Sir Keir Starmas was investigated because the Tories got annoyed and got the Police to open one. They thought they'd played a masterstroke until as usual, he took them to the cleaners with his "I will resign" speech. He outplayed and outgunned them at every turn.
Frankly if Rayner is that sure she is innocent, in hindsight she should have said "I am innocent, if I am found guilty I will resign" and put the issue to bed.
If she is charged with breaking electoral law, she'll be gone.
Regardless of who benefits or loses electorally from these rules, they are a crime against democracy that risk creating a deep well of anger among disenfranchised voters, further poisoning our politics and suppressing participation in the democratic process. The Tories should rot in hell for it.
Yes, and this is one of the reasons why I do not trust them to decide what my human rights should be. A party that deliberately seeks to restrict the right to vote is not one that should ever have control over something so fundamental.
Most other countries require identification to vote. It is entirely reasonable.
The anger is confected by the left because they believe that they benefit from the current set up.
The countries that require identification to vote also have ID cards - name me one country that insists of ID for voting that doesn't have an ID card...
You are conflating two entirely separate things.
Protecting the integrity of the ballot is important. It is certainly more convenient if you have a national ID card, but not having one doesn’t undermine the importance of doing so
Except, as explained in my post earlier, we don't need to because it is a law that is very rarely broken and on the rare occasion it is it has no impact because it is pretty much impossible to vote much more than once and to do so is very silly because you stand a very very high chance of getting caught and going to prison because of the difficulty of doing so and getting away with it. Yet it disenfranchises many many many more people to enforce an id.
On the same logic you might as well post a policeman outside every house to prevent burglary. We don't because it is out of proportion to the crime.
Whereas postal vote fraud is exceptionally easy, much more difficult to spot and can be done with large numbers so impacting the result.
I have been in this election game a long time. I have only ever come across someone pretending to be someone else in a polling station once and they got caught. It is obvious if it happens because people complain they have lost their vote. When that happens it is invariably because an adjacent line on the register has been crossed through in the polling station.
Postal voting fraud however is endemic. It would also be useful for the parties. I am aware of it happening for the 3 main parties and usually it has been done without the party organisation being aware but organised by the candidate.
The Rayner kerfuffle is good news for Labour. The Tories have a real problem with the "red queen". Northern, woman, intelligent, authentic. Everything they hate. So they are focusing all their fire on her over utter trivia, which provides the political cover to go back over all of their non-trivial corruption. Which is all over social media at the moment.
So the Heil, GBeebies et al attack Rayner to the approval of the remaining 14 Tory voters whilst Facebook and TwiX churns out loads of Tory corruption stuff because what's good for the goose must be good for the gander.
@StillWaters in response to your point on the other thread that when people have medically transitioned they are not really women. That is the position of JK Rowling and Kathleen Stock.
Its a perfectly respectable position.
Rowling, Stock, Cyclefree etc are real women, they were born women, they are women.
A man who transitions to "become" a woman may be a transwoman but they're not a real woman. They'll never be.
That's not dehumanising. They're a real human. For all intents and purposes, unless it violates safeguarding, they can be treated as women, but the distinction still needs to exist.
Competitive female sport for example should belong to real women. A transwoman should never be entitled to play in
While the substance of what you say is correct, I would use the term "sex" rather than "real woman" because that could be used by some in a way which is insulting. And, having seen the insults hurled at women (including me - and by some on this forum) I think it best to try and avoid this.
A man can never - even with surgery - become a member of the female sex. And since sex is relevant in so many situations - sport, safeguarding etc - a transitioned man has to be regarded as a member of the male sex. But for social purposes - like @Leon's friend, Julia - there is no reason why he can't live, dress, call himself however he wants etc. How his friends and family respond is up to them but it is not a matter of compulsion. You cannot force others to share your own views about yourself and it is the height of narcissism to think that you can or should.
Gender to me is no different to a soul. It is some undefinable essence that some people believe in and others don't. Far too much of what people call "gender" seems to me to be no more than stereotypes and it is bizarre to me that so many on the gender side seem so intent on reinforcing very old-fashioned stereotypes.
But I do not believe in gender. I am of the female sex. Discrimination has happened to me because of my sex. Sexual assault has happened to me because of my sex. It happens to every woman because of her sex. My health, how my body develops and ages is affected by my sex.There is no getting away from that. Women cannot identify out of their sex. If we could we'd all be earning 40% more and having our bullshit treated with undeserved respect.
Men are of the male sex - and since sex matters in so many situations - there are very good reasons why separation on the basis of sex has to happen in those situations. And why clear language about sex matters. It is absurd that anyone thinks otherwise.
And - let me absolutely blunt here - any man who seeks to breach a woman's boundaries against her consent, whatever his reasons, is a predator, has the mentality of a predator. It is a giant red flag. "No means no" and, no, women do not have to justify this.
The vast majority of men claiming to be women do not make surgical or hormonal changes. They are men - whatever they wear - because - and does this really need saying again? - womanhood is a reality not a costume.
As for Rowling she has put her money where her mouth is and financed a female only rape refuge in Edinburgh - Beira Place - after the utterly disgraceful behaviour by Rape Crisis and its cheating boss.
I honestly wish trans "debate" (i.e. people lining up on this site to agree with TERF talking points like nodding dogs) was banned along with AI photos and the tedious cash vs cards debate.
But this is just so wrong-headed I have to interject.
"I do not believe in gender". Ok then. Let's imagine Cyclefree wakes up tomorrow in the body of a man in a Gregor Samsa-style metamorphosis. Cyclefree still feels exactly as they did the previous day. Only now, like Samsa, they are trapped in a completely different body. Is Samsa a bug, or is he a human trapped in a bug's body? Likewise, is Cyclefree a man now, or a woman trapped in a man's body? I suspect Cyclefree, with her memories of growing up as a girl, the learned behaviour of becoming a woman, would argue that despite all appearances, they remain a woman - not a man or a bug. Cf. De Beauvoir - "one is not born, but becomes a woman", i.e. notions of femininity and womanhood are societally constructed. So while there is such a thing as biological sex, it can clearly be separated from the notion of which gender you identify with, as per the example I have just laid out. Sex and gender are demonstrably not the same. Unless Cyclefree is really saying if she woke up in a biologically male body tomorrow she would suddenly consider herself entirely 100% male?
"If this totally impossible thing happened you would be wrong" doesn't strike me as a very convincing gotcha.
So we've given up on tax avoidance and now moved onto something else.
Tax Avoidance is totally legal. The claims were not she had avoided tax but evaded it.
Actually, the claim was that she hadn't paid the tax some believe she owes. Ignorance of tax law unlike other forms of the law, is a defence. But that is not what they are investigating here.
If found to be true would be a resigning matter for me.
I really don't think you would need to resign, but I admire your principled stance.
Lol, I can reinvent myself as BatteryCorrectHorse2.
But I meant Rayner, if she's found guilty of either she's got to go. I don't think she will be however.
Even if she is cleared of all wrongdoing, a certain strand of PBer will continue to find her guilty.
Hence why many on here continue to bleat on about The Strange Case of Sir Keir and the Lamb Dopiaza.
Cue spooky music.
Sir Keir massively got away with that Durham drink. One day I reckon the truth will come out. His guilt was written all over his face when Sophie Raworth quizzed him on it; he knew he’d done wrong, but they found a way to get him off
@StillWaters in response to your point on the other thread that when people have medically transitioned they are not really women. That is the position of JK Rowling and Kathleen Stock.
They’re correct and they have been vindicated by Cass.
Have they ? If so, in what way ?
I'm sure PB commenters possessed of the most certitude on the issue have read it end to end rather than going on soundbites etc.
Anyway Istr at least one PBer fulminating about the trans cult. Just for a bit of balance..
It wasn't intended as a provocative question. I'm genuinely curious about the manner in which the Cass report is seen as "vindicating" any particular view.
It could be entirely fairly claimed as doing so for those who expressed scepticism about the adequacy of the manner in which medical care was delivered. On the more 'ideological' arguments, it doesn't seem to me to do any such thing.
I'm in the soundbite category, but one that stuck with me was the report saying that the issue had been unhelpfully amplified by both sides in an increasingly toxic debate. I don't see much taking on board of that point by the 'vindicated'.
So we've given up on tax avoidance and now moved onto something else.
I did wonder if this was going to end up in a similar place.
The evasive answers given to straightforward questions about the house sale didn’t make sense - unless there was a background of eg living in one house but registering to vote in another, or renting out a house that was declared to the Parliamentary authorities as her primary or secondary residence, much more serious offences both legally and politically.
If she’s charged with electoral offences, she probably needs to take the Chiltern Hundreds to clear her name, although plenty of MPs have stuck it out in similar circumstances. If convicted she could be open to recall or barred from standing. That she’s directly elected as deputy leader of the party creates another headache for Starmer, and not what he wants in the news three weeks before the local elections.
So we've given up on tax avoidance and now moved onto something else.
Tax Avoidance is totally legal. The claims were not she had avoided tax but evaded it.
Actually, the claim was that she hadn't paid the tax some believe she owes. Ignorance of tax law unlike other forms of the law, is a defence. But that is not what they are investigating here.
If found to be true would be a resigning matter for me.
I really don't think you would need to resign, but I admire your principled stance.
Lol, I can reinvent myself as BatteryCorrectHorse2.
But I meant Rayner, if she's found guilty of either she's got to go. I don't think she will be however.
Even if she is cleared of all wrongdoing, a certain strand of PBer will continue to find her guilty.
Hence why many on here continue to bleat on about The Strange Case of Sir Keir and the Lamb Dopiaza.
Cue spooky music.
Sir Keir massively got away with that Durham drink. One day I reckon the truth will come out. His guilt was written all over his face when Sophie Raworth quizzed him on it; he knew he’d done wrong, but they found a way to get him off
I had assumed that the police/DPP had been involved. I shouldn’t have presumed, but I did presume, sadly. And then “it had gone to court” was the expression they used. I had not encountered the notion of an organisation that could make that decision on its own. And I suppose I had too much assumed knowledge. And when you see the words that were written, I can see why that view still perpetuated in my mind, because it didn’t overtly say “We have taken the decision to prosecute.”
This is so mind-boggling that I'm inclined to think he's telling the truth. If you were looking for ways to justify your inertia, you'd surely reject the idea of fabricating that line, as it would just be too implausible.
It worked for President Reagan in Iran/Contra, IIRC
It's not implausible that could happen - but have they got another Boris Johnson?
BJ would have been nothing without get Brexit done. There may not be another BJ but there definitely isn't another Brexit.
There are those on the right who dream of using ECHRxit to get the old band back together for one last gig. Two reasons why it's unlikely to work, though.
First is that it's way less popular a cause.
Second is the Labour position. In summer 2019, they were on about 30%, so uniting CON and BXP gave a winning score. Now, Labour are somewhere in the 40s%, and CON+REF still loses horribly.
Yep, simple concepts as neologisms (Brexit) work, acronyms (wtf does ECHR stand for?) don't.
I had assumed that the police/DPP had been involved. I shouldn’t have presumed, but I did presume, sadly. And then “it had gone to court” was the expression they used. I had not encountered the notion of an organisation that could make that decision on its own. And I suppose I had too much assumed knowledge. And when you see the words that were written, I can see why that view still perpetuated in my mind, because it didn’t overtly say “We have taken the decision to prosecute.”
This is so mind-boggling that I'm inclined to think he's telling the truth. If you were looking for ways to justify your inertia, you'd surely reject the idea of fabricating that line, as it would just be too implausible.
It worked for President Reagan in Iran/Contra, IIRC
Sir Keir massively got away with that Durham drink. One day I reckon the truth will come out. His guilt was written all over his face when Sophie Raworth quizzed him on it; he knew he’d done wrong, but they found a way to get him off
Can you explain how he "got away with it" and if you have evidence, why not report it to the Police?
Do you not find it very strange that the witnesses to the event happened to be walking past a private/enclosed building's window and the person happened to be the son of somebody who wanted to write a story for the Mail?
My view is that the Labour left set it up to try and remove him. So they conspired with the Mail who also wanted him gone. Very "pro Labour" - of course they've never been pro Labour, only pro Corbyn
So we've given up on tax avoidance and now moved onto something else.
Greater Manchester police's investigation is separate and it will look into whether she registered the wrong property on the electoral roll.
Also, not a great look for a politician if they have broken electoral law.
Actually, that's worse! So I am surprised they didn't go in with this from the start.
Presumably it's a 'you can't have it both ways approach'. Everyone assumed that she was living in her husband's house, and I assume that's where she was listed for the purpose of the electoral roll, so nothing to investigate until her 'defence' for the tax thing was that she wasn't living where everyone assumed. Essentially, it's the cover-up / defensiveness when asked about it that seems to be doing for her - if when it had first come up she'd said 'Oh, that's a very good point, I should have paid tax - here you go and apologies - and what do we need to do as politicians to help people pay the right amount initially' - then I think that it would have been a small 2 day story. Personally, on the balance of probabilities given what is public, I think it likely that she should have paid tax, but I can totally see how she inadvertently missed it and don't have an issue with that - it's how she's handled it since that I have more issue with.
I agree. I can’t believe she was calculating in her avoidance of tax, if she did avoid it at all, but her need to be seen as whiter than white about it all has led to contortions that have naturally fanned the flames
It seems pretty minor compared to Tory misdemeanours, such as accepting a £10 million donation from a racist.
@StillWaters in response to your point on the other thread that when people have medically transitioned they are not really women. That is the position of JK Rowling and Kathleen Stock.
Its a perfectly respectable position.
Rowling, Stock, Cyclefree etc are real women, they were born women, they are women.
A man who transitions to "become" a woman may be a transwoman but they're not a real woman. They'll never be.
That's not dehumanising. They're a real human. For all intents and purposes, unless it violates safeguarding, they can be treated as women, but the distinction still needs to exist.
Competitive female sport for example should belong to real women. A transwoman should never be entitled to play in
While the substance of what you say is correct, I would use the term "sex" rather than "real woman" because that could be used by some in a way which is insulting. And, having seen the insults hurled at women (including me - and by some on this forum) I think it best to try and avoid this.
A man can never - even with surgery - become a member of the female sex. And since sex is relevant in so many situations - sport, safeguarding etc - a transitioned man has to be regarded as a member of the male sex. But for social purposes - like @Leon's friend, Julia - there is no reason why he can't live, dress, call himself however he wants etc. How his friends and family respond is up to them but it is not a matter of compulsion. You cannot force others to share your own views about yourself and it is the height of narcissism to think that you can or should.
Gender to me is no different to a soul. It is some undefinable essence that some people believe in and others don't. Far too much of what people call "gender" seems to me to be no more than stereotypes and it is bizarre to me that so many on the gender side seem so intent on reinforcing very old-fashioned stereotypes.
But I do not believe in gender. I am of the female sex. Discrimination has happened to me because of my sex. Sexual assault has happened to me because of my sex. It happens to every woman because of her sex. My health, how my body develops and ages is affected by my sex.There is no getting away from that. Women cannot identify out of their sex. If we could we'd all be earning 40% more and having our bullshit treated with undeserved respect.
