Feel a bit ashamed myself as I must confess I had no idea whatsoever how bad this was and how many people were involved and for how long it had festered as one government after another lied and hid the truth.
All of this is edge case marginal gains. The country made up its collective mind some time back. We're just marking time. You want an education horror story? Special needs. Sorry to keep banging on about it, but it affects so many voters. And the current situation is immoral.
All of this is edge case marginal gains. The country made up its collective mind some time back. We're just marking time. You want an education horror story? Special needs. Sorry to keep banging on about it, but it affects so many voters. And the current situation is immoral.
Yes - it is a huge crisis affecting all Education authorities - it starts with an increase in referrals and continues through a lack of specialist teachers to a dire shortage of suitable accommodation.
Feel a bit ashamed myself as I must confess I had no idea whatsoever how bad this was and how many people were involved and for how long it had festered as one government after another lied and hid the truth.
Just appalling.
The fact that you could be talking about any one of a number of scandals only makes it worse.
On the private schools thing. On a personal level it is clearly awful for the staff, the current students and likely many of the alumni.
But, the prevailing view of the class who use private schools is that businesses need to stand on their own feet. If charging VAT like any other service business makes it unviable then surely that is the very same capitalism they eulogise.
As for blaming Labour, puhlease. Who is the government?
Not a valid point, because it's not the government which proposes to put the Vat on
What is a valid point is that the blow would be reduced by more than half if vat were the 8% it was when the blessed Mags ascended the throne
But... @Casino_Royale's school is closing before Labour come into power and impose VAT so it's ridiculous to blame Labour's or Starmer. The school is clearly not viable even when VAT-exempt.
Talking to neighbours who are governors of a famous local private school and even as a 'big name' school they are struggling. But that's the market.
It may be the responsible thing to do. If they think it's going to fail when Labour bring it the tax, then rather than take another year's intake in and risk it, decide to close in better, if not good, order.
As I said below, it's probably not the only factor. But I can easily see it being a significant factor.
If it's anything like the schools I went to, it's a shame for parents, staff, and the local community. Something that can never be brought back once it is gone.
Come off it. That's just blaming Labour who might or might not bring in the legislation. Might as well pack in the school because electricity prices might go up again.
1) Labour are certain to get in 2) They are certain to go ahead with this 3) A price increase of 20% will create a demand shock.
I don’t think any of those are really debatable.
Applies equally to all private schools. Will they all be closing at the end of summer term?
PS 1) No. 2) No. Neither of these are certain.
Nobody said all private schools were going to close at the end of the summer term
1 and 2 are certain to the extent that if you want to bet against them and are prepared to put the stake money into escrow I will give you some lovely odds against
And what are you frightened of anyway? Why are you not saying Yes, even before winning power labour are abolishing class inequality and a good thing too, that is what it says on the labour tin?
I just find it laughable that a private school closing after 14 years of Tory government is 'Labour's fault'.
From discussions with a few friends actively involved with private education, the whole sector is struggling. I suspect @Foxy put his finger on the reasons earlier.
Logic fail. Why is it laughable to think that people are motivated by what has been happening for the last 14 years but not by their expectations for next year? Is that true of, for example, you? And again why do you not have the courage of what I am guessing are your convictions? Do you think private education is a good thing and labour should therefore be absolved of blame for harming its prospects?
Do I think private education is a good thing? No.
Should Labour take some credit for harming its prospects? Yes.
Is the private education business model sustainable regardless of Labour's prospects, or VAT? No.
So it's going to wither on the vine anyway, in which case labour is neither here nor there? What makes it unsustainable, given how long it has lasted, and how come the spooky coincidence that its unsustainability under any circumstances has only come to light at the very time labour look like jacking the price of it up by 20%? What are the odds?
You sound, with respect, just like tony Blair - you think it's ok for a socialist government to be elected provided it knows its place, tugs its forelock and has the good taste not to do anything actually socialist. Why not just rejoice?
as we are on the subject of woke nonsense , I see the BBC have a prominent story currently on their webpage about a bisexual who apparently nobody can really relate to her ! I mean what outstanding journalism to get this scoop - up there with Watergate isnt it? I mean being bisexual seems to be positively mainstream these days given the multitude of titles one can be now
You're an idiot. I'm in my 40s and (to my shame) when younger, we always used to laugh at bisexual people as "bi now, gay later". That stigma exists to the present day. Women (or vice versa, if you reverse the roles) don't want to date you, because they think you'll run off with a man, and also, you're thought less of. Like a 'gay who is still pretending, with a member of the opposite sex as a beard'. In the sense that gay, lesbian and even trans identities are largely accepted, people still don't think bi people exist.
