchy trying to hide behind "protecting women", as anti gay movements before was about "protecting children" and racist movements before that was about "protecting white women".
And yet at the moment my daughter as a lesbian feels she has far more to fear from the extremist Trans movement than from their mainstream opponents.
So she is likely amongst the 12% of cis lesbians who don’t consider themselves accepting fully of trans people.
It sounds to me like she's being rational. Why would Richard's daughter think that Jolyon, Mermaids, Lloyd Russel-Moyle or the convicted torturer calling for violence against "TERFS" is on her side?
Farage situation reminds me a bit of when Farage has been attacked by the public, it all a bit laugh for some...Jezza getting attacked, then its oh i am not sure thats on...then we get a range of politicians get a hassled / attacked on regular basis and all of a sudden its an incredibly serious threat to democracy...and eventually we even get scientists getting the same treatment.
We are incredibly disappointed that the High Court has ruled against a legal challenge we are supporting, brought by @ProtectDunsfold, to force the Government to reconsider its approval of a gas exploration scheme on the edge of the Surrey Hills
On this "Malvinas" stooshie, I see that Spain became current President of the EU three weeks ago on 1st July 2023, and they have been stirring this particular pot for decades as an attempted lever wrt Gibraltar.
So I predict a minor flap, and it will be repeated in about 2037-2040, when they next hold the Presidency.
My suggestion is that the UK should offer far closer ties to both the Falklands and GIbraltar, and other overseas dependencies - rather more on the French model than at present, and including stronger representation at Westminster, to put this to bed.
Not sure any if them actually want that.
But I've always likes that the argentine claim is rather more technical than casual observers of the 'it's closer to them' school realise.
Do many people now a days care? I think if Argentina pressed their claim on Falkalnds, or Spain their claim on Gibraltar, most people would shrug and be like "I have no idea why we have these territories and I suppose it probably makes more sense to hand them to countries geographically closer". I understand that they have military and economic significance, and the UK likes having territories for tax loophole purposes, but I would imagine most people under 50 see them as relics of imperialism that we just happened to keep hold of.
No, I think that's wrong. Most people would support the government defending these territories, for as long as it's clear that their local populations want to maintain ties with Britain.
Indeed. Even Foot supported retaking the Falklands so to ensure he kept the redwall Starmer would need to lead a nuclear sub or aircraft carrier himself if Argentina invaded again which is unlikely given their military even weaker than 1982 and no junta
I am 100% behind the Falkland Islanders' right to self determination and to live in peace on the islands that their forebears have lived on for generations.
I just don't understand why the Chagos MIslanders aren't treated the same. I'm sure the colour of their skin has absolutely Lnothing to do with it.
You’re right. The colour of their skin has nothing to do with it.
The Chagos Islands have strategic value empty (apart from a submarine and air base). If they had the same strategic value as the Falklands the UK would be a lot less fussed.
But generally the concept of the “right of return” causes all sorts of issues. At some point the reality on the ground has to matter
To my mind, the Chagossians were treated like shit. It's one of the very few issues I agree with Jeremy Corbyn about.
If they had to be moved, they ought to have received generous compensation from the British government.
Agreed; it's one of those issues it's really difficult to get people to give a shit about, but demonstrates just how nasty our country can be sometimes. Corbyn deserves a bit of credit here.
I’ve now been through the NatWest/Coutts dossier on Nigel Farage twice now. It is clear beyond doubt that, even though they could find no real “dirt” on him, they still wanted to “debank” him because they didn’t like his politics — and came up with the ruse of using an expiring mortgage to close his account this month (July). Farage curtailed this process by paying off the mortgage earlier than necessary, unaware of the consequences for his Coutts accounts. On Nov 17 2022 the bank put its plan in place: “Recommendation is to retain N[igel] F[arage] for now. However, it was noted that NF currently has a mortgage with Coutts, which is due to expire in July 2023 and which, on a commercial basis, we would not look to renew and so would suggest winding down the connection on that basis.” The Bank then says it had put great store on his Russia connections but admits it could find “nothing substantive” to pin on him. So the bank then details the fallback plan it has hatched: “Six months before the expiry of NF’s mortgage with Coutts, they would indicate to NF that we are not renewing the mortgage [allowing the Bank to exit] NF next year on commercial grounds when the mortgage rolls off.” The Banks then again admits the real reason: “[It] did not think continuing to bank NF was compatible with Coutts given his publicly-stated views that were at odds with our position as an inclusive organisation.” (Coutts is actually one of the least inclusive banks in the world, as Farage was founding out) Coutts claims “this was not a political decision but one centred around inclusivity and purpose”. Pause for laughter. “The Chair concluded as follows [the Committee was unanimous]: After the expiry of the mortgage with Coutts, NF would not be a criteria client and we should set a glide path to exiting NF when that mortgage expires.” So the mortgage was the pretext. His politics were the real reason.
So? It's a private bank. They can pick and choose who they will give accounts to. That's what being a private bank is all about.
Except it's not a private bank in that sense. It's a subsidiary of NatWest.
And they offered him a regular Natwest account, no?
I believe that was only after the fact.