Men are of the male sex - and since sex matters in so many situations - there are very good reasons why separation on the basis of sex has to happen in those situations. And why clear language about sex matters. It is absurd that anyone thinks otherwise.
And - let me absolutely blunt here - any man who seeks to breach a woman's boundaries against her consent, whatever his reasons, is a predator, has the mentality of a predator. It is a giant red flag. "No means no" and, no, women do not have to justify this.
The vast majority of men claiming to be women do not make surgical or hormonal changes. They are men - whatever they wear - because - and does this really need saying again? - womanhood is a reality not a costume.
As for Rowling she has put her money where her mouth is and financed a female only rape refuge in Edinburgh - Beira Place - after the utterly disgraceful behaviour by Rape Crisis and its cheating boss.
I honestly wish trans "debate" (i.e. people lining up on this site to agree with TERF talking points like nodding dogs) was banned along with AI photos and the tedious cash vs cards debate.
But this is just so wrong-headed I have to interject.
"I do not believe in gender". Ok then. Let's imagine Cyclefree wakes up tomorrow in the body of a man in a Gregor Samsa-style metamorphosis. Cyclefree still feels exactly as they did the previous day. Only now, like Samsa, they are trapped in a completely different body. Is Samsa a bug, or is he a human trapped in a bug's body? Likewise, is Cyclefree a man now, or a woman trapped in a man's body? I suspect Cyclefree, with her memories of growing up as a girl, the learned behaviour of becoming a woman, would argue that despite all appearances, they remain a woman - not a man or a bug. Cf. De Beauvoir - "one is not born, but becomes a woman", i.e. notions of femininity and womanhood are societally constructed. So while there is such a thing as biological sex, it can clearly be separated from the notion of which gender you identify with, as per the example I have just laid out. Sex and gender are demonstrably not the same. Unless Cyclefree is really saying if she woke up in a biologically male body tomorrow she would suddenly consider herself entirely 100% male?
"If this totally impossible thing happened you would be wrong" doesn't strike me as a very convincing gotcha.
Given that the majority of my quotes are from Star Trek, a show designed around an impossible starship using impossible technology, I'm not sure I can agree with you on that...
Sir Keir massively got away with that Durham drink. One day I reckon the truth will come out. His guilt was written all over his face when Sophie Raworth quizzed him on it; he knew he’d done wrong, but they found a way to get him off
Can you explain how he "got away with it" and if you have evidence, why not report it to the Police?
Do you not find it very strange that the witnesses to the event happened to be walking past a private/enclosed building's window and the person happened to be the son of somebody who wanted to write a story for the Mail?
My view is that the Labour left set it up to try and remove him. So they conspired with the Mail who also wanted him gone. Very "pro Labour" - of course they've never been pro Labour, only pro Corbyn
It’s my opinion that he got away with it, I don’t have to justify it at all. I’m not demanding the case be reopened, I just don’t believe the story they concocted that got him off. That is allowed, and that’s what it is happening
So we've given up on tax avoidance and now moved onto something else.
Tax Avoidance is totally legal. The claims were not she had avoided tax but evaded it.
Actually, the claim was that she hadn't paid the tax some believe she owes. Ignorance of tax law unlike other forms of the law, is a defence. But that is not what they are investigating here.
If found to be true would be a resigning matter for me.
What makes you think ignorance of tax law is a defence? HMRC don’t share your viewpoint!
So we've given up on tax avoidance and now moved onto something else.
Greater Manchester police's investigation is separate and it will look into whether she registered the wrong property on the electoral roll.
Also, not a great look for a politician if they have broken electoral law.
Actually, that's worse! So I am surprised they didn't go in with this from the start.
Presumably it's a 'you can't have it both ways approach'. Everyone assumed that she was living in her husband's house, and I assume that's where she was listed for the purpose of the electoral roll, so nothing to investigate until her 'defence' for the tax thing was that she wasn't living where everyone assumed. Essentially, it's the cover-up / defensiveness when asked about it that seems to be doing for her - if when it had first come up she'd said 'Oh, that's a very good point, I should have paid tax - here you go and apologies - and what do we need to do as politicians to help people pay the right amount initially' - then I think that it would have been a small 2 day story. Personally, on the balance of probabilities given what is public, I think it likely that she should have paid tax, but I can totally see how she inadvertently missed it and don't have an issue with that - it's how she's handled it since that I have more issue with.
I agree. I can’t believe she was calculating in her avoidance of tax, if she did avoid it at all, but her need to be seen as whiter than white about it all has led to contortions that have naturally fanned the flames
It seems pretty minor compared to Tory misdemeanours, such as accepting a £10 million donation from a racist.
Maybe she should say that, rather than denying everything
Regardless of who benefits or loses electorally from these rules, they are a crime against democracy that risk creating a deep well of anger among disenfranchised voters, further poisoning our politics and suppressing participation in the democratic process. The Tories should rot in hell for it.
Yes, and this is one of the reasons why I do not trust them to decide what my human rights should be. A party that deliberately seeks to restrict the right to vote is not one that should ever have control over something so fundamental.
Most other countries require identification to vote. It is entirely reasonable.
The anger is confected by the left because they believe that they benefit from the current set up.
The countries that require identification to vote also have ID cards - name me one country that insists of ID for voting that doesn't have an ID card...
You are conflating two entirely separate things.
Protecting the integrity of the ballot is important. It is certainly more convenient if you have a national ID card, but not having one doesn’t undermine the importance of doing so
Except, as explained in my post earlier, we don't need to because it is a law that is very rarely broken and on the rare occasion it is it has no impact because it is pretty much impossible to vote much more than once and to do so is very silly because you stand a very very high chance of getting caught and going to prison because of the difficulty of doing so and getting away with it. Yet it disenfranchises many many many more people to enforce an id.
On the same logic you might as well post a policeman outside every house to prevent burglary. We don't because it is out of proportion to the crime.
Whereas postal vote fraud is exceptionally easy, much more difficult to spot and can be done with large numbers so impacting the result.
I have been in this election game a long time. I have only ever come across someone pretending to be someone else in a polling station once and they got caught. It is obvious if it happens because people complain they have lost their vote. When that happens it is invariably because an adjacent line on the register has been crossed through in the polling station.
Postal voting fraud however is endemic. It would also be useful for the parties. I am aware of it happening for the 3 main parties and usually it has been done without the party organisation being aware but organised by the candidate.
Indeed. I cannot believe people are still defending this madness.
It's a means to voter suppression, pure and simple. Let's just be clear about that and call it what it is.
So we've given up on tax avoidance and now moved onto something else.
Tax Avoidance is totally legal. The claims were not she had avoided tax but evaded it.
Actually, the claim was that she hadn't paid the tax some believe she owes. Ignorance of tax law unlike other forms of the law, is a defence. But that is not what they are investigating here.
If found to be true would be a resigning matter for me.
What makes you think ignorance of tax law is a defence? HMRC don’t share your viewpoint!
'I like fixing things, fixing businesses,' he says. 'I'm at my best when I go in somewhere and things are looking desperate. Then after a while employees start saying "good - things are changing for the betterî. I like that.'
But that is the opposite of what many disheartened employees are saying about the new hard-sell approach. Since Cook came on board, the Post Office has shifted more than 550,000 financial products - everything from car cover to travel insurance.
As Financial Mail reported last week, many staff say the aggressive selling to customers risks damaging the Post Office's trusted brand.
Cook counters by saying that a more business-like approach is essential for survival.
@StillWaters in response to your point on the other thread that when people have medically transitioned they are not really women. That is the position of JK Rowling and Kathleen Stock.
Its a perfectly respectable position.
Rowling, Stock, Cyclefree etc are real women, they were born women, they are women.
A man who transitions to "become" a woman may be a transwoman but they're not a real woman. They'll never be.
That's not dehumanising. They're a real human. For all intents and purposes, unless it violates safeguarding, they can be treated as women, but the distinction still needs to exist.
Competitive female sport for example should belong to real women. A transwoman should never be entitled to play in
While the substance of what you say is correct, I would use the term "sex" rather than "real woman" because that could be used by some in a way which is insulting. And, having seen the insults hurled at women (including me - and by some on this forum) I think it best to try and avoid this.
A man can never - even with surgery - become a member of the female sex. And since sex is relevant in so many situations - sport, safeguarding etc - a transitioned man has to be regarded as a member of the male sex. But for social purposes - like @Leon's friend, Julia - there is no reason why he can't live, dress, call himself however he wants etc. How his friends and family respond is up to them but it is not a matter of compulsion. You cannot force others to share your own views about yourself and it is the height of narcissism to think that you can or should.
Gender to me is no different to a soul. It is some undefinable essence that some people believe in and others don't. Far too much of what people call "gender" seems to me to be no more than stereotypes and it is bizarre to me that so many on the gender side seem so intent on reinforcing very old-fashioned stereotypes.
But I do not believe in gender. I am of the female sex. Discrimination has happened to me because of my sex. Sexual assault has happened to me because of my sex. It happens to every woman because of her sex. My health, how my body develops and ages is affected by my sex.There is no getting away from that. Women cannot identify out of their sex. If we could we'd all be earning 40% more and having our bullshit treated with undeserved respect.
Men are of the male sex - and since sex matters in so many situations - there are very good reasons why separation on the basis of sex has to happen in those situations. And why clear language about sex matters. It is absurd that anyone thinks otherwise.
And - let me absolutely blunt here - any man who seeks to breach a woman's boundaries against her consent, whatever his reasons, is a predator, has the mentality of a predator. It is a giant red flag. "No means no" and, no, women do not have to justify this.
The vast majority of men claiming to be women do not make surgical or hormonal changes. They are men - whatever they wear - because - and does this really need saying again? - womanhood is a reality not a costume.
As for Rowling she has put her money where her mouth is and financed a female only rape refuge in Edinburgh - Beira Place - after the utterly disgraceful behaviour by Rape Crisis and its cheating boss.
I honestly wish trans "debate" (i.e. people lining up on this site to agree with TERF talking points like nodding dogs) was banned along with AI photos and the tedious cash vs cards debate.
But this is just so wrong-headed I have to interject.
"I do not believe in gender". Ok then. Let's imagine Cyclefree wakes up tomorrow in the body of a man in a Gregor Samsa-style metamorphosis. Cyclefree still feels exactly as they did the previous day. Only now, like Samsa, they are trapped in a completely different body. Is Samsa a bug, or is he a human trapped in a bug's body? Likewise, is Cyclefree a man now, or a woman trapped in a man's body? I suspect Cyclefree, with her memories of growing up as a girl, the learned behaviour of becoming a woman, would argue that despite all appearances, they remain a woman - not a man or a bug. Cf. De Beauvoir - "one is not born, but becomes a woman", i.e. notions of femininity and womanhood are societally constructed. So while there is such a thing as biological sex, it can clearly be separated from the notion of which gender you identify with, as per the example I have just laid out. Sex and gender are demonstrably not the same. Unless Cyclefree is really saying if she woke up in a biologically male body tomorrow she would suddenly consider herself entirely 100% male?
That si pure bollox, pardon the PUN. How do you know Cyclefree would waken as Cyclefree wit all her meories and not as a man with teh memories of the body for instance. I could as easy say if my granny had wheels would she be a wheelbarrow.
Interesting Guardian article, briefed by Labour people, about the issues labour faces in trying to win back one set of voters possibly alienating the younger Gaza and Climate obsessed brigade.
It is not just the Tories trying to straddle different voting blocks. Personally I am glad to see Labour standing up for working class communities and wanting to make their lives better and not just taking them for granted and if it means alienating younger people with their "student politics" approach to things, like those melts who attacked the MOD this week with paint, so be it.
"The decision by Starmer, the Labour leader, to tack to the right on issues such as the economy, immigration and the environment has helped win over older white voters who backed Brexit at the referendum.
But those decisions have also upset many traditional Labour voters in urban areas in particular. Among those voters’ chief concerns is the party’s decision to abandon its commitment to spend £28bn a year on green projects and Starmer’s defence of Israel’s military actions in Gaza."
Interesting. IMHO this affects only a tiny number of seats, and if you do the maths, the more marginal the seat, the more Starmer needs the votes of those who usually vote Tory so I doubt if there is anything in this.
BTW, on Gaza etc, Labour is going to stand more or less where the UK and the USA governments stand. There is no other place to go. It would be nice to be able to point to an alternative, morally sound policy with assured decent outcomes for good people on all sides but there isn't one to be had.
The seats they are losing the votes in, like two mentioned in the article, are low turnout very safe seats anyway. I Think they are right not to be complacent. But my feeling is this is not 1992. It is also not 1997. There is no wave of fervour for labour. But there is a tiredness with the current lot and a feeling it is time they were put out to pasture.
Such fervour as there is for a Labour government this time comes, I think, from the One Nation centre/centre right who recognise in Starmer a Buttskellite tendency. This group, whose votes will swing the election, don't really do fervour. They are currently in the shed looking for paint brushes and garden tools and wondering about the seed potatoes what with all this rain.
The thing that Starmer has got right and Corbyn got wrong is that there's no "enthusiastic votes count double" rule.
Johnsonites got that wrong in a slightly different way. They tended to assume that millions voting against Corbyn and Brexit Stasis were a sign of enthusiasm for them.
The same with the Lib Dems before 2010/5; they gained lots of 'soft' voters from Labour, who were appalled by Iraq. But those voters were then appalled by the disgusting treachery of the Lib Dems doing what they always said they wanted and forming a coalition - just with the 'wrong' party....
Many Conservative 2019 voters were also 'soft' voters. I think Starmer's going to get many 'soft' voters in the next GE as well.
Boris did acknowledge that a lot of his 2019 vote was ‘soft’, he made a speech outside No10 the day after the election saying a lot of the votes were ‘on loan’ and it was up to him to make them permanent, or words to that effect. The pandemic got in the way and we will never know, but I don’t think he thought of them as particularly enthusiastic Tory voters. I was one of them and not enthusiastic at all, but it was the only choice for people who wanted the Leave win enacted
Its why the government's total lack of interest in levelling up (and HS2) since Boris's departure is so perplexing. Or, to put it another way, its why Boris is good at winning elections and the current incumbent isn't.
Truss & Sunak have acted as though the huge majority Boris won was borne of people desperate for right wing politics; Boris knew that it was a one off, more like Blue Labour, and had to be managed carefully.
Yes, he managed things so carefully it ended in a cake-fuelled clusterfuck.
It was going wrong whilst COVID was still a tear in a foreign bat's eye. If you believe in Blue Labour (expansive state, both economically and socially), you don't put Rishi in charge of the money.
BoJo's 2019 triumph depended on combining Blue Wall, Blue Labour and globetrotting squillionaires in one party. That only worked in the odd circumstances of 2019- it was always likely to ping apart otherwise.
Rishi is a suck-up. He was prepared to take the Chancellor job that Javid had vacated, because Javid wasn't prepared to do it with Cummings running it behind the scenes.
As Chancellor Rishi was prepared to go along with NI increases, and an entirely new NI tax for the NHS, because he was willing to do anything he was told to do in return for the job.
