Doubtless @Leon was chuckling away at Sunak’s quip at Starmer at PMQs. Loves a laugh does our Leon.
Loved it. Mega Bantz
I actually suspect he put it in JUST FOR ME
Nice one, Rishirooney
May you fall from an extremely high height and have a long time to contemplate smacking into the ground.
IT WAS A JOKE
I was riffing off the weird PB idea that my opinion even matters, like Rishi consults me to see if I guffaw at his jibes
FWIW I think what he said was crass, unfunny and simply weird in its mistiming. He suffers from a really bad Tin Ear, he has quite low emotional intellligence. Think back to his "actually I don't know any working class people" line as a young man, you can kinda see what he meant by it, but it came over terribly
He is still that guy, I suspect. Highly intelligent, scholarly and hard working, an ideal technocrat (as others have noted) but prone to daft and awkward remarks because he doesn't see how they come over
He's not the worst PM in history, he is capable, well meaning, a little ruthless maybe, but he lacks that essential EQ
He is just utterly crap at politics. I think more so than any previous incumbent of the office. Even Liz Truss has the redeeming feature of being savvy enough to position herself in a way to win a leadership contest.
It is weird seeing someone at the top of politics being so useless at it.
I hope that the next time Rishi scuttles from cover that some hack is gallus enough to ask him if he thinks Brianna Ghey was a murdered girl or a murdered boy.
Tom Harwood @tomhfh I get the horrible feeling that a media row about “what is a woman” is precisely the row Number 10 wants to have.
Sunak will get positive headlines in the Mail, Express and Telegraph, as well as support from GB News. Unfortunately for him, most people don’t read the Mail, Express or Telegraph, or watch GB News.
Mail circulation only around 700000 now down from over 2 million a few years ago.
It is in the top ten most visited English-speaking websites in the world, which - these days - is a far more important metric
Yes but those visitors will likely only read the odd article.
But the number of visitors mailonline gets - in the tens of millions - means its political slant can make an impact even if only 0.1% go on to read other, more political articles (after being dragged in by the sideboob of shame, or some mad UFOs-are-made-up story)
The future is obvs online, that is the only arena that matters
He had a weird moment yesterday whereby he offered out a poster and then immediately flounced off. He had sad before that he struggles to sleep due to having very young children, so this was probably to blame.
The guy can be a pompous arse at times (especially when it comes to royal matters). But he is an intelligent guy and can be very insightful. Also likes James Bond and trains, so clearly a good egg.
James Bond is ace. Moonraker is the best film.
His point though, although it was somewhat extreme offering someone out to make it, is that people will say stuff online that they would never dare say to anyone’s face in public. You do not know the person you are abusing or trying to wind up. You do not know how it will impact them.
I think that is certainly the case of many people here. Dura Ace would be the exception of course. I think he would probably say more in public.
So, yes, he flounced and it was not edifying but I get the frustration. Some people here just like to bait and taunt and also deliberately misrepresent. He just seemed to tire of it yesterday.
In my undergraduate days I caused a bit of annoyance due to my position on the royals - I went to the debate society and refused to engage in any of the economic or tradition arguments of the royals and going straight for the absurd - the idea they have "magic special blood" - because, at the end of the day, that is what every argument for them really is defending.
I have, indeed, called the monarchs unelected spongers in public (indeed, even with my grandparents who mostly agree if had a soft spot for Lizzie) and I would happily say the same things in a public setting. I can't remember if I have said Charles and I shit the same in public - but I did use a less scatological summary of the "do we not all bleed" argument in arguing that monarchs are just mere mortals too.
I'm a republican too, with similar, if less trenchant, views. The thing is, though, I don't see the point in arguing with a passionate monarchist such as Casino, who's entitled to his views.
Why didn't you (and others) just ignore his posts rather than winding him up? It was all a bit pointless, and nearly led to the outbreak of WW 3 yesterday.
Because he's a thin-skinned, sanctimonious bully. If you can't take it, don't deal it.
And you evidently are the same?
CR's been a little off with me in the past as well - sometimes quite hilariously. I've almost certainly been 'off' with him at times as well. But AFAIR CR has stated that he does have problems with his mental health, and kicking someone when they're obviously down isn't a good look.
Hiding behind your mental health when being a dickhead is dickheaded. I don't blame my Venlafaxine for what I say - I just don't sit on forums shouting into the void when I feel like jumping off a bridge.
Big Rish can certainly do Spreadsheet Wanker with a great deal more authenticity than he can ape the socially regressive views of a 63 year old white man with a fat neck called Barry.
Would the voters reward him for that authenticity. Probably. A bit.
I hope that the next time Rishi scuttles from cover that some hack is gallus enough to ask him if he thinks Brianna Ghey was a murdered girl or a murdered boy.
Doubtless @Leon was chuckling away at Sunak’s quip at Starmer at PMQs. Loves a laugh does our Leon.
Loved it. Mega Bantz
I actually suspect he put it in JUST FOR ME
Nice one, Rishirooney
May you fall from an extremely high height and have a long time to contemplate smacking into the ground.
IT WAS A JOKE
I was riffing off the weird PB idea that my opinion even matters, like Rishi consults me to see if I guffaw at his jibes
FWIW I think what he said was crass, unfunny and simply weird in its mistiming. He suffers from a really bad Tin Ear, he has quite low emotional intellligence. Think back to his "actually I don't know any working class people" line as a young man, you can kinda see what he meant by it, but it came over terribly
He is still that guy, I suspect. Highly intelligent, scholarly and hard working, an ideal technocrat (as others have noted) but prone to daft and awkward remarks because he doesn't see how they come over
He's not the worst PM in history, he is capable, well meaning, a little ruthless maybe, but he lacks that essential EQ
He is just utterly crap at politics. I think more so than any previous incumbent of the office. Even Liz Truss has the redeeming feature of being savvy enough to position herself in a way to win a leadership contest.
It is weird seeing someone at the top of politics being so useless at it.
Wasnt he teetotal at university. Maybe he could have benefitted from going to more parties.
He had a weird moment yesterday whereby he offered out a poster and then immediately flounced off. He had sad before that he struggles to sleep due to having very young children, so this was probably to blame.
The guy can be a pompous arse at times (especially when it comes to royal matters). But he is an intelligent guy and can be very insightful. Also likes James Bond and trains, so clearly a good egg.
James Bond is ace. Moonraker is the best film.
His point though, although it was somewhat extreme offering someone out to make it, is that people will say stuff online that they would never dare say to anyone’s face in public. You do not know the person you are abusing or trying to wind up. You do not know how it will impact them.
I think that is certainly the case of many people here. Dura Ace would be the exception of course. I think he would probably say more in public.
So, yes, he flounced and it was not edifying but I get the frustration. Some people here just like to bait and taunt and also deliberately misrepresent. He just seemed to tire of it yesterday.
In my undergraduate days I caused a bit of annoyance due to my position on the royals - I went to the debate society and refused to engage in any of the economic or tradition arguments of the royals and going straight for the absurd - the idea they have "magic special blood" - because, at the end of the day, that is what every argument for them really is defending.
I have, indeed, called the monarchs unelected spongers in public (indeed, even with my grandparents who mostly agree if had a soft spot for Lizzie) and I would happily say the same things in a public setting. I can't remember if I have said Charles and I shit the same in public - but I did use a less scatological summary of the "do we not all bleed" argument in arguing that monarchs are just mere mortals too.
You and Charles shit in public? That's a bit entitled.
I read a Stephen Fry book once where one character discusses this very issue when he was arrested for cottaging. Apparently if you're having sex in a public toilet cubical, you're doing public indecency, but if you're shitting in it you're not. But if you were shitting in public, that would be public indecency. So a public toilet is a kind of Schrödinger's public space - both public and private at the same time.
I hope that the next time Rishi scuttles from cover that some hack is gallus enough to ask him if he thinks Brianna Ghey was a murdered girl or a murdered boy.
The thing is, Sunak presumably supports trans rights. So, what's he supposed to apologise for?
That said, he's a bloody idiot for saying anything around that subject today.
He could apologise for being a twat (although it may get a little repetitive after a while).
The most problematic thing for Sunak is people just think he's an arsehole. Simple as that.
And he is. He's not stupid. He seems to be hard working. He is not exceptionally dishonest for a politician. He seems reasonably decisive. But, he's an arsehole and that taints everything else he says and does.
He is a technocrat and not in anyway a politician
Yes, I think he would have done better in a technocratic government such as Italy sometimes has when the politicians have screwed up more spectacularly than normal.
His arrogance, insularity and indifference make him completely unsuited for modern politics. I feel its time to bring out my Bill Clinton story again.
Joe Klein was watching Bill fight for some middle ground against Union members in NH, sort of Blair, third way sort of stuff. It wasn't popular but he held his ground. Klein had his daughter with him. As Clinton is leaving he sees them in the crowd and he goes to speak to the daughter, Amy. He says that he's the reason that she had not been seeing much of her daddy recently because he had been following him around. "But let me tell you Amy, he talks about you all the time."
Now that's a politician.
Who allegedly boffed a shedload of ******* girls on Epstein island - "Bill likes them young!" - but you know, never let that get in the way of a good anecdote
I hear Jimmy Savile was a hoot
The Branson and the young girl story on Epstein Island seems to have gone remarkably quiet.
If this story dies with only Prince Andrew getting remotely skewered - from all the many many prominent men forensically named in the allegations, Clinton to Trump - then Andrew can, weirdly, count himself unlucky and maybe he should break an angry sweat. In Woking
Srrange how the public has selective outrage. Prince Andrew nonce cast him out Bill Clinton shrug Richard Branson shrig.
It is almost like the different levels of information out there about each one have an impact.
Continuing on from the discussion yesterday about PR - it's interesting to see who it might benefit the most (this is not a question about PR, but it is an attempt to see what people might vote if FPTP was not an issue):
It never works. Remember 2015, and all those polls asking "how would you vote if you know the name of the MP"? They didn't work either. You deal with the facts on the ground, and polls on hypotheticals don't work except as an attempt to achieve change.
The thing is, Sunak presumably supports trans rights. So, what's he supposed to apologise for?
That said, he's a bloody idiot for saying anything around that subject today.
He could apologise for being a twat (although it may get a little repetitive after a while).
The most problematic thing for Sunak is people just think he's an arsehole. Simple as that.
And he is. He's not stupid. He seems to be hard working. He is not exceptionally dishonest for a politician. He seems reasonably decisive. But, he's an arsehole and that taints everything else he says and does.
He is a technocrat and not in anyway a politician
Yes, I think he would have done better in a technocratic government such as Italy sometimes has when the politicians have screwed up more spectacularly than normal.
His arrogance, insularity and indifference make him completely unsuited for modern politics. I feel its time to bring out my Bill Clinton story again.
Joe Klein was watching Bill fight for some middle ground against Union members in NH, sort of Blair, third way sort of stuff. It wasn't popular but he held his ground. Klein had his daughter with him. As Clinton is leaving he sees them in the crowd and he goes to speak to the daughter, Amy. He says that he's the reason that she had not been seeing much of her daddy recently because he had been following him around. "But let me tell you Amy, he talks about you all the time."
Now that's a politician.
Who allegedly boffed a shedload of ******* girls on Epstein island - "Bill likes them young!" - but you know, never let that get in the way of a good anecdote
I hear Jimmy Savile was a hoot
The Branson and the young girl story on Epstein Island seems to have gone remarkably quiet.
If this story dies with only Prince Andrew getting remotely skewered - from all the many many prominent men forensically named in the allegations, Clinton to Trump - then Andrew can, weirdly, count himself unlucky and maybe he should break an angry sweat. In Woking
Srrange how the public has selective outrage. Prince Andrew nonce cast him out Bill Clinton shrug Richard Branson shrig.
Andrew was skewered by publication of that photo of him & Virginia Giuffre.
He had a weird moment yesterday whereby he offered out a poster and then immediately flounced off. He had sad before that he struggles to sleep due to having very young children, so this was probably to blame.
The guy can be a pompous arse at times (especially when it comes to royal matters). But he is an intelligent guy and can be very insightful. Also likes James Bond and trains, so clearly a good egg.
James Bond is ace. Moonraker is the best film.
His point though, although it was somewhat extreme offering someone out to make it, is that people will say stuff online that they would never dare say to anyone’s face in public. You do not know the person you are abusing or trying to wind up. You do not know how it will impact them.
I think that is certainly the case of many people here. Dura Ace would be the exception of course. I think he would probably say more in public.
So, yes, he flounced and it was not edifying but I get the frustration. Some people here just like to bait and taunt and also deliberately misrepresent. He just seemed to tire of it yesterday.
In my undergraduate days I caused a bit of annoyance due to my position on the royals - I went to the debate society and refused to engage in any of the economic or tradition arguments of the royals and going straight for the absurd - the idea they have "magic special blood" - because, at the end of the day, that is what every argument for them really is defending.
I have, indeed, called the monarchs unelected spongers in public (indeed, even with my grandparents who mostly agree if had a soft spot for Lizzie) and I would happily say the same things in a public setting. I can't remember if I have said Charles and I shit the same in public - but I did use a less scatological summary of the "do we not all bleed" argument in arguing that monarchs are just mere mortals too.
I'm a republican too, with similar, if less trenchant, views. The thing is, though, I don't see the point in arguing with a passionate monarchist such as Casino, who's entitled to his views.
Why didn't you (and others) just ignore his posts rather than winding him up? It was all a bit pointless, and nearly led to the outbreak of WW 3 yesterday.
Yes and no. There are several posters on here whom I ignore because their posts are invariably boring, inane, vacuous and ill-informed.
But I don't ignore anyone I disagree with. What on earth would be the point of that.
Casino has had some (self-acknowledged) issues with his anger on this forum and, frankly, if he takes it out on unknown posters then it's no harm done. When he offers people out online then that's fine also. As long as he is prepared to go back to his wife and children and explain why he has bleeding knuckles/a broken jaw/been arrested delete as appropriate.
I hope that the next time Rishi scuttles from cover that some hack is gallus enough to ask him if he thinks Brianna Ghey was a murdered girl or a murdered boy.
What does the death certificate say?
Rish saying 'I refer you to the death certificate' would be so on brand.
Tom Harwood @tomhfh I get the horrible feeling that a media row about “what is a woman” is precisely the row Number 10 wants to have.
Sunak will get positive headlines in the Mail, Express and Telegraph, as well as support from GB News. Unfortunately for him, most people don’t read the Mail, Express or Telegraph, or watch GB News.
Mail circulation only around 700000 now down from over 2 million a few years ago.
It is in the top ten most visited English-speaking websites in the world, which - these days - is a far more important metric
Much of that traffic comes from deep links to specific stories. People generally don't read Mail Online, or any other website, as they would a newspaper, starting from the frontpage and working in, they get links from sites like this. Many/most visitors to the online version of the paper are there because they are following a link to a specific piece of click bait.
