Howdy, Stranger!

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

Women Beware Women – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 11,002
edited December 2023 in General
imageWomen Beware Women – politicalbetting.com

Lady Haldane will issue her judgment on the Scottish government’s challenge to Westminster’s S.35 Order on the GRR Bill at ca. midday Friday. It will be the first on how far, if at all, Westminster can limit the Scottish government’s devolved legislative powers. It will also have implications for the Equality Act and how trans rights affect women’s rights. That there is a clash between them has not been in doubt since the High Court’s July 2021 decision on women’s prisons, where the court expressly stated this. Whatever the Haldane decision, it will likely not be the last word on this issue. If the losing party appeals, no final decision is likely before the next election.

Read the full story here

«1345

Comments

  • swing_voterswing_voter Posts: 1,435
    I'm not really following the gender issues in Scotland (probably reflects my background) but I dont see it as a vote winner for any party at present.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,763
    Another good and important @Cyclefree piece.

    It’s sometimes easy to forget that bringing this academic ideology into wider society, is resulting in rape and murder of women.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,455
    And another one realises. Woke + Islamism = anti-Semitism


    Sam Altman
    @sama
    for a long time i said that antisemitism, particularly on the american left, was not as bad as people claimed.

    i'd like to just state that i was totally wrong.

    i still don't understand it, really. or know what to do about it.

    but it is so fucked.



    https://x.com/sama/status/1732925866836210151?s=20
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,880
    Leon said:

    And another one realises. Woke + Islamism = anti-Semitism


    Sam Altman
    @sama
    for a long time i said that antisemitism, particularly on the american left, was not as bad as people claimed.

    i'd like to just state that i was totally wrong.

    i still don't understand it, really. or know what to do about it.

    but it is so fucked.



    https://x.com/sama/status/1732925866836210151?s=20

    Antisemitism is a serious problem with the American Left.

    Also, I salute you for realising that when Sam Altman talked about left wing antisemitism, he was really talking about woke. Not a lot of people would have picked that up. Sam Altman, for example, never did.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,455
    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    And another one realises. Woke + Islamism = anti-Semitism


    Sam Altman
    @sama
    for a long time i said that antisemitism, particularly on the american left, was not as bad as people claimed.

    i'd like to just state that i was totally wrong.

    i still don't understand it, really. or know what to do about it.

    but it is so fucked.



    https://x.com/sama/status/1732925866836210151?s=20

    Antisemitism is a serious problem with the American Left.

    Also, I salute you for realising that when Sam Altman talked about left wing antisemitism, he was really talking about woke. Not a lot of people would have picked that up. Sam Altman, for example, never did.
    Why do you think anti-Semitism is now a problem on the Left? Try and work out the philosophy that might have led progressive leftwing people to perceive Jews as an oppressor, colonial class, and therefore justifiable subjects of persecution and not worthy of protection (as happened to whites, white males, etc, before them)

    There. That wasn't so hard, was it?

    TBF to you Sam Altman hasn't worked it out either - "i still don't understand it, really" - but he will get there, too
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,164
    Harpenden Rural division

    Lib Dem 1474
    Conservative 766
    Labour 168
    Green Party 119

    Lib Dem GAIN from Conservative
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,455
    The Tik Tok Generation?

    "In this The Economist/YouGov poll from December 2-5, 20% of young adults slightly (12%) or strongly (8%) agreed with the statement "the Holocaust is a myth".

    That's one-fifth Holocaust deniers."


    https://x.com/cremieuxrecueil/status/1732995380919271638?s=20

    Another THIRTY percent of young people neither agree nor disagree that "the Holocaust is a myth"
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,045
    Leon said:

    The Tik Tok Generation?

    "In this The Economist/YouGov poll from December 2-5, 20% of young adults slightly (12%) or strongly (8%) agreed with the statement "the Holocaust is a myth".

    That's one-fifth Holocaust deniers."


    https://x.com/cremieuxrecueil/status/1732995380919271638?s=20

    Another THIRTY percent of young people neither agree nor disagree that "the Holocaust is a myth"

    I don't see Holocaust deniers as a clear and present danger, I see them as a clear and future danger.

    Deborah Lipstadt, May 2000.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,455
    ydoethur said:

    Leon said:

    The Tik Tok Generation?

    "In this The Economist/YouGov poll from December 2-5, 20% of young adults slightly (12%) or strongly (8%) agreed with the statement "the Holocaust is a myth".

    That's one-fifth Holocaust deniers."


    https://x.com/cremieuxrecueil/status/1732995380919271638?s=20

    Another THIRTY percent of young people neither agree nor disagree that "the Holocaust is a myth"

    I don't see Holocaust deniers as a clear and present danger, I see them as a clear and future danger.

    Deborah Lipstadt, May 2000.
    She was right

    How is it possible we have ended up with 50% of young people either beliving the Holocaust is a myth, or not being sure??

    It must be social media, and, within that, Tik Tok
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,789
    edited December 2023
    Leon said:

    The Tik Tok Generation?

    "In this The Economist/YouGov poll from December 2-5, 20% of young adults slightly (12%) or strongly (8%) agreed with the statement "the Holocaust is a myth".

    That's one-fifth Holocaust deniers."


    https://x.com/cremieuxrecueil/status/1732995380919271638?s=20

    Another THIRTY percent of young people neither agree nor disagree that "the Holocaust is a myth"

    Which should give pause to those who think 18-29 year olds are more “enlightened” than older age cohorts.
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 6,301
    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    The Tik Tok Generation?

    "In this The Economist/YouGov poll from December 2-5, 20% of young adults slightly (12%) or strongly (8%) agreed with the statement "the Holocaust is a myth".

    That's one-fifth Holocaust deniers."


    https://x.com/cremieuxrecueil/status/1732995380919271638?s=20

    Another THIRTY percent of young people neither agree nor disagree that "the Holocaust is a myth"

    Which should give pause to those who think 18-29 year olds are more “enlightened” than older age cohorts.
    Previous polls had them thinking that Hitler was a good guy. No surprise here how dense our youth is.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,789
    Leon said:

    ydoethur said:

    Leon said:

    The Tik Tok Generation?

    "In this The Economist/YouGov poll from December 2-5, 20% of young adults slightly (12%) or strongly (8%) agreed with the statement "the Holocaust is a myth".

    That's one-fifth Holocaust deniers."


    https://x.com/cremieuxrecueil/status/1732995380919271638?s=20

    Another THIRTY percent of young people neither agree nor disagree that "the Holocaust is a myth"

    I don't see Holocaust deniers as a clear and present danger, I see them as a clear and future danger.

    Deborah Lipstadt, May 2000.
    She was right

    How is it possible we have ended up with 50% of young people either beliving the Holocaust is a myth, or not being sure??

    It must be social media, and, within that, Tik Tok
    Social media, poor critical thinking skills, postmodernism and plain bigotry.
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 6,301
    The conservative Party of today is so reminiscent of Major and his "bastards" in 92/97.
    They are so blinkered the party will be out of office for at least 10 yrs.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 5,876
    edited December 2023
    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    The Tik Tok Generation?

    "In this The Economist/YouGov poll from December 2-5, 20% of young adults slightly (12%) or strongly (8%) agreed with the statement "the Holocaust is a myth".

    That's one-fifth Holocaust deniers."


    https://x.com/cremieuxrecueil/status/1732995380919271638?s=20

    Another THIRTY percent of young people neither agree nor disagree that "the Holocaust is a myth"

    Which should give pause to those who think 18-24 year olds are more “enlightened” than older age cohorts.
    As someone in the 18-29 cohort, I haven't seen any holocaust denial stuff online but the pro-Palestine material has been relentless and highly effective. Almost all my friends have re-shared posts along those lines (mainly stuff from NGOs, charities and the UN).

    That's not to say they are holocaust deniers, Hamas supporters or not supportive of the Israeli state. Just that the pro-Palestine messaging is sophisticated and pervasive, focusing on child casualties.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,455
    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    ydoethur said:

    Leon said:

    The Tik Tok Generation?

    "In this The Economist/YouGov poll from December 2-5, 20% of young adults slightly (12%) or strongly (8%) agreed with the statement "the Holocaust is a myth".

    That's one-fifth Holocaust deniers."


    https://x.com/cremieuxrecueil/status/1732995380919271638?s=20

    Another THIRTY percent of young people neither agree nor disagree that "the Holocaust is a myth"

    I don't see Holocaust deniers as a clear and present danger, I see them as a clear and future danger.

    Deborah Lipstadt, May 2000.
    She was right

    How is it possible we have ended up with 50% of young people either beliving the Holocaust is a myth, or not being sure??

    It must be social media, and, within that, Tik Tok
    Social media, poor critical thinking skills, postmodernism and plain bigotry.
    And the Wokeness. I hate to bang on but it is so crucial to all this

    If you see Jews as imperialist oppressors like white men then any idea they might have once been - overwhelmingly - victims of persecution, becomes harder to process logically. So: deny it or don’t think about it

    Cognitive dissonance solved
  • ChrisChris Posts: 11,054
    edited December 2023
    The great thing about having someone hyper-rich as prime minister is that his conceptions are on a much grander scale than most people's.

    But Sunak thinks nothing of spending a quarter of a billion pounds of public money on a fantasy scheme that now has the sole aim of saving his career.
  • Leon said:

    The Tik Tok Generation?

    "In this The Economist/YouGov poll from December 2-5, 20% of young adults slightly (12%) or strongly (8%) agreed with the statement "the Holocaust is a myth".

    That's one-fifth Holocaust deniers."


    https://x.com/cremieuxrecueil/status/1732995380919271638?s=20

    Another THIRTY percent of young people neither agree nor disagree that "the Holocaust is a myth"

    I blame the parents.
  • Rahm gone to Liv for about half a billion.
  • nico679nico679 Posts: 4,640
    Chris said:

    The great thing about having someone hyper-rich as prime minister is that his conceptions are on a much grander scale than most people's.

    But Sunak thinks nothing of spending a quarter of a billion pounds of public money on a fantasy scheme that now has the sole aim of saving his career.

    Sunak needs the flights to take off just before the election. A big gap is dangerous if the boats keep coming. The sensible thing to do was to have dropped the policy when he came in , that was his window of opportunity but then of course he’d made a deal with Braverman.

  • nico679 said:

    Chris said:

    The great thing about having someone hyper-rich as prime minister is that his conceptions are on a much grander scale than most people's.

    But Sunak thinks nothing of spending a quarter of a billion pounds of public money on a fantasy scheme that now has the sole aim of saving his career.

    Sunak needs the flights to take off just before the election. A big gap is dangerous if the boats keep coming. The sensible thing to do was to have dropped the policy when he came in , that was his window of opportunity but then of course he’d made a deal with Braverman.

    It would probably be cheaper per person to pay asylum seekers $50,000 each to move to Rwanda. Certainly faster.
  • nico679 said:

    Chris said:

    The great thing about having someone hyper-rich as prime minister is that his conceptions are on a much grander scale than most people's.

    But Sunak thinks nothing of spending a quarter of a billion pounds of public money on a fantasy scheme that now has the sole aim of saving his career.

    Sunak needs the flights to take off just before the election. A big gap is dangerous if the boats keep coming. The sensible thing to do was to have dropped the policy when he came in , that was his window of opportunity but then of course he’d made a deal with Braverman.

    There is a Terrible Danger. The flights may well be loaded. And then held on the ground as person after person is pulled off under legal challenge. And then the flight lands in Rwanda and is turned back because we have broken our agreement with the Rwandans.

    I rewatched that presser yesterday. Sunak rightly points out that there is no point having a law which the Rwandans won't agree to. But the bill already crosses that line on page 1. He says that the "new treaty" makes things possible that were not before; Not so says the Rwandan minister who co-signed.

    Sunak is trying to claim credit for fewer boats crossing. But he pledged - check the lectern - to Stop the Boats. Not reduce them. And he can't stop them. The audience he is pitching to don't care if the numbers have slowed - they want them to STOP. And then the foreigners to be sent away. Its impossible to satisfy them.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,789
    edited December 2023

    Leon said:

    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    The Tik Tok Generation?

    "In this The Economist/YouGov poll from December 2-5, 20% of young adults slightly (12%) or strongly (8%) agreed with the statement "the Holocaust is a myth".

    That's one-fifth Holocaust deniers."


    https://x.com/cremieuxrecueil/status/1732995380919271638?s=20

    Another THIRTY percent of young people neither agree nor disagree that "the Holocaust is a myth"

    Which should give pause to those who think 18-29 year olds are more “enlightened” than older age cohorts.

    We have enabled a Terrible Stupidity
    I am going to agree with you on this point (and set aside the interminable rantings about whatever "woke" is this week).

    I keep saying that the Tories have weaponised ignorance and stupidity. Ignorance is not an insult - we are all ignorant on a huge number of subjects we are aware of but have no idea how something works or why. That is why we go to see a doctor or a mechanic - because we are ignorant. Stupidity isn't new either - plenty of people are dumb. But most normal people knew the things they didn't know.

    The new phenomena is "we've had enough of experts". Of my ignorant opinion somehow having equal (or higher) worth than expertise or facts. The right exploit this for votes - keep them ignorant and angry and they will vote for you.

    Social media? A phenomenon. My bit of social media only does EVs and Tesla specifically. The number of times the same untruth is typed - or sometimes just pasted - is astonishing. The poster could find out the truth in 2 seconds. But does not. They know their truth and it has been cut up and fed to them to reinforce their ignorance.

    No idea how we combat this. But the ignorance isn't "woke". Its been weaponised by the people who are against "woke".
    Stupidity, I think, is the predominant human characteristic. It’s a wonder we ever moved out of caves.

    The problem with trusting “experts” is that they, too, are often stupid. A person can have immense technical knowledge, but combine it with appalling judgement and poor ethics (a common combination).

    Experts have brought us the Great Financial Crash and one scandal after another. So is it any wonder that people stop trusting them?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,976
    On topic a very good summary from @Cyclefree. The key point of the 2004 Act is that it was very difficult to get a a gender reassignment certificate. It requires medical intervention and certification. This, in turn, requires males who wish to be female (the other way around doesn't seem to cause the same problems) to have been undergoing a medical course of treatment which will normally involve large quantities of medication which will encourage the recipient to grow breasts and become sterile if not actual surgery. The risk to women of these people sharing their spaces is accordingly mitigated.

    The Scottish bill sweeps all of these safeguards away and effectively allows self certification. This means that there is a loophole created which predatory men can exploit. Of course most men who want to reassign their sex are harmless and decent people with a difficult enough life but the loophole exists and it has been shown that men will seek to go through it.

    @Cyclefree is right to highlight the judgement by Lady Dorrian in the Inner House (effectively our Court of Appeal). This set out in clear terms what the law is in relation to those who hold a certificate. The safeguards in the 2004 Act in respect of the issuing of a certificate are therefore key.

    Whether this clear and obvious error by the SNP/Green government justifies interference by the UK government is a subtly different and more complicated question of some constitutional interest. There are complicated cross boarder implications about the recognition of a Scottish certificate that might give them an interest but it may be that the answer to this would be to legislate in the rest of the UK that a Scottish certificate does not require to be recognised rather than stopping legislation by the Scottish Parliament. That question, rather than the implications for women, will be at the heart of Lady Haldane's judgment and any subsequent appeals.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,147
    edited December 2023

    nico679 said:

    Chris said:

    The great thing about having someone hyper-rich as prime minister is that his conceptions are on a much grander scale than most people's.

    But Sunak thinks nothing of spending a quarter of a billion pounds of public money on a fantasy scheme that now has the sole aim of saving his career.

    Sunak needs the flights to take off just before the election. A big gap is dangerous if the boats keep coming. The sensible thing to do was to have dropped the policy when he came in , that was his window of opportunity but then of course he’d made a deal with Braverman.

    There is a Terrible Danger. The flights may well be loaded. And then held on the ground as person after person is pulled off under legal challenge. And then the flight lands in Rwanda and is turned back because we have broken our agreement with the Rwandans.

    I rewatched that presser yesterday. Sunak rightly points out that there is no point having a law which the Rwandans won't agree to. But the bill already crosses that line on page 1. He says that the "new treaty" makes things possible that were not before; Not so says the Rwandan minister who co-signed.

    Sunak is trying to claim credit for fewer boats crossing. But he pledged - check the lectern - to Stop the Boats. Not reduce them. And he can't stop them. The audience he is pitching to don't care if the numbers have slowed - they want them to STOP. And then the foreigners to be sent away. Its impossible to satisfy them.
    It's much worse.

    Rishi Sunak was told by lawyers that his emergency Rwanda scheme will be ­“seriously impeded” from working because it “provides an easy way” for migrants to avoid deportation.

    The prime minister insisted on Thursday that his new law aimed at reviving the policy was the only approach that would prevent further legal challenges scuppering flights. He said he was ­confident that flights would take off before the general election and pledged to “finish the job”.

    However, The Times has been told that Downing Street was warned by two senior lawyers that the scheme risked failure because it would continue to ­allow migrants to lodge challenges against their individual removal to Rwanda. Legal advice from a senior government lawyer said “the scheme would be seriously impeded” if the bill did not include a so-called ­“ouster clause” that barred individual legal challenges.