He was the perfect Chancellor for a Boris Johnson drunk on the power of purging the Tories of internal opposition and winning a big majority.
Rishi doesn’t really believe in anything. That makes him a useful subordinate but a terrible leader.
Boris doesn’t really believe in anything either. He’s just better at covering it up.
@StillWaters in response to your point on the other thread that when people have medically transitioned they are not really women. That is the position of JK Rowling and Kathleen Stock.
They’re correct and they have been vindicated by Cass.
Have they ? If so, in what way ?
I'm sure PB commenters possessed of the most certitude on the issue have read it end to end rather than going on soundbites etc.
Anyway Istr at least one PBer fulminating about the trans cult. Just for a bit of balance..
It wasn't intended as a provocative question. I'm genuinely curious about the manner in which the Cass report is seen as "vindicating" any particular view.
It could be entirely fairly claimed as doing so for those who expressed scepticism about the adequacy of the manner in which medical care was delivered. On the more 'ideological' arguments, it doesn't seem to me to do any such thing.
I'm in the soundbite category, but one that stuck with me was the report saying that the issue had been unhelpfully amplified by both sides in an increasingly toxic debate. I don't see much taking on board of that point by the 'vindicated'.
Yes, that was in the introductory part of the report - which is probably as far as most people will get. I've read quite a lot of the rest of it, and my question stands.
Sir Keir massively got away with that Durham drink. One day I reckon the truth will come out. His guilt was written all over his face when Sophie Raworth quizzed him on it; he knew he’d done wrong, but they found a way to get him off
Can you explain how he "got away with it" and if you have evidence, why not report it to the Police?
Do you not find it very strange that the witnesses to the event happened to be walking past a private/enclosed building's window and the person happened to be the son of somebody who wanted to write a story for the Mail?
My view is that the Labour left set it up to try and remove him. So they conspired with the Mail who also wanted him gone. Very "pro Labour" - of course they've never been pro Labour, only pro Corbyn
It’s my opinion that he got away with it, I don’t have to justify it at all. I’m not demanding the case be reopened, I just don’t believe the story they concocted that got him off. That is allowed, and that’s what it is happening
But why do you think he got away with it? The Police investigated twice, are you saying they got it wrong?
What did he concoct? I really want to understand but you're being quite vague.
I had assumed that the police/DPP had been involved. I shouldn’t have presumed, but I did presume, sadly. And then “it had gone to court” was the expression they used. I had not encountered the notion of an organisation that could make that decision on its own. And I suppose I had too much assumed knowledge. And when you see the words that were written, I can see why that view still perpetuated in my mind, because it didn’t overtly say “We have taken the decision to prosecute.”
This is so mind-boggling that I'm inclined to think he's telling the truth. If you were looking for ways to justify your inertia, you'd surely reject the idea of fabricating that line, as it would just be too implausible.
How much were they paying him to lead this organisation, fifty grand a month or thereabouts - yet he never looked at an org chart and wondered what all these prosecutors and lawyers were for?
How does an organisation with prosecutorial powers, not have at least one committee on which the CEO sits that discusses prosecutions?
The Rayner kerfuffle is good news for Labour. The Tories have a real problem with the "red queen". Northern, woman, intelligent, authentic. Everything they hate. So they are focusing all their fire on her over utter trivia, which provides the political cover to go back over all of their non-trivial corruption. Which is all over social media at the moment.
So the Heil, GBeebies et al attack Rayner to the approval of the remaining 14 Tory voters whilst Facebook and TwiX churns out loads of Tory corruption stuff because what's good for the goose must be good for the gander.
As a bona fide Northern Tory I dislike her because of her hypocrisy and scum comments which she only retracted after Sir David Amess was murdered.
Sir Keir massively got away with that Durham drink. One day I reckon the truth will come out. His guilt was written all over his face when Sophie Raworth quizzed him on it; he knew he’d done wrong, but they found a way to get him off
Can you explain how he "got away with it" and if you have evidence, why not report it to the Police?
Do you not find it very strange that the witnesses to the event happened to be walking past a private/enclosed building's window and the person happened to be the son of somebody who wanted to write a story for the Mail?
My view is that the Labour left set it up to try and remove him. So they conspired with the Mail who also wanted him gone. Very "pro Labour" - of course they've never been pro Labour, only pro Corbyn
It’s my opinion that he got away with it, I don’t have to justify it at all. I’m not demanding the case be reopened, I just don’t believe the story they concocted that got him off. That is allowed, and that’s what it is happening
But why do you think he got away with it? The Police investigated twice, are you saying they got it wrong?
What did he concoct? I really want to understand but you're being quite vague.
I can’t really be bothered to go through it all. Yes I think the police got it wrong, obviously otherwise I wouldn’t be saying he got away with it.
Best thing for Labour would be Rayner standing down with a tearful statement saying she needs to fight to clear her name etc. etc.
I don't think that the story is resonating with the public, so I think it is entirely viable for Rayner to sit it out, wait for the police to say "nothing to do here" and it all fades away.
Sir Keir Starmas was investigated because the Tories got annoyed and got the Police to open one. They thought they'd played a masterstroke until as usual, he took them to the cleaners with his "I will resign" speech. He outplayed and outgunned them at every turn.
Frankly if Rayner is that sure she is innocent, in hindsight she should have said "I am innocent, if I am found guilty I will resign" and put the issue to bed.
If she is charged with breaking electoral law, she'll be gone.
Given every MP has two homes and some many more, the question of which is designated primary when standing for election, when claiming parliamentary expenses, when returning home during Covid lockdowns, and of course when paying CGT, is so confusing that police and CPS will not open this can of worms because if they do, every MP will be in the firing line.
I had assumed that the police/DPP had been involved. I shouldn’t have presumed, but I did presume, sadly. And then “it had gone to court” was the expression they used. I had not encountered the notion of an organisation that could make that decision on its own. And I suppose I had too much assumed knowledge. And when you see the words that were written, I can see why that view still perpetuated in my mind, because it didn’t overtly say “We have taken the decision to prosecute.”
This is so mind-boggling that I'm inclined to think he's telling the truth. If you were looking for ways to justify your inertia, you'd surely reject the idea of fabricating that line, as it would just be too implausible.
How much were they paying him to lead this organisation, fifty grand a month or thereabouts - yet he never looked at an org chart and wondered what all these prosecutors and lawyers were for?
How does an organisation with prosecutorial powers, not have at least one committee on which the CEO sits that discusses prosecutions?
Especially given that his MO seemed to be to cut things to the bone. Did he never think to make those people redundant?
The Rayner kerfuffle is good news for Labour. The Tories have a real problem with the "red queen". Northern, woman, intelligent, authentic. Everything they hate. So they are focusing all their fire on her over utter trivia, which provides the political cover to go back over all of their non-trivial corruption. Which is all over social media at the moment.
So the Heil, GBeebies et al attack Rayner to the approval of the remaining 14 Tory voters whilst Facebook and TwiX churns out loads of Tory corruption stuff because what's good for the goose must be good for the gander.
"the Heil, GBeebies"
No offence RP, but do you actually think statements like that are going to look good for you if you get elected.? I think it will bite you in the arse which would be a shame.
So we've given up on tax avoidance and now moved onto something else.
Tax Avoidance is totally legal. The claims were not she had avoided tax but evaded it.
Actually, the claim was that she hadn't paid the tax some believe she owes. Ignorance of tax law unlike other forms of the law, is a defence. But that is not what they are investigating here.
If found to be true would be a resigning matter for me.
What makes you think ignorance of tax law is a defence? HMRC don’t share your viewpoint!
Wrong.
It is a defence against criminal activity ("if that view was sincerely held").
It doesn't get you off paying the tax – if Angela owes the Taxman a grand or so she will still have to pay him retrospectively, but if she didn't know in all good conscience then her withholding of that payment would not be criminal as long as she settles the bill.
This applies in large areas of law: "if that view was sincerely held" can and is a defence to many transgressions where there is a reasonable expectation that the accused was genuinely ignorant of the law.
Yes, that was in the introductory part of the report - which is probably as far as most people will get. I've read quite a lot of the rest of it, and my question stands.
I strongly disagree with Taz that the Cass report suggests that trans women aren't real women. That is a debate we can have but that is not something the report goes into at all.
Actually, the way I read it was that it's remarkably supportive of trans people. It doesn't say they don't exist or are all mentally ill. What it does say is that children need to be protected from having treatments tried on them that are untested/unsafe and that can cause irreversible harm. It also says that a holistic approach to the issue is needed.
None of these things vindicate anything that the most anti-trans people think at all. It vindicates people that said children were being tested on, which is some of what Graham Linehan said. But he also implied that trans people don't exist and compared Eddie Izzard to a rapist.
Actually I think Cass is incredibly centrist, it's probably the most articulate/balanced/constructive thing I've read on this entire topic.
I had assumed that the police/DPP had been involved. I shouldn’t have presumed, but I did presume, sadly. And then “it had gone to court” was the expression they used. I had not encountered the notion of an organisation that could make that decision on its own. And I suppose I had too much assumed knowledge. And when you see the words that were written, I can see why that view still perpetuated in my mind, because it didn’t overtly say “We have taken the decision to prosecute.”
This is so mind-boggling that I'm inclined to think he's telling the truth. If you were looking for ways to justify your inertia, you'd surely reject the idea of fabricating that line, as it would just be too implausible.
How much were they paying him to lead this organisation, fifty grand a month or thereabouts - yet he never looked at an org chart and wondered what all these prosecutors and lawyers were for?
How does an organisation with prosecutorial powers, not have at least one committee on which the CEO sits that discusses prosecutions?
Senator - "So, you were completely unaware that your organisation had a branch called Murder Inc?" "Fat" Tony - "The olive oil business is complex. I would say 'I have a problem'. How was I to know that the problems ended up in the East River?"
Sir Keir massively got away with that Durham drink. One day I reckon the truth will come out. His guilt was written all over his face when Sophie Raworth quizzed him on it; he knew he’d done wrong, but they found a way to get him off
Can you explain how he "got away with it" and if you have evidence, why not report it to the Police?
Do you not find it very strange that the witnesses to the event happened to be walking past a private/enclosed building's window and the person happened to be the son of somebody who wanted to write a story for the Mail?
My view is that the Labour left set it up to try and remove him. So they conspired with the Mail who also wanted him gone. Very "pro Labour" - of course they've never been pro Labour, only pro Corbyn
It’s my opinion that he got away with it, I don’t have to justify it at all. I’m not demanding the case be reopened, I just don’t believe the story they concocted that got him off. That is allowed, and that’s what it is happening
But why do you think he got away with it? The Police investigated twice, are you saying they got it wrong?
What did he concoct? I really want to understand but you're being quite vague.
I can’t really be bothered to go through it all. Yes I think the police got it wrong, obviously otherwise I wouldn’t be saying he got away with it.
Well I'd like to go into it as I welcome views other than my own.
@StillWaters in response to your point on the other thread that when people have medically transitioned they are not really women. That is the position of JK Rowling and Kathleen Stock.
Its a perfectly respectable position.
Rowling, Stock, Cyclefree etc are real women, they were born women, they are women.
A man who transitions to "become" a woman may be a transwoman but they're not a real woman. They'll never be.
That's not dehumanising. They're a real human. For all intents and purposes, unless it violates safeguarding, they can be treated as women, but the distinction still needs to exist.
Competitive female sport for example should belong to real women. A transwoman should never be entitled to play in
While the substance of what you say is correct, I would use the term "sex" rather than "real woman" because that could be used by some in a way which is insulting. And, having seen the insults hurled at women (including me - and by some on this forum) I think it best to try and avoid this.
A man can never - even with surgery - become a member of the female sex. And since sex is relevant in so many situations - sport, safeguarding etc - a transitioned man has to be regarded as a member of the male sex. But for social purposes - like @Leon's friend, Julia - there is no reason why he can't live, dress, call himself however he wants etc. How his friends and family respond is up to them but it is not a matter of compulsion. You cannot force others to share your own views about yourself and it is the height of narcissism to think that you can or should.
Gender to me is no different to a soul. It is some undefinable essence that some people believe in and others don't. Far too much of what people call "gender" seems to me to be no more than stereotypes and it is bizarre to me that so many on the gender side seem so intent on reinforcing very old-fashioned stereotypes.
But I do not believe in gender. I am of the female sex. Discrimination has happened to me because of my sex. Sexual assault has happened to me because of my sex. It happens to every woman because of her sex. My health, how my body develops and ages is affected by my sex.There is no getting away from that. Women cannot identify out of their sex. If we could we'd all be earning 40% more and having our bullshit treated with undeserved respect.
Men are of the male sex - and since sex matters in so many situations - there are very good reasons why separation on the basis of sex has to happen in those situations. And why clear language about sex matters. It is absurd that anyone thinks otherwise.
And - let me absolutely blunt here - any man who seeks to breach a woman's boundaries against her consent, whatever his reasons, is a predator, has the mentality of a predator. It is a giant red flag. "No means no" and, no, women do not have to justify this.
The vast majority of men claiming to be women do not make surgical or hormonal changes. They are men - whatever they wear - because - and does this really need saying again? - womanhood is a reality not a costume.
As for Rowling she has put her money where her mouth is and financed a female only rape refuge in Edinburgh - Beira Place - after the utterly disgraceful behaviour by Rape Crisis and its cheating boss.
I honestly wish trans "debate" (i.e. people lining up on this site to agree with TERF talking points like nodding dogs) was banned along with AI photos and the tedious cash vs cards debate.
But this is just so wrong-headed I have to interject.
"I do not believe in gender". Ok then. Let's imagine Cyclefree wakes up tomorrow in the body of a man in a Gregor Samsa-style metamorphosis. Cyclefree still feels exactly as they did the previous day. Only now, like Samsa, they are trapped in a completely different body. Is Samsa a bug, or is he a human trapped in a bug's body? Likewise, is Cyclefree a man now, or a woman trapped in a man's body? I suspect Cyclefree, with her memories of growing up as a girl, the learned behaviour of becoming a woman, would argue that despite all appearances, they remain a woman - not a man or a bug. Cf. De Beauvoir - "one is not born, but becomes a woman", i.e. notions of femininity and womanhood are societally constructed. So while there is such a thing as biological sex, it can clearly be separated from the notion of which gender you identify with, as per the example I have just laid out. Sex and gender are demonstrably not the same. Unless Cyclefree is really saying if she woke up in a biologically male body tomorrow she would suddenly consider herself entirely 100% male?
"If this totally impossible thing happened you would be wrong" doesn't strike me as a very convincing gotcha.
Totally impossible? Well, people already take HRT, have surgery, and have their bits inverted. But that, of course, isn't good enough.
It's a thought experiment for the purpose of explaining the difference between sex and gender.
Two scenarios.
1. A genie in a lamp turns Cyclefree into a man (against her will). Cyclefree remains unchanged in her mind. She has all the experiences, attitudes, and feelings of being a woman, yet has a biologically male body. Is she male or female? Note I'm using the correct pronouns here - according to Cyclefree's own last post re: Leon's friend I should be saying "Cyclefree remains unchanged in his mind, is he male or female?")