Who knows. Farage shouldn't be denied a normal bank account. But a private banking relationship isn't a human right, it's a purely commercial decision (and banks can take into account reputational concerns in that context if they want to, as private profit maximising businesses).
It follows that Farage is also within his rights to attempt to impose a reputational cost on them for their handling of it.
Reputational cost? Which component of Farage’s reputation has been damaged?
"What attracts them and excites them sexually is the idea of themselves as women. It's almost as if they're in love with the woman version of themselves.
Christ on a bike. Have you ever actually met any transwomen? What attracts them and excites them is board games, open source software, and kayaking, pretty much.
Joyce was talking about autogynephiles who are prominent in some Trans Rights groups. I fear genuine trans people have been very badly served by some of their so called allies.
Right. You'll excuse me for a minute, I'm just going to use the behaviour of American basement-dwelling incels as a stick with which to beat all young men, then I'll put on a fake concerned face and say "I fear genuine young men have been very badly served by some of their so called allies".
We are incredibly disappointed that the High Court has ruled against a legal challenge we are supporting, brought by @ProtectDunsfold, to force the Government to reconsider its approval of a gas exploration scheme on the edge of the Surrey Hills
Surely it’s only worth giving him money, if he can actually get somewhere with his vexatious litigation?
Its a cracking business model...you get the public to give you money for a particular cause and the bad law project reserve the rights to use it however they feel, mostly consistently losing waste of time actions.
I’ve now been through the NatWest/Coutts dossier on Nigel Farage twice now. It is clear beyond doubt that, even though they could find no real “dirt” on him, they still wanted to “debank” him because they didn’t like his politics — and came up with the ruse of using an expiring mortgage to close his account this month (July). Farage curtailed this process by paying off the mortgage earlier than necessary, unaware of the consequences for his Coutts accounts. On Nov 17 2022 the bank put its plan in place: “Recommendation is to retain N[igel] F[arage] for now. However, it was noted that NF currently has a mortgage with Coutts, which is due to expire in July 2023 and which, on a commercial basis, we would not look to renew and so would suggest winding down the connection on that basis.” The Bank then says it had put great store on his Russia connections but admits it could find “nothing substantive” to pin on him. So the bank then details the fallback plan it has hatched: “Six months before the expiry of NF’s mortgage with Coutts, they would indicate to NF that we are not renewing the mortgage [allowing the Bank to exit] NF next year on commercial grounds when the mortgage rolls off.” The Banks then again admits the real reason: “[It] did not think continuing to bank NF was compatible with Coutts given his publicly-stated views that were at odds with our position as an inclusive organisation.” (Coutts is actually one of the least inclusive banks in the world, as Farage was founding out) Coutts claims “this was not a political decision but one centred around inclusivity and purpose”. Pause for laughter. “The Chair concluded as follows [the Committee was unanimous]: After the expiry of the mortgage with Coutts, NF would not be a criteria client and we should set a glide path to exiting NF when that mortgage expires.” So the mortgage was the pretext. His politics were the real reason.
On this "Malvinas" stooshie, I see that Spain became current President of the EU three weeks ago on 1st July 2023, and they have been stirring this particular pot for decades as an attempted lever wrt Gibraltar.
So I predict a minor flap, and it will be repeated in about 2037-2040, when they next hold the Presidency.
My suggestion is that the UK should offer far closer ties to both the Falklands and GIbraltar, and other overseas dependencies - rather more on the French model than at present, and including stronger representation at Westminster, to put this to bed.
Not sure any if them actually want that.
But I've always likes that the argentine claim is rather more technical than casual observers of the 'it's closer to them' school realise.
Do many people now a days care? I think if Argentina pressed their claim on Falkalnds, or Spain their claim on Gibraltar, most people would shrug and be like "I have no idea why we have these territories and I suppose it probably makes more sense to hand them to countries geographically closer". I understand that they have military and economic significance, and the UK likes having territories for tax loophole purposes, but I would imagine most people under 50 see them as relics of imperialism that we just happened to keep hold of.
No, I think that's wrong. Most people would support the government defending these territories, for as long as it's clear that their local populations want to maintain ties with Britain.
Indeed. Even Foot supported retaking the Falklands so to ensure he kept the redwall Starmer would need to lead a nuclear sub or aircraft carrier himself if Argentina invaded again which is unlikely given their military even weaker than 1982 and no junta
I am 100% behind the Falkland Islanders' right to self determination and to live in peace on the islands that their forebears have lived on for generations.
I just don't understand why the Chagos MIslanders aren't treated the same. I'm sure the colour of their skin has absolutely Lnothing to do with it.
You’re right. The colour of their skin has nothing to do with it.
The Chagos Islands have strategic value empty (apart from a submarine and air base). If they had the same strategic value as the Falklands the UK would be a lot less fussed.
But generally the concept of the “right of return” causes all sorts of issues. At some point the reality on the ground has to matter
So if it becomes in the UK's strategic interest to sell the Falklanders down the river we should do it?