    Separate external legal counsel that was sought by the government warned that the failure to bar individual challenges “is inconsistent with the intellectual underpinning of the bill and also would provide an easy way for many applicants to avoid the effects of the bill”....

    ...The Safety of Rwanda Bill, presented to parliament on Thursday, will bar ­systematic challenges being brought against the policy by instructing immigration officers, courts and tribunals to treat Rwanda as a “conclusively safe country”. However, clause four of the bill is seen by critics of the legislation as a weakness because it says that people can make claims if there is “compelling evidence relating specifically to a ­person’s individual circumstances”.

    A senior Conservative MP and lawyer said that this would leave the courts “inundated” with legal claims from ­migrants helped by immigration lawyers who would “come up with a whole range of innovative reasons why Rwanda is unsafe for a particular individual”.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/rwanda-bill-plan-rishi-sunak-asylum-seekers-2vmxm5vvx
  • Interesting article. I wasn’t aware of the position of voluntary organisations. It seems to me that they also should be able to avail themselves of the “proportionate means for legitimate exclusion.”

    I tend not to comment on this topic, because I am not Scottish or female or trans. But it has always struck me that eliding sex with gender is the root of all chaos here. Gender is fluid through time and location. What it means to be a man or a woman changes. However, sex although not completely binary mostly is.

    Overall in most cases, I think if we were a bit clearer on what should be exclusive on the basis of sex and what should be exclusive on the basis of gender we may get some sense. For the most part I don’t see why there should be many gender-based exclusions - and I am sure many agree with that. However, clearly where there are risks - support groups for female survivors of rape and abuse - it makes sense to sex exclusion. Same with most sports (whether contact based or otherwise) - if you’ve been through a male puberty it is daft to put females against you.

    However, in protecting females in prison and what not, we should not lose sight of trans victims of violence and rape. I read an article in the LRB that suggested that trans women in male prisons can also be victims of horrific levels of violence and rape. Apparently the same to can be said in society in genreral.

    So like most issues it’s complicated and there is an element of risk to manage to protect folk. Of course that doesn’t help for arguments on the internets.
  • I have some bad news for Evertonians.

    The federal prosecutor who won a conviction against Sam Bankman-Fried is overseeing a Justice Department investigation into sports buyer 777 Partners, whose entanglement with U.S. investors has raised questions about its already murky finances.

    Nicolas Roos is part of a DOJ team probing whether 777 violated U.S. money-laundering laws, among other infractions, in its quick rise from an unknown investor in lump-sum legal settlements to an owner of sports teams around the world, people familiar with the matter said.

    The Southern District of New York, where major financial-fraud cases tend to land, is discussing a joint investigation with law enforcement in Miami, where 777 is based, some of the people said. SDNY declined to comment. A spokeswoman for Florida prosecutors didn’t return a request for comment.


    https://www.semafor.com/article/11/30/2023/feds-probe-sports-investor-777-over-money-flows

    and

    777 Partners could cut off Everton support if takeover drags on

    Prospective buyers have indicated they are not prepared to continue supporting club with £100m-plus loans unless deal to buy is completed within next seven weeks


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/777-partners-could-walk-away-from-everton-deal-if-delays-continue-pbgvw9v0m
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 24,917

    nico679 said:

    Chris said:

    The great thing about having someone hyper-rich as prime minister is that his conceptions are on a much grander scale than most people's.

    But Sunak thinks nothing of spending a quarter of a billion pounds of public money on a fantasy scheme that now has the sole aim of saving his career.

    Sunak needs the flights to take off just before the election. A big gap is dangerous if the boats keep coming. The sensible thing to do was to have dropped the policy when he came in , that was his window of opportunity but then of course he’d made a deal with Braverman.

    There is a Terrible Danger. The flights may well be loaded. And then held on the ground as person after person is pulled off under legal challenge. And then the flight lands in Rwanda and is turned back because we have broken our agreement with the Rwandans.

    I rewatched that presser yesterday. Sunak rightly points out that there is no point having a law which the Rwandans won't agree to. But the bill already crosses that line on page 1. He says that the "new treaty" makes things possible that were not before; Not so says the Rwandan minister who co-signed.

    Sunak is trying to claim credit for fewer boats crossing. But he pledged - check the lectern - to Stop the Boats. Not reduce them. And he can't stop them. The audience he is pitching to don't care if the numbers have slowed - they want them to STOP. And then the foreigners to be sent away. Its impossible to satisfy them.
    The weather has played no small part in reducing the boats by 30%. For the majority of the year the Channel has been choppy to say the least.

    At least give Sunak credit for facilitating inclement weather to prevent as many crossings as last year.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,147
    edited December 2023
    Sort of on topic, brutal.

    I fear the next general election is going for brutal for politicians on Twitter.

    The Tories were community noted to oblivion after the Autumn Statement.

    My boy Dave was right about Twitter.


  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,164
    Leon said:

    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    The Tik Tok Generation?

    "In this The Economist/YouGov poll from December 2-5, 20% of young adults slightly (12%) or strongly (8%) agreed with the statement "the Holocaust is a myth".

    That's one-fifth Holocaust deniers."


    https://x.com/cremieuxrecueil/status/1732995380919271638?s=20

    Another THIRTY percent of young people neither agree nor disagree that "the Holocaust is a myth"

    Which should give pause to those who think 18-29 year olds are more “enlightened” than older age cohorts.

    We have enabled a Terrible Stupidity
    You could try setting a better example yourself, to be fair.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,455

    Leon said:

    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    The Tik Tok Generation?

    "In this The Economist/YouGov poll from December 2-5, 20% of young adults slightly (12%) or strongly (8%) agreed with the statement "the Holocaust is a myth".

    That's one-fifth Holocaust deniers."


    https://x.com/cremieuxrecueil/status/1732995380919271638?s=20

    Another THIRTY percent of young people neither agree nor disagree that "the Holocaust is a myth"

    Which should give pause to those who think 18-29 year olds are more “enlightened” than older age cohorts.

    We have enabled a Terrible Stupidity
    I am going to agree with you on this point (and set aside the interminable rantings about whatever "woke" is this week).

    I keep saying that the Tories have weaponised ignorance and stupidity. Ignorance is not an insult - we are all ignorant on a huge number of subjects we are aware of but have no idea how something works or why. That is why we go to see a doctor or a mechanic - because we are ignorant. Stupidity isn't new either - plenty of people are dumb. But most normal people knew the things they didn't know.

    The new phenomena is "we've had enough of experts". Of my ignorant opinion somehow having equal (or higher) worth than expertise or facts. The right exploit this for votes - keep them ignorant and angry and they will vote for you.

    Social media? A phenomenon. My bit of social media only does EVs and Tesla specifically. The number of times the same untruth is typed - or sometimes just pasted - is astonishing. The poster could find out the truth in 2 seconds. But does not. They know their truth and it has been cut up and fed to them to reinforce their ignorance.

    No idea how we combat this. But the ignorance isn't "woke". Its been weaponised by the people who are against "woke".
    Eventually, you will understand why Wokeness is pivotal, and you will agree with me

    It will take you about 3 years, is my highly educated guess

    People much brighter than you - eg Sam Altman of openAI (see below) - are nearly there already; people much stupider than you - sadly, an awful lot of people - will likely NEVER get there. Which is quite chilling
  • nico679 said:

    Chris said:

    The great thing about having someone hyper-rich as prime minister is that his conceptions are on a much grander scale than most people's.

    But Sunak thinks nothing of spending a quarter of a billion pounds of public money on a fantasy scheme that now has the sole aim of saving his career.

    Sunak needs the flights to take off just before the election. A big gap is dangerous if the boats keep coming. The sensible thing to do was to have dropped the policy when he came in , that was his window of opportunity but then of course he’d made a deal with Braverman.

    There is a Terrible Danger. The flights may well be loaded. And then held on the ground as person after person is pulled off under legal challenge. And then the flight lands in Rwanda and is turned back because we have broken our agreement with the Rwandans.

    I rewatched that presser yesterday. Sunak rightly points out that there is no point having a law which the Rwandans won't agree to. But the bill already crosses that line on page 1. He says that the "new treaty" makes things possible that were not before; Not so says the Rwandan minister who co-signed.

    Sunak is trying to claim credit for fewer boats crossing. But he pledged - check the lectern - to Stop the Boats. Not reduce them. And he can't stop them. The audience he is pitching to don't care if the numbers have slowed - they want them to STOP. And then the foreigners to be sent away. Its impossible to satisfy them.
    It's much worse.

    Rishi Sunak was told by lawyers that his emergency Rwanda scheme will be ­“seriously impeded” from working because it “provides an easy way” for migrants to avoid deportation.

    The prime minister insisted on Thursday that his new law aimed at reviving the policy was the only approach that would prevent further legal challenges scuppering flights. He said he was ­confident that flights would take off before the general election and pledged to “finish the job”.

    However, The Times has been told that Downing Street was warned by two senior lawyers that the scheme risked failure because it would continue to ­allow migrants to lodge challenges against their individual removal to Rwanda. Legal advice from a senior government lawyer said “the scheme would be seriously impeded” if the bill did not include a so-called ­“ouster clause” that barred individual legal challenges.

    Separate external legal counsel that was sought by the government warned that the failure to bar individual challenges “is inconsistent with the intellectual underpinning of the bill and also would provide an easy way for many applicants to avoid the effects of the bill”....

    ...The Safety of Rwanda Bill, presented to parliament on Thursday, will bar ­systematic challenges being brought against the policy by instructing immigration officers, courts and tribunals to treat Rwanda as a “conclusively safe country”. However, clause four of the bill is seen by critics of the legislation as a weakness because it says that people can make claims if there is “compelling evidence relating specifically to a ­person’s individual circumstances”.

    A senior Conservative MP and lawyer said that this would leave the courts “inundated” with legal claims from ­migrants helped by immigration lawyers who would “come up with a whole range of innovative reasons why Rwanda is unsafe for a particular individual”.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/rwanda-bill-plan-rishi-sunak-asylum-seekers-2vmxm5vvx
    It's difficult, dangerous and not very British to want to make a window into a man's soul, but I do.wonder what Rishi, James and the rest of them really think of the Rwanda plan in general and this iteration of it in particular.

    How much do they view it as a genuine plan to eliminate irregular migration? How much is it a calculated political game, where the fight is the point? How much do they think it's madness, but they are so afraid of Team Suella that they dare not call it out?
  • The Athletic have an article about lawyers being awesome and increasingly influential in soccer.

    Inside the world of football’s high-power, high-price lawyers: ‘I’ve got a KC, who have you got?’

    https://theathletic.com/5116611/2023/12/08/football-lawyers-manchester-city-everton/

    Lord Grabiner KC is up there with Klopp for the reason why Liverpool have been so awesome in the last decade.
  • nico679 said:

    Chris said:

    The great thing about having someone hyper-rich as prime minister is that his conceptions are on a much grander scale than most people's.

    But Sunak thinks nothing of spending a quarter of a billion pounds of public money on a fantasy scheme that now has the sole aim of saving his career.

    Sunak needs the flights to take off just before the election. A big gap is dangerous if the boats keep coming. The sensible thing to do was to have dropped the policy when he came in , that was his window of opportunity but then of course he’d made a deal with Braverman.

    There is a Terrible Danger. The flights may well be loaded. And then held on the ground as person after person is pulled off under legal challenge. And then the flight lands in Rwanda and is turned back because we have broken our agreement with the Rwandans.

    I rewatched that presser yesterday. Sunak rightly points out that there is no point having a law which the Rwandans won't agree to. But the bill already crosses that line on page 1. He says that the "new treaty" makes things possible that were not before; Not so says the Rwandan minister who co-signed.

    Sunak is trying to claim credit for fewer boats crossing. But he pledged - check the lectern - to Stop the Boats. Not reduce them. And he can't stop them. The audience he is pitching to don't care if the numbers have slowed - they want them to STOP. And then the foreigners to be sent away. Its impossible to satisfy them.
    It's much worse.

    Rishi Sunak was told by lawyers that his emergency Rwanda scheme will be ­“seriously impeded” from working because it “provides an easy way” for migrants to avoid deportation.

    The prime minister insisted on Thursday that his new law aimed at reviving the policy was the only approach that would prevent further legal challenges scuppering flights. He said he was ­confident that flights would take off before the general election and pledged to “finish the job”.

    However, The Times has been told that Downing Street was warned by two senior lawyers that the scheme risked failure because it would continue to ­allow migrants to lodge challenges against their individual removal to Rwanda. Legal advice from a senior government lawyer said “the scheme would be seriously impeded” if the bill did not include a so-called ­“ouster clause” that barred individual legal challenges.

    Separate external legal counsel that was sought by the government warned that the failure to bar individual challenges “is inconsistent with the intellectual underpinning of the bill and also would provide an easy way for many applicants to avoid the effects of the bill”....

    ...The Safety of Rwanda Bill, presented to parliament on Thursday, will bar ­systematic challenges being brought against the policy by instructing immigration officers, courts and tribunals to treat Rwanda as a “conclusively safe country”. However, clause four of the bill is seen by critics of the legislation as a weakness because it says that people can make claims if there is “compelling evidence relating specifically to a ­person’s individual circumstances”.

    A senior Conservative MP and lawyer said that this would leave the courts “inundated” with legal claims from ­migrants helped by immigration lawyers who would “come up with a whole range of innovative reasons why Rwanda is unsafe for a particular individual”.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/rwanda-bill-plan-rishi-sunak-asylum-seekers-2vmxm5vvx
    The fascinating thing about PMQs was the way that Sunak tore the bill apart line by line. "Have you read it?" he kept asking Sunak. Clearly they haven't - Sunak knows the spin lines but not the detail which rather show up the spin lines as ignorant lies.

    As an "have you read it" practitioner I make Good Money from reading such documents and pulling out details that others have missed. So bravo Starmer.

    Then we turn back to the Tories and their PB shills. "We have a plan, what is Labour's plan." They do not have a plan. What they claim to be a plan is unworkable. Laughable. Have they read their "plan". Have they *understood* it? This is crayon politics , sketched by idiots to placate morons.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 9,309

    nico679 said:

    Chris said:

    The great thing about having someone hyper-rich as prime minister is that his conceptions are on a much grander scale than most people's.

    But Sunak thinks nothing of spending a quarter of a billion pounds of public money on a fantasy scheme that now has the sole aim of saving his career.

    Sunak needs the flights to take off just before the election. A big gap is dangerous if the boats keep coming. The sensible thing to do was to have dropped the policy when he came in , that was his window of opportunity but then of course he’d made a deal with Braverman.

    There is a Terrible Danger. The flights may well be loaded. And then held on the ground as person after person is pulled off under legal challenge. And then the flight lands in Rwanda and is turned back because we have broken our agreement with the Rwandans.

    I rewatched that presser yesterday. Sunak rightly points out that there is no point having a law which the Rwandans won't agree to. But the bill already crosses that line on page 1. He says that the "new treaty" makes things possible that were not before; Not so says the Rwandan minister who co-signed.

    Sunak is trying to claim credit for fewer boats crossing. But he pledged - check the lectern - to Stop the Boats. Not reduce them. And he can't stop them. The audience he is pitching to don't care if the numbers have slowed - they want them to STOP. And then the foreigners to be sent away. Its impossible to satisfy them.
    The weather has played no small part in reducing the boats by 30%. For the majority of the year the Channel has been choppy to say the least.

    At least give Sunak credit for facilitating inclement weather to prevent as many crossings as last year.
    Easy fix to the boats which would end them overnight: remove the security fence around the channel tunnel.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,455
    edited December 2023
    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    The Tik Tok Generation?

    "In this The Economist/YouGov poll from December 2-5, 20% of young adults slightly (12%) or strongly (8%) agreed with the statement "the Holocaust is a myth".

    That's one-fifth Holocaust deniers."


    https://x.com/cremieuxrecueil/status/1732995380919271638?s=20

    Another THIRTY percent of young people neither agree nor disagree that "the Holocaust is a myth"

    Which should give pause to those who think 18-29 year olds are more “enlightened” than older age cohorts.

    We have enabled a Terrible Stupidity
    I am going to agree with you on this point (and set aside the interminable rantings about whatever "woke" is this week).

    I keep saying that the Tories have weaponised ignorance and stupidity. Ignorance is not an insult - we are all ignorant on a huge number of subjects we are aware of but have no idea how something works or why. That is why we go to see a doctor or a mechanic - because we are ignorant. Stupidity isn't new either - plenty of people are dumb. But most normal people knew the things they didn't know.

    The new phenomena is "we've had enough of experts". Of my ignorant opinion somehow having equal (or higher) worth than expertise or facts. The right exploit this for votes - keep them ignorant and angry and they will vote for you.

    Social media? A phenomenon. My bit of social media only does EVs and Tesla specifically. The number of times the same untruth is typed - or sometimes just pasted - is astonishing. The poster could find out the truth in 2 seconds. But does not. They know their truth and it has been cut up and fed to them to reinforce their ignorance.

    No idea how we combat this. But the ignorance isn't "woke". Its been weaponised by the people who are against "woke".
    Stupidity, I think, is the predominant human characteristic. It’s a wonder we ever moved out of caves.

    The problem with trusting “experts” is that they, too, are often stupid. A person can have immense technical knowledge, but combine it with appalling judgement and poor ethics (a common combination).