But the fact that you think this is "woke nonsense" and "positively mainstream" says more about you than it does about bisexual people - of whom I think we have a few on the site.
Excellent by @michaelpforan on the failures at Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre- where a male CEO unlawfully harassed, discriminated against & sacked a female employee in name of gender ideology
Why Roz Adams won | Michael Foran | The Critic Magazine
I really do wonder why you're so obsessed with this. Don't you live in Jersey or Guernsey where the trans population is basically zero?
It comes off as weird and obsessive and mean spirited, which is a shame as when you're posting about other stuff you seem like a genuinely nice person.
...It was about a charity for rape victims led by a man who cheated his way into his job...
No. I don't think so. He claimed to be a woman but he had no GRC either here or in India. He was legally and biologically a man. The post was reserved for women - lawfully - under the Equality Act. He cheated. He was a mate of Nicola's. His partner got a £1.4 million contract for something or other. And he got put into various bodies with which the SNP was consulting and said all the things the SNP wanted to hear.
The judgment is damning. I have read all 109 pages. My fellow lawyer in the LegalFeminists was the barrister who acted for the complainant. She also won the recent case brought by Rachel Meade against Social Work England, the regulator and Westminster City Council for discrimination. In that case she got exemplary damages, which is pretty rare and happens only when the defendant has behaved very badly indeed.
We are talking about accountability. Well here we have an example. This was not about someone acting in good faith and getting the law wrong. This was someone who suborned an organisation's purposes, showed no regard for rape victims, deliberately ignored the law and set out to destroy a woman's career because she dared disagree with him. He and the rest of the senior management responsible for this fiasco should resign. And, if not be sacked.
It's just more weird, bee in the bonnet, traaaaaaaaaans stuff again, which I really don't want to engage with. Many of my IRL friends are trans or gender nonconforming, and they are all good eggs.
I don't want to get dragged into the mud of the argument, but one thing I've always felt is how fash-adjacent TERF ideology is. Note the people eagerly rallying around JK Wizardstick these days. "Men should be men and women should be women" is one step away from "and women should get back to the kitchen" which is why I find *trans exclusionary* feminism so odd.
But as I say, I don't want to turn this into another trans thread. I just want trans people to be allowed to get on with their lives.
I know there are those saying 'trans is political' but most trans people I know aren't, and just want to live their lives without their bodies being turned into another outpost of the culture war.
Again as I said the other day, I won't engage in endless trans debate, but if trans or gender nonconforming people are reading this thread, know that there are people who support you. You are valid.
But rape victims aren't valid to you. You won't say you support them. Or women who have been harassed and discriminated against.
I've always felt is how fash-adjacent TERF ideology is
How do you think the ERCC behaved - happy with that, or see room for improvement?
I think all children should be forced onto hormones for at least three months, to explore their gender identity.
I think skirts should be mandatory in schools, except in Scotland.
I think boobies should be free on the NHS for anyone who wants them.
I also think the trans debate is incredibly boring and, as I said in my last-but-one post, I think you're a nice person when you're not banging on about it endlessly. I've been nothing but polite, and yet I'm being called "despicable" and "rude" for daring to say that trans people have a right to exist.
Frankly, F the pair of you.
Find one post from either me or @Cyclefree where we have said "trans people don't have a right to exist".
There aren't any.
This is "no debate" by another name - now presented as "moral panic".
What I have said - consistently - is that where "men who think they are women/trans women"'s right impose on those on those of natal women there needs to be careful balancing of rights - and as Employment Tribunal's have repeatedly shown public bodies (almost always not companies) have been getting this wrong.
Trans rights are NOT superior to women's rights - which is how ERCC operated - led by a man who said he was a woman.
Perhaps you could "reframe your trauma perspective" from "trans rights" to "trans rights AND women's rights?
There are a million and one places on the internet you can go and spout your hatred of trans people. It's a shame you do it here, as I quite like it here.