2. Famous lothario and flint knapper Leon gets curious about life as a woman and asks his mate Julie how to transition. She says "oh, what I did is old hat now. There's this new procedure that physically changes your chromosomes, from the outside in. It's one of the many benefits of MRNA research and now, when you transition, you take a little injection that makes you 100% biologically female, undetectable from any other "biological" woman." For whatever reason, Leon eagerly takes the injection and wakes up tomorrow in a biologically female body. Would cyclefree be happy sharing a changing room, female only swimming pool, etc, with Leon in his new body? Or is there something about being a woman that is learned over time, is there something in a person's attitude that contributes to womanhood?
One of these scenarios is magical fantasy, the other is science fiction. But the latter scenario may be possible in a hundred year's time, if you really want to argue the "totally impossible" thing.
The purpose is to clearly demonstrate what strings of feminist philosophers have been telling us for years, long before the trans debate ever existed, hence the de beauviour quote - that one "becomes" a woman in the sense that certain attributes of what we consider womanhood are constructed by society rather than biologically inherited.
I'm using a reductio ad absurdam argument with genies in lamps and gene resequencing, but my point is valid. There is more to being a woman or being a man than simply inhabiting the body of one. This is, in many respects, the TERF argument in a nutshell - that you can't simply wear femininity as a "costume", it has to be something inside you. But where the TERFs go wrong is that this is learned experience, which is constructed. Being stuck in a biologically male or female body doesn't necessarily make you either of those things.
Cyclefree would no more be a man if she was in a man's body than Leon would be female if you put him in the body of a biological woman. It is their experiences, their attitudes and their thoughts and feelings which make them male or female, irrespective of their bodies.
Yes, biological sex exists. But my little reductio ad absurdam was intended to explain the difference between biological sex and gender.
Some Tories seem to be under a naïve straw grasping assumption that you can add Reform voters to their share, but mathematically more Reform voters will probably be added to the Labour share than the Tory share.
As a mathematical exercise, if we take that YouGov poll and assume that two-thirds (10%) of the 15% who say Reform stay at home instead then the figures become.
Lab 45 -> 50 Con 19 -> 21 LD 8 -> 9 Reform 15 -> 6 Green 7 -> 8
33% of 2019 Conservative voters are now voting Reform according to Yougov, just 2% of 2019 Labour voters and 3% of 2019 LDs back Reform
I don't know how much impact the tighter employment visa rules will have, but the immigration numbers will come down because the student numbers will stabilise in terms of outflows and inflows, and the Ukraine and Hong Kong schemes will see much reduced claims. The record for most immigration will forever belong to Sunak.
However, the fall in immigration numbers I'm expecting will simply come too late for the Conservatives. The new Labour government will get the credit.
As I've said before, there is a lot of very sensible stuff that comes from let's say Graham Linehan and on children he's been absolutely vindicated so I hold my hands up to that.
But does he really think when asked about trans people to immediately jump to "what are trans people" and then to immediately jump into Eddie Izzard vs a serial rapist is really helpful to the cause?
Mel Stride could leave a legacy, beyond merely having been a ministerial Buggins, were he to sort out the blatant injustice of the manner in which his department treats those who make inadvertent mistakes (involving often trivial sums of money) when claiming carers' allowance.
As this story illustrates, this draconian and unjust policy likely doesn't even save the government money.
The strangest thing is that in between his crazy posts Leon actually got the trans issue pretty much bang on last night so this a rare instance of me giving him a lot of credit.
Sir Keir Starmas was investigated because the Tories got annoyed and got the Police to open one. They thought they'd played a masterstroke until as usual, he took them to the cleaners with his "I will resign" speech. He outplayed and outgunned them at every turn.
Frankly if Rayner is that sure she is innocent, in hindsight she should have said "I am innocent, if I am found guilty I will resign" and put the issue to bed.
If she is charged with breaking electoral law, she'll be gone.
Given every MP has two homes and some many more, the question of which is designated primary when standing for election, when claiming parliamentary expenses, when returning home during Covid lockdowns, and of course when paying CGT, is so confusing that police and CPS will not open this can of worms because if they do, every MP will be in the firing line.
Isn't this all before she was an MP? And, in any case, there's nowhere to hide for MPs since the expenses scandal.
Some Tories seem to be under a naïve straw grasping assumption that you can add Reform voters to their share, but mathematically more Reform voters will probably be added to the Labour share than the Tory share.
As a mathematical exercise, if we take that YouGov poll and assume that two-thirds (10%) of the 15% who say Reform stay at home instead then the figures become.
Lab 45 -> 50 Con 19 -> 21 LD 8 -> 9 Reform 15 -> 6 Green 7 -> 8
33% of 2019 Conservative voters are now voting Reform according to Yougov, just 2% of 2019 Labour voters and 3% of 2019 LDs back Reform
I don't know how much impact the tighter employment visa rules will have, but the immigration numbers will come down because the student numbers will stabilise in terms of outflows and inflows, and the Ukraine and Hong Kong schemes will see much reduced claims. The record for most immigration will forever belong to Sunak.
However, the fall in immigration numbers I'm expecting will simply come too late for the Conservatives. The new Labour government will get the credit.
Yeah, I agree. Immigration will drop under Labour and the issue will disappear for a while. It will come back though.
@StillWaters in response to your point on the other thread that when people have medically transitioned they are not really women. That is the position of JK Rowling and Kathleen Stock.
Its a perfectly respectable position.
Rowling, Stock, Cyclefree etc are real women, they were born women, they are women.
A man who transitions to "become" a woman may be a transwoman but they're not a real woman. They'll never be.
That's not dehumanising. They're a real human. For all intents and purposes, unless it violates safeguarding, they can be treated as women, but the distinction still needs to exist.
Competitive female sport for example should belong to real women. A transwoman should never be entitled to play in
While the substance of what you say is correct, I would use the term "sex" rather than "real woman" because that could be used by some in a way which is insulting. And, having seen the insults hurled at women (including me - and by some on this forum) I think it best to try and avoid this.
A man can never - even with surgery - become a member of the female sex. And since sex is relevant in so many situations - sport, safeguarding etc - a transitioned man has to be regarded as a member of the male sex. But for social purposes - like @Leon's friend, Julia - there is no reason why he can't live, dress, call himself however he wants etc. How his friends and family respond is up to them but it is not a matter of compulsion. You cannot force others to share your own views about yourself and it is the height of narcissism to think that you can or should.
Gender to me is no different to a soul. It is some undefinable essence that some people believe in and others don't. Far too much of what people call "gender" seems to me to be no more than stereotypes and it is bizarre to me that so many on the gender side seem so intent on reinforcing very old-fashioned stereotypes.
But I do not believe in gender. I am of the female sex. Discrimination has happened to me because of my sex. Sexual assault has happened to me because of my sex. It happens to every woman because of her sex. My health, how my body develops and ages is affected by my sex.There is no getting away from that. Women cannot identify out of their sex. If we could we'd all be earning 40% more and having our bullshit treated with undeserved respect.
Men are of the male sex - and since sex matters in so many situations - there are very good reasons why separation on the basis of sex has to happen in those situations. And why clear language about sex matters. It is absurd that anyone thinks otherwise.
And - let me absolutely blunt here - any man who seeks to breach a woman's boundaries against her consent, whatever his reasons, is a predator, has the mentality of a predator. It is a giant red flag. "No means no" and, no, women do not have to justify this.
The vast majority of men claiming to be women do not make surgical or hormonal changes. They are men - whatever they wear - because - and does this really need saying again? - womanhood is a reality not a costume.
As for Rowling she has put her money where her mouth is and financed a female only rape refuge in Edinburgh - Beira Place - after the utterly disgraceful behaviour by Rape Crisis and its cheating boss.
I very broadly agree with this.
My one quibble would be that if a man who thinks of himself as a woman goes through the extremely onerous task of meeting the requirements of the Gender Reform Act 2004 and obtains a certificate then it does not seem unreasonable that we treat her as a woman, whatever the biological reality, if it makes her life a bit easier. This is a legal fiction but it seems to me that it is an acceptable one provided those safeguards are in place and not diluted in any way. These safeguards must ensure that the person with the certificate is not a risk to women. The problem with the Scottish bill was that it removed all of those safeguards creating completely unacceptable risks.
The legal fiction should be followed so long as it doesn't violate safeguarding.
Competitive sport for instance, even if someone has a certificate, they're not a member of the female sex.
Similarly rape centres etc, even if someone has a certificate, they're not a member of the female sex.
The GRA may need amending to reflect that in my view, if its too broadbrush, but it seems a reasonable compromise.
Treat anyone with a certificate as their new sex, unless it matters for safeguarding reasons (and single sex sport for instance I'd count as a safeguarding reason).
One man's voter suppression is another man's stopping voter fraud.
Some years ago, I actually heard someone say out loud, on the radio, that group filling in of postal votes was good. Because it spoke towards "traditional collaborative tribal decision making" that would make people from various culture feel comfortable.
I felt like suggesting a return to non-secret ballot voting. Where you rock up at the table, and the Squire's agent (who is acting as returning officer) takes your vote.
"So, Tomkins, do you vote for the Squire's choice? Or shall I tear up your lease on the farm right now?"
Ah, the Goode Olde Days....
I was recently reading the proceedings after a dodgy election in the 1840s. The way the lawyuers for each side would focus on the other side's voters and try to knock them out. "So, before you voted at Snottown, Mr X gave you expenses to move to Snottown and a free house to stay in, as well as a job in the Post Office?"
I’m not sure that offering a job in the Post Office would be a vote winner.
So we've given up on tax avoidance and now moved onto something else.
I did wonder if this was going to end up in a similar place.
The evasive answers given to straightforward questions about the house sale didn’t make sense - unless there was a background of eg living in one house but registering to vote in another, or renting out a house that was declared to the Parliamentary authorities as her primary or secondary residence, much more serious offences both legally and politically.
If she’s charged with electoral offences, she probably needs to take the Chiltern Hundreds to clear her name, although plenty of MPs have stuck it out in similar circumstances. If convicted she could be open to recall or barred from standing. That she’s directly elected as deputy leader of the party creates another headache for Starmer, and not what he wants in the news three weeks before the local elections.
Sir Keir Starmas was investigated because the Tories got annoyed and got the Police to open one. They thought they'd played a masterstroke until as usual, he took them to the cleaners with his "I will resign" speech. He outplayed and outgunned them at every turn.
Frankly if Rayner is that sure she is innocent, in hindsight she should have said "I am innocent, if I am found guilty I will resign" and put the issue to bed.
If she is charged with breaking electoral law, she'll be gone.
Given every MP has two homes and some many more, the question of which is designated primary when standing for election, when claiming parliamentary expenses, when returning home during Covid lockdowns, and of course when paying CGT, is so confusing that police and CPS will not open this can of worms because if they do, every MP will be in the firing line.
Isn't this all before she was an MP? And, in any case, there's nowhere to hide for MPs since the expenses scandal.
The point is that MPs are expected to have more than one house, and can declare different houses for different purposes with no requirement for consistency. The police will not want to impose one now, and if they did then every MP would be in the firing line.
Some Tories seem to be under a naïve straw grasping assumption that you can add Reform voters to their share, but mathematically more Reform voters will probably be added to the Labour share than the Tory share.
As a mathematical exercise, if we take that YouGov poll and assume that two-thirds (10%) of the 15% who say Reform stay at home instead then the figures become.
Lab 45 -> 50 Con 19 -> 21 LD 8 -> 9 Reform 15 -> 6 Green 7 -> 8
33% of 2019 Conservative voters are now voting Reform according to Yougov, just 2% of 2019 Labour voters and 3% of 2019 LDs back Reform
I don't know how much impact the tighter employment visa rules will have, but the immigration numbers will come down because the student numbers will stabilise in terms of outflows and inflows, and the Ukraine and Hong Kong schemes will see much reduced claims. The record for most immigration will forever belong to Sunak.
However, the fall in immigration numbers I'm expecting will simply come too late for the Conservatives. The new Labour government will get the credit.
To go back to yesterday’s rant, it’ll even be good for Sunak’s immigration figures if he can send more weapons to Ukraine, because many of the refugees in the UK will want to return home once the war ends.
So it’s not just the right thing to do, it’s politically advantageous and economically advantageous as well.
@StillWaters in response to your point on the other thread that when people have medically transitioned they are not really women. That is the position of JK Rowling and Kathleen Stock.
Its a perfectly respectable position.
Rowling, Stock, Cyclefree etc are real women, they were born women, they are women.
A man who transitions to "become" a woman may be a transwoman but they're not a real woman. They'll never be.
That's not dehumanising. They're a real human. For all intents and purposes, unless it violates safeguarding, they can be treated as women, but the distinction still needs to exist.
Competitive female sport for example should belong to real women. A transwoman should never be entitled to play in
While the substance of what you say is correct, I would use the term "sex" rather than "real woman" because that could be used by some in a way which is insulting. And, having seen the insults hurled at women (including me - and by some on this forum) I think it best to try and avoid this.
A man can never - even with surgery - become a member of the female sex. And since sex is relevant in so many situations - sport, safeguarding etc - a transitioned man has to be regarded as a member of the male sex. But for social purposes - like @Leon's friend, Julia - there is no reason why he can't live, dress, call himself however he wants etc. How his friends and family respond is up to them but it is not a matter of compulsion. You cannot force others to share your own views about yourself and it is the height of narcissism to think that you can or should.
Gender to me is no different to a soul. It is some undefinable essence that some people believe in and others don't. Far too much of what people call "gender" seems to me to be no more than stereotypes and it is bizarre to me that so many on the gender side seem so intent on reinforcing very old-fashioned stereotypes.
But I do not believe in gender. I am of the female sex. Discrimination has happened to me because of my sex. Sexual assault has happened to me because of my sex. It happens to every woman because of her sex. My health, how my body develops and ages is affected by my sex.There is no getting away from that. Women cannot identify out of their sex. If we could we'd all be earning 40% more and having our bullshit treated with undeserved respect.
Men are of the male sex - and since sex matters in so many situations - there are very good reasons why separation on the basis of sex has to happen in those situations. And why clear language about sex matters. It is absurd that anyone thinks otherwise.
And - let me absolutely blunt here - any man who seeks to breach a woman's boundaries against her consent, whatever his reasons, is a predator, has the mentality of a predator. It is a giant red flag. "No means no" and, no, women do not have to justify this.
The vast majority of men claiming to be women do not make surgical or hormonal changes. They are men - whatever they wear - because - and does this really need saying again? - womanhood is a reality not a costume.
As for Rowling she has put her money where her mouth is and financed a female only rape refuge in Edinburgh - Beira Place - after the utterly disgraceful behaviour by Rape Crisis and its cheating boss.
If you don't believe in gender it surely follows that you don't believe that changing it, surgery or not, seld-id or not, is valid or meaningful. But we have provided, with the GRA, a route for a person to do this and for it to be legally recognised. How to square that?
So we've given up on tax avoidance and now moved onto something else.
Tax Avoidance is totally legal. The claims were not she had avoided tax but evaded it.
Actually, the claim was that she hadn't paid the tax some believe she owes. Ignorance of tax law unlike other forms of the law, is a defence. But that is not what they are investigating here.
