The prism through which we view betting odds never fails to fascinate me - it seems that there needs to be some kind of black swan event in order for Labour to not win a majority at the next election, and we’d be saying it was one of the greatest collapses and polling disasters of all time. But if a 13/2f won the Grand National people might say it was an uncompetitive procession despite both outcomes being the same price
There are 32 runners in the Grand National - all of them with at least an outside chance.
Realistically, in a UK general election under FPTP, there are two (three if you include 'hung Parliament').
I don’t really get why you said that
I'm a bit too much of a pedant, I think.
I still don’t get it. I know what you said is true, but it’s obvious, and doesn’t make any difference to the original post, unless I’m missing something
@lara_spirit Labour lead at *30 points* in this week's YouGov poll for The Times
That's the biggest Labour lead since Truss
CON 18 (=) LAB 48 (+4) LIB DEM 9 (-1) REF UK 13 (-2) GRN 7 (-1)
Fieldwork 7 - 8 May
Yougov doubling down after the gap between the 2 main parties was found to be considerably smaller than their polling was indicating. I am beginning to seriously wonder whether their panel system has reached the end of the road. They were well outside the margin of error in London.
No one doubts that Labour are well ahead but I simply don't believe this is compatible with the millions of votes counted in the last week.
The only way it makes sense is if there are a lot of people willing to vote for the8r conservative councillor or conservative council who are nevertheless so unhappy with the government that they will shop elsewhere at the GE.
I suspect it’s more likely that many of these Tories are using opinion poll responses to register a protest by saying they’ll vote Reform, when they won’t. Reform will get 6-7%, not 13%, and the Tories will get more like 25%.
Yougov like Godwin seem to desperately want a Canada 1993 scenario for Reform to overtake the Tories and therefore Reform seems to be higher with them than other polls at Tory expense
YouGov don’t “want” anything. They’re a polling company and if they get things wrong then they won’t be trusted. You’re as bad as the Corbynite nutters who don’t trust them because they were “founded by a Tory”.
If anyone wants a 1993 result for the Tories it’s a very very large proportion of the British public.
The goldstandard pollsters of the last 2 general elections have been Survation and Opinium, who were closer to the final voteshares than Yougov were.
The Last Opinium has Labour 40%, Tories 24% and Reform 12% and Survation has Labour 44% Tories 26% and Reform 10%.
Sure. But you accused YouGov seeming to "...desperately want a Canada 1993 scenario..." which is not true and, on a site that discusses polling and odds on political outcomes, not to my mind an acceptable thing to say about a highly reputable pollster.
Hmmm, 1.15 for Labour majority. Is that a certain 15% return in six months? I don't fancy backing it.
I've posed this question several times. Most on here seem to expect a labour majority, and there is 15% return by end of Jan 2025, yet people are a bit reluctant to take it. Is it because deep down in the wallet people don't believe that the polling will be reflected on the day? That swingback will occur? Not sure. I've covered my book for all three possible outcomes (Labour maj, hung and Tory maj) so I'm happy, but I am expecting a Labour Majority well into double figures, if not triple. So why don't more agree?
Perhaps because there's better value? a 15% return is pretty measly over 5-8 months when there's that level of capital risk and so many other markets to play. You can get roughly the same return by back both Biden and Trump to be the next US president.
Hmmm, 1.15 for Labour majority. Is that a certain 15% return in six months? I don't fancy backing it.
I've posed this question several times. Most on here seem to expect a labour majority, and there is 15% return by end of Jan 2025, yet people are a bit reluctant to take it. Is it because deep down in the wallet people don't believe that the polling will be reflected on the day? That swingback will occur? Not sure. I've covered my book for all three possible outcomes (Labour maj, hung and Tory maj) so I'm happy, but I am expecting a Labour Majority well into double figures, if not triple. So why don't more agree?
Reason 1: polls before the campaign starts assess the public opinion of the Govt more than VI, and only seriously become VI after the campaign is called. Reason 2: my attention is more on the POTUS in November Reason 3: I have more than one job and I am running my ragged arse off Reason 4: I am worried about YouGov's error in London 24
I will get on Potus24 and on UKGE24/5, and I will post here when I do it. But it won't be soon. Genuine apols ☹️
He's a competent historian by all accounts, he was a few years above me at Trinity and I've chatted about him to our mutual tutor, but he leaves academic rigour behind for political spin. His guff the other week about the "High Court of Parliament" being able to determine facts being a case in point.
When you look at the details of the poll it looks like most of the increase in Labour support is from an increase in Labour 2019 voters who say they will vote Labour again, from 70% to 75%. Labour DK/WS/R down from 15% to 11%.
I think this is evidence of the "looking like a winner" effect following the local elections.
The Scottish Greens have been accused of prioritising ideology over protecting children after the party again refused to endorse an expert report into gender healthcare.
Patrick Harvie, who until last month was a Scottish government minister, claimed that a Holyrood motion welcoming the Cass Review and recognising it as a “valid scientific document” was not “supportable” by his party....
All other parties, including the SNP, endorsed Hilary Cass’s report at Holyrood. However, all seven Green MSPs voted against the motion, with Mr Harvie claiming that transgender people were having their “very existence refuted”....
Brian Whittle, a Tory MSP, asked Mr Harvie whether he would now seek to listen to “alternative experts” on climate change after he refused to accept the findings of Dr Cass, a widely respected consultant paediatrician.
“You don’t get to choose your experts just to fit your ideology,” Mr Whittle said. “Especially when it’s the health of children at stake.
The Cass report is not a scientific document - it did not go through peer review, even if it did review some peer reviewed studies. The Cass report is, at best, a policy document written by a healthcare expert and, at worst, a clear attempt to ignore the growing consensus that transgender healthcare, including for young people, is not a threat and has positive impacts. We saw Cass only the other day talking about how "other methods" such as antidepressants, antianxiety medication and therapy "had not been tried" with young people expressing gender dysphoria and wanting to transition which is a) not true and b) beside the point because you can be both trans and depressed at the same time!
Do you know what peer review means? This is absolutely a scientific document - its a review of lots of research. You just don't like it because it doesn't ape your world view.
Peer review means it going through the scrutiny of other people with expertise (peers) reviewing the work before publication. Which the Cass report didn't go through. Some people argue if it needed to, but I would personally say if you want to call the Cass report "science" it needs to have gone through some form of peer review.
Rubbish. Utter drivel. The paper I am writing at the moment is not science yet because it's not been submitted to peer review? You just don't like it because it has a different view to yours.
The scientific method requires that things that are published go through peer review to check that the methodology makes sense, the results are real, and that the experiment or scenario within the paper itself is repeatable...
Peer review prior to publication is something required by convention, rather than something required by 'the scientific method' itself.
The Cass report includes discussion and analysis of a number of scientific publications, though comes to few conclusions about them other than that they are far from definitive.
It also includes a great deal of narrative writing on sociopolitical issues, as well as the state of knowledge in the field.
It's certainly not a scientific paper in the accepted sense. And its own conclusions are far from definitive, either.
Agree. I've written plenty of reports for funders (often made public) that are not peer reviewed. Many of them get more exposure than the papers - I've had the reports picked up by BBC/ITV etc but not the papers (I normally will package the same research up in a peer reviewed paper too, with a slightly different angle/more analysis).
The Cass review is a report. Whether it's called scientific is largely semantics.* It summarises the evidence** and then, due to the lack of evidence, goes further into recommendations based on the authors' best guesses/feelings about the right way forwards. The reviews that were carried out and the primary qualitative research and upcoming secondary healthcare data analysis follow the scientific method and are cautious about concluding anything where the evidence is not there. The report does (and should - no one would have been impressed if Cass had simply said "we don't know, more research is needed) go beyond what has a sound basis in scientific evidence.
* Take my reports mentioned above - they report on science, but I'm not sure I'd call all of them scientific reports - some were a bit too broad brush and narrative for that, I think. I also think it's not that important a distinction. ** Imperfectly, but I think that's inevitable.
Which is great but my issue is that @148grss is trying to diminish the Cass report as not scientific, therefore not of value, can be ignored etc. Which is very wrong indeed.
It reminds me of those who decried that the covid vaccines where not tested fully because the times scales were quicked and overlapped. Its a position that someone doesn't like the report therefore will attack it, rather than discuss what is says and why they believe that the conclusions are wrong.
I have done that too - but the point started with the Scottish Greens saying they didn't think the Cass review was a "valid scientific document". I explained part of why I agreed with that sentiment - that it wasn't peer reviewed. Cass is not a specialist in transgender healthcare in young people, and is a specialist in children with disabilities; her publications are about children with disabilities, primarily Rett's syndrome and autism. She is out of her expertise when discussing transgender healthcare; from my point of view it would be reasonable to have experts in that field if not part of the report then at least be part of the scrutiny of the report - that doesn't seem to have been the case. That is why I was talking about the validity of calling the report a "scientific" one, because that was the nature of the conversation.
@lara_spirit Labour lead at *30 points* in this week's YouGov poll for The Times
That's the biggest Labour lead since Truss
CON 18 (=) LAB 48 (+4) LIB DEM 9 (-1) REF UK 13 (-2) GRN 7 (-1)
Fieldwork 7 - 8 May
Yougov doubling down after the gap between the 2 main parties was found to be considerably smaller than their polling was indicating. I am beginning to seriously wonder whether their panel system has reached the end of the road. They were well outside the margin of error in London.
No one doubts that Labour are well ahead but I simply don't believe this is compatible with the millions of votes counted in the last week.
The only way it makes sense is if there are a lot of people willing to vote for the8r conservative councillor or conservative council who are nevertheless so unhappy with the government that they will shop elsewhere at the GE.
I suspect it’s more likely that many of these Tories are using opinion poll responses to register a protest by saying they’ll vote Reform, when they won’t. Reform will get 6-7%, not 13%, and the Tories will get more like 25%.
Yougov like Godwin seem to desperately want a Canada 1993 scenario for Reform to overtake the Tories and therefore Reform seems to be higher with them than other polls at Tory expense
YouGov don’t “want” anything. They’re a polling company and if they get things wrong then they won’t be trusted. You’re as bad as the Corbynite nutters who don’t trust them because they were “founded by a Tory”.
If anyone wants a 1993 result for the Tories it’s a very very large proportion of the British public.
The goldstandard pollsters of the last 2 general elections have been Survation and Opinium, who were closer to the final voteshares than Yougov were.
The Last Opinium has Labour 40%, Tories 24% and Reform 12% and Survation has Labour 44% Tories 26% and Reform 10%.
Opinium may very well be accurate. However you are on a sticky wicket quoting their historical success whilst current Opinium polling is based on a vastly different methodology.
Poor Brian Altman KC - someone should have reminded him of how Robert Maxwell used his advisors. He used their good reputation to cloak his own rather less good one.
It is a difficult issue for lawyers: even bad actors are entitled to good lawyers. And acting for a bad guy does not imply approval of their misbehaviour.
But his two mistakes were that he did not sufficiently question or think about what he was being asked to opine on by the Post Office and perhaps over-indulged in overly clever legal comments as if he were involved in an academic exercise. He was the victim of what barristers often do in cross-examination to witnesses: he was funnelled into giving the answer the PO wanted to hear.
His other mistake was in giving an opinion on matters he was not qualified to assess. He had no real basis for assessing how good the PO's internal investigations team was. And he didn't even ask the most basic questions. This failing was pretty brutally exposed by Jason Beer yesterday.
What flattery and large fees will get you ....
Just because you are an expert in X does not make you an expert on Y. A lesson for us all.
It might well, if you have been brought in specifically for the purpose of reviewing the property of their past behaviour. He was brought in for independent advice, not to advocate for them.
And he was, at the time, aware of the risk he was taking - though note his concern was of "exposure to criticism" rather than the possibility perpetuating a possible miscarriage of justice.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cld0rewpy01o ...he avoided meeting Mr Jenkins and did not advise the Post Office to investigate his evidence. Mr Clarke’s advice was not shown to defendants until 2021. The inquiry saw evidence that Mr Altman re-wrote the terms of reference of his review to remove issues of Gareth Jenkins’ evidence and avoided meeting him. He wrote to fellow lawyers for the Post Office at Bond Dickenson that he knew that not meeting Gareth Jenkins "risks exposing the final report [of his review of convictions] to criticism".
"This is something I shall need to think about carefully. At this very early stage I am not unnaturally undecided," he wrote. "For now it may be better for the Terms of Reference to remain silent about him." "Why did you consider it best for the terms of reference to remain silent on Mr Jenkins?" asked Jason Beer, counsel to the inquiry. “My view was if the terms if I had yet not yet resolved to see him, that there was no point sticking it in the terms of reference,” Mr Altman said..
Watching this race, it came to me that you could remake every Competitive Dad sketch from The Fast Show with a trans ‘woman’ as the Dad, and an actual woman as the kids, and it would work perfectly
🚨BREAKING🚨
A trans-identified male dominated the Girls Varsity 400m at the Portland Interscholastic League Championship Semi-Finals yesterday.
Aayden Gallagher will now compete in the finals as a “girl.”
And? The record for under 18 400m for girls is like 50 seconds; for men it's closer to 45 seconds. That this girl runs 400 m in 56-57 seconds makes her, like, a good amateur?
I assume that OR, like many places that allow trans athletes to compete, have rules around when students can participate (from what I can find students have to have been transitioning consistently and cannot participate in the same year they started their transition). I have no idea how old this girl is - but this is a tenth grade competition, so she is likely 15-16. If she's on HRT muscle mass and strength typically is one of the first things to fall in line with new hormones (3-6months).
He’s not on HRT, so it’s literally a boy competing in the girls race
I couldn't find any information on if she was on HRT or not (that's why I said if) - can you give me a citation for that assertion?
Watching this race, it came to me that you could remake every Competitive Dad sketch from The Fast Show with a trans ‘woman’ as the Dad, and an actual woman as the kids, and it would work perfectly
🚨BREAKING🚨
A trans-identified male dominated the Girls Varsity 400m at the Portland Interscholastic League Championship Semi-Finals yesterday.
Aayden Gallagher will now compete in the finals as a “girl.”
And? The record for under 18 400m for girls is like 50 seconds; for men it's closer to 45 seconds. That this girl runs 400 m in 56-57 seconds makes her, like, a good amateur?
I assume that OR, like many places that allow trans athletes to compete, have rules around when students can participate (from what I can find students have to have been transitioning consistently and cannot participate in the same year they started their transition). I have no idea how old this girl is - but this is a tenth grade competition, so she is likely 15-16. If she's on HRT muscle mass and strength typically is one of the first things to fall in line with new hormones (3-6months).
He’s not on HRT, so it’s literally a boy competing in the girls race
I couldn't find any information on if she was on HRT or not (that's why I said if) - can you give me a citation for that assertion?
Watching this race, it came to me that you could remake every Competitive Dad sketch from The Fast Show with a trans ‘woman’ as the Dad, and an actual woman as the kids, and it would work perfectly
🚨BREAKING🚨
A trans-identified male dominated the Girls Varsity 400m at the Portland Interscholastic League Championship Semi-Finals yesterday.
Aayden Gallagher will now compete in the finals as a “girl.”
And? The record for under 18 400m for girls is like 50 seconds; for men it's closer to 45 seconds. That this girl runs 400 m in 56-57 seconds makes her, like, a good amateur?
I assume that OR, like many places that allow trans athletes to compete, have rules around when students can participate (from what I can find students have to have been transitioning consistently and cannot participate in the same year they started their transition). I have no idea how old this girl is - but this is a tenth grade competition, so she is likely 15-16. If she's on HRT muscle mass and strength typically is one of the first things to fall in line with new hormones (3-6months).
He’s not on HRT, so it’s literally a boy competing in the girls race
I couldn't find any information on if she was on HRT or not (that's why I said if) - can you give me a citation for that assertion?
The issue of sport is going to do more harm to the trans rights movement than anything else. I think people are generally live and let live but transwomen competing in women's events is causing real harm to women's sports. More harm than excluding them would have to transwomen overall. Sometimes rights do not align with one another and, in this case, the rights of women do not align with those of transwomen, although they do in other areas.
Watching this race, it came to me that you could remake every Competitive Dad sketch from The Fast Show with a trans ‘woman’ as the Dad, and an actual woman as the kids, and it would work perfectly
🚨BREAKING🚨
A trans-identified male dominated the Girls Varsity 400m at the Portland Interscholastic League Championship Semi-Finals yesterday.
Aayden Gallagher will now compete in the finals as a “girl.”
And? The record for under 18 400m for girls is like 50 seconds; for men it's closer to 45 seconds. That this girl runs 400 m in 56-57 seconds makes her, like, a good amateur?
I assume that OR, like many places that allow trans athletes to compete, have rules around when students can participate (from what I can find students have to have been transitioning consistently and cannot participate in the same year they started their transition). I have no idea how old this girl is - but this is a tenth grade competition, so she is likely 15-16. If she's on HRT muscle mass and strength typically is one of the first things to fall in line with new hormones (3-6months).
He’s not on HRT, so it’s literally a boy competing in the girls race
I couldn't find any information on if she was on HRT or not (that's why I said if) - can you give me a citation for that assertion?
His calves.
Can you see how this could be seen as just straight up misogyny and why people like me say that this policing of women's bodies is bad for cis and trans women? Are you saying any woman who has calf definition similar to this athlete is actually a man? You can "just tell" who is a trans or cis woman by looking at them?
The last YouGov poll with 48% for Labour was in October 2023. Interestingly, Labour had marginally more Tory switchers then than now (13% v 12%) with the difference made up by more Labour and Lib Dem 2019 voters now saying they will vote Labour.
Watching this race, it came to me that you could remake every Competitive Dad sketch from The Fast Show with a trans ‘woman’ as the Dad, and an actual woman as the kids, and it would work perfectly
🚨BREAKING🚨
A trans-identified male dominated the Girls Varsity 400m at the Portland Interscholastic League Championship Semi-Finals yesterday.
Aayden Gallagher will now compete in the finals as a “girl.”
And? The record for under 18 400m for girls is like 50 seconds; for men it's closer to 45 seconds. That this girl runs 400 m in 56-57 seconds makes her, like, a good amateur?
I assume that OR, like many places that allow trans athletes to compete, have rules around when students can participate (from what I can find students have to have been transitioning consistently and cannot participate in the same year they started their transition). I have no idea how old this girl is - but this is a tenth grade competition, so she is likely 15-16. If she's on HRT muscle mass and strength typically is one of the first things to fall in line with new hormones (3-6months).
He’s not on HRT, so it’s literally a boy competing in the girls race
I couldn't find any information on if she was on HRT or not (that's why I said if) - can you give me a citation for that assertion?
It's actually the first poll score for Labour above 45% since the end of March, so it will be interesting to see whether any of the other Labour favourable pollsters also show higher shares for Labour.
Watching this race, it came to me that you could remake every Competitive Dad sketch from The Fast Show with a trans ‘woman’ as the Dad, and an actual woman as the kids, and it would work perfectly
🚨BREAKING🚨
A trans-identified male dominated the Girls Varsity 400m at the Portland Interscholastic League Championship Semi-Finals yesterday.
Aayden Gallagher will now compete in the finals as a “girl.”
And? The record for under 18 400m for girls is like 50 seconds; for men it's closer to 45 seconds. That this girl runs 400 m in 56-57 seconds makes her, like, a good amateur?
I assume that OR, like many places that allow trans athletes to compete, have rules around when students can participate (from what I can find students have to have been transitioning consistently and cannot participate in the same year they started their transition). I have no idea how old this girl is - but this is a tenth grade competition, so she is likely 15-16. If she's on HRT muscle mass and strength typically is one of the first things to fall in line with new hormones (3-6months).
He’s not on HRT, so it’s literally a boy competing in the girls race
I couldn't find any information on if she was on HRT or not (that's why I said if) - can you give me a citation for that assertion?
The issue of sport is going to do more harm to the trans rights movement than anything else. I think people are generally live and let live but transwomen competing in women's events is causing real harm to women's sports. More harm than excluding them would have to transwomen overall. Sometimes rights do not align with one another and, in this case, the rights of women do not align with those of transwomen, although they do in other areas.
So, again, no actual evidence this athlete isn't on HRT just an assertion that transwomen in sports will be bad for the cause of trans rights. Despite trans women very definitely not dominating in sports when up against cis women, and recent research suggesting that trans women may be at a disadvantage against cis women, not an advantage?
The thing is that trans women winning is rare - but the idea that if they win it must be because they are trans is common. And excluding trans women from sports can be very damaging - it is a form of socialising and in the US it can be a significant factor in getting extra funding for university studies. There are mental and material impacts to banning trans athletes, not to mention that it adds to all the other outrageous policing of trans people and their bodies in society - working in tandem with ideas such as bathroom bills or straight up allowing people to transition in the first place.
Watching this race, it came to me that you could remake every Competitive Dad sketch from The Fast Show with a trans ‘woman’ as the Dad, and an actual woman as the kids, and it would work perfectly
🚨BREAKING🚨
A trans-identified male dominated the Girls Varsity 400m at the Portland Interscholastic League Championship Semi-Finals yesterday.
Aayden Gallagher will now compete in the finals as a “girl.”
And? The record for under 18 400m for girls is like 50 seconds; for men it's closer to 45 seconds. That this girl runs 400 m in 56-57 seconds makes her, like, a good amateur?
I assume that OR, like many places that allow trans athletes to compete, have rules around when students can participate (from what I can find students have to have been transitioning consistently and cannot participate in the same year they started their transition). I have no idea how old this girl is - but this is a tenth grade competition, so she is likely 15-16. If she's on HRT muscle mass and strength typically is one of the first things to fall in line with new hormones (3-6months).
He’s not on HRT, so it’s literally a boy competing in the girls race
I couldn't find any information on if she was on HRT or not (that's why I said if) - can you give me a citation for that assertion?
Look harder
Can you provide a citation? I did do a google on her and looked at her racing records (above), but couldn't find her personal medical history.
The most notable result of the YouGov opinion poll is the no change in the Tory score of 18%. That's pretty good evidence that the 18% in the previous poll wasn't an outlier, but an actual reduction in public support for the Tories (as measured by YouGov).
Watching this race, it came to me that you could remake every Competitive Dad sketch from The Fast Show with a trans ‘woman’ as the Dad, and an actual woman as the kids, and it would work perfectly
🚨BREAKING🚨
A trans-identified male dominated the Girls Varsity 400m at the Portland Interscholastic League Championship Semi-Finals yesterday.
Aayden Gallagher will now compete in the finals as a “girl.”
And? The record for under 18 400m for girls is like 50 seconds; for men it's closer to 45 seconds. That this girl runs 400 m in 56-57 seconds makes her, like, a good amateur?
