Anyone seeking to join the @RoyalNavy will no longer need to prove they can swim in what a source called a "desperate" relaxing of standards. But a spokesperson said standards aren't dropping because all recruits must still pass a swim test during training
Do nurses need to prove they can nurse when they start training? I thought the idea of training was just that. Seems entirely reasonable to me.
In the old days. having to train people to swim was a real inconvenience at the training base - they had to be made to swim pdq or else all the other training was wasted. And meanwhile it was disruptive of the wider training programme, as [edit] they had to catch up with the other many who already could swim: having to be taught to swim in either time off, or taking time from other lessons in a tight programme, was effectively a built-in handicap which did nobody any good.
I wonder if the RN training bases/contractors even have swimming pools these days?
Any reason why the chap alleged to have murdered his wife in Bradford wasn’t called her husband at all during the man hunt? The phrase ‘known to her’ seems odd when it’s your bloody husband! I cannot see a valid reason for not saying the relationship. Anyone?
Only guessing here but possibly because it wasn't relevant to the manhunt?
Once they've got him in custody, then everything that needs saying can be said, but while he's at large presumably only worth saying the critical bits that need to be said. Extraneous information can be a distraction.
Considering the manhunt ended with his successful apprehension, I don't question the tactics used to find and arrest him.
And yet I suspect if he was a white chap who had murdered his wife it would have been front and centre. Maybe I’m wrong?
I don't see any reason for that suspicion.
From what I've observed in the past, when a manhunt is on, then typically the individuals specifics are given and not much else.
Only post-arrest does more come out. This seems standard practice to me, its not like its being covered up, as its openly said now he's safely in custody. 🤷♂️
I’m sorry, but I just think it’s weird.
It really isn't. It's standard practice, in a manhunt, to be really limited - this is the man we are hunting, and this is what you do if you see him. Further details are revealed when you have him in custody or, sometimes, to keep the matter in the news if you don't.
So suppose they'd not got him this week. The story next week is "Prime suspect is victim's hubby, cops reveal". It's sad, but that's news whereas "Victim's husband still at large" isn't.
What purpose is served by saying ‘believed to be known to the victim’ rather than ‘is her husband’?
I've literally just explained that if you'd read the post.
Police drip feed information to ensure it remains news and the picture of the suspect remains in the paper and on the websites until he is apprehended.
"No update in murder case" doesn't do that. The media report on NEW revelations so you don't give it all out on day one of the inquiry. It's basic.
I did read your post, but you are more explicitly saying it’s about keeping the story current than anything else? I am not convinced. We have seen the authorities tiptoe around race so many times (Rotherham etc) that I suspect, and happy to be wrong, that this was a factor here.
That you assume a decision was based on race, and don't bother engaging when the real reason is explained explicitly to you, says a huge amount about you.
I do not get involved in the gender debate usually but the Cass report seems to have emboldened J K Rowling, Julie Bindel, Judy Murray and others and caused real issues for labour with Wes Steeting making a fulsome apology for his previous comments and then coming under attack from some of his colleagues
Furthermore if this report from Guido is true then Sky seem to have real internal problems with this subject
Cass was highly critical about the toxicity of the debate, the vilification and bullying on social media, and so forth. I don't think Rowling, Bindel and Murray are doing anything to defuse that toxicity.
Given that they have been proved right they are bloody well entitled to say "I told you so". It is not them making the debate toxic but those who tried to shut down and abused all those from Tavistock whistleblowers on who raised concerns, concerns it now turns out were well-founded.
Streeting himself was one of those who treated Bindel appallingly - for which he should apologise.
Yes. Why on earth should Rowling or Bindel rein in their anger? People tried to end their careers (and in the case of Bindel they partly succeeded). Why are they now meant to be magnanimous, now they they have been totally vindicated?
These women were brave, they stood up to the bullies (and lots of hideous abuse: rape threats, death threats etc) they are entitled to vent their righteous spleen
Rowling has basically been made a pariah in her own franchise...
Doesn't stop people consuming what she produces for it, or which uses it as a spin off. So not sure to what extent it is true (though I do know one person who says they cannot enjoy it anymore as Rowling is 'problematic'. They also won't rewatch Friends anymore, despite loving it less than 5 years ago).
Isn't she banned by the Studio from attending the conventions?
IIRC they made an anniversary documentary about the Harry Potter phenomenon and they managed not to mention her or picture her
Also, the ONLY reason she managed to avoid being cancelled by young Red Guards sorry Woke editors at her publishers is because she's J K Rowling. They really tried, and they came close. Any less successful author would have been toast
While I admire Rowling, Bindel, and the rest, for me, they have focused on the third most important issue in the trans debacle. I fully agree that men masquerading as women in some cases pose a danger to actual women, and that that is an important issue. But I'm puzzled it's that issue which got the traction, rather than i)why are we allowing people to talk vulnerable children into being mutilated, and ii)why are we comfortable allowing people to say reality is other than it very obviously is? I'd like to blame religion, on the grounds that it's given humanity plenty of practice in saying reality is other than it very obviously is. But perhaps that's going about it the wrong way: perhaps humans have a need to believe in areality, and in the absence of formalised religion, they start believing in anything.
I agree. I've been pondering how this insanity began. I mean: cui bono? Is it really some doctors grifting for money? Can it really just be a handful of crazy activists that took over society?
For me it is a classic madness of crowds. Like the witch craze, or "Satantic pedo cults". Humanity seems prone to manias, and we are periodicaly capable of believing the most ludicrous things
Sir Thomas Moore (and many like him) believed that translating the bible into English was so evil that those involved should be burnt alive.
Anyone seeking to join the @RoyalNavy will no longer need to prove they can swim in what a source called a "desperate" relaxing of standards. But a spokesperson said standards aren't dropping because all recruits must still pass a swim test during training
Do nurses need to prove they can nurse when they start training? I thought the idea of training was just that. Seems entirely reasonable to me.
In the old days. having to train people to swim was a real inconvenience at the training base - they had to be made to swim pdq or else all the other training was wasted. And meanwhile it was disruptive of the wider training programme, as many already could swim: having to be taught to swim in either time off, or taking time from other lessons in a tight programme, was effectively a built-in handicap which did nobody any good.
I wonder if the RN training bases/contractors even have swimming pools these days?
I've often idly wondered whether I should have joined the navy. I like ships, and I'm on board with the concept of defending the realm. But I bet you're expected to swim in really cold water, aren't you? That strikes me as really unpleasant.
In what it selects to report on, how it headlines it, how it frames it, who it quotes and how it attempts to show "balance" in writing it the BBC News website is the Wokiest of the Woke.
And it genuinely believes its objective and neutral. Lol.
Any reason why the chap alleged to have murdered his wife in Bradford wasn’t called her husband at all during the man hunt? The phrase ‘known to her’ seems odd when it’s your bloody husband! I cannot see a valid reason for not saying the relationship. Anyone?
Only guessing here but possibly because it wasn't relevant to the manhunt?
Once they've got him in custody, then everything that needs saying can be said, but while he's at large presumably only worth saying the critical bits that need to be said. Extraneous information can be a distraction.
Considering the manhunt ended with his successful apprehension, I don't question the tactics used to find and arrest him.
And yet I suspect if he was a white chap who had murdered his wife it would have been front and centre. Maybe I’m wrong?
I don't see any reason for that suspicion.
From what I've observed in the past, when a manhunt is on, then typically the individuals specifics are given and not much else.
Only post-arrest does more come out. This seems standard practice to me, its not like its being covered up, as its openly said now he's safely in custody. 🤷♂️
I’m sorry, but I just think it’s weird.
It really isn't. It's standard practice, in a manhunt, to be really limited - this is the man we are hunting, and this is what you do if you see him. Further details are revealed when you have him in custody or, sometimes, to keep the matter in the news if you don't.
So suppose they'd not got him this week. The story next week is "Prime suspect is victim's hubby, cops reveal". It's sad, but that's news whereas "Victim's husband still at large" isn't.
What purpose is served by saying ‘believed to be known to the victim’ rather than ‘is her husband’?
I've literally just explained that if you'd read the post.
Police drip feed information to ensure it remains news and the picture of the suspect remains in the paper and on the websites until he is apprehended.
"No update in murder case" doesn't do that. The media report on NEW revelations so you don't give it all out on day one of the inquiry. It's basic.
I did read your post, but you are more explicitly saying it’s about keeping the story current than anything else? I am not convinced. We have seen the authorities tiptoe around race so many times (Rotherham etc) that I suspect, and happy to be wrong, that this was a factor here.
That you assume a decision was based on race, and don't bother engaging when the real reason is explained explicitly to you, says a huge amount about you.
You know the real reason for a fact? Fine, you may be right. I just find the whole thing weird, and I don’t think I am the only one. But why would people think authority figures make decisions based on race? Perhaps because of all the evidence in recent years that exactly that has happened.
Anyone seeking to join the @RoyalNavy will no longer need to prove they can swim in what a source called a "desperate" relaxing of standards. But a spokesperson said standards aren't dropping because all recruits must still pass a swim test during training
Do nurses need to prove they can nurse when they start training? I thought the idea of training was just that. Seems entirely reasonable to me.
In the old days. having to train people to swim was a real inconvenience at the training base - they had to be made to swim pdq or else all the other training was wasted. And meanwhile it was disruptive of the wider training programme, as many already could swim: having to be taught to swim in either time off, or taking time from other lessons in a tight programme, was effectively a built-in handicap which did nobody any good.
I wonder if the RN training bases/contractors even have swimming pools these days?
I've often idly wondered whether I should have joined the navy. I like ships, and I'm on board with the concept of defending the realm. But I bet you're expected to swim in really cold water, aren't you? That strikes me as really unpleasant.