    Experts have brought us the Great Financial Crash and one scandal after another. So is it any wonder that people stop trusting them?
    Some smart people made unbelievably dumb comments during Brexit

    Many of them, sadly, were Leavers. "The easiest deal in history". "We hold all the cards"

    I'm a Leaver, but I knew this was fatuous drivel. Leaving was bound to be seriously painful (it's one main reason I nearly voted Remain). The EU was in a much more powerful position, it was highly motivated to make Brexit painful (pour decourager les autres), Article 50 was designed to be damaging for anyone foolish enough to quit

    It was quite sobering, watching these supposedly intelligent people trot out infantile nonsense

    Remainers did it too, of course, but their worst stupidities came after the result - eg trying to annull the referendum
  • Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    The Tik Tok Generation?

    "In this The Economist/YouGov poll from December 2-5, 20% of young adults slightly (12%) or strongly (8%) agreed with the statement "the Holocaust is a myth".

    That's one-fifth Holocaust deniers."


    https://x.com/cremieuxrecueil/status/1732995380919271638?s=20

    Another THIRTY percent of young people neither agree nor disagree that "the Holocaust is a myth"

    Which should give pause to those who think 18-29 year olds are more “enlightened” than older age cohorts.

    We have enabled a Terrible Stupidity
    I am going to agree with you on this point (and set aside the interminable rantings about whatever "woke" is this week).

    I keep saying that the Tories have weaponised ignorance and stupidity. Ignorance is not an insult - we are all ignorant on a huge number of subjects we are aware of but have no idea how something works or why. That is why we go to see a doctor or a mechanic - because we are ignorant. Stupidity isn't new either - plenty of people are dumb. But most normal people knew the things they didn't know.

    The new phenomena is "we've had enough of experts". Of my ignorant opinion somehow having equal (or higher) worth than expertise or facts. The right exploit this for votes - keep them ignorant and angry and they will vote for you.

    Social media? A phenomenon. My bit of social media only does EVs and Tesla specifically. The number of times the same untruth is typed - or sometimes just pasted - is astonishing. The poster could find out the truth in 2 seconds. But does not. They know their truth and it has been cut up and fed to them to reinforce their ignorance.

    No idea how we combat this. But the ignorance isn't "woke". Its been weaponised by the people who are against "woke".
    Eventually, you will understand why Wokeness is pivotal, and you will agree with me

    It will take you about 3 years, is my highly educated guess

    People much brighter than you - eg Sam Altman of openAI (see below) - are nearly there already; people much stupider than you - sadly, an awful lot of people - will likely NEVER get there. Which is quite chilling
    I still have not found a clear definition of "woke". It changes and adapts and shifts dependent on whatever the moral crisis is that the person shouting "woke" is unhappy about. This week its anti-semitism apparently.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,455

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    The Tik Tok Generation?

    "In this The Economist/YouGov poll from December 2-5, 20% of young adults slightly (12%) or strongly (8%) agreed with the statement "the Holocaust is a myth".

    That's one-fifth Holocaust deniers."


    https://x.com/cremieuxrecueil/status/1732995380919271638?s=20

    Another THIRTY percent of young people neither agree nor disagree that "the Holocaust is a myth"

    Which should give pause to those who think 18-29 year olds are more “enlightened” than older age cohorts.

    We have enabled a Terrible Stupidity
    I am going to agree with you on this point (and set aside the interminable rantings about whatever "woke" is this week).

    I keep saying that the Tories have weaponised ignorance and stupidity. Ignorance is not an insult - we are all ignorant on a huge number of subjects we are aware of but have no idea how something works or why. That is why we go to see a doctor or a mechanic - because we are ignorant. Stupidity isn't new either - plenty of people are dumb. But most normal people knew the things they didn't know.

    The new phenomena is "we've had enough of experts". Of my ignorant opinion somehow having equal (or higher) worth than expertise or facts. The right exploit this for votes - keep them ignorant and angry and they will vote for you.

    Social media? A phenomenon. My bit of social media only does EVs and Tesla specifically. The number of times the same untruth is typed - or sometimes just pasted - is astonishing. The poster could find out the truth in 2 seconds. But does not. They know their truth and it has been cut up and fed to them to reinforce their ignorance.

    No idea how we combat this. But the ignorance isn't "woke". Its been weaponised by the people who are against "woke".
    Eventually, you will understand why Wokeness is pivotal, and you will agree with me

    It will take you about 3 years, is my highly educated guess

    People much brighter than you - eg Sam Altman of openAI (see below) - are nearly there already; people much stupider than you - sadly, an awful lot of people - will likely NEVER get there. Which is quite chilling
    I still have not found a clear definition of "woke". It changes and adapts and shifts dependent on whatever the moral crisis is that the person shouting "woke" is unhappy about. This week its anti-semitism apparently.
    QED. 3 years. Maybe 4
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,041
    Chris said:

    The great thing about having someone hyper-rich as prime minister is that his conceptions are on a much grander scale than most people's.

    But Sunak thinks nothing of spending a quarter of a billion pounds of public money on a fantasy scheme that now has the sole aim of saving his career.

    What difference might £250m have made to the faster and more effective processing of asylum claims ?
    And what resulting savings from cutting the numbers effectively detained in asylum hotels etc ?

    That is a policy which might more than fund itself - especially if you factor in the economic activity of those whose claims are then accepted, who are currently existing in state funded, and state enforced idleness.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,772
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    The Tik Tok Generation?

    "In this The Economist/YouGov poll from December 2-5, 20% of young adults slightly (12%) or strongly (8%) agreed with the statement "the Holocaust is a myth".

    That's one-fifth Holocaust deniers."


    https://x.com/cremieuxrecueil/status/1732995380919271638?s=20

    Another THIRTY percent of young people neither agree nor disagree that "the Holocaust is a myth"

    Which should give pause to those who think 18-29 year olds are more “enlightened” than older age cohorts.

    We have enabled a Terrible Stupidity
    I am going to agree with you on this point (and set aside the interminable rantings about whatever "woke" is this week).

    I keep saying that the Tories have weaponised ignorance and stupidity. Ignorance is not an insult - we are all ignorant on a huge number of subjects we are aware of but have no idea how something works or why. That is why we go to see a doctor or a mechanic - because we are ignorant. Stupidity isn't new either - plenty of people are dumb. But most normal people knew the things they didn't know.

    The new phenomena is "we've had enough of experts". Of my ignorant opinion somehow having equal (or higher) worth than expertise or facts. The right exploit this for votes - keep them ignorant and angry and they will vote for you.

    Social media? A phenomenon. My bit of social media only does EVs and Tesla specifically. The number of times the same untruth is typed - or sometimes just pasted - is astonishing. The poster could find out the truth in 2 seconds. But does not. They know their truth and it has been cut up and fed to them to reinforce their ignorance.

    No idea how we combat this. But the ignorance isn't "woke". Its been weaponised by the people who are against "woke".
    Eventually, you will understand why Wokeness is pivotal, and you will agree with me

    It will take you about 3 years, is my highly educated guess

    People much brighter than you - eg Sam Altman of openAI (see below) - are nearly there already; people much stupider than you - sadly, an awful lot of people - will likely NEVER get there. Which is quite chilling
    In other words, your 'argument' is that you are so bright that you know the 'truth'; and other less-bright people might eventually learn the 'truth'; whereby anyone who never agrees with you is jus as dumb as f***. Whilst you also add a false appeal to authority?

    Or alternatively, you are dumb, and wrong? But you are too dumb to realise that you are wrong? And you are so wrong that you need false appeals to authority to convince yourself you are right?

    :)
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,455
    edited December 2023

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    The Tik Tok Generation?

    "In this The Economist/YouGov poll from December 2-5, 20% of young adults slightly (12%) or strongly (8%) agreed with the statement "the Holocaust is a myth".

    That's one-fifth Holocaust deniers."


    https://x.com/cremieuxrecueil/status/1732995380919271638?s=20

    Another THIRTY percent of young people neither agree nor disagree that "the Holocaust is a myth"

    Which should give pause to those who think 18-29 year olds are more “enlightened” than older age cohorts.

    We have enabled a Terrible Stupidity
    I am going to agree with you on this point (and set aside the interminable rantings about whatever "woke" is this week).

    I keep saying that the Tories have weaponised ignorance and stupidity. Ignorance is not an insult - we are all ignorant on a huge number of subjects we are aware of but have no idea how something works or why. That is why we go to see a doctor or a mechanic - because we are ignorant. Stupidity isn't new either - plenty of people are dumb. But most normal people knew the things they didn't know.

    The new phenomena is "we've had enough of experts". Of my ignorant opinion somehow having equal (or higher) worth than expertise or facts. The right exploit this for votes - keep them ignorant and angry and they will vote for you.

    Social media? A phenomenon. My bit of social media only does EVs and Tesla specifically. The number of times the same untruth is typed - or sometimes just pasted - is astonishing. The poster could find out the truth in 2 seconds. But does not. They know their truth and it has been cut up and fed to them to reinforce their ignorance.

    No idea how we combat this. But the ignorance isn't "woke". Its been weaponised by the people who are against "woke".
    Eventually, you will understand why Wokeness is pivotal, and you will agree with me

    It will take you about 3 years, is my highly educated guess

    People much brighter than you - eg Sam Altman of openAI (see below) - are nearly there already; people much stupider than you - sadly, an awful lot of people - will likely NEVER get there. Which is quite chilling
    I still have not found a clear definition of "woke". It changes and adapts and shifts dependent on whatever the moral crisis is that the person shouting "woke" is unhappy about. This week its anti-semitism apparently.
    QED. 3 years. Maybe 4
    I've seen the nonsense you posted last night about the Baltics, I've upgraded you from a fucking appeaser to Putin's catamite.
    Yes, that was clearly a joke: the reference to eastern Europe being mainly full of "hopping chickens" was a tiny tiny clue
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,455

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    The Tik Tok Generation?

    "In this The Economist/YouGov poll from December 2-5, 20% of young adults slightly (12%) or strongly (8%) agreed with the statement "the Holocaust is a myth".

    That's one-fifth Holocaust deniers."


    https://x.com/cremieuxrecueil/status/1732995380919271638?s=20

    Another THIRTY percent of young people neither agree nor disagree that "the Holocaust is a myth"

    Which should give pause to those who think 18-29 year olds are more “enlightened” than older age cohorts.

    We have enabled a Terrible Stupidity
    I am going to agree with you on this point (and set aside the interminable rantings about whatever "woke" is this week).

    I keep saying that the Tories have weaponised ignorance and stupidity. Ignorance is not an insult - we are all ignorant on a huge number of subjects we are aware of but have no idea how something works or why. That is why we go to see a doctor or a mechanic - because we are ignorant. Stupidity isn't new either - plenty of people are dumb. But most normal people knew the things they didn't know.

    The new phenomena is "we've had enough of experts". Of my ignorant opinion somehow having equal (or higher) worth than expertise or facts. The right exploit this for votes - keep them ignorant and angry and they will vote for you.

    Social media? A phenomenon. My bit of social media only does EVs and Tesla specifically. The number of times the same untruth is typed - or sometimes just pasted - is astonishing. The poster could find out the truth in 2 seconds. But does not. They know their truth and it has been cut up and fed to them to reinforce their ignorance.

    No idea how we combat this. But the ignorance isn't "woke". Its been weaponised by the people who are against "woke".
    Eventually, you will understand why Wokeness is pivotal, and you will agree with me

    It will take you about 3 years, is my highly educated guess

    People much brighter than you - eg Sam Altman of openAI (see below) - are nearly there already; people much stupider than you - sadly, an awful lot of people - will likely NEVER get there. Which is quite chilling
    In other words, your 'argument' is that you are so bright that you know the 'truth'; and other less-bright people might eventually learn the 'truth'; whereby anyone who never agrees with you is jus as dumb as f***. Whilst you also add a false appeal to authority?

    Or alternatively, you are dumb, and wrong? But you are too dumb to realise that you are wrong? And you are so wrong that you need false appeals to authority to convince yourself you are right?

    :)

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    The Tik Tok Generation?

    "In this The Economist/YouGov poll from December 2-5, 20% of young adults slightly (12%) or strongly (8%) agreed with the statement "the Holocaust is a myth".

    That's one-fifth Holocaust deniers."


    https://x.com/cremieuxrecueil/status/1732995380919271638?s=20

    Another THIRTY percent of young people neither agree nor disagree that "the Holocaust is a myth"

    Which should give pause to those who think 18-29 year olds are more “enlightened” than older age cohorts.

    We have enabled a Terrible Stupidity
    I am going to agree with you on this point (and set aside the interminable rantings about whatever "woke" is this week).

    I keep saying that the Tories have weaponised ignorance and stupidity. Ignorance is not an insult - we are all ignorant on a huge number of subjects we are aware of but have no idea how something works or why. That is why we go to see a doctor or a mechanic - because we are ignorant. Stupidity isn't new either - plenty of people are dumb. But most normal people knew the things they didn't know.

    The new phenomena is "we've had enough of experts". Of my ignorant opinion somehow having equal (or higher) worth than expertise or facts. The right exploit this for votes - keep them ignorant and angry and they will vote for you.

    Social media? A phenomenon. My bit of social media only does EVs and Tesla specifically. The number of times the same untruth is typed - or sometimes just pasted - is astonishing. The poster could find out the truth in 2 seconds. But does not. They know their truth and it has been cut up and fed to them to reinforce their ignorance.

    No idea how we combat this. But the ignorance isn't "woke". Its been weaponised by the people who are against "woke".
    Eventually, you will understand why Wokeness is pivotal, and you will agree with me

    It will take you about 3 years, is my highly educated guess

    People much brighter than you - eg Sam Altman of openAI (see below) - are nearly there already; people much stupider than you - sadly, an awful lot of people - will likely NEVER get there. Which is quite chilling
    In other words, your 'argument' is that you are so bright that you know the 'truth'; and other less-bright people might eventually learn the 'truth'; whereby anyone who never agrees with you is jus as dumb as f***. Whilst you also add a false appeal to authority?

    Or alternatively, you are dumb, and wrong? But you are too dumb to realise that you are wrong? And you are so wrong that you need false appeals to authority to convince yourself you are right?

    :)
    Yes, that could be true, except it isn't

    I'm right
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,136
    DavidL said:

    On topic a very good summary from @Cyclefree. The key point of the 2004 Act is that it was very difficult to get a a gender reassignment certificate. It requires medical intervention and certification. This, in turn, requires males who wish to be female (the other way around doesn't seem to cause the same problems) to have been undergoing a medical course of treatment which will normally involve large quantities of medication which will encourage the recipient to grow breasts and become sterile if not actual surgery. The risk to women of these people sharing their spaces is accordingly mitigated.

    The Scottish bill sweeps all of these safeguards away and effectively allows self certification. This means that there is a loophole created which predatory men can exploit. Of course most men who want to reassign their sex are harmless and decent people with a difficult enough life but the loophole exists and it has been shown that men will seek to go through it.

    @Cyclefree is right to highlight the judgement by Lady Dorrian in the Inner House (effectively our Court of Appeal). This set out in clear terms what the law is in relation to those who hold a certificate. The safeguards in the 2004 Act in respect of the issuing of a certificate are therefore key.

    Whether this clear and obvious error by the SNP/Green government justifies interference by the UK government is a subtly different and more complicated question of some constitutional interest. There are complicated cross boarder implications about the recognition of a Scottish certificate that might give them an interest but it may be that the answer to this would be to legislate in the rest of the UK that a Scottish certificate does not require to be recognised rather than stopping legislation by the Scottish Parliament. That question, rather than the implications for women, will be at the heart of Lady Haldane's judgment and any subsequent appeals.

    One small point of correction. The 2004 Act requires a diagnosis of gender dysphoria to get a GRC but it does NOT require men to undergo medical treatment. So the risk to women is not really mitigated. A man who has gone through puberty is still stronger than a woman and his propensity for violence is not removed simply because he has such a diagnosis.

    On the non-recognition of Scottish certificates, I am unsure as to how this could be done in practice. Under the Gender Recognition Order statement - also debated this week - GRCs from other countries are only recognised here if they meet the same requirements as we have. Would Scotland be defined as a foreign country under this Order?

    Scotland's GRR Bill allows anyone born in Scotland to get a GRC regardless of where they live. So a Scottish born man living in London could get one then insist on accessing a woman only service. Someone like Andrew Miller, the trans butcher, recently convicted for the horrific assault of a young girl, could get one, and move to England. It is impractical and will likely increase the risk to women and the vulnerable not mitigate it.
  • nico679 said:

    Chris said:

    The great thing about having someone hyper-rich as prime minister is that his conceptions are on a much grander scale than most people's.

    But Sunak thinks nothing of spending a quarter of a billion pounds of public money on a fantasy scheme that now has the sole aim of saving his career.

    Sunak needs the flights to take off just before the election. A big gap is dangerous if the boats keep coming. The sensible thing to do was to have dropped the policy when he came in , that was his window of opportunity but then of course he’d made a deal with Braverman.

    There is a Terrible Danger. The flights may well be loaded. And then held on the ground as person after person is pulled off under legal challenge. And then the flight lands in Rwanda and is turned back because we have broken our agreement with the Rwandans.