I think it was @RMCunliffe who asked: if Sunak had stuck to the responsible-technocrat image that suits him much more than the right-leaning-culture-warrior, would he be any worse off in either the polls or with the parliamentary Tory party?
Very much doubt it.
The problem is that whilst many people did indeed think of Sunak in those terms, that image has never actually been a good fit for him. If anything, the "moderate technocrat" label was something applied to him by his opponents - Liz Truss used it very effectively against him in the initial leadership contest, for example.
In reality, he's been banging the transphobic drum from the start - often in the most crass terms possible. Including, if I recall correctly, in his very first line in his first PMQs. He got away with it then because the Tory backbencher who asked the question was inaudible on the live stream, and everyone was waiting for the first exchange with SKS.
He's definitely said similar things on a number of occasions since then - implying each time that he's privy to some secret knowledge whilst his opponent isn't. It's such an odd attack line to use, and Rishi always seems to make it seem even odder.
I know people often compare him to Will from the Inbetweeners, but when he uses his "yes, Mr Speaker, I DO know what a woman is", he sounds more like the Morwenna Banks "little girl" character from Absolutely. I keep expecting him to follow up with "it's like a person, only it has BOOBIES, I know, it's twue!".
He had a weird moment yesterday whereby he offered out a poster and then immediately flounced off. He had sad before that he struggles to sleep due to having very young children, so this was probably to blame.
The guy can be a pompous arse at times (especially when it comes to royal matters). But he is an intelligent guy and can be very insightful. Also likes James Bond and trains, so clearly a good egg.
James Bond is ace. Moonraker is the best film.
His point though, although it was somewhat extreme offering someone out to make it, is that people will say stuff online that they would never dare say to anyone’s face in public. You do not know the person you are abusing or trying to wind up. You do not know how it will impact them.
I think that is certainly the case of many people here. Dura Ace would be the exception of course. I think he would probably say more in public.
So, yes, he flounced and it was not edifying but I get the frustration. Some people here just like to bait and taunt and also deliberately misrepresent. He just seemed to tire of it yesterday.
In my undergraduate days I caused a bit of annoyance due to my position on the royals - I went to the debate society and refused to engage in any of the economic or tradition arguments of the royals and going straight for the absurd - the idea they have "magic special blood" - because, at the end of the day, that is what every argument for them really is defending.
I have, indeed, called the monarchs unelected spongers in public (indeed, even with my grandparents who mostly agree if had a soft spot for Lizzie) and I would happily say the same things in a public setting. I can't remember if I have said Charles and I shit the same in public - but I did use a less scatological summary of the "do we not all bleed" argument in arguing that monarchs are just mere mortals too.
I'm a republican too, with similar, if less trenchant, views. The thing is, though, I don't see the point in arguing with a passionate monarchist such as Casino, who's entitled to his views.
Why didn't you (and others) just ignore his posts rather than winding him up? It was all a bit pointless, and nearly led to the outbreak of WW 3 yesterday.
Because he's a thin-skinned, sanctimonious bully. If you can't take it, don't deal it.
And you evidently are the same?
CR's been a little off with me in the past as well - sometimes quite hilariously. I've almost certainly been 'off' with him at times as well. But AFAIR CR has stated that he does have problems with his mental health, and kicking someone when they're obviously down isn't a good look.
If I recall correctly, @Casino_Royale has admitted to anger management issues, and has - possibly - sought advice or therapy on the same
We really do have very few rightwing voices left (let alone actual loyal Tories). The site should not drive the last of them away, because that skews the feed and turns the place into a ghastly boring bubble. PB leftwingers are universally pious and dull, which adds to the problem
Replying to @alexwickhamPM’s spokesperson doubles down on Sunak’s trans joke in front of Esther Ghey — declines to apologise — defends it as “legitimate”
Yes, it is legitimate but that is no defence. He should really apologise. It was tactless and insensitive. Show some ruddy empathy for once, Sunak, you great twit.
I mean, there is zero difference between you and him right now. It isn't legitimate, it's a transphobic dogwhistle aimed at giving people like you red meat. Just because it makes your political position look like it's only held by heartless ghouls because he happened to say it in front on a dead girl's mother are you any way annoyed he said it.
It is perfectly legitimate and there is a debate to be had.
Yes, I am annoyed at the tactless way in which he said it and his doubling down.
Doesn't mean the issue is not one that needs addressing and the concerns of women listening to.
What's the debate? Do trans people exist, and are they a threat to womanhood? Fuck that debate - they exist, and no they aren't.
No, that is not the debate. That is you, most eloquently too, deciding what the debate is then dismissing it.
Very very few people deny the existence of Trans People. Certainly no one on here irrespective of their position on the debate.
I hope that the next time Rishi scuttles from cover that some hack is gallus enough to ask him if he thinks Brianna Ghey was a murdered girl or a murdered boy.
What does the death certificate say?
The death certificate calls her a girl.
I don't think it does. There was a petition to change it that was rejected.
Replying to @alexwickhamPM’s spokesperson doubles down on Sunak’s trans joke in front of Esther Ghey — declines to apologise — defends it as “legitimate”
Yes, it is legitimate but that is no defence. He should really apologise. It was tactless and insensitive. Show some ruddy empathy for once, Sunak, you great twit.
I mean, there is zero difference between you and him right now. It isn't legitimate, it's a transphobic dogwhistle aimed at giving people like you red meat. Just because it makes your political position look like it's only held by heartless ghouls because he happened to say it in front on a dead girl's mother are you any way annoyed he said it.
It is perfectly legitimate and there is a debate to be had.
Yes, I am annoyed at the tactless way in which he said it and his doubling down.
Doesn't mean the issue is not one that needs addressing and the concerns of women listening to.
What's the debate? Do trans people exist, and are they a threat to womanhood? Fuck that debate - they exist, and no they aren't.
No, that is not the debate. That is you, most eloquently too, deciding what the debate is then dismissing it.
Very very few people deny the existence of Trans People. Certainly no one on here irrespective of their position on the debate.
So what is the debate? Spell it out for me. When Rishi Sunak says SKS doesn't know "if a woman is a woman and if a man is a man" what legitimate point in said debate is he making?
I think it was @RMCunliffe who asked: if Sunak had stuck to the responsible-technocrat image that suits him much more than the right-leaning-culture-warrior, would he be any worse off in either the polls or with the parliamentary Tory party?
Very much doubt it.
The problem is that whilst many people did indeed think of Sunak in those terms, that image has never actually been a good fit for him. If anything, the "moderate technocrat" label was something applied to him by his opponents - Liz Truss used it very effectively against him in the initial leadership contest, for example.
In reality, he's been banging the transphobic drum from the start - often in the most crass terms possible. Including, if I recall correctly, in his very first line in his first PMQs was. He got away with it then because the Tory backbencher who asked the question was inaudible on the live stream, and everyone was waiting for the first exchange with SKS.
He's definitely said similar things on a number of occasions since then - implying each time that he's privy to some secret knowledge whilst his opponent isn't. It's such an odd attack line to use, and Rishi always seems to make it seem even odder.
I know people often compare him to Will from the Inbetweeners, but when he uses his "yes, Mr Speaker, I DO know what a woman is", he sounds more like the Morwenna Banks "little girl" character from Absolutely. I keep expecting him to follow up with "it's like a person, only it has BOOBIES, I know, it's twue!".
He could type that out on an upside down calculator for sure.
Tom Harwood @tomhfh I get the horrible feeling that a media row about “what is a woman” is precisely the row Number 10 wants to have.
Sunak will get positive headlines in the Mail, Express and Telegraph, as well as support from GB News. Unfortunately for him, most people don’t read the Mail, Express or Telegraph, or watch GB News.
Mail circulation only around 700000 now down from over 2 million a few years ago.
It is in the top ten most visited English-speaking websites in the world, which - these days - is a far more important metric
Yes but those visitors will likely only read the odd article.
But the number of visitors mailonline gets - in the tens of millions - means its political slant can make an impact even if only 0.1% go on to read other, more political articles (after being dragged in by the sideboob of shame, or some mad UFOs-are-made-up story)
The future is obvs online, that is the only arena that matters
Yes speaking of online impact Tucker Carlsons interview with Putin will drop at 11pm tomorrow uk time on X.
Doubtless @Leon was chuckling away at Sunak’s quip at Starmer at PMQs. Loves a laugh does our Leon.
Loved it. Mega Bantz
I actually suspect he put it in JUST FOR ME
Nice one, Rishirooney
May you fall from an extremely high height and have a long time to contemplate smacking into the ground.
IT WAS A JOKE
I was riffing off the weird PB idea that my opinion even matters, like Rishi consults me to see if I guffaw at his jibes
FWIW I think what he said was crass, unfunny and simply weird in its mistiming. He suffers from a really bad Tin Ear, he has quite low emotional intellligence. Think back to his "actually I don't know any working class people" line as a young man, you can kinda see what he meant by it, but it came over terribly
He is still that guy, I suspect. Highly intelligent, scholarly and hard working, an ideal technocrat (as others have noted) but prone to daft and awkward remarks because he doesn't see how they come over
He's not the worst PM in history, he is capable, well meaning, a little ruthless maybe, but he lacks that essential EQ
He is just utterly crap at politics. I think more so than any previous incumbent of the office. Even Liz Truss has the redeeming feature of being savvy enough to position herself in a way to win a leadership contest.
It is weird seeing someone at the top of politics being so useless at it.
Wasnt he teetotal at university. Maybe he could have benefitted from going to more parties.
I was teetotal at university and all my life.
I went to a lot of parties at university and fell off the good Muslim wagon.
He had a weird moment yesterday whereby he offered out a poster and then immediately flounced off. He had sad before that he struggles to sleep due to having very young children, so this was probably to blame.
The guy can be a pompous arse at times (especially when it comes to royal matters). But he is an intelligent guy and can be very insightful. Also likes James Bond and trains, so clearly a good egg.
James Bond is ace. Moonraker is the best film.
His point though, although it was somewhat extreme offering someone out to make it, is that people will say stuff online that they would never dare say to anyone’s face in public. You do not know the person you are abusing or trying to wind up. You do not know how it will impact them.
I think that is certainly the case of many people here. Dura Ace would be the exception of course. I think he would probably say more in public.
So, yes, he flounced and it was not edifying but I get the frustration. Some people here just like to bait and taunt and also deliberately misrepresent. He just seemed to tire of it yesterday.
In my undergraduate days I caused a bit of annoyance due to my position on the royals - I went to the debate society and refused to engage in any of the economic or tradition arguments of the royals and going straight for the absurd - the idea they have "magic special blood" - because, at the end of the day, that is what every argument for them really is defending.
I have, indeed, called the monarchs unelected spongers in public (indeed, even with my grandparents who mostly agree if had a soft spot for Lizzie) and I would happily say the same things in a public setting. I can't remember if I have said Charles and I shit the same in public - but I did use a less scatological summary of the "do we not all bleed" argument in arguing that monarchs are just mere mortals too.
You and Charles shit in public? That's a bit entitled.
I read a Stephen Fry book once where one character discusses this very issue when he was arrested for cottaging. Apparently if you're having sex in a public toilet cubical, you're doing public indecency, but if you're shitting in it you're not. But if you were shitting in public, that would be public indecency. So a public toilet is a kind of Schrödinger's public space - both public and private at the same time.
Is it time to have the what about wearing a bikini on the Northern Line discussion again.
He had a weird moment yesterday whereby he offered out a poster and then immediately flounced off. He had sad before that he struggles to sleep due to having very young children, so this was probably to blame.
The guy can be a pompous arse at times (especially when it comes to royal matters). But he is an intelligent guy and can be very insightful. Also likes James Bond and trains, so clearly a good egg.
James Bond is ace. Moonraker is the best film.
His point though, although it was somewhat extreme offering someone out to make it, is that people will say stuff online that they would never dare say to anyone’s face in public. You do not know the person you are abusing or trying to wind up. You do not know how it will impact them.
I think that is certainly the case of many people here. Dura Ace would be the exception of course. I think he would probably say more in public.
So, yes, he flounced and it was not edifying but I get the frustration. Some people here just like to bait and taunt and also deliberately misrepresent. He just seemed to tire of it yesterday.
In my undergraduate days I caused a bit of annoyance due to my position on the royals - I went to the debate society and refused to engage in any of the economic or tradition arguments of the royals and going straight for the absurd - the idea they have "magic special blood" - because, at the end of the day, that is what every argument for them really is defending.
I have, indeed, called the monarchs unelected spongers in public (indeed, even with my grandparents who mostly agree if had a soft spot for Lizzie) and I would happily say the same things in a public setting. I can't remember if I have said Charles and I shit the same in public - but I did use a less scatological summary of the "do we not all bleed" argument in arguing that monarchs are just mere mortals too.
I'm a republican too, with similar, if less trenchant, views. The thing is, though, I don't see the point in arguing with a passionate monarchist such as Casino, who's entitled to his views.
Why didn't you (and others) just ignore his posts rather than winding him up? It was all a bit pointless, and nearly led to the outbreak of WW 3 yesterday.
Because he's a thin-skinned, sanctimonious bully. If you can't take it, don't deal it.
And you evidently are the same?
CR's been a little off with me in the past as well - sometimes quite hilariously. I've almost certainly been 'off' with him at times as well. But AFAIR CR has stated that he does have problems with his mental health, and kicking someone when they're obviously down isn't a good look.
I despise bullies. I never start anything on here. Life's too short, generally, to argue with randoms on the internet and I avoid it as much as I can. I'm not perfect and sometimes I'll bite but I try and shut myself up PDQ. No-one gives a damn what I have to say. But CR is nasty. Continually aggressive and personal. He's said stuff about me before, totally unprovoked, and I've just scrolled right by it. I'm glad his avatar is so colourful cos for months now I've just been scrolling right by all his posts. I only saw what was happening 'cos of the replies.
Wanting to fight someone? C'mon, we're not 12. To paraphrase Bill Hicks: 'We lost a moron. Good.'
Tom Harwood @tomhfh I get the horrible feeling that a media row about “what is a woman” is precisely the row Number 10 wants to have.
It is, but most people care more about their mortgage or whether their local school is collapsing than other people's willies/fannies when it comes to choosing who ought to run the country.
And the key takeaway - not whether a woman can have a penis - is that the PM is a [banhammer].
Tom Harwood @tomhfh I get the horrible feeling that a media row about “what is a woman” is precisely the row Number 10 wants to have.
Sunak will get positive headlines in the Mail, Express and Telegraph, as well as support from GB News. Unfortunately for him, most people don’t read the Mail, Express or Telegraph, or watch GB News.