In what it selects to report on, how it headlines it, how it frames it, who it quotes and how it attempts to show "balance" in writing it the BBC News website is the Wokiest of the Woke.
And it genuinely believes its objective and neutral. Lol.
If you ever read a serious appreciation of what had happened you might understand things a bit better.
Oh great the Tories are jumping on the Cass review to further the culture war.
Since when have JK Rowling, Julie Brindel, Judy Murray been conservatives and last time I looked Wes Streeting is labours shadow health minister and has made a fulsome apology for his past comments and the Cass review has been accepted in full by Keir Starmer
It wasn't him. In fact, many of his MPs joined in the singing.
It was the NDP and BQ trying to do it (their version of Corbynistas and the SNP, basically)
The NDP are as about as Corbynista as you are.
The NDP are the Canadian Labour Party essentially.
The fact the governing Liberals and main opposition Conservatives combined to defeat this private members' bill to remove the Oath of Allegiance to the Monarch by Canadian MPs suggests Canada will be a constitutional monarchy for some time to come
In what it selects to report on, how it headlines it, how it frames it, who it quotes and how it attempts to show "balance" in writing it the BBC News website is the Wokiest of the Woke.
And it genuinely believes its objective and neutral. Lol.
If you ever read a serious appreciation of what had happened you might understand things a bit better.
I know more about everything than you will ever know about anything.
It wasn't him. In fact, many of his MPs joined in the singing.
It was the NDP and BQ trying to do it (their version of Corbynistas and the SNP, basically)
Note that traditionally, that is from mid-19th to early 21st century, English-speaking Canadian Tories have belted out "God Save the King/Queen with gusto. AND during federal elections, have banded together (if not overtly) with Quebec nationalists (really autonomists) willing & able (if not "aye, ready, aye!") to vote for French Canadian Tories (bleus).
In what it selects to report on, how it headlines it, how it frames it, who it quotes and how it attempts to show "balance" in writing it the BBC News website is the Wokiest of the Woke.
And it genuinely believes its objective and neutral. Lol.
Reminds me of someone who claims to be "the most objective poster on here" but who clearly isn't. Lol.
England’s health regulator will take enforcement action against private clinics that prescribe puberty blockers to under-18s in defiance of the NHS’s ban on the controversial drugs.
The Care Quality Commission (CQC) will check that private providers of care to those who are questioning their gender identity are applying new guidance recommended by Dr Hilary Cass.
In what it selects to report on, how it headlines it, how it frames it, who it quotes and how it attempts to show "balance" in writing it the BBC News website is the Wokiest of the Woke.
And it genuinely believes its objective and neutral. Lol.
If you ever read a serious appreciation of what had happened you might understand things a bit better.
I know more about everything than you will ever know about anything.
Apart from that, yes, good point.
Are you cranked up again? I’ve been in your position. Try a run, a hot bath, a good book, and an early night. The cycle of stress and sleeplessness can be broken.
Whilst I agree with the crux of what Rowling says, I do think the way she goes about it utterly shoots herself in the foot.
If she wants to build consensus which I think most do, she goes about it in a really baffling way. She looks to have been proven to be correct - but she's gone about it in such a difficult way that she really hasn't helped herself at all.
She certainly has amplified hateful people and liked ("accidentally") hateful things. I do not think she is hateful herself at all - but she has given air to extremists on the anti-trans side. There are those just as bad who give air to the pro-trans side and they are just as bonkers. I think Rowling actually sits very much in the middle, so that's why her actions baffle me.
The way Sonia Sodha has gone about things is so much better.
I think the thing with Rowling is she stopped caring having decided she'd be damned anyway, whatever she said, having attracted some pretty vicious opprobrium when she tried to talk with nuance. Worth remembering she wrote an essay that was thousands of words long that was at pains to set out concerns while being respectful of others.
She got called a bigot for that and people proceeded to attack her over any perceived transgression. So I think she now deliberately carves out a more strident position in the knowledge that she is one of the few people on the planet who maybe immune to unpleasant publicity and denunciation an can say things some others hold back from because not worth the hassle.
Sodha is obviously an Observer columnist so presumably is bound by their rules on social media behaviour.
Highly unlikely. Justin's Liberals were with the Tories in belting it out. You don't get more Establishment than the Trudeaus.
In Canada, the Liberals ("Grits" in old-speak) have been for a century THE natural Party of Government.
Similar to how CUP has been that in UK for roughly same period. Of course, no telling what the future will bring.
Well on current polls it will bring a Labour government again in the UK and a Conservative government again in Canada, being the 'natural party of government' does not grant you power indefinitely in a democracy
In what it selects to report on, how it headlines it, how it frames it, who it quotes and how it attempts to show "balance" in writing it the BBC News website is the Wokiest of the Woke.
And it genuinely believes its objective and neutral. Lol.
So Britain SHOULD hold on to stolen loot?
Would you agree with that re: (for example) art Nazi's robbed from Jews they murdered & persecuted?
In what it selects to report on, how it headlines it, how it frames it, who it quotes and how it attempts to show "balance" in writing it the BBC News website is the Wokiest of the Woke.
And it genuinely believes its objective and neutral. Lol.
Reminds me of someone who claims to be "the most objective poster on here" but who clearly isn't. Lol.
What the fuck do you know with your 300 comments and utterly unmemorable existence on PB?
@Casino_Royale has a temper, we all know that, but he is also a cogent and valued contributor. You are not
In what it selects to report on, how it headlines it, how it frames it, who it quotes and how it attempts to show "balance" in writing it the BBC News website is the Wokiest of the Woke.
And it genuinely believes its objective and neutral. Lol.
Reminds me of someone who claims to be "the most objective poster on here" but who clearly isn't. Lol.
What the fuck do you know with your 300 comments and utterly unmemorable existence on PB?
@Casino_Royale has a temper, we all know that, but he is also a cogent and valued contributor. You are not
Whilst I agree with the crux of what Rowling says, I do think the way she goes about it utterly shoots herself in the foot.
If she wants to build consensus which I think most do, she goes about it in a really baffling way. She looks to have been proven to be correct - but she's gone about it in such a difficult way that she really hasn't helped herself at all.
She certainly has amplified hateful people and liked ("accidentally") hateful things. I do not think she is hateful herself at all - but she has given air to extremists on the anti-trans side. There are those just as bad who give air to the pro-trans side and they are just as bonkers. I think Rowling actually sits very much in the middle, so that's why her actions baffle me.
The way Sonia Sodha has gone about things is so much better.
I think the thing with Rowling is she stopped caring having decided she'd be damned anyway, whatever she said, having attracted some pretty vicious opprobrium when she tried to talk with nuance. Worth remembering she wrote an essay that was thousands of words long that was at pains to set out concerns while being respectful of others.
She got called a bigot for that and people proceeded to attack her over any perceived transgression. So I think she now deliberately carves out a more strident position in the knowledge that she is one of the few people on the planet who maybe immune to unpleasant publicity and denunciation an can say things some others hold back from because not worth the hassle.
Sodha is obviously an Observer columnist so presumably is bound by their rules on social media behaviour.
Yes that's precisely right. She tried to be balanced and got dozens of rape threats
At that point one can understand a self-made woman billionaire thinking "fuck this for a game of non-binary soldiers" and going on the offensive
Liberal-Tory song-fest in Ottawa, has less to do with long-term future of the British monarchy in Canada, than with the short-term prospect of the next federal election.
Quebec will be important to the outcome . . . but NOT as important as Ontario.
Conservative and Reform polling 37% combined in London is very interesting. For ages it seemed like the tories were completely finished in London and the city had gone completely 'woke'. But perhaps not?
It wasn't him. In fact, many of his MPs joined in the singing.
It was the NDP and BQ trying to do it (their version of Corbynistas and the SNP, basically)
The NDP are as about as Corbynista as you are.
The NDP are the Canadian Labour Party essentially.
The fact the governing Liberals and main opposition Conservatives combined to defeat this private members' bill to remove the Oath of Allegiance to the Monarch by Canadian MPs suggests Canada will be a constitutional monarchy for some time to come
They still drive on the WRONG side of the road, though! Boot them out of the Commonwealth!
In what it selects to report on, how it headlines it, how it frames it, who it quotes and how it attempts to show "balance" in writing it the BBC News website is the Wokiest of the Woke.
And it genuinely believes its objective and neutral. Lol.
So Britain SHOULD hold on to stolen loot?
Would you agree with that re: (for example) art Nazi's robbed from Jews they murdered & persecuted?
You are free to hand back north America - and your Seattle home - to the Apache, the Navajo and the Nez Perces, and the Skokomis , the Makkah and the Kaliespel, from whom it was "looted". Are you going to do that?
No, of course you're not. So this is just more fatuous posturing
Whilst I agree with the crux of what Rowling says, I do think the way she goes about it utterly shoots herself in the foot.
If she wants to build consensus which I think most do, she goes about it in a really baffling way. She looks to have been proven to be correct - but she's gone about it in such a difficult way that she really hasn't helped herself at all.
She certainly has amplified hateful people and liked ("accidentally") hateful things. I do not think she is hateful herself at all - but she has given air to extremists on the anti-trans side. There are those just as bad who give air to the pro-trans side and they are just as bonkers. I think Rowling actually sits very much in the middle, so that's why her actions baffle me.
The way Sonia Sodha has gone about things is so much better.
I think the thing with Rowling is she stopped caring having decided she'd be damned anyway, whatever she said, having attracted some pretty vicious opprobrium when she tried to talk with nuance. Worth remembering she wrote an essay that was thousands of words long that was at pains to set out concerns while being respectful of others.