Trans people exist. Trans people are valid. Trans people are human beings, just like you and I. Gender exists, and children should be allowed to learn about it in school. Their identities should not be denied to them by an authoritarian government in its death throes, looking to sow a bit of division and pick on a minority in the name of identity politics.
If you don't agree with that, fine. But I'll keep on arguing with you until my last breath, because I hate everything the TERF ideology stands for. Whether the rest of the site wants to hear that debate on a daily basis I will leave up to you.
Where have I posted that I hate Trans people?
Gender identity is a belief system - you believe it, I don't.
That's fine by me - but not by you, it would appear.
Roman Catholicism is a belief system - I don't believe that either.
Do you believe it?
If not, do you hate Roman Catholics, do you believe they do not have a right to exist, are they not human beings?
I would have hoped we are long past the point of believing we had to enforce belief systems on non-believers - or one would have thought so.
The reason I post about this is because:
i) It has to do with politics. Just ask Nicola Sturgeon or the Scottish Greens ii) It has to do with human rights - just ask women sportswomen iii) It has to do with the rule of law - see today (in a long line of) Employment Tribunal Cases.
It's not going away, however much you might want NO DEBATE"a moral panic" (sic)
Feel a bit ashamed myself as I must confess I had no idea whatsoever how bad this was and how many people were involved and for how long it had festered as one government after another lied and hid the truth.
Just appalling.
Fair is fair, T. May did create an enquiry that actually reported. Which must have offended many Good People.
Remember when Cameron upset the police with a Hillsborough enquiry that actually reported?
Feel a bit ashamed myself as I must confess I had no idea whatsoever how bad this was and how many people were involved and for how long it had festered as one government after another lied and hid the truth.
Just appalling.
What was new to me was doctors conducting clinical trials which they knew to be hazardous on patients without either their consent or knowledge. I'd long had a sense that politicians had brushed something under the carpet.
That it's forty years ago means trials are unlikely - but that it took so long for it to be made public by an enquiry which politicians said for decades was unnecessary is pretty stunning.
The depth of Ken Clarke's apparent wilful ignorance, and his continuing refusal to accept he might have been at fault, was also a disappointment to someone who had previously rather admired him as a politician.
On the private schools thing. On a personal level it is clearly awful for the staff, the current students and likely many of the alumni.
But, the prevailing view of the class who use private schools is that businesses need to stand on their own feet. If charging VAT like any other service business makes it unviable then surely that is the very same capitalism they eulogise.
As for blaming Labour, puhlease. Who is the government?
Not a valid point, because it's not the government which proposes to put the Vat on
What is a valid point is that the blow would be reduced by more than half if vat were the 8% it was when the blessed Mags ascended the throne
Labour proposed a non-dom tax now implemented by the Tories. Also Labour’s fault I presume - the Bad Man forced me into it?
VAT adds 20% to the cost and that makes it non-viable? I can think of a great many things which have seen cost price increases of more than 29% and yet the businesses are still going. And some are not - and supposedly that is just capitalism’s
This is basically sob-story bollocks. Meanwhile the University sector, worth £44b annually is on its arse at the behest of a Government sacrificing it for a performatively nonsensical immigration poliicy.
All of this is edge case marginal gains. The country made up its collective mind some time back. We're just marking time. You want an education horror story? Special needs. Sorry to keep banging on about it, but it affects so many voters. And the current situation is immoral.
I can't help but notice interest rates appear to be going.... precisely nowhere.
Could this be the new normal?
For most of my life, a 5.25% base rate would have been considered lowish.
The question should be - is this a return to the old normal?
We may see a few 0.25% cuts over the next 18 months, unlikely to fall below 4% for the foreseeable future, a return to small positive real interest rates.
Feel a bit ashamed myself as I must confess I had no idea whatsoever how bad this was and how many people were involved and for how long it had festered as one government after another lied and hid the truth.
Just appalling.
What was new to me was doctors conducting clinical trials which they knew to be hazardous on patients without either their consent or knowledge. I'd long had a sense that politicians had brushed something under the carpet.
That it's forty years ago means trials are unlikely - but that it took so long for it to be made public by an enquiry which politicians said for decades was unnecessary is pretty stunning.