Mail circulation only around 700000 now down from over 2 million a few years ago.
It is in the top ten most visited English-speaking websites in the world, which - these days - is a far more important metric
Yes but those visitors will likely only read the odd article.
But the number of visitors mailonline gets - in the tens of millions - means its political slant can make an impact even if only 0.1% go on to read other, more political articles (after being dragged in by the sideboob of shame, or some mad UFOs-are-made-up story)
The future is obvs online, that is the only arena that matters
Yes speaking of online impact Tucker Carlsons interview with Putin will drop at 11pm tomorrow uk time on X.
It will be huge. I suspect it might be the most watched TV political interview of all time
Carlson is no fool, nor is Musk - and nor is Putin
Tom Harwood @tomhfh I get the horrible feeling that a media row about “what is a woman” is precisely the row Number 10 wants to have.
Sunak will get positive headlines in the Mail, Express and Telegraph, as well as support from GB News. Unfortunately for him, most people don’t read the Mail, Express or Telegraph, or watch GB News.
Mail circulation only around 700000 now down from over 2 million a few years ago.
It is in the top ten most visited English-speaking websites in the world, which - these days - is a far more important metric
Yes but those visitors will likely only read the odd article.
But the number of visitors mailonline gets - in the tens of millions - means its political slant can make an impact even if only 0.1% go on to read other, more political articles (after being dragged in by the sideboob of shame, or some mad UFOs-are-made-up story)
The future is obvs online, that is the only arena that matters
Yes speaking of online impact Tucker Carlsons interview with Putin will drop at 11pm tomorrow uk time on X.
It will be huge. I suspect it might be the most watched TV political interview of all time
Carlson is no fool, nor is Musk - and nor is Putin
Yes I will certainly be watching. It will be interesting how Tucker approaches the interview. Will he go hardball or softball or mix it up.
I hope that the next time Rishi scuttles from cover that some hack is gallus enough to ask him if he thinks Brianna Ghey was a murdered girl or a murdered boy.
What does the death certificate say?
The death certificate calls her a girl.
I don't think it does. There was a petition to change it that was rejected.
I swear I had read somewhere that her mother had said that it was - but I can't seem to find that right now, and a quick search suggests you're at least right about the petition and government failing to do so.
On the other hand I remember reading this and thinking this wasn't actually something the government had to decide and was down to the individual coroner, as described here:
"in an ongoing case concerning a trans person's death, the coroner has agreed that a Gender Recognition Certificate is unnecessary in order to record the correct name and gender of a trans person on their death certificate."
I have absolutely no idea what Rishi Sunak is doing in politics. I can only imagine that just as when the authorities at Winchester school told him he should be head boy, someone (a cruel person) told him he should be PM.
Head boy / girl types never make for good PMs it seems. May was terrible in the role too, though perhaps for different reasons.
Are there any counter-examples?
Harold Wilson. Always the exception to any "over-achievers don't do well in politics" generalisation, but almost certainly the only one.
HW seems to have been a good egg, as far as any politician can be. He kept the country out of Vietnam for a start, for which we should all be profoundly grateful. In my case especially so as it meant my father didn’t have to go to war & risk ending up dying in a foreign paddy field for nothing.
I hope that the next time Rishi scuttles from cover that some hack is gallus enough to ask him if he thinks Brianna Ghey was a murdered girl or a murdered boy.
I would answer by saying that she was a murdered trans-girl.
I hope that the next time Rishi scuttles from cover that some hack is gallus enough to ask him if he thinks Brianna Ghey was a murdered girl or a murdered boy.
What does the death certificate say?
The death certificate calls her a girl.
I don't think it does. There was a petition to change it that was rejected.
I swear I had read somewhere that her mother had said that it was - but I can't seem to find that right now, and a quick search suggests you're at least right about the petition and government failing to do so.
On the other hand I remember reading this and thinking this wasn't actually something the government had to decide and was down to the individual coroner, as described here:
"in an ongoing case concerning a trans person's death, the coroner has agreed that a Gender Recognition Certificate is unnecessary in order to record the correct name and gender of a trans person on their death certificate."
Either way - does it matter?
If it doesn't matter then what's the problem with saying that she was a boy who liked to be referred to as a girl? Why insist that she really was a girl?
Sunak can't have failed to realise the furore his sick "joke" was bound to cause - he's not that stupid.
So it must therefore have been deliberate - cooked up between him and his advisors ahead of time, with the intention of shoring up his position by... er, appealing to bigots. Lovely.
Dog whistles are meant to produce a noise at too high a pitch for all but the intended recipients to notice. Today, everyone could hear what Rishi said, and they'll also have noticed his refusals to apologise.
It seems increasingly likely that the Tories will need more than a decade out of power to detoxify themselves.
They might need more than a decade out of power to detoxify, but will they get it?
Prepare yourselves for a defiantly toxic and proud of it Tory party returning to power at GE2029.
I hope that the next time Rishi scuttles from cover that some hack is gallus enough to ask him if he thinks Brianna Ghey was a murdered girl or a murdered boy.
What does the death certificate say?
The death certificate calls her a girl.
I don't think it does. There was a petition to change it that was rejected.
I swear I had read somewhere that her mother had said that it was - but I can't seem to find that right now, and a quick search suggests you're at least right about the petition and government failing to do so.
On the other hand I remember reading this and thinking this wasn't actually something the government had to decide and was down to the individual coroner, as described here:
"in an ongoing case concerning a trans person's death, the coroner has agreed that a Gender Recognition Certificate is unnecessary in order to record the correct name and gender of a trans person on their death certificate."
Either way - does it matter?
If it doesn't matter then what's the problem with saying that she was a boy who liked to be referred to as a girl? Why insist that she really was a girl?
By "what's it matter" I guess the real question was "what's it matter too you?"
I clearly understand why it matters to her memory, her family and to the whole trans community for her to be recognised as a transgirl - because that is who she was. The judge made it clear that her being a transgirl was, indeed, part of the reason she was murdered. Dignity in death, and dignity for the family, make sense to me.
But why do you care what the death certificate says?
Tom Harwood @tomhfh I get the horrible feeling that a media row about “what is a woman” is precisely the row Number 10 wants to have.
Sunak will get positive headlines in the Mail, Express and Telegraph, as well as support from GB News. Unfortunately for him, most people don’t read the Mail, Express or Telegraph, or watch GB News.
Mail circulation only around 700000 now down from over 2 million a few years ago.
It is in the top ten most visited English-speaking websites in the world, which - these days - is a far more important metric
Yes but those visitors will likely only read the odd article.
But the number of visitors mailonline gets - in the tens of millions - means its political slant can make an impact even if only 0.1% go on to read other, more political articles (after being dragged in by the sideboob of shame, or some mad UFOs-are-made-up story)
The future is obvs online, that is the only arena that matters
Yes speaking of online impact Tucker Carlsons interview with Putin will drop at 11pm tomorrow uk time on X.
It will be huge. I suspect it might be the most watched TV political interview of all time
Carlson is no fool, nor is Musk - and nor is Putin
Yes I will certainly be watching. It will be interesting how Tucker approaches the interview. Will he go hardball or softball or mix it up.
The hypocrisy surrounding this interview is intense
On the one hand, you have journalists shrieking "How dare he interview this wanted war criminal, this is like interviewing Hitler at Belsen, or Fred West at Gloucester Patio Centre, my God the evil" and on the other hand you have journalists shrieking "what's so amazing, we've been trying to get a interview with Putin for many months, what has Carlson promised, what's the shady deal" and sometimes you get the same leading BBC/CNN journalists saying BOTH THINGS
Idiots. As you say, it all depends how he interviews him, if he simply lobs balls for Putin to ace, then Carlson is a fool, and has allowed himself to be bought in return for the amazing viewing figures he's bound to get, but it will be bad for him in the long run. But perhaps he will ask genuinely awkward questions?
A spokeswoman for Keir Starmer said: "We don't think that the country wants or deserve a prime minister who thinks minorities are a punchbag. He should reflect on his comments and apologise."
That's rich, coming from someone who campaigned at the last two elections for someone who thought exactly that to be PM.
I take it the Labour Party can rely on your vote at the next election.
He had a weird moment yesterday whereby he offered out a poster and then immediately flounced off. He had sad before that he struggles to sleep due to having very young children, so this was probably to blame.
The guy can be a pompous arse at times (especially when it comes to royal matters). But he is an intelligent guy and can be very insightful. Also likes James Bond and trains, so clearly a good egg.
James Bond is ace. Moonraker is the best film.
His point though, although it was somewhat extreme offering someone out to make it, is that people will say stuff online that they would never dare say to anyone’s face in public. You do not know the person you are abusing or trying to wind up. You do not know how it will impact them.
I think that is certainly the case of many people here. Dura Ace would be the exception of course. I think he would probably say more in public.
So, yes, he flounced and it was not edifying but I get the frustration. Some people here just like to bait and taunt and also deliberately misrepresent. He just seemed to tire of it yesterday.
In my undergraduate days I caused a bit of annoyance due to my position on the royals - I went to the debate society and refused to engage in any of the economic or tradition arguments of the royals and going straight for the absurd - the idea they have "magic special blood" - because, at the end of the day, that is what every argument for them really is defending.
I have, indeed, called the monarchs unelected spongers in public (indeed, even with my grandparents who mostly agree if had a soft spot for Lizzie) and I would happily say the same things in a public setting. I can't remember if I have said Charles and I shit the same in public - but I did use a less scatological summary of the "do we not all bleed" argument in arguing that monarchs are just mere mortals too.
I'm a republican too, with similar, if less trenchant, views. The thing is, though, I don't see the point in arguing with a passionate monarchist such as Casino, who's entitled to his views.
Why didn't you (and others) just ignore his posts rather than winding him up? It was all a bit pointless.
Actually it was the CR jumped very unpleasantly on 148 for saying 'Chaz' in an otherwise unexceptional post. Only conclusion is that 148 had sinned for not saying 'His Most Gracious M ajesty Charles III Rex, Defensor Fidei, etc. etc.', ie that he had to do just as CR wanted.
The temptation to escalate is always strong. And usually wrong.
I think it was @RMCunliffe who asked: if Sunak had stuck to the responsible-technocrat image that suits him much more than the right-leaning-culture-warrior, would he be any worse off in either the polls or with the parliamentary Tory party?
Very much doubt it.
The problem is that whilst many people did indeed think of Sunak in those terms, that image has never actually been a good fit for him. If anything, the "moderate technocrat" label was something applied to him by his opponents - Liz Truss used it very effectively against him in the initial leadership contest, for example.
In reality, he's been banging the transphobic drum from the start - often in the most crass terms possible. Including, if I recall correctly, in his very first line in his first PMQs. He got away with it then because the Tory backbencher who asked the question was inaudible on the live stream, and everyone was waiting for the first exchange with SKS.
He's definitely said similar things on a number of occasions since then - implying each time that he's privy to some secret knowledge whilst his opponent isn't. It's such an odd attack line to use, and Rishi always seems to make it seem even odder.
I know people often compare him to Will from the Inbetweeners, but when he uses his "yes, Mr Speaker, I DO know what a woman is", he sounds more like the Morwenna Banks "little girl" character from Absolutely. I keep expecting him to follow up with "it's like a person, only it has BOOBIES, I know, it's twue!".
During the Con leadership elections it rapidly became clear that rampant anti-trans rhetoric was a winning strategy & anyone not willing to indulge was on a hiding to nothing. Sunak was happy to take part in the game of “who can promise to be the absolute worst to trans people” during the election, whereas (IIRC) Grant Shapps refused to have anything to do with it & dropped out fairly early.
I hope that the next time Rishi scuttles from cover that some hack is gallus enough to ask him if he thinks Brianna Ghey was a murdered girl or a murdered boy.
What does the death certificate say?
The death certificate calls her a girl.
I don't think it does. There was a petition to change it that was rejected.
I swear I had read somewhere that her mother had said that it was - but I can't seem to find that right now, and a quick search suggests you're at least right about the petition and government failing to do so.
On the other hand I remember reading this and thinking this wasn't actually something the government had to decide and was down to the individual coroner, as described here:
"in an ongoing case concerning a trans person's death, the coroner has agreed that a Gender Recognition Certificate is unnecessary in order to record the correct name and gender of a trans person on their death certificate."
Either way - does it matter?
If it doesn't matter then what's the problem with saying that she was a boy who liked to be referred to as a girl? Why insist that she really was a girl?
By "what's it matter" I guess the real question was "what's it matter too you?"
I clearly understand why it matters to her memory, her family and to the whole trans community for her to be recognised as a transgirl - because that is who she was. The judge made it clear that her being a transgirl was, indeed, part of the reason she was murdered. Dignity in death, and dignity for the family, make sense to me.
But why do you care what the death certificate says?
Does transgirl not imply biologically male, otherwise you'd just say girl?
My best guess is Sunak will try and make this into another round of making the press ask Starmer if "women can have a penis" and watching Starmer squirm because he is also willing to press the big transphobia button, but has the sense not to do it in front of a dead transgirl's mother or in LGBTQ+ History month. It's worked in the past, and many of this parish agree with it and fuel the flames of it.
Though at the end Sunak did express sorrow at the tragic death of Ghey, and did refer to her with feminine pronouns. As she was under 18, Brihana must have been pre-op in terms of genitalia so Sunak implicitly accepts that a woman can have a penis.
It was an astonishingly crass PMQs performance today. Surely there will be a VONC this spring.
This strikes me as similar to how you refer to KCIII. I've no reverence for the man or the institution, but it seems to be just common politeness to refer to him by his chosen name and job title, just as I would use someone's preferred pronouns, even though I don't accept the idea that people can change sex by force of will.
Most of the time it doesn't matter, so there's no need to be impolite until it comes to a point where it does matter.
He had a weird moment yesterday whereby he offered out a poster and then immediately flounced off. He had sad before that he struggles to sleep due to having very young children, so this was probably to blame.
The guy can be a pompous arse at times (especially when it comes to royal matters). But he is an intelligent guy and can be very insightful. Also likes James Bond and trains, so clearly a good egg.
James Bond is ace. Moonraker is the best film.
His point though, although it was somewhat extreme offering someone out to make it, is that people will say stuff online that they would never dare say to anyone’s face in public. You do not know the person you are abusing or trying to wind up. You do not know how it will impact them.
I think that is certainly the case of many people here. Dura Ace would be the exception of course. I think he would probably say more in public.
So, yes, he flounced and it was not edifying but I get the frustration. Some people here just like to bait and taunt and also deliberately misrepresent. He just seemed to tire of it yesterday.
In my undergraduate days I caused a bit of annoyance due to my position on the royals - I went to the debate society and refused to engage in any of the economic or tradition arguments of the royals and going straight for the absurd - the idea they have "magic special blood" - because, at the end of the day, that is what every argument for them really is defending.