She got called a bigot for that and people proceeded to attack her over any perceived transgression. So I think she now deliberately carves out a more strident position in the knowledge that she is one of the few people on the planet who maybe immune to unpleasant publicity and denunciation an can say things some others hold back from because not worth the hassle.
Sodha is obviously an Observer columnist so presumably is bound by their rules on social media behaviour.
Yes that's precisely right. She tried to be balanced and got dozens of rape threats
At that point one can understand a self-made woman billionaire thinking "fuck this for a game of non-binary soldiers" and going on the offensive
As the evidence from the Cass report filters into the public and media consciousness it is not clear to me that we need to keep pretending that there are 2 reasonable and differing viewpoints on this. There simply isn't. The fact that she is also at the same time proving that Scotland's Hate Act is a toothless joke is just an added bonus.
Whilst I agree with the crux of what Rowling says, I do think the way she goes about it utterly shoots herself in the foot.
If she wants to build consensus which I think most do, she goes about it in a really baffling way. She looks to have been proven to be correct - but she's gone about it in such a difficult way that she really hasn't helped herself at all.
She certainly has amplified hateful people and liked ("accidentally") hateful things. I do not think she is hateful herself at all - but she has given air to extremists on the anti-trans side. There are those just as bad who give air to the pro-trans side and they are just as bonkers. I think Rowling actually sits very much in the middle, so that's why her actions baffle me.
The way Sonia Sodha has gone about things is so much better.
I think the thing with Rowling is she stopped caring having decided she'd be damned anyway, whatever she said, having attracted some pretty vicious opprobrium when she tried to talk with nuance. Worth remembering she wrote an essay that was thousands of words long that was at pains to set out concerns while being respectful of others.
She got called a bigot for that and people proceeded to attack her over any perceived transgression. So I think she now deliberately carves out a more strident position in the knowledge that she is one of the few people on the planet who maybe immune to unpleasant publicity and denunciation an can say things some others hold back from because not worth the hassle.
Sodha is obviously an Observer columnist so presumably is bound by their rules on social media behaviour.
Yes that's precisely right. She tried to be balanced and got dozens of rape threats
At that point one can understand a self-made woman billionaire thinking "fuck this for a game of non-binary soldiers" and going on the offensive
As the evidence from the Cass report filters into the public and media consciousness it is not clear to me that we need to keep pretending that there are 2 reasonable and differing viewpoints on this. There simply isn't. The fact that she is also at the same time proving that Scotland's Hate Act is a toothless joke is just an added bonus.
Additionally it has been accepted by Sunak and Starmer so it will be implemented
In what it selects to report on, how it headlines it, how it frames it, who it quotes and how it attempts to show "balance" in writing it the BBC News website is the Wokiest of the Woke.
And it genuinely believes its objective and neutral. Lol.
Reminds me of someone who claims to be "the most objective poster on here" but who clearly isn't. Lol.
What the fuck do you know with your 300 comments and utterly unmemorable existence on PB?
@Casino_Royale has a temper, we all know that, but he is also a cogent and valued contributor. You are not
When you next regenerate you will start at one post. Does that make your new identify and less awesome and insightful than @Leon ?
@The_Woodpecker 's 300 posts might be awesome. I have written nearly 25,000 utter bollocks posts. Quantity should not be mistaken for quality.
In what it selects to report on, how it headlines it, how it frames it, who it quotes and how it attempts to show "balance" in writing it the BBC News website is the Wokiest of the Woke.
And it genuinely believes its objective and neutral. Lol.
Reminds me of someone who claims to be "the most objective poster on here" but who clearly isn't. Lol.
The most objective poster is the one who says things I agree with, everyone knows that.
In what it selects to report on, how it headlines it, how it frames it, who it quotes and how it attempts to show "balance" in writing it the BBC News website is the Wokiest of the Woke.
And it genuinely believes its objective and neutral. Lol.
Reminds me of someone who claims to be "the most objective poster on here" but who clearly isn't. Lol.
What the fuck do you know with your 300 comments and utterly unmemorable existence on PB?
@Casino_Royale has a temper, we all know that, but he is also a cogent and valued contributor. You are not
When you next regenerate you will start at one post. Does that make your new identify and less awesome and insightful as @Leon ?
@The_Woodpecker 's 300 posts might be awesome. I have written nearly 25,000 utter bollocks posts. Quantity should not be mistaken for quality.
There is no quality to identify, merely a tiny quantity. @The_Woodpecker is rightly named. In commentary terms he is the micropenis of PB
In what it selects to report on, how it headlines it, how it frames it, who it quotes and how it attempts to show "balance" in writing it the BBC News website is the Wokiest of the Woke.
And it genuinely believes its objective and neutral. Lol.
Reminds me of someone who claims to be "the most objective poster on here" but who clearly isn't. Lol.
What the fuck do you know with your 300 comments and utterly unmemorable existence on PB?
@Casino_Royale has a temper, we all know that, but he is also a cogent and valued contributor. You are not
When you next regenerate you will start at one post. Does that make your new identify and less awesome and insightful than @Leon ?
The_Woodpecker 's 300 posts might be awesome. I have written nearly 25,000 utter bollocks posts. Quantity should not be mistaken for quality.
We had better hope it does, that's my whole gimmick.
In what it selects to report on, how it headlines it, how it frames it, who it quotes and how it attempts to show "balance" in writing it the BBC News website is the Wokiest of the Woke.
And it genuinely believes its objective and neutral. Lol.
Reminds me of someone who claims to be "the most objective poster on here" but who clearly isn't. Lol.
What the fuck do you know with your 300 comments and utterly unmemorable existence on PB?
@Casino_Royale has a temper, we all know that, but he is also a cogent and valued contributor. You are not
When you next regenerate you will start at one post. Does that make your new identify and less awesome and insightful than @Leon ?
@The_Woodpecker 's 300 posts might be awesome. I have written nearly 25,000 utter bollocks posts. Quantity should not be mistaken for quality.
In what it selects to report on, how it headlines it, how it frames it, who it quotes and how it attempts to show "balance" in writing it the BBC News website is the Wokiest of the Woke.
And it genuinely believes its objective and neutral. Lol.
So Britain SHOULD hold on to stolen loot?
Would you agree with that re: (for example) art Nazi's robbed from Jews they murdered & persecuted?
You are free to hand back north America - and your Seattle home - to the Apache, the Navajo and the Nez Perces, and the Skokomis , the Makkah and the Kaliespel, from whom it was "looted". Are you going to do that?
No, of course you're not. So this is just more fatuous posturing
When are you English gonna hand Cornwall back to the Cornish?
In what it selects to report on, how it headlines it, how it frames it, who it quotes and how it attempts to show "balance" in writing it the BBC News website is the Wokiest of the Woke.
And it genuinely believes its objective and neutral. Lol.
Reminds me of someone who claims to be "the most objective poster on here" but who clearly isn't. Lol.
The most objective poster is the one who says things I agree with, everyone knows that.
I do not get involved in the gender debate usually but the Cass report seems to have emboldened J K Rowling, Julie Bindel, Judy Murray and others and caused real issues for labour with Wes Steeting making a fulsome apology for his previous comments and then coming under attack from some of his colleagues
Furthermore if this report from Guido is true then Sky seem to have real internal problems with this subject
Cass was highly critical about the toxicity of the debate, the vilification and bullying on social media, and so forth. I don't think Rowling, Bindel and Murray are doing anything to defuse that toxicity.
Given that they have been proved right they are bloody well entitled to say "I told you so". It is not them making the debate toxic but those who tried to shut down and abused all those from Tavistock whistleblowers on who raised concerns, concerns it now turns out were well-founded.
Streeting himself was one of those who treated Bindel appallingly - for which he should apologise.
Yes. Why on earth should Rowling or Bindel rein in their anger? People tried to end their careers (and in the case of Bindel they partly succeeded). Why are they now meant to be magnanimous, now they they have been totally vindicated?
These women were brave, they stood up to the bullies (and lots of hideous abuse: rape threats, death threats etc) they are entitled to vent their righteous spleen
Rowling has basically been made a pariah in her own franchise...
Doesn't stop people consuming what she produces for it, or which uses it as a spin off. So not sure to what extent it is true (though I do know one person who says they cannot enjoy it anymore as Rowling is 'problematic'. They also won't rewatch Friends anymore, despite loving it less than 5 years ago).
Isn't she banned by the Studio from attending the conventions?
IIRC they made an anniversary documentary about the Harry Potter phenomenon and they managed not to mention her or picture her
Also, the ONLY reason she managed to avoid being cancelled by young Red Guards sorry Woke editors at her publishers is because she's J K Rowling. They really tried, and they came close. Any less successful author would have been toast
While I admire Rowling, Bindel, and the rest, for me, they have focused on the third most important issue in the trans debacle. I fully agree that men masquerading as women in some cases pose a danger to actual women, and that that is an important issue. But I'm puzzled it's that issue which got the traction, rather than i)why are we allowing people to talk vulnerable children into being mutilated, and ii)why are we comfortable allowing people to say reality is other than it very obviously is? I'd like to blame religion, on the grounds that it's given humanity plenty of practice in saying reality is other than it very obviously is. But perhaps that's going about it the wrong way: perhaps humans have a need to believe in areality, and in the absence of formalised religion, they start believing in anything.
I agree. I've been pondering how this insanity began. I mean: cui bono? Is it really some doctors grifting for money? Can it really just be a handful of crazy activists that took over society?
For me it is a classic madness of crowds. Like the witch craze, or "Satantic pedo cults". Humanity seems prone to manias, and we are periodicaly capable of believing the most ludicrous things
It's nothing like a Marian apparition or mania. Nobody in the bulk of society believes any of this trans shit, any more than anyone in the ruling class believes it.