    I rewatched that presser yesterday. Sunak rightly points out that there is no point having a law which the Rwandans won't agree to. But the bill already crosses that line on page 1. He says that the "new treaty" makes things possible that were not before; Not so says the Rwandan minister who co-signed.

    Sunak is trying to claim credit for fewer boats crossing. But he pledged - check the lectern - to Stop the Boats. Not reduce them. And he can't stop them. The audience he is pitching to don't care if the numbers have slowed - they want them to STOP. And then the foreigners to be sent away. Its impossible to satisfy them.
    It's much worse.

    Rishi Sunak was told by lawyers that his emergency Rwanda scheme will be ­“seriously impeded” from working because it “provides an easy way” for migrants to avoid deportation.

    The prime minister insisted on Thursday that his new law aimed at reviving the policy was the only approach that would prevent further legal challenges scuppering flights. He said he was ­confident that flights would take off before the general election and pledged to “finish the job”.

    However, The Times has been told that Downing Street was warned by two senior lawyers that the scheme risked failure because it would continue to ­allow migrants to lodge challenges against their individual removal to Rwanda. Legal advice from a senior government lawyer said “the scheme would be seriously impeded” if the bill did not include a so-called ­“ouster clause” that barred individual legal challenges.

    Separate external legal counsel that was sought by the government warned that the failure to bar individual challenges “is inconsistent with the intellectual underpinning of the bill and also would provide an easy way for many applicants to avoid the effects of the bill”....

    ...The Safety of Rwanda Bill, presented to parliament on Thursday, will bar ­systematic challenges being brought against the policy by instructing immigration officers, courts and tribunals to treat Rwanda as a “conclusively safe country”. However, clause four of the bill is seen by critics of the legislation as a weakness because it says that people can make claims if there is “compelling evidence relating specifically to a ­person’s individual circumstances”.

    A senior Conservative MP and lawyer said that this would leave the courts “inundated” with legal claims from ­migrants helped by immigration lawyers who would “come up with a whole range of innovative reasons why Rwanda is unsafe for a particular individual”.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/rwanda-bill-plan-rishi-sunak-asylum-seekers-2vmxm5vvx
    The fascinating thing about PMQs was the way that Sunak tore the bill apart line by line. "Have you read it?" he kept asking Sunak. Clearly they haven't - Sunak knows the spin lines but not the detail which rather show up the spin lines as ignorant lies.

    As an "have you read it" practitioner I make Good Money from reading such documents and pulling out details that others have missed. So bravo Starmer.

    Then we turn back to the Tories and their PB shills. "We have a plan, what is Labour's plan." They do not have a plan. What they claim to be a plan is unworkable. Laughable. Have they read their "plan". Have they *understood* it? This is crayon politics , sketched by idiots to placate morons.
    I'll say it again, Brexit and the referendum campaign with its focus on immigration, has radicalised the Tories.

    At some point Starmer or Farage is going to point out the Tories are focussed on a few thousand illegal migrants and not on the 1.5 million legal migration.
  • Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    The Tik Tok Generation?

    "In this The Economist/YouGov poll from December 2-5, 20% of young adults slightly (12%) or strongly (8%) agreed with the statement "the Holocaust is a myth".

    That's one-fifth Holocaust deniers."


    https://x.com/cremieuxrecueil/status/1732995380919271638?s=20

    Another THIRTY percent of young people neither agree nor disagree that "the Holocaust is a myth"

    Which should give pause to those who think 18-29 year olds are more “enlightened” than older age cohorts.

    We have enabled a Terrible Stupidity
    I am going to agree with you on this point (and set aside the interminable rantings about whatever "woke" is this week).

    I keep saying that the Tories have weaponised ignorance and stupidity. Ignorance is not an insult - we are all ignorant on a huge number of subjects we are aware of but have no idea how something works or why. That is why we go to see a doctor or a mechanic - because we are ignorant. Stupidity isn't new either - plenty of people are dumb. But most normal people knew the things they didn't know.

    The new phenomena is "we've had enough of experts". Of my ignorant opinion somehow having equal (or higher) worth than expertise or facts. The right exploit this for votes - keep them ignorant and angry and they will vote for you.

    Social media? A phenomenon. My bit of social media only does EVs and Tesla specifically. The number of times the same untruth is typed - or sometimes just pasted - is astonishing. The poster could find out the truth in 2 seconds. But does not. They know their truth and it has been cut up and fed to them to reinforce their ignorance.

    No idea how we combat this. But the ignorance isn't "woke". Its been weaponised by the people who are against "woke".
    Eventually, you will understand why Wokeness is pivotal, and you will agree with me

    It will take you about 3 years, is my highly educated guess

    People much brighter than you - eg Sam Altman of openAI (see below) - are nearly there already; people much stupider than you - sadly, an awful lot of people - will likely NEVER get there. Which is quite chilling
    I still have not found a clear definition of "woke". It changes and adapts and shifts dependent on whatever the moral crisis is that the person shouting "woke" is unhappy about. This week its anti-semitism apparently.
    QED. 3 years. Maybe 4
    What do you make of Donald Trump saying people who chanted 'Jews will not replace us' as very fine people?

    I wonder why you never spammed PB about that particular brand of antisemitism.
  • Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    The Tik Tok Generation?

    "In this The Economist/YouGov poll from December 2-5, 20% of young adults slightly (12%) or strongly (8%) agreed with the statement "the Holocaust is a myth".

    That's one-fifth Holocaust deniers."


    https://x.com/cremieuxrecueil/status/1732995380919271638?s=20

    Another THIRTY percent of young people neither agree nor disagree that "the Holocaust is a myth"

    Which should give pause to those who think 18-29 year olds are more “enlightened” than older age cohorts.

    We have enabled a Terrible Stupidity
    I am going to agree with you on this point (and set aside the interminable rantings about whatever "woke" is this week).

    I keep saying that the Tories have weaponised ignorance and stupidity. Ignorance is not an insult - we are all ignorant on a huge number of subjects we are aware of but have no idea how something works or why. That is why we go to see a doctor or a mechanic - because we are ignorant. Stupidity isn't new either - plenty of people are dumb. But most normal people knew the things they didn't know.

    The new phenomena is "we've had enough of experts". Of my ignorant opinion somehow having equal (or higher) worth than expertise or facts. The right exploit this for votes - keep them ignorant and angry and they will vote for you.

    Social media? A phenomenon. My bit of social media only does EVs and Tesla specifically. The number of times the same untruth is typed - or sometimes just pasted - is astonishing. The poster could find out the truth in 2 seconds. But does not. They know their truth and it has been cut up and fed to them to reinforce their ignorance.

    No idea how we combat this. But the ignorance isn't "woke". Its been weaponised by the people who are against "woke".
    Eventually, you will understand why Wokeness is pivotal, and you will agree with me

    It will take you about 3 years, is my highly educated guess

    People much brighter than you - eg Sam Altman of openAI (see below) - are nearly there already; people much stupider than you - sadly, an awful lot of people - will likely NEVER get there. Which is quite chilling
    In other words, your 'argument' is that you are so bright that you know the 'truth'; and other less-bright people might eventually learn the 'truth'; whereby anyone who never agrees with you is jus as dumb as f***. Whilst you also add a false appeal to authority?

    Or alternatively, you are dumb, and wrong? But you are too dumb to realise that you are wrong? And you are so wrong that you need false appeals to authority to convince yourself you are right?

    :)
    I think that "woke" is like scientology. Its so obvious to the smart, and to get smart to see the sop obvious thing you have to give us money. Instead of a church, the Prophets of Woke write articles for subscription publications like The Spectator.

    All I need to do is buy the Speccie and other similar publications, digest the works of Mr Thomas and others, and this obvious pivotal thing will eventually become clear.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,041
    edited December 2023
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    The Tik Tok Generation?

    "In this The Economist/YouGov poll from December 2-5, 20% of young adults slightly (12%) or strongly (8%) agreed with the statement "the Holocaust is a myth".

    That's one-fifth Holocaust deniers."


    https://x.com/cremieuxrecueil/status/1732995380919271638?s=20

    Another THIRTY percent of young people neither agree nor disagree that "the Holocaust is a myth"

    Which should give pause to those who think 18-29 year olds are more “enlightened” than older age cohorts.

    We have enabled a Terrible Stupidity
    I am going to agree with you on this point (and set aside the interminable rantings about whatever "woke" is this week).

    I keep saying that the Tories have weaponised ignorance and stupidity. Ignorance is not an insult - we are all ignorant on a huge number of subjects we are aware of but have no idea how something works or why. That is why we go to see a doctor or a mechanic - because we are ignorant. Stupidity isn't new either - plenty of people are dumb. But most normal people knew the things they didn't know.

    The new phenomena is "we've had enough of experts". Of my ignorant opinion somehow having equal (or higher) worth than expertise or facts. The right exploit this for votes - keep them ignorant and angry and they will vote for you.

    Social media? A phenomenon. My bit of social media only does EVs and Tesla specifically. The number of times the same untruth is typed - or sometimes just pasted - is astonishing. The poster could find out the truth in 2 seconds. But does not. They know their truth and it has been cut up and fed to them to reinforce their ignorance.

    No idea how we combat this. But the ignorance isn't "woke". Its been weaponised by the people who are against "woke".
    Eventually, you will understand why Wokeness is pivotal, and you will agree with me

    It will take you about 3 years, is my highly educated guess

    People much brighter than you - eg Sam Altman of openAI (see below) - are nearly there already; people much stupider than you - sadly, an awful lot of people - will likely NEVER get there. Which is quite chilling
    I don't accept you definition of woke - which is that of the right wing blob.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,865
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    The Tik Tok Generation?

    "In this The Economist/YouGov poll from December 2-5, 20% of young adults slightly (12%) or strongly (8%) agreed with the statement "the Holocaust is a myth".

    That's one-fifth Holocaust deniers."


    https://x.com/cremieuxrecueil/status/1732995380919271638?s=20

    Another THIRTY percent of young people neither agree nor disagree that "the Holocaust is a myth"

    Which should give pause to those who think 18-29 year olds are more “enlightened” than older age cohorts.

    We have enabled a Terrible Stupidity
    I am going to agree with you on this point (and set aside the interminable rantings about whatever "woke" is this week).

    I keep saying that the Tories have weaponised ignorance and stupidity. Ignorance is not an insult - we are all ignorant on a huge number of subjects we are aware of but have no idea how something works or why. That is why we go to see a doctor or a mechanic - because we are ignorant. Stupidity isn't new either - plenty of people are dumb. But most normal people knew the things they didn't know.

    The new phenomena is "we've had enough of experts". Of my ignorant opinion somehow having equal (or higher) worth than expertise or facts. The right exploit this for votes - keep them ignorant and angry and they will vote for you.

    Social media? A phenomenon. My bit of social media only does EVs and Tesla specifically. The number of times the same untruth is typed - or sometimes just pasted - is astonishing. The poster could find out the truth in 2 seconds. But does not. They know their truth and it has been cut up and fed to them to reinforce their ignorance.

    No idea how we combat this. But the ignorance isn't "woke". Its been weaponised by the people who are against "woke".
    Eventually, you will understand why Wokeness is pivotal, and you will agree with me

    It will take you about 3 years, is my highly educated guess

    People much brighter than you - eg Sam Altman of openAI (see below) - are nearly there already; people much stupider than you - sadly, an awful lot of people - will likely NEVER get there. Which is quite chilling
    I still have not found a clear definition of "woke". It changes and adapts and shifts dependent on whatever the moral crisis is that the person shouting "woke" is unhappy about. This week its anti-semitism apparently.
    QED. 3 years. Maybe 4
    I've seen the nonsense you posted last night about the Baltics, I've upgraded you from a fucking appeaser to Putin's catamite.
    Yes, that was clearly a joke: the reference to eastern Europe being mainly full of "hopping chickens" was a tiny tiny clue
    Good morning, one and all!
    And in one post, we see clearly the effect of the cold light of day on a thought from the previous, slightly fuddled, night.
  • Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    The Tik Tok Generation?

    "In this The Economist/YouGov poll from December 2-5, 20% of young adults slightly (12%) or strongly (8%) agreed with the statement "the Holocaust is a myth".

    That's one-fifth Holocaust deniers."


    https://x.com/cremieuxrecueil/status/1732995380919271638?s=20

    Another THIRTY percent of young people neither agree nor disagree that "the Holocaust is a myth"

    Which should give pause to those who think 18-29 year olds are more “enlightened” than older age cohorts.

    We have enabled a Terrible Stupidity
    I am going to agree with you on this point (and set aside the interminable rantings about whatever "woke" is this week).

    I keep saying that the Tories have weaponised ignorance and stupidity. Ignorance is not an insult - we are all ignorant on a huge number of subjects we are aware of but have no idea how something works or why. That is why we go to see a doctor or a mechanic - because we are ignorant. Stupidity isn't new either - plenty of people are dumb. But most normal people knew the things they didn't know.

    The new phenomena is "we've had enough of experts". Of my ignorant opinion somehow having equal (or higher) worth than expertise or facts. The right exploit this for votes - keep them ignorant and angry and they will vote for you.

    Social media? A phenomenon. My bit of social media only does EVs and Tesla specifically. The number of times the same untruth is typed - or sometimes just pasted - is astonishing. The poster could find out the truth in 2 seconds. But does not. They know their truth and it has been cut up and fed to them to reinforce their ignorance.

    No idea how we combat this. But the ignorance isn't "woke". Its been weaponised by the people who are against "woke".
    Eventually, you will understand why Wokeness is pivotal, and you will agree with me

    It will take you about 3 years, is my highly educated guess

    People much brighter than you - eg Sam Altman of openAI (see below) - are nearly there already; people much stupider than you - sadly, an awful lot of people - will likely NEVER get there. Which is quite chilling
    In other words, your 'argument' is that you are so bright that you know the 'truth'; and other less-bright people might eventually learn the 'truth'; whereby anyone who never agrees with you is jus as dumb as f***. Whilst you also add a false appeal to authority?

    Or alternatively, you are dumb, and wrong? But you are too dumb to realise that you are wrong? And you are so wrong that you need false appeals to authority to convince yourself you are right?

    :)
    It's just the latest round in the generation wars.

    Late boomers have set the agenda for so long that the idea that they might not be the dominant voice in the room is genuinely traumatic. That's even before we get on to the faint but growing whiff of death.

    So the younger get has to be thought of as so dim that it's just not possible to hand over to them. Sorry, it's for your own good...

    Every generation in their late fifties and sixties has always acted that way.

    (And if we want to talk toxic, weaponised stupidity that gets given an intellectual veneer, consider the guff published in Britain's Top Current Affairs Magazine. Sorry, that's just there to provoke debate. My bad...)
  • nico679 said:

    Chris said:

    The great thing about having someone hyper-rich as prime minister is that his conceptions are on a much grander scale than most people's.

    But Sunak thinks nothing of spending a quarter of a billion pounds of public money on a fantasy scheme that now has the sole aim of saving his career.

    Sunak needs the flights to take off just before the election. A big gap is dangerous if the boats keep coming. The sensible thing to do was to have dropped the policy when he came in , that was his window of opportunity but then of course he’d made a deal with Braverman.

    There is a Terrible Danger. The flights may well be loaded. And then held on the ground as person after person is pulled off under legal challenge. And then the flight lands in Rwanda and is turned back because we have broken our agreement with the Rwandans.

    I rewatched that presser yesterday. Sunak rightly points out that there is no point having a law which the Rwandans won't agree to. But the bill already crosses that line on page 1. He says that the "new treaty" makes things possible that were not before; Not so says the Rwandan minister who co-signed.

    Sunak is trying to claim credit for fewer boats crossing. But he pledged - check the lectern - to Stop the Boats. Not reduce them. And he can't stop them. The audience he is pitching to don't care if the numbers have slowed - they want them to STOP. And then the foreigners to be sent away. Its impossible to satisfy them.
    The weather has played no small part in reducing the boats by 30%. For the majority of the year the Channel has been choppy to say the least.

    At least give Sunak credit for facilitating inclement weather to prevent as many crossings as last year.
    Another reason I think Rishi aims to hang on till January 2025, after he has legislated for another rough winter to reduce Channel crossings.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,492
    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    The Tik Tok Generation?

    "In this The Economist/YouGov poll from December 2-5, 20% of young adults slightly (12%) or strongly (8%) agreed with the statement "the Holocaust is a myth".

    That's one-fifth Holocaust deniers."


    https://x.com/cremieuxrecueil/status/1732995380919271638?s=20

    Another THIRTY percent of young people neither agree nor disagree that "the Holocaust is a myth"

    Which should give pause to those who think 18-29 year olds are more “enlightened” than older age cohorts.

    We have enabled a Terrible Stupidity
    I am going to agree with you on this point (and set aside the interminable rantings about whatever "woke" is this week).

    I keep saying that the Tories have weaponised ignorance and stupidity. Ignorance is not an insult - we are all ignorant on a huge number of subjects we are aware of but have no idea how something works or why. That is why we go to see a doctor or a mechanic - because we are ignorant. Stupidity isn't new either - plenty of people are dumb. But most normal people knew the things they didn't know.

    The new phenomena is "we've had enough of experts". Of my ignorant opinion somehow having equal (or higher) worth than expertise or facts. The right exploit this for votes - keep them ignorant and angry and they will vote for you.