I have, indeed, called the monarchs unelected spongers in public (indeed, even with my grandparents who mostly agree if had a soft spot for Lizzie) and I would happily say the same things in a public setting. I can't remember if I have said Charles and I shit the same in public - but I did use a less scatological summary of the "do we not all bleed" argument in arguing that monarchs are just mere mortals too.
‘only one family can provide the head of state. We Liberal Democrats believe in opportunity for all. … we do not believe people are born to rule.’
I think it was @RMCunliffe who asked: if Sunak had stuck to the responsible-technocrat image that suits him much more than the right-leaning-culture-warrior, would he be any worse off in either the polls or with the parliamentary Tory party?
Very much doubt it.
The problem is that whilst many people did indeed think of Sunak in those terms, that image has never actually been a good fit for him. If anything, the "moderate technocrat" label was something applied to him by his opponents - Liz Truss used it very effectively against him in the initial leadership contest, for example.
In reality, he's been banging the transphobic drum from the start - often in the most crass terms possible. Including, if I recall correctly, in his very first line in his first PMQs. He got away with it then because the Tory backbencher who asked the question was inaudible on the live stream, and everyone was waiting for the first exchange with SKS.
He's definitely said similar things on a number of occasions since then - implying each time that he's privy to some secret knowledge whilst his opponent isn't. It's such an odd attack line to use, and Rishi always seems to make it seem even odder.
I know people often compare him to Will from the Inbetweeners, but when he uses his "yes, Mr Speaker, I DO know what a woman is", he sounds more like the Morwenna Banks "little girl" character from Absolutely. I keep expecting him to follow up with "it's like a person, only it has BOOBIES, I know, it's twue!".
During the Con leadership elections it rapidly became clear that rampant anti-trans rhetoric was a winning strategy & anyone not willing to indulge was on a hiding to nothing. Sunak was happy to take part in the game of “who can promise to be the absolute worst to trans people” during the election, whereas (IIRC) Grant Shapps refused to have anything to do with it & dropped out fairly early.
As somebody who had to deal with Section 28 and its devastating results I hope the Tory party has its epiphany on trans issues quicker than they did with gays.
Edit - When I say deal with it, I have a lot of LBTQI friends, some of these I met at university when section 28 was in full flow.
Tom Harwood @tomhfh I get the horrible feeling that a media row about “what is a woman” is precisely the row Number 10 wants to have.
Sunak will get positive headlines in the Mail, Express and Telegraph, as well as support from GB News. Unfortunately for him, most people don’t read the Mail, Express or Telegraph, or watch GB News.
Mail circulation only around 700000 now down from over 2 million a few years ago.
It is in the top ten most visited English-speaking websites in the world, which - these days - is a far more important metric
Yes but those visitors will likely only read the odd article.
But the number of visitors mailonline gets - in the tens of millions - means its political slant can make an impact even if only 0.1% go on to read other, more political articles (after being dragged in by the sideboob of shame, or some mad UFOs-are-made-up story)
The future is obvs online, that is the only arena that matters
Yes speaking of online impact Tucker Carlsons interview with Putin will drop at 11pm tomorrow uk time on X.
It will be huge. I suspect it might be the most watched TV political interview of all time
Carlson is no fool, nor is Musk - and nor is Putin
Yes I will certainly be watching. It will be interesting how Tucker approaches the interview. Will he go hardball or softball or mix it up.
The hypocrisy surrounding this interview is intense
On the one hand, you have journalists shrieking "How dare he interview this wanted war criminal, this is like interviewing Hitler at Belsen, or Fred West at Gloucester Patio Centre, my God the evil" and on the other hand you have journalists shrieking "what's so amazing, we've been trying to get a interview with Putin for many months, what has Carlson promised, what's the shady deal" and sometimes you get the same leading BBC/CNN journalists saying BOTH THINGS
Idiots. As you say, it all depends how he interviews him, if he simply lobs balls for Putin to ace, then Carlson is a fool, and has allowed himself to be bought in return for the amazing viewing figures he's bound to get, but it will be bad for him in the long run. But perhaps he will ask genuinely awkward questions?
Let us wait and see
If you had a IQ that wasn't in single digits you would know that Carlson's tongue will be so far up Putin's arsehole that he'll be able to clean Putin's teeth.
My best guess is Sunak will try and make this into another round of making the press ask Starmer if "women can have a penis" and watching Starmer squirm because he is also willing to press the big transphobia button, but has the sense not to do it in front of a dead transgirl's mother or in LGBTQ+ History month. It's worked in the past, and many of this parish agree with it and fuel the flames of it.
Though at the end Sunak did express sorrow at the tragic death of Ghey, and did refer to her with feminine pronouns. As she was under 18, Brihana must have been pre-op in terms of genitalia so Sunak implicitly accepts that a woman can have a penis.
It was an astonishingly crass PMQs performance today. Surely there will be a VONC this spring.
This strikes me as similar to how you refer to KCIII. I've no reverence for the man or the institution, but it seems to be just common politeness to refer to him by his chosen name and job title, just as I would use someone's preferred pronouns, even though I don't accept the idea that people can change sex by force of will.
Most of the time it doesn't matter, so there's no need to be impolite until it comes to a point where it does matter.
Not hard, is it? Only zealots like @foxy want to be clever about it.
Time for a rant. Did any party leader offer condolences to the mother of Shea Gordon? No? Really? Not 'trans' enough to get headlines? His murderers were jailed for life yesterday.
Yep, it's very obvious. But I'd add it's not just about the victim but also the perpetrator(s). Had Shea Gordon been murdered by white boys, it would have received a lot more attention.
The media were all of that until it started to come out that she was in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Yes, ethnicity and other characteristics of the criminal also have an effect. Again, there's more research from the US.
I find it sad the both left and right fixate on one person's sad murder and fail to even note anothers. Far sadder that pathetic attempts to point score over it (both left and right are doing this right now).
There are about 2 murders a day. How would any of them get attention if all of them are to be mandated equal attention?
(That is assuming only UK murders deserve attention, if all global murders need equal attention then there are over 1000 a day).
This is one of the notably different things about living in Ireland. With a population roughly one thirteenth the size of the UK, there is about one murder every fortnight, and so it's not only the "newsworthy" murders that receive coverage.
Presumably this would be where local news coverage should fill a gap in the UK.
I think it was @RMCunliffe who asked: if Sunak had stuck to the responsible-technocrat image that suits him much more than the right-leaning-culture-warrior, would he be any worse off in either the polls or with the parliamentary Tory party?
Very much doubt it.
The problem is that whilst many people did indeed think of Sunak in those terms, that image has never actually been a good fit for him. If anything, the "moderate technocrat" label was something applied to him by his opponents - Liz Truss used it very effectively against him in the initial leadership contest, for example.
In reality, he's been banging the transphobic drum from the start - often in the most crass terms possible. Including, if I recall correctly, in his very first line in his first PMQs. He got away with it then because the Tory backbencher who asked the question was inaudible on the live stream, and everyone was waiting for the first exchange with SKS.
He's definitely said similar things on a number of occasions since then - implying each time that he's privy to some secret knowledge whilst his opponent isn't. It's such an odd attack line to use, and Rishi always seems to make it seem even odder.
I know people often compare him to Will from the Inbetweeners, but when he uses his "yes, Mr Speaker, I DO know what a woman is", he sounds more like the Morwenna Banks "little girl" character from Absolutely. I keep expecting him to follow up with "it's like a person, only it has BOOBIES, I know, it's twue!".
During the Con leadership elections it rapidly became clear that rampant anti-trans rhetoric was a winning strategy & anyone not willing to indulge was on a hiding to nothing. Sunak was happy to take part in the game of “who can promise to be the absolute worst to trans people” during the election, whereas (IIRC) Grant Shapps refused to have anything to do with it & dropped out fairly early.
As somebody who had to deal with Section 28 and its devastating results I hope the Tory party has its epiphany on trans issues quicker than they did with gays.
Have you considered doing a thread header on it? I would genuinely be interested in how you think it is comparable with gay rights.
I hope that the next time Rishi scuttles from cover that some hack is gallus enough to ask him if he thinks Brianna Ghey was a murdered girl or a murdered boy.
What does the death certificate say?
The death certificate calls her a girl.
I don't think it does. There was a petition to change it that was rejected.
I swear I had read somewhere that her mother had said that it was - but I can't seem to find that right now, and a quick search suggests you're at least right about the petition and government failing to do so.
On the other hand I remember reading this and thinking this wasn't actually something the government had to decide and was down to the individual coroner, as described here:
"in an ongoing case concerning a trans person's death, the coroner has agreed that a Gender Recognition Certificate is unnecessary in order to record the correct name and gender of a trans person on their death certificate."
Either way - does it matter?
To someone researching their family’s history in 50 years time, quite possibly. They’ll puzzle over the male birth certificate and the female death one. Otherwise, no.
The Conservative peer Michelle Mone assured the government that she was not entitled to “any financial benefit whatsoever” from a PPE company, five months before £29m of its profits were transferred into a trust for her benefit.
Leaked emails between Mone and the Cabinet Office reveal that a civil servant asked her to make a declaration that she had no conflict of interest in relation to the company, PPE Medpro, which she had recommended to ministers in May 2020.
Mone stated that she had “no conflicts whatsoever” and that she was not “entitled to any financial remuneration or financial benefit whatsoever”.
The civil servant then asked for clarification about the involvement of Mone’s husband, the Isle of Man-based financial services businessman Doug Barrowman. She replied that “Doug is a very philanthropic individual” who “wanted to help the NHS” and was negotiating to lower the prices the government was paying for PPE.
The leaked emails raise new questions over whether Mone, who was appointed to the House of Lords by David Cameron in 2015, was fully transparent about her and Barrowman’s involvement and financial interest in PPE Medpro before the government awarded the company multimillion-pound contracts.
Tom Harwood @tomhfh I get the horrible feeling that a media row about “what is a woman” is precisely the row Number 10 wants to have.
Sunak will get positive headlines in the Mail, Express and Telegraph, as well as support from GB News. Unfortunately for him, most people don’t read the Mail, Express or Telegraph, or watch GB News.
Mail circulation only around 700000 now down from over 2 million a few years ago.
It is in the top ten most visited English-speaking websites in the world, which - these days - is a far more important metric
Perhaps it was once, but these days it's hovering at around 150th. It gets a bit less than a third of the BBC's visitor count.
And have you seen their website recently? It looks like it was abandoned a decade ago - it's very, very retro and not in a "never change, Craigslist!" way, more like the Million Dollar Homepage, or Ling's Cars.
What are their finances like? I know DMGT is no longer a public company - but they've done some sort of tie-up with the Chinese government, haven't they? I guess there'll be enough money from that to keep them going indefinitely.
I have absolutely no idea what Rishi Sunak is doing in politics. I can only imagine that just as when the authorities at Winchester school told him he should be head boy, someone (a cruel person) told him he should be PM.
Head boy / girl types never make for good PMs it seems. May was terrible in the role too, though perhaps for different reasons.
Are there any counter-examples?
Harold Wilson. Always the exception to any "over-achievers don't do well in politics" generalisation, but almost certainly the only one.
An excellent point. Despite being a head boy, he managed to build himself a reputation as a duplicitous political backstabber amongst his colleagues, and *still* became Labour leader and thence PM.
Tom Harwood @tomhfh I get the horrible feeling that a media row about “what is a woman” is precisely the row Number 10 wants to have.
Sunak will get positive headlines in the Mail, Express and Telegraph, as well as support from GB News. Unfortunately for him, most people don’t read the Mail, Express or Telegraph, or watch GB News.
Mail circulation only around 700000 now down from over 2 million a few years ago.
What is this circulation thing you speak of? A new tracking metric or a prehistoric counting method for passed its sell by date media?
mail website has about 25m readers per month.
It should also be noted that the Mail Online has different content than the print newspaper. It's not as right wing.
Tom Harwood @tomhfh I get the horrible feeling that a media row about “what is a woman” is precisely the row Number 10 wants to have.
Sunak will get positive headlines in the Mail, Express and Telegraph, as well as support from GB News. Unfortunately for him, most people don’t read the Mail, Express or Telegraph, or watch GB News.
Mail circulation only around 700000 now down from over 2 million a few years ago.
It is in the top ten most visited English-speaking websites in the world, which - these days - is a far more important metric
Yes but those visitors will likely only read the odd article.
But the number of visitors mailonline gets - in the tens of millions - means its political slant can make an impact even if only 0.1% go on to read other, more political articles (after being dragged in by the sideboob of shame, or some mad UFOs-are-made-up story)
The future is obvs online, that is the only arena that matters
Yes speaking of online impact Tucker Carlsons interview with Putin will drop at 11pm tomorrow uk time on X.
It will be huge. I suspect it might be the most watched TV political interview of all time
Carlson is no fool, nor is Musk - and nor is Putin
Yes I will certainly be watching. It will be interesting how Tucker approaches the interview. Will he go hardball or softball or mix it up.
The hypocrisy surrounding this interview is intense
On the one hand, you have journalists shrieking "How dare he interview this wanted war criminal, this is like interviewing Hitler at Belsen, or Fred West at Gloucester Patio Centre, my God the evil" and on the other hand you have journalists shrieking "what's so amazing, we've been trying to get a interview with Putin for many months, what has Carlson promised, what's the shady deal" and sometimes you get the same leading BBC/CNN journalists saying BOTH THINGS
Idiots. As you say, it all depends how he interviews him, if he simply lobs balls for Putin to ace, then Carlson is a fool, and has allowed himself to be bought in return for the amazing viewing figures he's bound to get, but it will be bad for him in the long run. But perhaps he will ask genuinely awkward questions?
Let us wait and see
If you had a IQ that wasn't in single digits you would know that Carlson's tongue will be so far up Putin's arsehole that he'll be able to clean Putin's teeth.
It does seem like a certainty. But maybe Carlson will surprise on the up side?
Time for a rant. Did any party leader offer condolences to the mother of Shea Gordon? No? Really? Not 'trans' enough to get headlines? His murderers were jailed for life yesterday.
Yep, it's very obvious. But I'd add it's not just about the victim but also the perpetrator(s). Had Shea Gordon been murdered by white boys, it would have received a lot more attention.
The media were all of that until it started to come out that she was in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Yes, ethnicity and other characteristics of the criminal also have an effect. Again, there's more research from the US.
I find it sad the both left and right fixate on one person's sad murder and fail to even note anothers. Far sadder that pathetic attempts to point score over it (both left and right are doing this right now).
There are about 2 murders a day. How would any of them get attention if all of them are to be mandated equal attention?
(That is assuming only UK murders deserve attention, if all global murders need equal attention then there are over 1000 a day).