Ask cui bono indeed.
1. It whips up the gauleiters like nobody's business. They absolutely love it. I'm quite sure they have all sorts of three-letter acronyms they knock about with each other in demented glee. But it's never the gauleiters who call the shots. See 2.
2. It scares the proletariat into not saying in public what they really think. That's why it's big in schools - because that's where most people get crushed and scared in that way and internalise their conditioning. They don't get scared to the extent that they believe all this shit, in other words that when they see a bloke in a frock they will really truly believe 2 + 2 = 5 he's a woman. Leave that to the schoolteachers and social workers - see 1 above. They just get into a state in which they're as tired as hell and they're ready - they're ready to be phlegmatic, to lie down and take whatever's coming to them when the ratchet gets given its next twist.
In what it selects to report on, how it headlines it, how it frames it, who it quotes and how it attempts to show "balance" in writing it the BBC News website is the Wokiest of the Woke.
And it genuinely believes its objective and neutral. Lol.
It was really sad when the BBC went 'woke' about 4 years ago. A lot of its articles and reporting are written from a particular editorial perspective that it is not too difficult to detect. The worst stuff is the clickbait articles on the website, people going on about their own tragedies /misfortunes /personal failings and written up in such a way that it becomes tenuously linked to some cosmic notion of 'justice'.
I do not get involved in the gender debate usually but the Cass report seems to have emboldened J K Rowling, Julie Bindel, Judy Murray and others and caused real issues for labour with Wes Steeting making a fulsome apology for his previous comments and then coming under attack from some of his colleagues
Furthermore if this report from Guido is true then Sky seem to have real internal problems with this subject
Cass was highly critical about the toxicity of the debate, the vilification and bullying on social media, and so forth. I don't think Rowling, Bindel and Murray are doing anything to defuse that toxicity.
Given that they have been proved right they are bloody well entitled to say "I told you so". It is not them making the debate toxic but those who tried to shut down and abused all those from Tavistock whistleblowers on who raised concerns, concerns it now turns out were well-founded.
Streeting himself was one of those who treated Bindel appallingly - for which he should apologise.
Yes. Why on earth should Rowling or Bindel rein in their anger? People tried to end their careers (and in the case of Bindel they partly succeeded). Why are they now meant to be magnanimous, now they they have been totally vindicated?
These women were brave, they stood up to the bullies (and lots of hideous abuse: rape threats, death threats etc) they are entitled to vent their righteous spleen
Rowling has basically been made a pariah in her own franchise...
Doesn't stop people consuming what she produces for it, or which uses it as a spin off. So not sure to what extent it is true (though I do know one person who says they cannot enjoy it anymore as Rowling is 'problematic'. They also won't rewatch Friends anymore, despite loving it less than 5 years ago).
Isn't she banned by the Studio from attending the conventions?
IIRC they made an anniversary documentary about the Harry Potter phenomenon and they managed not to mention her or picture her
Also, the ONLY reason she managed to avoid being cancelled by young Red Guards sorry Woke editors at her publishers is because she's J K Rowling. They really tried, and they came close. Any less successful author would have been toast
While I admire Rowling, Bindel, and the rest, for me, they have focused on the third most important issue in the trans debacle. I fully agree that men masquerading as women in some cases pose a danger to actual women, and that that is an important issue. But I'm puzzled it's that issue which got the traction, rather than i)why are we allowing people to talk vulnerable children into being mutilated, and ii)why are we comfortable allowing people to say reality is other than it very obviously is? I'd like to blame religion, on the grounds that it's given humanity plenty of practice in saying reality is other than it very obviously is. But perhaps that's going about it the wrong way: perhaps humans have a need to believe in areality, and in the absence of formalised religion, they start believing in anything.
I agree. I've been pondering how this insanity began. I mean: cui bono? Is it really some doctors grifting for money? Can it really just be a handful of crazy activists that took over society?
For me it is a classic madness of crowds. Like the witch craze, or "Satantic pedo cults". Humanity seems prone to manias, and we are periodicaly capable of believing the most ludicrous things
It's nothing like a Marian apparition or mania. Nobody in the bulk of society believes any of this trans shit, any more than anyone in the ruling class believes it.
Ask cui bono indeed.
1. It whips up the gauleiters like nobody's business. They absolutely love it. But it's never the gauleiters who call the shots. See 2.
2. It scares the proletariat into not saying in public what they really think. That's why it's big in schools - because that's where most people get crushed and scared in that way and internalise their conditioning. They don't get scared to the extent that they believe all this shit, in other words that they when they see a bloke in a frock they will really truly believe 2 + 2 = 5 he's a woman. Leave that to the schoolteachers and social workers - see 1 above. They just get into a state in which they're as tired as hell and they're ready - they're ready to be phlegmatic, to lie down and take whatever's coming to them when the ratchet is given its next twist.
Indeed
The way this crazy trans shit has been drilled into children is scary. I have personally witnessed this. It's like we suddenly decided to bring up a whole generation as particularly extreme Mormons, with quite bizarro beliefs
Trump Media & Technology Group down another 5.4% today.
Now only overvalued by $32.41 a share.
Trump's own shares have lost roughly $2.5bn since the launch. Only $2.5bn to go to their actual value which is zero. There must be a good chance this will happen before he manages to offload them, especially if the polling goes against him.
In what it selects to report on, how it headlines it, how it frames it, who it quotes and how it attempts to show "balance" in writing it the BBC News website is the Wokiest of the Woke.
And it genuinely believes its objective and neutral. Lol.
Reminds me of someone who claims to be "the most objective poster on here" but who clearly isn't. Lol.
What the fuck do you know with your 300 comments and utterly unmemorable existence on PB?
@Casino_Royale has a temper, we all know that, but he is also a cogent and valued contributor. You are not
When you next regenerate you will start at one post. Does that make your new identify and less awesome and insightful than @Leon ?
@The_Woodpecker 's 300 posts might be awesome. I have written nearly 25,000 utter bollocks posts. Quantity should not be mistaken for quality.
@The_Woodpecker has been around for years and regularly likes posts so I assume is lurking a lot. A limited number of posts can be more valuable than thousands of drivel, although if we all did it the forum would be a bit limited.
In what it selects to report on, how it headlines it, how it frames it, who it quotes and how it attempts to show "balance" in writing it the BBC News website is the Wokiest of the Woke.
And it genuinely believes its objective and neutral. Lol.
It was really sad when the BBC went 'woke' about 4 years ago. A lot of its articles and reporting are written from a particular editorial perspective that it is not too difficult to detect. The worst stuff is the clickbait articles on the website, people going on about their own tragedies /misfortunes /personal failings and written up in such a way that it becomes tenuously linked to some cosmic notion of 'justice'.
The website is now desperately poor. It is really rather sad, as it used to be properly good. Now it's like a deeply inferior version of the Guardian online, and that is already pretty Woke and dreary
You do still get the odd gem of foreign reportage, but what a waste. They have one of the best brands in world journalism, but it can't last much longer unless they shape up
In what it selects to report on, how it headlines it, how it frames it, who it quotes and how it attempts to show "balance" in writing it the BBC News website is the Wokiest of the Woke.
And it genuinely believes its objective and neutral. Lol.
Reminds me of someone who claims to be "the most objective poster on here" but who clearly isn't. Lol.
What the fuck do you know with your 300 comments and utterly unmemorable existence on PB?
@Casino_Royale has a temper, we all know that, but he is also a cogent and valued contributor. You are not
When you next regenerate you will start at one post. Does that make your new identify and less awesome and insightful than @Leon ?
@The_Woodpecker 's 300 posts might be awesome. I have written nearly 25,000 utter bollocks posts. Quantity should not be mistaken for quality.
Just 96 more for the quarter century (x1000).
And I promise you every one will be 24 carat sh1te!
In what it selects to report on, how it headlines it, how it frames it, who it quotes and how it attempts to show "balance" in writing it the BBC News website is the Wokiest of the Woke.
And it genuinely believes its objective and neutral. Lol.
Reminds me of someone who claims to be "the most objective poster on here" but who clearly isn't. Lol.
What the fuck do you know with your 300 comments and utterly unmemorable existence on PB?
@Casino_Royale has a temper, we all know that, but he is also a cogent and valued contributor. You are not
When you next regenerate you will start at one post. Does that make your new identify and less awesome and insightful than @Leon ?
@The_Woodpecker 's 300 posts might be awesome. I have written nearly 25,000 utter bollocks posts. Quantity should not be mistaken for quality.
@The_Woodpecker has been around for years and regularly likes posts so I assume is lurking a lot. A limited number of posts can be more valuable than thousands of drivel, although if we all did it the forum would be a bit limited.
Have you considered "limiting" your already paltry commentary? Might be good for you, mentally, and also for the site, so we don't have to read your tedious midwitted ramblings. Think of it like refusing to orgasm during sex, thus preserving "Qi"
In what it selects to report on, how it headlines it, how it frames it, who it quotes and how it attempts to show "balance" in writing it the BBC News website is the Wokiest of the Woke.
And it genuinely believes its objective and neutral. Lol.
It was really sad when the BBC went 'woke' about 4 years ago. A lot of its articles and reporting are written from a particular editorial perspective that it is not too difficult to detect. The worst stuff is the clickbait articles on the website, people going on about their own tragedies /misfortunes /personal failings and written up in such a way that it becomes tenuously linked to some cosmic notion of 'justice'.
The website is now desperately poor. It is really rather sad, as it used to be properly good. Now it's like a deeply inferior version of the Guardian online, and that is already pretty Woke and dreary
You do still get the odd gem of foreign reportage, but what a waste. They have one of the best brands in world journalism, but it can't last much longer unless they shape up
IIRC the BBC News website was kneecapped by the Conservative government because it was seen as competing with commercial outlets.