I’ve now been through the NatWest/Coutts dossier on Nigel Farage twice now. It is clear beyond doubt that, even though they could find no real “dirt” on him, they still wanted to “debank” him because they didn’t like his politics — and came up with the ruse of using an expiring mortgage to close his account this month (July). Farage curtailed this process by paying off the mortgage earlier than necessary, unaware of the consequences for his Coutts accounts. On Nov 17 2022 the bank put its plan in place: “Recommendation is to retain N[igel] F[arage] for now. However, it was noted that NF currently has a mortgage with Coutts, which is due to expire in July 2023 and which, on a commercial basis, we would not look to renew and so would suggest winding down the connection on that basis.” The Bank then says it had put great store on his Russia connections but admits it could find “nothing substantive” to pin on him. So the bank then details the fallback plan it has hatched: “Six months before the expiry of NF’s mortgage with Coutts, they would indicate to NF that we are not renewing the mortgage [allowing the Bank to exit] NF next year on commercial grounds when the mortgage rolls off.” The Banks then again admits the real reason: “[It] did not think continuing to bank NF was compatible with Coutts given his publicly-stated views that were at odds with our position as an inclusive organisation.” (Coutts is actually one of the least inclusive banks in the world, as Farage was founding out) Coutts claims “this was not a political decision but one centred around inclusivity and purpose”. Pause for laughter. “The Chair concluded as follows [the Committee was unanimous]: After the expiry of the mortgage with Coutts, NF would not be a criteria client and we should set a glide path to exiting NF when that mortgage expires.” So the mortgage was the pretext. His politics were the real reason.
So? It's a private bank. They can pick and choose who they will give accounts to. That's what being a private bank is all about.
Except it's not a private bank in that sense. It's a subsidiary of NatWest.
And they offered him a regular Natwest account, no?
I believe that was only after the fact.
Who knows. Farage shouldn't be denied a normal bank account. But a private banking relationship isn't a human right, it's a purely commercial decision (and banks can take into account reputational concerns in that context if they want to, as private profit maximising businesses).
It follows that Farage is also within his rights to attempt to impose a reputational cost on them for their handling of it.
Are you kidding? He's all over the news! Nigel the Martyr! They should be billing him...
I'm sure that among actual and potential Coutts customers the news will be seen as a net positive.
We are incredibly disappointed that the High Court has ruled against a legal challenge we are supporting, brought by @ProtectDunsfold, to force the Government to reconsider its approval of a gas exploration scheme on the edge of the Surrey Hills
I’ve now been through the NatWest/Coutts dossier on Nigel Farage twice now. It is clear beyond doubt that, even though they could find no real “dirt” on him, they still wanted to “debank” him because they didn’t like his politics — and came up with the ruse of using an expiring mortgage to close his account this month (July). Farage curtailed this process by paying off the mortgage earlier than necessary, unaware of the consequences for his Coutts accounts. On Nov 17 2022 the bank put its plan in place: “Recommendation is to retain N[igel] F[arage] for now. However, it was noted that NF currently has a mortgage with Coutts, which is due to expire in July 2023 and which, on a commercial basis, we would not look to renew and so would suggest winding down the connection on that basis.” The Bank then says it had put great store on his Russia connections but admits it could find “nothing substantive” to pin on him. So the bank then details the fallback plan it has hatched: “Six months before the expiry of NF’s mortgage with Coutts, they would indicate to NF that we are not renewing the mortgage [allowing the Bank to exit] NF next year on commercial grounds when the mortgage rolls off.” The Banks then again admits the real reason: “[It] did not think continuing to bank NF was compatible with Coutts given his publicly-stated views that were at odds with our position as an inclusive organisation.” (Coutts is actually one of the least inclusive banks in the world, as Farage was founding out) Coutts claims “this was not a political decision but one centred around inclusivity and purpose”. Pause for laughter. “The Chair concluded as follows [the Committee was unanimous]: After the expiry of the mortgage with Coutts, NF would not be a criteria client and we should set a glide path to exiting NF when that mortgage expires.” So the mortgage was the pretext. His politics were the real reason.
So? It's a private bank. They can pick and choose who they will give accounts to. That's what being a private bank is all about.
Except it's not a private bank in that sense. It's a subsidiary of NatWest.
And NatWest are offering him a bank account.
They are now, only after he got himself on the front pages giving NW a bad name.
We don't know that, though- do we? Yes, there seems to be a gap between Farage being told that he can't have a Coutts account any more and him being told that he can have one at Nat West.
What we don't know is whether the offer came because of Farage's public complaints, or whether the same effect could have been obtained by writing a stiff letter, or writing a polite letter, or just waiting for the wheels to turn at the mass market bank. Waiting a mere four days for a reply would count as a win for most of us, after all.
One of the things about the Farage/Neil worldview is that there is something of a conspiracy against decent chaps like them. The whole point of GB News is that there is a real version of the news that would be really popular if only the woke blob became less blobby and started to cover it. It's the standard complaint of second division elite who don't break through to the very top. They've both achieved a lot, whatever you think of them. More than I have. But ultimately, there are still people above them who look down on them as Trade. That is necessary for them to do what they do so well. But sometimes it seems to drive them potty.