This is one of the notably different things about living in Ireland. With a population roughly one thirteenth the size of the UK, there is about one murder every fortnight, and so it's not only the "newsworthy" murders that receive coverage.
Presumably this would be where local news coverage should fill a gap in the UK.
I would go the other way. Minimum 25% of news coverage on good news. Reduce the amount of coverage given to the tragic and better reflect what is actually happening, which isn't as bad as people think, especially in terms of violent crime.
The thing is, Sunak presumably supports trans rights. So, what's he supposed to apologise for?
That said, he's a bloody idiot for saying anything around that subject today.
He could apologise for being a twat (although it may get a little repetitive after a while).
The most problematic thing for Sunak is people just think he's an arsehole. Simple as that.
And he is. He's not stupid. He seems to be hard working. He is not exceptionally dishonest for a politician. He seems reasonably decisive. But, he's an arsehole and that taints everything else he says and does.
He is a technocrat and not in anyway a politician
Yes, I think he would have done better in a technocratic government such as Italy sometimes has when the politicians have screwed up more spectacularly than normal.
His arrogance, insularity and indifference make him completely unsuited for modern politics. I feel its time to bring out my Bill Clinton story again.
Joe Klein was watching Bill fight for some middle ground against Union members in NH, sort of Blair, third way sort of stuff. It wasn't popular but he held his ground. Klein had his daughter with him. As Clinton is leaving he sees them in the crowd and he goes to speak to the daughter, Amy. He says that he's the reason that she had not been seeing much of her daddy recently because he had been following him around. "But let me tell you Amy, he talks about you all the time."
Now that's a politician.
Who allegedly boffed a shedload of ******* girls on Epstein island - "Bill likes them young!" - but you know, never let that get in the way of a good anecdote
I hear Jimmy Savile was a hoot
The Branson and the young girl story on Epstein Island seems to have gone remarkably quiet.
If this story dies with only Prince Andrew getting remotely skewered - from all the many many prominent men forensically named in the allegations, Clinton to Trump - then Andrew can, weirdly, count himself unlucky and maybe he should break an angry sweat. In Woking
Srrange how the public has selective outrage. Prince Andrew nonce cast him out Bill Clinton shrug Richard Branson shrig.
It is almost like the different levels of information out there about each one have an impact.
It is not about information. It is about whether there are already established large groups with a dislike of any given person, who can incorporate and amplify this new reason to do something they were doing anyway. News of a cyclist running over a small child will be seized by anti-cycling groups, just as a cyclist hit by a car is grist to the mill of pro-cycling, anti-car activists. In simple terms there are more anti-monarchists than anti-Bransons.
I think it was @RMCunliffe who asked: if Sunak had stuck to the responsible-technocrat image that suits him much more than the right-leaning-culture-warrior, would he be any worse off in either the polls or with the parliamentary Tory party?
Very much doubt it.
The problem is that whilst many people did indeed think of Sunak in those terms, that image has never actually been a good fit for him. If anything, the "moderate technocrat" label was something applied to him by his opponents - Liz Truss used it very effectively against him in the initial leadership contest, for example.
In reality, he's been banging the transphobic drum from the start - often in the most crass terms possible. Including, if I recall correctly, in his very first line in his first PMQs. He got away with it then because the Tory backbencher who asked the question was inaudible on the live stream, and everyone was waiting for the first exchange with SKS.
He's definitely said similar things on a number of occasions since then - implying each time that he's privy to some secret knowledge whilst his opponent isn't. It's such an odd attack line to use, and Rishi always seems to make it seem even odder.
I know people often compare him to Will from the Inbetweeners, but when he uses his "yes, Mr Speaker, I DO know what a woman is", he sounds more like the Morwenna Banks "little girl" character from Absolutely. I keep expecting him to follow up with "it's like a person, only it has BOOBIES, I know, it's twue!".
During the Con leadership elections it rapidly became clear that rampant anti-trans rhetoric was a winning strategy & anyone not willing to indulge was on a hiding to nothing. Sunak was happy to take part in the game of “who can promise to be the absolute worst to trans people” during the election, whereas (IIRC) Grant Shapps refused to have anything to do with it & dropped out fairly early.
As somebody who had to deal with Section 28 and its devastating results I hope the Tory party has its epiphany on trans issues quicker than they did with gays.
Have you considered doing a thread header on it? I would genuinely be interested in how you think it is comparable with gay rights.
I might do.
The précis is that Section 28 created an atmosphere that gays were everywhere and lowering the age of consent any lower would lead to poofs* outside schools preying on innocent schoolchildren.
We're in the situation of assuming that a particular type of person is going to sexually assault kids/women/corrupt our kids because of their sexual orientation, it's wrong now as it was wrong then.
I know a few trans women, none of them would ever do anything that would make women uncomfortable, so they would never go into women's changing rooms etc.
Some of my friends were bullied at school for being obviously gay, their teachers couldn't help them because of Section 28, it damaged them, just as I expect the trans bashing will do the same
Tom Harwood @tomhfh I get the horrible feeling that a media row about “what is a woman” is precisely the row Number 10 wants to have.
Sunak will get positive headlines in the Mail, Express and Telegraph, as well as support from GB News. Unfortunately for him, most people don’t read the Mail, Express or Telegraph, or watch GB News.
Mail circulation only around 700000 now down from over 2 million a few years ago.
It is in the top ten most visited English-speaking websites in the world, which - these days - is a far more important metric
Yes but those visitors will likely only read the odd article.
But the number of visitors mailonline gets - in the tens of millions - means its political slant can make an impact even if only 0.1% go on to read other, more political articles (after being dragged in by the sideboob of shame, or some mad UFOs-are-made-up story)
The future is obvs online, that is the only arena that matters
Yes speaking of online impact Tucker Carlsons interview with Putin will drop at 11pm tomorrow uk time on X.
It will be huge. I suspect it might be the most watched TV political interview of all time
Carlson is no fool, nor is Musk - and nor is Putin
Putin is the world's greatest living philosopher on matters of diversity and things like that apparently. It will be what he is remembered for, I'm sure.
I think it was @RMCunliffe who asked: if Sunak had stuck to the responsible-technocrat image that suits him much more than the right-leaning-culture-warrior, would he be any worse off in either the polls or with the parliamentary Tory party?
Very much doubt it.
The problem is that whilst many people did indeed think of Sunak in those terms, that image has never actually been a good fit for him. If anything, the "moderate technocrat" label was something applied to him by his opponents - Liz Truss used it very effectively against him in the initial leadership contest, for example.
In reality, he's been banging the transphobic drum from the start - often in the most crass terms possible. Including, if I recall correctly, in his very first line in his first PMQs. He got away with it then because the Tory backbencher who asked the question was inaudible on the live stream, and everyone was waiting for the first exchange with SKS.
He's definitely said similar things on a number of occasions since then - implying each time that he's privy to some secret knowledge whilst his opponent isn't. It's such an odd attack line to use, and Rishi always seems to make it seem even odder.
I know people often compare him to Will from the Inbetweeners, but when he uses his "yes, Mr Speaker, I DO know what a woman is", he sounds more like the Morwenna Banks "little girl" character from Absolutely. I keep expecting him to follow up with "it's like a person, only it has BOOBIES, I know, it's twue!".
During the Con leadership elections it rapidly became clear that rampant anti-trans rhetoric was a winning strategy & anyone not willing to indulge was on a hiding to nothing. Sunak was happy to take part in the game of “who can promise to be the absolute worst to trans people” during the election, whereas (IIRC) Grant Shapps refused to have anything to do with it & dropped out fairly early.
As somebody who had to deal with Section 28 and its devastating results I hope the Tory party has its epiphany on trans issues quicker than they did with gays.
Have you considered doing a thread header on it? I would genuinely be interested in how you think it is comparable with gay rights.
I might do.
The précis is that Section 28 created an atmosphere that gays were everywhere and lowering the age of consent any lower would lead to poofs* outside schools preying on innocent schoolchildren.
We're in the situation of assuming that a particular type of person is going to sexually assault kids/women/corrupt our kids because of their sexual orientation, it's wrong now as it was wrong then.
I know a few trans women, none of them would ever do anything that would make women uncomfortable, so they would never go into women's changing rooms etc.
Some of my friends were bullied at school for being obviously gay, their teachers couldn't help them because of Section 28, it damaged them, just as I expect the trans bashing will do the same
*The words of The Sun.
"I know a few trans women, none of them would ever do anything that would make women uncomfortable, so they would never go into women's changing rooms etc."
Then they must be uncomfortable with people campaigning for the right to do just that?
I think it was @RMCunliffe who asked: if Sunak had stuck to the responsible-technocrat image that suits him much more than the right-leaning-culture-warrior, would he be any worse off in either the polls or with the parliamentary Tory party?
Very much doubt it.
The problem is that whilst many people did indeed think of Sunak in those terms, that image has never actually been a good fit for him. If anything, the "moderate technocrat" label was something applied to him by his opponents - Liz Truss used it very effectively against him in the initial leadership contest, for example.
In reality, he's been banging the transphobic drum from the start - often in the most crass terms possible. Including, if I recall correctly, in his very first line in his first PMQs. He got away with it then because the Tory backbencher who asked the question was inaudible on the live stream, and everyone was waiting for the first exchange with SKS.
He's definitely said similar things on a number of occasions since then - implying each time that he's privy to some secret knowledge whilst his opponent isn't. It's such an odd attack line to use, and Rishi always seems to make it seem even odder.
I know people often compare him to Will from the Inbetweeners, but when he uses his "yes, Mr Speaker, I DO know what a woman is", he sounds more like the Morwenna Banks "little girl" character from Absolutely. I keep expecting him to follow up with "it's like a person, only it has BOOBIES, I know, it's twue!".
During the Con leadership elections it rapidly became clear that rampant anti-trans rhetoric was a winning strategy & anyone not willing to indulge was on a hiding to nothing. Sunak was happy to take part in the game of “who can promise to be the absolute worst to trans people” during the election, whereas (IIRC) Grant Shapps refused to have anything to do with it & dropped out fairly early.
As somebody who had to deal with Section 28 and its devastating results I hope the Tory party has its epiphany on trans issues quicker than they did with gays.
Have you considered doing a thread header on it? I would genuinely be interested in how you think it is comparable with gay rights.
I might do.
The précis is that Section 28 created an atmosphere that gays were everywhere and lowering the age of consent any lower would lead to poofs* outside schools preying on innocent schoolchildren.
We're in the situation of assuming that a particular type of person is going to sexually assault kids/women/corrupt our kids because of their sexual orientation, it's wrong now as it was wrong then.
I know a few trans women, none of them would ever do anything that would make women uncomfortable, so they would never go into women's changing rooms etc.
Some of my friends were bullied at school for being obviously gay, their teachers couldn't help them because of Section 28, it damaged them, just as I expect the trans bashing will do the same
*The words of The Sun.
"I know a few trans women, none of them would ever do anything that would make women uncomfortable, so they would never go into women's changing rooms etc."
Then they must be uncomfortable with people campaigning for the right to do just that?
In all the small companies I have worked for, there have only ever been unisex toilets. The only concern voiced by women was not fear of rape but men pissing on the floor.
I think it was @RMCunliffe who asked: if Sunak had stuck to the responsible-technocrat image that suits him much more than the right-leaning-culture-warrior, would he be any worse off in either the polls or with the parliamentary Tory party?
Very much doubt it.
The problem is that whilst many people did indeed think of Sunak in those terms, that image has never actually been a good fit for him. If anything, the "moderate technocrat" label was something applied to him by his opponents - Liz Truss used it very effectively against him in the initial leadership contest, for example.
In reality, he's been banging the transphobic drum from the start - often in the most crass terms possible. Including, if I recall correctly, in his very first line in his first PMQs. He got away with it then because the Tory backbencher who asked the question was inaudible on the live stream, and everyone was waiting for the first exchange with SKS.
He's definitely said similar things on a number of occasions since then - implying each time that he's privy to some secret knowledge whilst his opponent isn't. It's such an odd attack line to use, and Rishi always seems to make it seem even odder.
I know people often compare him to Will from the Inbetweeners, but when he uses his "yes, Mr Speaker, I DO know what a woman is", he sounds more like the Morwenna Banks "little girl" character from Absolutely. I keep expecting him to follow up with "it's like a person, only it has BOOBIES, I know, it's twue!".
During the Con leadership elections it rapidly became clear that rampant anti-trans rhetoric was a winning strategy & anyone not willing to indulge was on a hiding to nothing. Sunak was happy to take part in the game of “who can promise to be the absolute worst to trans people” during the election, whereas (IIRC) Grant Shapps refused to have anything to do with it & dropped out fairly early.
As somebody who had to deal with Section 28 and its devastating results I hope the Tory party has its epiphany on trans issues quicker than they did with gays.
Have you considered doing a thread header on it? I would genuinely be interested in how you think it is comparable with gay rights.
I might do.
The précis is that Section 28 created an atmosphere that gays were everywhere and lowering the age of consent any lower would lead to poofs* outside schools preying on innocent schoolchildren.
We're in the situation of assuming that a particular type of person is going to sexually assault kids/women/corrupt our kids because of their sexual orientation, it's wrong now as it was wrong then.
I know a few trans women, none of them would ever do anything that would make women uncomfortable, so they would never go into women's changing rooms etc.
Some of my friends were bullied at school for being obviously gay, their teachers couldn't help them because of Section 28, it damaged them, just as I expect the trans bashing will do the same
*The words of The Sun.
"I know a few trans women, none of them would ever do anything that would make women uncomfortable, so they would never go into women's changing rooms etc."
Then they must be uncomfortable with people campaigning for the right to do just that?
In all the small companies I have worked for, there have only ever been unisex toilets. The only concern voiced by women was not fear of rape but men pissing on the floor.
Of course it is plainly UK Government policy not to have toilets paid for by the public at all (albeit for the local authoritry to take the blame). Problem solved!
I think it was @RMCunliffe who asked: if Sunak had stuck to the responsible-technocrat image that suits him much more than the right-leaning-culture-warrior, would he be any worse off in either the polls or with the parliamentary Tory party?
Very much doubt it.
The problem is that whilst many people did indeed think of Sunak in those terms, that image has never actually been a good fit for him. If anything, the "moderate technocrat" label was something applied to him by his opponents - Liz Truss used it very effectively against him in the initial leadership contest, for example.
In reality, he's been banging the transphobic drum from the start - often in the most crass terms possible. Including, if I recall correctly, in his very first line in his first PMQs. He got away with it then because the Tory backbencher who asked the question was inaudible on the live stream, and everyone was waiting for the first exchange with SKS.
He's definitely said similar things on a number of occasions since then - implying each time that he's privy to some secret knowledge whilst his opponent isn't. It's such an odd attack line to use, and Rishi always seems to make it seem even odder.