The depth of Ken Clarke's apparent wilful ignorance, and his continuing refusal to accept he might have been at fault, was also a disappointment to someone who had previously rather admired him as a politician.
Unfortunately Ken Clarke, as gifted a politican as he is/was, has always has that very bumptious and arrogant side to him.
Generally people have given him the benefit of the doubt and turned a blind eye to his arrogance as he's always been a likable character, but on this occasion he needed to rise to the occasion and he singularly failed...
Feel a bit ashamed myself as I must confess I had no idea whatsoever how bad this was and how many people were involved and for how long it had festered as one government after another lied and hid the truth.
Just appalling.
The fact that you could be talking about any one of a number of scandals only makes it worse.
Too true.
Although the scale of human misery on this one is especially appalling.
On the private schools thing. On a personal level it is clearly awful for the staff, the current students and likely many of the alumni.
But, the prevailing view of the class who use private schools is that businesses need to stand on their own feet. If charging VAT like any other service business makes it unviable then surely that is the very same capitalism they eulogise.
As for blaming Labour, puhlease. Who is the government?
Not a valid point, because it's not the government which proposes to put the Vat on
What is a valid point is that the blow would be reduced by more than half if vat were the 8% it was when the blessed Mags ascended the throne
But... @Casino_Royale's school is closing before Labour come into power and impose VAT so it's ridiculous to blame Labour's or Starmer. The school is clearly not viable even when VAT-exempt.
Talking to neighbours who are governors of a famous local private school and even as a 'big name' school they are struggling. But that's the market.
It may be the responsible thing to do. If they think it's going to fail when Labour bring it the tax, then rather than take another year's intake in and risk it, decide to close in better, if not good, order.
As I said below, it's probably not the only factor. But I can easily see it being a significant factor.
If it's anything like the schools I went to, it's a shame for parents, staff, and the local community. Something that can never be brought back once it is gone.
Come off it. That's just blaming Labour who might or might not bring in the legislation. Might as well pack in the school because electricity prices might go up again.
1) Labour are certain to get in 2) They are certain to go ahead with this 3) A price increase of 20% will create a demand shock.
I don’t think any of those are really debatable.
Applies equally to all private schools. Will they all be closing at the end of summer term?
PS 1) No. 2) No. Neither of these are certain.
Not all private schools are in the same explicit position. A price shock of 20% in any line of business will reshape the market.
The chance of Labour winning a majority exceed 95%.
The chances that a Labour government will go ahead with this policy are 100%
The chances that the policy would pass the Commons with a Labour majority in the house - 100%
You can get 1/9 on a Labour majority, implying a 90% chance. The chance of Labour enacting the policy is very high, but 100%? Let's call it 98%.
We don't know the exact form of the policy. We don't know when it would get through Parliament or be enacted. There would presumably be some sort of transitional arrangements. It seems likely there will be a period of adjustment during which schools will be able to try to find efficiencies or new markets.
On the last thread, Casino was very blasé about universities having to adapt to changed visa rules, if I recall. Governments can change rules in a manner that has big impacts on a sector. Perhaps it's for the best if Government, cognisant of this, make changes more slowly.
Feel a bit ashamed myself as I must confess I had no idea whatsoever how bad this was and how many people were involved and for how long it had festered as one government after another lied and hid the truth.
Just appalling.
What was new to me was doctors conducting clinical trials which they knew to be hazardous on patients without either their consent or knowledge. I'd long had a sense that politicians had brushed something under the carpet.
That it's forty years ago means trials are unlikely - but that it took so long for it to be made public by an enquiry which politicians said for decades was unnecessary is pretty stunning.
The depth of Ken Clarke's apparent wilful ignorance, and his continuing refusal to accept he might have been at fault, was also a disappointment to someone who had previously rather admired him as a politician.
The bit I saw of Clarke it seemed to me was a typical lawyer's answer.
Maybe that is part of the problem? Far too many lawyers and PPEs in parliament.
On the private schools thing. On a personal level it is clearly awful for the staff, the current students and likely many of the alumni.
But, the prevailing view of the class who use private schools is that businesses need to stand on their own feet. If charging VAT like any other service business makes it unviable then surely that is the very same capitalism they eulogise.
As for blaming Labour, puhlease. Who is the government?