By the look of what's in the public domain, Farage is no longer commercially useful to Coutts- that's their decision, there's no external referee for that. He's also not nice enough to slip in as an aged distressed gentleman who they can't bring themselves to chuck out on to the streets. Again, their decision. it's not nice to be told that you're not that rich and not that nice, but in Farage's case, it's hardly a conspiracy, is it?
In the meantime, I'm sure that Farage's call is very important to NatWest, but they are exceptionally busy right now.
On this "Malvinas" stooshie, I see that Spain became current President of the EU three weeks ago on 1st July 2023, and they have been stirring this particular pot for decades as an attempted lever wrt Gibraltar.
So I predict a minor flap, and it will be repeated in about 2037-2040, when they next hold the Presidency.
My suggestion is that the UK should offer far closer ties to both the Falklands and GIbraltar, and other overseas dependencies - rather more on the French model than at present, and including stronger representation at Westminster, to put this to bed.
Not sure any if them actually want that.
But I've always likes that the argentine claim is rather more technical than casual observers of the 'it's closer to them' school realise.
Do many people now a days care? I think if Argentina pressed their claim on Falkalnds, or Spain their claim on Gibraltar, most people would shrug and be like "I have no idea why we have these territories and I suppose it probably makes more sense to hand them to countries geographically closer". I understand that they have military and economic significance, and the UK likes having territories for tax loophole purposes, but I would imagine most people under 50 see them as relics of imperialism that we just happened to keep hold of.
No, I think that's wrong. Most people would support the government defending these territories, for as long as it's clear that their local populations want to maintain ties with Britain.
Indeed. Even Foot supported retaking the Falklands so to ensure he kept the redwall Starmer would need to lead a nuclear sub or aircraft carrier himself if Argentina invaded again which is unlikely given their military even weaker than 1982 and no junta
I am 100% behind the Falkland Islanders' right to self determination and to live in peace on the islands that their forebears have lived on for generations.
I just don't understand why the Chagos MIslanders aren't treated the same. I'm sure the colour of their skin has absolutely Lnothing to do with it.
You’re right. The colour of their skin has nothing to do with it.
The Chagos Islands have strategic value empty (apart from a submarine and air base). If they had the same strategic value as the Falklands the UK would be a lot less fussed.
But generally the concept of the “right of return” causes all sorts of issues. At some point the reality on the ground has to matter
To my mind, the Chagossians were treated like shit. It's one of the very few issues I agree with Jeremy Corbyn about.
If they had to be moved, they ought to have received generous compensation from the British government.
I’ve now been through the NatWest/Coutts dossier on Nigel Farage twice now. It is clear beyond doubt that, even though they could find no real “dirt” on him, they still wanted to “debank” him because they didn’t like his politics — and came up with the ruse of using an expiring mortgage to close his account this month (July). Farage curtailed this process by paying off the mortgage earlier than necessary, unaware of the consequences for his Coutts accounts. On Nov 17 2022 the bank put its plan in place: “Recommendation is to retain N[igel] F[arage] for now. However, it was noted that NF currently has a mortgage with Coutts, which is due to expire in July 2023 and which, on a commercial basis, we would not look to renew and so would suggest winding down the connection on that basis.” The Bank then says it had put great store on his Russia connections but admits it could find “nothing substantive” to pin on him. So the bank then details the fallback plan it has hatched: “Six months before the expiry of NF’s mortgage with Coutts, they would indicate to NF that we are not renewing the mortgage [allowing the Bank to exit] NF next year on commercial grounds when the mortgage rolls off.” The Banks then again admits the real reason: “[It] did not think continuing to bank NF was compatible with Coutts given his publicly-stated views that were at odds with our position as an inclusive organisation.” (Coutts is actually one of the least inclusive banks in the world, as Farage was founding out) Coutts claims “this was not a political decision but one centred around inclusivity and purpose”. Pause for laughter. “The Chair concluded as follows [the Committee was unanimous]: After the expiry of the mortgage with Coutts, NF would not be a criteria client and we should set a glide path to exiting NF when that mortgage expires.” So the mortgage was the pretext. His politics were the real reason.
Anti trans activism doesn't have the same kind of backing in the US because the bigotry at its heart is much clearer - firstly because the people advocating against trans people are the same anti LGBT and anti women people who have always campaigned against progress and secondly because those people clearly don't give a damn about women's welfare.
I also find it interesting that the GC movement, that claims to care so greatly about the rights of lesbians, are split over the moves in Italy to remove lesbian mothers who don't give birth to a child from a birth certificate of that child - potentially putting into question the rights of the non biological mother should anything happen to her partner. That prominent anti trans activists like Posie Parker (who has been defended by JKR and others despite openly saying she isn't a feminist, is against feminism and believes that abortion rights have gone too far) are cheering this change on whilst their lesbian supposed fellow travellers look at the movement they've shackled themselves to and ask "how can this have happened to me" should be a damascene moment for some of these people.
The anti trans campaign comes from the same place that always attacks women and their bodily autonomy - the lawyers in the UK who represent against trans rights are the same lawyers who push for rolling back abortion rights and argued against same sex marriage. The same people who fund CPAC and the Heritage Foundation are funding trips for prominent GCs to talk at their and other conferences. The same narrative - that the perverted transes are going to prey on your children and groom them and aren't safe in public toilets - are the same narratives used against gay people in the 50s and 60s. Protection of patriarchy in the face of progress.