I know people often compare him to Will from the Inbetweeners, but when he uses his "yes, Mr Speaker, I DO know what a woman is", he sounds more like the Morwenna Banks "little girl" character from Absolutely. I keep expecting him to follow up with "it's like a person, only it has BOOBIES, I know, it's twue!".
During the Con leadership elections it rapidly became clear that rampant anti-trans rhetoric was a winning strategy & anyone not willing to indulge was on a hiding to nothing. Sunak was happy to take part in the game of “who can promise to be the absolute worst to trans people” during the election, whereas (IIRC) Grant Shapps refused to have anything to do with it & dropped out fairly early.
As somebody who had to deal with Section 28 and its devastating results I hope the Tory party has its epiphany on trans issues quicker than they did with gays.
Have you considered doing a thread header on it? I would genuinely be interested in how you think it is comparable with gay rights.
I might do.
The précis is that Section 28 created an atmosphere that gays were everywhere and lowering the age of consent any lower would lead to poofs* outside schools preying on innocent schoolchildren.
We're in the situation of assuming that a particular type of person is going to sexually assault kids/women/corrupt our kids because of their sexual orientation, it's wrong now as it was wrong then.
I know a few trans women, none of them would ever do anything that would make women uncomfortable, so they would never go into women's changing rooms etc.
Some of my friends were bullied at school for being obviously gay, their teachers couldn't help them because of Section 28, it damaged them, just as I expect the trans bashing will do the same
*The words of The Sun.
This is so true. I was at college in the early eighties, and I used to walk to the train station each evening with a friend who was gay. He used to point out the pubs he had been beaten up in, the pubs he wasn't allowed in, and the pubs he could go in for a drink but couldn't use the loos - 'in case he tried anything on with straight blokes'. There is exactly the same fact-free belief that trans people are a danger to others; and just like then, there have been attacks on people who have been msitaken for being trans (now)/gay (then).
Having witnessed both eras, the rhetoric, vitriol and prejudice are just the same now as they were then
I think it was @RMCunliffe who asked: if Sunak had stuck to the responsible-technocrat image that suits him much more than the right-leaning-culture-warrior, would he be any worse off in either the polls or with the parliamentary Tory party?
Very much doubt it.
The problem is that whilst many people did indeed think of Sunak in those terms, that image has never actually been a good fit for him. If anything, the "moderate technocrat" label was something applied to him by his opponents - Liz Truss used it very effectively against him in the initial leadership contest, for example.
In reality, he's been banging the transphobic drum from the start - often in the most crass terms possible. Including, if I recall correctly, in his very first line in his first PMQs. He got away with it then because the Tory backbencher who asked the question was inaudible on the live stream, and everyone was waiting for the first exchange with SKS.
He's definitely said similar things on a number of occasions since then - implying each time that he's privy to some secret knowledge whilst his opponent isn't. It's such an odd attack line to use, and Rishi always seems to make it seem even odder.
I know people often compare him to Will from the Inbetweeners, but when he uses his "yes, Mr Speaker, I DO know what a woman is", he sounds more like the Morwenna Banks "little girl" character from Absolutely. I keep expecting him to follow up with "it's like a person, only it has BOOBIES, I know, it's twue!".
During the Con leadership elections it rapidly became clear that rampant anti-trans rhetoric was a winning strategy & anyone not willing to indulge was on a hiding to nothing. Sunak was happy to take part in the game of “who can promise to be the absolute worst to trans people” during the election, whereas (IIRC) Grant Shapps refused to have anything to do with it & dropped out fairly early.
As somebody who had to deal with Section 28 and its devastating results I hope the Tory party has its epiphany on trans issues quicker than they did with gays.
Have you considered doing a thread header on it? I would genuinely be interested in how you think it is comparable with gay rights.
I might do.
The précis is that Section 28 created an atmosphere that gays were everywhere and lowering the age of consent any lower would lead to poofs* outside schools preying on innocent schoolchildren.
We're in the situation of assuming that a particular type of person is going to sexually assault kids/women/corrupt our kids because of their sexual orientation, it's wrong now as it was wrong then.
I know a few trans women, none of them would ever do anything that would make women uncomfortable, so they would never go into women's changing rooms etc.
Some of my friends were bullied at school for being obviously gay, their teachers couldn't help them because of Section 28, it damaged them, just as I expect the trans bashing will do the same
*The words of The Sun.
Without jumping two feet first into this debate (the mere whiff of a debate concerning the trans issue brings Cyclefree running), the critical areas are prisons and sport and these are being dealt with as we speak.
I continue to refer (now for the nth time) to Nick Herbert's article on the matter which seems to be the last word on it.
Yes there is also a discussion to be had around medical procedures and, as they call it, the "affirmation model" and conversely "conversion therapy" but the bare bones are contained in that article.
Replying to @alexwickhamPM’s spokesperson doubles down on Sunak’s trans joke in front of Esther Ghey — declines to apologise — defends it as “legitimate”
Yes, it is legitimate but that is no defence. He should really apologise. It was tactless and insensitive. Show some ruddy empathy for once, Sunak, you great twit.
I mean, there is zero difference between you and him right now. It isn't legitimate, it's a transphobic dogwhistle aimed at giving people like you red meat. Just because it makes your political position look like it's only held by heartless ghouls because he happened to say it in front on a dead girl's mother are you any way annoyed he said it.
It is perfectly legitimate and there is a debate to be had.
Yes, I am annoyed at the tactless way in which he said it and his doubling down.
Doesn't mean the issue is not one that needs addressing and the concerns of women listening to.
What's the debate? Do trans people exist, and are they a threat to womanhood? Fuck that debate - they exist, and no they aren't.
No, that is not the debate. That is you, most eloquently too, deciding what the debate is then dismissing it.
Very very few people deny the existence of Trans People. Certainly no one on here irrespective of their position on the debate.
So what is the debate? Spell it out for me. When Rishi Sunak says SKS doesn't know "if a woman is a woman and if a man is a man" what legitimate point in said debate is he making?
Its legitimate to ask questions. If you can accept that some people feel that the body they inhabit is not the same gender that they feel they are, then the idea of 'trans' is born. Fine. But people get worried by the idea that a murderer or rapist with a male body can proclaim that they are actually a trans woman and thus should be incarcerated in a womans prison. Especially if said person still has male genitalia.
So its not trans people under attack. Its the potential for abuse of the idea of being trans.
I also worry about the confusion of the teenage years and whether some adults abuse confused children by trying to convince them that they are trans, when in a few years the child might realise that they were gay. or something else entirely.
Then there is the throwaway line that if you can be transgender, why can you not be transrace? I.e. a black man in a white mans body. Asking for a friend.*
Tom Harwood @tomhfh I get the horrible feeling that a media row about “what is a woman” is precisely the row Number 10 wants to have.
Sunak will get positive headlines in the Mail, Express and Telegraph, as well as support from GB News. Unfortunately for him, most people don’t read the Mail, Express or Telegraph, or watch GB News.
Mail circulation only around 700000 now down from over 2 million a few years ago.
It is in the top ten most visited English-speaking websites in the world, which - these days - is a far more important metric
Yes but those visitors will likely only read the odd article.
But the number of visitors mailonline gets - in the tens of millions - means its political slant can make an impact even if only 0.1% go on to read other, more political articles (after being dragged in by the sideboob of shame, or some mad UFOs-are-made-up story)
The future is obvs online, that is the only arena that matters
Yes speaking of online impact Tucker Carlsons interview with Putin will drop at 11pm tomorrow uk time on X.
It will be huge. I suspect it might be the most watched TV political interview of all time
Carlson is no fool, nor is Musk - and nor is Putin
Tom Harwood @tomhfh I get the horrible feeling that a media row about “what is a woman” is precisely the row Number 10 wants to have.
Sunak will get positive headlines in the Mail, Express and Telegraph, as well as support from GB News. Unfortunately for him, most people don’t read the Mail, Express or Telegraph, or watch GB News.
Mail circulation only around 700000 now down from over 2 million a few years ago.
It is in the top ten most visited English-speaking websites in the world, which - these days - is a far more important metric
Yes but those visitors will likely only read the odd article.
But the number of visitors mailonline gets - in the tens of millions - means its political slant can make an impact even if only 0.1% go on to read other, more political articles (after being dragged in by the sideboob of shame, or some mad UFOs-are-made-up story)
The future is obvs online, that is the only arena that matters
Yes speaking of online impact Tucker Carlsons interview with Putin will drop at 11pm tomorrow uk time on X.
It will be huge. I suspect it might be the most watched TV political interview of all time
Carlson is no fool, nor is Musk - and nor is Putin
The most watched not-on-TV interview.
Tucker had better go hard on the little f****r.
Of course he won't. He wants the adoration (and dollars) of your mates, and they want to know that BIDEN IS WRONG.
...Then there is the throwaway line that if you can be transgender, why can you not be transrace? I.e. a black man in a white mans body. Asking for a friend.*
*Ok, its Tim Westwood, but you get the idea.
It's a good point and may contain the germ of a way thru this debate. But one must point out the historical precedents, namely https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passing_(racial_identity). For centuries people had to resort to such things to get by, and different examples occurred in different eras. The only reason it stopped is when the distinction became less important (which is different from unimportant). I don't expect gender differences to become less important in the short/medium term, and arguably they have become more so over the last decade, and as long as that remains the case there will be people who wish to occupy place X, and a smaller number that can do so successfully, and an even smaller number that can do so covertly.
I think it was @RMCunliffe who asked: if Sunak had stuck to the responsible-technocrat image that suits him much more than the right-leaning-culture-warrior, would he be any worse off in either the polls or with the parliamentary Tory party?
Very much doubt it.
The problem is that whilst many people did indeed think of Sunak in those terms, that image has never actually been a good fit for him. If anything, the "moderate technocrat" label was something applied to him by his opponents - Liz Truss used it very effectively against him in the initial leadership contest, for example.
In reality, he's been banging the transphobic drum from the start - often in the most crass terms possible. Including, if I recall correctly, in his very first line in his first PMQs. He got away with it then because the Tory backbencher who asked the question was inaudible on the live stream, and everyone was waiting for the first exchange with SKS.
He's definitely said similar things on a number of occasions since then - implying each time that he's privy to some secret knowledge whilst his opponent isn't. It's such an odd attack line to use, and Rishi always seems to make it seem even odder.
I know people often compare him to Will from the Inbetweeners, but when he uses his "yes, Mr Speaker, I DO know what a woman is", he sounds more like the Morwenna Banks "little girl" character from Absolutely. I keep expecting him to follow up with "it's like a person, only it has BOOBIES, I know, it's twue!".
During the Con leadership elections it rapidly became clear that rampant anti-trans rhetoric was a winning strategy & anyone not willing to indulge was on a hiding to nothing. Sunak was happy to take part in the game of “who can promise to be the absolute worst to trans people” during the election, whereas (IIRC) Grant Shapps refused to have anything to do with it & dropped out fairly early.
As somebody who had to deal with Section 28 and its devastating results I hope the Tory party has its epiphany on trans issues quicker than they did with gays.
Have you considered doing a thread header on it? I would genuinely be interested in how you think it is comparable with gay rights.
I might do.
The précis is that Section 28 created an atmosphere that gays were everywhere and lowering the age of consent any lower would lead to poofs* outside schools preying on innocent schoolchildren.
We're in the situation of assuming that a particular type of person is going to sexually assault kids/women/corrupt our kids because of their sexual orientation, it's wrong now as it was wrong then.
I know a few trans women, none of them would ever do anything that would make women uncomfortable, so they would never go into women's changing rooms etc.
Some of my friends were bullied at school for being obviously gay, their teachers couldn't help them because of Section 28, it damaged them, just as I expect the trans bashing will do the same
*The words of The Sun.
Without jumping two feet first into this debate (the mere whiff of a debate concerning the trans issue brings Cyclefree running), the critical areas are prisons and sport and these are being dealt with as we speak.
I continue to refer (now for the nth time) to Nick Herbert's article on the matter which seems to be the last word on it.
Yes there is also a discussion to be had around medical procedures and, as they call it, the "affirmation model" and conversely "conversion therapy" but the bare bones are contained in that article.
(This was a political decision & not driven by any internal evidence of harm IIRC - my personal suspicion is that eliminating anyone with a conviction for violent or sexual offences would have been sufficient on a pure harm reduction basis.)
It would appear that Sunak's foray into the war on woke has rather backfired on him today.
I suppose we (thankfully) don't really hear everything that comes out when he opens his mouth, but it sometimes feels as though he can't open his mouth without something stupid coming out.
Then there is the throwaway line that if you can be transgender, why can you not be transrace? I.e. a black man in a white mans body. Asking for a friend.*
Well, quite often these days the idea of being a different species appeals to me. So maybe it's not such a throwaway remark.
@Keir_Starmer Today I met Esther Ghey, whose daughter Brianna was murdered last year.
I am utterly in awe of her strength and bravery in the face of such unimaginable grief, as she campaigns to make sure no parent has to go through what she did.
Labour will work with campaigners and parents like Esther to ensure our children and young people have the mental health support they need. It’s what Brianna and her family deserve.
but wait, it's not unimaginable. Kemi managed it...
Tom Harwood @tomhfh I get the horrible feeling that a media row about “what is a woman” is precisely the row Number 10 wants to have.
Sunak will get positive headlines in the Mail, Express and Telegraph, as well as support from GB News. Unfortunately for him, most people don’t read the Mail, Express or Telegraph, or watch GB News.
Mail circulation only around 700000 now down from over 2 million a few years ago.
It is in the top ten most visited English-speaking websites in the world, which - these days - is a far more important metric
Yes but those visitors will likely only read the odd article.
But the number of visitors mailonline gets - in the tens of millions - means its political slant can make an impact even if only 0.1% go on to read other, more political articles (after being dragged in by the sideboob of shame, or some mad UFOs-are-made-up story)
The future is obvs online, that is the only arena that matters
Yes speaking of online impact Tucker Carlsons interview with Putin will drop at 11pm tomorrow uk time on X.
It will be huge. I suspect it might be the most watched TV political interview of all time
Carlson is no fool, nor is Musk - and nor is Putin
The most watched not-on-TV interview.
Tucker had better go hard on the little f****r.
It'll be interesting. Will the mendacious slimeball be revealed in his true colours? Or will it be all about Putin?
@Keir_Starmer Today I met Esther Ghey, whose daughter Brianna was murdered last year.
I am utterly in awe of her strength and bravery in the face of such unimaginable grief, as she campaigns to make sure no parent has to go through what she did.
Labour will work with campaigners and parents like Esther to ensure our children and young people have the mental health support they need. It’s what Brianna and her family deserve.
but wait, it's not unimaginable. Kemi managed it...