    Social media? A phenomenon. My bit of social media only does EVs and Tesla specifically. The number of times the same untruth is typed - or sometimes just pasted - is astonishing. The poster could find out the truth in 2 seconds. But does not. They know their truth and it has been cut up and fed to them to reinforce their ignorance.

    No idea how we combat this. But the ignorance isn't "woke". Its been weaponised by the people who are against "woke".
    Eventually, you will understand why Wokeness is pivotal, and you will agree with me

    It will take you about 3 years, is my highly educated guess

    People much brighter than you - eg Sam Altman of openAI (see below) - are nearly there already; people much stupider than you - sadly, an awful lot of people - will likely NEVER get there. Which is quite chilling
    I don't accept your definition of woke - which is that of the right wing blob.
    There is no definition of 'woke' - that is the brilliance of it being used as a right-wing slur.

    This government is too woke apparently according to some but also, extreme left anti-semitism is woke.

    Presumably by deduction this government is a government of extreme left anti-semitism, which may come as a surprise to Sunak and co.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,455

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    The Tik Tok Generation?

    "In this The Economist/YouGov poll from December 2-5, 20% of young adults slightly (12%) or strongly (8%) agreed with the statement "the Holocaust is a myth".

    That's one-fifth Holocaust deniers."


    https://x.com/cremieuxrecueil/status/1732995380919271638?s=20

    Another THIRTY percent of young people neither agree nor disagree that "the Holocaust is a myth"

    Which should give pause to those who think 18-29 year olds are more “enlightened” than older age cohorts.

    We have enabled a Terrible Stupidity
    I am going to agree with you on this point (and set aside the interminable rantings about whatever "woke" is this week).

    I keep saying that the Tories have weaponised ignorance and stupidity. Ignorance is not an insult - we are all ignorant on a huge number of subjects we are aware of but have no idea how something works or why. That is why we go to see a doctor or a mechanic - because we are ignorant. Stupidity isn't new either - plenty of people are dumb. But most normal people knew the things they didn't know.

    The new phenomena is "we've had enough of experts". Of my ignorant opinion somehow having equal (or higher) worth than expertise or facts. The right exploit this for votes - keep them ignorant and angry and they will vote for you.

    Social media? A phenomenon. My bit of social media only does EVs and Tesla specifically. The number of times the same untruth is typed - or sometimes just pasted - is astonishing. The poster could find out the truth in 2 seconds. But does not. They know their truth and it has been cut up and fed to them to reinforce their ignorance.

    No idea how we combat this. But the ignorance isn't "woke". Its been weaponised by the people who are against "woke".
    Eventually, you will understand why Wokeness is pivotal, and you will agree with me

    It will take you about 3 years, is my highly educated guess

    People much brighter than you - eg Sam Altman of openAI (see below) - are nearly there already; people much stupider than you - sadly, an awful lot of people - will likely NEVER get there. Which is quite chilling
    I still have not found a clear definition of "woke". It changes and adapts and shifts dependent on whatever the moral crisis is that the person shouting "woke" is unhappy about. This week its anti-semitism apparently.
    QED. 3 years. Maybe 4
    I've seen the nonsense you posted last night about the Baltics, I've upgraded you from a fucking appeaser to Putin's catamite.
    Yes, that was clearly a joke: the reference to eastern Europe being mainly full of "hopping chickens" was a tiny tiny clue
    Good morning, one and all!
    And in one post, we see clearly the effect of the cold light of day on a thought from the previous, slightly fuddled, night.
    I wasn’t remotely drunk. As I’ve explained, Wegovy has halved - at least - my booze intake

    I WAS trolling @Cicero which is probably bad and juvenile, but his earnest exhortations from Estonia do start to chafe, just a little
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,455

    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    The Tik Tok Generation?

    "In this The Economist/YouGov poll from December 2-5, 20% of young adults slightly (12%) or strongly (8%) agreed with the statement "the Holocaust is a myth".

    That's one-fifth Holocaust deniers."


    https://x.com/cremieuxrecueil/status/1732995380919271638?s=20

    Another THIRTY percent of young people neither agree nor disagree that "the Holocaust is a myth"

    Which should give pause to those who think 18-29 year olds are more “enlightened” than older age cohorts.

    We have enabled a Terrible Stupidity
    I am going to agree with you on this point (and set aside the interminable rantings about whatever "woke" is this week).

    I keep saying that the Tories have weaponised ignorance and stupidity. Ignorance is not an insult - we are all ignorant on a huge number of subjects we are aware of but have no idea how something works or why. That is why we go to see a doctor or a mechanic - because we are ignorant. Stupidity isn't new either - plenty of people are dumb. But most normal people knew the things they didn't know.

    The new phenomena is "we've had enough of experts". Of my ignorant opinion somehow having equal (or higher) worth than expertise or facts. The right exploit this for votes - keep them ignorant and angry and they will vote for you.

    Social media? A phenomenon. My bit of social media only does EVs and Tesla specifically. The number of times the same untruth is typed - or sometimes just pasted - is astonishing. The poster could find out the truth in 2 seconds. But does not. They know their truth and it has been cut up and fed to them to reinforce their ignorance.

    No idea how we combat this. But the ignorance isn't "woke". Its been weaponised by the people who are against "woke".
    Eventually, you will understand why Wokeness is pivotal, and you will agree with me

    It will take you about 3 years, is my highly educated guess

    People much brighter than you - eg Sam Altman of openAI (see below) - are nearly there already; people much stupider than you - sadly, an awful lot of people - will likely NEVER get there. Which is quite chilling
    I don't accept your definition of woke - which is that of the right wing blob.
    There is no definition of 'woke' - that is the brilliance of it being used as a right-wing slur.

    This government is too woke apparently according to some but also, extreme left anti-semitism is woke.

    Presumably by deduction this government is a government of extreme left anti-semitism, which may come as a surprise to Sunak and co.
    I mean, do you really honestly not get it? How the Woke obsession with intersectionality and decolonialism leads the Jews being seen as an oppressor class, worthy of persecution, or at least unworthy of protection from persecution?

    Is that honestly beyond your reasoning capacity?

    If it is then I despair. Because you are not the stupidest on here
  • Rahm gone to Liv for about half a billion.

    What first attracted you etc
  • Eabhal said:

    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    The Tik Tok Generation?

    "In this The Economist/YouGov poll from December 2-5, 20% of young adults slightly (12%) or strongly (8%) agreed with the statement "the Holocaust is a myth".

    That's one-fifth Holocaust deniers."


    https://x.com/cremieuxrecueil/status/1732995380919271638?s=20

    Another THIRTY percent of young people neither agree nor disagree that "the Holocaust is a myth"

    Which should give pause to those who think 18-24 year olds are more “enlightened” than older age cohorts.
    As someone in the 18-29 cohort, I haven't seen any holocaust denial stuff online but the pro-Palestine material has been relentless and highly effective. Almost all my friends have re-shared posts along those lines (mainly stuff from NGOs, charities and the UN).

    That's not to say they are holocaust deniers, Hamas supporters or not supportive of the Israeli state. Just that the pro-Palestine messaging is sophisticated and pervasive, focusing on child casualties.
    Israeli focus was also on their child casualties, as was Kuwait's back in the lead-up to the first Iraq War. The reason is, it works. It is surely possible, however, to deplore the slaughter on both sides, and of all ages.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 7,442
    A 2023 paper… https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/10659129221111081

    “Concern about antisemitism in the U.S. has grown following recent rises in deadly assaults, vandalism, and harassment. Public accounts of antisemitism have focused on both the ideological right and left, suggesting a “horseshoe theory” in which the far left and the far right hold a common set of anti-Jewish prejudicial attitudes that distinguish them from the ideological center. However, there is little quantitative research evaluating left-wing versus right-wing antisemitism. We conduct several experiments on an original survey of 3500 U.S. adults, including an oversample of young adults. We oversampled young adults because unlike other forms of prejudice that are more common among older people, antisemitism is theorized to be more common among younger people. Contrary to the expectation of horseshoe theory, the data show the epicenter of antisemitic attitudes is young adults on the far right.”
  • RogerRoger Posts: 18,891
    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    And another one realises. Woke + Islamism = anti-Semitism


    Sam Altman
    @sama
    for a long time i said that antisemitism, particularly on the american left, was not as bad as people claimed.

    i'd like to just state that i was totally wrong.

    i still don't understand it, really. or know what to do about it.

    but it is so fucked.



    https://x.com/sama/status/1732925866836210151?s=20

    Antisemitism is a serious problem with the American Left.

    Also, I salute you for realising that when Sam Altman talked about left wing antisemitism, he was really talking about woke. Not a lot of people would have picked that up. Sam Altman, for example, never did.
    In the befuddled mind of the louche right wing everything is about woke. Why should anti-semitism be any different?
  • Leon said:

    And another one realises. Woke + Islamism = anti-Semitism


    Sam Altman
    @sama
    for a long time i said that antisemitism, particularly on the american left, was not as bad as people claimed.

    i'd like to just state that i was totally wrong.

    i still don't understand it, really. or know what to do about it.

    but it is so fucked.



    https://x.com/sama/status/1732925866836210151?s=20

    A quick check on Wikipedia suggests that a quarter of President Biden's Cabinet is Jewish. Perhaps Sleepy Joe did not get the memo.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,136

    Interesting article. I wasn’t aware of the position of voluntary organisations. It seems to me that they also should be able to avail themselves of the “proportionate means for legitimate exclusion.”

    I tend not to comment on this topic, because I am not Scottish or female or trans. But it has always struck me that eliding sex with gender is the root of all chaos here. Gender is fluid through time and location. What it means to be a man or a woman changes. However, sex although not completely binary mostly is.

    Overall in most cases, I think if we were a bit clearer on what should be exclusive on the basis of sex and what should be exclusive on the basis of gender we may get some sense. For the most part I don’t see why there should be many gender-based exclusions - and I am sure many agree with that. However, clearly where there are risks - support groups for female survivors of rape and abuse - it makes sense to sex exclusion. Same with most sports (whether contact based or otherwise) - if you’ve been through a male puberty it is daft to put females against you.

    However, in protecting females in prison and what not, we should not lose sight of trans victims of violence and rape. I read an article in the LRB that suggested that trans women in male prisons can also be victims of horrific levels of violence and rape. Apparently the same to can be said in society in genreral.

    So like most issues it’s complicated and there is an element of risk to manage to protect folk. Of course that doesn’t help for arguments on the internets.

    Men in prison who claim to be trans and are at risk of rape and violence are at risk of this from other men. This is a problem of male violence and needs to be resolved within male prisons. It is NOT for women to solve this or to take on the burden and risk of solving this. Women are not support animals for men.

    Ditto for other female only spaces. If men are violent to trans identified men - let men solve this. This is not women's problem. There is nothing complicated about this. It is only made so by the almost automatic suggestion that women should somehow sort out or share or bear the risk of male violence which is fundamentally misogynistic.

    Women deserve better than 'not been raped, assaulted or murdered'. There's simple respite, privacy, comfort, mental and bodily dignity and religious observance to name but a few. Women should be able to set their own boundaries and society should respect women enough to honour those.

  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,492

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    The Tik Tok Generation?

    "In this The Economist/YouGov poll from December 2-5, 20% of young adults slightly (12%) or strongly (8%) agreed with the statement "the Holocaust is a myth".

    That's one-fifth Holocaust deniers."


    https://x.com/cremieuxrecueil/status/1732995380919271638?s=20

    Another THIRTY percent of young people neither agree nor disagree that "the Holocaust is a myth"

    Which should give pause to those who think 18-29 year olds are more “enlightened” than older age cohorts.

    We have enabled a Terrible Stupidity
    I am going to agree with you on this point (and set aside the interminable rantings about whatever "woke" is this week).

    I keep saying that the Tories have weaponised ignorance and stupidity. Ignorance is not an insult - we are all ignorant on a huge number of subjects we are aware of but have no idea how something works or why. That is why we go to see a doctor or a mechanic - because we are ignorant. Stupidity isn't new either - plenty of people are dumb. But most normal people knew the things they didn't know.

    The new phenomena is "we've had enough of experts". Of my ignorant opinion somehow having equal (or higher) worth than expertise or facts. The right exploit this for votes - keep them ignorant and angry and they will vote for you.

    Social media? A phenomenon. My bit of social media only does EVs and Tesla specifically. The number of times the same untruth is typed - or sometimes just pasted - is astonishing. The poster could find out the truth in 2 seconds. But does not. They know their truth and it has been cut up and fed to them to reinforce their ignorance.

    No idea how we combat this. But the ignorance isn't "woke". Its been weaponised by the people who are against "woke".
    Eventually, you will understand why Wokeness is pivotal, and you will agree with me

    It will take you about 3 years, is my highly educated guess

    People much brighter than you - eg Sam Altman of openAI (see below) - are nearly there already; people much stupider than you - sadly, an awful lot of people - will likely NEVER get there. Which is quite chilling
    I still have not found a clear definition of "woke". It changes and adapts and shifts dependent on whatever the moral crisis is that the person shouting "woke" is unhappy about. This week its anti-semitism apparently.
    QED. 3 years. Maybe 4
    What do you make of Donald Trump saying people who chanted 'Jews will not replace us' as very fine people?

    I wonder why you never spammed PB about that particular brand of antisemitism.
    Indeed. Anyone with a modicum of sense can see that both the extreme left and the extreme right embrace anti-semitism, and it's equally as abhorrent in both cases.

    Of course this is one of a number of examples of the extreme left and right curving round the political horseshoe to meet in hell.

    Most of us on here, whether left or right-leaning can see this and have no truck with those extremes. That Leon does not is, I think, telling.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 9,309
    Good morning all. Today’s 00z GFs model run ends, on the morning of the 24th, primed to give us a nailed on white Christmas.



    Something to unite the woke and non-woke.
    Unlikely to happen though.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,455

    A 2023 paper… https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/10659129221111081

    “Concern about antisemitism in the U.S. has grown following recent rises in deadly assaults, vandalism, and harassment. Public accounts of antisemitism have focused on both the ideological right and left, suggesting a “horseshoe theory” in which the far left and the far right hold a common set of anti-Jewish prejudicial attitudes that distinguish them from the ideological center. However, there is little quantitative research evaluating left-wing versus right-wing antisemitism. We conduct several experiments on an original survey of 3500 U.S. adults, including an oversample of young adults. We oversampled young adults because unlike other forms of prejudice that are more common among older people, antisemitism is theorized to be more common among younger people. Contrary to the expectation of horseshoe theory, the data show the epicenter of antisemitic attitudes is young adults on the far right.”

    Do you think these people are on the “far right”?

    Hint: this is in Oakland, California

    “American cafe staff refuse to let a Jewish woman use their restroom.

    Inside, they have “decorated” it with texts saying:

    “Neutrality helps genocide in Gaza”

    Recognize these faces of Hate and Antisemitism ?”

    https://x.com/colorapril/status/1732871722318148081?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,041
    edited December 2023
    Judge says Texas woman may abort fetus with lethal abnormality

    Kate Cox, 31, at 20 weeks pregnant, has learned her fetus has a lethal abnormality that is almost always fatal at birth.

    https://www.texastribune.org/2023/12/07/texas-emergency-abortion-lawsuit/
    For the first time in at least 50 years, a judge has intervened to allow an adult woman to terminate her pregnancy.

    When Travis County District Judge Maya Guerra Gamble handed down the temporary restraining order Thursday, Kate Cox, 31, of Dallas burst into tears. Cox and her husband desperately wanted to have this baby, but her doctors said continuing the nonviable pregnancy posed a risk to her health and future fertility, according to a historic lawsuit filed Tuesday.

    “The idea that Ms. Cox wants desperately to be a parent, and this law might actually cause her to lose that ability is shocking and would be a genuine miscarriage of justice,” Gamble said.

    Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton responded Thursday afternoon in a letter addressed to three hospitals — Houston Methodist Hospital, The Women's Hospital of Texas in Houston, and Texans Children's Hospital in Houston — saying the temporary order would "not insulate hospitals, doctors, or anyone else, from civil and criminal liability for violating Texas’ abortion laws."..


    The highlighted bit above is an example of the workings of the right wing blob, whose language Leon has adopted.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,492
    edited December 2023

    Leon said:

    And another one realises. Woke + Islamism = anti-Semitism


    Sam Altman
    @sama
    for a long time i said that antisemitism, particularly on the american left, was not as bad as people claimed.

    i'd like to just state that i was totally wrong.

    i still don't understand it, really. or know what to do about it.

    but it is so fucked.



    https://x.com/sama/status/1732925866836210151?s=20

    A quick check on Wikipedia suggests that a quarter of President Biden's Cabinet is Jewish. Perhaps Sleepy Joe did not get the memo.
    Sorry, has 'Sleepy Joe' been making anti-semitic statements? Big news if true.

    Donald Trump however: the people who chanted 'Jews will not replace us' are "very fine people"
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,455

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    The Tik Tok Generation?

    "In this The Economist/YouGov poll from December 2-5, 20% of young adults slightly (12%) or strongly (8%) agreed with the statement "the Holocaust is a myth".