I assume that OR, like many places that allow trans athletes to compete, have rules around when students can participate (from what I can find students have to have been transitioning consistently and cannot participate in the same year they started their transition). I have no idea how old this girl is - but this is a tenth grade competition, so she is likely 15-16. If she's on HRT muscle mass and strength typically is one of the first things to fall in line with new hormones (3-6months).
He’s not on HRT, so it’s literally a boy competing in the girls race
I couldn't find any information on if she was on HRT or not (that's why I said if) - can you give me a citation for that assertion?
His calves.
Can you see how this could be seen as just straight up misogyny and why people like me say that this policing of women's bodies is bad for cis and trans women? Are you saying any woman who has calf definition similar to this athlete is actually a man? You can "just tell" who is a trans or cis woman by looking at them?
This isn't policing women's bodies. It's straight up fairness. You cannot have a fair competition between men and women in sports that involve the deployment of muscle mass. There is a lot of generalisation but splitting sports between the sexes, while by no-means perfect, is the best way we have to create something of a level playing field (pun intended).
I'm someone who competed at a reasonably high level in sprint events when I was a teenager, trained with boys and girls my own age, and my lived experience (which is all that counts these days apparently) is that it would have been unfair for us to compete with one another in events that mattered.
Watching this race, it came to me that you could remake every Competitive Dad sketch from The Fast Show with a trans ‘woman’ as the Dad, and an actual woman as the kids, and it would work perfectly
🚨BREAKING🚨
A trans-identified male dominated the Girls Varsity 400m at the Portland Interscholastic League Championship Semi-Finals yesterday.
Aayden Gallagher will now compete in the finals as a “girl.”
And? The record for under 18 400m for girls is like 50 seconds; for men it's closer to 45 seconds. That this girl runs 400 m in 56-57 seconds makes her, like, a good amateur?
I assume that OR, like many places that allow trans athletes to compete, have rules around when students can participate (from what I can find students have to have been transitioning consistently and cannot participate in the same year they started their transition). I have no idea how old this girl is - but this is a tenth grade competition, so she is likely 15-16. If she's on HRT muscle mass and strength typically is one of the first things to fall in line with new hormones (3-6months).
This is so dishonest. Firstly, you've mistimed the race because the gun goes around two seconds into the video so you need to deduct that from your quoted time.
Secondly, you are using under-18 records to benchmark someone who you say is 15-16.
In any case your argument is basically: "Well 'she' is not a very athletic boy anyway so what's the problem?"
Watching this race, it came to me that you could remake every Competitive Dad sketch from The Fast Show with a trans ‘woman’ as the Dad, and an actual woman as the kids, and it would work perfectly
🚨BREAKING🚨
A trans-identified male dominated the Girls Varsity 400m at the Portland Interscholastic League Championship Semi-Finals yesterday.
Aayden Gallagher will now compete in the finals as a “girl.”
And? The record for under 18 400m for girls is like 50 seconds; for men it's closer to 45 seconds. That this girl runs 400 m in 56-57 seconds makes her, like, a good amateur?
I assume that OR, like many places that allow trans athletes to compete, have rules around when students can participate (from what I can find students have to have been transitioning consistently and cannot participate in the same year they started their transition). I have no idea how old this girl is - but this is a tenth grade competition, so she is likely 15-16. If she's on HRT muscle mass and strength typically is one of the first things to fall in line with new hormones (3-6months).
He’s not on HRT, so it’s literally a boy competing in the girls race
I couldn't find any information on if she was on HRT or not (that's why I said if) - can you give me a citation for that assertion?
The issue of sport is going to do more harm to the trans rights movement than anything else. I think people are generally live and let live but transwomen competing in women's events is causing real harm to women's sports. More harm than excluding them would have to transwomen overall. Sometimes rights do not align with one another and, in this case, the rights of women do not align with those of transwomen, although they do in other areas.
So, again, no actual evidence this athlete isn't on HRT just an assertion that transwomen in sports will be bad for the cause of trans rights. Despite trans women very definitely not dominating in sports when up against cis women, and recent research suggesting that trans women may be at a disadvantage against cis women, not an advantage?
The thing is that trans women winning is rare - but the idea that if they win it must be because they are trans is common. And excluding trans women from sports can be very damaging - it is a form of socialising and in the US it can be a significant factor in getting extra funding for university studies. There are mental and material impacts to banning trans athletes, not to mention that it adds to all the other outrageous policing of trans people and their bodies in society - working in tandem with ideas such as bathroom bills or straight up allowing people to transition in the first place.
There's an easy way out - we abandon men's and women's categories and just have one sport - for humans.
I don't think we'd see many women winning at anything ever again.# Is that what the trans activists want?
#Possible exception extreme endurance events, but thats still mainly a hypothesis.
Watching this race, it came to me that you could remake every Competitive Dad sketch from The Fast Show with a trans ‘woman’ as the Dad, and an actual woman as the kids, and it would work perfectly
🚨BREAKING🚨
A trans-identified male dominated the Girls Varsity 400m at the Portland Interscholastic League Championship Semi-Finals yesterday.
Aayden Gallagher will now compete in the finals as a “girl.”
And? The record for under 18 400m for girls is like 50 seconds; for men it's closer to 45 seconds. That this girl runs 400 m in 56-57 seconds makes her, like, a good amateur?
I assume that OR, like many places that allow trans athletes to compete, have rules around when students can participate (from what I can find students have to have been transitioning consistently and cannot participate in the same year they started their transition). I have no idea how old this girl is - but this is a tenth grade competition, so she is likely 15-16. If she's on HRT muscle mass and strength typically is one of the first things to fall in line with new hormones (3-6months).
He’s not on HRT, so it’s literally a boy competing in the girls race
I couldn't find any information on if she was on HRT or not (that's why I said if) - can you give me a citation for that assertion?
His calves.
Can you see how this could be seen as just straight up misogyny and why people like me say that this policing of women's bodies is bad for cis and trans women? Are you saying any woman who has calf definition similar to this athlete is actually a man? You can "just tell" who is a trans or cis woman by looking at them?
This isn't policing women's bodies. It's straight up fairness. You cannot have a fair competition between men and women in sports that involve the deployment of muscle mass. There is a lot of generalisation but splitting sports between the sexes, while by no-means perfect, is the best way we have to create something of a level playing field (pun intended).
I'm someone who competed at a reasonably high level in sprint events when I was a teenager, trained with boys and girls my own age, and my lived experience (which is all that counts these days apparently) is that it would have been unfair for us to compete with one another in events that mattered.
We do not know if this young athlete is on HRT and, if so, for how long she has been. For all I know she could have never had a testosterone based puberty - she may have been on puberty blockers and got straight onto HRT. To say that you can tell this girl is "really a boy" just by looking at her is completely misogynist - in the same way that those who call Michelle Obama "secretly a man" is. Many cis women who do not conform to feminine beauty standards will be insulted by calling them men; many cis women have been harassed, in toilets and other public spaces, because they were considered too manish and people thought they were trans. It's all the same thing - policing women's bodies based on expectations of femininity.
The prism through which we view betting odds never fails to fascinate me - it seems that there needs to be some kind of black swan event in order for Labour to not win a majority at the next election, and we’d be saying it was one of the greatest collapses and polling disasters of all time. But if a 13/2f won the Grand National people might say it was an uncompetitive procession despite both outcomes being the same price
There are 32 runners in the Grand National - all of them with at least an outside chance.
Realistically, in a UK general election under FPTP, there are two (three if you include 'hung Parliament').
I don’t really get why you said that
I'm a bit too much of a pedant, I think.
I still don’t get it. I know what you said is true, but it’s obvious, and doesn’t make any difference to the original post, unless I’m missing something
This is more like the National in running with "Sir Keir" over the last and many lengths clear of a tired looking "Rishi Blue".
The prism through which we view betting odds never fails to fascinate me - it seems that there needs to be some kind of black swan event in order for Labour to not win a majority at the next election, and we’d be saying it was one of the greatest collapses and polling disasters of all time. But if a 13/2f won the Grand National people might say it was an uncompetitive procession despite both outcomes being the same price
There are 32 runners in the Grand National - all of them with at least an outside chance.
Realistically, in a UK general election under FPTP, there are two (three if you include 'hung Parliament').
I don’t really get why you said that
I'm a bit too much of a pedant, I think.
I still don’t get it. I know what you said is true, but it’s obvious, and doesn’t make any difference to the original post, unless I’m missing something
Possibly that people would only say it was an uncompetitive procession, when a 13/2f won the Grand National, if it was an uncompetitive procession. The favourite might just as well have won by a nose against any of the other horses.
You're quite right to point out the phenomenon of people thinking about contests in terms which are only very loosely correlated with the actual odds of who might win.
Watching this race, it came to me that you could remake every Competitive Dad sketch from The Fast Show with a trans ‘woman’ as the Dad, and an actual woman as the kids, and it would work perfectly
🚨BREAKING🚨
A trans-identified male dominated the Girls Varsity 400m at the Portland Interscholastic League Championship Semi-Finals yesterday.
Aayden Gallagher will now compete in the finals as a “girl.”
And? The record for under 18 400m for girls is like 50 seconds; for men it's closer to 45 seconds. That this girl runs 400 m in 56-57 seconds makes her, like, a good amateur?
I assume that OR, like many places that allow trans athletes to compete, have rules around when students can participate (from what I can find students have to have been transitioning consistently and cannot participate in the same year they started their transition). I have no idea how old this girl is - but this is a tenth grade competition, so she is likely 15-16. If she's on HRT muscle mass and strength typically is one of the first things to fall in line with new hormones (3-6months).
This is so dishonest. Firstly, you've mistimed the race because the gun goes around two seconds into the video so you need to deduct that from your quoted time.
Secondly, you are using under-18 records to benchmark someone who you say is 15-16.
In any case your argument is basically: "Well 'she' is not a very athletic boy anyway so what's the problem?"
My point is we have no evidence that this girl is anything other than a young athlete who is good at her sport who happens to be trans. If a cis girl won this competition with her time, it wouldn't be commented on. But because she's trans the thought is that must be why she won.
Watching this race, it came to me that you could remake every Competitive Dad sketch from The Fast Show with a trans ‘woman’ as the Dad, and an actual woman as the kids, and it would work perfectly
🚨BREAKING🚨
A trans-identified male dominated the Girls Varsity 400m at the Portland Interscholastic League Championship Semi-Finals yesterday.
Aayden Gallagher will now compete in the finals as a “girl.”
And? The record for under 18 400m for girls is like 50 seconds; for men it's closer to 45 seconds. That this girl runs 400 m in 56-57 seconds makes her, like, a good amateur?
I assume that OR, like many places that allow trans athletes to compete, have rules around when students can participate (from what I can find students have to have been transitioning consistently and cannot participate in the same year they started their transition). I have no idea how old this girl is - but this is a tenth grade competition, so she is likely 15-16. If she's on HRT muscle mass and strength typically is one of the first things to fall in line with new hormones (3-6months).
This is so dishonest. Firstly, you've mistimed the race because the gun goes around two seconds into the video so you need to deduct that from your quoted time.
Secondly, you are using under-18 records to benchmark someone who you say is 15-16.
In any case your argument is basically: "Well 'she' is not a very athletic boy anyway so what's the problem?"
My point is we have no evidence that this girl is anything other than a young athlete who is good at her sport who happens to be trans. If a cis girl won this competition with her time, it wouldn't be commented on. But because she's trans the thought is that must be why she won.
In fact we do have evidence that this girl is not just a young athlete who is good at her sport. Specifically the fact that she is a boy, not a girl.
Watching this race, it came to me that you could remake every Competitive Dad sketch from The Fast Show with a trans ‘woman’ as the Dad, and an actual woman as the kids, and it would work perfectly
🚨BREAKING🚨
A trans-identified male dominated the Girls Varsity 400m at the Portland Interscholastic League Championship Semi-Finals yesterday.
Aayden Gallagher will now compete in the finals as a “girl.”
And? The record for under 18 400m for girls is like 50 seconds; for men it's closer to 45 seconds. That this girl runs 400 m in 56-57 seconds makes her, like, a good amateur?
I assume that OR, like many places that allow trans athletes to compete, have rules around when students can participate (from what I can find students have to have been transitioning consistently and cannot participate in the same year they started their transition). I have no idea how old this girl is - but this is a tenth grade competition, so she is likely 15-16. If she's on HRT muscle mass and strength typically is one of the first things to fall in line with new hormones (3-6months).
He’s not on HRT, so it’s literally a boy competing in the girls race
I couldn't find any information on if she was on HRT or not (that's why I said if) - can you give me a citation for that assertion?
His calves.
Can you see how this could be seen as just straight up misogyny and why people like me say that this policing of women's bodies is bad for cis and trans women? Are you saying any woman who has calf definition similar to this athlete is actually a man? You can "just tell" who is a trans or cis woman by looking at them?
This isn't policing women's bodies. It's straight up fairness. You cannot have a fair competition between men and women in sports that involve the deployment of muscle mass. There is a lot of generalisation but splitting sports between the sexes, while by no-means perfect, is the best way we have to create something of a level playing field (pun intended).
I'm someone who competed at a reasonably high level in sprint events when I was a teenager, trained with boys and girls my own age, and my lived experience (which is all that counts these days apparently) is that it would have been unfair for us to compete with one another in events that mattered.
We do not know if this young athlete is on HRT and, if so, for how long she has been. For all I know she could have never had a testosterone based puberty - she may have been on puberty blockers and got straight onto HRT. To say that you can tell this girl is "really a boy" just by looking at her is completely misogynist - in the same way that those who call Michelle Obama "secretly a man" is. Many cis women who do not conform to feminine beauty standards will be insulted by calling them men; many cis women have been harassed, in toilets and other public spaces, because they were considered too manish and people thought they were trans. It's all the same thing - policing women's bodies based on expectations of femininity.
We don't need to go into observed physical attributes. The original report notes that s/he is a biological male. The what-iffery is beside the point. Men should not be in women's races, and boys - post about 11 - should not be in girls' ones. Or, at least, should not be allowed to compete to win or to set records.
Watching this race, it came to me that you could remake every Competitive Dad sketch from The Fast Show with a trans ‘woman’ as the Dad, and an actual woman as the kids, and it would work perfectly
🚨BREAKING🚨
A trans-identified male dominated the Girls Varsity 400m at the Portland Interscholastic League Championship Semi-Finals yesterday.
Aayden Gallagher will now compete in the finals as a “girl.”
And? The record for under 18 400m for girls is like 50 seconds; for men it's closer to 45 seconds. That this girl runs 400 m in 56-57 seconds makes her, like, a good amateur?
I assume that OR, like many places that allow trans athletes to compete, have rules around when students can participate (from what I can find students have to have been transitioning consistently and cannot participate in the same year they started their transition). I have no idea how old this girl is - but this is a tenth grade competition, so she is likely 15-16. If she's on HRT muscle mass and strength typically is one of the first things to fall in line with new hormones (3-6months).
He’s not on HRT, so it’s literally a boy competing in the girls race
I couldn't find any information on if she was on HRT or not (that's why I said if) - can you give me a citation for that assertion?
His calves.
Can you see how this could be seen as just straight up misogyny and why people like me say that this policing of women's bodies is bad for cis and trans women? Are you saying any woman who has calf definition similar to this athlete is actually a man? You can "just tell" who is a trans or cis woman by looking at them?
This isn't policing women's bodies. It's straight up fairness. You cannot have a fair competition between men and women in sports that involve the deployment of muscle mass. There is a lot of generalisation but splitting sports between the sexes, while by no-means perfect, is the best way we have to create something of a level playing field (pun intended).
I'm someone who competed at a reasonably high level in sprint events when I was a teenager, trained with boys and girls my own age, and my lived experience (which is all that counts these days apparently) is that it would have been unfair for us to compete with one another in events that mattered.
We do not know if this young athlete is on HRT and, if so, for how long she has been. For all I know she could have never had a testosterone based puberty - she may have been on puberty blockers and got straight onto HRT. To say that you can tell this girl is "really a boy" just by looking at her is completely misogynist - in the same way that those who call Michelle Obama "secretly a man" is. Many cis women who do not conform to feminine beauty standards will be insulted by calling them men; many cis women have been harassed, in toilets and other public spaces, because they were considered too manish and people thought they were trans. It's all the same thing - policing women's bodies based on expectations of femininity.
I'm not saying she is "secretly a boy". You are replying, dishonestly, to the wrong post. Before replying to my posts in future do me the basic courtesy of reading them please? You have consistently shifted your position on this matter and answered points people have not even raised (where did I day anything about "femininity"?) which means you are just trolling us.
You make these assertions with no evidence and, when you do provide evidence, it does not assert what you argue. A case in point is the article about the history of tennis you posted a few days ago that you said proved that women were beating men at tennis in the 19th century, when all it proved is that they were playing mixed doubles at the time, which is hardly the killer argument you think it is.
Watching this race, it came to me that you could remake every Competitive Dad sketch from The Fast Show with a trans ‘woman’ as the Dad, and an actual woman as the kids, and it would work perfectly
🚨BREAKING🚨
A trans-identified male dominated the Girls Varsity 400m at the Portland Interscholastic League Championship Semi-Finals yesterday.
Aayden Gallagher will now compete in the finals as a “girl.”
And? The record for under 18 400m for girls is like 50 seconds; for men it's closer to 45 seconds. That this girl runs 400 m in 56-57 seconds makes her, like, a good amateur?
I assume that OR, like many places that allow trans athletes to compete, have rules around when students can participate (from what I can find students have to have been transitioning consistently and cannot participate in the same year they started their transition). I have no idea how old this girl is - but this is a tenth grade competition, so she is likely 15-16. If she's on HRT muscle mass and strength typically is one of the first things to fall in line with new hormones (3-6months).
This is so dishonest. Firstly, you've mistimed the race because the gun goes around two seconds into the video so you need to deduct that from your quoted time.
Secondly, you are using under-18 records to benchmark someone who you say is 15-16.
In any case your argument is basically: "Well 'she' is not a very athletic boy anyway so what's the problem?"
My point is we have no evidence that this girl is anything other than a young athlete who is good at her sport who happens to be trans. If a cis girl won this competition with her time, it wouldn't be commented on. But because she's trans the thought is that must be why she won.
Why do we have women's and men's events in sports?
Watching this race, it came to me that you could remake every Competitive Dad sketch from The Fast Show with a trans ‘woman’ as the Dad, and an actual woman as the kids, and it would work perfectly
🚨BREAKING🚨
A trans-identified male dominated the Girls Varsity 400m at the Portland Interscholastic League Championship Semi-Finals yesterday.
Aayden Gallagher will now compete in the finals as a “girl.”
And? The record for under 18 400m for girls is like 50 seconds; for men it's closer to 45 seconds. That this girl runs 400 m in 56-57 seconds makes her, like, a good amateur?
I assume that OR, like many places that allow trans athletes to compete, have rules around when students can participate (from what I can find students have to have been transitioning consistently and cannot participate in the same year they started their transition). I have no idea how old this girl is - but this is a tenth grade competition, so she is likely 15-16. If she's on HRT muscle mass and strength typically is one of the first things to fall in line with new hormones (3-6months).
This is so dishonest. Firstly, you've mistimed the race because the gun goes around two seconds into the video so you need to deduct that from your quoted time.
Secondly, you are using under-18 records to benchmark someone who you say is 15-16.
In any case your argument is basically: "Well 'she' is not a very athletic boy anyway so what's the problem?"
My point is we have no evidence that this girl is anything other than a young athlete who is good at her sport who happens to be trans. If a cis girl won this competition with her time, it wouldn't be commented on. But because she's trans the thought is that must be why she won.
Why do we have women's and men's events in sports?
He's already answered this one. Apparently it's because men were afraid of being beaten by women.
@lara_spirit Labour lead at *30 points* in this week's YouGov poll for The Times
That's the biggest Labour lead since Truss
CON 18 (=) LAB 48 (+4) LIB DEM 9 (-1) REF UK 13 (-2) GRN 7 (-1)
Fieldwork 7 - 8 May
Yougov doubling down after the gap between the 2 main parties was found to be considerably smaller than their polling was indicating. I am beginning to seriously wonder whether their panel system has reached the end of the road. They were well outside the margin of error in London.
No one doubts that Labour are well ahead but I simply don't believe this is compatible with the millions of votes counted in the last week.
The only way it makes sense is if there are a lot of people willing to vote for the8r conservative councillor or conservative council who are nevertheless so unhappy with the government that they will shop elsewhere at the GE.
I suspect it’s more likely that many of these Tories are using opinion poll responses to register a protest by saying they’ll vote Reform, when they won’t. Reform will get 6-7%, not 13%, and the Tories will get more like 25%.
Yougov like Godwin seem to desperately want a Canada 1993 scenario for Reform to overtake the Tories and therefore Reform seems to be higher with them than other polls at Tory expense
YouGov don’t “want” anything. They’re a polling company and if they get things wrong then they won’t be trusted. You’re as bad as the Corbynite nutters who don’t trust them because they were “founded by a Tory”.
If anyone wants a 1993 result for the Tories it’s a very very large proportion of the British public.
The goldstandard pollsters of the last 2 general elections have been Survation and Opinium, who were closer to the final voteshares than Yougov were.
The Last Opinium has Labour 40%, Tories 24% and Reform 12% and Survation has Labour 44% Tories 26% and Reform 10%.
Given that YouGov only understated the actual Conservative lead by 2.7% in 2019, the fact that Opinium and Survation got closer still is hardly grounds for dismissing that YouGov polling out of hand, which is what you seem to be doing.
A more reasonable interpretation, given that you think polling variances in 2019 will inform the polling variances in 2024/5, would be to scale back the lead in YouGov's latest poll by 3% to match the 2019 variance. So that would point you towards interpreting the YouGov poll as pointing to a real 27% Tory deficit not a 30% one.
But the even the assumption that overall polling bias in 2024/25 will be in the same direction as 2019 is questionable. 2005 was the last GE when the pattern of bias from pollsters as a whole was consistent with the previous election, as the Labour lead was overstated in both 2001 and 2005. Since then the variance has alternated between a bias towards each of two parties in succession, possibly because pollsters may overcompensate when adjusting methodology for variance in the previous election. That is: 2005 - Lab polling lead over Con overstated 2010 - Con polling lead over Lab overstated 2015 - Con polling lead over Lab understated 2017 - Con polling lead over Lab overstated 2019 - Con polling lead over Lab understated If that yo-yoing repeats itself in 2024/5, the Labour polling lead over the Conservatives will turn out to have been understated compared to the real result.
Watching this race, it came to me that you could remake every Competitive Dad sketch from The Fast Show with a trans ‘woman’ as the Dad, and an actual woman as the kids, and it would work perfectly
🚨BREAKING🚨
A trans-identified male dominated the Girls Varsity 400m at the Portland Interscholastic League Championship Semi-Finals yesterday.