If found to be true would be a resigning matter for me.
What makes you think ignorance of tax law is a defence? HMRC don’t share your viewpoint!
So we've given up on tax avoidance and now moved onto something else.
I did wonder if this was going to end up in a similar place.
The evasive answers given to straightforward questions about the house sale didn’t make sense - unless there was a background of eg living in one house but registering to vote in another, or renting out a house that was declared to the Parliamentary authorities as her primary or secondary residence, much more serious offences both legally and politically.
If she’s charged with electoral offences, she probably needs to take the Chiltern Hundreds to clear her name, although plenty of MPs have stuck it out in similar circumstances. If convicted she could be open to recall or barred from standing. That she’s directly elected as deputy leader of the party creates another headache for Starmer, and not what he wants in the news three weeks before the local elections.
So we've given up on tax avoidance and now moved onto something else.
I did wonder if this was going to end up in a similar place.
The evasive answers given to straightforward questions about the house sale didn’t make sense - unless there was a background of eg living in one house but registering to vote in another, or renting out a house that was declared to the Parliamentary authorities as her primary or secondary residence, much more serious offences both legally and politically.
If she’s charged with electoral offences, she probably needs to take the Chiltern Hundreds to clear her name, although plenty of MPs have stuck it out in similar circumstances. If convicted she could be open to recall or barred from standing. That she’s directly elected as deputy leader of the party creates another headache for Starmer, and not what he wants in the news three weeks before the local elections.
If.
Isn't this the third or fourth fishing technique the Tories are using?
The legal fiction should be followed so long as it doesn't violate safeguarding.
Competitive sport for instance, even if someone has a certificate, they're not a member of the female sex.
Similarly rape centres etc, even if someone has a certificate, they're not a member of the female sex.
The GRA may need amending to reflect that in my view, if its too broadbrush, but it seems a reasonable compromise.
Treat anyone with a certificate as their new sex, unless it matters for safeguarding reasons (and single sex sport for instance I'd count as a safeguarding reason).
On sports, I think it's best left to the individual bodies.
To take a silly example, I can't believe anyone would have an issue with a trans woman competing in female chess?
Sir Keir Starmas was investigated because the Tories got annoyed and got the Police to open one. They thought they'd played a masterstroke until as usual, he took them to the cleaners with his "I will resign" speech. He outplayed and outgunned them at every turn.
Frankly if Rayner is that sure she is innocent, in hindsight she should have said "I am innocent, if I am found guilty I will resign" and put the issue to bed.
If she is charged with breaking electoral law, she'll be gone.
Given every MP has two homes and some many more, the question of which is designated primary when standing for election, when claiming parliamentary expenses, when returning home during Covid lockdowns, and of course when paying CGT, is so confusing that police and CPS will not open this can of worms because if they do, every MP will be in the firing line.
Isn't this all before she was an MP? And, in any case, there's nowhere to hide for MPs since the expenses scandal.
The point is that MPs are expected to have more than one house, and can declare different houses for different purposes with no requirement for consistency. The police will not want to impose one now, and if they did then every MP would be in the firing line.
The legal fiction should be followed so long as it doesn't violate safeguarding.
Competitive sport for instance, even if someone has a certificate, they're not a member of the female sex.
Similarly rape centres etc, even if someone has a certificate, they're not a member of the female sex.
The GRA may need amending to reflect that in my view, if its too broadbrush, but it seems a reasonable compromise.
Treat anyone with a certificate as their new sex, unless it matters for safeguarding reasons (and single sex sport for instance I'd count as a safeguarding reason).
On sports, I think it's best left to the individual bodies.
To take a silly example, I can't believe anyone would have an issue with a trans woman competing in female chess?
The legal fiction should be followed so long as it doesn't violate safeguarding.
Competitive sport for instance, even if someone has a certificate, they're not a member of the female sex.
Similarly rape centres etc, even if someone has a certificate, they're not a member of the female sex.
The GRA may need amending to reflect that in my view, if its too broadbrush, but it seems a reasonable compromise.
Treat anyone with a certificate as their new sex, unless it matters for safeguarding reasons (and single sex sport for instance I'd count as a safeguarding reason).
On sports, I think it's best left to the individual bodies.
To take a silly example, I can't believe anyone would have an issue with a trans woman competing in female chess?
The legal fiction should be followed so long as it doesn't violate safeguarding.
Competitive sport for instance, even if someone has a certificate, they're not a member of the female sex.
Similarly rape centres etc, even if someone has a certificate, they're not a member of the female sex.
The GRA may need amending to reflect that in my view, if its too broadbrush, but it seems a reasonable compromise.
Treat anyone with a certificate as their new sex, unless it matters for safeguarding reasons (and single sex sport for instance I'd count as a safeguarding reason).
On sports, I think it's best left to the individual bodies.
To take a silly example, I can't believe anyone would have an issue with a trans woman competing in female chess?
One thing I find disturbing about the gender debate is those who say that "gender is a societal construct" as a positive for then saying anyone can be the female gender if they please.
Gender if it is real, is a real thing, not a construct.
What is a construct is gender stereotypes and stereotypes are a bad thing we're supposed to be moving past, not reinforcing.
To suggest a man who meets a female stereotype is a woman (or vice-versa) is discriminatory and demeaning to all concerned.
If by gender you mean stereotypes, then we should say gender does not exist, only harmful stereotypes do and its time to move past them, not enforce them.
The strangest thing is that in between his crazy posts Leon actually got the trans issue pretty much bang on last night so this a rare instance of me giving him a lot of credit.
...and would not have done so had I not pressed the issue.
I have just returned from hospital and seen Greater Manchester police are investigating Rayner over her registration for election purposes
I couldn't understand why it was said they were investigating her CGT liabilities as that is a HMRC matter so at least we now know why the police are involved
I have no idea how this will pan out but at least it should be resolved one way or another
I have no idea about the Rayner case, but one thing I am aware of (having been involved in an election case [as a witness I hasten to add for the prosecution]) is that the police are fed up to the back teeth of people being reported to them for petty stuff for electioneering purposes. This has the consequence that when something is serious it often gets ignored by the police (at least initially) as being 'not this crap again'.
My view is the police should start charging people with wasting police time to get rid of the dross that is thrown at them by all parties particularly at election time such that when a proper election offence is committed it is not lost in the dross.
I would also like to add that the election laws need updating. They are a mess. Not enough time to list out here.
So we've given up on tax avoidance and now moved onto something else.
Greater Manchester police's investigation is separate and it will look into whether she registered the wrong property on the electoral roll.
Also, not a great look for a politician if they have broken electoral law.
Actually, that's worse! So I am surprised they didn't go in with this from the start.
Presumably it's a 'you can't have it both ways approach'. Everyone assumed that she was living in her husband's house, and I assume that's where she was listed for the purpose of the electoral roll, so nothing to investigate until her 'defence' for the tax thing was that she wasn't living where everyone assumed. Essentially, it's the cover-up / defensiveness when asked about it that seems to be doing for her - if when it had first come up she'd said 'Oh, that's a very good point, I should have paid tax - here you go and apologies - and what do we need to do as politicians to help people pay the right amount initially' - then I think that it would have been a small 2 day story. Personally, on the balance of probabilities given what is public, I think it likely that she should have paid tax, but I can totally see how she inadvertently missed it and don't have an issue with that - it's how she's handled it since that I have more issue with.
Inadvertently missed it by making a positive declaration that it was her principal private residence?
More likely her adviser said “everyone does it, no one cares” and she didn’t think through the moral and political aspects
The legal fiction should be followed so long as it doesn't violate safeguarding.
Competitive sport for instance, even if someone has a certificate, they're not a member of the female sex.
Similarly rape centres etc, even if someone has a certificate, they're not a member of the female sex.
The GRA may need amending to reflect that in my view, if its too broadbrush, but it seems a reasonable compromise.
Treat anyone with a certificate as their new sex, unless it matters for safeguarding reasons (and single sex sport for instance I'd count as a safeguarding reason).
On sports, I think it's best left to the individual bodies.
To take a silly example, I can't believe anyone would have an issue with a trans woman competing in female chess?
I can't see a reason to have single sex chess.
But if single sex chess exists, then it should remain single sex.
The legal fiction should be followed so long as it doesn't violate safeguarding.
Competitive sport for instance, even if someone has a certificate, they're not a member of the female sex.
Similarly rape centres etc, even if someone has a certificate, they're not a member of the female sex.
The GRA may need amending to reflect that in my view, if its too broadbrush, but it seems a reasonable compromise.
Treat anyone with a certificate as their new sex, unless it matters for safeguarding reasons (and single sex sport for instance I'd count as a safeguarding reason).
On sports, I think it's best left to the individual bodies.
To take a silly example, I can't believe anyone would have an issue with a trans woman competing in female chess?
I can't see a reason to have single sex chess.
But if single sex chess exists, then it should remain single sex.
The legal fiction should be followed so long as it doesn't violate safeguarding.
Competitive sport for instance, even if someone has a certificate, they're not a member of the female sex.
Similarly rape centres etc, even if someone has a certificate, they're not a member of the female sex.
The GRA may need amending to reflect that in my view, if its too broadbrush, but it seems a reasonable compromise.
Treat anyone with a certificate as their new sex, unless it matters for safeguarding reasons (and single sex sport for instance I'd count as a safeguarding reason).
On sports, I think it's best left to the individual bodies.
To take a silly example, I can't believe anyone would have an issue with a trans woman competing in female chess?
I can't see a reason to have single sex chess.
But if single sex chess exists, then it should remain single sex.
I have just returned from hospital and seen Greater Manchester police are investigating Rayner over her registration for election purposes
I couldn't understand why it was said they were investigating her CGT liabilities as that is a HMRC matter so at least we now know why the police are involved
I have no idea how this will pan out but at least it should be resolved one way or another
They are only investigating because the local Tories made a complaint. Anyone who thinks this won't end up being dropped is mad.
One thing I find disturbing about the gender debate is those who say that "gender is a societal construct" as a positive for then saying anyone can be the female gender if they please.
Gender if it is real, is a real thing, not a construct.
What is a construct is gender stereotypes and stereotypes are a bad thing we're supposed to be moving past, not reinforcing.
To suggest a man who meets a female stereotype is a woman (or vice-versa) is discriminatory and demeaning to all concerned.
If by gender you mean stereotypes, then we should say gender does not exist, only harmful stereotypes do and its time to move past them, not enforce them.
There are quite a number of people here that think gender is a construct as you say and doesn't really exist. We had one of those posts just earlier today.
I have no idea about the Rayner case, but one thing I am aware of (having been involved in an election case [as a witness I hasten to add for the prosecution]) is that the police are fed up to the back teeth of people being reported to them for petty stuff for electioneering purposes. This has the consequence that when something is serious it often gets ignored by the police (at least initially) as being 'not this crap again'.
My view is the police should start charging people with wasting police time to get rid of the dross that is thrown at them by all parties particularly at election time such that when a proper election offence is committed it is not lost in the dross.
I would also like to add that the election laws need updating. They are a mess. Not enough time to list out here.
I was going to comment, the Tory who got the Police to re-investigate SKS should have been fined for wasting Police time.
I have just returned from hospital and seen Greater Manchester police are investigating Rayner over her registration for election purposes
I couldn't understand why it was said they were investigating her CGT liabilities as that is a HMRC matter so at least we now know why the police are involved
I have no idea how this will pan out but at least it should be resolved one way or another
Fantastic work by James Daly! This would be a massive scalp for the Conservatives. There could be a custodial sentence at the end of this rainbow. It's about time, with all the political corruption that has gone on over the last 5 years!
Sir Keir Starmas was investigated because the Tories got annoyed and got the Police to open one. They thought they'd played a masterstroke until as usual, he took them to the cleaners with his "I will resign" speech. He outplayed and outgunned them at every turn.
Frankly if Rayner is that sure she is innocent, in hindsight she should have said "I am innocent, if I am found guilty I will resign" and put the issue to bed.
If she is charged with breaking electoral law, she'll be gone.
Given every MP has two homes and some many more, the question of which is designated primary when standing for election, when claiming parliamentary expenses, when returning home during Covid lockdowns, and of course when paying CGT, is so confusing that police and CPS will not open this can of worms because if they do, every MP will be in the firing line.
Isn't this all before she was an MP? And, in any case, there's nowhere to hide for MPs since the expenses scandal.
The point is that MPs are expected to have more than one house, and can declare different houses for different purposes with no requirement for consistency. The police will not want to impose one now, and if they did then every MP would be in the firing line.
But she wasn't an MP!
Yes but the people who are MPs are MPs and they have more than one house. That's the point.
The legal fiction should be followed so long as it doesn't violate safeguarding.
Competitive sport for instance, even if someone has a certificate, they're not a member of the female sex.
Similarly rape centres etc, even if someone has a certificate, they're not a member of the female sex.
The GRA may need amending to reflect that in my view, if its too broadbrush, but it seems a reasonable compromise.
Treat anyone with a certificate as their new sex, unless it matters for safeguarding reasons (and single sex sport for instance I'd count as a safeguarding reason).
On sports, I think it's best left to the individual bodies.
To take a silly example, I can't believe anyone would have an issue with a trans woman competing in female chess?
I can't see a reason to have single sex chess.
But if single sex chess exists, then it should remain single sex.
Then where should trans people go?
The open category, same as any other sport.
Women can play in the open category, they're not barred.
Sir Keir Starmas was investigated because the Tories got annoyed and got the Police to open one. They thought they'd played a masterstroke until as usual, he took them to the cleaners with his "I will resign" speech. He outplayed and outgunned them at every turn.
Frankly if Rayner is that sure she is innocent, in hindsight she should have said "I am innocent, if I am found guilty I will resign" and put the issue to bed.
If she is charged with breaking electoral law, she'll be gone.
Given every MP has two homes and some many more, the question of which is designated primary when standing for election, when claiming parliamentary expenses, when returning home during Covid lockdowns, and of course when paying CGT, is so confusing that police and CPS will not open this can of worms because if they do, every MP will be in the firing line.
Isn't this all before she was an MP? And, in any case, there's nowhere to hide for MPs since the expenses scandal.
The point is that MPs are expected to have more than one house, and can declare different houses for different purposes with no requirement for consistency. The police will not want to impose one now, and if they did then every MP would be in the firing line.
But she wasn't an MP!
Yes but the people who are MPs are MPs and they have more than one house. That's the point.
Don't forget the duck and horse houses, too. So that's three, perhaps four or five in some cases.
Sir Keir massively got away with that Durham drink. One day I reckon the truth will come out. His guilt was written all over his face when Sophie Raworth quizzed him on it; he knew he’d done wrong, but they found a way to get him off
Can you explain how he "got away with it" and if you have evidence, why not report it to the Police?
Do you not find it very strange that the witnesses to the event happened to be walking past a private/enclosed building's window and the person happened to be the son of somebody who wanted to write a story for the Mail?