    That's one-fifth Holocaust deniers."


    https://x.com/cremieuxrecueil/status/1732995380919271638?s=20

    Another THIRTY percent of young people neither agree nor disagree that "the Holocaust is a myth"

    Which should give pause to those who think 18-29 year olds are more “enlightened” than older age cohorts.

    We have enabled a Terrible Stupidity
    I am going to agree with you on this point (and set aside the interminable rantings about whatever "woke" is this week).

    I keep saying that the Tories have weaponised ignorance and stupidity. Ignorance is not an insult - we are all ignorant on a huge number of subjects we are aware of but have no idea how something works or why. That is why we go to see a doctor or a mechanic - because we are ignorant. Stupidity isn't new either - plenty of people are dumb. But most normal people knew the things they didn't know.

    The new phenomena is "we've had enough of experts". Of my ignorant opinion somehow having equal (or higher) worth than expertise or facts. The right exploit this for votes - keep them ignorant and angry and they will vote for you.

    Social media? A phenomenon. My bit of social media only does EVs and Tesla specifically. The number of times the same untruth is typed - or sometimes just pasted - is astonishing. The poster could find out the truth in 2 seconds. But does not. They know their truth and it has been cut up and fed to them to reinforce their ignorance.

    No idea how we combat this. But the ignorance isn't "woke". Its been weaponised by the people who are against "woke".
    Eventually, you will understand why Wokeness is pivotal, and you will agree with me

    It will take you about 3 years, is my highly educated guess

    People much brighter than you - eg Sam Altman of openAI (see below) - are nearly there already; people much stupider than you - sadly, an awful lot of people - will likely NEVER get there. Which is quite chilling
    I still have not found a clear definition of "woke". It changes and adapts and shifts dependent on whatever the moral crisis is that the person shouting "woke" is unhappy about. This week its anti-semitism apparently.
    QED. 3 years. Maybe 4
    What do you make of Donald Trump saying people who chanted 'Jews will not replace us' as very fine people?

    I wonder why you never spammed PB about that particular brand of antisemitism.
    Indeed. Anyone with a modicum of sense can see that both the extreme left and the extreme right embrace anti-semitism, and it's equally as abhorrent in both cases.

    Of course this is one of a number of examples of the extreme left and right curving round the political horseshoe to meet in hell.

    Most of us on here, whether left or right-leaning can see this and have no truck with those extremes. That Leon does not is, I think, telling.
    Of course it is on the extreme right as well

    I never said otherwise. But it is far more salient and manifest on the left, and that is where the danger emanates

    Do you think the presidents and professors at Harvard, MIT and Penn Uni are generally Republican voters?
  • JACK_WJACK_W Posts: 651
    IanB2 said:

    Harpenden Rural division

    Lib Dem 1474
    Conservative 766
    Labour 168
    Green Party 119

    Lib Dem GAIN from Conservative

    Is nothing sacred !!!!! .. :rage:
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 12,944
    Sean_F said:


    Which should give pause to those who think 18-29 year olds are more “enlightened” than older age cohorts.

    I'm the only over 30 on my Arabic course and I reckon 100% of them are R2S. Israel is an oldie's fetish like Brexit and giving your bank password to tech support scammers.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,492
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    The Tik Tok Generation?

    "In this The Economist/YouGov poll from December 2-5, 20% of young adults slightly (12%) or strongly (8%) agreed with the statement "the Holocaust is a myth".

    That's one-fifth Holocaust deniers."


    https://x.com/cremieuxrecueil/status/1732995380919271638?s=20

    Another THIRTY percent of young people neither agree nor disagree that "the Holocaust is a myth"

    Which should give pause to those who think 18-29 year olds are more “enlightened” than older age cohorts.

    We have enabled a Terrible Stupidity
    I am going to agree with you on this point (and set aside the interminable rantings about whatever "woke" is this week).

    I keep saying that the Tories have weaponised ignorance and stupidity. Ignorance is not an insult - we are all ignorant on a huge number of subjects we are aware of but have no idea how something works or why. That is why we go to see a doctor or a mechanic - because we are ignorant. Stupidity isn't new either - plenty of people are dumb. But most normal people knew the things they didn't know.

    The new phenomena is "we've had enough of experts". Of my ignorant opinion somehow having equal (or higher) worth than expertise or facts. The right exploit this for votes - keep them ignorant and angry and they will vote for you.

    Social media? A phenomenon. My bit of social media only does EVs and Tesla specifically. The number of times the same untruth is typed - or sometimes just pasted - is astonishing. The poster could find out the truth in 2 seconds. But does not. They know their truth and it has been cut up and fed to them to reinforce their ignorance.

    No idea how we combat this. But the ignorance isn't "woke". Its been weaponised by the people who are against "woke".
    Eventually, you will understand why Wokeness is pivotal, and you will agree with me

    It will take you about 3 years, is my highly educated guess

    People much brighter than you - eg Sam Altman of openAI (see below) - are nearly there already; people much stupider than you - sadly, an awful lot of people - will likely NEVER get there. Which is quite chilling
    I still have not found a clear definition of "woke". It changes and adapts and shifts dependent on whatever the moral crisis is that the person shouting "woke" is unhappy about. This week its anti-semitism apparently.
    QED. 3 years. Maybe 4
    What do you make of Donald Trump saying people who chanted 'Jews will not replace us' as very fine people?

    I wonder why you never spammed PB about that particular brand of antisemitism.
    Indeed. Anyone with a modicum of sense can see that both the extreme left and the extreme right embrace anti-semitism, and it's equally as abhorrent in both cases.

    Of course this is one of a number of examples of the extreme left and right curving round the political horseshoe to meet in hell.

    Most of us on here, whether left or right-leaning can see this and have no truck with those extremes. That Leon does not is, I think, telling.
    Of course it is on the extreme right as well

    I never said otherwise. But it is far more salient and manifest on the left, and that is where the danger emanates

    Do you think the presidents and professors at Harvard, MIT and Penn Uni are generally Republican voters?
    No. And I think they should be fired.
  • nico679 said:

    Chris said:

    The great thing about having someone hyper-rich as prime minister is that his conceptions are on a much grander scale than most people's.

    But Sunak thinks nothing of spending a quarter of a billion pounds of public money on a fantasy scheme that now has the sole aim of saving his career.

    Sunak needs the flights to take off just before the election. A big gap is dangerous if the boats keep coming. The sensible thing to do was to have dropped the policy when he came in , that was his window of opportunity but then of course he’d made a deal with Braverman.

    It would probably be cheaper per person to pay asylum seekers $50,000 each to move to Rwanda. Certainly faster.
    Great that HMG has taken the courageous first step in the West towards paying reparations to post imperial countries. Generous also to pay all that dosh to Rwanda whose imperial overlords were Germany and Belgium rather than Britain. Trebles all round (in Kigali at least).
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,865
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    The Tik Tok Generation?

    "In this The Economist/YouGov poll from December 2-5, 20% of young adults slightly (12%) or strongly (8%) agreed with the statement "the Holocaust is a myth".

    That's one-fifth Holocaust deniers."


    https://x.com/cremieuxrecueil/status/1732995380919271638?s=20

    Another THIRTY percent of young people neither agree nor disagree that "the Holocaust is a myth"

    Which should give pause to those who think 18-29 year olds are more “enlightened” than older age cohorts.

    We have enabled a Terrible Stupidity
    I am going to agree with you on this point (and set aside the interminable rantings about whatever "woke" is this week).

    I keep saying that the Tories have weaponised ignorance and stupidity. Ignorance is not an insult - we are all ignorant on a huge number of subjects we are aware of but have no idea how something works or why. That is why we go to see a doctor or a mechanic - because we are ignorant. Stupidity isn't new either - plenty of people are dumb. But most normal people knew the things they didn't know.

    The new phenomena is "we've had enough of experts". Of my ignorant opinion somehow having equal (or higher) worth than expertise or facts. The right exploit this for votes - keep them ignorant and angry and they will vote for you.

    Social media? A phenomenon. My bit of social media only does EVs and Tesla specifically. The number of times the same untruth is typed - or sometimes just pasted - is astonishing. The poster could find out the truth in 2 seconds. But does not. They know their truth and it has been cut up and fed to them to reinforce their ignorance.

    No idea how we combat this. But the ignorance isn't "woke". Its been weaponised by the people who are against "woke".
    Eventually, you will understand why Wokeness is pivotal, and you will agree with me

    It will take you about 3 years, is my highly educated guess

    People much brighter than you - eg Sam Altman of openAI (see below) - are nearly there already; people much stupider than you - sadly, an awful lot of people - will likely NEVER get there. Which is quite chilling
    I still have not found a clear definition of "woke". It changes and adapts and shifts dependent on whatever the moral crisis is that the person shouting "woke" is unhappy about. This week its anti-semitism apparently.
    QED. 3 years. Maybe 4
    I've seen the nonsense you posted last night about the Baltics, I've upgraded you from a fucking appeaser to Putin's catamite.
    Yes, that was clearly a joke: the reference to eastern Europe being mainly full of "hopping chickens" was a tiny tiny clue
    Good morning, one and all!
    And in one post, we see clearly the effect of the cold light of day on a thought from the previous, slightly fuddled, night.
    I wasn’t remotely drunk. As I’ve explained, Wegovy has halved - at least - my booze intake

    I WAS trolling @Cicero which is probably bad and juvenile, but his earnest exhortations from Estonia do start to chafe, just a little
    Noted about the drinking. I must, maybe, think about it.
    Cicero posts are infrequent, perhaps infrequent enough to warrant serious consideration. As opposed, perhaps, to yours, and maybe mine, which are perhaps too common to always be taken seriously.
  • nico679 said:

    Chris said:

    The great thing about having someone hyper-rich as prime minister is that his conceptions are on a much grander scale than most people's.

    But Sunak thinks nothing of spending a quarter of a billion pounds of public money on a fantasy scheme that now has the sole aim of saving his career.

    Sunak needs the flights to take off just before the election. A big gap is dangerous if the boats keep coming. The sensible thing to do was to have dropped the policy when he came in , that was his window of opportunity but then of course he’d made a deal with Braverman.

    There is a Terrible Danger. The flights may well be loaded. And then held on the ground as person after person is pulled off under legal challenge. And then the flight lands in Rwanda and is turned back because we have broken our agreement with the Rwandans.

    I rewatched that presser yesterday. Sunak rightly points out that there is no point having a law which the Rwandans won't agree to. But the bill already crosses that line on page 1. He says that the "new treaty" makes things possible that were not before; Not so says the Rwandan minister who co-signed.

    Sunak is trying to claim credit for fewer boats crossing. But he pledged - check the lectern - to Stop the Boats. Not reduce them. And he can't stop them. The audience he is pitching to don't care if the numbers have slowed - they want them to STOP. And then the foreigners to be sent away. Its impossible to satisfy them.
    It's much worse.

    Rishi Sunak was told by lawyers that his emergency Rwanda scheme will be ­“seriously impeded” from working because it “provides an easy way” for migrants to avoid deportation.

    The prime minister insisted on Thursday that his new law aimed at reviving the policy was the only approach that would prevent further legal challenges scuppering flights. He said he was ­confident that flights would take off before the general election and pledged to “finish the job”.

    However, The Times has been told that Downing Street was warned by two senior lawyers that the scheme risked failure because it would continue to ­allow migrants to lodge challenges against their individual removal to Rwanda. Legal advice from a senior government lawyer said “the scheme would be seriously impeded” if the bill did not include a so-called ­“ouster clause” that barred individual legal challenges.

    Separate external legal counsel that was sought by the government warned that the failure to bar individual challenges “is inconsistent with the intellectual underpinning of the bill and also would provide an easy way for many applicants to avoid the effects of the bill”....

    ...The Safety of Rwanda Bill, presented to parliament on Thursday, will bar ­systematic challenges being brought against the policy by instructing immigration officers, courts and tribunals to treat Rwanda as a “conclusively safe country”. However, clause four of the bill is seen by critics of the legislation as a weakness because it says that people can make claims if there is “compelling evidence relating specifically to a ­person’s individual circumstances”.

    A senior Conservative MP and lawyer said that this would leave the courts “inundated” with legal claims from ­migrants helped by immigration lawyers who would “come up with a whole range of innovative reasons why Rwanda is unsafe for a particular individual”.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/rwanda-bill-plan-rishi-sunak-asylum-seekers-2vmxm5vvx
    The fascinating thing about PMQs was the way that Sunak tore the bill apart line by line. "Have you read it?" he kept asking Sunak. Clearly they haven't - Sunak knows the spin lines but not the detail which rather show up the spin lines as ignorant lies.

    As an "have you read it" practitioner I make Good Money from reading such documents and pulling out details that others have missed. So bravo Starmer.

    Then we turn back to the Tories and their PB shills. "We have a plan, what is Labour's plan." They do not have a plan. What they claim to be a plan is unworkable. Laughable. Have they read their "plan". Have they *understood* it? This is crayon politics , sketched by idiots to placate morons.
    I'll say it again, Brexit and the referendum campaign with its focus on immigration, has radicalised the Tories.

    At some point Starmer or Farage is going to point out the Tories are focussed on a few thousand illegal migrants and not on the 1.5 million legal migration.
    It's a Penrose staircase.

    Older people are the defining part of the electorate and they want good health and social care and lower immigration at the same time.

    The government calculate that not fixing the former carries the greater electoral penalty and there is no other way to do it quickly other than high immigration.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 11,054
    nico679 said:

    Chris said:

    The great thing about having someone hyper-rich as prime minister is that his conceptions are on a much grander scale than most people's.

    But Sunak thinks nothing of spending a quarter of a billion pounds of public money on a fantasy scheme that now has the sole aim of saving his career.

    Sunak needs the flights to take off just before the election. A big gap is dangerous if the boats keep coming. The sensible thing to do was to have dropped the policy when he came in , that was his window of opportunity but then of course he’d made a deal with Braverman.

    As soon as possible before the election, I should think. So as not to leave time for the Rwandans to start sending them back.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,492
    TimS said:

    Good morning all. Today’s 00z GFs model run ends, on the morning of the 24th, primed to give us a nailed on white Christmas.



    Something to unite the woke and non-woke.
    Unlikely to happen though.

    Oh, you tease!
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,041
    Cyclefree said:

    Interesting article. I wasn’t aware of the position of voluntary organisations. It seems to me that they also should be able to avail themselves of the “proportionate means for legitimate exclusion.”

    I tend not to comment on this topic, because I am not Scottish or female or trans. But it has always struck me that eliding sex with gender is the root of all chaos here. Gender is fluid through time and location. What it means to be a man or a woman changes. However, sex although not completely binary mostly is.

    Overall in most cases, I think if we were a bit clearer on what should be exclusive on the basis of sex and what should be exclusive on the basis of gender we may get some sense. For the most part I don’t see why there should be many gender-based exclusions - and I am sure many agree with that. However, clearly where there are risks - support groups for female survivors of rape and abuse - it makes sense to sex exclusion. Same with most sports (whether contact based or otherwise) - if you’ve been through a male puberty it is daft to put females against you.

    However, in protecting females in prison and what not, we should not lose sight of trans victims of violence and rape. I read an article in the LRB that suggested that trans women in male prisons can also be victims of horrific levels of violence and rape. Apparently the same to can be said in society in genreral.

    So like most issues it’s complicated and there is an element of risk to manage to protect folk. Of course that doesn’t help for arguments on the internets.

    Men in prison who claim to be trans and are at risk of rape and violence are at risk of this from other men. This is a problem of male violence and needs to be resolved within male prisons. It is NOT for women to solve this or to take on the burden and risk of solving this. Women are not support animals for men...

    Scottish policy on that has changed to some extent.
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-67613441.amp

  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,492
    Cyclefree said:

    Honestly @Leon - at one point I had 3 toddlers under the age of 5 and was also dealing with City traders. So I am well used to dealing with the hyperactive "it's all about me" lot. And I actually went on the March against Anti-Semitism. So I care about that too.

    But FFS for once couldn't you just pretend to pay attention - even for a moment - to one of my headers. Just once. Just like we pretend to pay attention to the photos of your glasses of wine as you chew on dogs in some ghastly beige hotel somewhere and whine about the "W" word .....

    Well said! And apologies for responding to Leon's wind-ups rather than your excellent header.

    Over the months you have changed my perspective on this issue and think it's one of the very few things I think the government have got right.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,455

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    The Tik Tok Generation?

    "In this The Economist/YouGov poll from December 2-5, 20% of young adults slightly (12%) or strongly (8%) agreed with the statement "the Holocaust is a myth".

    That's one-fifth Holocaust deniers."


    https://x.com/cremieuxrecueil/status/1732995380919271638?s=20

    Another THIRTY percent of young people neither agree nor disagree that "the Holocaust is a myth"

    Which should give pause to those who think 18-29 year olds are more “enlightened” than older age cohorts.

    We have enabled a Terrible Stupidity
    I am going to agree with you on this point (and set aside the interminable rantings about whatever "woke" is this week).

    I keep saying that the Tories have weaponised ignorance and stupidity. Ignorance is not an insult - we are all ignorant on a huge number of subjects we are aware of but have no idea how something works or why. That is why we go to see a doctor or a mechanic - because we are ignorant. Stupidity isn't new either - plenty of people are dumb. But most normal people knew the things they didn't know.