The BBC always has this problem: if they do a bad job, then they’re not worthy of the licence fee. If they do a good job, then they’re undermining commercial outfits with the unearned benefit of the same licence fee. Either way, they can’t win.
In what it selects to report on, how it headlines it, how it frames it, who it quotes and how it attempts to show "balance" in writing it the BBC News website is the Wokiest of the Woke.
And it genuinely believes its objective and neutral. Lol.
It was really sad when the BBC went 'woke' about 4 years ago. A lot of its articles and reporting are written from a particular editorial perspective that it is not too difficult to detect. The worst stuff is the clickbait articles on the website, people going on about their own tragedies /misfortunes /personal failings and written up in such a way that it becomes tenuously linked to some cosmic notion of 'justice'.
The website is now desperately poor. It is really rather sad, as it used to be properly good. Now it's like a deeply inferior version of the Guardian online, and that is already pretty Woke and dreary
You do still get the odd gem of foreign reportage, but what a waste. They have one of the best brands in world journalism, but it can't last much longer unless they shape up
IIRC the BBC News website was kneecapped by the Conservative government because it was seen as competing with commercial outlets.
The BBC always has this problem: if they do a bad job, then they’re not worthy of the licence fee. If they do a good job, then they’re undermining commercial outfits with the unearned benefit of the same licence fee. Either way, they can’t win.
Yes, this is fair and true
I am actually in favour of the BBC, in a fundamental way. It is a great way of Britain exerting soft power. I don't want it to die, at all, the brand is so good, it would be an act of national self harm if it falls apart
Maybe this is one way Starmer's government can do good: find a way of preserving and indeed enhancing the BBC, but jeez they need to sort the Wokeness
Conservative and Reform polling 37% combined in London is very interesting. For ages it seemed like the tories were completely finished in London and the city had gone completely 'woke'. But perhaps not?
On the latest Yougov the Tories are now polling better in London now than the North, Wales and Scotland.
Whereas in 2019 Boris did better in the North and Wales than London, it seems Rishi does a bit better relatively in London than the rest of his party, see the Uxbridge by election too and that may also help Susan Hall up to 30% in the latest London Mayoral poll
In what it selects to report on, how it headlines it, how it frames it, who it quotes and how it attempts to show "balance" in writing it the BBC News website is the Wokiest of the Woke.
And it genuinely believes its objective and neutral. Lol.
Reminds me of someone who claims to be "the most objective poster on here" but who clearly isn't. Lol.
What the fuck do you know with your 300 comments and utterly unmemorable existence on PB?
@Casino_Royale has a temper, we all know that, but he is also a cogent and valued contributor. You are not
When you next regenerate you will start at one post. Does that make your new identify and less awesome and insightful than @Leon ?
@The_Woodpecker 's 300 posts might be awesome. I have written nearly 25,000 utter bollocks posts. Quantity should not be mistaken for quality.
@The_Woodpecker has been around for years and regularly likes posts so I assume is lurking a lot. A limited number of posts can be more valuable than thousands of drivel, although if we all did it the forum would be a bit limited.
Have you considered "limiting" your already paltry commentary? Might be good for you, mentally, and also for the site, so we don't have to read your tedious midwitted ramblings. Think of it like refusing to orgasm during sex, thus preserving "Qi"
Good grief, what on earth caused that reaction? Are you ok? I haven't been rude to you or criticised you or anything. I just made a pleasant observation. A massive over reaction even for you @Leon . Are you reading something in my post that isn't there?
Oh great the Tories are jumping on the Cass review to further the culture war.
Of course they are. Culture War is all the Tories have left.
It's not enough on its own. Not if people do not fear the Opposition. And who is going to be spooked by Sir Keir Starmer KC? I don't think all of the stuff that is raised is nonsense, but it's not going to sway enough votes.
This stuff can excite and inflame a lacklustre campaign, but it cannot succeed when that's all there is.
Oh great the Tories are jumping on the Cass review to further the culture war.
Of course they are. Culture War is all the Tories have left.
Culture War might win the POTUS elex for Trump, and the "populist right" is on the ascent across Europe
The trend is to the right, all over the West, indeed towards the hard right. I sense we are at a tipping point over migration, for instance, when the natives are about to rebel. Britain is an outlier here, but we will likely catch up
In what it selects to report on, how it headlines it, how it frames it, who it quotes and how it attempts to show "balance" in writing it the BBC News website is the Wokiest of the Woke.
And it genuinely believes its objective and neutral. Lol.
It was really sad when the BBC went 'woke' about 4 years ago. A lot of its articles and reporting are written from a particular editorial perspective that it is not too difficult to detect. The worst stuff is the clickbait articles on the website, people going on about their own tragedies /misfortunes /personal failings and written up in such a way that it becomes tenuously linked to some cosmic notion of 'justice'.
The website is now desperately poor. It is really rather sad, as it used to be properly good. Now it's like a deeply inferior version of the Guardian online, and that is already pretty Woke and dreary
You do still get the odd gem of foreign reportage, but what a waste. They have one of the best brands in world journalism, but it can't last much longer unless they shape up
IIRC the BBC News website was kneecapped by the Conservative government because it was seen as competing with commercial outlets.
The BBC always has this problem: if they do a bad job, then they’re not worthy of the licence fee. If they do a good job, then they’re undermining commercial outfits with the unearned benefit of the same licence fee. Either way, they can’t win.
I don't remember their news reporting ever being 'good'. Sports reporting remains quite good, though they seem at pains to periodically go through needless changes to make the navigation less useful and highlight the wrong stories. And every eighth article is not actually about sport but identity politics. Weather reporting used to be good and now it would seem they no longer pay the Met Office and just make forecasts up instead.
I'm not sure it deserves three (!!!) exclamation marks when read the text of the article. Labour appear to remain committed to abolishing leasehold but not necessarily within 100 days.
God knows why they feel moved to mention this right now though, surely the time to modify the 100 days target is after a month or so of Government when they can say "Now we see the state the Tories have left things in we will need to focus on other priorities first - Abolition of leasehold deferred to next year" or similar.
In what it selects to report on, how it headlines it, how it frames it, who it quotes and how it attempts to show "balance" in writing it the BBC News website is the Wokiest of the Woke.
And it genuinely believes its objective and neutral. Lol.
Reminds me of someone who claims to be "the most objective poster on here" but who clearly isn't. Lol.
What the fuck do you know with your 300 comments and utterly unmemorable existence on PB?
@Casino_Royale has a temper, we all know that, but he is also a cogent and valued contributor. You are not
When you next regenerate you will start at one post. Does that make your new identify and less awesome and insightful than @Leon ?
@The_Woodpecker 's 300 posts might be awesome. I have written nearly 25,000 utter bollocks posts. Quantity should not be mistaken for quality.
@The_Woodpecker has been around for years and regularly likes posts so I assume is lurking a lot. A limited number of posts can be more valuable than thousands of drivel, although if we all did it the forum would be a bit limited.
Have you considered "limiting" your already paltry commentary? Might be good for you, mentally, and also for the site, so we don't have to read your tedious midwitted ramblings. Think of it like refusing to orgasm during sex, thus preserving "Qi"
Good grief, what on earth caused that reaction? Are you ok? I haven't been rude to you or criticised you or anything. I just made a pleasant observation. A massive over reaction even for you @Leon . Are you reading something in my post that isn't there?
No, I just missed insulting people during my absence. Don't take it personally. It's just me going into pre-season training
Whilst I agree with the crux of what Rowling says, I do think the way she goes about it utterly shoots herself in the foot.
If she wants to build consensus which I think most do, she goes about it in a really baffling way. She looks to have been proven to be correct - but she's gone about it in such a difficult way that she really hasn't helped herself at all.
She certainly has amplified hateful people and liked ("accidentally") hateful things. I do not think she is hateful herself at all - but she has given air to extremists on the anti-trans side. There are those just as bad who give air to the pro-trans side and they are just as bonkers. I think Rowling actually sits very much in the middle, so that's why her actions baffle me.
The way Sonia Sodha has gone about things is so much better.
I think the thing with Rowling is she stopped caring having decided she'd be damned anyway, whatever she said, having attracted some pretty vicious opprobrium when she tried to talk with nuance. Worth remembering she wrote an essay that was thousands of words long that was at pains to set out concerns while being respectful of others.
She got called a bigot for that and people proceeded to attack her over any perceived transgression. So I think she now deliberately carves out a more strident position in the knowledge that she is one of the few people on the planet who maybe immune to unpleasant publicity and denunciation an can say things some others hold back from because not worth the hassle.
Sodha is obviously an Observer columnist so presumably is bound by their rules on social media behaviour.
Yes that's precisely right. She tried to be balanced and got dozens of rape threats
At that point one can understand a self-made woman billionaire thinking "fuck this for a game of non-binary soldiers" and going on the offensive
As the evidence from the Cass report filters into the public and media consciousness it is not clear to me that we need to keep pretending that there are 2 reasonable and differing viewpoints on this. There simply isn't. The fact that she is also at the same time proving that Scotland's Hate Act is a toothless joke is just an added bonus.
Exactly. I think a lot of the people who bought into this nonsense were the types who just hate the people who called it out from the start because a lot of them supported Brexit, and they couldn’t stand to be seen agreeing with those nincompoops.