Policies like those proposed by the government of banning social transition in schools does nothing but ensure rigid policing of gender norms; if transgirls can't grow out their hair or wear dresses what will stop teachers policing the feminine cisboys GCs claim they are protecting from being "too girly"? If transboys aren't allowed to wear trousers or shorts instead of skirts what will stop head teachers enforcing gendered clothing on cisgirls that demands they look feminine, again punishing those tomboys GCs claim would otherwise be forcibly transed? If a student is gay, and effeminate, would a teacher necessarily know the difference between that and transness, and therefore know if they should out their students to parents anyway? All these moves protect an understanding of strict gender roles and patriarchy - parents owning their children and their roles as boys and girls, men and women strictly enforced. Anti trans activists are not critical of gender - no matter how much they say "wear any clothes you like, just don't claim you're a woman / man" they still hate on drag or gender non conforming people.
You didn’t listen to a word if it, did you?
And as ever, you miss the fundamental point that it’s not “anti-trans” but “pro-women” and based on the view that “you cannot change your sex”.
Why do you think some men want access to women’s spaces and women’s sports?
Transwomen want to be able to live their lives as women - access to women's spaces is about the fact that many transwomen are indistinguishable from ciswomen and therefore would look out of place in men's spaces and therefore in danger. It's also about not having to out themselves in their daily life - if a transwoman can't use the woman's toilet in their place of work they will have to out themselves to all their colleagues, something they should not be forced to do if they don't want to.
As for women's sports - transpeople want to compete in the sport according to their gender because we have decided to segregate sports based on that criteria. There are transmen who would rather compete against cismen who are forced to compete against ciswomen - are you arguing that transmen want to compete against cismen for unfair advantages?
What is pro-women about demanding that children have to dress in gendered ways? What is pro-women about implementing laws that allow for genital checks if people think you are trans, as has happened in the US? What is pro-women about a movement that led to the killing of a ciswoman because someone thought she was trans?
You can claim disingenuously that it's about "protecting women", but when the movement welcomes Posie Parker and policies that want to erase lesbian families, when the outcomes of the rhetoric is increased attacks against all LGBTQ+ people and the policing of women's femininity, when the clear motivation of many people comes from the same place that attacks women's rights to abortion and bodily autonomy all I see is a reactionary movement that protects patriarchy trying to hide behind "protecting women", as anti gay movements before was about "protecting children" and racist movements before that was about "protecting white women".
And yet at the moment my daughter as a lesbian feels she has far more to fear from the extremist Trans movement than from their mainstream opponents.
So she is likely amongst the 12% of cis lesbians who don’t consider themselves accepting fully of trans people.
I see what you did there, you conflated "trans people" with "the extremist Trans movement" and hoped no one would notice.
I’ve now been through the NatWest/Coutts dossier on Nigel Farage twice now. It is clear beyond doubt that, even though they could find no real “dirt” on him, they still wanted to “debank” him because they didn’t like his politics — and came up with the ruse of using an expiring mortgage to close his account this month (July). Farage curtailed this process by paying off the mortgage earlier than necessary, unaware of the consequences for his Coutts accounts. On Nov 17 2022 the bank put its plan in place: “Recommendation is to retain N[igel] F[arage] for now. However, it was noted that NF currently has a mortgage with Coutts, which is due to expire in July 2023 and which, on a commercial basis, we would not look to renew and so would suggest winding down the connection on that basis.” The Bank then says it had put great store on his Russia connections but admits it could find “nothing substantive” to pin on him. So the bank then details the fallback plan it has hatched: “Six months before the expiry of NF’s mortgage with Coutts, they would indicate to NF that we are not renewing the mortgage [allowing the Bank to exit] NF next year on commercial grounds when the mortgage rolls off.” The Banks then again admits the real reason: “[It] did not think continuing to bank NF was compatible with Coutts given his publicly-stated views that were at odds with our position as an inclusive organisation.” (Coutts is actually one of the least inclusive banks in the world, as Farage was founding out) Coutts claims “this was not a political decision but one centred around inclusivity and purpose”. Pause for laughter. “The Chair concluded as follows [the Committee was unanimous]: After the expiry of the mortgage with Coutts, NF would not be a criteria client and we should set a glide path to exiting NF when that mortgage expires.” So the mortgage was the pretext. His politics were the real reason.
So? It's a private bank. They can pick and choose who they will give accounts to. That's what being a private bank is all about.
Except it's not a private bank in that sense. It's a subsidiary of NatWest.
And they offered him a regular Natwest account, no?
I believe that was only after the fact.
Who knows. Farage shouldn't be denied a normal bank account. But a private banking relationship isn't a human right, it's a purely commercial decision (and banks can take into account reputational concerns in that context if they want to, as private profit maximising businesses).
It follows that Farage is also within his rights to attempt to impose a reputational cost on them for their handling of it.
He should try being arrested, that seems to make people more popular across the pond, then people would listen to him more.