My view is that the Labour left set it up to try and remove him. So they conspired with the Mail who also wanted him gone. Very "pro Labour" - of course they've never been pro Labour, only pro Corbyn
It’s my opinion that he got away with it, I don’t have to justify it at all. I’m not demanding the case be reopened, I just don’t believe the story they concocted that got him off. That is allowed, and that’s what it is happening
I'ts my opinion that Charles Dickens assasinated Franz Ferdinand. I don't have to justify this opinion at all.
I can spout an crap I like and when challenged about it, I just shrug my shoulders reply "just sayin'".
I have just returned from hospital and seen Greater Manchester police are investigating Rayner over her registration for election purposes
I couldn't understand why it was said they were investigating her CGT liabilities as that is a HMRC matter so at least we now know why the police are involved
I have no idea how this will pan out but at least it should be resolved one way or another
Fantastic work by James Daly! This would be a massive scalp for the Conservatives. There could be a custodial sentence at the end of this rainbow. It's about time, with all the political corruption that has gone on over the last 5 years!
I rather like Angela Rayner. She's a big brassy northern slapper, Bet Lynch without the pints. Parliament needs more of them.
I have no idea about the Rayner case, but one thing I am aware of (having been involved in an election case [as a witness I hasten to add for the prosecution]) is that the police are fed up to the back teeth of people being reported to them for petty stuff for electioneering purposes. This has the consequence that when something is serious it often gets ignored by the police (at least initially) as being 'not this crap again'.
My view is the police should start charging people with wasting police time to get rid of the dross that is thrown at them by all parties particularly at election time such that when a proper election offence is committed it is not lost in the dross.
I would also like to add that the election laws need updating. They are a mess. Not enough time to list out here.
I was going to comment, the Tory who got the Police to re-investigate SKS should have been fined for wasting Police time.
That was Ric Holden, who is quite a piece of work. But it took the heat off Boris-Rishi cake gate. It got Big G very excited too!
One thing I find disturbing about the gender debate is those who say that "gender is a societal construct" as a positive for then saying anyone can be the female gender if they please.
Gender if it is real, is a real thing, not a construct.
What is a construct is gender stereotypes and stereotypes are a bad thing we're supposed to be moving past, not reinforcing.
To suggest a man who meets a female stereotype is a woman (or vice-versa) is discriminatory and demeaning to all concerned.
If by gender you mean stereotypes, then we should say gender does not exist, only harmful stereotypes do and its time to move past them, not enforce them.
There are quite a number of people here that think gender is a construct as you say and doesn't really exist. We had one of those posts just earlier today.
Can we scientifically prove gender exists?
Horse, just because something is a construct doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
@StillWaters in response to your point on the other thread that when people have medically transitioned they are not really women. That is the position of JK Rowling and Kathleen Stock.
Its a perfectly respectable position.
Rowling, Stock, Cyclefree etc are real women, they were born women, they are women.
A man who transitions to "become" a woman may be a transwoman but they're not a real woman. They'll never be.
That's not dehumanising. They're a real human. For all intents and purposes, unless it violates safeguarding, they can be treated as women, but the distinction still needs to exist.
Competitive female sport for example should belong to real women. A transwoman should never be entitled to play in
While the substance of what you say is correct, I would use the term "sex" rather than "real woman" because that could be used by some in a way which is insulting. And, having seen the insults hurled at women (including me - and by some on this forum) I think it best to try and avoid this.
A man can never - even with surgery - become a member of the female sex. And since sex is relevant in so many situations - sport, safeguarding etc - a transitioned man has to be regarded as a member of the male sex. But for social purposes - like @Leon's friend, Julia - there is no reason why he can't live, dress, call himself however he wants etc. How his friends and family respond is up to them but it is not a matter of compulsion. You cannot force others to share your own views about yourself and it is the height of narcissism to think that you can or should.
Gender to me is no different to a soul. It is some undefinable essence that some people believe in and others don't. Far too much of what people call "gender" seems to me to be no more than stereotypes and it is bizarre to me that so many on the gender side seem so intent on reinforcing very old-fashioned stereotypes.
But I do not believe in gender. I am of the female sex. Discrimination has happened to me because of my sex. Sexual assault has happened to me because of my sex. It happens to every woman because of her sex. My health, how my body develops and ages is affected by my sex.There is no getting away from that. Women cannot identify out of their sex. If we could we'd all be earning 40% more and having our bullshit treated with undeserved respect.
Men are of the male sex - and since sex matters in so many situations - there are very good reasons why separation on the basis of sex has to happen in those situations. And why clear language about sex matters. It is absurd that anyone thinks otherwise.
And - let me absolutely blunt here - any man who seeks to breach a woman's boundaries against her consent, whatever his reasons, is a predator, has the mentality of a predator. It is a giant red flag. "No means no" and, no, women do not have to justify this.
The vast majority of men claiming to be women do not make surgical or hormonal changes. They are men - whatever they wear - because - and does this really need saying again? - womanhood is a reality not a costume.
As for Rowling she has put her money where her mouth is and financed a female only rape refuge in Edinburgh - Beira Place - after the utterly disgraceful behaviour by Rape Crisis and its cheating boss.
I very broadly agree with this.
My one quibble would be that if a man who thinks of himself as a woman goes through the extremely onerous task of meeting the requirements of the Gender Reform Act 2004 and obtains a certificate then it does not seem unreasonable that we treat her as a woman, whatever the biological reality, if it makes her life a bit easier. This is a legal fiction but it seems to me that it is an acceptable one provided those safeguards are in place and not diluted in any way. These safeguards must ensure that the person with the certificate is not a risk to women. The problem with the Scottish bill was that it removed all of those safeguards creating completely unacceptable risks.
This is the crux of the matter. The GRA provides a method by which a man can legally become a woman and it/subsequent law (I forget which) decrees that reasonable adjustments be made for that. I don't think people understood the ramifications of this at the time and as the reality becomes apparent people are rapidly generating post-hoc reasons why adjustments should not be made, of various believability. This poses a problem because the law is simply not being observed nor enforced.
Regardless of who benefits or loses electorally from these rules, they are a crime against democracy that risk creating a deep well of anger among disenfranchised voters, further poisoning our politics and suppressing participation in the democratic process. The Tories should rot in hell for it.
Yes, and this is one of the reasons why I do not trust them to decide what my human rights should be. A party that deliberately seeks to restrict the right to vote is not one that should ever have control over something so fundamental.
Most other countries require identification to vote. It is entirely reasonable.
The anger is confected by the left because they believe that they benefit from the current set up.
The countries that require identification to vote also have ID cards - name me one country that insists of ID for voting that doesn't have an ID card...
You are conflating two entirely separate things.
Protecting the integrity of the ballot is important. It is certainly more convenient if you have a national ID card, but not having one doesn’t undermine the importance of doing so
Except, as explained in my post earlier, we don't need to because it is a law that is very rarely broken and on the rare occasion it is it has no impact because it is pretty much impossible to vote much more than once and to do so is very silly because you stand a very very high chance of getting caught and going to prison because of the difficulty of doing so and getting away with it. Yet it disenfranchises many many many more people to enforce an id.
On the same logic you might as well post a policeman outside every house to prevent burglary. We don't because it is out of proportion to the crime.
Whereas postal vote fraud is exceptionally easy, much more difficult to spot and can be done with large numbers so impacting the result.
I have been in this election game a long time. I have only ever come across someone pretending to be someone else in a polling station once and they got caught. It is obvious if it happens because people complain they have lost their vote. When that happens it is invariably because an adjacent line on the register has been crossed through in the polling station.
Postal voting fraud however is endemic. It would also be useful for the parties. I am aware of it happening for the 3 main parties and usually it has been done without the party organisation being aware but organised by the candidate.
Integrity of the ballot is about being seen to be protected
That’s why the electoral commission recommended the introduction of voter ID
I have just returned from hospital and seen Greater Manchester police are investigating Rayner over her registration for election purposes
I couldn't understand why it was said they were investigating her CGT liabilities as that is a HMRC matter so at least we now know why the police are involved
I have no idea how this will pan out but at least it should be resolved one way or another
Fantastic work by James Daly! This would be a massive scalp for the Conservatives. There could be a custodial sentence at the end of this rainbow. It's about time, with all the political corruption that has gone on over the last 5 years!
I rather like Angela Rayner. She's a big brassy northern slapper, Bet Lynch without the pints. Parliament needs more of them.
So much condescension here it's hard to make out all the words.
@StillWaters in response to your point on the other thread that when people have medically transitioned they are not really women. That is the position of JK Rowling and Kathleen Stock.
Its a perfectly respectable position.
Rowling, Stock, Cyclefree etc are real women, they were born women, they are women.
A man who transitions to "become" a woman may be a transwoman but they're not a real woman. They'll never be.
That's not dehumanising. They're a real human. For all intents and purposes, unless it violates safeguarding, they can be treated as women, but the distinction still needs to exist.
Competitive female sport for example should belong to real women. A transwoman should never be entitled to play in
While the substance of what you say is correct, I would use the term "sex" rather than "real woman" because that could be used by some in a way which is insulting. And, having seen the insults hurled at women (including me - and by some on this forum) I think it best to try and avoid this.
A man can never - even with surgery - become a member of the female sex. And since sex is relevant in so many situations - sport, safeguarding etc - a transitioned man has to be regarded as a member of the male sex. But for social purposes - like @Leon's friend, Julia - there is no reason why he can't live, dress, call himself however he wants etc. How his friends and family respond is up to them but it is not a matter of compulsion. You cannot force others to share your own views about yourself and it is the height of narcissism to think that you can or should.
Gender to me is no different to a soul. It is some undefinable essence that some people believe in and others don't. Far too much of what people call "gender" seems to me to be no more than stereotypes and it is bizarre to me that so many on the gender side seem so intent on reinforcing very old-fashioned stereotypes.
But I do not believe in gender. I am of the female sex. Discrimination has happened to me because of my sex. Sexual assault has happened to me because of my sex. It happens to every woman because of her sex. My health, how my body develops and ages is affected by my sex.There is no getting away from that. Women cannot identify out of their sex. If we could we'd all be earning 40% more and having our bullshit treated with undeserved respect.
Men are of the male sex - and since sex matters in so many situations - there are very good reasons why separation on the basis of sex has to happen in those situations. And why clear language about sex matters. It is absurd that anyone thinks otherwise.
And - let me absolutely blunt here - any man who seeks to breach a woman's boundaries against her consent, whatever his reasons, is a predator, has the mentality of a predator. It is a giant red flag. "No means no" and, no, women do not have to justify this.
The vast majority of men claiming to be women do not make surgical or hormonal changes. They are men - whatever they wear - because - and does this really need saying again? - womanhood is a reality not a costume.
As for Rowling she has put her money where her mouth is and financed a female only rape refuge in Edinburgh - Beira Place - after the utterly disgraceful behaviour by Rape Crisis and its cheating boss.
I very broadly agree with this.
My one quibble would be that if a man who thinks of himself as a woman goes through the extremely onerous task of meeting the requirements of the Gender Reform Act 2004 and obtains a certificate then it does not seem unreasonable that we treat her as a woman, whatever the biological reality, if it makes her life a bit easier. This is a legal fiction but it seems to me that it is an acceptable one provided those safeguards are in place and not diluted in any way. These safeguards must ensure that the person with the certificate is not a risk to women. The problem with the Scottish bill was that it removed all of those safeguards creating completely unacceptable risks.
This is the crux of the matter. The GRA provides a method by which a man can legally become a woman and it/subsequent law (I forget which) decrees that reasonable adjustments be made for that. I don't think people understood the ramifications of this at the time and as the reality becomes apparent people are rapidly generating post-hoc reasons why adjustments should not be made, of various believability. This poses a problem because the law is simply not being observed nor enforced.
Well if the law says reasonable adjustments then that's fair enough.
The problem is some want to treat it as all adjustments have to be made whether reasonable or unreasonable.
I have no idea about the Rayner case, but one thing I am aware of (having been involved in an election case [as a witness I hasten to add for the prosecution]) is that the police are fed up to the back teeth of people being reported to them for petty stuff for electioneering purposes. This has the consequence that when something is serious it often gets ignored by the police (at least initially) as being 'not this crap again'.
My view is the police should start charging people with wasting police time to get rid of the dross that is thrown at them by all parties particularly at election time such that when a proper election offence is committed it is not lost in the dross.
I would also like to add that the election laws need updating. They are a mess. Not enough time to list out here.
Indeed. If Rayner has broken electoral registration law, which has yet to be determined, it wouldn’t pass a threshold for prosecution as far as I can see from reading about the case. This is all just weak sauce.
Rishi Sunak has twice been fined by the police for breaking the law and he didn’t resign. The idea that this is a resigning matter for Rayner… I’m not remotely convinced.
Regardless of who benefits or loses electorally from these rules, they are a crime against democracy that risk creating a deep well of anger among disenfranchised voters, further poisoning our politics and suppressing participation in the democratic process. The Tories should rot in hell for it.
Yes, and this is one of the reasons why I do not trust them to decide what my human rights should be. A party that deliberately seeks to restrict the right to vote is not one that should ever have control over something so fundamental.
Most other countries require identification to vote. It is entirely reasonable.
The anger is confected by the left because they believe that they benefit from the current set up.
The countries that require identification to vote also have ID cards - name me one country that insists of ID for voting that doesn't have an ID card...
You are conflating two entirely separate things.
Protecting the integrity of the ballot is important. It is certainly more convenient if you have a national ID card, but not having one doesn’t undermine the importance of doing so
Except, as explained in my post earlier, we don't need to because it is a law that is very rarely broken and on the rare occasion it is it has no impact because it is pretty much impossible to vote much more than once and to do so is very silly because you stand a very very high chance of getting caught and going to prison because of the difficulty of doing so and getting away with it. Yet it disenfranchises many many many more people to enforce an id.
On the same logic you might as well post a policeman outside every house to prevent burglary. We don't because it is out of proportion to the crime.
Whereas postal vote fraud is exceptionally easy, much more difficult to spot and can be done with large numbers so impacting the result.
I have been in this election game a long time. I have only ever come across someone pretending to be someone else in a polling station once and they got caught. It is obvious if it happens because people complain they have lost their vote. When that happens it is invariably because an adjacent line on the register has been crossed through in the polling station.
Postal voting fraud however is endemic. It would also be useful for the parties. I am aware of it happening for the 3 main parties and usually it has been done without the party organisation being aware but organised by the candidate.
Indeed. I cannot believe people are still defending this madness.
It's a means to voter suppression, pure and simple. Let's just be clear about that and call it what it is.
So the Electoral Commission wants to suppress voting? Really?
I have just returned from hospital and seen Greater Manchester police are investigating Rayner over her registration for election purposes
I couldn't understand why it was said they were investigating her CGT liabilities as that is a HMRC matter so at least we now know why the police are involved
I have no idea how this will pan out but at least it should be resolved one way or another
Fantastic work by James Daly! This would be a massive scalp for the Conservatives. There could be a custodial sentence at the end of this rainbow. It's about time, with all the political corruption that has gone on over the last 5 years!
I rather like Angela Rayner. She's a big brassy northern slapper, Bet Lynch without the pints. Parliament needs more of them.
I am not sure any female contributors would approve of "she's a big brassy northern slapper".