    The new phenomena is "we've had enough of experts". Of my ignorant opinion somehow having equal (or higher) worth than expertise or facts. The right exploit this for votes - keep them ignorant and angry and they will vote for you.

    Social media? A phenomenon. My bit of social media only does EVs and Tesla specifically. The number of times the same untruth is typed - or sometimes just pasted - is astonishing. The poster could find out the truth in 2 seconds. But does not. They know their truth and it has been cut up and fed to them to reinforce their ignorance.

    No idea how we combat this. But the ignorance isn't "woke". Its been weaponised by the people who are against "woke".
    Eventually, you will understand why Wokeness is pivotal, and you will agree with me

    It will take you about 3 years, is my highly educated guess

    People much brighter than you - eg Sam Altman of openAI (see below) - are nearly there already; people much stupider than you - sadly, an awful lot of people - will likely NEVER get there. Which is quite chilling
    I still have not found a clear definition of "woke". It changes and adapts and shifts dependent on whatever the moral crisis is that the person shouting "woke" is unhappy about. This week its anti-semitism apparently.
    QED. 3 years. Maybe 4
    I've seen the nonsense you posted last night about the Baltics, I've upgraded you from a fucking appeaser to Putin's catamite.
    Yes, that was clearly a joke: the reference to eastern Europe being mainly full of "hopping chickens" was a tiny tiny clue
    Good morning, one and all!
    And in one post, we see clearly the effect of the cold light of day on a thought from the previous, slightly fuddled, night.
    I wasn’t remotely drunk. As I’ve explained, Wegovy has halved - at least - my booze intake

    I WAS trolling @Cicero which is probably bad and juvenile, but his earnest exhortations from Estonia do start to chafe, just a little
    Noted about the drinking. I must, maybe, think about it.
    Cicero posts are infrequent, perhaps infrequent enough to warrant serious consideration. As opposed, perhaps, to yours, and maybe mine, which are perhaps too common to always be taken seriously.
    That’s fair, and nicely phrased

    The weird thing is that I generally lark about on here, or seek out arguments for the sake of it - ergo, much of what I say is chaff. But I am deadly earnest about Wokeness. I believe it is a mortal threat to the west and the enlightenment

    I don’t like being the lone voice on this. It can get lonely. It would be SO much easier for me to ignore the issue or go along with everyone else and laugh it off, or whatever

    But I can’t. Something wicked this way comes. it is what I honestly believe and I’ve thought about it a lot - it is some modest relief that people in America are finally becoming aware of it - through this revelation of anti Semitism pervading academe and elsewhere

    If you don’t like my comments about wokeness scroll past. But I won’t shut up about it because I deeply believe it is a terrible danger
  • nico679 said:

    Chris said:

    The great thing about having someone hyper-rich as prime minister is that his conceptions are on a much grander scale than most people's.

    But Sunak thinks nothing of spending a quarter of a billion pounds of public money on a fantasy scheme that now has the sole aim of saving his career.

    Sunak needs the flights to take off just before the election. A big gap is dangerous if the boats keep coming. The sensible thing to do was to have dropped the policy when he came in , that was his window of opportunity but then of course he’d made a deal with Braverman.

    There is a Terrible Danger. The flights may well be loaded. And then held on the ground as person after person is pulled off under legal challenge. And then the flight lands in Rwanda and is turned back because we have broken our agreement with the Rwandans.

    I rewatched that presser yesterday. Sunak rightly points out that there is no point having a law which the Rwandans won't agree to. But the bill already crosses that line on page 1. He says that the "new treaty" makes things possible that were not before; Not so says the Rwandan minister who co-signed.

    Sunak is trying to claim credit for fewer boats crossing. But he pledged - check the lectern - to Stop the Boats. Not reduce them. And he can't stop them. The audience he is pitching to don't care if the numbers have slowed - they want them to STOP. And then the foreigners to be sent away. Its impossible to satisfy them.
    It's much worse.

    Rishi Sunak was told by lawyers that his emergency Rwanda scheme will be ­“seriously impeded” from working because it “provides an easy way” for migrants to avoid deportation.

    The prime minister insisted on Thursday that his new law aimed at reviving the policy was the only approach that would prevent further legal challenges scuppering flights. He said he was ­confident that flights would take off before the general election and pledged to “finish the job”.

    However, The Times has been told that Downing Street was warned by two senior lawyers that the scheme risked failure because it would continue to ­allow migrants to lodge challenges against their individual removal to Rwanda. Legal advice from a senior government lawyer said “the scheme would be seriously impeded” if the bill did not include a so-called ­“ouster clause” that barred individual legal challenges.

    Separate external legal counsel that was sought by the government warned that the failure to bar individual challenges “is inconsistent with the intellectual underpinning of the bill and also would provide an easy way for many applicants to avoid the effects of the bill”....

    ...The Safety of Rwanda Bill, presented to parliament on Thursday, will bar ­systematic challenges being brought against the policy by instructing immigration officers, courts and tribunals to treat Rwanda as a “conclusively safe country”. However, clause four of the bill is seen by critics of the legislation as a weakness because it says that people can make claims if there is “compelling evidence relating specifically to a ­person’s individual circumstances”.

    A senior Conservative MP and lawyer said that this would leave the courts “inundated” with legal claims from ­migrants helped by immigration lawyers who would “come up with a whole range of innovative reasons why Rwanda is unsafe for a particular individual”.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/rwanda-bill-plan-rishi-sunak-asylum-seekers-2vmxm5vvx
    The fascinating thing about PMQs was the way that Sunak tore the bill apart line by line. "Have you read it?" he kept asking Sunak. Clearly they haven't - Sunak knows the spin lines but not the detail which rather show up the spin lines as ignorant lies.

    As an "have you read it" practitioner I make Good Money from reading such documents and pulling out details that others have missed. So bravo Starmer.

    Then we turn back to the Tories and their PB shills. "We have a plan, what is Labour's plan." They do not have a plan. What they claim to be a plan is unworkable. Laughable. Have they read their "plan". Have they *understood* it? This is crayon politics , sketched by idiots to placate morons.
    I'll say it again, Brexit and the referendum campaign with its focus on immigration, has radicalised the Tories.

    At some point Starmer or Farage is going to point out the Tories are focussed on a few thousand illegal migrants and not on the 1.5 million legal migration.
    It's a Penrose staircase.

    Older people are the defining part of the electorate and they want good health and social care and lower immigration at the same time.

    The government calculate that not fixing the former carries the greater electoral penalty and there is no other way to do it quickly other than high immigration.
    And the other medium term solution- paying the real cost of such care, either directly or via taxes- is probably even more anathema.

    (Besides, the only way to have more British people doing care work is to have fewer people doing other jobs. The idea that there is a massive pool of people who should be doing this work but are currently wasting away is for the birds. Maybe we should redeploy travel journalists. We can do without them.)
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,908

    nico679 said:

    Chris said:

    The great thing about having someone hyper-rich as prime minister is that his conceptions are on a much grander scale than most people's.

    But Sunak thinks nothing of spending a quarter of a billion pounds of public money on a fantasy scheme that now has the sole aim of saving his career.

    Sunak needs the flights to take off just before the election. A big gap is dangerous if the boats keep coming. The sensible thing to do was to have dropped the policy when he came in , that was his window of opportunity but then of course he’d made a deal with Braverman.

    There is a Terrible Danger. The flights may well be loaded. And then held on the ground as person after person is pulled off under legal challenge. And then the flight lands in Rwanda and is turned back because we have broken our agreement with the Rwandans.

    I rewatched that presser yesterday. Sunak rightly points out that there is no point having a law which the Rwandans won't agree to. But the bill already crosses that line on page 1. He says that the "new treaty" makes things possible that were not before; Not so says the Rwandan minister who co-signed.

    Sunak is trying to claim credit for fewer boats crossing. But he pledged - check the lectern - to Stop the Boats. Not reduce them. And he can't stop them. The audience he is pitching to don't care if the numbers have slowed - they want them to STOP. And then the foreigners to be sent away. Its impossible to satisfy them.
    It's much worse.

    Rishi Sunak was told by lawyers that his emergency Rwanda scheme will be ­“seriously impeded” from working because it “provides an easy way” for migrants to avoid deportation.

    The prime minister insisted on Thursday that his new law aimed at reviving the policy was the only approach that would prevent further legal challenges scuppering flights. He said he was ­confident that flights would take off before the general election and pledged to “finish the job”.

    However, The Times has been told that Downing Street was warned by two senior lawyers that the scheme risked failure because it would continue to ­allow migrants to lodge challenges against their individual removal to Rwanda. Legal advice from a senior government lawyer said “the scheme would be seriously impeded” if the bill did not include a so-called ­“ouster clause” that barred individual legal challenges.

    Separate external legal counsel that was sought by the government warned that the failure to bar individual challenges “is inconsistent with the intellectual underpinning of the bill and also would provide an easy way for many applicants to avoid the effects of the bill”....

    ...The Safety of Rwanda Bill, presented to parliament on Thursday, will bar ­systematic challenges being brought against the policy by instructing immigration officers, courts and tribunals to treat Rwanda as a “conclusively safe country”. However, clause four of the bill is seen by critics of the legislation as a weakness because it says that people can make claims if there is “compelling evidence relating specifically to a ­person’s individual circumstances”.

    A senior Conservative MP and lawyer said that this would leave the courts “inundated” with legal claims from ­migrants helped by immigration lawyers who would “come up with a whole range of innovative reasons why Rwanda is unsafe for a particular individual”.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/rwanda-bill-plan-rishi-sunak-asylum-seekers-2vmxm5vvx
    The fascinating thing about PMQs was the way that Sunak tore the bill apart line by line. "Have you read it?" he kept asking Sunak. Clearly they haven't - Sunak knows the spin lines but not the detail which rather show up the spin lines as ignorant lies.

    As an "have you read it" practitioner I make Good Money from reading such documents and pulling out details that others have missed. So bravo Starmer.

    Then we turn back to the Tories and their PB shills. "We have a plan, what is Labour's plan." They do not have a plan. What they claim to be a plan is unworkable. Laughable. Have they read their "plan". Have they *understood* it? This is crayon politics , sketched by idiots to placate morons.
    I'll say it again, Brexit and the referendum campaign with its focus on immigration, has radicalised the Tories.

    At some point Starmer or Farage is going to point out the Tories are focussed on a few thousand illegal migrants and not on the 1.5 million legal migration.
    Except that is no longer true now. The government's new proposals mean that foreign immigrants will be banned from working in the UK unless they have a job offer for more than £38k or work in a shortage occupation like social care
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,136
    Nigelb said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Interesting article. I wasn’t aware of the position of voluntary organisations. It seems to me that they also should be able to avail themselves of the “proportionate means for legitimate exclusion.”

    I tend not to comment on this topic, because I am not Scottish or female or trans. But it has always struck me that eliding sex with gender is the root of all chaos here. Gender is fluid through time and location. What it means to be a man or a woman changes. However, sex although not completely binary mostly is.

    Overall in most cases, I think if we were a bit clearer on what should be exclusive on the basis of sex and what should be exclusive on the basis of gender we may get some sense. For the most part I don’t see why there should be many gender-based exclusions - and I am sure many agree with that. However, clearly where there are risks - support groups for female survivors of rape and abuse - it makes sense to sex exclusion. Same with most sports (whether contact based or otherwise) - if you’ve been through a male puberty it is daft to put females against you.

    However, in protecting females in prison and what not, we should not lose sight of trans victims of violence and rape. I read an article in the LRB that suggested that trans women in male prisons can also be victims of horrific levels of violence and rape. Apparently the same to can be said in society in genreral.

    So like most issues it’s complicated and there is an element of risk to manage to protect folk. Of course that doesn’t help for arguments on the internets.

    Men in prison who claim to be trans and are at risk of rape and violence are at risk of this from other men. This is a problem of male violence and needs to be resolved within male prisons. It is NOT for women to solve this or to take on the burden and risk of solving this. Women are not support animals for men...

    Scottish policy on that has changed to some extent.
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-67613441.amp

    It hasn't. There is no absolute ban on male sexual offenders being housed in female prisons in Scotland.

  • Jim_the_LurkerJim_the_Lurker Posts: 79
    edited December 2023


    Men in prison who claim to be trans and are at risk of rape and violence are at risk of this from other men. This is a problem of male violence and needs to be resolved within male prisons. It is NOT for women to solve this or to take on the burden and risk of solving this. Women are not support animals for men.

    Ditto for other female only spaces. If men are violent to trans identified men - let men solve this. This is not women's problem. There is nothing complicated about this. It is only made so by the almost automatic suggestion that women should somehow sort out or share or bear the risk of male violence which is fundamentally misogynistic.

    Women deserve better than 'not been raped, assaulted or murdered'. There's simple respite, privacy, comfort, mental and bodily dignity and religious observance to name but a few. Women should be able to set their own boundaries and society should respect women enough to honour those.

    My point wasn’t not that the answer is to simply throw all trans prisoners into female only prisons. And at no point did I say that. You have inferred that from my point about managing risks of violence to trans people in prisons and to trans people more generally. I stand by that view - I don’t want a society where any group (females, trans males, ethnic minorities, etc) are exposed to a greater risk of violence.

    Further I made the point that there should explicitly be sex-based exclusions. In general female prisons would, in broad terms, be an appropriate place for applying such exclusions. But, I am not convinced a women’s choir should always be able to ban trans people from joining it.

    On prison, what I really think is that if the state is going to lock folk up it has to minimise the risk of violence against them because of their specific characteristics (or indeed the risks of them committing violence). How you solve that in an environment with no money and a base level of extreme violence, I do not know. But the answer won’t be simple.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,388
    HYUFD said:

    nico679 said:

    Chris said:

    The great thing about having someone hyper-rich as prime minister is that his conceptions are on a much grander scale than most people's.

    But Sunak thinks nothing of spending a quarter of a billion pounds of public money on a fantasy scheme that now has the sole aim of saving his career.

    Sunak needs the flights to take off just before the election. A big gap is dangerous if the boats keep coming. The sensible thing to do was to have dropped the policy when he came in , that was his window of opportunity but then of course he’d made a deal with Braverman.

    There is a Terrible Danger. The flights may well be loaded. And then held on the ground as person after person is pulled off under legal challenge. And then the flight lands in Rwanda and is turned back because we have broken our agreement with the Rwandans.

    I rewatched that presser yesterday. Sunak rightly points out that there is no point having a law which the Rwandans won't agree to. But the bill already crosses that line on page 1. He says that the "new treaty" makes things possible that were not before; Not so says the Rwandan minister who co-signed.

    Sunak is trying to claim credit for fewer boats crossing. But he pledged - check the lectern - to Stop the Boats. Not reduce them. And he can't stop them. The audience he is pitching to don't care if the numbers have slowed - they want them to STOP. And then the foreigners to be sent away. Its impossible to satisfy them.
    It's much worse.

    Rishi Sunak was told by lawyers that his emergency Rwanda scheme will be ­“seriously impeded” from working because it “provides an easy way” for migrants to avoid deportation.

    The prime minister insisted on Thursday that his new law aimed at reviving the policy was the only approach that would prevent further legal challenges scuppering flights. He said he was ­confident that flights would take off before the general election and pledged to “finish the job”.

    However, The Times has been told that Downing Street was warned by two senior lawyers that the scheme risked failure because it would continue to ­allow migrants to lodge challenges against their individual removal to Rwanda. Legal advice from a senior government lawyer said “the scheme would be seriously impeded” if the bill did not include a so-called ­“ouster clause” that barred individual legal challenges.

    Separate external legal counsel that was sought by the government warned that the failure to bar individual challenges “is inconsistent with the intellectual underpinning of the bill and also would provide an easy way for many applicants to avoid the effects of the bill”....

    ...The Safety of Rwanda Bill, presented to parliament on Thursday, will bar ­systematic challenges being brought against the policy by instructing immigration officers, courts and tribunals to treat Rwanda as a “conclusively safe country”. However, clause four of the bill is seen by critics of the legislation as a weakness because it says that people can make claims if there is “compelling evidence relating specifically to a ­person’s individual circumstances”.

    A senior Conservative MP and lawyer said that this would leave the courts “inundated” with legal claims from ­migrants helped by immigration lawyers who would “come up with a whole range of innovative reasons why Rwanda is unsafe for a particular individual”.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/rwanda-bill-plan-rishi-sunak-asylum-seekers-2vmxm5vvx
    The fascinating thing about PMQs was the way that Sunak tore the bill apart line by line. "Have you read it?" he kept asking Sunak. Clearly they haven't - Sunak knows the spin lines but not the detail which rather show up the spin lines as ignorant lies.

    As an "have you read it" practitioner I make Good Money from reading such documents and pulling out details that others have missed. So bravo Starmer.

    Then we turn back to the Tories and their PB shills. "We have a plan, what is Labour's plan." They do not have a plan. What they claim to be a plan is unworkable. Laughable. Have they read their "plan". Have they *understood* it? This is crayon politics , sketched by idiots to placate morons.
    I'll say it again, Brexit and the referendum campaign with its focus on immigration, has radicalised the Tories.

    At some point Starmer or Farage is going to point out the Tories are focussed on a few thousand illegal migrants and not on the 1.5 million legal migration.
    Except that is no longer true now. The government's new proposals mean that foreign immigrants will be banned from working in the UK unless they have a job offer for more than £38k or work in a shortage occupation like social care
    I understood the new rules on shortage occupations include Healthcare but not Social Care.