Farage situation reminds me a bit of when Farage has been attacked by the public, it all a bit laugh for some...Jezza getting attacked, then its oh i am not sure thats on...then we get a range of politicians get a hassled / attacked on regular basis and all of a sudden its an incredibly serious threat to democracy...and eventually we even get scientists getting the same treatment.
Farage situation reminds me a bit of when Farage has been attacked by the public, it all a bit laugh for some...Jezza getting attacked, then its oh i am not sure thats on...then we get a range of politicians get a hassled / attacked on regular basis and all of a sudden its an incredibly serious threat to democracy...and eventually we even get scientists getting the same treatment.
Interesting narrative turn
The BBC however are still trying to do everything but apologise by getting others to give muddying opinions, when just as worrying as an account being closed is discussion of bank balances, allegedly as a public charity dinner between the bank chief and a journalist.
Its a good job they haven't recently made a big deal of being BBC Verify, The Fact Checkers....who actually managed to f##k up their very first series with a load of easily checkable claims that they got wrong...again because they have a bias against the person they are making claims against.
Bingo. But there is a particular aspect to it which makes it even more unsettling
Nicht Google!
Something to do with the marks in the roughcast?
Yes
The Germans - in their genius for evil, got the Jewish labourers who built the Jewish ghetto wall, and told them to use.. Jewish gravestones
According to Google it was slightly worse than that (to my mind anyway), they got the Jewish labourers to build the wall in the form of gravestones just for the bantz.
Farage situation reminds me a bit of when Farage has been attacked by the public, it all a bit laugh for some...Jezza getting attacked, then its oh i am not sure thats on...then we get a range of politicians get a hassled / attacked on regular basis and all of a sudden its an incredibly serious threat to democracy...and eventually we even get scientists getting the same treatment.
Interesting narrative turn
Credit to Sopel. People make mistakes and jump to conclusions, especially those which suit their own preconcieved ideas. Owning up to them and apologising is, to my mind, a big thing and should not be downplayed or ignored.
I don’t fxcking care if Farage is refused an account . The media is now obsessing about another thing no one gives a fig about .
Which is why I suggested above, that Labour could make good running talking about people who aren’t loudmouth right-wing politicians and commentators, but who are suffereng from exactly the same issue of arbitrary closure of bank accounts.
There must be dozens of Labour MPs aware of constituents with cases in front of the Banking Ombudsman, and should be challenging the government to give real teeth to that body.
Farage situation reminds me a bit of when Farage has been attacked by the public, it all a bit laugh for some...Jezza getting attacked, then its oh i am not sure thats on...then we get a range of politicians get a hassled / attacked on regular basis and all of a sudden its an incredibly serious threat to democracy...and eventually we even get scientists getting the same treatment.
Farage is not a politician. He was a politician, but he’s not now seeking election or running a party. He’s a broadcaster.
Farage situation reminds me a bit of when Farage has been attacked by the public, it all a bit laugh for some...Jezza getting attacked, then its oh i am not sure thats on...then we get a range of politicians get a hassled / attacked on regular basis and all of a sudden its an incredibly serious threat to democracy...and eventually we even get scientists getting the same treatment.
Interesting narrative turn
The BBC however are still trying to do everything but apologise by getting others to give muddying opinions, when just as worrying as an account being closed is discussion of bank balances, allegedly as a public charity dinner between the bank chief and a journalist.
Its a good job they haven't recently made a big deal of being BBC Verify, The Fact Checkers....who actually managed to f##k up their very first series with a load of easily checkable claims that they got wrong...again because they have a bias against the person they are making claims against.
Wasn't there some story recently about a bus of Jewish people being verbally abused where the BBC added some unverified detail and fought tooth and nail against correcting the record?
Anti trans activism doesn't have the same kind of backing in the US because the bigotry at its heart is much clearer - firstly because the people advocating against trans people are the same anti LGBT and anti women people who have always campaigned against progress and secondly because those people clearly don't give a damn about women's welfare.
I also find it interesting that the GC movement, that claims to care so greatly about the rights of lesbians, are split over the moves in Italy to remove lesbian mothers who don't give birth to a child from a birth certificate of that child - potentially putting into question the rights of the non biological mother should anything happen to her partner. That prominent anti trans activists like Posie Parker (who has been defended by JKR and others despite openly saying she isn't a feminist, is against feminism and believes that abortion rights have gone too far) are cheering this change on whilst their lesbian supposed fellow travellers look at the movement they've shackled themselves to and ask "how can this have happened to me" should be a damascene moment for some of these people.
The anti trans campaign comes from the same place that always attacks women and their bodily autonomy - the lawyers in the UK who represent against trans rights are the same lawyers who push for rolling back abortion rights and argued against same sex marriage. The same people who fund CPAC and the Heritage Foundation are funding trips for prominent GCs to talk at their and other conferences. The same narrative - that the perverted transes are going to prey on your children and groom them and aren't safe in public toilets - are the same narratives used against gay people in the 50s and 60s. Protection of patriarchy in the face of progress.