The legal fiction should be followed so long as it doesn't violate safeguarding.
Competitive sport for instance, even if someone has a certificate, they're not a member of the female sex.
Similarly rape centres etc, even if someone has a certificate, they're not a member of the female sex.
The GRA may need amending to reflect that in my view, if its too broadbrush, but it seems a reasonable compromise.
Treat anyone with a certificate as their new sex, unless it matters for safeguarding reasons (and single sex sport for instance I'd count as a safeguarding reason).
On sports, I think it's best left to the individual bodies.
To take a silly example, I can't believe anyone would have an issue with a trans woman competing in female chess?
I can't see a reason to have single sex chess.
But if single sex chess exists, then it should remain single sex.
Then where should trans people go?
The open category, same as any other sport.
Women can play in the open category, they're not barred.
What do you mean by "open"? There is no open category in chess, it's men and women.
One thing I find disturbing about the gender debate is those who say that "gender is a societal construct" as a positive for then saying anyone can be the female gender if they please.
Gender if it is real, is a real thing, not a construct.
What is a construct is gender stereotypes and stereotypes are a bad thing we're supposed to be moving past, not reinforcing.
To suggest a man who meets a female stereotype is a woman (or vice-versa) is discriminatory and demeaning to all concerned.
If by gender you mean stereotypes, then we should say gender does not exist, only harmful stereotypes do and its time to move past them, not enforce them.
There are quite a number of people here that think gender is a construct as you say and doesn't really exist. We had one of those posts just earlier today.
Can we scientifically prove gender exists?
Hold on, just because something is a construct doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. Ethnicity is a construct. Religion is a construct.
So we've given up on tax avoidance and now moved onto something else.
Tax Avoidance is totally legal. The claims were not she had avoided tax but evaded it.
Actually, the claim was that she hadn't paid the tax some believe she owes. Ignorance of tax law unlike other forms of the law, is a defence. But that is not what they are investigating here.
If found to be true would be a resigning matter for me.
What makes you think ignorance of tax law is a defence? HMRC don’t share your viewpoint!
Yes they do - and Dan Neidle has said the same.
It’s not as clear cut as you think.
If a person has done their best to ensure they are aware of and understand their obligations but missed a particular requirement they may have a reasonable excuse for the failure.
Whether a person might be expected to be aware of and understand an obligation will depend on their abilities and circumstances as well as the nature of the obligation they missed.
In this case she will have had to make a positive declaration that it was her principal private residence. A reasonable person - assuming they lived elsewhere - would have likely thought about what that meant before ticking the box
The legal fiction should be followed so long as it doesn't violate safeguarding.
Competitive sport for instance, even if someone has a certificate, they're not a member of the female sex.
Similarly rape centres etc, even if someone has a certificate, they're not a member of the female sex.
The GRA may need amending to reflect that in my view, if its too broadbrush, but it seems a reasonable compromise.
Treat anyone with a certificate as their new sex, unless it matters for safeguarding reasons (and single sex sport for instance I'd count as a safeguarding reason).
On sports, I think it's best left to the individual bodies.
To take a silly example, I can't believe anyone would have an issue with a trans woman competing in female chess?
I can't see a reason to have single sex chess.
But if single sex chess exists, then it should remain single sex.
Then where should trans people go?
The open category, same as any other sport.
Women can play in the open category, they're not barred.
What do you mean by "open"? There is no open category in chess, it's men and women.
Women can play in the "men's" chess tournaments (see: Queen's Gambit) as the Hungarian Judit Pulgar has done since she was 14.
If you're arguing there should be no women's chess tournaments, then say so, but if there is a reason to have women's tournaments then leave them be.
I have just returned from hospital and seen Greater Manchester police are investigating Rayner over her registration for election purposes
I couldn't understand why it was said they were investigating her CGT liabilities as that is a HMRC matter so at least we now know why the police are involved
I have no idea how this will pan out but at least it should be resolved one way or another
Fantastic work by James Daly! This would be a massive scalp for the Conservatives. There could be a custodial sentence at the end of this rainbow. It's about time, with all the political corruption that has gone on over the last 5 years!
I rather like Angela Rayner. She's a big brassy northern slapper, Bet Lynch without the pints. Parliament needs more of them.
I am not sure any female contributors would approve of "she's a big brassy northern slapper".
What's the weather like today in Jurassic World?
Ah your poor middle class sensitivities. Never work in France you wont survive.
Regardless of who benefits or loses electorally from these rules, they are a crime against democracy that risk creating a deep well of anger among disenfranchised voters, further poisoning our politics and suppressing participation in the democratic process. The Tories should rot in hell for it.
Yes, and this is one of the reasons why I do not trust them to decide what my human rights should be. A party that deliberately seeks to restrict the right to vote is not one that should ever have control over something so fundamental.
Most other countries require identification to vote. It is entirely reasonable.
The anger is confected by the left because they believe that they benefit from the current set up.
The countries that require identification to vote also have ID cards - name me one country that insists of ID for voting that doesn't have an ID card...
You are conflating two entirely separate things.
Protecting the integrity of the ballot is important. It is certainly more convenient if you have a national ID card, but not having one doesn’t undermine the importance of doing so
Except, as explained in my post earlier, we don't need to because it is a law that is very rarely broken and on the rare occasion it is it has no impact because it is pretty much impossible to vote much more than once and to do so is very silly because you stand a very very high chance of getting caught and going to prison because of the difficulty of doing so and getting away with it. Yet it disenfranchises many many many more people to enforce an id.
On the same logic you might as well post a policeman outside every house to prevent burglary. We don't because it is out of proportion to the crime.
Whereas postal vote fraud is exceptionally easy, much more difficult to spot and can be done with large numbers so impacting the result.
I have been in this election game a long time. I have only ever come across someone pretending to be someone else in a polling station once and they got caught. It is obvious if it happens because people complain they have lost their vote. When that happens it is invariably because an adjacent line on the register has been crossed through in the polling station.
Postal voting fraud however is endemic. It would also be useful for the parties. I am aware of it happening for the 3 main parties and usually it has been done without the party organisation being aware but organised by the candidate.
Integrity of the ballot is about being seen to be protected
That’s why the electoral commission recommended the introduction of voter ID
The reality has always been in person voting has been robust and resilient. Postal voting not so much, and that has remained unhindered.
Democracy is far more compromised if 50,000 to 70,000 are deprived of a rightful vote on the gerrymandered whim of an incumbent party than a couple of dodgy voters over a decade of elections. 50,000 to 70,000 votes in an FPTP system could mean the difference between a Conservative wipeout and a Conservative Government.
@StillWaters in response to your point on the other thread that when people have medically transitioned they are not really women. That is the position of JK Rowling and Kathleen Stock.
Its a perfectly respectable position.
Rowling, Stock, Cyclefree etc are real women, they were born women, they are women.
A man who transitions to "become" a woman may be a transwoman but they're not a real woman. They'll never be.
That's not dehumanising. They're a real human. For all intents and purposes, unless it violates safeguarding, they can be treated as women, but the distinction still needs to exist.
Competitive female sport for example should belong to real women. A transwoman should never be entitled to play in
While the substance of what you say is correct, I would use the term "sex" rather than "real woman" because that could be used by some in a way which is insulting. And, having seen the insults hurled at women (including me - and by some on this forum) I think it best to try and avoid this.
A man can never - even with surgery - become a member of the female sex. And since sex is relevant in so many situations - sport, safeguarding etc - a transitioned man has to be regarded as a member of the male sex. But for social purposes - like @Leon's friend, Julia - there is no reason why he can't live, dress, call himself however he wants etc. How his friends and family respond is up to them but it is not a matter of compulsion. You cannot force others to share your own views about yourself and it is the height of narcissism to think that you can or should.
Gender to me is no different to a soul. It is some undefinable essence that some people believe in and others don't. Far too much of what people call "gender" seems to me to be no more than stereotypes and it is bizarre to me that so many on the gender side seem so intent on reinforcing very old-fashioned stereotypes.
But I do not believe in gender. I am of the female sex. Discrimination has happened to me because of my sex. Sexual assault has happened to me because of my sex. It happens to every woman because of her sex. My health, how my body develops and ages is affected by my sex.There is no getting away from that. Women cannot identify out of their sex. If we could we'd all be earning 40% more and having our bullshit treated with undeserved respect.
Men are of the male sex - and since sex matters in so many situations - there are very good reasons why separation on the basis of sex has to happen in those situations. And why clear language about sex matters. It is absurd that anyone thinks otherwise.
And - let me absolutely blunt here - any man who seeks to breach a woman's boundaries against her consent, whatever his reasons, is a predator, has the mentality of a predator. It is a giant red flag. "No means no" and, no, women do not have to justify this.
The vast majority of men claiming to be women do not make surgical or hormonal changes. They are men - whatever they wear - because - and does this really need saying again? - womanhood is a reality not a costume.
As for Rowling she has put her money where her mouth is and financed a female only rape refuge in Edinburgh - Beira Place - after the utterly disgraceful behaviour by Rape Crisis and its cheating boss.
I very broadly agree with this.
My one quibble would be that if a man who thinks of himself as a woman goes through the extremely onerous task of meeting the requirements of the Gender Reform Act 2004 and obtains a certificate then it does not seem unreasonable that we treat her as a woman, whatever the biological reality, if it makes her life a bit easier. This is a legal fiction but it seems to me that it is an acceptable one provided those safeguards are in place and not diluted in any way. These safeguards must ensure that the person with the certificate is not a risk to women. The problem with the Scottish bill was that it removed all of those safeguards creating completely unacceptable risks.
This is the crux of the matter. The GRA provides a method by which a man can legally become a woman and it/subsequent law (I forget which) decrees that reasonable adjustments be made for that. I don't think people understood the ramifications of this at the time and as the reality becomes apparent people are rapidly generating post-hoc reasons why adjustments should not be made, of various believability. This poses a problem because the law is simply not being observed nor enforced.
Well if the law says reasonable adjustments then that's fair enough.
The problem is some want to treat it as all adjustments have to be made whether reasonable or unreasonable.
Violating safeguarding is unreasonable.
I don't know the case law - from memory there was a case in the 2010s where one person sued the Sun, but no doubt there will be others. But the statute law is here:
So we've given up on tax avoidance and now moved onto something else.
Tax Avoidance is totally legal. The claims were not she had avoided tax but evaded it.
Actually, the claim was that she hadn't paid the tax some believe she owes. Ignorance of tax law unlike other forms of the law, is a defence. But that is not what they are investigating here.
If found to be true would be a resigning matter for me.
What makes you think ignorance of tax law is a defence? HMRC don’t share your viewpoint!
Wrong.
It is a defence against criminal activity ("if that view was sincerely held").
It doesn't get you off paying the tax – if Angela owes the Taxman a grand or so she will still have to pay him retrospectively, but if she didn't know in all good conscience then her withholding of that payment would not be criminal as long as she settles the bill.
This applies in large areas of law: "if that view was sincerely held" can and is a defence to many transgressions where there is a reasonable expectation that the accused was genuinely ignorant of the law.
I replied on this, but for HMRC the equivalent of a due and careful investigation standard applies.
That’s not to say a prosecution is in the public interest - it likely isn’t - but in this case I don’t think ignorance applies as she would have had to specifically apply for the relief
The legal fiction should be followed so long as it doesn't violate safeguarding.
Competitive sport for instance, even if someone has a certificate, they're not a member of the female sex.
Similarly rape centres etc, even if someone has a certificate, they're not a member of the female sex.
The GRA may need amending to reflect that in my view, if its too broadbrush, but it seems a reasonable compromise.
Treat anyone with a certificate as their new sex, unless it matters for safeguarding reasons (and single sex sport for instance I'd count as a safeguarding reason).
On sports, I think it's best left to the individual bodies.
To take a silly example, I can't believe anyone would have an issue with a trans woman competing in female chess?
I can't see a reason to have single sex chess.
But if single sex chess exists, then it should remain single sex.
Chess has two categories of tournaments, open and women’s. Yes there was an argument last year about trans women entering the women’s events.
IIRC actually most sports have this structure, even where no women compete such as golf and tennis, as well as where they do such as darts, equestrian, motorsport.
I have just returned from hospital and seen Greater Manchester police are investigating Rayner over her registration for election purposes
I couldn't understand why it was said they were investigating her CGT liabilities as that is a HMRC matter so at least we now know why the police are involved
I have no idea how this will pan out but at least it should be resolved one way or another
Fantastic work by James Daly! This would be a massive scalp for the Conservatives. There could be a custodial sentence at the end of this rainbow. It's about time, with all the political corruption that has gone on over the last 5 years!
I rather like Angela Rayner. She's a big brassy northern slapper, Bet Lynch without the pints. Parliament needs more of them.
I am not sure any female contributors would approve of "she's a big brassy northern slapper".
What's the weather like today in Jurassic World?
Ah your poor middle class sensitivities. Never work in France you wont survive.
Sir Keir massively got away with that Durham drink. One day I reckon the truth will come out. His guilt was written all over his face when Sophie Raworth quizzed him on it; he knew he’d done wrong, but they found a way to get him off
Can you explain how he "got away with it" and if you have evidence, why not report it to the Police?
Do you not find it very strange that the witnesses to the event happened to be walking past a private/enclosed building's window and the person happened to be the son of somebody who wanted to write a story for the Mail?
My view is that the Labour left set it up to try and remove him. So they conspired with the Mail who also wanted him gone. Very "pro Labour" - of course they've never been pro Labour, only pro Corbyn
It’s my opinion that he got away with it, I don’t have to justify it at all. I’m not demanding the case be reopened, I just don’t believe the story they concocted that got him off. That is allowed, and that’s what it is happening
I'ts my opinion that Charles Dickens assasinated Franz Ferdinand. I don't have to justify this opinion at all.
I can spout an crap I like and when challenged about it, I just shrug my shoulders reply "just sayin'".
Not really, had I not been banned on here at the time you would have read me repeatedly making my case. As it is I did do on Twitter, and in an argument with Alastair Meeks that ruined/finished what was quite an enjoyable friendship. But I don’t want to go over it all again, I’ll stick with what I think, which is that Sir Keir did break the rules, and they concocted a story retrospectively that fit the them
@StillWaters in response to your point on the other thread that when people have medically transitioned they are not really women. That is the position of JK Rowling and Kathleen Stock.
Its a perfectly respectable position.
Rowling, Stock, Cyclefree etc are real women, they were born women, they are women.
A man who transitions to "become" a woman may be a transwoman but they're not a real woman. They'll never be.
That's not dehumanising. They're a real human. For all intents and purposes, unless it violates safeguarding, they can be treated as women, but the distinction still needs to exist.
Competitive female sport for example should belong to real women. A transwoman should never be entitled to play in
While the substance of what you say is correct, I would use the term "sex" rather than "real woman" because that could be used by some in a way which is insulting. And, having seen the insults hurled at women (including me - and by some on this forum) I think it best to try and avoid this.