Aayden Gallagher will now compete in the finals as a “girl.”
And? The record for under 18 400m for girls is like 50 seconds; for men it's closer to 45 seconds. That this girl runs 400 m in 56-57 seconds makes her, like, a good amateur?
I assume that OR, like many places that allow trans athletes to compete, have rules around when students can participate (from what I can find students have to have been transitioning consistently and cannot participate in the same year they started their transition). I have no idea how old this girl is - but this is a tenth grade competition, so she is likely 15-16. If she's on HRT muscle mass and strength typically is one of the first things to fall in line with new hormones (3-6months).
He’s not on HRT, so it’s literally a boy competing in the girls race
I couldn't find any information on if she was on HRT or not (that's why I said if) - can you give me a citation for that assertion?
His calves.
Can you see how this could be seen as just straight up misogyny and why people like me say that this policing of women's bodies is bad for cis and trans women? Are you saying any woman who has calf definition similar to this athlete is actually a man? You can "just tell" who is a trans or cis woman by looking at them?
This isn't policing women's bodies. It's straight up fairness. You cannot have a fair competition between men and women in sports that involve the deployment of muscle mass. There is a lot of generalisation but splitting sports between the sexes, while by no-means perfect, is the best way we have to create something of a level playing field (pun intended).
I'm someone who competed at a reasonably high level in sprint events when I was a teenager, trained with boys and girls my own age, and my lived experience (which is all that counts these days apparently) is that it would have been unfair for us to compete with one another in events that mattered.
We do not know if this young athlete is on HRT and, if so, for how long she has been. For all I know she could have never had a testosterone based puberty - she may have been on puberty blockers and got straight onto HRT. To say that you can tell this girl is "really a boy" just by looking at her is completely misogynist - in the same way that those who call Michelle Obama "secretly a man" is. Many cis women who do not conform to feminine beauty standards will be insulted by calling them men; many cis women have been harassed, in toilets and other public spaces, because they were considered too manish and people thought they were trans. It's all the same thing - policing women's bodies based on expectations of femininity.
We don't need to go into observed physical attributes. The original report notes that s/he is a biological male. The what-iffery is beside the point. Men should not be in women's races, and boys - post about 11 - should not be in girls' ones. Or, at least, should not be allowed to compete to win or to set records.
Transphobes call women who have been on HRT most of their life and have had gender affirming surgeries "biological males" - it doesn't mean anything. Again - we have no idea if this athlete even had a testosterone based puberty. She may have been on HRT for years, and it is known that muscle mass is one of the first things to fall within a typical cis women's range when trans women start HRT (as noted, 3 - 6 months). Calling her a "biological male" in reporting (reporting from right wing / "independent" news orgs) is, again, just transphobia
Watching this race, it came to me that you could remake every Competitive Dad sketch from The Fast Show with a trans ‘woman’ as the Dad, and an actual woman as the kids, and it would work perfectly
🚨BREAKING🚨
A trans-identified male dominated the Girls Varsity 400m at the Portland Interscholastic League Championship Semi-Finals yesterday.
Aayden Gallagher will now compete in the finals as a “girl.”
And? The record for under 18 400m for girls is like 50 seconds; for men it's closer to 45 seconds. That this girl runs 400 m in 56-57 seconds makes her, like, a good amateur?
I assume that OR, like many places that allow trans athletes to compete, have rules around when students can participate (from what I can find students have to have been transitioning consistently and cannot participate in the same year they started their transition). I have no idea how old this girl is - but this is a tenth grade competition, so she is likely 15-16. If she's on HRT muscle mass and strength typically is one of the first things to fall in line with new hormones (3-6months).
This is so dishonest. Firstly, you've mistimed the race because the gun goes around two seconds into the video so you need to deduct that from your quoted time.
Secondly, you are using under-18 records to benchmark someone who you say is 15-16.
In any case your argument is basically: "Well 'she' is not a very athletic boy anyway so what's the problem?"
My point is we have no evidence that this girl is anything other than a young athlete who is good at her sport who happens to be trans. If a cis girl won this competition with her time, it wouldn't be commented on. But because she's trans the thought is that must be why she won.
Why do we have women's and men's events in sports?
He's already answered this one. Apparently it's because men were afraid of being beaten by women.
Well, that's okay then. Any man who isn't afraid of losing to the women should be able to compete in women's events. Is that right?
Just seen a sign outside a hotel saying 'Bike Friendly', with a picture of a bicycle and a smiley face
This does seem to imply a pleasing level of discrimination against bikewankers elsewhere
When we stayed in the rather bizarre settlement of Silloth in Cumbria on Hadrian's Cycleway, the guesthouse advertised that they had secure cycle storage, bike mechanic kit, and would welcome anyone doing the trail. As a result, the place was packed out with a bunch of ravenous cyclists desperate for food and beer.
The same goes for dozens of rural small businesses, cashing in on MAMILs and cycle tourers from the big cities. I've noted this in Scottish Borders, East Lothian and in N.Wales - all it takes is some cycle racks, pastries and coffee.
Given 93% of UK adults can ride a bike and the massive uptick in interest during and after COVID, your hotel is simply cashing in on a trend. If rural community councils are serious about encouraging economic growth in their areas, they should do all they can to get on the NCN or long distance footpaths like Offa's Dyke. Unlike drivers, people walking and cycling need something local to eat and somewhere local to stay.
The manageress of our local deli/cafe says cyclists are more lucrative than walkers (we’re a bit of a destination town for both). Walkers bring their own sandwiches. Cyclists are concerned about weight so don’t carry anything but buy all the cake in the shop.
@lara_spirit Labour lead at *30 points* in this week's YouGov poll for The Times
That's the biggest Labour lead since Truss
CON 18 (=) LAB 48 (+4) LIB DEM 9 (-1) REF UK 13 (-2) GRN 7 (-1)
Fieldwork 7 - 8 May
Yougov doubling down after the gap between the 2 main parties was found to be considerably smaller than their polling was indicating. I am beginning to seriously wonder whether their panel system has reached the end of the road. They were well outside the margin of error in London.
No one doubts that Labour are well ahead but I simply don't believe this is compatible with the millions of votes counted in the last week.
The only way it makes sense is if there are a lot of people willing to vote for the8r conservative councillor or conservative council who are nevertheless so unhappy with the government that they will shop elsewhere at the GE.
I suspect it’s more likely that many of these Tories are using opinion poll responses to register a protest by saying they’ll vote Reform, when they won’t. Reform will get 6-7%, not 13%, and the Tories will get more like 25%.
Yougov like Godwin seem to desperately want a Canada 1993 scenario for Reform to overtake the Tories and therefore Reform seems to be higher with them than other polls at Tory expense
YouGov don’t “want” anything. They’re a polling company and if they get things wrong then they won’t be trusted. You’re as bad as the Corbynite nutters who don’t trust them because they were “founded by a Tory”.
If anyone wants a 1993 result for the Tories it’s a very very large proportion of the British public.
The goldstandard pollsters of the last 2 general elections have been Survation and Opinium, who were closer to the final voteshares than Yougov were.
The Last Opinium has Labour 40%, Tories 24% and Reform 12% and Survation has Labour 44% Tories 26% and Reform 10%.
Sure. But you accused YouGov seeming to "...desperately want a Canada 1993 scenario..." which is not true and, on a site that discusses polling and odds on political outcomes, not to my mind an acceptable thing to say about a highly reputable pollster.
Anyone else remember the times when ICM was OGH's Gold Standard poll?
Watching this race, it came to me that you could remake every Competitive Dad sketch from The Fast Show with a trans ‘woman’ as the Dad, and an actual woman as the kids, and it would work perfectly
🚨BREAKING🚨
A trans-identified male dominated the Girls Varsity 400m at the Portland Interscholastic League Championship Semi-Finals yesterday.
Aayden Gallagher will now compete in the finals as a “girl.”
And? The record for under 18 400m for girls is like 50 seconds; for men it's closer to 45 seconds. That this girl runs 400 m in 56-57 seconds makes her, like, a good amateur?
I assume that OR, like many places that allow trans athletes to compete, have rules around when students can participate (from what I can find students have to have been transitioning consistently and cannot participate in the same year they started their transition). I have no idea how old this girl is - but this is a tenth grade competition, so she is likely 15-16. If she's on HRT muscle mass and strength typically is one of the first things to fall in line with new hormones (3-6months).
He’s not on HRT, so it’s literally a boy competing in the girls race
I couldn't find any information on if she was on HRT or not (that's why I said if) - can you give me a citation for that assertion?
The issue of sport is going to do more harm to the trans rights movement than anything else. I think people are generally live and let live but transwomen competing in women's events is causing real harm to women's sports. More harm than excluding them would have to transwomen overall. Sometimes rights do not align with one another and, in this case, the rights of women do not align with those of transwomen, although they do in other areas.
So, again, no actual evidence this athlete isn't on HRT just an assertion that transwomen in sports will be bad for the cause of trans rights. Despite trans women very definitely not dominating in sports when up against cis women, and recent research suggesting that trans women may be at a disadvantage against cis women, not an advantage?
The thing is that trans women winning is rare - but the idea that if they win it must be because they are trans is common. And excluding trans women from sports can be very damaging - it is a form of socialising and in the US it can be a significant factor in getting extra funding for university studies. There are mental and material impacts to banning trans athletes, not to mention that it adds to all the other outrageous policing of trans people and their bodies in society - working in tandem with ideas such as bathroom bills or straight up allowing people to transition in the first place.
There's an easy way out - we abandon men's and women's categories and just have one sport - for humans.
I don't think we'd see many women winning at anything ever again.# Is that what the trans activists want?
#Possible exception extreme endurance events, but thats still mainly a hypothesis.
Unlikely even there. In one of the most extreme of extreme events - the Barkley Marathons - Jasmin Paris became the first female finisher this year. That was an absolutely phenomenal performance; one which many would not have believed physically possible had it not been done. Even so, 25 men had done it before her, and all in faster times.
On like-for-like entries, the only time you'd get female winners would be on restricted fields where the lead female was an extreme performance outlier, such as when Paula Radcliffe returned the fastest British time in the London marathon - but only by smashing the women's world record, while the best British male time was one of the slowest of its type, and of course, she was (literally) miles behind the actual race winner.
Poor Brian Altman KC - someone should have reminded him of how Robert Maxwell used his advisors. He used their good reputation to cloak his own rather less good one.
It is a difficult issue for lawyers: even bad actors are entitled to good lawyers. And acting for a bad guy does not imply approval of their misbehaviour.
But his two mistakes were that he did not sufficiently question or think about what he was being asked to opine on by the Post Office and perhaps over-indulged in overly clever legal comments as if he were involved in an academic exercise. He was the victim of what barristers often do in cross-examination to witnesses: he was funnelled into giving the answer the PO wanted to hear.
His other mistake was in giving an opinion on matters he was not qualified to assess. He had no real basis for assessing how good the PO's internal investigations team was. And he didn't even ask the most basic questions. This failing was pretty brutally exposed by Jason Beer yesterday.
What flattery and large fees will get you ....
Just because you are an expert in X does not make you an expert on Y. A lesson for us all.
It might well, if you have been brought in specifically for the purpose of reviewing the property of their past behaviour. He was brought in for independent advice, not to advocate for them.
And he was, at the time, aware of the risk he was taking - though note his concern was of "exposure to criticism" rather than the possibility perpetuating a possible miscarriage of justice.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cld0rewpy01o ...he avoided meeting Mr Jenkins and did not advise the Post Office to investigate his evidence. Mr Clarke’s advice was not shown to defendants until 2021. The inquiry saw evidence that Mr Altman re-wrote the terms of reference of his review to remove issues of Gareth Jenkins’ evidence and avoided meeting him. He wrote to fellow lawyers for the Post Office at Bond Dickenson that he knew that not meeting Gareth Jenkins "risks exposing the final report [of his review of convictions] to criticism".
"This is something I shall need to think about carefully. At this very early stage I am not unnaturally undecided," he wrote. "For now it may be better for the Terms of Reference to remain silent about him." "Why did you consider it best for the terms of reference to remain silent on Mr Jenkins?" asked Jason Beer, counsel to the inquiry. “My view was if the terms if I had yet not yet resolved to see him, that there was no point sticking it in the terms of reference,” Mr Altman said..
Poor Brian Altman KC - someone should have reminded him of how Robert Maxwell used his advisors. He used their good reputation to cloak his own rather less good one.
It is a difficult issue for lawyers: even bad actors are entitled to good lawyers. And acting for a bad guy does not imply approval of their misbehaviour.
But his two mistakes were that he did not sufficiently question or think about what he was being asked to opine on by the Post Office and perhaps over-indulged in overly clever legal comments as if he were involved in an academic exercise. He was the victim of what barristers often do in cross-examination to witnesses: he was funnelled into giving the answer the PO wanted to hear.
His other mistake was in giving an opinion on matters he was not qualified to assess. He had no real basis for assessing how good the PO's internal investigations team was. And he didn't even ask the most basic questions. This failing was pretty brutally exposed by Jason Beer yesterday.
What flattery and large fees will get you ....
Just because you are an expert in X does not make you an expert on Y. A lesson for us all.
It might well, if you have been brought in specifically for the purpose of reviewing the property of their past behaviour. He was brought in for independent advice, not to advocate for them.
And he was, at the time, aware of the risk he was taking - though note his concern was of "exposure to criticism" rather than the possibility perpetuating a possible miscarriage of justice.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cld0rewpy01o ...he avoided meeting Mr Jenkins and did not advise the Post Office to investigate his evidence. Mr Clarke’s advice was not shown to defendants until 2021. The inquiry saw evidence that Mr Altman re-wrote the terms of reference of his review to remove issues of Gareth Jenkins’ evidence and avoided meeting him. He wrote to fellow lawyers for the Post Office at Bond Dickenson that he knew that not meeting Gareth Jenkins "risks exposing the final report [of his review of convictions] to criticism".
"This is something I shall need to think about carefully. At this very early stage I am not unnaturally undecided," he wrote. "For now it may be better for the Terms of Reference to remain silent about him." "Why did you consider it best for the terms of reference to remain silent on Mr Jenkins?" asked Jason Beer, counsel to the inquiry. “My view was if the terms if I had yet not yet resolved to see him, that there was no point sticking it in the terms of reference,” Mr Altman said..
He forgot the first - cynical - rule of professional conduct: watch your back.
He indulged in a lot of legalistic arguments but simply refused - or failed - to see clearly that he had been presented with evidence of possible perjury and miscarriages of justice and that such evidence should have pointed him and his client to only one course of action, a course which his clients did their level best to avoid and which he enabled.
And now his reputation has been harmed, just like those of every other lawyer acting for the PO - whether in-house or external, whether solicitor or barrister and no matter what their experience or qualifications.
If you pour a tiny spoonful of raw sewage into a bottle of champagne, the entire bottle is contaminated.
Watching this race, it came to me that you could remake every Competitive Dad sketch from The Fast Show with a trans ‘woman’ as the Dad, and an actual woman as the kids, and it would work perfectly
🚨BREAKING🚨
A trans-identified male dominated the Girls Varsity 400m at the Portland Interscholastic League Championship Semi-Finals yesterday.
Aayden Gallagher will now compete in the finals as a “girl.”
And? The record for under 18 400m for girls is like 50 seconds; for men it's closer to 45 seconds. That this girl runs 400 m in 56-57 seconds makes her, like, a good amateur?
I assume that OR, like many places that allow trans athletes to compete, have rules around when students can participate (from what I can find students have to have been transitioning consistently and cannot participate in the same year they started their transition). I have no idea how old this girl is - but this is a tenth grade competition, so she is likely 15-16. If she's on HRT muscle mass and strength typically is one of the first things to fall in line with new hormones (3-6months).
This is so dishonest. Firstly, you've mistimed the race because the gun goes around two seconds into the video so you need to deduct that from your quoted time.
Secondly, you are using under-18 records to benchmark someone who you say is 15-16.
In any case your argument is basically: "Well 'she' is not a very athletic boy anyway so what's the problem?"
My point is we have no evidence that this girl is anything other than a young athlete who is good at her sport who happens to be trans. If a cis girl won this competition with her time, it wouldn't be commented on. But because she's trans the thought is that must be why she won.
Why do we have women's and men's events in sports?
He's already answered this one. Apparently it's because men were afraid of being beaten by women.
In any strength/endurance sport, getting within ~10% of the world record is pretty damn interesting.
Watching this race, it came to me that you could remake every Competitive Dad sketch from The Fast Show with a trans ‘woman’ as the Dad, and an actual woman as the kids, and it would work perfectly
🚨BREAKING🚨
A trans-identified male dominated the Girls Varsity 400m at the Portland Interscholastic League Championship Semi-Finals yesterday.
Aayden Gallagher will now compete in the finals as a “girl.”
And? The record for under 18 400m for girls is like 50 seconds; for men it's closer to 45 seconds. That this girl runs 400 m in 56-57 seconds makes her, like, a good amateur?
I assume that OR, like many places that allow trans athletes to compete, have rules around when students can participate (from what I can find students have to have been transitioning consistently and cannot participate in the same year they started their transition). I have no idea how old this girl is - but this is a tenth grade competition, so she is likely 15-16. If she's on HRT muscle mass and strength typically is one of the first things to fall in line with new hormones (3-6months).
He’s not on HRT, so it’s literally a boy competing in the girls race
I couldn't find any information on if she was on HRT or not (that's why I said if) - can you give me a citation for that assertion?
His calves.
Can you see how this could be seen as just straight up misogyny and why people like me say that this policing of women's bodies is bad for cis and trans women? Are you saying any woman who has calf definition similar to this athlete is actually a man? You can "just tell" who is a trans or cis woman by looking at them?
This isn't policing women's bodies. It's straight up fairness. You cannot have a fair competition between men and women in sports that involve the deployment of muscle mass. There is a lot of generalisation but splitting sports between the sexes, while by no-means perfect, is the best way we have to create something of a level playing field (pun intended).
I'm someone who competed at a reasonably high level in sprint events when I was a teenager, trained with boys and girls my own age, and my lived experience (which is all that counts these days apparently) is that it would have been unfair for us to compete with one another in events that mattered.
We do not know if this young athlete is on HRT and, if so, for how long she has been. For all I know she could have never had a testosterone based puberty - she may have been on puberty blockers and got straight onto HRT. To say that you can tell this girl is "really a boy" just by looking at her is completely misogynist - in the same way that those who call Michelle Obama "secretly a man" is. Many cis women who do not conform to feminine beauty standards will be insulted by calling them men; many cis women have been harassed, in toilets and other public spaces, because they were considered too manish and people thought they were trans. It's all the same thing - policing women's bodies based on expectations of femininity.
We don't need to go into observed physical attributes. The original report notes that s/he is a biological male. The what-iffery is beside the point. Men should not be in women's races, and boys - post about 11 - should not be in girls' ones. Or, at least, should not be allowed to compete to win or to set records.
Transphobes call women who have been on HRT most of their life and have had gender affirming surgeries "biological males" - it doesn't mean anything. Again - we have no idea if this athlete even had a testosterone based puberty. She may have been on HRT for years, and it is known that muscle mass is one of the first things to fall within a typical cis women's range when trans women start HRT (as noted, 3 - 6 months). Calling her a "biological male" in reporting (reporting from right wing / "independent" news orgs) is, again, just transphobia
No, calling her* a biological male is accuracy. Being on HRT (which, frankly, I'm extremely dubious about for any child), doesn't change a boy into a girl.
* I'm fine with using preferred pronouns for social purposes. But doing so should not obscure objective reality.
Watching this race, it came to me that you could remake every Competitive Dad sketch from The Fast Show with a trans ‘woman’ as the Dad, and an actual woman as the kids, and it would work perfectly
🚨BREAKING🚨
A trans-identified male dominated the Girls Varsity 400m at the Portland Interscholastic League Championship Semi-Finals yesterday.
Aayden Gallagher will now compete in the finals as a “girl.”
And? The record for under 18 400m for girls is like 50 seconds; for men it's closer to 45 seconds. That this girl runs 400 m in 56-57 seconds makes her, like, a good amateur?
I assume that OR, like many places that allow trans athletes to compete, have rules around when students can participate (from what I can find students have to have been transitioning consistently and cannot participate in the same year they started their transition). I have no idea how old this girl is - but this is a tenth grade competition, so she is likely 15-16. If she's on HRT muscle mass and strength typically is one of the first things to fall in line with new hormones (3-6months).
This is so dishonest. Firstly, you've mistimed the race because the gun goes around two seconds into the video so you need to deduct that from your quoted time.
Secondly, you are using under-18 records to benchmark someone who you say is 15-16.
In any case your argument is basically: "Well 'she' is not a very athletic boy anyway so what's the problem?"
My point is we have no evidence that this girl is anything other than a young athlete who is good at her sport who happens to be trans. If a cis girl won this competition with her time, it wouldn't be commented on. But because she's trans the thought is that must be why she won.
If she is a biological male at 16, that gives her a massive advantage over biological females. I don't know why you are disputing this.
At 16, I could run 400m in about 58 seconds. Good but not particularly remarkable for a boy. I might have won in an athletics meeting against another school. Or I might not. But if I'd been racing girls I might have been the best 'female' athlete in Greater Manchester. Because the average man is significantly faster than the average woman.
Just seen a sign outside a hotel saying 'Bike Friendly', with a picture of a bicycle and a smiley face
This does seem to imply a pleasing level of discrimination against bikewankers elsewhere
When we stayed in the rather bizarre settlement of Silloth in Cumbria on Hadrian's Cycleway, the guesthouse advertised that they had secure cycle storage, bike mechanic kit, and would welcome anyone doing the trail. As a result, the place was packed out with a bunch of ravenous cyclists desperate for food and beer.
The same goes for dozens of rural small businesses, cashing in on MAMILs and cycle tourers from the big cities. I've noted this in Scottish Borders, East Lothian and in N.Wales - all it takes is some cycle racks, pastries and coffee.
Given 93% of UK adults can ride a bike and the massive uptick in interest during and after COVID, your hotel is simply cashing in on a trend. If rural community councils are serious about encouraging economic growth in their areas, they should do all they can to get on the NCN or long distance footpaths like Offa's Dyke. Unlike drivers, people walking and cycling need something local to eat and somewhere local to stay.
The manageress of our local deli/cafe says cyclists are more lucrative than walkers (we’re a bit of a destination town for both). Walkers bring their own sandwiches. Cyclists are concerned about weight so don’t carry anything but buy all the cake in the shop.
I am rather surprised that the cafes in Richmond park (London) don't offer patisserie of the small-but-insanely-high quality type. The stuff they sell is good - but given the number people who've spent vast sums on their bikes, they are leaving a lot of potential wallet hoovering on the table.