Policies like those proposed by the government of banning social transition in schools does nothing but ensure rigid policing of gender norms; if transgirls can't grow out their hair or wear dresses what will stop teachers policing the feminine cisboys GCs claim they are protecting from being "too girly"? If transboys aren't allowed to wear trousers or shorts instead of skirts what will stop head teachers enforcing gendered clothing on cisgirls that demands they look feminine, again punishing those tomboys GCs claim would otherwise be forcibly transed? If a student is gay, and effeminate, would a teacher necessarily know the difference between that and transness, and therefore know if they should out their students to parents anyway? All these moves protect an understanding of strict gender roles and patriarchy - parents owning their children and their roles as boys and girls, men and women strictly enforced. Anti trans activists are not critical of gender - no matter how much they say "wear any clothes you like, just don't claim you're a woman / man" they still hate on drag or gender non conforming people.
You didn’t listen to a word if it, did you?
And as ever, you miss the fundamental point that it’s not “anti-trans” but “pro-women” and based on the view that “you cannot change your sex”.
Why do you think some men want access to women’s spaces and women’s sports?
Transwomen want to be able to live their lives as women - access to women's spaces is about the fact that many transwomen are indistinguishable from ciswomen and therefore would look out of place in men's spaces and therefore in danger. It's also about not having to out themselves in their daily life - if a transwoman can't use the woman's toilet in their place of work they will have to out themselves to all their colleagues, something they should not be forced to do if they don't want to.
As for women's sports - transpeople want to compete in the sport according to their gender because we have decided to segregate sports based on that criteria. There are transmen who would rather compete against cismen who are forced to compete against ciswomen - are you arguing that transmen want to compete against cismen for unfair advantages?
What is pro-women about demanding that children have to dress in gendered ways? What is pro-women about implementing laws that allow for genital checks if people think you are trans, as has happened in the US? What is pro-women about a movement that led to the killing of a ciswoman because someone thought she was trans?
You can claim disingenuously that it's about "protecting women", but when the movement welcomes Posie Parker and policies that want to erase lesbian families, when the outcomes of the rhetoric is increased attacks against all LGBTQ+ people and the policing of women's femininity, when the clear motivation of many people comes from the same place that attacks women's rights to abortion and bodily autonomy all I see is a reactionary movement that protects patriarchy trying to hide behind "protecting women", as anti gay movements before was about "protecting children" and racist movements before that was about "protecting white women".
And yet at the moment my daughter as a lesbian feels she has far more to fear from the extremist Trans movement than from their mainstream opponents.
So she is likely amongst the 12% of cis lesbians who don’t consider themselves accepting fully of trans people.
Not at all. She has been very strong in her defence and advocacy for trans people. Which is why it hits her so hard to be told that lesbianism should no longer be considered 'a thing' as has been the position of extremist (note that word) trans activists.
You just don't want to accept that in this case the extremists are also on your side of the debate.
Farage situation reminds me a bit of when Farage has been attacked by the public, it all a bit laugh for some...Jezza getting attacked, then its oh i am not sure thats on...then we get a range of politicians get a hassled / attacked on regular basis and all of a sudden its an incredibly serious threat to democracy...and eventually we even get scientists getting the same treatment.
Farage is not a politician. He was a politician, but he’s not now seeking election or running a party. He’s a broadcaster.
That of course makes his account closure situation worse. Same as Triggernometry having their account closed.
Comments
Apple Watch Ultra. Absolutely fab.
If you do lots of hiking/back country biking as I do, coupling it with the Outdoor Active Pro downloadable OS and IGN etc topo maps is absolutely awesome.
In the end I decided they hated themselves for their own weakness: being dependant on France, and not seen as real French, yet not quite having the will power to thrust away the nipple of the French state and its largesse. They were ashamed of their unmanliness but they sublimated this into aggression
The problem for France is that this nasty attitude is now being into imported into metropolitan France itself
Nicht Google!
AND A £20 NOTE. Because who knows when they are going to encounter a dodgy ballcock at around say the 2000 ft contour, and a cash in hand tradesman to fix it?
As for women's sports - transpeople want to compete in the sport according to their gender because we have decided to segregate sports based on that criteria. There are transmen who would rather compete against cismen who are forced to compete against ciswomen - are you arguing that transmen want to compete against cismen for unfair advantages?
What is pro-women about demanding that children have to dress in gendered ways? What is pro-women about implementing laws that allow for genital checks if people think you are trans, as has happened in the US? What is pro-women about a movement that led to the killing of a ciswoman because someone thought she was trans?
https://www.thepinknews.com/2023/07/14/indiana-michelle-dionne-peacock-trans-killed/
You can claim disingenuously that it's about "protecting women", but when the movement welcomes Posie Parker and policies that want to erase lesbian families, when the outcomes of the rhetoric is increased attacks against all LGBTQ+ people and the policing of women's femininity, when the clear motivation of many people comes from the same place that attacks women's rights to abortion and bodily autonomy all I see is a reactionary movement that protects patriarchy trying to hide behind "protecting women", as anti gay movements before was about "protecting children" and racist movements before that was about "protecting white women".
A death cult indeed.
How do you get reproduction without gender?
Biggest expenses, I think, are groceries (I'd say typically now about £180 a week, maybe more (that's gone up a lot recently) - so getting on for £10k a year; and energy (c. £5k a year - though we've got solar panels now so that should come down a lot).