Not a valid point, because it's not the government which proposes to put the Vat on
What is a valid point is that the blow would be reduced by more than half if vat were the 8% it was when the blessed Mags ascended the throne
Labour proposed a non-dom tax now implemented by the Tories. Also Labour’s fault I presume - the Bad Man forced me into it?
VAT adds 20% to the cost and that makes it non-viable? I can think of a great many things which have seen cost price increases of more than 29% and yet the businesses are still going. And some are not - and supposedly that is just capitalism’s
This is basically sob-story bollocks. Meanwhile the University sector, worth £44b annually is on its arse at the behest of a Government sacrificing it for a performatively nonsensical immigration poliicy.
Nonsense. Our finest minds are on the case, having studied the impacts and nuance of various education policies over the past 2-3 decades.
On the private schools thing. On a personal level it is clearly awful for the staff, the current students and likely many of the alumni.
But, the prevailing view of the class who use private schools is that businesses need to stand on their own feet. If charging VAT like any other service business makes it unviable then surely that is the very same capitalism they eulogise.
As for blaming Labour, puhlease. Who is the government?
Not a valid point, because it's not the government which proposes to put the Vat on
What is a valid point is that the blow would be reduced by more than half if vat were the 8% it was when the blessed Mags ascended the throne
But... @Casino_Royale's school is closing before Labour come into power and impose VAT so it's ridiculous to blame Labour's or Starmer. The school is clearly not viable even when VAT-exempt.
Talking to neighbours who are governors of a famous local private school and even as a 'big name' school they are struggling. But that's the market.
It may be the responsible thing to do. If they think it's going to fail when Labour bring it the tax, then rather than take another year's intake in and risk it, decide to close in better, if not good, order.
As I said below, it's probably not the only factor. But I can easily see it being a significant factor.
If it's anything like the schools I went to, it's a shame for parents, staff, and the local community. Something that can never be brought back once it is gone.
Come off it. That's just blaming Labour who might or might not bring in the legislation. Might as well pack in the school because electricity prices might go up again.
1) Labour are certain to get in 2) They are certain to go ahead with this 3) A price increase of 20% will create a demand shock.
I don’t think any of those are really debatable.
Applies equally to all private schools. Will they all be closing at the end of summer term?
PS 1) No. 2) No. Neither of these are certain.
Nobody said all private schools were going to close at the end of the summer term
1 and 2 are certain to the extent that if you want to bet against them and are prepared to put the stake money into escrow I will give you some lovely odds against
And what are you frightened of anyway? Why are you not saying Yes, even before winning power labour are abolishing class inequality and a good thing too, that is what it says on the labour tin?
I just find it laughable that a private school closing after 14 years of Tory government is 'Labour's fault'.
From discussions with a few friends actively involved with private education, the whole sector is struggling. I suspect @Foxy put his finger on the reasons earlier.
Logic fail. Why is it laughable to think that people are motivated by what has been happening for the last 14 years but not by their expectations for next year? Is that true of, for example, you? And again why do you not have the courage of what I am guessing are your convictions? Do you think private education is a good thing and labour should therefore be absolved of blame for harming its prospects?
Do I think private education is a good thing? No.
Should Labour take some credit for harming its prospects? Yes.
Is the private education business model sustainable regardless of Labour's prospects, or VAT? No.
So it's going to wither on the vine anyway, in which case labour is neither here nor there? What makes it unsustainable, given how long it has lasted, and how come the spooky coincidence that its unsustainability under any circumstances has only come to light at the very time labour look like jacking the price of it up by 20%? What are the odds?
You sound, with respect, just like tony Blair - you think it's ok for a socialist government to be elected provided it knows its place, tugs its forelock and has the good taste not to do anything actually socialist. Why not just rejoice?
Regarding sustainability of private education, the anecdotal information I am getting from friends is that the combined pressures of increased pupil safeguarding requirements, a drop in foreign (particularly Chinese) boarders, a drop in UK pupil numbers, and the cost of maintaining infrastructure, mean that the financial model is not working for many smaller schools. It's anecdotal, but around here several schools have closed in the last few years.
Regarding your second paragraph I have no idea what you are trying to say, nor frankly do I care. Suffice to say, I'd like to see a left of centre government with a more radical programme than I expect Labour will implement, but to be fair I suspect any such programme would not gather sufficient support nationally.