The prism through which we view betting odds never fails to fascinate me - it seems that there needs to be some kind of black swan event in order for Labour to not win a majority at the next election, and we’d be saying it was one of the greatest collapses and polling disasters of all time. But if a 13/2f won the Grand National people might say it was an uncompetitive procession despite both outcomes being the same price
There are 32 runners in the Grand National - all of them with at least an outside chance.
Realistically, in a UK general election under FPTP, there are two (three if you include 'hung Parliament').
I don’t really get why you said that
I'm a bit too much of a pedant, I think.
I still don’t get it. I know what you said is true, but it’s obvious, and doesn’t make any difference to the original post, unless I’m missing something
This is more like the National in running with "Sir Keir" over the last and many lengths clear of a tired looking "Rishi Blue".
But will he do a Devon Loch?
Other race metaphors are available on this very thread. But let's not give in to the brainworms.
Poor Brian Altman KC - someone should have reminded him of how Robert Maxwell used his advisors. He used their good reputation to cloak his own rather less good one.
It is a difficult issue for lawyers: even bad actors are entitled to good lawyers. And acting for a bad guy does not imply approval of their misbehaviour.
But his two mistakes were that he did not sufficiently question or think about what he was being asked to opine on by the Post Office and perhaps over-indulged in overly clever legal comments as if he were involved in an academic exercise. He was the victim of what barristers often do in cross-examination to witnesses: he was funnelled into giving the answer the PO wanted to hear.
His other mistake was in giving an opinion on matters he was not qualified to assess. He had no real basis for assessing how good the PO's internal investigations team was. And he didn't even ask the most basic questions. This failing was pretty brutally exposed by Jason Beer yesterday.
What flattery and large fees will get you ....
Just because you are an expert in X does not make you an expert on Y. A lesson for us all.
It might well, if you have been brought in specifically for the purpose of reviewing the property of their past behaviour. He was brought in for independent advice, not to advocate for them.
And he was, at the time, aware of the risk he was taking - though note his concern was of "exposure to criticism" rather than the possibility perpetuating a possible miscarriage of justice.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cld0rewpy01o ...he avoided meeting Mr Jenkins and did not advise the Post Office to investigate his evidence. Mr Clarke’s advice was not shown to defendants until 2021. The inquiry saw evidence that Mr Altman re-wrote the terms of reference of his review to remove issues of Gareth Jenkins’ evidence and avoided meeting him. He wrote to fellow lawyers for the Post Office at Bond Dickenson that he knew that not meeting Gareth Jenkins "risks exposing the final report [of his review of convictions] to criticism".
"This is something I shall need to think about carefully. At this very early stage I am not unnaturally undecided," he wrote. "For now it may be better for the Terms of Reference to remain silent about him." "Why did you consider it best for the terms of reference to remain silent on Mr Jenkins?" asked Jason Beer, counsel to the inquiry. “My view was if the terms if I had yet not yet resolved to see him, that there was no point sticking it in the terms of reference,” Mr Altman said..
Poor Brian Altman KC - someone should have reminded him of how Robert Maxwell used his advisors. He used their good reputation to cloak his own rather less good one.
It is a difficult issue for lawyers: even bad actors are entitled to good lawyers. And acting for a bad guy does not imply approval of their misbehaviour.
But his two mistakes were that he did not sufficiently question or think about what he was being asked to opine on by the Post Office and perhaps over-indulged in overly clever legal comments as if he were involved in an academic exercise. He was the victim of what barristers often do in cross-examination to witnesses: he was funnelled into giving the answer the PO wanted to hear.
His other mistake was in giving an opinion on matters he was not qualified to assess. He had no real basis for assessing how good the PO's internal investigations team was. And he didn't even ask the most basic questions. This failing was pretty brutally exposed by Jason Beer yesterday.
What flattery and large fees will get you ....
Just because you are an expert in X does not make you an expert on Y. A lesson for us all.
It might well, if you have been brought in specifically for the purpose of reviewing the property of their past behaviour. He was brought in for independent advice, not to advocate for them.
And he was, at the time, aware of the risk he was taking - though note his concern was of "exposure to criticism" rather than the possibility perpetuating a possible miscarriage of justice.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cld0rewpy01o ...he avoided meeting Mr Jenkins and did not advise the Post Office to investigate his evidence. Mr Clarke’s advice was not shown to defendants until 2021. The inquiry saw evidence that Mr Altman re-wrote the terms of reference of his review to remove issues of Gareth Jenkins’ evidence and avoided meeting him. He wrote to fellow lawyers for the Post Office at Bond Dickenson that he knew that not meeting Gareth Jenkins "risks exposing the final report [of his review of convictions] to criticism".
"This is something I shall need to think about carefully. At this very early stage I am not unnaturally undecided," he wrote. "For now it may be better for the Terms of Reference to remain silent about him." "Why did you consider it best for the terms of reference to remain silent on Mr Jenkins?" asked Jason Beer, counsel to the inquiry. “My view was if the terms if I had yet not yet resolved to see him, that there was no point sticking it in the terms of reference,” Mr Altman said..
He forgot the first - cynical - rule of professional conduct: watch your back.
He indulged in a lot of legalistic arguments but simply refused - or failed - to see clearly that he had been presented with evidence of possible perjury and miscarriages of justice and that such evidence should have pointed him and his client to only one course of action, a course which his clients did their level best to avoid and which he enabled.
And now his reputation has been harmed, just like those of every other lawyer acting for the PO - whether in-house or external, whether solicitor or barrister and no matter what their experience or qualifications.
If you pour a tiny spoonful of raw sewage into a bottle of champagne, the entire bottle is contaminated.
The PO = the raw sewage.
I am a little careful on "Just because you are an expert in X does not make you an expert on Y"
The classic counter-example was Richard Feynman who went through the experts at NASA like a chainsaw through cheese after Challenger.
His approach - asking questions, then asking more probing questions until contradictions arose, then putting the contradictions as question back to the original experts - seemed to me a master class in applying outside thinking to a very specialist domain.
Watching this race, it came to me that you could remake every Competitive Dad sketch from The Fast Show with a trans ‘woman’ as the Dad, and an actual woman as the kids, and it would work perfectly
🚨BREAKING🚨
A trans-identified male dominated the Girls Varsity 400m at the Portland Interscholastic League Championship Semi-Finals yesterday.
Aayden Gallagher will now compete in the finals as a “girl.”
And? The record for under 18 400m for girls is like 50 seconds; for men it's closer to 45 seconds. That this girl runs 400 m in 56-57 seconds makes her, like, a good amateur?
I assume that OR, like many places that allow trans athletes to compete, have rules around when students can participate (from what I can find students have to have been transitioning consistently and cannot participate in the same year they started their transition). I have no idea how old this girl is - but this is a tenth grade competition, so she is likely 15-16. If she's on HRT muscle mass and strength typically is one of the first things to fall in line with new hormones (3-6months).
He’s not on HRT, so it’s literally a boy competing in the girls race
I couldn't find any information on if she was on HRT or not (that's why I said if) - can you give me a citation for that assertion?
His calves.
Can you see how this could be seen as just straight up misogyny and why people like me say that this policing of women's bodies is bad for cis and trans women? Are you saying any woman who has calf definition similar to this athlete is actually a man? You can "just tell" who is a trans or cis woman by looking at them?
This isn't policing women's bodies. It's straight up fairness. You cannot have a fair competition between men and women in sports that involve the deployment of muscle mass. There is a lot of generalisation but splitting sports between the sexes, while by no-means perfect, is the best way we have to create something of a level playing field (pun intended).
I'm someone who competed at a reasonably high level in sprint events when I was a teenager, trained with boys and girls my own age, and my lived experience (which is all that counts these days apparently) is that it would have been unfair for us to compete with one another in events that mattered.
We do not know if this young athlete is on HRT and, if so, for how long she has been. For all I know she could have never had a testosterone based puberty - she may have been on puberty blockers and got straight onto HRT. To say that you can tell this girl is "really a boy" just by looking at her is completely misogynist - in the same way that those who call Michelle Obama "secretly a man" is. Many cis women who do not conform to feminine beauty standards will be insulted by calling them men; many cis women have been harassed, in toilets and other public spaces, because they were considered too manish and people thought they were trans. It's all the same thing - policing women's bodies based on expectations of femininity.
We don't need to go into observed physical attributes. The original report notes that s/he is a biological male. The what-iffery is beside the point. Men should not be in women's races, and boys - post about 11 - should not be in girls' ones. Or, at least, should not be allowed to compete to win or to set records.
Transphobes call women who have been on HRT most of their life and have had gender affirming surgeries "biological males" - it doesn't mean anything. Again - we have no idea if this athlete even had a testosterone based puberty. She may have been on HRT for years, and it is known that muscle mass is one of the first things to fall within a typical cis women's range when trans women start HRT (as noted, 3 - 6 months). Calling her a "biological male" in reporting (reporting from right wing / "independent" news orgs) is, again, just transphobia
Most transwomen have had a testosterone-based puberty, at least to some degree. I don’t know anything about this person, but I know it’s rare for a transwoman of this age to have been on HRT for many years. So, we do have some idea based on prior probabilities.
Actually Lipton's tea and Tabasco sauce (the smokier kind)
But well spotted. The Tabasco is because I take Tabasco EVERYWHERE (along with Kikkoman's soy, sriracha and salt and pepper mills). To rescue really bland meals. Italian breakfasts are often incredibly dull - either really poor versions of German breakfasts - limp slices of cheese and sad ham - with no condiments, or just a stale pastry. Terrible (and I'm in a glam new 4 star eco-lodge with an excellent chef). Moreover, there is no lunch to be had here, I'm in the middle of a massive forest, so I wanted to liven up my tragic breakfast - therefore I took Tabasco down to eat with me. And it has ended up on my desk. I'm not actually putting it in my tea
I don't get it. I understand that many Italians don't linger over breakfast, and often just grab a pastry. A cannolo or a piece of tart. But they love and understand food, so you'd think that pastry would be really GOOD - like a fine croissant. Often it is not. Stale and awful, and this is in 4 star hotels
Watching this race, it came to me that you could remake every Competitive Dad sketch from The Fast Show with a trans ‘woman’ as the Dad, and an actual woman as the kids, and it would work perfectly
🚨BREAKING🚨
A trans-identified male dominated the Girls Varsity 400m at the Portland Interscholastic League Championship Semi-Finals yesterday.
Aayden Gallagher will now compete in the finals as a “girl.”
And? The record for under 18 400m for girls is like 50 seconds; for men it's closer to 45 seconds. That this girl runs 400 m in 56-57 seconds makes her, like, a good amateur?
I assume that OR, like many places that allow trans athletes to compete, have rules around when students can participate (from what I can find students have to have been transitioning consistently and cannot participate in the same year they started their transition). I have no idea how old this girl is - but this is a tenth grade competition, so she is likely 15-16. If she's on HRT muscle mass and strength typically is one of the first things to fall in line with new hormones (3-6months).
He’s not on HRT, so it’s literally a boy competing in the girls race
I couldn't find any information on if she was on HRT or not (that's why I said if) - can you give me a citation for that assertion?
The issue of sport is going to do more harm to the trans rights movement than anything else. I think people are generally live and let live but transwomen competing in women's events is causing real harm to women's sports. More harm than excluding them would have to transwomen overall. Sometimes rights do not align with one another and, in this case, the rights of women do not align with those of transwomen, although they do in other areas.
So, again, no actual evidence this athlete isn't on HRT just an assertion that transwomen in sports will be bad for the cause of trans rights. Despite trans women very definitely not dominating in sports when up against cis women, and recent research suggesting that trans women may be at a disadvantage against cis women, not an advantage?
The thing is that trans women winning is rare - but the idea that if they win it must be because they are trans is common. And excluding trans women from sports can be very damaging - it is a form of socialising and in the US it can be a significant factor in getting extra funding for university studies. There are mental and material impacts to banning trans athletes, not to mention that it adds to all the other outrageous policing of trans people and their bodies in society - working in tandem with ideas such as bathroom bills or straight up allowing people to transition in the first place.
There's an easy way out - we abandon men's and women's categories and just have one sport - for humans.
I don't think we'd see many women winning at anything ever again.# Is that what the trans activists want?
#Possible exception extreme endurance events, but thats still mainly a hypothesis.
Unlikely even there. In one of the most extreme of extreme events - the Barkley Marathons - Jasmin Paris became the first female finisher this year. That was an absolutely phenomenal performance; one which many would not have believed physically possible had it not been done. Even so, 25 men had done it before her, and all in faster times.
On like-for-like entries, the only time you'd get female winners would be on restricted fields where the lead female was an extreme performance outlier, such as when Paula Radcliffe returned the fastest British time in the London marathon - but only by smashing the women's world record, while the best British male time was one of the slowest of its type, and of course, she was (literally) miles behind the actual race winner.
I think there has been speculation that women may eventually outdo men in extreme events, but no more than speculation.
Poor Brian Altman KC - someone should have reminded him of how Robert Maxwell used his advisors. He used their good reputation to cloak his own rather less good one.
It is a difficult issue for lawyers: even bad actors are entitled to good lawyers. And acting for a bad guy does not imply approval of their misbehaviour.
But his two mistakes were that he did not sufficiently question or think about what he was being asked to opine on by the Post Office and perhaps over-indulged in overly clever legal comments as if he were involved in an academic exercise. He was the victim of what barristers often do in cross-examination to witnesses: he was funnelled into giving the answer the PO wanted to hear.
His other mistake was in giving an opinion on matters he was not qualified to assess. He had no real basis for assessing how good the PO's internal investigations team was. And he didn't even ask the most basic questions. This failing was pretty brutally exposed by Jason Beer yesterday.
What flattery and large fees will get you ....
Just because you are an expert in X does not make you an expert on Y. A lesson for us all.
It might well, if you have been brought in specifically for the purpose of reviewing the property of their past behaviour. He was brought in for independent advice, not to advocate for them.
And he was, at the time, aware of the risk he was taking - though note his concern was of "exposure to criticism" rather than the possibility perpetuating a possible miscarriage of justice.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cld0rewpy01o ...he avoided meeting Mr Jenkins and did not advise the Post Office to investigate his evidence. Mr Clarke’s advice was not shown to defendants until 2021. The inquiry saw evidence that Mr Altman re-wrote the terms of reference of his review to remove issues of Gareth Jenkins’ evidence and avoided meeting him. He wrote to fellow lawyers for the Post Office at Bond Dickenson that he knew that not meeting Gareth Jenkins "risks exposing the final report [of his review of convictions] to criticism".
"This is something I shall need to think about carefully. At this very early stage I am not unnaturally undecided," he wrote. "For now it may be better for the Terms of Reference to remain silent about him." "Why did you consider it best for the terms of reference to remain silent on Mr Jenkins?" asked Jason Beer, counsel to the inquiry. “My view was if the terms if I had yet not yet resolved to see him, that there was no point sticking it in the terms of reference,” Mr Altman said..
Poor Brian Altman KC - someone should have reminded him of how Robert Maxwell used his advisors. He used their good reputation to cloak his own rather less good one.
It is a difficult issue for lawyers: even bad actors are entitled to good lawyers. And acting for a bad guy does not imply approval of their misbehaviour.
But his two mistakes were that he did not sufficiently question or think about what he was being asked to opine on by the Post Office and perhaps over-indulged in overly clever legal comments as if he were involved in an academic exercise. He was the victim of what barristers often do in cross-examination to witnesses: he was funnelled into giving the answer the PO wanted to hear.
His other mistake was in giving an opinion on matters he was not qualified to assess. He had no real basis for assessing how good the PO's internal investigations team was. And he didn't even ask the most basic questions. This failing was pretty brutally exposed by Jason Beer yesterday.
What flattery and large fees will get you ....
Just because you are an expert in X does not make you an expert on Y. A lesson for us all.
It might well, if you have been brought in specifically for the purpose of reviewing the property of their past behaviour. He was brought in for independent advice, not to advocate for them.
And he was, at the time, aware of the risk he was taking - though note his concern was of "exposure to criticism" rather than the possibility perpetuating a possible miscarriage of justice.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cld0rewpy01o ...he avoided meeting Mr Jenkins and did not advise the Post Office to investigate his evidence. Mr Clarke’s advice was not shown to defendants until 2021. The inquiry saw evidence that Mr Altman re-wrote the terms of reference of his review to remove issues of Gareth Jenkins’ evidence and avoided meeting him. He wrote to fellow lawyers for the Post Office at Bond Dickenson that he knew that not meeting Gareth Jenkins "risks exposing the final report [of his review of convictions] to criticism".
"This is something I shall need to think about carefully. At this very early stage I am not unnaturally undecided," he wrote. "For now it may be better for the Terms of Reference to remain silent about him." "Why did you consider it best for the terms of reference to remain silent on Mr Jenkins?" asked Jason Beer, counsel to the inquiry. “My view was if the terms if I had yet not yet resolved to see him, that there was no point sticking it in the terms of reference,” Mr Altman said..
He forgot the first - cynical - rule of professional conduct: watch your back.
He indulged in a lot of legalistic arguments but simply refused - or failed - to see clearly that he had been presented with evidence of possible perjury and miscarriages of justice and that such evidence should have pointed him and his client to only one course of action, a course which his clients did their level best to avoid and which he enabled.
And now his reputation has been harmed, just like those of every other lawyer acting for the PO - whether in-house or external, whether solicitor or barrister and no matter what their experience or qualifications.
If you pour a tiny spoonful of raw sewage into a bottle of champagne, the entire bottle is contaminated.
The PO = the raw sewage.
I am a little careful on "Just because you are an expert in X does not make you an expert on Y"
The classic counter-example was Richard Feynman who went through the experts at NASA like a chainsaw through cheese after Challenger.
His approach - asking questions, then asking more probing questions until contradictions arose, then putting the contradictions as question back to the original experts - seemed to me a master class in applying outside thinking to a very specialist domain.
We saw something similar in the Covid pandemic when physicists (or was it physical chemists) started to question whether the medical profession correctly understood droplet behaviour. Although the Covid pandemic also gave us any number of journalists opining on vaccination, so swings and roundabouts.
Watching this race, it came to me that you could remake every Competitive Dad sketch from The Fast Show with a trans ‘woman’ as the Dad, and an actual woman as the kids, and it would work perfectly
🚨BREAKING🚨
A trans-identified male dominated the Girls Varsity 400m at the Portland Interscholastic League Championship Semi-Finals yesterday.
Aayden Gallagher will now compete in the finals as a “girl.”
And? The record for under 18 400m for girls is like 50 seconds; for men it's closer to 45 seconds. That this girl runs 400 m in 56-57 seconds makes her, like, a good amateur?
I assume that OR, like many places that allow trans athletes to compete, have rules around when students can participate (from what I can find students have to have been transitioning consistently and cannot participate in the same year they started their transition). I have no idea how old this girl is - but this is a tenth grade competition, so she is likely 15-16. If she's on HRT muscle mass and strength typically is one of the first things to fall in line with new hormones (3-6months).
This is so dishonest. Firstly, you've mistimed the race because the gun goes around two seconds into the video so you need to deduct that from your quoted time.
Secondly, you are using under-18 records to benchmark someone who you say is 15-16.
In any case your argument is basically: "Well 'she' is not a very athletic boy anyway so what's the problem?"
My point is we have no evidence that this girl is anything other than a young athlete who is good at her sport who happens to be trans. If a cis girl won this competition with her time, it wouldn't be commented on. But because she's trans the thought is that must be why she won.
Watching this race, it came to me that you could remake every Competitive Dad sketch from The Fast Show with a trans ‘woman’ as the Dad, and an actual woman as the kids, and it would work perfectly
🚨BREAKING🚨
A trans-identified male dominated the Girls Varsity 400m at the Portland Interscholastic League Championship Semi-Finals yesterday.
Aayden Gallagher will now compete in the finals as a “girl.”
And? The record for under 18 400m for girls is like 50 seconds; for men it's closer to 45 seconds. That this girl runs 400 m in 56-57 seconds makes her, like, a good amateur?
I assume that OR, like many places that allow trans athletes to compete, have rules around when students can participate (from what I can find students have to have been transitioning consistently and cannot participate in the same year they started their transition). I have no idea how old this girl is - but this is a tenth grade competition, so she is likely 15-16. If she's on HRT muscle mass and strength typically is one of the first things to fall in line with new hormones (3-6months).
He’s not on HRT, so it’s literally a boy competing in the girls race
I couldn't find any information on if she was on HRT or not (that's why I said if) - can you give me a citation for that assertion?
His calves.
Can you see how this could be seen as just straight up misogyny and why people like me say that this policing of women's bodies is bad for cis and trans women? Are you saying any woman who has calf definition similar to this athlete is actually a man? You can "just tell" who is a trans or cis woman by looking at them?
This isn't policing women's bodies. It's straight up fairness. You cannot have a fair competition between men and women in sports that involve the deployment of muscle mass. There is a lot of generalisation but splitting sports between the sexes, while by no-means perfect, is the best way we have to create something of a level playing field (pun intended).
I'm someone who competed at a reasonably high level in sprint events when I was a teenager, trained with boys and girls my own age, and my lived experience (which is all that counts these days apparently) is that it would have been unfair for us to compete with one another in events that mattered.
We do not know if this young athlete is on HRT and, if so, for how long she has been. For all I know she could have never had a testosterone based puberty - she may have been on puberty blockers and got straight onto HRT. To say that you can tell this girl is "really a boy" just by looking at her is completely misogynist - in the same way that those who call Michelle Obama "secretly a man" is. Many cis women who do not conform to feminine beauty standards will be insulted by calling them men; many cis women have been harassed, in toilets and other public spaces, because they were considered too manish and people thought they were trans. It's all the same thing - policing women's bodies based on expectations of femininity.
We don't need to go into observed physical attributes. The original report notes that s/he is a biological male. The what-iffery is beside the point. Men should not be in women's races, and boys - post about 11 - should not be in girls' ones. Or, at least, should not be allowed to compete to win or to set records.
Transphobes call women who have been on HRT most of their life and have had gender affirming surgeries "biological males" - it doesn't mean anything. Again - we have no idea if this athlete even had a testosterone based puberty. She may have been on HRT for years, and it is known that muscle mass is one of the first things to fall within a typical cis women's range when trans women start HRT (as noted, 3 - 6 months). Calling her a "biological male" in reporting (reporting from right wing / "independent" news orgs) is, again, just transphobia
148grss, you have repeatedly made this point that maybe she’s been on HRT for years and not experienced a testosterone-based puberty. So, are you saying that these things matter? If she had only started HRT the day before, would it then be unfair for her to compete against ciswomen?
Are you (implicitly) proposing that transwomen should only be able to compete against ciswomen under certain circumstances relating to their transition and hormone use?