As an aside, one of the things @Leon has been wrong about has been Tucker on X.
It's been - candidly - a disaster.
Twitter reports "impressions", not video views. And Tucker's interviews often get less than 6 million impressions, and sometimes fewer than 3m.
Now, what's the video watch rate on those impressions? Well, it's probably not more than 35 or 40%. And that's being generous.
That means that at most 2 million people *start* watching a Tucker Carlson interview. (And my 35-40% impression to watch rate is almost certainly highly optimistic.)
Now, it may be that the Putin interview is what catapults him to relevance.
But right now, Carlson's reach on Twitter is a small fraction of what it was on Fox, and is - what - maybe 5 or 10x what I got with some of my videos.
Tom Harwood @tomhfh I get the horrible feeling that a media row about “what is a woman” is precisely the row Number 10 wants to have.
Sunak will get positive headlines in the Mail, Express and Telegraph, as well as support from GB News. Unfortunately for him, most people don’t read the Mail, Express or Telegraph, or watch GB News.
Mail circulation only around 700000 now down from over 2 million a few years ago.
It is in the top ten most visited English-speaking websites in the world, which - these days - is a far more important metric
Yes but those visitors will likely only read the odd article.
But the number of visitors mailonline gets - in the tens of millions - means its political slant can make an impact even if only 0.1% go on to read other, more political articles (after being dragged in by the sideboob of shame, or some mad UFOs-are-made-up story)
The future is obvs online, that is the only arena that matters
Yes speaking of online impact Tucker Carlsons interview with Putin will drop at 11pm tomorrow uk time on X.
@Keir_Starmer Today I met Esther Ghey, whose daughter Brianna was murdered last year.
I am utterly in awe of her strength and bravery in the face of such unimaginable grief, as she campaigns to make sure no parent has to go through what she did.
Labour will work with campaigners and parents like Esther to ensure our children and young people have the mental health support they need. It’s what Brianna and her family deserve.
but wait, it's not unimaginable. Kemi managed it...
Tom Harwood @tomhfh I get the horrible feeling that a media row about “what is a woman” is precisely the row Number 10 wants to have.
Sunak will get positive headlines in the Mail, Express and Telegraph, as well as support from GB News. Unfortunately for him, most people don’t read the Mail, Express or Telegraph, or watch GB News.
Mail circulation only around 700000 now down from over 2 million a few years ago.
It is in the top ten most visited English-speaking websites in the world, which - these days - is a far more important metric
Perhaps it was once, but these days it's hovering at around 150th. It gets a bit less than a third of the BBC's visitor count.
And have you seen their website recently? It looks like it was abandoned a decade ago - it's very, very retro and not in a "never change, Craigslist!" way, more like the Million Dollar Homepage, or Ling's Cars.
What are their finances like? I know DMGT is no longer a public company - but they've done some sort of tie-up with the Chinese government, haven't they? I guess there'll be enough money from that to keep them going indefinitely.
And they pay MS and Google a lot of money to be promoted as part of their "news" feeds.
As an aside, one of the things @Leon has been wrong about has been Tucker on X.
It's been - candidly - a disaster.
Twitter reports "impressions", not video views. And Tucker's interviews often get less than 6 million impressions, and sometimes fewer than 3m.
Now, what's the video watch rate on those impressions? Well, it's probably not more than 35 or 40%. And that's being generous.
That means that at most 2 million people *start* watching a Tucker Carlson interview. (And my 35-40% impression to watch rate is almost certainly highly optimistic.)
Now, it may be that the Putin interview is what catapults him to relevance.
But right now, Carlson's reach on Twitter is a small fraction of what it was on Fox, and is - what - maybe 5 or 10x what I got with some of my videos.
Tom Harwood @tomhfh I get the horrible feeling that a media row about “what is a woman” is precisely the row Number 10 wants to have.
Sunak will get positive headlines in the Mail, Express and Telegraph, as well as support from GB News. Unfortunately for him, most people don’t read the Mail, Express or Telegraph, or watch GB News.
Mail circulation only around 700000 now down from over 2 million a few years ago.
It is in the top ten most visited English-speaking websites in the world, which - these days - is a far more important metric
Yes but those visitors will likely only read the odd article.
But the number of visitors mailonline gets - in the tens of millions - means its political slant can make an impact even if only 0.1% go on to read other, more political articles (after being dragged in by the sideboob of shame, or some mad UFOs-are-made-up story)
The future is obvs online, that is the only arena that matters
Yes speaking of online impact Tucker Carlsons interview with Putin will drop at 11pm tomorrow uk time on X.
It will be huge. I suspect it might be the most watched TV political interview of all time
Carlson is no fool, nor is Musk - and nor is Putin
The most watched not-on-TV interview.
Tucker had better go hard on the little f****r.
Of course he won't. He wants the adoration (and dollars) of your mates, and they want to know that BIDEN IS WRONG.
Putin'll give him that in spades.
I'd sooner strum Ochi Chernye on my frenulum with a razor blade than watch this fash love-in; it'll make Parkinson/Emu look like Frost/Nixon by comparison (only with a different hand up a different arsehole).
As an aside, one of the things @Leon has been wrong about has been Tucker on X.
It's been - candidly - a disaster.
Twitter reports "impressions", not video views. And Tucker's interviews often get less than 6 million impressions, and sometimes fewer than 3m.
Now, what's the video watch rate on those impressions? Well, it's probably not more than 35 or 40%. And that's being generous.
That means that at most 2 million people *start* watching a Tucker Carlson interview. (And my 35-40% impression to watch rate is almost certainly highly optimistic.)
Now, it may be that the Putin interview is what catapults him to relevance.
But right now, Carlson's reach on Twitter is a small fraction of what it was on Fox, and is - what - maybe 5 or 10x what I got with some of my videos.
lol
His interview with Putin will be the most watched political TV interview in history. All else is fluff
As an aside, one of the things @Leon has been wrong about has been Tucker on X.
It's been - candidly - a disaster.
Twitter reports "impressions", not video views. And Tucker's interviews often get less than 6 million impressions, and sometimes fewer than 3m.
Now, what's the video watch rate on those impressions? Well, it's probably not more than 35 or 40%. And that's being generous.
That means that at most 2 million people *start* watching a Tucker Carlson interview. (And my 35-40% impression to watch rate is almost certainly highly optimistic.)
Now, it may be that the Putin interview is what catapults him to relevance.
But right now, Carlson's reach on Twitter is a small fraction of what it was on Fox, and is - what - maybe 5 or 10x what I got with some of my videos.
That is a very generous percentage of impression to >1min watch rate. I would guess 5%.
I think it was @RMCunliffe who asked: if Sunak had stuck to the responsible-technocrat image that suits him much more than the right-leaning-culture-warrior, would he be any worse off in either the polls or with the parliamentary Tory party?
Very much doubt it.
The problem is that whilst many people did indeed think of Sunak in those terms, that image has never actually been a good fit for him. If anything, the "moderate technocrat" label was something applied to him by his opponents - Liz Truss used it very effectively against him in the initial leadership contest, for example.
In reality, he's been banging the transphobic drum from the start - often in the most crass terms possible. Including, if I recall correctly, in his very first line in his first PMQs. He got away with it then because the Tory backbencher who asked the question was inaudible on the live stream, and everyone was waiting for the first exchange with SKS.
He's definitely said similar things on a number of occasions since then - implying each time that he's privy to some secret knowledge whilst his opponent isn't. It's such an odd attack line to use, and Rishi always seems to make it seem even odder.
I know people often compare him to Will from the Inbetweeners, but when he uses his "yes, Mr Speaker, I DO know what a woman is", he sounds more like the Morwenna Banks "little girl" character from Absolutely. I keep expecting him to follow up with "it's like a person, only it has BOOBIES, I know, it's twue!".
During the Con leadership elections it rapidly became clear that rampant anti-trans rhetoric was a winning strategy & anyone not willing to indulge was on a hiding to nothing. Sunak was happy to take part in the game of “who can promise to be the absolute worst to trans people” during the election, whereas (IIRC) Grant Shapps refused to have anything to do with it & dropped out fairly early.
As somebody who had to deal with Section 28 and its devastating results I hope the Tory party has its epiphany on trans issues quicker than they did with gays.
Have you considered doing a thread header on it? I would genuinely be interested in how you think it is comparable with gay rights.
I might do.
The précis is that Section 28 created an atmosphere that gays were everywhere and lowering the age of consent any lower would lead to poofs* outside schools preying on innocent schoolchildren.
We're in the situation of assuming that a particular type of person is going to sexually assault kids/women/corrupt our kids because of their sexual orientation, it's wrong now as it was wrong then.
I know a few trans women, none of them would ever do anything that would make women uncomfortable, so they would never go into women's changing rooms etc.
Some of my friends were bullied at school for being obviously gay, their teachers couldn't help them because of Section 28, it damaged them, just as I expect the trans bashing will do the same
*The words of The Sun.
"I know a few trans women, none of them would ever do anything that would make women uncomfortable, so they would never go into women's changing rooms etc."
Then they must be uncomfortable with people campaigning for the right to do just that?
In all the small companies I have worked for, there have only ever been unisex toilets. The only concern voiced by women was not fear of rape but men pissing on the floor.
Don't forget the I'm so proud of that one there is no way I'm flushing it away gang.
I hope that the next time Rishi scuttles from cover that some hack is gallus enough to ask him if he thinks Brianna Ghey was a murdered girl or a murdered boy.
What does the death certificate say?
The death certificate calls her a girl.
I don't think it does. There was a petition to change it that was rejected.
I swear I had read somewhere that her mother had said that it was - but I can't seem to find that right now, and a quick search suggests you're at least right about the petition and government failing to do so.
On the other hand I remember reading this and thinking this wasn't actually something the government had to decide and was down to the individual coroner, as described here:
"in an ongoing case concerning a trans person's death, the coroner has agreed that a Gender Recognition Certificate is unnecessary in order to record the correct name and gender of a trans person on their death certificate."
Either way - does it matter?
If it doesn't matter then what's the problem with saying that she was a boy who liked to be referred to as a girl? Why insist that she really was a girl?
By "what's it matter" I guess the real question was "what's it matter too you?"
I clearly understand why it matters to her memory, her family and to the whole trans community for her to be recognised as a transgirl - because that is who she was. The judge made it clear that her being a transgirl was, indeed, part of the reason she was murdered. Dignity in death, and dignity for the family, make sense to me.
But why do you care what the death certificate says?
It's important for public policy reasons that data on death certificates is recorded correctly, so that the aggregate statistics can be used to inform public debate and policy responses.
So you would want a dead person's sex recorded accurately and, if they were transgender, they would be a relevant characteristic to also record accurately.
If SCOTUS Won’t Enforce the 14th Amendment, We Should Worry How They’ll Handle the 22nd
https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/if-scotus-won-t-enforce-the-14th-amendment-we-should-worry-how-they-ll-handle-the-22nd ..Tired of one standard applying to Donald Trump and another to everyone else, Democrats rally behind Obama and, on the fourth day, nominate him by acclamation. States led by Republican officials refuse to place him on the ballot, citing his ineligibility. But states led by Democratic officials, following the Supreme Court’s declination to bar Trump, place Obama on the ballot, putting him on the ballot in enough states to potentially win 270 Electoral College votes.
Trump supporters in Michigan sue, and the case quickly reaches the Supreme Court. What should the Court do? In this imagined future, what is the Court likely to do?
Until recently, the answer to the first question was uncontroversial: It should strike Obama from the ballot. But in this scenario, the answer to the second question is much harder: The Court would have to know that keeping the likely Republican nominee on the ballot but knocking the preferred Democrat off would render it partisan beyond repair.
This scenario is of course solely for purposes of illustration. Joe Biden is not going anywhere. But one aspect of it is not entirely made up. While Barack Obama has never suggested running for a third term, Donald Trump has. Repeatedly.
“We are going to win four more years,” he said in August 2020, “and then after that, we’ll go for another four years because they spied on my campaign. We should get a redo of four years.” He went on a month later: “After [getting reelected], we’ll negotiate, right? Because we’re probably — based on the way we were treated — we are probably entitled to another four after that.”
Notwithstanding the implausibility of this argument as a legal matter, it is not hard to see how, if returned to power, Republicans might rally behind it in 2028 just as Democrats might rally behind Obama in the tale just told, especially if the Supreme Court decides this year that it is not its job to enforce the Constitution to bar popular candidates from the ballot...
Replying to @alexwickhamPM’s spokesperson doubles down on Sunak’s trans joke in front of Esther Ghey — declines to apologise — defends it as “legitimate”
Yes, it is legitimate but that is no defence. He should really apologise. It was tactless and insensitive. Show some ruddy empathy for once, Sunak, you great twit.
I mean, there is zero difference between you and him right now. It isn't legitimate, it's a transphobic dogwhistle aimed at giving people like you red meat. Just because it makes your political position look like it's only held by heartless ghouls because he happened to say it in front on a dead girl's mother are you any way annoyed he said it.
It is perfectly legitimate and there is a debate to be had.
Yes, I am annoyed at the tactless way in which he said it and his doubling down.
Doesn't mean the issue is not one that needs addressing and the concerns of women listening to.
What's the debate? Do trans people exist, and are they a threat to womanhood? Fuck that debate - they exist, and no they aren't.
No, that is not the debate. That is you, most eloquently too, deciding what the debate is then dismissing it.
Very very few people deny the existence of Trans People. Certainly no one on here irrespective of their position on the debate.
So what is the debate? Spell it out for me. When Rishi Sunak says SKS doesn't know "if a woman is a woman and if a man is a man" what legitimate point in said debate is he making?
Its legitimate to ask questions. If you can accept that some people feel that the body they inhabit is not the same gender that they feel they are, then the idea of 'trans' is born. Fine. But people get worried by the idea that a murderer or rapist with a male body can proclaim that they are actually a trans woman and thus should be incarcerated in a womans prison. Especially if said person still has male genitalia.
So its not trans people under attack. Its the potential for abuse of the idea of being trans.
I also worry about the confusion of the teenage years and whether some adults abuse confused children by trying to convince them that they are trans, when in a few years the child might realise that they were gay. or something else entirely.
Then there is the throwaway line that if you can be transgender, why can you not be transrace? I.e. a black man in a white mans body. Asking for a friend.*
*Ok, its Tim Westwood, but you get the idea.
So let's deal with the last first - there is no scientific, historic or anthropological evidence of a significant number of people sincerely claiming to be transracial. And before we get on to similar false analogies like people with anorexia or people who want to cut off a limb - with those people there is no evidence of a self affirming treatment helping them; with trans people there is.