Faisal Islam @faisalislam · 2h Looks like a major “announcement” on energy bills is imminent … another @politicalpics long lens scoop… Big Six have been briefed … something to do with the energy price cap adjustment (cut) from July (coming by Friday), further policy on smart meters (rollout has stalled)
Faisal Islam @faisalislam · 2h Looks like a major “announcement” on energy bills is imminent … another @politicalpics long lens scoop… Big Six have been briefed … something to do with the energy price cap adjustment (cut) from July (coming by Friday), further policy on smart meters (rollout has stalled)
All of this is edge case marginal gains. The country made up its collective mind some time back. We're just marking time. You want an education horror story? Special needs. Sorry to keep banging on about it, but it affects so many voters. And the current situation is immoral.
Yes - it is a huge crisis affecting all Education authorities - it starts with an increase in referrals and continues through a lack of specialist teachers to a dire shortage of suitable accommodation.
Essentially you are right. Except it starts with a curriculum inspired by what Michael Gove needed to study, mixed with an Academy regime of dress and deportment worthy of North Korea. Wrongthink in response to such nonsense leads to referrals.
Excellent by @michaelpforan on the failures at Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre- where a male CEO unlawfully harassed, discriminated against & sacked a female employee in name of gender ideology
Why Roz Adams won | Michael Foran | The Critic Magazine
I really do wonder why you're so obsessed with this. Don't you live in Jersey or Guernsey where the trans population is basically zero?
It comes off as weird and obsessive and mean spirited, which is a shame as when you're posting about other stuff you seem like a genuinely nice person.
...It was about a charity for rape victims led by a man who cheated his way into his job...
No. I don't think so. He claimed to be a woman but he had no GRC either here or in India. He was legally and biologically a man. The post was reserved for women - lawfully - under the Equality Act. He cheated. He was a mate of Nicola's. His partner got a £1.4 million contract for something or other. And he got put into various bodies with which the SNP was consulting and said all the things the SNP wanted to hear.
The judgment is damning. I have read all 109 pages. My fellow lawyer in the LegalFeminists was the barrister who acted for the complainant. She also won the recent case brought by Rachel Meade against Social Work England, the regulator and Westminster City Council for discrimination. In that case she got exemplary damages, which is pretty rare and happens only when the defendant has behaved very badly indeed.
We are talking about accountability. Well here we have an example. This was not about someone acting in good faith and getting the law wrong. This was someone who suborned an organisation's purposes, showed no regard for rape victims, deliberately ignored the law and set out to destroy a woman's career because she dared disagree with him. He and the rest of the senior management responsible for this fiasco should resign. And, if not be sacked.
It's just more weird, bee in the bonnet, traaaaaaaaaans stuff again, which I really don't want to engage with. Many of my IRL friends are trans or gender nonconforming, and they are all good eggs.
I don't want to get dragged into the mud of the argument, but one thing I've always felt is how fash-adjacent TERF ideology is. Note the people eagerly rallying around JK Wizardstick these days. "Men should be men and women should be women" is one step away from "and women should get back to the kitchen" which is why I find *trans exclusionary* feminism so odd.
But as I say, I don't want to turn this into another trans thread. I just want trans people to be allowed to get on with their lives.
I know there are those saying 'trans is political' but most trans people I know aren't, and just want to live their lives without their bodies being turned into another outpost of the culture war.
Again as I said the other day, I won't engage in endless trans debate, but if trans or gender nonconforming people are reading this thread, know that there are people who support you. You are valid.
But rape victims aren't valid to you. You won't say you support them. Or women who have been harassed and discriminated against.
I've always felt is how fash-adjacent TERF ideology is
How do you think the ERCC behaved - happy with that, or see room for improvement?
I think all children should be forced onto hormones for at least three months, to explore their gender identity.
I think skirts should be mandatory in schools, except in Scotland.
I think boobies should be free on the NHS for anyone who wants them.
I also think the trans debate is incredibly boring and, as I said in my last-but-one post, I think you're a nice person when you're not banging on about it endlessly. I've been nothing but polite, and yet I'm being called "despicable" and "rude" for daring to say that trans people have a right to exist.
Frankly, F the pair of you.