I do not get involved in the gender debate usually but the Cass report seems to have emboldened J K Rowling, Julie Bindel, Judy Murray and others and caused real issues for labour with Wes Steeting making a fulsome apology for his previous comments and then coming under attack from some of his colleagues
Furthermore if this report from Guido is true then Sky seem to have real internal problems with this subject
Cass was highly critical about the toxicity of the debate, the vilification and bullying on social media, and so forth. I don't think Rowling, Bindel and Murray are doing anything to defuse that toxicity.
Given that they have been proved right they are bloody well entitled to say "I told you so". It is not them making the debate toxic but those who tried to shut down and abused all those from Tavistock whistleblowers on who raised concerns, concerns it now turns out were well-founded.
Streeting himself was one of those who treated Bindel appallingly - for which he should apologise.
Yes. Why on earth should Rowling or Bindel rein in their anger? People tried to end their careers (and in the case of Bindel they partly succeeded). Why are they now meant to be magnanimous, now they they have been totally vindicated?
These women were brave, they stood up to the bullies (and lots of hideous abuse: rape threats, death threats etc) they are entitled to vent their righteous spleen
Rowling has basically been made a pariah in her own franchise...
Doesn't stop people consuming what she produces for it, or which uses it as a spin off. So not sure to what extent it is true (though I do know one person who says they cannot enjoy it anymore as Rowling is 'problematic'. They also won't rewatch Friends anymore, despite loving it less than 5 years ago).
Isn't she banned by the Studio from attending the conventions?
IIRC they made an anniversary documentary about the Harry Potter phenomenon and they managed not to mention her or picture her
Also, the ONLY reason she managed to avoid being cancelled by young Red Guards sorry Woke editors at her publishers is because she's J K Rowling. They really tried, and they came close. Any less successful author would have been toast
While I admire Rowling, Bindel, and the rest, for me, they have focused on the third most important issue in the trans debacle. I fully agree that men masquerading as women in some cases pose a danger to actual women, and that that is an important issue. But I'm puzzled it's that issue which got the traction, rather than i)why are we allowing people to talk vulnerable children into being mutilated, and ii)why are we comfortable allowing people to say reality is other than it very obviously is? I'd like to blame religion, on the grounds that it's given humanity plenty of practice in saying reality is other than it very obviously is. But perhaps that's going about it the wrong way: perhaps humans have a need to believe in areality, and in the absence of formalised religion, they start believing in anything.
I agree. I've been pondering how this insanity began. I mean: cui bono? Is it really some doctors grifting for money? Can it really just be a handful of crazy activists that took over society?
For me it is a classic madness of crowds. Like the witch craze, or "Satantic pedo cults". Humanity seems prone to manias, and we are periodicaly capable of believing the most ludicrous things
It's nothing like a Marian apparition or mania. Nobody in the bulk of society believes any of this trans shit, any more than anyone in the ruling class believes it.
Ask cui bono indeed.
1. It whips up the gauleiters like nobody's business. They absolutely love it. But it's never the gauleiters who call the shots. See 2.
2. It scares the proletariat into not saying in public what they really think. That's why it's big in schools - because that's where most people get crushed and scared in that way and internalise their conditioning. They don't get scared to the extent that they believe all this shit, in other words that they when they see a bloke in a frock they will really truly believe 2 + 2 = 5 he's a woman. Leave that to the schoolteachers and social workers - see 1 above. They just get into a state in which they're as tired as hell and they're ready - they're ready to be phlegmatic, to lie down and take whatever's coming to them when the ratchet is given its next twist.
Indeed
The way this crazy trans shit has been drilled into children is scary. I have personally witnessed this. It's like we suddenly decided to bring up a whole generation as particularly extreme Mormons, with quite bizarro beliefs
God knows how it will play out, down the line
It's definitely technology - bad ideas can circulate, and become widespread and accepted far faster now. With little control over where they end up.
You see it happen in all corners of the political spectrum where people will believe mad things if it fits their priors and has a superficial attractiveness to them as an idea.
In this case what were some fairly niche applications of certain philosophical theories have spread like wildfire as they provide answers some - particularly in influential circles - desperate to hear. The internet has made us all far more suggestable and worse at critical assessment by bombarding us with lots of low quality information.
In what it selects to report on, how it headlines it, how it frames it, who it quotes and how it attempts to show "balance" in writing it the BBC News website is the Wokiest of the Woke.
And it genuinely believes its objective and neutral. Lol.
Reminds me of someone who claims to be "the most objective poster on here" but who clearly isn't. Lol.
What the fuck do you know with your 300 comments and utterly unmemorable existence on PB?
@Casino_Royale has a temper, we all know that, but he is also a cogent and valued contributor. You are not
When you next regenerate you will start at one post. Does that make your new identify and less awesome and insightful than @Leon ?
@The_Woodpecker 's 300 posts might be awesome. I have written nearly 25,000 utter bollocks posts. Quantity should not be mistaken for quality.
Just 96 more for the quarter century (x1000).
And I promise you every one will be 24 carat sh1te!
Nonsense. Maybe half 😉
(which is, of course, a better ratio than most including me)
Come on Big G, even Swindon have won that one… But yes, I’d forgotten that!
Assume you mean the League Cup? The EFL is something different
Surely the EFL is just the latest form of the League Cup? In what way is it different?
EFL Cup is the current League Cup competition. EFL is the actual League.
So yes, they won the EFL cup, which is the latest form of the one Swindon won in 1969.
You said "EFL", not "EFL Cup".
I did, in response to a post about winning it in Feb, so assumed we were all on board with it being the cup, but I appreciate it wasn’t that clear!
Repent at leisure. The tedium of the Scousers and Citeh winning everything is bad enough, without PBers granting them trophies in competitions that they do not even enter.
In what it selects to report on, how it headlines it, how it frames it, who it quotes and how it attempts to show "balance" in writing it the BBC News website is the Wokiest of the Woke.
And it genuinely believes its objective and neutral. Lol.
Reminds me of someone who claims to be "the most objective poster on here" but who clearly isn't. Lol.
What the fuck do you know with your 300 comments and utterly unmemorable existence on PB?
@Casino_Royale has a temper, we all know that, but he is also a cogent and valued contributor. You are not
I think Woodpecker, like Casino Royale, is a valued contributor here.
You know who isn't? You. This forum has been better in every single way whilst you didn't post, I really wish you'd stayed away.
This is why the Right is winning across Europe. Look at this extroardinary report from Sweden. 13 year old migrant children executing men in the street
Oh great the Tories are jumping on the Cass review to further the culture war.
Of course they are. Culture War is all the Tories have left.
It's not enough on its own. Not if people do not fear the Opposition. And who is going to be spooked by Sir Keir Starmer KC? I don't think all of the stuff that is raised is nonsense, but it's not going to sway enough votes.
This stuff can excite and inflame a lacklustre campaign, but it cannot succeed when that's all there is.
I simply do not see the problem with the Cass report accepted by both Sunak and and Starmer and will be implemented
Oh great the Tories are jumping on the Cass review to further the culture war.
Of course they are. Culture War is all the Tories have left.
Culture War might win the POTUS elex for Trump, and the "populist right" is on the ascent across Europe
The trend is to the right, all over the West, indeed towards the hard right. I sense we are at a tipping point over migration, for instance, when the natives are about to rebel. Britain is an outlier here, but we will likely catch up
Most people don't really give much thought to the culture war, they are focused on their increased rent/mortgage, and the shocking state of public services.
In what it selects to report on, how it headlines it, how it frames it, who it quotes and how it attempts to show "balance" in writing it the BBC News website is the Wokiest of the Woke.
And it genuinely believes its objective and neutral. Lol.
It was really sad when the BBC went 'woke' about 4 years ago. A lot of its articles and reporting are written from a particular editorial perspective that it is not too difficult to detect. The worst stuff is the clickbait articles on the website, people going on about their own tragedies /misfortunes /personal failings and written up in such a way that it becomes tenuously linked to some cosmic notion of 'justice'.
The website is now desperately poor. It is really rather sad, as it used to be properly good. Now it's like a deeply inferior version of the Guardian online, and that is already pretty Woke and dreary
You do still get the odd gem of foreign reportage, but what a waste. They have one of the best brands in world journalism, but it can't last much longer unless they shape up
IIRC the BBC News website was kneecapped by the Conservative government because it was seen as competing with commercial outlets.
The BBC always has this problem: if they do a bad job, then they’re not worthy of the licence fee. If they do a good job, then they’re undermining commercial outfits with the unearned benefit of the same licence fee. Either way, they can’t win.
I don't remember their news reporting ever being 'good'. Sports reporting remains quite good, though they seem at pains to periodically go through needless changes to make the navigation less useful and highlight the wrong stories. And every eighth article is not actually about sport but identity politics. Weather reporting used to be good and now it would seem they no longer pay the Met Office and just make forecasts up instead.
They pay for their weather data from the Netherlands Met Office now as it's cheaper afaik.
In what it selects to report on, how it headlines it, how it frames it, who it quotes and how it attempts to show "balance" in writing it the BBC News website is the Wokiest of the Woke.
And it genuinely believes its objective and neutral. Lol.
Reminds me of someone who claims to be "the most objective poster on here" but who clearly isn't. Lol.
What the fuck do you know with your 300 comments and utterly unmemorable existence on PB?
@Casino_Royale has a temper, we all know that, but he is also a cogent and valued contributor. You are not
I think Woodpecker, like Casino Royale, is a valued contributor here.
You know who isn't? You. This forum has been better in every single way whilst you didn't post, I really wish you'd stayed away.
Oh great the Tories are jumping on the Cass review to further the culture war.
Of course they are. Culture War is all the Tories have left.
It's only something they have because so many with influence on the left ate fighting it. Accusing the right of fighting a culture war is like accusing the French of fighting a war in 1940 - flashes of half-hearted defence against a war which the other side started. Most of us on the right were reasonably happy with culture back around 2010. It's the left who have been driving the cultural change.