Jim Pickard 🐋 @PickardJE look away now if you have zero interest in employment law, because this thread is going to compare and contrast - in minute detail - the 2021 Labour New Deal For Working People and the new, rewritten version which I got hold of yesterday.....
Watching this race, it came to me that you could remake every Competitive Dad sketch from The Fast Show with a trans ‘woman’ as the Dad, and an actual woman as the kids, and it would work perfectly
🚨BREAKING🚨
A trans-identified male dominated the Girls Varsity 400m at the Portland Interscholastic League Championship Semi-Finals yesterday.
Aayden Gallagher will now compete in the finals as a “girl.”
And? The record for under 18 400m for girls is like 50 seconds; for men it's closer to 45 seconds. That this girl runs 400 m in 56-57 seconds makes her, like, a good amateur?
I assume that OR, like many places that allow trans athletes to compete, have rules around when students can participate (from what I can find students have to have been transitioning consistently and cannot participate in the same year they started their transition). I have no idea how old this girl is - but this is a tenth grade competition, so she is likely 15-16. If she's on HRT muscle mass and strength typically is one of the first things to fall in line with new hormones (3-6months).
He’s not on HRT, so it’s literally a boy competing in the girls race
I couldn't find any information on if she was on HRT or not (that's why I said if) - can you give me a citation for that assertion?
The issue of sport is going to do more harm to the trans rights movement than anything else. I think people are generally live and let live but transwomen competing in women's events is causing real harm to women's sports. More harm than excluding them would have to transwomen overall. Sometimes rights do not align with one another and, in this case, the rights of women do not align with those of transwomen, although they do in other areas.
So, again, no actual evidence this athlete isn't on HRT just an assertion that transwomen in sports will be bad for the cause of trans rights. Despite trans women very definitely not dominating in sports when up against cis women, and recent research suggesting that trans women may be at a disadvantage against cis women, not an advantage?
The thing is that trans women winning is rare - but the idea that if they win it must be because they are trans is common. And excluding trans women from sports can be very damaging - it is a form of socialising and in the US it can be a significant factor in getting extra funding for university studies. There are mental and material impacts to banning trans athletes, not to mention that it adds to all the other outrageous policing of trans people and their bodies in society - working in tandem with ideas such as bathroom bills or straight up allowing people to transition in the first place.
There's an easy way out - we abandon men's and women's categories and just have one sport - for humans.
I don't think we'd see many women winning at anything ever again.# Is that what the trans activists want?
#Possible exception extreme endurance events, but thats still mainly a hypothesis.
Unlikely even there. In one of the most extreme of extreme events - the Barkley Marathons - Jasmin Paris became the first female finisher this year. That was an absolutely phenomenal performance; one which many would not have believed physically possible had it not been done. Even so, 25 men had done it before her, and all in faster times.
On like-for-like entries, the only time you'd get female winners would be on restricted fields where the lead female was an extreme performance outlier, such as when Paula Radcliffe returned the fastest British time in the London marathon - but only by smashing the women's world record, while the best British male time was one of the slowest of its type, and of course, she was (literally) miles behind the actual race winner.
I think there has been speculation that women may eventually outdo men in extreme events, but no more than speculation.
There has been, and there is some physiological basis to that to do with a smaller size becoming a positive advantage, likewise body fat ratios, IIRC. However, greater male muscle density and other typical attributes still go the other way - as, of course, do all the results so far.
And in any case, if there were an inherent female advantage to some sports events, that would *still* argue in favour of a sex-based division.
Actually Lipton's tea and Tabasco sauce (the smokier kind)
But well spotted. The Tabasco is because I take Tabasco EVERYWHERE (along with Kikkoman's soy, sriracha and salt and pepper mills). To rescue really bland meals. Italian breakfasts are often incredibly dull - either really poor versions of German breakfasts - limp slices of cheese and sad ham - with no condiments, or just a stale pastry. Terrible (and I'm in a glam new 4 star eco-lodge with an excellent chef). Moreover, there is no lunch to be had here, I'm in the middle of a massive forest, so I wanted to liven up my tragic breakfast - therefore I took Tabasco down to eat with me. And it has ended up on my desk. I'm not actually putting it in my tea
I don't get it. I understand that many Italians don't linger over breakfast, and often just grab a pastry. A cannolo or a piece of tart. But they love and understand food, so you'd think that pastry would be really GOOD - like a fine croissant. Often it is not. Stale and awful, and this is in 4 star hotels
Jim Pickard 🐋 @PickardJE look away now if you have zero interest in employment law, because this thread is going to compare and contrast - in minute detail - the 2021 Labour New Deal For Working People and the new, rewritten version which I got hold of yesterday.....
Actually Lipton's tea and Tabasco sauce (the smokier kind)
But well spotted. The Tabasco is because I take Tabasco EVERYWHERE (along with Kikkoman's soy, sriracha and salt and pepper mills). To rescue really bland meals. Italian breakfasts are often incredibly dull - either really poor versions of German breakfasts - limp slices of cheese and sad ham - with no condiments, or just a stale pastry. Terrible (and I'm in a glam new 4 star eco-lodge with an excellent chef). Moreover, there is no lunch to be had here, I'm in the middle of a massive forest, so I wanted to liven up my tragic breakfast - therefore I took Tabasco down to eat with me. And it has ended up on my desk. I'm not actually putting it in my tea
I don't get it. I understand that many Italians don't linger over breakfast, and often just grab a pastry. A cannolo or a piece of tart. But they love and understand food, so you'd think that pastry would be really GOOD - like a fine croissant. Often it is not. Stale and awful, and this is in 4 star hotels
Chiz
Cake for breakfast is an Italian holiday pleasure of mine - but it can be hit and miss. When I was younger and poorer I would get down to breakfast at 7, have the usual breakfast and then hang around reading, waiting for coffee & cake at 9:30, just before closing. Then no lunch required.
Italy is also one of only two countries (Switzerland the other) where I have seen a bottle of sparkling wine in an ice bucket on the breakfast buffet - and both times in cheap 3 star hotels. Didn't see anyone have any either time, but it must be there for a reason.
Poor Brian Altman KC - someone should have reminded him of how Robert Maxwell used his advisors. He used their good reputation to cloak his own rather less good one.
It is a difficult issue for lawyers: even bad actors are entitled to good lawyers. And acting for a bad guy does not imply approval of their misbehaviour.
But his two mistakes were that he did not sufficiently question or think about what he was being asked to opine on by the Post Office and perhaps over-indulged in overly clever legal comments as if he were involved in an academic exercise. He was the victim of what barristers often do in cross-examination to witnesses: he was funnelled into giving the answer the PO wanted to hear.
His other mistake was in giving an opinion on matters he was not qualified to assess. He had no real basis for assessing how good the PO's internal investigations team was. And he didn't even ask the most basic questions. This failing was pretty brutally exposed by Jason Beer yesterday.
What flattery and large fees will get you ....
Just because you are an expert in X does not make you an expert on Y. A lesson for us all.
It might well, if you have been brought in specifically for the purpose of reviewing the property of their past behaviour. He was brought in for independent advice, not to advocate for them.
And he was, at the time, aware of the risk he was taking - though note his concern was of "exposure to criticism" rather than the possibility perpetuating a possible miscarriage of justice.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cld0rewpy01o ...he avoided meeting Mr Jenkins and did not advise the Post Office to investigate his evidence. Mr Clarke’s advice was not shown to defendants until 2021. The inquiry saw evidence that Mr Altman re-wrote the terms of reference of his review to remove issues of Gareth Jenkins’ evidence and avoided meeting him. He wrote to fellow lawyers for the Post Office at Bond Dickenson that he knew that not meeting Gareth Jenkins "risks exposing the final report [of his review of convictions] to criticism".
"This is something I shall need to think about carefully. At this very early stage I am not unnaturally undecided," he wrote. "For now it may be better for the Terms of Reference to remain silent about him." "Why did you consider it best for the terms of reference to remain silent on Mr Jenkins?" asked Jason Beer, counsel to the inquiry. “My view was if the terms if I had yet not yet resolved to see him, that there was no point sticking it in the terms of reference,” Mr Altman said..
Poor Brian Altman KC - someone should have reminded him of how Robert Maxwell used his advisors. He used their good reputation to cloak his own rather less good one.
It is a difficult issue for lawyers: even bad actors are entitled to good lawyers. And acting for a bad guy does not imply approval of their misbehaviour.
But his two mistakes were that he did not sufficiently question or think about what he was being asked to opine on by the Post Office and perhaps over-indulged in overly clever legal comments as if he were involved in an academic exercise. He was the victim of what barristers often do in cross-examination to witnesses: he was funnelled into giving the answer the PO wanted to hear.
His other mistake was in giving an opinion on matters he was not qualified to assess. He had no real basis for assessing how good the PO's internal investigations team was. And he didn't even ask the most basic questions. This failing was pretty brutally exposed by Jason Beer yesterday.
What flattery and large fees will get you ....
Just because you are an expert in X does not make you an expert on Y. A lesson for us all.
It might well, if you have been brought in specifically for the purpose of reviewing the property of their past behaviour. He was brought in for independent advice, not to advocate for them.
And he was, at the time, aware of the risk he was taking - though note his concern was of "exposure to criticism" rather than the possibility perpetuating a possible miscarriage of justice.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cld0rewpy01o ...he avoided meeting Mr Jenkins and did not advise the Post Office to investigate his evidence. Mr Clarke’s advice was not shown to defendants until 2021. The inquiry saw evidence that Mr Altman re-wrote the terms of reference of his review to remove issues of Gareth Jenkins’ evidence and avoided meeting him. He wrote to fellow lawyers for the Post Office at Bond Dickenson that he knew that not meeting Gareth Jenkins "risks exposing the final report [of his review of convictions] to criticism".
"This is something I shall need to think about carefully. At this very early stage I am not unnaturally undecided," he wrote. "For now it may be better for the Terms of Reference to remain silent about him." "Why did you consider it best for the terms of reference to remain silent on Mr Jenkins?" asked Jason Beer, counsel to the inquiry. “My view was if the terms if I had yet not yet resolved to see him, that there was no point sticking it in the terms of reference,” Mr Altman said..
He forgot the first - cynical - rule of professional conduct: watch your back.
He indulged in a lot of legalistic arguments but simply refused - or failed - to see clearly that he had been presented with evidence of possible perjury and miscarriages of justice and that such evidence should have pointed him and his client to only one course of action, a course which his clients did their level best to avoid and which he enabled.
And now his reputation has been harmed, just like those of every other lawyer acting for the PO - whether in-house or external, whether solicitor or barrister and no matter what their experience or qualifications.
If you pour a tiny spoonful of raw sewage into a bottle of champagne, the entire bottle is contaminated.
The PO = the raw sewage.
I am a little careful on "Just because you are an expert in X does not make you an expert on Y"
The classic counter-example was Richard Feynman who went through the experts at NASA like a chainsaw through cheese after Challenger.
His approach - asking questions, then asking more probing questions until contradictions arose, then putting the contradictions as question back to the original experts - seemed to me a master class in applying outside thinking to a very specialist domain.
We saw something similar in the Covid pandemic when physicists (or was it physical chemists) started to question whether the medical profession correctly understood droplet behaviour. Although the Covid pandemic also gave us any number of journalists opining on vaccination, so swings and roundabouts.
The key is "This seems strange. What is the classic explanation for this, please?"
Pesto seemed unable to comprehend that if he didn't understand something, that nearly always means that he hadn't acquired a piece of domain specific knowledge.
A theme running through Feynman's biography is "I didn't know something. So I learnt it, by asking experts."
Actually Lipton's tea and Tabasco sauce (the smokier kind)
But well spotted. The Tabasco is because I take Tabasco EVERYWHERE (along with Kikkoman's soy, sriracha and salt and pepper mills). To rescue really bland meals. Italian breakfasts are often incredibly dull - either really poor versions of German breakfasts - limp slices of cheese and sad ham - with no condiments, or just a stale pastry. Terrible (and I'm in a glam new 4 star eco-lodge with an excellent chef). Moreover, there is no lunch to be had here, I'm in the middle of a massive forest, so I wanted to liven up my tragic breakfast - therefore I took Tabasco down to eat with me. And it has ended up on my desk. I'm not actually putting it in my tea
I don't get it. I understand that many Italians don't linger over breakfast, and often just grab a pastry. A cannolo or a piece of tart. But they love and understand food, so you'd think that pastry would be really GOOD - like a fine croissant. Often it is not. Stale and awful, and this is in 4 star hotels
Chiz
Cake for breakfast is an Italian holiday pleasure of mine - but it can be hit and miss. When I was younger and poorer I would get down to breakfast at 7, have the usual breakfast and then hang around reading, waiting for coffee & cake at 9:30, just before closing. Then no lunch required.
Italy is also one of only two countries (Switzerland the other) where I have seen a bottle of sparkling wine in an ice bucket on the breakfast buffet - and both times in cheap 3 star hotels. Didn't see anyone have any either time, but it must be there for a reason.
When I was a young whippersnapper and went backpacking round Italy the youth hostels used to serve bowls of hot chocolate and bread rolls for breakfast - no sparkling wine however.
Jim Pickard 🐋 @PickardJE look away now if you have zero interest in employment law, because this thread is going to compare and contrast - in minute detail - the 2021 Labour New Deal For Working People and the new, rewritten version which I got hold of yesterday.....
Actually Lipton's tea and Tabasco sauce (the smokier kind)
But well spotted. The Tabasco is because I take Tabasco EVERYWHERE (along with Kikkoman's soy, sriracha and salt and pepper mills). To rescue really bland meals. Italian breakfasts are often incredibly dull - either really poor versions of German breakfasts - limp slices of cheese and sad ham - with no condiments, or just a stale pastry. Terrible (and I'm in a glam new 4 star eco-lodge with an excellent chef). Moreover, there is no lunch to be had here, I'm in the middle of a massive forest, so I wanted to liven up my tragic breakfast - therefore I took Tabasco down to eat with me. And it has ended up on my desk. I'm not actually putting it in my tea
I don't get it. I understand that many Italians don't linger over breakfast, and often just grab a pastry. A cannolo or a piece of tart. But they love and understand food, so you'd think that pastry would be really GOOD - like a fine croissant. Often it is not. Stale and awful, and this is in 4 star hotels
Chiz
Do you like tabasco? It's quite bland.
Have you tried stale Italian bread with processed ham? Tabasco improves it
This is the best Tabasco brand for breakfasts (and pizzas). Habanero
Actually Lipton's tea and Tabasco sauce (the smokier kind)
But well spotted. The Tabasco is because I take Tabasco EVERYWHERE (along with Kikkoman's soy, sriracha and salt and pepper mills). To rescue really bland meals. Italian breakfasts are often incredibly dull - either really poor versions of German breakfasts - limp slices of cheese and sad ham - with no condiments, or just a stale pastry. Terrible (and I'm in a glam new 4 star eco-lodge with an excellent chef). Moreover, there is no lunch to be had here, I'm in the middle of a massive forest, so I wanted to liven up my tragic breakfast - therefore I took Tabasco down to eat with me. And it has ended up on my desk. I'm not actually putting it in my tea
I don't get it. I understand that many Italians don't linger over breakfast, and often just grab a pastry. A cannolo or a piece of tart. But they love and understand food, so you'd think that pastry would be really GOOD - like a fine croissant. Often it is not. Stale and awful, and this is in 4 star hotels
Chiz
Cake for breakfast is an Italian holiday pleasure of mine - but it can be hit and miss. When I was younger and poorer I would get down to breakfast at 7, have the usual breakfast and then hang around reading, waiting for coffee & cake at 9:30, just before closing. Then no lunch required.
Italy is also one of only two countries (Switzerland the other) where I have seen a bottle of sparkling wine in an ice bucket on the breakfast buffet - and both times in cheap 3 star hotels. Didn't see anyone have any either time, but it must be there for a reason.
Saw the breakfast prosecco thing in Rhodes, of all places. My wife and I tried it and found it an interesting accompaniment to the orange juice.
I see that we are off topic on trans this morning.
If anyone wants a nice non-controversial 20 minute video with lunch, here's (a very good) one exploring "What is the "Correct" Speed Limit?" in cities !
I'm attracted by the approach of looking at systems safety through the lens of kinetic energy (0.5 * m * v-squared) carried by a vehicle as indicating the possible damage in a collision.
Jim Pickard 🐋 @PickardJE look away now if you have zero interest in employment law, because this thread is going to compare and contrast - in minute detail - the 2021 Labour New Deal For Working People and the new, rewritten version which I got hold of yesterday.....
In other news, sounds like Nadhim Zahawi is stepping down at the GE. Not sure if that’s good or bad news for the LibDems’ chances of taking Stratford on Avon.
Well, the Lib Dems have a well embedded local candidate, they took overall control of the council for the first time last year and the Tories now have to make a very rapid selection of a new candidate just weeks before the GE, so it going to be a sticky wicket for the Tories now.
As dodgy a geezah as he is, I always quite liked Zahawi. Seemed pragmatic and affable, if unsuited to high office for venality reasons.
An absolute roaster who shoudl never have been in charge of any finances
Actually Lipton's tea and Tabasco sauce (the smokier kind)
But well spotted. The Tabasco is because I take Tabasco EVERYWHERE (along with Kikkoman's soy, sriracha and salt and pepper mills). To rescue really bland meals. Italian breakfasts are often incredibly dull - either really poor versions of German breakfasts - limp slices of cheese and sad ham - with no condiments, or just a stale pastry. Terrible (and I'm in a glam new 4 star eco-lodge with an excellent chef). Moreover, there is no lunch to be had here, I'm in the middle of a massive forest, so I wanted to liven up my tragic breakfast - therefore I took Tabasco down to eat with me. And it has ended up on my desk. I'm not actually putting it in my tea
I don't get it. I understand that many Italians don't linger over breakfast, and often just grab a pastry. A cannolo or a piece of tart. But they love and understand food, so you'd think that pastry would be really GOOD - like a fine croissant. Often it is not. Stale and awful, and this is in 4 star hotels
Chiz
Cake for breakfast is an Italian holiday pleasure of mine - but it can be hit and miss. When I was younger and poorer I would get down to breakfast at 7, have the usual breakfast and then hang around reading, waiting for coffee & cake at 9:30, just before closing. Then no lunch required.
Italy is also one of only two countries (Switzerland the other) where I have seen a bottle of sparkling wine in an ice bucket on the breakfast buffet - and both times in cheap 3 star hotels. Didn't see anyone have any either time, but it must be there for a reason.
Saw the breakfast prosecco thing in Rhodes, of all places. My wife and I tried it and found it an interesting accompaniment to the orange juice.
Major 5 star hotels in Asia and the Maldives, Seychelles, etc, often have fine champagne - even vintage - iced and ready at breakfast. And people drink it copiously.
The Scottish Greens have been accused of prioritising ideology over protecting children after the party again refused to endorse an expert report into gender healthcare.
Patrick Harvie, who until last month was a Scottish government minister, claimed that a Holyrood motion welcoming the Cass Review and recognising it as a “valid scientific document” was not “supportable” by his party....
All other parties, including the SNP, endorsed Hilary Cass’s report at Holyrood. However, all seven Green MSPs voted against the motion, with Mr Harvie claiming that transgender people were having their “very existence refuted”....
Brian Whittle, a Tory MSP, asked Mr Harvie whether he would now seek to listen to “alternative experts” on climate change after he refused to accept the findings of Dr Cass, a widely respected consultant paediatrician.
“You don’t get to choose your experts just to fit your ideology,” Mr Whittle said. “Especially when it’s the health of children at stake.
The Cass report is not a scientific document - it did not go through peer review, even if it did review some peer reviewed studies. The Cass report is, at best, a policy document written by a healthcare expert and, at worst, a clear attempt to ignore the growing consensus that transgender healthcare, including for young people, is not a threat and has positive impacts. We saw Cass only the other day talking about how "other methods" such as antidepressants, antianxiety medication and therapy "had not been tried" with young people expressing gender dysphoria and wanting to transition which is a) not true and b) beside the point because you can be both trans and depressed at the same time!
Cue the weirdos crawling out of the woodwork , next you will be telling us women have penises
While there is a valid discussion to have over transgender participation in high-level sport, it feels like everyone is overreacting about one 10th grader's participation in a glorified school sports day. I feel like kids should be allowed to compete in sports and the amount of abuse and negative attention this 10th grader has got seems quite mean.
Just seen a sign outside a hotel saying 'Bike Friendly', with a picture of a bicycle and a smiley face
This does seem to imply a pleasing level of discrimination against bikewankers elsewhere
When we stayed in the rather bizarre settlement of Silloth in Cumbria on Hadrian's Cycleway, the guesthouse advertised that they had secure cycle storage, bike mechanic kit, and would welcome anyone doing the trail. As a result, the place was packed out with a bunch of ravenous cyclists desperate for food and beer.
The same goes for dozens of rural small businesses, cashing in on MAMILs and cycle tourers from the big cities. I've noted this in Scottish Borders, East Lothian and in N.Wales - all it takes is some cycle racks, pastries and coffee.
Given 93% of UK adults can ride a bike and the massive uptick in interest during and after COVID, your hotel is simply cashing in on a trend. If rural community councils are serious about encouraging economic growth in their areas, they should do all they can to get on the NCN or long distance footpaths like Offa's Dyke. Unlike drivers, people walking and cycling need something local to eat and somewhere local to stay.
These days it is likely to need charging for EAPCs, too.
The best accommodation network I have used is Cyclists Welcome from CyclingUK; another well known one is Warm Showers. I'd always put these ahead of places that just say "we care cyclist friendly" with no external certification.
The Cyclists Touring Club (now CyclingUK) started the first such accommodation network in 1887, and gave out these embems to be displayed which are still there in some places: https://eghammuseum.org/cyclists-touring-club/
In my long-ago cycle touring days I used Youth Hostels. Is there still a decent network?
Proof of merit by peer review is on the list of phallusies, quite close to proof of merit by impact factor. There's also the well-known "I've been doing this job professionally for 23 years" phallusy, which always sticks out like a sore one.
Watching this race, it came to me that you could remake every Competitive Dad sketch from The Fast Show with a trans ‘woman’ as the Dad, and an actual woman as the kids, and it would work perfectly
🚨BREAKING🚨
A trans-identified male dominated the Girls Varsity 400m at the Portland Interscholastic League Championship Semi-Finals yesterday.
Aayden Gallagher will now compete in the finals as a “girl.”
And? The record for under 18 400m for girls is like 50 seconds; for men it's closer to 45 seconds. That this girl runs 400 m in 56-57 seconds makes her, like, a good amateur?
I assume that OR, like many places that allow trans athletes to compete, have rules around when students can participate (from what I can find students have to have been transitioning consistently and cannot participate in the same year they started their transition). I have no idea how old this girl is - but this is a tenth grade competition, so she is likely 15-16. If she's on HRT muscle mass and strength typically is one of the first things to fall in line with new hormones (3-6months).