But what is so unusual and destructive about this sexual desire and urge is that it requires everybody else to play along. That's part of the fantasy.
Without this hard core of men whose dearest and sole desire in life is to force everybody to pretend that they're women, this would not have got so far.
These men are the ones who want children put on sterilizing drugs to validate their sexuality."
Helen Joyce (@HJoyceGender) with @MegynKelly
https://twitter.com/WomenReadWomen/status/1681935340636893185?s=20
Although the central section is superb, in fact it has lengthened my commute to work - an extra stop and the station is now deep level and it takes longer to get from platform to street.
Interesting. And thanks.
My previous, and not entirely serious, inquiry whether it measured the H2S content in one's eructations is actually much closer to the mark than I had thought. It will certainly tell me if I am ovulating, though I can work that out quite easily without spending between 500 to 1000 metal beer tokens.
But I wonder how long it will be supported.
Are you saying anything more than in your opinion we're no more than bits of material, that we are machines basically?
You want to divide the argument into the right, who hate women, gays, transwomen, etc. and progressives, who champion their interests, when the actual participants in this debate cannot be neatly divided into those categories at all.
Are you using a cash-burning stove or something?
ETA: Groceries expenditure not that much more than ours, FWIW (we're probably more around £160)
This makes no sense. No - we haven't. We have decided to segregate sports on the basis of physical differences that accord to each sex not gender - just as we separate children's age groups, boxing weights, and paralympic classifications based on different physical characteristics. The fact that some transmen are happy to compete against cismen is neither here nor there. I'm sure that some middleweight boxers fancy their chances against heavyweights, and before his incarceration Oscar Pestorius was happy to run against able bodied athletes, but that is not a reason to force all paralympians to complete against their able-bodied counterparts or underweight boxers to fight against heavier categories.
Transwomen have an unfair advantage, it's not their fault, but they do. East German teens being pumped full of hormones against their will was not their fault either but they should not have been able to compete. In this arena rights collide and it is not transphobic to prefer the right of females to compete against those who share their specific characteristics.
Yes
The Germans - in their genius for evil, got the Jewish labourers who built the Jewish ghetto wall, and told them to use.. Jewish gravestones
We've had the roof replaced, so, again, I'm hoping for better things next year.
We don’t have enough time because of the weather so we HAVE to bat with absurd recklessness
Shame. That first damn test at Edgbaston!
We are incredibly disappointed that the High Court has ruled against a legal challenge we are supporting, brought by @ProtectDunsfold, to force the Government to reconsider its approval of a gas exploration scheme on the edge of the Surrey Hills
https://twitter.com/GoodLawProject/status/1681978864107503616?s=20
I can see why plenty have no sympathy for Farage. Disappointed that most of those are wilfully dismissing a serious issue.
The Chagos Islands have strategic value empty (apart from a submarine and air base). If they had the same strategic value as the Falklands the UK would be a lot less fussed.
But generally the concept of the “right of return” causes all sorts of issues. At some point the reality on the ground has to matter
If they had to be moved, they ought to have received generous compensation from the British government.
It seems pretty colonially minded to me to assume if a place is near another place it must make sense for it to be a part of it. Could we apply that to ROI, Cyprus, Madagascar, where does it end?
It's like when people argue islands should be united as thar makes sense, as if there are no counter examples where it might not, like hispaniola.
I could see that being a 1p damages situation.
I don’t fxcking care if Farage is refused an account . The media is now obsessing about another thing no one gives a fig about .
But the number of losses and his toys out the pram reaction when it happens dies somewhat suggest its just politics.
What we don't know is whether the offer came because of Farage's public complaints, or whether the same effect could have been obtained by writing a stiff letter, or writing a polite letter, or just waiting for the wheels to turn at the mass market bank. Waiting a mere four days for a reply would count as a win for most of us, after all.
One of the things about the Farage/Neil worldview is that there is something of a conspiracy against decent chaps like them. The whole point of GB News is that there is a real version of the news that would be really popular if only the woke blob became less blobby and started to cover it. It's the standard complaint of second division elite who don't break through to the very top. They've both achieved a lot, whatever you think of them. More than I have. But ultimately, there are still people above them who look down on them as Trade. That is necessary for them to do what they do so well. But sometimes it seems to drive them potty.
By the look of what's in the public domain, Farage is no longer commercially useful to Coutts- that's their decision, there's no external referee for that. He's also not nice enough to slip in as an aged distressed gentleman who they can't bring themselves to chuck out on to the streets. Again, their decision. it's not nice to be told that you're not that rich and not that nice, but in Farage's case, it's hardly a conspiracy, is it?
In the meantime, I'm sure that Farage's call is very important to NatWest, but they are exceptionally busy right now.
Its a good job they haven't recently made a big deal of being BBC Verify, The Fact Checkers....who actually managed to f##k up their very first series with a load of easily checkable claims that they got wrong...again because they have a bias against the person they are making claims against.
There must be dozens of Labour MPs aware of constituents with cases in front of the Banking Ombudsman, and should be challenging the government to give real teeth to that body.
You just don't want to accept that in this case the extremists are also on your side of the debate.