In what it selects to report on, how it headlines it, how it frames it, who it quotes and how it attempts to show "balance" in writing it the BBC News website is the Wokiest of the Woke.
And it genuinely believes its objective and neutral. Lol.
Reminds me of someone who claims to be "the most objective poster on here" but who clearly isn't. Lol.
What the fuck do you know with your 300 comments and utterly unmemorable existence on PB?
@Casino_Royale has a temper, we all know that, but he is also a cogent and valued contributor. You are not
When you next regenerate you will start at one post. Does that make your new identify and less awesome and insightful than @Leon ?
@The_Woodpecker 's 300 posts might be awesome. I have written nearly 25,000 utter bollocks posts. Quantity should not be mistaken for quality.
@The_Woodpecker has been around for years and regularly likes posts so I assume is lurking a lot. A limited number of posts can be more valuable than thousands of drivel, although if we all did it the forum would be a bit limited.
Have you considered "limiting" your already paltry commentary? Might be good for you, mentally, and also for the site, so we don't have to read your tedious midwitted ramblings. Think of it like refusing to orgasm during sex, thus preserving "Qi"
Good grief, what on earth caused that reaction? Are you ok? I haven't been rude to you or criticised you or anything. I just made a pleasant observation. A massive over reaction even for you @Leon . Are you reading something in my post that isn't there?
No, I just missed insulting people during my absence. Don't take it personally. It's just me going into pre-season training
Any chance of being tipped off beforehand then. I read my post several times to try and work out what I said to offend you. The biggest criticism I could think of was that it was bland, which in fairness I could see might irritate you.
Oh great the Tories are jumping on the Cass review to further the culture war.
Of course they are. Culture War is all the Tories have left.
It's only something they have because so many with influence on the left ate fighting it. Accusing the right of fighting a culture war is like accusing the French of fighting a war in 1940 - flashes of half-hearted defence against a war which the other side started. Most of us on the right were reasonably happy with culture back around 2010. It's the left who have been driving the cultural change.
There was a massive culture war around gay marriage. It only got through because the Lib Dems and Labour voted for it.
Labour has got to from what I can see, reasonable position on the issue now and isn't throwing trans people under the bus like the Tories do at every turn. When I say they are fighting a culture war, that is what I mean.
I am not saying you or anyone here is fighting a culture war. The debate here is remarkably sensible.
In what it selects to report on, how it headlines it, how it frames it, who it quotes and how it attempts to show "balance" in writing it the BBC News website is the Wokiest of the Woke.
And it genuinely believes its objective and neutral. Lol.
It was really sad when the BBC went 'woke' about 4 years ago. A lot of its articles and reporting are written from a particular editorial perspective that it is not too difficult to detect. The worst stuff is the clickbait articles on the website, people going on about their own tragedies /misfortunes /personal failings and written up in such a way that it becomes tenuously linked to some cosmic notion of 'justice'.
The website is now desperately poor. It is really rather sad, as it used to be properly good. Now it's like a deeply inferior version of the Guardian online, and that is already pretty Woke and dreary
You do still get the odd gem of foreign reportage, but what a waste. They have one of the best brands in world journalism, but it can't last much longer unless they shape up
IIRC the BBC News website was kneecapped by the Conservative government because it was seen as competing with commercial outlets.
The BBC always has this problem: if they do a bad job, then they’re not worthy of the licence fee. If they do a good job, then they’re undermining commercial outfits with the unearned benefit of the same licence fee. Either way, they can’t win.
I don't remember their news reporting ever being 'good'. Sports reporting remains quite good, though they seem at pains to periodically go through needless changes to make the navigation less useful and highlight the wrong stories. And every eighth article is not actually about sport but identity politics. Weather reporting used to be good and now it would seem they no longer pay the Met Office and just make forecasts up instead.
They pay for their weather data from the Netherlands Met Office now as it's cheaper afaik.
In what it selects to report on, how it headlines it, how it frames it, who it quotes and how it attempts to show "balance" in writing it the BBC News website is the Wokiest of the Woke.
And it genuinely believes its objective and neutral. Lol.
Reminds me of someone who claims to be "the most objective poster on here" but who clearly isn't. Lol.
What the fuck do you know with your 300 comments and utterly unmemorable existence on PB?
@Casino_Royale has a temper, we all know that, but he is also a cogent and valued contributor. You are not
When you next regenerate you will start at one post. Does that make your new identify and less awesome and insightful than @Leon ?
@The_Woodpecker 's 300 posts might be awesome. I have written nearly 25,000 utter bollocks posts. Quantity should not be mistaken for quality.
@The_Woodpecker has been around for years and regularly likes posts so I assume is lurking a lot. A limited number of posts can be more valuable than thousands of drivel, although if we all did it the forum would be a bit limited.
Have you considered "limiting" your already paltry commentary? Might be good for you, mentally, and also for the site, so we don't have to read your tedious midwitted ramblings. Think of it like refusing to orgasm during sex, thus preserving "Qi"
Good grief, what on earth caused that reaction? Are you ok? I haven't been rude to you or criticised you or anything. I just made a pleasant observation. A massive over reaction even for you @Leon . Are you reading something in my post that isn't there?
No, I just missed insulting people during my absence. Don't take it personally. It's just me going into pre-season training
Any chance of being tipped off beforehand then. I read my post several times to try and work out what I said to offend you. The biggest criticism I could think of was that it was bland, which in fairness I could see might irritate you.
I wouldn't even have said that about it. I'd give it 'mildly humorous'. Don't worry about it at all - Leon's just being feisty.
Any chance of being tipped off beforehand then. I read my post several times to try and work out what I said to offend you. The biggest criticism I could think of was that it was bland, which in fairness I could see might irritate you.
Leon is drunk and being the sad little lonely man he is, has come to get a reaction. Just ignore him and he will go away.
Oh great the Tories are jumping on the Cass review to further the culture war.
What culture war?
Most I've seen is people saying well done to Rowling etc.
After the Cass review, surely anyone who doesn't is the one furthering the culture war?
Accept that Rowling etc were right all along, move on, and no culture war. Surely you'd be happy with that if you don't want a culture war?
The culture war thankfully remains a minor scuffle on the sidelines on this side of the Atlantic. Long may it continue.
We do, though, seem to have a new political alignment across the West, and the hard right is definitely in the ascendant.
It was previously centre left vs centre right, with occasional mini-triumphs of the far left and far right in places like Austria and Greece.
Now it’s largely the populist hard right vs the internationalist liberals. The Brexit divide writ large across the West. With the centre ground on economics having shifted a little to the left in the Anglo Saxon world and a little to the right in the corporatist European world.
In what it selects to report on, how it headlines it, how it frames it, who it quotes and how it attempts to show "balance" in writing it the BBC News website is the Wokiest of the Woke.
And it genuinely believes its objective and neutral. Lol.
Reminds me of someone who claims to be "the most objective poster on here" but who clearly isn't. Lol.
What the fuck do you know with your 300 comments and utterly unmemorable existence on PB?
@Casino_Royale has a temper, we all know that, but he is also a cogent and valued contributor. You are not
When you next regenerate you will start at one post. Does that make your new identify and less awesome and insightful than @Leon ?
@The_Woodpecker 's 300 posts might be awesome. I have written nearly 25,000 utter bollocks posts. Quantity should not be mistaken for quality.
@The_Woodpecker has been around for years and regularly likes posts so I assume is lurking a lot. A limited number of posts can be more valuable than thousands of drivel, although if we all did it the forum would be a bit limited.
Have you considered "limiting" your already paltry commentary? Might be good for you, mentally, and also for the site, so we don't have to read your tedious midwitted ramblings. Think of it like refusing to orgasm during sex, thus preserving "Qi"
Good grief, what on earth caused that reaction? Are you ok? I haven't been rude to you or criticised you or anything. I just made a pleasant observation. A massive over reaction even for you @Leon . Are you reading something in my post that isn't there?
No, I just missed insulting people during my absence. Don't take it personally. It's just me going into pre-season training
Any chance of being tipped off beforehand then. I read my post several times to try and work out what I said to offend you. The biggest criticism I could think of was that it was bland, which in fairness I could see might irritate you.
You're being too kind; he's just a complete and utter arse, no other explanation is required.
In what it selects to report on, how it headlines it, how it frames it, who it quotes and how it attempts to show "balance" in writing it the BBC News website is the Wokiest of the Woke.
And it genuinely believes its objective and neutral. Lol.
Reminds me of someone who claims to be "the most objective poster on here" but who clearly isn't. Lol.
What the fuck do you know with your 300 comments and utterly unmemorable existence on PB?
@Casino_Royale has a temper, we all know that, but he is also a cogent and valued contributor. You are not
I think Woodpecker, like Casino Royale, is a valued contributor here.
You know who isn't? You. This forum has been better in every single way whilst you didn't post, I really wish you'd stayed away.
@Leon is an interesting poster and is part of the rich fabric of views on here and frankly who you think are valued contributors or not is obviously upto you, but others may have other views to you
In what it selects to report on, how it headlines it, how it frames it, who it quotes and how it attempts to show "balance" in writing it the BBC News website is the Wokiest of the Woke.
And it genuinely believes its objective and neutral. Lol.
Reminds me of someone who claims to be "the most objective poster on here" but who clearly isn't. Lol.
What the fuck do you know with your 300 comments and utterly unmemorable existence on PB?
@Casino_Royale has a temper, we all know that, but he is also a cogent and valued contributor. You are not
When you next regenerate you will start at one post. Does that make your new identify and less awesome and insightful than @Leon ?