He’s not on HRT, so it’s literally a boy competing in the girls race
I couldn't find any information on if she was on HRT or not (that's why I said if) - can you give me a citation for that assertion?
Regardless it is a bloody disgrace. A cheating lowlife loser as a man has to pretend to be a girl to try and win a race. Should have his arse kicked out the door.
While there is a valid discussion to have over transgender participation in high-level sport, it feels like everyone is overreacting about one 10th grader's participation in a glorified school sports day. I feel like kids should be allowed to compete in sports and the amount of abuse and negative attention this 10th grader has got seems quite mean.
Actually Lipton's tea and Tabasco sauce (the smokier kind)
But well spotted. The Tabasco is because I take Tabasco EVERYWHERE (along with Kikkoman's soy, sriracha and salt and pepper mills). To rescue really bland meals. Italian breakfasts are often incredibly dull - either really poor versions of German breakfasts - limp slices of cheese and sad ham - with no condiments, or just a stale pastry. Terrible (and I'm in a glam new 4 star eco-lodge with an excellent chef). Moreover, there is no lunch to be had here, I'm in the middle of a massive forest, so I wanted to liven up my tragic breakfast - therefore I took Tabasco down to eat with me. And it has ended up on my desk. I'm not actually putting it in my tea
I don't get it. I understand that many Italians don't linger over breakfast, and often just grab a pastry. A cannolo or a piece of tart. But they love and understand food, so you'd think that pastry would be really GOOD - like a fine croissant. Often it is not. Stale and awful, and this is in 4 star hotels
Chiz
Do you like tabasco? It's quite bland.
Even the worst tabasco isn't the insult to the tastebuds that Lipton's tea is.
The Scottish Greens have been accused of prioritising ideology over protecting children after the party again refused to endorse an expert report into gender healthcare.
Patrick Harvie, who until last month was a Scottish government minister, claimed that a Holyrood motion welcoming the Cass Review and recognising it as a “valid scientific document” was not “supportable” by his party....
All other parties, including the SNP, endorsed Hilary Cass’s report at Holyrood. However, all seven Green MSPs voted against the motion, with Mr Harvie claiming that transgender people were having their “very existence refuted”....
Brian Whittle, a Tory MSP, asked Mr Harvie whether he would now seek to listen to “alternative experts” on climate change after he refused to accept the findings of Dr Cass, a widely respected consultant paediatrician.
“You don’t get to choose your experts just to fit your ideology,” Mr Whittle said. “Especially when it’s the health of children at stake.
The Cass report is not a scientific document - it did not go through peer review, even if it did review some peer reviewed studies. The Cass report is, at best, a policy document written by a healthcare expert and, at worst, a clear attempt to ignore the growing consensus that transgender healthcare, including for young people, is not a threat and has positive impacts. We saw Cass only the other day talking about how "other methods" such as antidepressants, antianxiety medication and therapy "had not been tried" with young people expressing gender dysphoria and wanting to transition which is a) not true and b) beside the point because you can be both trans and depressed at the same time!
Do you know what peer review means? This is absolutely a scientific document - its a review of lots of research. You just don't like it because it doesn't ape your world view.
Peer review means it going through the scrutiny of other people with expertise (peers) reviewing the work before publication. Which the Cass report didn't go through. Some people argue if it needed to, but I would personally say if you want to call the Cass report "science" it needs to have gone through some form of peer review.
Rubbish. Utter drivel. The paper I am writing at the moment is not science yet because it's not been submitted to peer review? You just don't like it because it has a different view to yours.
The scientific method requires that things that are published go through peer review to check that the methodology makes sense, the results are real, and that the experiment or scenario within the paper itself is repeatable...
Peer review prior to publication is something required by convention, rather than something required by 'the scientific method' itself.
The Cass report includes discussion and analysis of a number of scientific publications, though comes to few conclusions about them other than that they are far from definitive.
It also includes a great deal of narrative writing on sociopolitical issues, as well as the state of knowledge in the field.
It's certainly not a scientific paper in the accepted sense. And its own conclusions are far from definitive, either.
Agree. I've written plenty of reports for funders (often made public) that are not peer reviewed. Many of them get more exposure than the papers - I've had the reports picked up by BBC/ITV etc but not the papers (I normally will package the same research up in a peer reviewed paper too, with a slightly different angle/more analysis).
The Cass review is a report. Whether it's called scientific is largely semantics.* It summarises the evidence** and then, due to the lack of evidence, goes further into recommendations based on the authors' best guesses/feelings about the right way forwards. The reviews that were carried out and the primary qualitative research and upcoming secondary healthcare data analysis follow the scientific method and are cautious about concluding anything where the evidence is not there. The report does (and should - no one would have been impressed if Cass had simply said "we don't know, more research is needed) go beyond what has a sound basis in scientific evidence.
* Take my reports mentioned above - they report on science, but I'm not sure I'd call all of them scientific reports - some were a bit too broad brush and narrative for that, I think. I also think it's not that important a distinction. ** Imperfectly, but I think that's inevitable.
The difference is that this is also a recommendation to government for what should be their policy, so it goes somewhat beyond the purpose of your reports, I'd guess. And I'd also guess that your reports don't include interviews with the interested parties and subjects of the papers you review ?
I'm not rubbish the report; it's quite plainly a good faith effort. I'm just noting the very large gap between what it is, and how it is being presented by politicians.
They often do have reccommendations, but with a clear basis in evidence and - mostly not (directly) government funded or endorsed - the government are free to ignore them.
And no, no interviews/opinions - sticking to the science.
I agree re last point. The Review is being taken as a guidebook to what to do, whereas the overall conclusion is - or should be - that we really don't know enough to set policy with confidence.
The Scottish Greens have been accused of prioritising ideology over protecting children after the party again refused to endorse an expert report into gender healthcare.
Patrick Harvie, who until last month was a Scottish government minister, claimed that a Holyrood motion welcoming the Cass Review and recognising it as a “valid scientific document” was not “supportable” by his party....
All other parties, including the SNP, endorsed Hilary Cass’s report at Holyrood. However, all seven Green MSPs voted against the motion, with Mr Harvie claiming that transgender people were having their “very existence refuted”....
Brian Whittle, a Tory MSP, asked Mr Harvie whether he would now seek to listen to “alternative experts” on climate change after he refused to accept the findings of Dr Cass, a widely respected consultant paediatrician.
“You don’t get to choose your experts just to fit your ideology,” Mr Whittle said. “Especially when it’s the health of children at stake.
The Cass report is not a scientific document - it did not go through peer review, even if it did review some peer reviewed studies. The Cass report is, at best, a policy document written by a healthcare expert and, at worst, a clear attempt to ignore the growing consensus that transgender healthcare, including for young people, is not a threat and has positive impacts. We saw Cass only the other day talking about how "other methods" such as antidepressants, antianxiety medication and therapy "had not been tried" with young people expressing gender dysphoria and wanting to transition which is a) not true and b) beside the point because you can be both trans and depressed at the same time!
Do you know what peer review means? This is absolutely a scientific document - its a review of lots of research. You just don't like it because it doesn't ape your world view.
Peer review means it going through the scrutiny of other people with expertise (peers) reviewing the work before publication. Which the Cass report didn't go through. Some people argue if it needed to, but I would personally say if you want to call the Cass report "science" it needs to have gone through some form of peer review.
Rubbish. Utter drivel. The paper I am writing at the moment is not science yet because it's not been submitted to peer review? You just don't like it because it has a different view to yours.
The scientific method requires that things that are published go through peer review to check that the methodology makes sense, the results are real, and that the experiment or scenario within the paper itself is repeatable...
Peer review prior to publication is something required by convention, rather than something required by 'the scientific method' itself.
The Cass report includes discussion and analysis of a number of scientific publications, though comes to few conclusions about them other than that they are far from definitive.
It also includes a great deal of narrative writing on sociopolitical issues, as well as the state of knowledge in the field.
It's certainly not a scientific paper in the accepted sense. And its own conclusions are far from definitive, either.
Agree. I've written plenty of reports for funders (often made public) that are not peer reviewed. Many of them get more exposure than the papers - I've had the reports picked up by BBC/ITV etc but not the papers (I normally will package the same research up in a peer reviewed paper too, with a slightly different angle/more analysis).
The Cass review is a report. Whether it's called scientific is largely semantics.* It summarises the evidence** and then, due to the lack of evidence, goes further into recommendations based on the authors' best guesses/feelings about the right way forwards. The reviews that were carried out and the primary qualitative research and upcoming secondary healthcare data analysis follow the scientific method and are cautious about concluding anything where the evidence is not there. The report does (and should - no one would have been impressed if Cass had simply said "we don't know, more research is needed) go beyond what has a sound basis in scientific evidence.
* Take my reports mentioned above - they report on science, but I'm not sure I'd call all of them scientific reports - some were a bit too broad brush and narrative for that, I think. I also think it's not that important a distinction. ** Imperfectly, but I think that's inevitable.
The difference is that this is also a recommendation to government for what should be their policy, so it goes somewhat beyond the purpose of your reports, I'd guess. And I'd also guess that your reports don't include interviews with the interested parties and subjects of the papers you review ?
I'm not rubbish the report; it's quite plainly a good faith effort. I'm just noting the very large gap between what it is, and how it is being presented by politicians.
They often do have reccommendations, but with a clear basis in evidence and - mostly not (directly) government funded or endorsed - the government are free to ignore them.
And no, no interviews/opinions - sticking to the science.
I agree re last point. The Review is being taken as a guidebook to what to do, whereas the overall conclusion is - or should be - that we really don't know enough to set policy with confidence.
Yet the people rubbishing the report take ever more sweeping conclusions with cherry picked evidence.
Watching this race, it came to me that you could remake every Competitive Dad sketch from The Fast Show with a trans ‘woman’ as the Dad, and an actual woman as the kids, and it would work perfectly
🚨BREAKING🚨
A trans-identified male dominated the Girls Varsity 400m at the Portland Interscholastic League Championship Semi-Finals yesterday.
Aayden Gallagher will now compete in the finals as a “girl.”
And? The record for under 18 400m for girls is like 50 seconds; for men it's closer to 45 seconds. That this girl runs 400 m in 56-57 seconds makes her, like, a good amateur?
I assume that OR, like many places that allow trans athletes to compete, have rules around when students can participate (from what I can find students have to have been transitioning consistently and cannot participate in the same year they started their transition). I have no idea how old this girl is - but this is a tenth grade competition, so she is likely 15-16. If she's on HRT muscle mass and strength typically is one of the first things to fall in line with new hormones (3-6months).
He’s not on HRT, so it’s literally a boy competing in the girls race
I couldn't find any information on if she was on HRT or not (that's why I said if) - can you give me a citation for that assertion?
His calves.
Can you see how this could be seen as just straight up misogyny and why people like me say that this policing of women's bodies is bad for cis and trans women? Are you saying any woman who has calf definition similar to this athlete is actually a man? You can "just tell" who is a trans or cis woman by looking at them?
This isn't policing women's bodies. It's straight up fairness. You cannot have a fair competition between men and women in sports that involve the deployment of muscle mass. There is a lot of generalisation but splitting sports between the sexes, while by no-means perfect, is the best way we have to create something of a level playing field (pun intended).
I'm someone who competed at a reasonably high level in sprint events when I was a teenager, trained with boys and girls my own age, and my lived experience (which is all that counts these days apparently) is that it would have been unfair for us to compete with one another in events that mattered.
We do not know if this young athlete is on HRT and, if so, for how long she has been. For all I know she could have never had a testosterone based puberty - she may have been on puberty blockers and got straight onto HRT. To say that you can tell this girl is "really a boy" just by looking at her is completely misogynist - in the same way that those who call Michelle Obama "secretly a man" is. Many cis women who do not conform to feminine beauty standards will be insulted by calling them men; many cis women have been harassed, in toilets and other public spaces, because they were considered too manish and people thought they were trans. It's all the same thing - policing women's bodies based on expectations of femininity.
We don't need to go into observed physical attributes. The original report notes that s/he is a biological male. The what-iffery is beside the point. Men should not be in women's races, and boys - post about 11 - should not be in girls' ones. Or, at least, should not be allowed to compete to win or to set records.
Transphobes call women who have been on HRT most of their life and have had gender affirming surgeries "biological males" - it doesn't mean anything. Again - we have no idea if this athlete even had a testosterone based puberty. She may have been on HRT for years, and it is known that muscle mass is one of the first things to fall within a typical cis women's range when trans women start HRT (as noted, 3 - 6 months). Calling her a "biological male" in reporting (reporting from right wing / "independent" news orgs) is, again, just transphobia
148grss, you have repeatedly made this point that maybe she’s been on HRT for years and not experienced a testosterone-based puberty. So, are you saying that these things matter? If she had only started HRT the day before, would it then be unfair for her to compete against ciswomen?
Are you (implicitly) proposing that transwomen should only be able to compete against ciswomen under certain circumstances relating to their transition and hormone use?
what is this ciswoman mince, can you not just say it as it is "woman". rather than using the bollox ( pun not intended ) PC crap.
While there is a valid discussion to have over transgender participation in high-level sport, it feels like everyone is overreacting about one 10th grader's participation in a glorified school sports day. I feel like kids should be allowed to compete in sports and the amount of abuse and negative attention this 10th grader has got seems quite mean.
I disagree. I don't think there's any discussion to be had about it in high-level sport.
The Scottish Greens have been accused of prioritising ideology over protecting children after the party again refused to endorse an expert report into gender healthcare.
Patrick Harvie, who until last month was a Scottish government minister, claimed that a Holyrood motion welcoming the Cass Review and recognising it as a “valid scientific document” was not “supportable” by his party....
All other parties, including the SNP, endorsed Hilary Cass’s report at Holyrood. However, all seven Green MSPs voted against the motion, with Mr Harvie claiming that transgender people were having their “very existence refuted”....
Brian Whittle, a Tory MSP, asked Mr Harvie whether he would now seek to listen to “alternative experts” on climate change after he refused to accept the findings of Dr Cass, a widely respected consultant paediatrician.
“You don’t get to choose your experts just to fit your ideology,” Mr Whittle said. “Especially when it’s the health of children at stake.
The Cass report is not a scientific document - it did not go through peer review, even if it did review some peer reviewed studies. The Cass report is, at best, a policy document written by a healthcare expert and, at worst, a clear attempt to ignore the growing consensus that transgender healthcare, including for young people, is not a threat and has positive impacts. We saw Cass only the other day talking about how "other methods" such as antidepressants, antianxiety medication and therapy "had not been tried" with young people expressing gender dysphoria and wanting to transition which is a) not true and b) beside the point because you can be both trans and depressed at the same time!
Do you know what peer review means? This is absolutely a scientific document - its a review of lots of research. You just don't like it because it doesn't ape your world view.
Peer review means it going through the scrutiny of other people with expertise (peers) reviewing the work before publication. Which the Cass report didn't go through. Some people argue if it needed to, but I would personally say if you want to call the Cass report "science" it needs to have gone through some form of peer review.
Rubbish. Utter drivel. The paper I am writing at the moment is not science yet because it's not been submitted to peer review? You just don't like it because it has a different view to yours.
The scientific method requires that things that are published go through peer review to check that the methodology makes sense, the results are real, and that the experiment or scenario within the paper itself is repeatable...
Peer review prior to publication is something required by convention, rather than something required by 'the scientific method' itself.
The Cass report includes discussion and analysis of a number of scientific publications, though comes to few conclusions about them other than that they are far from definitive.
It also includes a great deal of narrative writing on sociopolitical issues, as well as the state of knowledge in the field.
It's certainly not a scientific paper in the accepted sense. And its own conclusions are far from definitive, either.
Agree. I've written plenty of reports for funders (often made public) that are not peer reviewed. Many of them get more exposure than the papers - I've had the reports picked up by BBC/ITV etc but not the papers (I normally will package the same research up in a peer reviewed paper too, with a slightly different angle/more analysis).
The Cass review is a report. Whether it's called scientific is largely semantics.* It summarises the evidence** and then, due to the lack of evidence, goes further into recommendations based on the authors' best guesses/feelings about the right way forwards. The reviews that were carried out and the primary qualitative research and upcoming secondary healthcare data analysis follow the scientific method and are cautious about concluding anything where the evidence is not there. The report does (and should - no one would have been impressed if Cass had simply said "we don't know, more research is needed) go beyond what has a sound basis in scientific evidence.
* Take my reports mentioned above - they report on science, but I'm not sure I'd call all of them scientific reports - some were a bit too broad brush and narrative for that, I think. I also think it's not that important a distinction. ** Imperfectly, but I think that's inevitable.
Which is great but my issue is that @148grss is trying to diminish the Cass report as not scientific, therefore not of value, can be ignored etc. Which is very wrong indeed.
It reminds me of those who decried that the covid vaccines where not tested fully because the times scales were quicked and overlapped. Its a position that someone doesn't like the report therefore will attack it, rather than discuss what is says and why they believe that the conclusions are wrong.
Yes, 148 should focus criticism on where the report diverges from or goes beyond the underlying science. Those areas exist.
Just seen a sign outside a hotel saying 'Bike Friendly', with a picture of a bicycle and a smiley face
This does seem to imply a pleasing level of discrimination against bikewankers elsewhere
When we stayed in the rather bizarre settlement of Silloth in Cumbria on Hadrian's Cycleway, the guesthouse advertised that they had secure cycle storage, bike mechanic kit, and would welcome anyone doing the trail. As a result, the place was packed out with a bunch of ravenous cyclists desperate for food and beer.
The same goes for dozens of rural small businesses, cashing in on MAMILs and cycle tourers from the big cities. I've noted this in Scottish Borders, East Lothian and in N.Wales - all it takes is some cycle racks, pastries and coffee.
Given 93% of UK adults can ride a bike and the massive uptick in interest during and after COVID, your hotel is simply cashing in on a trend. If rural community councils are serious about encouraging economic growth in their areas, they should do all they can to get on the NCN or long distance footpaths like Offa's Dyke. Unlike drivers, people walking and cycling need something local to eat and somewhere local to stay.
These days it is likely to need charging for EAPCs, too.
The best accommodation network I have used is Cyclists Welcome from CyclingUK; another well known one is Warm Showers. I'd always put these ahead of places that just say "we care cyclist friendly" with no external certification.
The Cyclists Touring Club (now CyclingUK) started the first such accommodation network in 1887, and gave out these embems to be displayed which are still there in some places: https://eghammuseum.org/cyclists-touring-club/
In my long-ago cycle touring days I used Youth Hostels. Is there still a decent network?
OKC, would be premier inns nowadays I suspect
Premier Inns don’t, IIRC, have dormitories. Nor communal washing areas. Generally speaking, I’ve happy memories of my Youth Hostelling days, although one had to be a bit cautious when hitch-hiking. Some wardens took a dim view of the practice.
Poor Brian Altman KC - someone should have reminded him of how Robert Maxwell used his advisors. He used their good reputation to cloak his own rather less good one.
It is a difficult issue for lawyers: even bad actors are entitled to good lawyers. And acting for a bad guy does not imply approval of their misbehaviour.
But his two mistakes were that he did not sufficiently question or think about what he was being asked to opine on by the Post Office and perhaps over-indulged in overly clever legal comments as if he were involved in an academic exercise. He was the victim of what barristers often do in cross-examination to witnesses: he was funnelled into giving the answer the PO wanted to hear.
His other mistake was in giving an opinion on matters he was not qualified to assess. He had no real basis for assessing how good the PO's internal investigations team was. And he didn't even ask the most basic questions. This failing was pretty brutally exposed by Jason Beer yesterday.
What flattery and large fees will get you ....
Just because you are an expert in X does not make you an expert on Y. A lesson for us all.
It might well, if you have been brought in specifically for the purpose of reviewing the property of their past behaviour. He was brought in for independent advice, not to advocate for them.
And he was, at the time, aware of the risk he was taking - though note his concern was of "exposure to criticism" rather than the possibility perpetuating a possible miscarriage of justice.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cld0rewpy01o ...he avoided meeting Mr Jenkins and did not advise the Post Office to investigate his evidence. Mr Clarke’s advice was not shown to defendants until 2021. The inquiry saw evidence that Mr Altman re-wrote the terms of reference of his review to remove issues of Gareth Jenkins’ evidence and avoided meeting him. He wrote to fellow lawyers for the Post Office at Bond Dickenson that he knew that not meeting Gareth Jenkins "risks exposing the final report [of his review of convictions] to criticism".
"This is something I shall need to think about carefully. At this very early stage I am not unnaturally undecided," he wrote. "For now it may be better for the Terms of Reference to remain silent about him." "Why did you consider it best for the terms of reference to remain silent on Mr Jenkins?" asked Jason Beer, counsel to the inquiry. “My view was if the terms if I had yet not yet resolved to see him, that there was no point sticking it in the terms of reference,” Mr Altman said..
Poor Brian Altman KC - someone should have reminded him of how Robert Maxwell used his advisors. He used their good reputation to cloak his own rather less good one.
It is a difficult issue for lawyers: even bad actors are entitled to good lawyers. And acting for a bad guy does not imply approval of their misbehaviour.
But his two mistakes were that he did not sufficiently question or think about what he was being asked to opine on by the Post Office and perhaps over-indulged in overly clever legal comments as if he were involved in an academic exercise. He was the victim of what barristers often do in cross-examination to witnesses: he was funnelled into giving the answer the PO wanted to hear.
His other mistake was in giving an opinion on matters he was not qualified to assess. He had no real basis for assessing how good the PO's internal investigations team was. And he didn't even ask the most basic questions. This failing was pretty brutally exposed by Jason Beer yesterday.
What flattery and large fees will get you ....
Just because you are an expert in X does not make you an expert on Y. A lesson for us all.
It might well, if you have been brought in specifically for the purpose of reviewing the property of their past behaviour. He was brought in for independent advice, not to advocate for them.
And he was, at the time, aware of the risk he was taking - though note his concern was of "exposure to criticism" rather than the possibility perpetuating a possible miscarriage of justice.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cld0rewpy01o ...he avoided meeting Mr Jenkins and did not advise the Post Office to investigate his evidence. Mr Clarke’s advice was not shown to defendants until 2021. The inquiry saw evidence that Mr Altman re-wrote the terms of reference of his review to remove issues of Gareth Jenkins’ evidence and avoided meeting him. He wrote to fellow lawyers for the Post Office at Bond Dickenson that he knew that not meeting Gareth Jenkins "risks exposing the final report [of his review of convictions] to criticism".
"This is something I shall need to think about carefully. At this very early stage I am not unnaturally undecided," he wrote. "For now it may be better for the Terms of Reference to remain silent about him." "Why did you consider it best for the terms of reference to remain silent on Mr Jenkins?" asked Jason Beer, counsel to the inquiry. “My view was if the terms if I had yet not yet resolved to see him, that there was no point sticking it in the terms of reference,” Mr Altman said..