As to the "confused teen" thing - that's essentially a polite way of saying what people used to say about all gay people - that we're out there trying to recruit kids because we're a brainwashing cult, etc. Teenage years are, indeed, the time when people explore their identity. If children present with gender dysphoria before puberty or during puberty, they may be given hormone blockers. This allows a child to not experience the puberty that is giving them dysphoria and come to understand if they want to transition or go through a cis puberty. Pretty much all of the evidence suggests that most people who do that continue (the one study that has a high rate of "desistance" includes a large number of children who would now not meet the clinical criteria for dysphoria, and the data was also gathered in a really garbage way). Satisfaction with surgeries and hormone treatments are in the high 90% - this is above basically any other medical procedure that people do, including things like abortion (and carrying a baby to full term) as well as knee surgery. That the satisfaction rate is so high is a testament to how much gate keeping is already in place.
The issue of trans people in the criminal system is pretty moot - they are so rare that they are literally dealt with on a case by case basis in this country. If there is a concern about abuse in prisons, which there should be because it is endemic, and women's prisons specifically, where it should be because prison guards assaulting prisoners is pretty common there too, then deal with the environment of abuse. It isn't a trans issue; most abuse in prison is done by cis people to cis people.
As an aside, one of the things @Leon has been wrong about has been Tucker on X.
It's been - candidly - a disaster.
Twitter reports "impressions", not video views. And Tucker's interviews often get less than 6 million impressions, and sometimes fewer than 3m.
Now, what's the video watch rate on those impressions? Well, it's probably not more than 35 or 40%. And that's being generous.
That means that at most 2 million people *start* watching a Tucker Carlson interview. (And my 35-40% impression to watch rate is almost certainly highly optimistic.)
Now, it may be that the Putin interview is what catapults him to relevance.
But right now, Carlson's reach on Twitter is a small fraction of what it was on Fox, and is - what - maybe 5 or 10x what I got with some of my videos.
lol
His interview with Putin will be the most watched political TV interview in history. All else is fluff
@Keir_Starmer Today I met Esther Ghey, whose daughter Brianna was murdered last year.
I am utterly in awe of her strength and bravery in the face of such unimaginable grief, as she campaigns to make sure no parent has to go through what she did.
Labour will work with campaigners and parents like Esther to ensure our children and young people have the mental health support they need. It’s what Brianna and her family deserve.
but wait, it's not unimaginable. Kemi managed it...
Comments
It is weird seeing someone at the top of politics being so useless at it.
The future is obvs online, that is the only arena that matters
Would the voters reward him for that authenticity. Probably. A bit.
But I don't ignore anyone I disagree with. What on earth would be the point of that.
Casino has had some (self-acknowledged) issues with his anger on this forum and, frankly, if he takes it out on unknown posters then it's no harm done. When he offers people out online then that's fine also. As long as he is prepared to go back to his wife and children and explain why he has bleeding knuckles/a broken jaw/been arrested delete as appropriate.
In reality, he's been banging the transphobic drum from the start - often in the most crass terms possible. Including, if I recall correctly, in his very first line in his first PMQs. He got away with it then because the Tory backbencher who asked the question was inaudible on the live stream, and everyone was waiting for the first exchange with SKS.
He's definitely said similar things on a number of occasions since then - implying each time that he's privy to some secret knowledge whilst his opponent isn't. It's such an odd attack line to use, and Rishi always seems to make it seem even odder.
I know people often compare him to Will from the Inbetweeners, but when he uses his "yes, Mr Speaker, I DO know what a woman is", he sounds more like the Morwenna Banks "little girl" character from Absolutely. I keep expecting him to follow up with "it's like a person, only it has BOOBIES, I know, it's twue!".
We really do have very few rightwing voices left (let alone actual loyal Tories). The site should not drive the last of them away, because that skews the feed and turns the place into a ghastly boring bubble. PB leftwingers are universally pious and dull, which adds to the problem
Very very few people deny the existence of Trans People. Certainly no one on here irrespective of their position on the debate.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/newslondon/bbc-announces-new-digital-radio-stations-to-reach-underserved-audiences/ar-BB1hVd7z?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=U531&cvid=d71cbe23db924ea8bf3a1c33ce841294&ei=24
I went to a lot of parties at university and fell off the good Muslim wagon.
We don’t need alcohol to have a good time.
Wanting to fight someone? C'mon, we're not 12. To paraphrase Bill Hicks: 'We lost a moron. Good.'
Carlson is no fool, nor is Musk - and nor is Putin
On the other hand I remember reading this and thinking this wasn't actually something the government had to decide and was down to the individual coroner, as described here:
https://transsafety.network/posts/coroner-confirms-grc-death-cert/
"in an ongoing case concerning a trans person's death, the coroner has agreed that a Gender Recognition Certificate is unnecessary in order to record the correct name and gender of a trans person on their death certificate."
Either way - does it matter?
Prepare yourselves for a defiantly toxic and proud of it Tory party returning to power at GE2029.
I clearly understand why it matters to her memory, her family and to the whole trans community for her to be recognised as a transgirl - because that is who she was. The judge made it clear that her being a transgirl was, indeed, part of the reason she was murdered. Dignity in death, and dignity for the family, make sense to me.
But why do you care what the death certificate says?
On the one hand, you have journalists shrieking "How dare he interview this wanted war criminal, this is like interviewing Hitler at Belsen, or Fred West at Gloucester Patio Centre, my God the evil" and on the other hand you have journalists shrieking "what's so amazing, we've been trying to get a interview with Putin for many months, what has Carlson promised, what's the shady deal" and sometimes you get the same leading BBC/CNN journalists saying BOTH THINGS
Idiots. As you say, it all depends how he interviews him, if he simply lobs balls for Putin to ace, then Carlson is a fool, and has allowed himself to be bought in return for the amazing viewing figures he's bound to get, but it will be bad for him in the long run. But perhaps he will ask genuinely awkward questions?
Let us wait and see
And usually wrong.
Most of the time it doesn't matter, so there's no need to be impolite until it comes to a point where it does matter.
You are Liz Truss AICMFP.
Edit - When I say deal with it, I have a lot of LBTQI friends, some of these I met at university when section 28 was in full flow.
Presumably this would be where local news coverage should fill a gap in the UK.
Otherwise, no.
The Conservative peer Michelle Mone assured the government that she was not entitled to “any financial benefit whatsoever” from a PPE company, five months before £29m of its profits were transferred into a trust for her benefit.
Leaked emails between Mone and the Cabinet Office reveal that a civil servant asked her to make a declaration that she had no conflict of interest in relation to the company, PPE Medpro, which she had recommended to ministers in May 2020.
Mone stated that she had “no conflicts whatsoever” and that she was not “entitled to any financial remuneration or financial benefit whatsoever”.
The civil servant then asked for clarification about the involvement of Mone’s husband, the Isle of Man-based financial services businessman Doug Barrowman. She replied that “Doug is a very philanthropic individual” who “wanted to help the NHS” and was negotiating to lower the prices the government was paying for PPE.
The leaked emails raise new questions over whether Mone, who was appointed to the House of Lords by David Cameron in 2015, was fully transparent about her and Barrowman’s involvement and financial interest in PPE Medpro before the government awarded the company multimillion-pound contracts.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/feb/07/leak-reveals-michelle-mone-told-government-she-would-not-benefit-financially-from-ppe-firm-medpro
Done the tally.
No10 refused six times to apologise for Rishi Sunak's trans joke.
PM's spokeswoman said it was "legitimate" seven times.
And have you seen their website recently? It looks like it was abandoned a decade ago - it's very, very retro and not in a "never change, Craigslist!" way, more like the Million Dollar Homepage, or Ling's Cars.
What are their finances like? I know DMGT is no longer a public company - but they've done some sort of tie-up with the Chinese government, haven't they? I guess there'll be enough money from that to keep them going indefinitely.
The précis is that Section 28 created an atmosphere that gays were everywhere and lowering the age of consent any lower would lead to poofs* outside schools preying on innocent schoolchildren.
We're in the situation of assuming that a particular type of person is going to sexually assault kids/women/corrupt our kids because of their sexual orientation, it's wrong now as it was wrong then.
I know a few trans women, none of them would ever do anything that would make women uncomfortable, so they would never go into women's changing rooms etc.
Some of my friends were bullied at school for being obviously gay, their teachers couldn't help them because of Section 28, it damaged them, just as I expect the trans bashing will do the same
*The words of The Sun.
Then they must be uncomfortable with people campaigning for the right to do just that?
Former Neighbours actress attends Popular Conservatives launch event and expresses desire for Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg to become prime minister"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/02/07/holly-valance-leftie-liz-truss-popular-conservatives-popcon
Having witnessed both eras, the rhetoric, vitriol and prejudice are just the same now as they were then
I continue to refer (now for the nth time) to Nick Herbert's article on the matter which seems to be the last word on it.
https://www.nickherbert.com/news/2022/4/9/royal-commission
Yes there is also a discussion to be had around medical procedures and, as they call it, the "affirmation model" and conversely "conversion therapy" but the bare bones are contained in that article.
So its not trans people under attack. Its the potential for abuse of the idea of being trans.
I also worry about the confusion of the teenage years and whether some adults abuse confused children by trying to convince them that they are trans, when in a few years the child might realise that they were gay. or something else entirely.
Then there is the throwaway line that if you can be transgender, why can you not be transrace? I.e. a black man in a white mans body. Asking for a friend.*
*Ok, its Tim Westwood, but you get the idea.
Block on foreign buyers intended to make housing more affordable for Canadians"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/property/second-homes/british-expats-canada-banned-buying-home-justin-trudeau/
Tucker had better go hard on the little f****r.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-68225999
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/leak-reveals-michelle-mone-told-government-she-would-not-benefit-financially-from-ppe-firm/ar-BB1hVu8g?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=U531&cvid=7621a740dee343c9955ae9b109a3b26f&ei=27
Putin'll give him that in spades.
(This was a political decision & not driven by any internal evidence of harm IIRC - my personal suspicion is that eliminating anyone with a conviction for violent or sexual offences would have been sufficient on a pure harm reduction basis.)
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/elon-musk-buy-disney-funds-lawsuit-against-studio-pq82t6nt0
Phew. I was worried about Holly there for a second.
It’s really unforgivable to mention it during the week of the sentencing with the victims mum visiting the Commons.
Today I met Esther Ghey, whose daughter Brianna was murdered last year.
I am utterly in awe of her strength and bravery in the face of such unimaginable grief, as she campaigns to make sure no parent has to go through what she did.
Labour will work with campaigners and parents like Esther to ensure our children and young people have the mental health support they need. It’s what Brianna and her family deserve.
but wait, it's not unimaginable. Kemi managed it...
@KemiBadenoch
Every murder is a tragedy. None should be trivialised by political point-scoring. As a mother, I can imagine the trauma that Esther Ghey has endured.
It was shameful of Starmer to link his own inability to be clear on the matter of sex and gender directly to her grief.
It's been - candidly - a disaster.
Twitter reports "impressions", not video views. And Tucker's interviews often get less than 6 million impressions, and sometimes fewer than 3m.
Now, what's the video watch rate on those impressions? Well, it's probably not more than 35 or 40%. And that's being generous.
That means that at most 2 million people *start* watching a Tucker Carlson interview. (And my 35-40% impression to watch rate is almost certainly highly optimistic.)
Now, it may be that the Putin interview is what catapults him to relevance.
But right now, Carlson's reach on Twitter is a small fraction of what it was on Fox, and is - what - maybe 5 or 10x what I got with some of my videos.
#ToryScum
(And doesn't think Disney are doing a thorough enough job of that.)
His interview with Putin will be the most watched political TV interview in history. All else is fluff
So you would want a dead person's sex recorded accurately and, if they were transgender, they would be a relevant characteristic to also record accurately.
If SCOTUS Won’t Enforce the 14th Amendment, We Should Worry How They’ll Handle the 22nd
https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/if-scotus-won-t-enforce-the-14th-amendment-we-should-worry-how-they-ll-handle-the-22nd
..Tired of one standard applying to Donald Trump and another to everyone else, Democrats rally behind Obama and, on the fourth day, nominate him by acclamation. States led by Republican officials refuse to place him on the ballot, citing his ineligibility. But states led by Democratic officials, following the Supreme Court’s declination to bar Trump, place Obama on the ballot, putting him on the ballot in enough states to potentially win 270 Electoral College votes.
Trump supporters in Michigan sue, and the case quickly reaches the Supreme Court. What should the Court do? In this imagined future, what is the Court likely to do?
Until recently, the answer to the first question was uncontroversial: It should strike Obama from the ballot. But in this scenario, the answer to the second question is much harder: The Court would have to know that keeping the likely Republican nominee on the ballot but knocking the preferred Democrat off would render it partisan beyond repair.
This scenario is of course solely for purposes of illustration. Joe Biden is not going anywhere. But one aspect of it is not entirely made up. While Barack Obama has never suggested running for a third term, Donald Trump has. Repeatedly.
“We are going to win four more years,” he said in August 2020, “and then after that, we’ll go for another four years because they spied on my campaign. We should get a redo of four years.” He went on a month later: “After [getting reelected], we’ll negotiate, right? Because we’re probably — based on the way we were treated — we are probably entitled to another four after that.”
Notwithstanding the implausibility of this argument as a legal matter, it is not hard to see how, if returned to power, Republicans might rally behind it in 2028 just as Democrats might rally behind Obama in the tale just told, especially if the Supreme Court decides this year that it is not its job to enforce the Constitution to bar popular candidates from the ballot...
As to the "confused teen" thing - that's essentially a polite way of saying what people used to say about all gay people - that we're out there trying to recruit kids because we're a brainwashing cult, etc. Teenage years are, indeed, the time when people explore their identity. If children present with gender dysphoria before puberty or during puberty, they may be given hormone blockers. This allows a child to not experience the puberty that is giving them dysphoria and come to understand if they want to transition or go through a cis puberty. Pretty much all of the evidence suggests that most people who do that continue (the one study that has a high rate of "desistance" includes a large number of children who would now not meet the clinical criteria for dysphoria, and the data was also gathered in a really garbage way). Satisfaction with surgeries and hormone treatments are in the high 90% - this is above basically any other medical procedure that people do, including things like abortion (and carrying a baby to full term) as well as knee surgery. That the satisfaction rate is so high is a testament to how much gate keeping is already in place.
The issue of trans people in the criminal system is pretty moot - they are so rare that they are literally dealt with on a case by case basis in this country. If there is a concern about abuse in prisons, which there should be because it is endemic, and women's prisons specifically, where it should be because prison guards assaulting prisoners is pretty common there too, then deal with the environment of abuse. It isn't a trans issue; most abuse in prison is done by cis people to cis people.
You must be really bored.
When there was nary a peep from her when the Post Office fiasco was front page news, I began to worry that she wasn't well.