A man can never - even with surgery - become a member of the female sex. And since sex is relevant in so many situations - sport, safeguarding etc - a transitioned man has to be regarded as a member of the male sex. But for social purposes - like @Leon's friend, Julia - there is no reason why he can't live, dress, call himself however he wants etc. How his friends and family respond is up to them but it is not a matter of compulsion. You cannot force others to share your own views about yourself and it is the height of narcissism to think that you can or should.
Gender to me is no different to a soul. It is some undefinable essence that some people believe in and others don't. Far too much of what people call "gender" seems to me to be no more than stereotypes and it is bizarre to me that so many on the gender side seem so intent on reinforcing very old-fashioned stereotypes.
But I do not believe in gender. I am of the female sex. Discrimination has happened to me because of my sex. Sexual assault has happened to me because of my sex. It happens to every woman because of her sex. My health, how my body develops and ages is affected by my sex.There is no getting away from that. Women cannot identify out of their sex. If we could we'd all be earning 40% more and having our bullshit treated with undeserved respect.
Men are of the male sex - and since sex matters in so many situations - there are very good reasons why separation on the basis of sex has to happen in those situations. And why clear language about sex matters. It is absurd that anyone thinks otherwise.
And - let me absolutely blunt here - any man who seeks to breach a woman's boundaries against her consent, whatever his reasons, is a predator, has the mentality of a predator. It is a giant red flag. "No means no" and, no, women do not have to justify this.
The vast majority of men claiming to be women do not make surgical or hormonal changes. They are men - whatever they wear - because - and does this really need saying again? - womanhood is a reality not a costume.
As for Rowling she has put her money where her mouth is and financed a female only rape refuge in Edinburgh - Beira Place - after the utterly disgraceful behaviour by Rape Crisis and its cheating boss.
If you don't believe in gender it surely follows that you don't believe that changing it, surgery or not, seld-id or not, is valid or meaningful. But we have provided, with the GRA, a route for a person to do this and for it to be legally recognised. How to square that?
There's a bit of sleight of hand at play.
First people insist that gender and sex are two completely different concepts, and so, of course, one can change your gender because gender is a social construct and has nothing to do with sex.
But, then, these same people, then conflate gender with sex and insist that a change of gender must be treated exactly as a change in sex, with all that entails in terms of prisons, sex-based safeguarding and equality law, etc.
So which is it? Are gender and sex two different things, and a person can have a legally-recognised gender that is different to their sex, and it is legitimate to settle some things in society on the basis of sex rather than gender? Or are the two different words for the same thing, and if someone has changed their gender they must be treated as having changed their sex, in all ways?
The legal fiction should be followed so long as it doesn't violate safeguarding.
Competitive sport for instance, even if someone has a certificate, they're not a member of the female sex.
Similarly rape centres etc, even if someone has a certificate, they're not a member of the female sex.
The GRA may need amending to reflect that in my view, if its too broadbrush, but it seems a reasonable compromise.
Treat anyone with a certificate as their new sex, unless it matters for safeguarding reasons (and single sex sport for instance I'd count as a safeguarding reason).
On sports, I think it's best left to the individual bodies.
To take a silly example, I can't believe anyone would have an issue with a trans woman competing in female chess?
I can't see a reason to have single sex chess.
But if single sex chess exists, then it should remain single sex.
Then where should trans people go?
The open category, same as any other sport.
Women can play in the open category, they're not barred.
What do you mean by "open"? There is no open category in chess, it's men and women.
Women can play in the "men's" chess tournaments (see: Queen's Gambit) as the Hungarian Judit Pulgar has done since she was 14.
If you're arguing there should be no women's chess tournaments, then say so, but if there is a reason to have women's tournaments then leave them be.
I can’t see how sex based competitions in chess can make any difference.
So what you are saying is that men’s category should be renamed open. That’s pretty much what I think too.
I have just returned from hospital and seen Greater Manchester police are investigating Rayner over her registration for election purposes
I couldn't understand why it was said they were investigating her CGT liabilities as that is a HMRC matter so at least we now know why the police are involved
I have no idea how this will pan out but at least it should be resolved one way or another
Fantastic work by James Daly! This would be a massive scalp for the Conservatives. There could be a custodial sentence at the end of this rainbow. It's about time, with all the political corruption that has gone on over the last 5 years!
Comments
On the same logic you might as well post a policeman outside every house to prevent burglary. We don't because it is out of proportion to the crime.
Whereas postal vote fraud is exceptionally easy, much more difficult to spot and can be done with large numbers so impacting the result.
I have been in this election game a long time. I have only ever come across someone pretending to be someone else in a polling station once and they got caught. It is obvious if it happens because people complain they have lost their vote. When that happens it is invariably because an adjacent line on the register has been crossed through in the polling station.
Postal voting fraud however is endemic. It would also be useful for the parties. I am aware of it happening for the 3 main parties and usually it has been done without the party organisation being aware but organised by the candidate.
So the Heil, GBeebies et al attack Rayner to the approval of the remaining 14 Tory voters whilst Facebook and TwiX churns out loads of Tory corruption stuff because what's good for the goose must be good for the gander.
The evasive answers given to straightforward questions about the house sale didn’t make sense - unless there was a background of eg living in one house but registering to vote in another, or renting out a house that was declared to the Parliamentary authorities as her primary or secondary residence, much more serious offences both legally and politically.
If she’s charged with electoral offences, she probably needs to take the Chiltern Hundreds to clear her name, although plenty of MPs have stuck it out in similar circumstances. If convicted she could be open to recall or barred from standing. That she’s directly elected as deputy leader of the party creates another headache for Starmer, and not what he wants in the news three weeks before the local elections.
Do you not find it very strange that the witnesses to the event happened to be walking past a private/enclosed building's window and the person happened to be the son of somebody who wanted to write a story for the Mail?
My view is that the Labour left set it up to try and remove him. So they conspired with the Mail who also wanted him gone. Very "pro Labour" - of course they've never been pro Labour, only pro Corbyn
It's a means to voter suppression, pure and simple. Let's just be clear about that and call it what it is.
https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-1612282/I-want-to-be-the-man-to-fix-the-Post-Office.html
'I like fixing things, fixing businesses,' he says. 'I'm at my best when I go in somewhere and things are looking desperate. Then after a while employees start saying "good - things are changing for the betterî. I like that.'
But that is the opposite of what many disheartened employees are saying about the new hard-sell approach. Since Cook came on board, the Post Office has shifted more than 550,000 financial products - everything from car cover to travel insurance.
As Financial Mail reported last week, many staff say the aggressive selling to customers risks damaging the Post Office's trusted brand.
Cook counters by saying that a more business-like approach is essential for survival.
I could as easy say if my granny had wheels would she be a wheelbarrow.
Boris doesn’t really believe in anything either. He’s just better at covering it up.
What did he concoct? I really want to understand but you're being quite vague.
How does an organisation with prosecutorial powers, not have at least one committee on which the CEO sits that discusses prosecutions?
No offence RP, but do you actually think statements like that are going to look good for you if you get elected.? I think it will bite you in the arse which would be a shame.
It is a defence against criminal activity ("if that view was sincerely held").
It doesn't get you off paying the tax – if Angela owes the Taxman a grand or so she will still have to pay him retrospectively, but if she didn't know in all good conscience then her withholding of that payment would not be criminal as long as she settles the bill.
This applies in large areas of law: "if that view was sincerely held" can and is a defence to many transgressions where there is a reasonable expectation that the accused was genuinely ignorant of the law.
Actually, the way I read it was that it's remarkably supportive of trans people. It doesn't say they don't exist or are all mentally ill. What it does say is that children need to be protected from having treatments tried on them that are untested/unsafe and that can cause irreversible harm. It also says that a holistic approach to the issue is needed.
None of these things vindicate anything that the most anti-trans people think at all. It vindicates people that said children were being tested on, which is some of what Graham Linehan said. But he also implied that trans people don't exist and compared Eddie Izzard to a rapist.
Actually I think Cass is incredibly centrist, it's probably the most articulate/balanced/constructive thing I've read on this entire topic.
"Fat" Tony - "The olive oil business is complex. I would say 'I have a problem'. How was I to know that the problems ended up in the East River?"
It's a thought experiment for the purpose of explaining the difference between sex and gender.
Two scenarios.
1. A genie in a lamp turns Cyclefree into a man (against her will). Cyclefree remains unchanged in her mind. She has all the experiences, attitudes, and feelings of being a woman, yet has a biologically male body. Is she male or female? Note I'm using the correct pronouns here - according to Cyclefree's own last post re: Leon's friend I should be saying "Cyclefree remains unchanged in his mind, is he male or female?")
2. Famous lothario and flint knapper Leon gets curious about life as a woman and asks his mate Julie how to transition. She says "oh, what I did is old hat now. There's this new procedure that physically changes your chromosomes, from the outside in. It's one of the many benefits of MRNA research and now, when you transition, you take a little injection that makes you 100% biologically female, undetectable from any other "biological" woman." For whatever reason, Leon eagerly takes the injection and wakes up tomorrow in a biologically female body. Would cyclefree be happy sharing a changing room, female only swimming pool, etc, with Leon in his new body? Or is there something about being a woman that is learned over time, is there something in a person's attitude that contributes to womanhood?
One of these scenarios is magical fantasy, the other is science fiction. But the latter scenario may be possible in a hundred year's time, if you really want to argue the "totally impossible" thing.
The purpose is to clearly demonstrate what strings of feminist philosophers have been telling us for years, long before the trans debate ever existed, hence the de beauviour quote - that one "becomes" a woman in the sense that certain attributes of what we consider womanhood are constructed by society rather than biologically inherited.
I'm using a reductio ad absurdam argument with genies in lamps and gene resequencing, but my point is valid. There is more to being a woman or being a man than simply inhabiting the body of one. This is, in many respects, the TERF argument in a nutshell - that you can't simply wear femininity as a "costume", it has to be something inside you. But where the TERFs go wrong is that this is learned experience, which is constructed. Being stuck in a biologically male or female body doesn't necessarily make you either of those things.
Cyclefree would no more be a man if she was in a man's body than Leon would be female if you put him in the body of a biological woman. It is their experiences, their attitudes and their thoughts and feelings which make them male or female, irrespective of their bodies.
Yes, biological sex exists. But my little reductio ad absurdam was intended to explain the difference between biological sex and gender.
However, the fall in immigration numbers I'm expecting will simply come too late for the Conservatives. The new Labour government will get the credit.
But does he really think when asked about trans people to immediately jump to "what are trans people" and then to immediately jump into Eddie Izzard vs a serial rapist is really helpful to the cause?
As this story illustrates, this draconian and unjust policy likely doesn't even save the government money.
Carer convicted over benefit error worth 30p a week fights to clear his name
George Henderson had to sell his home to repay nearly £20,000, years after ticking wrong box on carer’s allowance form
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/apr/12/carers-allowance-benefit-error-30p-a-week-dwp
Competitive sport for instance, even if someone has a certificate, they're not a member of the female sex.
Similarly rape centres etc, even if someone has a certificate, they're not a member of the female sex.
The GRA may need amending to reflect that in my view, if its too broadbrush, but it seems a reasonable compromise.
Treat anyone with a certificate as their new sex, unless it matters for safeguarding reasons (and single sex sport for instance I'd count as a safeguarding reason).
So it’s not just the right thing to do, it’s politically advantageous and economically advantageous as well.
To take a silly example, I can't believe anyone would have an issue with a trans woman competing in female chess?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_chess#Transgender_women
Gender if it is real, is a real thing, not a construct.
What is a construct is gender stereotypes and stereotypes are a bad thing we're supposed to be moving past, not reinforcing.
To suggest a man who meets a female stereotype is a woman (or vice-versa) is discriminatory and demeaning to all concerned.
If by gender you mean stereotypes, then we should say gender does not exist, only harmful stereotypes do and its time to move past them, not enforce them.
You're welcome, PB
(bows to the audience and walks offstage)
I couldn't understand why it was said they were investigating her CGT liabilities as that is a HMRC matter so at least we now know why the police are involved
I have no idea how this will pan out but at least it should be resolved one way or another
My view is the police should start charging people with wasting police time to get rid of the dross that is thrown at them by all parties particularly at election time such that when a proper election offence is committed it is not lost in the dross.
I would also like to add that the election laws need updating. They are a mess. Not enough time to list out here.
More likely her adviser said “everyone does it, no one cares” and she didn’t think through the moral and political aspects
But if single sex chess exists, then it should remain single sex.
Can we scientifically prove gender exists?
Women can play in the open category, they're not barred.
Of course the Likudnik warmongers here will have the Kleenex to hand for the escalation that comes.
https://x.com/skynews/status/1778729054809591942?s=61
I can spout an crap I like and when challenged about it, I just shrug my shoulders reply "just sayin'".
That’s why the electoral commission recommended the introduction of voter ID
https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/media-centre/id-needed-polling-stations-recommends-independent-watchdog
The problem is some want to treat it as all adjustments have to be made whether reasonable or unreasonable.
Violating safeguarding is unreasonable.
Rishi Sunak has twice been fined by the police for breaking the law and he didn’t resign. The idea that this is a resigning matter for Rayner… I’m not remotely convinced.
What's the weather like today in Jurassic World?
If a person has done their best to ensure they are aware of and understand their obligations but missed a particular requirement they may have a reasonable excuse for the failure.
Whether a person might be expected to be aware of and understand an obligation will depend on their abilities and circumstances as well as the nature of the obligation they missed.
https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/compliance-handbook/ch160600
In this case she will have had to make a positive declaration that it was her principal private residence. A reasonable person - assuming they lived elsewhere - would have likely thought about what that meant before ticking the box
If you're arguing there should be no women's chess tournaments, then say so, but if there is a reason to have women's tournaments then leave them be.
Democracy is far more compromised if 50,000 to 70,000 are deprived of a rightful vote on the gerrymandered whim of an incumbent party than a couple of dodgy voters over a decade of elections. 50,000 to 70,000 votes in an FPTP system could mean the difference between a Conservative wipeout and a Conservative Government.
Sorry, that should be Independent.
That’s not to say a prosecution is in the public interest - it likely isn’t - but in this case I don’t think ignorance applies as she would have had to specifically apply for the relief
IIRC actually most sports have this structure, even where no women compete such as golf and tennis, as well as where they do such as darts, equestrian, motorsport.
Not really, had I not been banned on here at the time you would have read me repeatedly making my case. As it is I did do on Twitter, and in an argument with Alastair Meeks that ruined/finished what was quite an enjoyable friendship. But I don’t want to go over it all again, I’ll stick with what I think, which is that Sir Keir did break the rules, and they concocted a story retrospectively that fit the them
First people insist that gender and sex are two completely different concepts, and so, of course, one can change your gender because gender is a social construct and has nothing to do with sex.
But, then, these same people, then conflate gender with sex and insist that a change of gender must be treated exactly as a change in sex, with all that entails in terms of prisons, sex-based safeguarding and equality law, etc.
So which is it? Are gender and sex two different things, and a person can have a legally-recognised gender that is different to their sex, and it is legitimate to settle some things in society on the basis of sex rather than gender? Or are the two different words for the same thing, and if someone has changed their gender they must be treated as having changed their sex, in all ways?
So what you are saying is that men’s category should be renamed open. That’s pretty much what I think too.