He forgot the first - cynical - rule of professional conduct: watch your back.
He indulged in a lot of legalistic arguments but simply refused - or failed - to see clearly that he had been presented with evidence of possible perjury and miscarriages of justice and that such evidence should have pointed him and his client to only one course of action, a course which his clients did their level best to avoid and which he enabled.
And now his reputation has been harmed, just like those of every other lawyer acting for the PO - whether in-house or external, whether solicitor or barrister and no matter what their experience or qualifications.
If you pour a tiny spoonful of raw sewage into a bottle of champagne, the entire bottle is contaminated.
The PO = the raw sewage.
I am a little careful on "Just because you are an expert in X does not make you an expert on Y"
The classic counter-example was Richard Feynman who went through the experts at NASA like a chainsaw through cheese after Challenger.
His approach - asking questions, then asking more probing questions until contradictions arose, then putting the contradictions as question back to the original experts - seemed to me a master class in applying outside thinking to a very specialist domain.
We saw something similar in the Covid pandemic when physicists (or was it physical chemists) started to question whether the medical profession correctly understood droplet behaviour. Although the Covid pandemic also gave us any number of journalists opining on vaccination, so swings and roundabouts.
The key is "This seems strange. What is the classic explanation for this, please?"
Pesto seemed unable to comprehend that if he didn't understand something, that nearly always means that he hadn't acquired a piece of domain specific knowledge.
A theme running through Feynman's biography is "I didn't know something. So I learnt it, by asking experts."
Yes, but Feynman was an extreme outlier on the ability scale, and Pesto is a bit thick.
Famous Feynman problem solving algorithm: Read problem; think hard; write down answer.
The Scottish Greens have been accused of prioritising ideology over protecting children after the party again refused to endorse an expert report into gender healthcare.
Patrick Harvie, who until last month was a Scottish government minister, claimed that a Holyrood motion welcoming the Cass Review and recognising it as a “valid scientific document” was not “supportable” by his party....
All other parties, including the SNP, endorsed Hilary Cass’s report at Holyrood. However, all seven Green MSPs voted against the motion, with Mr Harvie claiming that transgender people were having their “very existence refuted”....
Brian Whittle, a Tory MSP, asked Mr Harvie whether he would now seek to listen to “alternative experts” on climate change after he refused to accept the findings of Dr Cass, a widely respected consultant paediatrician.
“You don’t get to choose your experts just to fit your ideology,” Mr Whittle said. “Especially when it’s the health of children at stake.
The Cass report is not a scientific document - it did not go through peer review, even if it did review some peer reviewed studies. The Cass report is, at best, a policy document written by a healthcare expert and, at worst, a clear attempt to ignore the growing consensus that transgender healthcare, including for young people, is not a threat and has positive impacts. We saw Cass only the other day talking about how "other methods" such as antidepressants, antianxiety medication and therapy "had not been tried" with young people expressing gender dysphoria and wanting to transition which is a) not true and b) beside the point because you can be both trans and depressed at the same time!
Do you know what peer review means? This is absolutely a scientific document - its a review of lots of research. You just don't like it because it doesn't ape your world view.
Peer review means it going through the scrutiny of other people with expertise (peers) reviewing the work before publication. Which the Cass report didn't go through. Some people argue if it needed to, but I would personally say if you want to call the Cass report "science" it needs to have gone through some form of peer review.
Rubbish. Utter drivel. The paper I am writing at the moment is not science yet because it's not been submitted to peer review? You just don't like it because it has a different view to yours.
The scientific method requires that things that are published go through peer review to check that the methodology makes sense, the results are real, and that the experiment or scenario within the paper itself is repeatable...
Peer review prior to publication is something required by convention, rather than something required by 'the scientific method' itself.
The Cass report includes discussion and analysis of a number of scientific publications, though comes to few conclusions about them other than that they are far from definitive.
It also includes a great deal of narrative writing on sociopolitical issues, as well as the state of knowledge in the field.
It's certainly not a scientific paper in the accepted sense. And its own conclusions are far from definitive, either.
Agree. I've written plenty of reports for funders (often made public) that are not peer reviewed. Many of them get more exposure than the papers - I've had the reports picked up by BBC/ITV etc but not the papers (I normally will package the same research up in a peer reviewed paper too, with a slightly different angle/more analysis).
The Cass review is a report. Whether it's called scientific is largely semantics.* It summarises the evidence** and then, due to the lack of evidence, goes further into recommendations based on the authors' best guesses/feelings about the right way forwards. The reviews that were carried out and the primary qualitative research and upcoming secondary healthcare data analysis follow the scientific method and are cautious about concluding anything where the evidence is not there. The report does (and should - no one would have been impressed if Cass had simply said "we don't know, more research is needed) go beyond what has a sound basis in scientific evidence.
* Take my reports mentioned above - they report on science, but I'm not sure I'd call all of them scientific reports - some were a bit too broad brush and narrative for that, I think. I also think it's not that important a distinction. ** Imperfectly, but I think that's inevitable.
Which is great but my issue is that @148grss is trying to diminish the Cass report as not scientific, therefore not of value, can be ignored etc. Which is very wrong indeed.
It reminds me of those who decried that the covid vaccines where not tested fully because the times scales were quicked and overlapped. Its a position that someone doesn't like the report therefore will attack it, rather than discuss what is says and why they believe that the conclusions are wrong.
Yes, 148 should focus criticism on where the report diverges from or goes beyond the underlying science. Those areas exist.
Watching this race, it came to me that you could remake every Competitive Dad sketch from The Fast Show with a trans ‘woman’ as the Dad, and an actual woman as the kids, and it would work perfectly
🚨BREAKING🚨
A trans-identified male dominated the Girls Varsity 400m at the Portland Interscholastic League Championship Semi-Finals yesterday.
Aayden Gallagher will now compete in the finals as a “girl.”
And? The record for under 18 400m for girls is like 50 seconds; for men it's closer to 45 seconds. That this girl runs 400 m in 56-57 seconds makes her, like, a good amateur?
I assume that OR, like many places that allow trans athletes to compete, have rules around when students can participate (from what I can find students have to have been transitioning consistently and cannot participate in the same year they started their transition). I have no idea how old this girl is - but this is a tenth grade competition, so she is likely 15-16. If she's on HRT muscle mass and strength typically is one of the first things to fall in line with new hormones (3-6months).
He’s not on HRT, so it’s literally a boy competing in the girls race
I couldn't find any information on if she was on HRT or not (that's why I said if) - can you give me a citation for that assertion?
His calves.
Can you see how this could be seen as just straight up misogyny and why people like me say that this policing of women's bodies is bad for cis and trans women? Are you saying any woman who has calf definition similar to this athlete is actually a man? You can "just tell" who is a trans or cis woman by looking at them?
This isn't policing women's bodies. It's straight up fairness. You cannot have a fair competition between men and women in sports that involve the deployment of muscle mass. There is a lot of generalisation but splitting sports between the sexes, while by no-means perfect, is the best way we have to create something of a level playing field (pun intended).
I'm someone who competed at a reasonably high level in sprint events when I was a teenager, trained with boys and girls my own age, and my lived experience (which is all that counts these days apparently) is that it would have been unfair for us to compete with one another in events that mattered.
We do not know if this young athlete is on HRT and, if so, for how long she has been. For all I know she could have never had a testosterone based puberty - she may have been on puberty blockers and got straight onto HRT. To say that you can tell this girl is "really a boy" just by looking at her is completely misogynist - in the same way that those who call Michelle Obama "secretly a man" is. Many cis women who do not conform to feminine beauty standards will be insulted by calling them men; many cis women have been harassed, in toilets and other public spaces, because they were considered too manish and people thought they were trans. It's all the same thing - policing women's bodies based on expectations of femininity.
We don't need to go into observed physical attributes. The original report notes that s/he is a biological male. The what-iffery is beside the point. Men should not be in women's races, and boys - post about 11 - should not be in girls' ones. Or, at least, should not be allowed to compete to win or to set records.
Transphobes call women who have been on HRT most of their life and have had gender affirming surgeries "biological males" - it doesn't mean anything. Again - we have no idea if this athlete even had a testosterone based puberty. She may have been on HRT for years, and it is known that muscle mass is one of the first things to fall within a typical cis women's range when trans women start HRT (as noted, 3 - 6 months). Calling her a "biological male" in reporting (reporting from right wing / "independent" news orgs) is, again, just transphobia
you keep posting absolute mince. Men competing against women is for cheating losers.
On topic, this is very interesting as it strongly implies we should expect proportional swing not UNS at the general election:
This table compares the notional 2019 election result with the May 2024 local elections and averages the constituency-level swing depending on the Con/ Lab lead in 2019...
Neom: Saudi forces 'told to kill’ to clear land for eco-city
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-68945445 Saudi authorities have permitted the use of lethal force to clear land for a futuristic desert city being built by dozens of Western companies, an ex-intelligence officer has told the BBC. Col Rabih Alenezi says he was ordered to evict villagers from a tribe in the Gulf state to make way for The Line, part of the Neom eco-project. One of them was subsequently shot and killed for protesting against eviction. The Saudi government and Neom management refused to comment...
..Displaced villagers were extremely reluctant to comment, fearing that speaking to foreign media could further endanger their detained relatives. But we spoke to those evicted elsewhere for another Saudi Vision 2030 scheme. More than a million people have been displaced for the Jeddah Central project in the western Saudi Arabian city - set to include an opera house, sporting district, and high-end retail and residential units. Nader Hijazi [not his real name] grew up in Aziziyah - one of approximately 63 neighbourhoods affected by those demolitions. His father's home was razed in 2021, for which he received less than a month's warning. Hijazi says the photos he had seen of his former neighbourhood were shocking, saying they evoked a warzone..
I can't say, unfortunately, that I'm particularly surprised.
The Scottish Greens have been accused of prioritising ideology over protecting children after the party again refused to endorse an expert report into gender healthcare.
Patrick Harvie, who until last month was a Scottish government minister, claimed that a Holyrood motion welcoming the Cass Review and recognising it as a “valid scientific document” was not “supportable” by his party....
All other parties, including the SNP, endorsed Hilary Cass’s report at Holyrood. However, all seven Green MSPs voted against the motion, with Mr Harvie claiming that transgender people were having their “very existence refuted”....
Brian Whittle, a Tory MSP, asked Mr Harvie whether he would now seek to listen to “alternative experts” on climate change after he refused to accept the findings of Dr Cass, a widely respected consultant paediatrician.
“You don’t get to choose your experts just to fit your ideology,” Mr Whittle said. “Especially when it’s the health of children at stake.
The Cass report is not a scientific document - it did not go through peer review, even if it did review some peer reviewed studies. The Cass report is, at best, a policy document written by a healthcare expert and, at worst, a clear attempt to ignore the growing consensus that transgender healthcare, including for young people, is not a threat and has positive impacts. We saw Cass only the other day talking about how "other methods" such as antidepressants, antianxiety medication and therapy "had not been tried" with young people expressing gender dysphoria and wanting to transition which is a) not true and b) beside the point because you can be both trans and depressed at the same time!
Do you know what peer review means? This is absolutely a scientific document - its a review of lots of research. You just don't like it because it doesn't ape your world view.
Peer review means it going through the scrutiny of other people with expertise (peers) reviewing the work before publication. Which the Cass report didn't go through. Some people argue if it needed to, but I would personally say if you want to call the Cass report "science" it needs to have gone through some form of peer review.
Rubbish. Utter drivel. The paper I am writing at the moment is not science yet because it's not been submitted to peer review? You just don't like it because it has a different view to yours.
The scientific method requires that things that are published go through peer review to check that the methodology makes sense, the results are real, and that the experiment or scenario within the paper itself is repeatable...
Peer review prior to publication is something required by convention, rather than something required by 'the scientific method' itself.
The Cass report includes discussion and analysis of a number of scientific publications, though comes to few conclusions about them other than that they are far from definitive.
It also includes a great deal of narrative writing on sociopolitical issues, as well as the state of knowledge in the field.
It's certainly not a scientific paper in the accepted sense. And its own conclusions are far from definitive, either.
Agree. I've written plenty of reports for funders (often made public) that are not peer reviewed. Many of them get more exposure than the papers - I've had the reports picked up by BBC/ITV etc but not the papers (I normally will package the same research up in a peer reviewed paper too, with a slightly different angle/more analysis).
The Cass review is a report. Whether it's called scientific is largely semantics.* It summarises the evidence** and then, due to the lack of evidence, goes further into recommendations based on the authors' best guesses/feelings about the right way forwards. The reviews that were carried out and the primary qualitative research and upcoming secondary healthcare data analysis follow the scientific method and are cautious about concluding anything where the evidence is not there. The report does (and should - no one would have been impressed if Cass had simply said "we don't know, more research is needed) go beyond what has a sound basis in scientific evidence.
* Take my reports mentioned above - they report on science, but I'm not sure I'd call all of them scientific reports - some were a bit too broad brush and narrative for that, I think. I also think it's not that important a distinction. ** Imperfectly, but I think that's inevitable.
Which is great but my issue is that @148grss is trying to diminish the Cass report as not scientific, therefore not of value, can be ignored etc. Which is very wrong indeed.
It reminds me of those who decried that the covid vaccines where not tested fully because the times scales were quicked and overlapped. Its a position that someone doesn't like the report therefore will attack it, rather than discuss what is says and why they believe that the conclusions are wrong.
Yes, 148 should focus criticism on where the report diverges from or goes beyond the underlying science. Those areas exist.
Thank goodness the trans activists never do that.
Requires actually reading the report and the papers
Actually Lipton's tea and Tabasco sauce (the smokier kind)
But well spotted. The Tabasco is because I take Tabasco EVERYWHERE (along with Kikkoman's soy, sriracha and salt and pepper mills). To rescue really bland meals. Italian breakfasts are often incredibly dull - either really poor versions of German breakfasts - limp slices of cheese and sad ham - with no condiments, or just a stale pastry. Terrible (and I'm in a glam new 4 star eco-lodge with an excellent chef). Moreover, there is no lunch to be had here, I'm in the middle of a massive forest, so I wanted to liven up my tragic breakfast - therefore I took Tabasco down to eat with me. And it has ended up on my desk. I'm not actually putting it in my tea
I don't get it. I understand that many Italians don't linger over breakfast, and often just grab a pastry. A cannolo or a piece of tart. But they love and understand food, so you'd think that pastry would be really GOOD - like a fine croissant. Often it is not. Stale and awful, and this is in 4 star hotels
Chiz
Do you like tabasco? It's quite bland.
Have you tried stale Italian bread with processed ham? Tabasco improves it
This is the best Tabasco brand for breakfasts (and pizzas). Habanero
That might be better than the basic vinegar with homeopathic quantities of heat variety. I'm about to enjoy a South Indian dinner in Tokyo, with a Kingfisher.
Watching this race, it came to me that you could remake every Competitive Dad sketch from The Fast Show with a trans ‘woman’ as the Dad, and an actual woman as the kids, and it would work perfectly
🚨BREAKING🚨
A trans-identified male dominated the Girls Varsity 400m at the Portland Interscholastic League Championship Semi-Finals yesterday.
Aayden Gallagher will now compete in the finals as a “girl.”
And? The record for under 18 400m for girls is like 50 seconds; for men it's closer to 45 seconds. That this girl runs 400 m in 56-57 seconds makes her, like, a good amateur?
I assume that OR, like many places that allow trans athletes to compete, have rules around when students can participate (from what I can find students have to have been transitioning consistently and cannot participate in the same year they started their transition). I have no idea how old this girl is - but this is a tenth grade competition, so she is likely 15-16. If she's on HRT muscle mass and strength typically is one of the first things to fall in line with new hormones (3-6months).
This is so dishonest. Firstly, you've mistimed the race because the gun goes around two seconds into the video so you need to deduct that from your quoted time.
Secondly, you are using under-18 records to benchmark someone who you say is 15-16.
In any case your argument is basically: "Well 'she' is not a very athletic boy anyway so what's the problem?"
My point is we have no evidence that this girl is anything other than a young athlete who is good at her sport who happens to be trans. If a cis girl won this competition with her time, it wouldn't be commented on. But because she's trans the thought is that must be why she won.
You really are not right in the tattie, we only know that they are a cheating so and so trying to get glory by racing against girls. Guaranteed to be a real bad loser who would be trailing in against boys.
Poor Brian Altman KC - someone should have reminded him of how Robert Maxwell used his advisors. He used their good reputation to cloak his own rather less good one.
It is a difficult issue for lawyers: even bad actors are entitled to good lawyers. And acting for a bad guy does not imply approval of their misbehaviour.
But his two mistakes were that he did not sufficiently question or think about what he was being asked to opine on by the Post Office and perhaps over-indulged in overly clever legal comments as if he were involved in an academic exercise. He was the victim of what barristers often do in cross-examination to witnesses: he was funnelled into giving the answer the PO wanted to hear.
His other mistake was in giving an opinion on matters he was not qualified to assess. He had no real basis for assessing how good the PO's internal investigations team was. And he didn't even ask the most basic questions. This failing was pretty brutally exposed by Jason Beer yesterday.
What flattery and large fees will get you ....
Just because you are an expert in X does not make you an expert on Y. A lesson for us all.
It might well, if you have been brought in specifically for the purpose of reviewing the property of their past behaviour. He was brought in for independent advice, not to advocate for them.
And he was, at the time, aware of the risk he was taking - though note his concern was of "exposure to criticism" rather than the possibility perpetuating a possible miscarriage of justice.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cld0rewpy01o ...he avoided meeting Mr Jenkins and did not advise the Post Office to investigate his evidence. Mr Clarke’s advice was not shown to defendants until 2021. The inquiry saw evidence that Mr Altman re-wrote the terms of reference of his review to remove issues of Gareth Jenkins’ evidence and avoided meeting him. He wrote to fellow lawyers for the Post Office at Bond Dickenson that he knew that not meeting Gareth Jenkins "risks exposing the final report [of his review of convictions] to criticism".
"This is something I shall need to think about carefully. At this very early stage I am not unnaturally undecided," he wrote. "For now it may be better for the Terms of Reference to remain silent about him." "Why did you consider it best for the terms of reference to remain silent on Mr Jenkins?" asked Jason Beer, counsel to the inquiry. “My view was if the terms if I had yet not yet resolved to see him, that there was no point sticking it in the terms of reference,” Mr Altman said..
Poor Brian Altman KC - someone should have reminded him of how Robert Maxwell used his advisors. He used their good reputation to cloak his own rather less good one.
It is a difficult issue for lawyers: even bad actors are entitled to good lawyers. And acting for a bad guy does not imply approval of their misbehaviour.
But his two mistakes were that he did not sufficiently question or think about what he was being asked to opine on by the Post Office and perhaps over-indulged in overly clever legal comments as if he were involved in an academic exercise. He was the victim of what barristers often do in cross-examination to witnesses: he was funnelled into giving the answer the PO wanted to hear.
His other mistake was in giving an opinion on matters he was not qualified to assess. He had no real basis for assessing how good the PO's internal investigations team was. And he didn't even ask the most basic questions. This failing was pretty brutally exposed by Jason Beer yesterday.
What flattery and large fees will get you ....
Just because you are an expert in X does not make you an expert on Y. A lesson for us all.
It might well, if you have been brought in specifically for the purpose of reviewing the property of their past behaviour. He was brought in for independent advice, not to advocate for them.
And he was, at the time, aware of the risk he was taking - though note his concern was of "exposure to criticism" rather than the possibility perpetuating a possible miscarriage of justice.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cld0rewpy01o ...he avoided meeting Mr Jenkins and did not advise the Post Office to investigate his evidence. Mr Clarke’s advice was not shown to defendants until 2021. The inquiry saw evidence that Mr Altman re-wrote the terms of reference of his review to remove issues of Gareth Jenkins’ evidence and avoided meeting him. He wrote to fellow lawyers for the Post Office at Bond Dickenson that he knew that not meeting Gareth Jenkins "risks exposing the final report [of his review of convictions] to criticism".
"This is something I shall need to think about carefully. At this very early stage I am not unnaturally undecided," he wrote. "For now it may be better for the Terms of Reference to remain silent about him." "Why did you consider it best for the terms of reference to remain silent on Mr Jenkins?" asked Jason Beer, counsel to the inquiry. “My view was if the terms if I had yet not yet resolved to see him, that there was no point sticking it in the terms of reference,” Mr Altman said..
He forgot the first - cynical - rule of professional conduct: watch your back.
He indulged in a lot of legalistic arguments but simply refused - or failed - to see clearly that he had been presented with evidence of possible perjury and miscarriages of justice and that such evidence should have pointed him and his client to only one course of action, a course which his clients did their level best to avoid and which he enabled.
And now his reputation has been harmed, just like those of every other lawyer acting for the PO - whether in-house or external, whether solicitor or barrister and no matter what their experience or qualifications.
If you pour a tiny spoonful of raw sewage into a bottle of champagne, the entire bottle is contaminated.
The PO = the raw sewage.
I am a little careful on "Just because you are an expert in X does not make you an expert on Y"
The classic counter-example was Richard Feynman who went through the experts at NASA like a chainsaw through cheese after Challenger.
His approach - asking questions, then asking more probing questions until contradictions arose, then putting the contradictions as question back to the original experts - seemed to me a master class in applying outside thinking to a very specialist domain.
We saw something similar in the Covid pandemic when physicists (or was it physical chemists) started to question whether the medical profession correctly understood droplet behaviour. Although the Covid pandemic also gave us any number of journalists opining on vaccination, so swings and roundabouts.
The key is "This seems strange. What is the classic explanation for this, please?"
Pesto seemed unable to comprehend that if he didn't understand something, that nearly always means that he hadn't acquired a piece of domain specific knowledge.
A theme running through Feynman's biography is "I didn't know something. So I learnt it, by asking experts."
Yes, but Feynman was an extreme outlier on the ability scale, and Pesto is a bit thick.
Famous Feynman problem solving algorithm: Read problem; think hard; write down answer.
He displayed the key trait for an intelligent person. He was very good at knowing when he didn't know and taking steps to learn.
I always like the John Von Neumann story - in the 1950s there was a meeting at the Pentagon to discuss the specification for a new computer to solve a particular problem. JVN didn't know much about the problem in question, but was asked to participate as a mathematician and computer whizz.
After an hour or 2 of discussion, someone noticed that JVN was scribbling on a pad, not participating in the discussion. When prompted, JVN replied the answer was X. When further prompted, that X was the answer to the problem the proposed computer was supposed to solve.