@The_Woodpecker 's 300 posts might be awesome. I have written nearly 25,000 utter bollocks posts. Quantity should not be mistaken for quality.
@The_Woodpecker has been around for years and regularly likes posts so I assume is lurking a lot. A limited number of posts can be more valuable than thousands of drivel, although if we all did it the forum would be a bit limited.
Have you considered "limiting" your already paltry commentary? Might be good for you, mentally, and also for the site, so we don't have to read your tedious midwitted ramblings. Think of it like refusing to orgasm during sex, thus preserving "Qi"
Good grief, what on earth caused that reaction? Are you ok? I haven't been rude to you or criticised you or anything. I just made a pleasant observation. A massive over reaction even for you @Leon . Are you reading something in my post that isn't there?
No, I just missed insulting people during my absence. Don't take it personally. It's just me going into pre-season training
Any chance of being tipped off beforehand then. I read my post several times to try and work out what I said to offend you. The biggest criticism I could think of was that it was bland, which in fairness I could see might irritate you.
Chill. It really was just me limbering up. Doing stretches, jogging on the side of the pitch, etc
I'm actually quite fond of you in a "fond of Radio 4 comedy" kind of way, I hope that is returned
This is why the Right is winning across Europe. Look at this extroardinary report from Sweden. 13 year old migrant children executing men in the street
This is why the Right is winning across Europe. Look at this extroardinary report from Sweden. 13 year old migrant children executing men in the street
Oh great the Tories are jumping on the Cass review to further the culture war.
Of course they are. Culture War is all the Tories have left.
It's only something they have because so many with influence on the left ate fighting it. Accusing the right of fighting a culture war is like accusing the French of fighting a war in 1940 - flashes of half-hearted defence against a war which the other side started. Most of us on the right were reasonably happy with culture back around 2010. It's the left who have been driving the cultural change.
The lack of gay marriage in 2010 was very problematic and that it is legal now is huge progress that should be welcomed.
Allowing two consenting adults to marry whoever they love hurts nobody, spreads joy and only has positives.
The problem is hijacking organisations that supported that to give them a new agenda that is entirely unrelated, cloak it in the same colours, then pretend that doing unnecessary lifelong medical treatments on children, or putting men in women's safe single-sex spaces is a good idea.
The two issues are not remotely linked in any way.
Comments
I wonder if the RN training bases/contractors even have swimming pools these days?
But I bet you're expected to swim in really cold water, aren't you? That strikes me as really unpleasant.
It was the NDP and BQ trying to do it (their version of Corbynistas and the SNP, basically)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68789512
In what it selects to report on, how it headlines it, how it frames it, who it quotes and how it attempts to show "balance" in writing it the BBC News website is the Wokiest of the Woke.
And it genuinely believes its objective and neutral. Lol.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xXC6U0NfJg8
I used to work with an ex-submariner who had to go through training in the tall tower tank at Gosport (well, the harbour entrance at Haslar):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hj_t_qwCycE
Justin's Liberals were with the Tories in belting it out.
You don't get more Establishment than the Trudeaus.
The fact the governing Liberals and main opposition Conservatives combined to defeat this private members' bill to remove the Oath of Allegiance to the Monarch by Canadian MPs suggests Canada will be a constitutional monarchy for some time to come
Apart from that, yes, good point.
“It doesn’t seem very Christian to me for you to be so intransigent.”
Philip Schofield telling @A_Minichiello to support children transitioning in 2017.
https://x.com/cconcern/status/1778363372544655605?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
The Care Quality Commission (CQC) will check that private providers of care to those who are questioning their gender identity are applying new guidance recommended by Dr Hilary Cass.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/apr/11/ban-on-childrens-puberty-blockers-to-be-enforced-in-private-sector-in-england
Similar to how CUP has been that in UK for roughly same period. Of course, no telling what the future will bring.
She got called a bigot for that and people proceeded to attack her over any perceived transgression. So I think she now deliberately carves out a more strident position in the knowledge that she is one of the few people on the planet who maybe immune to unpleasant publicity and denunciation an can say things some others hold back from because not worth the hassle.
Sodha is obviously an Observer columnist so presumably is bound by their rules on social media behaviour.
Would you agree with that re: (for example) art Nazi's robbed from Jews they murdered & persecuted?
@Casino_Royale has a temper, we all know that, but he is also a cogent and valued contributor. You are not
At that point one can understand a self-made woman billionaire thinking "fuck this for a game of non-binary soldiers" and going on the offensive
Quebec will be important to the outcome . . . but NOT as important as Ontario.
Now only overvalued by $32.41 a share.
No, of course you're not. So this is just more fatuous posturing
@The_Woodpecker 's 300 posts might be awesome. I have written nearly 25,000 utter bollocks posts. Quantity should not be mistaken for quality.
Assume you mean the League Cup?
Ask cui bono indeed.
1. It whips up the gauleiters like nobody's business. They absolutely love it. I'm quite sure they have all sorts of three-letter acronyms they knock about with each other in demented glee. But it's never the gauleiters who call the shots. See 2.
2. It scares the proletariat into not saying in public what they really think. That's why it's big in schools - because that's where most people get crushed and scared in that way and internalise their conditioning. They don't get scared to the extent that they believe all this shit, in other words that when they see a bloke in a frock they will really truly believe 2 + 2 = 5 he's a woman. Leave that to the schoolteachers and social workers - see 1 above. They just get into a state in which they're as tired as hell and they're ready - they're ready to be phlegmatic, to lie down and take whatever's coming to them when the ratchet gets given its next twist.
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2024/feb/25/chelsea-liverpool-carabao-cup-match-report
The way this crazy trans shit has been drilled into children is scary. I have personally witnessed this. It's like we suddenly decided to bring up a whole generation as particularly extreme Mormons, with quite bizarro beliefs
God knows how it will play out, down the line
You do still get the odd gem of foreign reportage, but what a waste. They have one of the best brands in world journalism, but it can't last much longer unless they shape up
https://news.sky.com/story/labour-drops-pledge-to-abolish-leasehold-within-100-days-but-is-still-committed-to-the-reforms-13113071
The BBC always has this problem: if they do a bad job, then they’re not worthy of the licence fee. If they do a good job, then they’re undermining commercial outfits with the unearned benefit of the same licence fee. Either way, they can’t win.
I am actually in favour of the BBC, in a fundamental way. It is a great way of Britain exerting soft power. I don't want it to die, at all, the brand is so good, it would be an act of national self harm if it falls apart
Maybe this is one way Starmer's government can do good: find a way of preserving and indeed enhancing the BBC, but jeez they need to sort the Wokeness
Whereas in 2019 Boris did better in the North and Wales than London, it seems Rishi does a bit better relatively in London than the rest of his party, see the Uxbridge by election too and that may also help Susan Hall up to 30% in the latest London Mayoral poll
https://ygo-assets-websites-editorial-emea.yougov.net/documents/TheTimes_VI_240403_W.pdf
This stuff can excite and inflame a lacklustre campaign, but it cannot succeed when that's all there is.
The trend is to the right, all over the West, indeed towards the hard right. I sense we are at a tipping point over migration, for instance, when the natives are about to rebel. Britain is an outlier here, but we will likely catch up
God knows why they feel moved to mention this right now though, surely the time to modify the 100 days target is after a month or so of Government when they can say "Now we see the state the Tories have left things in we will need to focus on other priorities first - Abolition of leasehold deferred to next year" or similar.
Most I've seen is people saying well done to Rowling etc.
After the Cass review, surely anyone who doesn't is the one furthering the culture war?
Accept that Rowling etc were right all along, move on, and no culture war. Surely you'd be happy with that if you don't want a culture war?
You see it happen in all corners of the political spectrum where people will believe mad things if it fits their priors and has a superficial attractiveness to them as an idea.
In this case what were some fairly niche applications of certain philosophical theories have spread like wildfire as they provide answers some - particularly in influential circles - desperate to hear. The internet has made us all far more suggestable and worse at critical assessment by bombarding us with lots of low quality information.
(which is, of course, a better ratio than most including me)
You know who isn't? You. This forum has been better in every single way whilst you didn't post, I really wish you'd stayed away.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/teenagers-are-fuelling-swedens-gun-crisis/
No one is going to take this kind of shit, forever. In the end people will vote Nazi if needs be. And Swedes really really really are not Nazis
Which is the main thing, clearly.
Accusing the right of fighting a culture war is like accusing the French of fighting a war in 1940 - flashes of half-hearted defence against a war which the other side started.
Most of us on the right were reasonably happy with culture back around 2010. It's the left who have been driving the cultural change.
Labour has got to from what I can see, reasonable position on the issue now and isn't throwing trans people under the bus like the Tories do at every turn. When I say they are fighting a culture war, that is what I mean.
I am not saying you or anyone here is fighting a culture war. The debate here is remarkably sensible.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DTN_(company)
We do, though, seem to have a new political alignment across the West, and the hard right is definitely in the ascendant.
It was previously centre left vs centre right, with occasional mini-triumphs of the far left and far right in places like Austria and Greece.
Now it’s largely the populist hard right vs the internationalist liberals. The Brexit divide writ large across the West. With the centre ground on economics having shifted a little to the left in the Anglo Saxon world and a little to the right in the corporatist European world.
I'm actually quite fond of you in a "fond of Radio 4 comedy" kind of way, I hope that is returned
Allowing two consenting adults to marry whoever they love hurts nobody, spreads joy and only has positives.
The problem is hijacking organisations that supported that to give them a new agenda that is entirely unrelated, cloak it in the same colours, then pretend that doing unnecessary lifelong medical treatments on children, or putting men in women's safe single-sex spaces is a good idea.
The two issues are not remotely linked in any way.