  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,455

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    The Tik Tok Generation?

    "In this The Economist/YouGov poll from December 2-5, 20% of young adults slightly (12%) or strongly (8%) agreed with the statement "the Holocaust is a myth".

    That's one-fifth Holocaust deniers."


    https://x.com/cremieuxrecueil/status/1732995380919271638?s=20

    Another THIRTY percent of young people neither agree nor disagree that "the Holocaust is a myth"

    Which should give pause to those who think 18-29 year olds are more “enlightened” than older age cohorts.

    We have enabled a Terrible Stupidity
    I am going to agree with you on this point (and set aside the interminable rantings about whatever "woke" is this week).

    I keep saying that the Tories have weaponised ignorance and stupidity. Ignorance is not an insult - we are all ignorant on a huge number of subjects we are aware of but have no idea how something works or why. That is why we go to see a doctor or a mechanic - because we are ignorant. Stupidity isn't new either - plenty of people are dumb. But most normal people knew the things they didn't know.

    The new phenomena is "we've had enough of experts". Of my ignorant opinion somehow having equal (or higher) worth than expertise or facts. The right exploit this for votes - keep them ignorant and angry and they will vote for you.

    Social media? A phenomenon. My bit of social media only does EVs and Tesla specifically. The number of times the same untruth is typed - or sometimes just pasted - is astonishing. The poster could find out the truth in 2 seconds. But does not. They know their truth and it has been cut up and fed to them to reinforce their ignorance.

    No idea how we combat this. But the ignorance isn't "woke". Its been weaponised by the people who are against "woke".
    Eventually, you will understand why Wokeness is pivotal, and you will agree with me

    It will take you about 3 years, is my highly educated guess

    People much brighter than you - eg Sam Altman of openAI (see below) - are nearly there already; people much stupider than you - sadly, an awful lot of people - will likely NEVER get there. Which is quite chilling
    I still have not found a clear definition of "woke". It changes and adapts and shifts dependent on whatever the moral crisis is that the person shouting "woke" is unhappy about. This week its anti-semitism apparently.
    QED. 3 years. Maybe 4
    What do you make of Donald Trump saying people who chanted 'Jews will not replace us' as very fine people?

    I wonder why you never spammed PB about that particular brand of antisemitism.
    Indeed. Anyone with a modicum of sense can see that both the extreme left and the extreme right embrace anti-semitism, and it's equally as abhorrent in both cases.

    Of course this is one of a number of examples of the extreme left and right curving round the political horseshoe to meet in hell.

    Most of us on here, whether left or right-leaning can see this and have no truck with those extremes. That Leon does not is, I think, telling.
    Of course it is on the extreme right as well

    I never said otherwise. But it is far more salient and manifest on the left, and that is where the danger emanates

    Do you think the presidents and professors at Harvard, MIT and Penn Uni are generally Republican voters?
    No. And I think they should be fired.
    It looks like at least one might, indeed, be fired

    https://x.com/sfmcguire79/status/1732894058186420438?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,041
    Cyclefree said:

    Nigelb said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Interesting article. I wasn’t aware of the position of voluntary organisations. It seems to me that they also should be able to avail themselves of the “proportionate means for legitimate exclusion.”

    I tend not to comment on this topic, because I am not Scottish or female or trans. But it has always struck me that eliding sex with gender is the root of all chaos here. Gender is fluid through time and location. What it means to be a man or a woman changes. However, sex although not completely binary mostly is.

    Overall in most cases, I think if we were a bit clearer on what should be exclusive on the basis of sex and what should be exclusive on the basis of gender we may get some sense. For the most part I don’t see why there should be many gender-based exclusions - and I am sure many agree with that. However, clearly where there are risks - support groups for female survivors of rape and abuse - it makes sense to sex exclusion. Same with most sports (whether contact based or otherwise) - if you’ve been through a male puberty it is daft to put females against you.

    However, in protecting females in prison and what not, we should not lose sight of trans victims of violence and rape. I read an article in the LRB that suggested that trans women in male prisons can also be victims of horrific levels of violence and rape. Apparently the same to can be said in society in genreral.

    So like most issues it’s complicated and there is an element of risk to manage to protect folk. Of course that doesn’t help for arguments on the internets.

    Men in prison who claim to be trans and are at risk of rape and violence are at risk of this from other men. This is a problem of male violence and needs to be resolved within male prisons. It is NOT for women to solve this or to take on the burden and risk of solving this. Women are not support animals for men...

    Scottish policy on that has changed to some extent.
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-67613441.amp

    It hasn't. There is no absolute ban on male sexual offenders being housed in female prisons in Scotland.

    "..to some extent...", it has.
    I didn't say they had brought in an absolute ban.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,865
    On topic, I’ve sometimes wondered if many of the issues around transgender people in prison are due, in large part, to the dreadful overcrowding in our prisons.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,455

    nico679 said:

    Chris said:

    The great thing about having someone hyper-rich as prime minister is that his conceptions are on a much grander scale than most people's.

    But Sunak thinks nothing of spending a quarter of a billion pounds of public money on a fantasy scheme that now has the sole aim of saving his career.

    Sunak needs the flights to take off just before the election. A big gap is dangerous if the boats keep coming. The sensible thing to do was to have dropped the policy when he came in , that was his window of opportunity but then of course he’d made a deal with Braverman.

    There is a Terrible Danger. The flights may well be loaded. And then held on the ground as person after person is pulled off under legal challenge. And then the flight lands in Rwanda and is turned back because we have broken our agreement with the Rwandans.

    I rewatched that presser yesterday. Sunak rightly points out that there is no point having a law which the Rwandans won't agree to. But the bill already crosses that line on page 1. He says that the "new treaty" makes things possible that were not before; Not so says the Rwandan minister who co-signed.

    Sunak is trying to claim credit for fewer boats crossing. But he pledged - check the lectern - to Stop the Boats. Not reduce them. And he can't stop them. The audience he is pitching to don't care if the numbers have slowed - they want them to STOP. And then the foreigners to be sent away. Its impossible to satisfy them.
    It's much worse.

    Rishi Sunak was told by lawyers that his emergency Rwanda scheme will be ­“seriously impeded” from working because it “provides an easy way” for migrants to avoid deportation.

    The prime minister insisted on Thursday that his new law aimed at reviving the policy was the only approach that would prevent further legal challenges scuppering flights. He said he was ­confident that flights would take off before the general election and pledged to “finish the job”.

    However, The Times has been told that Downing Street was warned by two senior lawyers that the scheme risked failure because it would continue to ­allow migrants to lodge challenges against their individual removal to Rwanda. Legal advice from a senior government lawyer said “the scheme would be seriously impeded” if the bill did not include a so-called ­“ouster clause” that barred individual legal challenges.

    Separate external legal counsel that was sought by the government warned that the failure to bar individual challenges “is inconsistent with the intellectual underpinning of the bill and also would provide an easy way for many applicants to avoid the effects of the bill”....

    ...The Safety of Rwanda Bill, presented to parliament on Thursday, will bar ­systematic challenges being brought against the policy by instructing immigration officers, courts and tribunals to treat Rwanda as a “conclusively safe country”. However, clause four of the bill is seen by critics of the legislation as a weakness because it says that people can make claims if there is “compelling evidence relating specifically to a ­person’s individual circumstances”.

    A senior Conservative MP and lawyer said that this would leave the courts “inundated” with legal claims from ­migrants helped by immigration lawyers who would “come up with a whole range of innovative reasons why Rwanda is unsafe for a particular individual”.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/rwanda-bill-plan-rishi-sunak-asylum-seekers-2vmxm5vvx
    The fascinating thing about PMQs was the way that Sunak tore the bill apart line by line. "Have you read it?" he kept asking Sunak. Clearly they haven't - Sunak knows the spin lines but not the detail which rather show up the spin lines as ignorant lies.

    As an "have you read it" practitioner I make Good Money from reading such documents and pulling out details that others have missed. So bravo Starmer.

    Then we turn back to the Tories and their PB shills. "We have a plan, what is Labour's plan." They do not have a plan. What they claim to be a plan is unworkable. Laughable. Have they read their "plan". Have they *understood* it? This is crayon politics , sketched by idiots to placate morons.
    I'll say it again, Brexit and the referendum campaign with its focus on immigration, has radicalised the Tories.

    At some point Starmer or Farage is going to point out the Tories are focussed on a few thousand illegal migrants and not on the 1.5 million legal migration.
    It's a Penrose staircase.

    Older people are the defining part of the electorate and they want good health and social care and lower immigration at the same time.

    The government calculate that not fixing the former carries the greater electoral penalty and there is no other way to do it quickly other than high immigration.
    We could always finish off the oldies with large doses of ayahuasca

    https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-the-dying-deserve-illegal-drugs/
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,164
    TimS said:

    Good morning all. Today’s 00z GFs model run ends, on the morning of the 24th, primed to give us a nailed on white Christmas.



    Something to unite the woke and non-woke.
    Unlikely to happen though.

    5/1 at Manchester, 6/1 at Liverpool and 8/1 at Birmingham with Ladbrokes
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,455
    Cyclefree said:

    Honestly @Leon - at one point I had 3 toddlers under the age of 5 and was also dealing with City traders. So I am well used to dealing with the hyperactive "it's all about me" lot. And I actually went on the March against Anti-Semitism. So I care about that too.

    But FFS for once couldn't you just pretend to pay attention - even for a moment - to one of my headers. Just once. Just like we pretend to pay attention to the photos of your glasses of wine as you chew on dogs in some ghastly beige hotel somewhere and whine about the "W" word .....

    A woman spurned is a fearsome thing
  • On topic, I’ve sometimes wondered if many of the issues around transgender people in prison are due, in large part, to the dreadful overcrowding in our prisons.

    The ideal would surely be that nobody is attacking or raping anyone in prisons.

    That, like a lot of things, seems to be beyond the wit of the British state.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,908

    The conservative Party of today is so reminiscent of Major and his "bastards" in 92/97.
    They are so blinkered the party will be out of office for at least 10 yrs.

    Depends on the economy, the state of the economy being relatively good from 1997 to 2001 did far more to re elect New Labour than the state of the Conservative party.

    Indeed with cost of living and still relatively high inflation and interest rates most western governments still trail in polls at the moment
  • Leon said:

    A 2023 paper… https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/10659129221111081

    “Concern about antisemitism in the U.S. has grown following recent rises in deadly assaults, vandalism, and harassment. Public accounts of antisemitism have focused on both the ideological right and left, suggesting a “horseshoe theory” in which the far left and the far right hold a common set of anti-Jewish prejudicial attitudes that distinguish them from the ideological center. However, there is little quantitative research evaluating left-wing versus right-wing antisemitism. We conduct several experiments on an original survey of 3500 U.S. adults, including an oversample of young adults. We oversampled young adults because unlike other forms of prejudice that are more common among older people, antisemitism is theorized to be more common among younger people. Contrary to the expectation of horseshoe theory, the data show the epicenter of antisemitic attitudes is young adults on the far right.”

    Do you think these people are on the “far right”?

    Hint: this is in Oakland, California

    “American cafe staff refuse to let a Jewish woman use their restroom.

    Inside, they have “decorated” it with texts saying:

    “Neutrality helps genocide in Gaza”

    Recognize these faces of Hate and Antisemitism ?”

    https://x.com/colorapril/status/1732871722318148081?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw
    I see your carefully researched academic analysis based on a randomised stratified population survey and raise you an unverified anecdote from some random on Twitter.
  • Cyclefree said:

    Honestly @Leon - at one point I had 3 toddlers under the age of 5 and was also dealing with City traders. So I am well used to dealing with the hyperactive "it's all about me" lot. And I actually went on the March against Anti-Semitism. So I care about that too.

    But FFS for once couldn't you just pretend to pay attention - even for a moment - to one of my headers. Just once. Just like we pretend to pay attention to the photos of your glasses of wine as you chew on dogs in some ghastly beige hotel somewhere and whine about the "W" word .....

    I'm sorry but who pretends to pay attention to Leon's photos of glasses of breakfast wine?
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,455
    Ukrainians are split on whether to sue for peace

    “Public opinion is also deeply split on how to bring the war to an end, with 44 per cent of Ukrainians believing compromise is needed, vs 48 per cent who wish to continue fighting for victory.”

    https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-ukrainian-war-can-only-end-in-a-peace-deal/
  • TimS said:

    Good morning all. Today’s 00z GFs model run ends, on the morning of the 24th, primed to give us a nailed on white Christmas.



    Something to unite the woke and non-woke.
    Unlikely to happen though.

    Surely the woke would prefer a Christmas of Colour?
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,136
    Nigelb said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Nigelb said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Interesting article. I wasn’t aware of the position of voluntary organisations. It seems to me that they also should be able to avail themselves of the “proportionate means for legitimate exclusion.”

    I tend not to comment on this topic, because I am not Scottish or female or trans. But it has always struck me that eliding sex with gender is the root of all chaos here. Gender is fluid through time and location. What it means to be a man or a woman changes. However, sex although not completely binary mostly is.

    Overall in most cases, I think if we were a bit clearer on what should be exclusive on the basis of sex and what should be exclusive on the basis of gender we may get some sense. For the most part I don’t see why there should be many gender-based exclusions - and I am sure many agree with that. However, clearly where there are risks - support groups for female survivors of rape and abuse - it makes sense to sex exclusion. Same with most sports (whether contact based or otherwise) - if you’ve been through a male puberty it is daft to put females against you.

    However, in protecting females in prison and what not, we should not lose sight of trans victims of violence and rape. I read an article in the LRB that suggested that trans women in male prisons can also be victims of horrific levels of violence and rape. Apparently the same to can be said in society in genreral.

    So like most issues it’s complicated and there is an element of risk to manage to protect folk. Of course that doesn’t help for arguments on the internets.

    Men in prison who claim to be trans and are at risk of rape and violence are at risk of this from other men. This is a problem of male violence and needs to be resolved within male prisons. It is NOT for women to solve this or to take on the burden and risk of solving this. Women are not support animals for men...

    Scottish policy on that has changed to some extent.
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-67613441.amp

    It hasn't. There is no absolute ban on male sexual offenders being housed in female prisons in Scotland.

    "..to some extent...", it has.
    I didn't say they had brought in an absolute ban.
    There should be no males of any type in women's prisons.
  • Leon said:

    And another one realises. Woke + Islamism = anti-Semitism


    Sam Altman
    @sama
    for a long time i said that antisemitism, particularly on the american left, was not as bad as people claimed.

    i'd like to just state that i was totally wrong.

    i still don't understand it, really. or know what to do about it.

    but it is so fucked.



    https://x.com/sama/status/1732925866836210151?s=20

    A quick check on Wikipedia suggests that a quarter of President Biden's Cabinet is Jewish. Perhaps Sleepy Joe did not get the memo.
    Sorry, has 'Sleepy Joe' been making anti-semitic statements? Big news if true.

    Donald Trump however: the people who chanted 'Jews will not replace us' are "very fine people"
    Woosh.
  • MJWMJW Posts: 1,323
    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    And another one realises. Woke + Islamism = anti-Semitism


    Sam Altman
    @sama
    for a long time i said that antisemitism, particularly on the american left, was not as bad as people claimed.

    i'd like to just state that i was totally wrong.

    i still don't understand it, really. or know what to do about it.

    but it is so fucked.



    https://x.com/sama/status/1732925866836210151?s=20

    Antisemitism is a serious problem with the American Left.

    Also, I salute you for realising that when Sam Altman talked about left wing antisemitism, he was really talking about woke. Not a lot of people would have picked that up. Sam Altman, for example, never did.
    Why do you think anti-Semitism is now a problem on the Left? Try and work out the philosophy that might have led progressive leftwing people to perceive Jews as an oppressor, colonial class, and therefore justifiable subjects of persecution and not worthy of protection (as happened to whites, white males, etc, before them)

    There. That wasn't so hard, was it?

    TBF to you Sam Altman hasn't worked it out either - "i still don't understand it, really" - but he will get there, too
    One wouldn't say antisemitism coming from the left is 'wokeness' as it long predates it, and is hardly the preserve of those who completely buy into modern progressivism. No one would describe George Galloway or Peter Willsman as 'woke'. Or any of the various dinosaurs who briefly re-emerged during Corbyn's leadership.

    Rather it's deeper and goes back to Lenin and Marx. It is that oppressed versus oppressor distinction and the notion that not loudly and aggressively siding with the former, your are complicit in the crimes of the latter.

    It's a way of thinking that is disastrously reductive and simplistic - and of course quite often leads to antisemitism if you place Israel as irredeemably in the latter category and the likes of Hamas and its ideological brethren in the former and then attack Jews for understandably not sharing that classification. Even if they are very critical of Israel's actions. And of course it led to antisemitism long before Israel's existence when antisemitic stereotypes also placed Jews in said 'oppressor class'. (See J.A. Hobson).

    'Wokeness' is more of a fad ideological offshoot that nonetheless shares the same problems the far left has always had by using the same flawed concepts. It's just because it's faddish and has fashionable less dry additions, it's caught on beyond the usual circles, meaning it's much more visible.
This discussion has been closed.