Watching this race, it came to me that you could remake every Competitive Dad sketch from The Fast Show with a trans ‘woman’ as the Dad, and an actual woman as the kids, and it would work perfectly
🚨BREAKING🚨
A trans-identified male dominated the Girls Varsity 400m at the Portland Interscholastic League Championship Semi-Finals yesterday.
Aayden Gallagher will now compete in the finals as a “girl.”
And? The record for under 18 400m for girls is like 50 seconds; for men it's closer to 45 seconds. That this girl runs 400 m in 56-57 seconds makes her, like, a good amateur?
I assume that OR, like many places that allow trans athletes to compete, have rules around when students can participate (from what I can find students have to have been transitioning consistently and cannot participate in the same year they started their transition). I have no idea how old this girl is - but this is a tenth grade competition, so she is likely 15-16. If she's on HRT muscle mass and strength typically is one of the first things to fall in line with new hormones (3-6months).
He’s not on HRT, so it’s literally a boy competing in the girls race
I couldn't find any information on if she was on HRT or not (that's why I said if) - can you give me a citation for that assertion?
His calves.
Can you see how this could be seen as just straight up misogyny and why people like me say that this policing of women's bodies is bad for cis and trans women? Are you saying any woman who has calf definition similar to this athlete is actually a man? You can "just tell" who is a trans or cis woman by looking at them?
This isn't policing women's bodies. It's straight up fairness. You cannot have a fair competition between men and women in sports that involve the deployment of muscle mass. There is a lot of generalisation but splitting sports between the sexes, while by no-means perfect, is the best way we have to create something of a level playing field (pun intended).
I'm someone who competed at a reasonably high level in sprint events when I was a teenager, trained with boys and girls my own age, and my lived experience (which is all that counts these days apparently) is that it would have been unfair for us to compete with one another in events that mattered.
We do not know if this young athlete is on HRT and, if so, for how long she has been. For all I know she could have never had a testosterone based puberty - she may have been on puberty blockers and got straight onto HRT. To say that you can tell this girl is "really a boy" just by looking at her is completely misogynist - in the same way that those who call Michelle Obama "secretly a man" is. Many cis women who do not conform to feminine beauty standards will be insulted by calling them men; many cis women have been harassed, in toilets and other public spaces, because they were considered too manish and people thought they were trans. It's all the same thing - policing women's bodies based on expectations of femininity.
We don't need to go into observed physical attributes. The original report notes that s/he is a biological male. The what-iffery is beside the point. Men should not be in women's races, and boys - post about 11 - should not be in girls' ones. Or, at least, should not be allowed to compete to win or to set records.
Transphobes call women who have been on HRT most of their life and have had gender affirming surgeries "biological males" - it doesn't mean anything. Again - we have no idea if this athlete even had a testosterone based puberty. She may have been on HRT for years, and it is known that muscle mass is one of the first things to fall within a typical cis women's range when trans women start HRT (as noted, 3 - 6 months). Calling her a "biological male" in reporting (reporting from right wing / "independent" news orgs) is, again, just transphobia
148grss, you have repeatedly made this point that maybe she’s been on HRT for years and not experienced a testosterone-based puberty. So, are you saying that these things matter? If she had only started HRT the day before, would it then be unfair for her to compete against ciswomen?
Are you (implicitly) proposing that transwomen should only be able to compete against ciswomen under certain circumstances relating to their transition and hormone use?
I think it reasonable to have rules on such things depending on the sport and the - I am not an expert so I don't want to say what those rules should be. From my understanding some of the significant physiological stuff - muscle mass for example - happens quite early on (as I've said above, within 3 - 6 months of being on HRT). From my understanding the effects of a testosterone based puberty are minimal when someone has been on HRT for a prolonged period of time (2 - 3 years). And, from my understanding of the recent evidence, the suggestion is that trans women are at a biological disadvantage compared to cis women (I've shared a citation to such a study elsewhere on the thread).
I dislike the policing of women's bodies in sport. I'll bring up the example I always do; Michael Phelps is a biological marvel - he has slightly atypical biological factors that just make him ridiculously good at swimming. Is it "fair" that he, a biological outlier, swims against other people without those benefits? The general feeling is, yes, that's fine. Is it "fair" that basketball favours taller athletes? etc. etc. Yet when a cis woman athlete has a natural level of testosterone above typical levels, or maybe has a rare chromosomal condition, that is deemed reason enough to stop them participating. It seems like policing femininity is more important than "fairness in sport". This extends to trans athletes, trans men, women and nonbinary people, who wish to play sports. Trans women do not typically outperform cis women. Trans women sometimes beat cis women, but certainly not always. Yet if a trans woman does win at a sport the implication is it must always be because she is trans.
Talking specifically about the girl in the story shared. People insist on calling her a "biological male" - I don't know why or what they think they mean by that, but I do not know (nor can I find) evidence for or against her medically transitioning. I have found some stuff within OR sports saying that trans athletes can participate in sports as long as they have "consistently" identified with that gender, and as long as they don't participate in the first year (it's unclear if that is academic or calendar) they start their transition. I do not know what OR's definition of "consistently" is - but for many places these kind of things do have criteria related to medical transitioning. So I think it is unreasonable for people to claim that this girl is "a boy" or "biologically male" or is even advantaged because of being trans because we do not know what her transition history is. I also think it is wrong for people to just say "well just look at her" (although people here have generally misgendered her when doing so) as an argument as to why it is clear (in their mind) that she has not transitioned (medically or otherwise) at all.
Actually Lipton's tea and Tabasco sauce (the smokier kind)
But well spotted. The Tabasco is because I take Tabasco EVERYWHERE (along with Kikkoman's soy, sriracha and salt and pepper mills). To rescue really bland meals. Italian breakfasts are often incredibly dull - either really poor versions of German breakfasts - limp slices of cheese and sad ham - with no condiments, or just a stale pastry. Terrible (and I'm in a glam new 4 star eco-lodge with an excellent chef). Moreover, there is no lunch to be had here, I'm in the middle of a massive forest, so I wanted to liven up my tragic breakfast - therefore I took Tabasco down to eat with me. And it has ended up on my desk. I'm not actually putting it in my tea
I don't get it. I understand that many Italians don't linger over breakfast, and often just grab a pastry. A cannolo or a piece of tart. But they love and understand food, so you'd think that pastry would be really GOOD - like a fine croissant. Often it is not. Stale and awful, and this is in 4 star hotels
Chiz
Italians still have a very lunch focused culture and breakfast isn't really seem as a meal. Commonly they just start the day with a cappuccino and even a pastry is an indulgence enjoyed maybe at the weekend. A milky coffee gets you through to the main event at lunchtime; and coffees thereafter are black, or mostly so. Talking of lunch...
Neom: Saudi forces 'told to kill’ to clear land for eco-city
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-68945445 Saudi authorities have permitted the use of lethal force to clear land for a futuristic desert city being built by dozens of Western companies, an ex-intelligence officer has told the BBC. Col Rabih Alenezi says he was ordered to evict villagers from a tribe in the Gulf state to make way for The Line, part of the Neom eco-project. One of them was subsequently shot and killed for protesting against eviction. The Saudi government and Neom management refused to comment...
..Displaced villagers were extremely reluctant to comment, fearing that speaking to foreign media could further endanger their detained relatives. But we spoke to those evicted elsewhere for another Saudi Vision 2030 scheme. More than a million people have been displaced for the Jeddah Central project in the western Saudi Arabian city - set to include an opera house, sporting district, and high-end retail and residential units. Nader Hijazi [not his real name] grew up in Aziziyah - one of approximately 63 neighbourhoods affected by those demolitions. His father's home was razed in 2021, for which he received less than a month's warning. Hijazi says the photos he had seen of his former neighbourhood were shocking, saying they evoked a warzone..
I can't say, unfortunately, that I'm particularly surprised.
More that, before the modern conception of minority* rights, it was assumed that The Interests Of The People were 100% paramount.
So if the State decided to build a dam and flood your valley, get walking. Or get drowning.
*Minority in the sense of any subgroup within the population.
On topic, this is very interesting as it strongly implies we should expect proportional swing not UNS at the general election:
This table compares the notional 2019 election result with the May 2024 local elections and averages the constituency-level swing depending on the Con/ Lab lead in 2019...
I'd like to see similar analysis for swing to Labour in Lib Dem contested seats as that would give some clues on tactical voting propensity.
I am a strong believer in the likelihood of proportionate swing. I think it's got something to do with a move to more identity based politics but I'm too jet lagged to figure out precisely how.
Watching this race, it came to me that you could remake every Competitive Dad sketch from The Fast Show with a trans ‘woman’ as the Dad, and an actual woman as the kids, and it would work perfectly
🚨BREAKING🚨
A trans-identified male dominated the Girls Varsity 400m at the Portland Interscholastic League Championship Semi-Finals yesterday.
Aayden Gallagher will now compete in the finals as a “girl.”
And? The record for under 18 400m for girls is like 50 seconds; for men it's closer to 45 seconds. That this girl runs 400 m in 56-57 seconds makes her, like, a good amateur?
I assume that OR, like many places that allow trans athletes to compete, have rules around when students can participate (from what I can find students have to have been transitioning consistently and cannot participate in the same year they started their transition). I have no idea how old this girl is - but this is a tenth grade competition, so she is likely 15-16. If she's on HRT muscle mass and strength typically is one of the first things to fall in line with new hormones (3-6months).
He’s not on HRT, so it’s literally a boy competing in the girls race
I couldn't find any information on if she was on HRT or not (that's why I said if) - can you give me a citation for that assertion?
His calves.
Can you see how this could be seen as just straight up misogyny and why people like me say that this policing of women's bodies is bad for cis and trans women? Are you saying any woman who has calf definition similar to this athlete is actually a man? You can "just tell" who is a trans or cis woman by looking at them?
This isn't policing women's bodies. It's straight up fairness. You cannot have a fair competition between men and women in sports that involve the deployment of muscle mass. There is a lot of generalisation but splitting sports between the sexes, while by no-means perfect, is the best way we have to create something of a level playing field (pun intended).
I'm someone who competed at a reasonably high level in sprint events when I was a teenager, trained with boys and girls my own age, and my lived experience (which is all that counts these days apparently) is that it would have been unfair for us to compete with one another in events that mattered.
We do not know if this young athlete is on HRT and, if so, for how long she has been. For all I know she could have never had a testosterone based puberty - she may have been on puberty blockers and got straight onto HRT. To say that you can tell this girl is "really a boy" just by looking at her is completely misogynist - in the same way that those who call Michelle Obama "secretly a man" is. Many cis women who do not conform to feminine beauty standards will be insulted by calling them men; many cis women have been harassed, in toilets and other public spaces, because they were considered too manish and people thought they were trans. It's all the same thing - policing women's bodies based on expectations of femininity.
We don't need to go into observed physical attributes. The original report notes that s/he is a biological male. The what-iffery is beside the point. Men should not be in women's races, and boys - post about 11 - should not be in girls' ones. Or, at least, should not be allowed to compete to win or to set records.
Transphobes call women who have been on HRT most of their life and have had gender affirming surgeries "biological males" - it doesn't mean anything. Again - we have no idea if this athlete even had a testosterone based puberty. She may have been on HRT for years, and it is known that muscle mass is one of the first things to fall within a typical cis women's range when trans women start HRT (as noted, 3 - 6 months). Calling her a "biological male" in reporting (reporting from right wing / "independent" news orgs) is, again, just transphobia
148grss, you have repeatedly made this point that maybe she’s been on HRT for years and not experienced a testosterone-based puberty. So, are you saying that these things matter? If she had only started HRT the day before, would it then be unfair for her to compete against ciswomen?
Are you (implicitly) proposing that transwomen should only be able to compete against ciswomen under certain circumstances relating to their transition and hormone use?
what is this ciswoman mince, can you not just say it as it is "woman". rather than using the bollox ( pun not intended ) PC crap.
A cis woman is a woman who isn't a trans woman; it's pretty simple. Cis and trans are Latin prefixes used to denote closeness to and farness away from (the usage for cisalpine Gaul in the Roman period to mean those Gauls on the Roman side of the Alpines, and transalpine Gaul for those Gauls on the far side of the Alpines from Rome, for example).
Comments
Reason 2: my attention is more on the POTUS in November
Reason 3: I have more than one job and I am running my ragged arse off
Reason 4: I am worried about YouGov's error in London 24
I will get on Potus24 and on UKGE24/5, and I will post here when I do it. But it won't be soon. Genuine apols ☹️
I think this is evidence of the "looking like a winner" effect following the local elections.
Opinium may very well be accurate. However you are on a sticky wicket quoting their historical success whilst current Opinium polling is based on a vastly different methodology.
And he was, at the time, aware of the risk he was taking - though note his concern was of "exposure to criticism" rather than the possibility perpetuating a possible miscarriage of justice.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cld0rewpy01o
...he avoided meeting Mr Jenkins and did not advise the Post Office to investigate his evidence. Mr Clarke’s advice was not shown to defendants until 2021.
The inquiry saw evidence that Mr Altman re-wrote the terms of reference of his review to remove issues of Gareth Jenkins’ evidence and avoided meeting him.
He wrote to fellow lawyers for the Post Office at Bond Dickenson that he knew that not meeting Gareth Jenkins "risks exposing the final report [of his review of convictions] to criticism".
"This is something I shall need to think about carefully. At this very early stage I am not unnaturally undecided," he wrote. "For now it may be better for the Terms of Reference to remain silent about him."
"Why did you consider it best for the terms of reference to remain silent on Mr Jenkins?" asked Jason Beer, counsel to the inquiry.
“My view was if the terms if I had yet not yet resolved to see him, that there was no point sticking it in the terms of reference,” Mr Altman said..
https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/early/2024/04/10/bjsports-2023-108029.abstract
The thing is that trans women winning is rare - but the idea that if they win it must be because they are trans is common. And excluding trans women from sports can be very damaging - it is a form of socialising and in the US it can be a significant factor in getting extra funding for university studies. There are mental and material impacts to banning trans athletes, not to mention that it adds to all the other outrageous policing of trans people and their bodies in society - working in tandem with ideas such as bathroom bills or straight up allowing people to transition in the first place.
I'm someone who competed at a reasonably high level in sprint events when I was a teenager, trained with boys and girls my own age, and my lived experience (which is all that counts these days apparently) is that it would have been unfair for us to compete with one another in events that mattered.
Secondly, you are using under-18 records to benchmark someone who you say is 15-16.
In any case your argument is basically: "Well 'she' is not a very athletic boy anyway so what's the problem?"
My new office in the pagan forest
I don't think we'd see many women winning at anything ever again.# Is that what the trans activists want?
#Possible exception extreme endurance events, but thats still mainly a hypothesis.
But will he do a Devon Loch?
You're quite right to point out the phenomenon of people thinking about contests in terms which are only very loosely correlated with the actual odds of who might win.
You make these assertions with no evidence and, when you do provide evidence, it does not assert what you argue. A case in point is the article about the history of tennis you posted a few days ago that you said proved that women were beating men at tennis in the 19th century, when all it proved is that they were playing mixed doubles at the time, which is hardly the killer argument you think it is.
A more reasonable interpretation, given that you think polling variances in 2019 will inform the polling variances in 2024/5, would be to scale back the lead in YouGov's latest poll by 3% to match the 2019 variance. So that would point you towards interpreting the YouGov poll as pointing to a real 27% Tory deficit not a 30% one.
But the even the assumption that overall polling bias in 2024/25 will be in the same direction as 2019 is questionable. 2005 was the last GE when the pattern of bias from pollsters as a whole was consistent with the previous election, as the Labour lead was overstated in both 2001 and 2005. Since then the variance has alternated between a bias towards each of two parties in succession, possibly because pollsters may overcompensate when adjusting methodology for variance in the previous election. That is:
2005 - Lab polling lead over Con overstated
2010 - Con polling lead over Lab overstated
2015 - Con polling lead over Lab understated
2017 - Con polling lead over Lab overstated
2019 - Con polling lead over Lab understated
If that yo-yoing repeats itself in 2024/5, the Labour polling lead over the Conservatives will turn out to have been understated compared to the real result.
On like-for-like entries, the only time you'd get female winners would be on restricted fields where the lead female was an extreme performance outlier, such as when Paula Radcliffe returned the fastest British time in the London marathon - but only by smashing the women's world record, while the best British male time was one of the slowest of its type, and of course, she was (literally) miles behind the actual race winner.
He indulged in a lot of legalistic arguments but simply refused - or failed - to see clearly that he had been presented with evidence of possible perjury and miscarriages of justice and that such evidence should have pointed him and his client to only one course of action, a course which his clients did their level best to avoid and which he enabled.
And now his reputation has been harmed, just like those of every other lawyer acting for the PO - whether in-house or external, whether solicitor or barrister and no matter what their experience or qualifications.
If you pour a tiny spoonful of raw sewage into a bottle of champagne, the entire bottle is contaminated.
The PO = the raw sewage.
* I'm fine with using preferred pronouns for social purposes. But doing so should not obscure objective reality.
At 16, I could run 400m in about 58 seconds. Good but not particularly remarkable for a boy. I might have won in an athletics meeting against another school. Or I might not. But if I'd been racing girls I might have been the best 'female' athlete in Greater Manchester.
Because the average man is significantly faster than the average woman.
But let's not give in to the brainworms.
The classic counter-example was Richard Feynman who went through the experts at NASA like a chainsaw through cheese after Challenger.
His approach - asking questions, then asking more probing questions until contradictions arose, then putting the contradictions as question back to the original experts - seemed to me a master class in applying outside thinking to a very specialist domain.
But well spotted. The Tabasco is because I take Tabasco EVERYWHERE (along with Kikkoman's soy, sriracha and salt and pepper mills). To rescue really bland meals. Italian breakfasts are often incredibly dull - either really poor versions of German breakfasts - limp slices of cheese and sad ham - with no condiments, or just a stale pastry. Terrible (and I'm in a glam new 4 star eco-lodge with an excellent chef). Moreover, there is no lunch to be had here, I'm in the middle of a massive forest, so I wanted to liven up my tragic breakfast - therefore I took Tabasco down to eat with me. And it has ended up on my desk. I'm not actually putting it in my tea
I don't get it. I understand that many Italians don't linger over breakfast, and often just grab a pastry. A cannolo or a piece of tart. But they love and understand food, so you'd think that pastry would be really GOOD - like a fine croissant. Often it is not. Stale and awful, and this is in 4 star hotels
Chiz
You can prove any old shit from a false premise.
Are you (implicitly) proposing that transwomen should only be able to compete against ciswomen under certain circumstances relating to their transition and hormone use?
@PickardJE
look away now if you have zero interest in employment law, because this thread is going to compare and contrast - in minute detail - the 2021 Labour New Deal For Working People and the new, rewritten version which I got hold of yesterday.....
https://twitter.com/PickardJE/status/1788519072373538993
And in any case, if there were an inherent female advantage to some sports events, that would *still* argue in favour of a sex-based division.
Has anyone asked Angela about these changes?
Italy is also one of only two countries (Switzerland the other) where I have seen a bottle of sparkling wine in an ice bucket on the breakfast buffet - and both times in cheap 3 star hotels. Didn't see anyone have any either time, but it must be there for a reason.
Pesto seemed unable to comprehend that if he didn't understand something, that nearly always means that he hadn't acquired a piece of domain specific knowledge.
A theme running through Feynman's biography is "I didn't know something. So I learnt it, by asking experts."
This is the best Tabasco brand for breakfasts (and pizzas). Habanero
If anyone wants a nice non-controversial 20 minute video with lunch, here's (a very good) one exploring "What is the "Correct" Speed Limit?" in cities !
I'm attracted by the approach of looking at systems safety through the lens of kinetic energy (0.5 * m * v-squared) carried by a vehicle as indicating the possible damage in a collision.
Quite thought provoking from many angles.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRbnBc-97Ps
I did it recently at Raffles in Phnom Penh
Diane with the quiet seethe
And no, no interviews/opinions - sticking to the science.
I agree re last point. The Review is being taken as a guidebook to what to do, whereas the overall conclusion is - or should be - that we really don't know enough to set policy with confidence.
Generally speaking, I’ve happy memories of my Youth Hostelling days, although one had to be a bit cautious when hitch-hiking. Some wardens took a dim view of the practice.
Famous Feynman problem solving algorithm:
Read problem; think hard; write down answer.
This table compares the notional 2019 election result with the May 2024 local elections and averages the constituency-level swing depending on the Con/ Lab lead in 2019...
https://x.com/lewis_baston/status/1788529712286842914
I'd like to see similar analysis for swing to Labour in Lib Dem contested seats as that would give some clues on tactical voting propensity.
I always like the John Von Neumann story - in the 1950s there was a meeting at the Pentagon to discuss the specification for a new computer to solve a particular problem. JVN didn't know much about the problem in question, but was asked to participate as a mathematician and computer whizz.
After an hour or 2 of discussion, someone noticed that JVN was scribbling on a pad, not participating in the discussion. When prompted, JVN replied the answer was X. When further prompted, that X was the answer to the problem the proposed computer was supposed to solve.
I dislike the policing of women's bodies in sport. I'll bring up the example I always do; Michael Phelps is a biological marvel - he has slightly atypical biological factors that just make him ridiculously good at swimming. Is it "fair" that he, a biological outlier, swims against other people without those benefits? The general feeling is, yes, that's fine. Is it "fair" that basketball favours taller athletes? etc. etc. Yet when a cis woman athlete has a natural level of testosterone above typical levels, or maybe has a rare chromosomal condition, that is deemed reason enough to stop them participating. It seems like policing femininity is more important than "fairness in sport". This extends to trans athletes, trans men, women and nonbinary people, who wish to play sports. Trans women do not typically outperform cis women. Trans women sometimes beat cis women, but certainly not always. Yet if a trans woman does win at a sport the implication is it must always be because she is trans.
Talking specifically about the girl in the story shared. People insist on calling her a "biological male" - I don't know why or what they think they mean by that, but I do not know (nor can I find) evidence for or against her medically transitioning. I have found some stuff within OR sports saying that trans athletes can participate in sports as long as they have "consistently" identified with that gender, and as long as they don't participate in the first year (it's unclear if that is academic or calendar) they start their transition. I do not know what OR's definition of "consistently" is - but for many places these kind of things do have criteria related to medical transitioning. So I think it is unreasonable for people to claim that this girl is "a boy" or "biologically male" or is even advantaged because of being trans because we do not know what her transition history is. I also think it is wrong for people to just say "well just look at her" (although people here have generally misgendered her when doing so) as an argument as to why it is clear (in their mind) that she has not transitioned (medically or otherwise) at all.
So if the State decided to build a dam and flood your valley, get walking. Or get drowning.
*Minority in the sense of any subgroup within the population.
I've now got just 20km, going down 1.3km, to Saint Jean Pied de Port
I'm going to Cakewalk Into Town
https://youtu.be/WU764hR3I7Q