Find one post from either me or @Cyclefree where we have said "trans people don't have a right to exist".
There aren't any.
This is "no debate" by another name - now presented as "moral panic".
What I have said - consistently - is that where "men who think they are women/trans women"'s right impose on those on those of natal women there needs to be careful balancing of rights - and as Employment Tribunal's have repeatedly shown public bodies (almost always not companies) have been getting this wrong.
Trans rights are NOT superior to women's rights - which is how ERCC operated - led by a man who said he was a woman.
Perhaps you could "reframe your trauma perspective" from "trans rights" to "trans rights AND women's rights?
There are a million and one places on the internet you can go and spout your hatred of trans people. It's a shame you do it here, as I quite like it here.
Trans people exist. Trans people are valid. Trans people are human beings, just like you and I. Gender exists, and children should be allowed to learn about it in school. Their identities should not be denied to them by an authoritarian government in its death throes, looking to sow a bit of division and pick on a minority in the name of identity politics.
If you don't agree with that, fine. But I'll keep on arguing with you until my last breath, because I hate everything the TERF ideology stands for. Whether the rest of the site wants to hear that debate on a daily basis I will leave up to you.
Where have I posted that I hate Trans people?
Gender identity is a belief system - you believe it, I don't.
That's fine by me - but not by you, it would appear.
Roman Catholicism is a belief system - I don't believe that either.
Do you believe it?
If not, do you hate Roman Catholics, do you believe they do not have a right to exist, are they not human beings?
I would have hoped we are long past the point of believing we had to enforce belief systems on non-believers - or one would have thought so.
The reason I post about this is because:
i) It has to do with politics. Just ask Nicola Sturgeon or the Scottish Greens ii) It has to do with human rights - just ask women sportswomen iii) It has to do with the rule of law - see today (in a long line of) Employment Tribunal Cases.
It's not going away, however much you might want NO DEBATE"a moral panic" (sic)
And you also posted approvingly of the new section 28 laws which literally seek to deny the existence of trans people under the age of 18, as was commented on in the previous thread. How do you talk to a trans or gender questioning 15 year old as a teacher when the law says "schools should not teach about the broader concept of gender identity" in black and white?
I'm not a full on ideologue, I've never said trans women should be competing in professional sports, nor should a man be able to self ID today and walk into a woman's changing room tomorrow no questions asked - the debate is nuanced.
You keep saying I want to "no debate you" and yet I'm here every day, debating you, as politely as I can, even when I'm called "despicable" by certain posters on this site. As I say, I do think you're an alright sort and I enjoy your non-trans posts and debate. I just feel like some of the material you post denies the very existence of trans people, which has real world consequences. I''m sorry if you feel differently, but I don't spam the site with gender stuff at all - I only respond with alternative viewpoints when others post it.
This is a rather good journalistic source for trans positive perspectives on some of the things you post about - https://www.erininthemorning.com/
Anyway. I disagree with you, but I do not dislike you. I hope that makes sense.
A male Latino being Latinxy, like the Teletubby Tinky.
3 - This individual - a Tik Tok person called Tynx with a temper on her, La Tynx.
Though I'd go for Tik Tok Tak Toe Tynx.
Sadly, as with the famous students identifying as cats and needing litter trays story, it is entirely possible that it is not true.
But by that point the damage is done. People will believe it, and the bell cannot be unrung.
This may be satire but the phrase "global majority" is common use now and I am perplexed as the point that phrase is trying to prove? Also no race is a global majority anyway
It's a way of saying non-white without saying non-white.
A previous way of saying non-white was "ethnic minority" on the basis that people who are non-white are a minority in the countries where this was being used, such as in Britain.
This term was deprecated, I think in part because being identified as being in a minority was deemed to be negative, and in part because white people are in a minority globally.
Since non-white people are, collectively, in a majority across the world, then the term "global majority" was born.
This to my mind still has two problems. Firstly, you're talking about a huge and diverse group of people as though they were a homogenous whole. Secondly, it's still code for non-white, so why not just say non-white?
The reasons not to use non-white are that it is a negative label, based on what people are not, rather than what they are, and it puts white as being the normal against which other people are defined against. But since all the other terms used are just code for non-white, they don't escape these problems.
So, if you really need to, I'd say, just use non-white, but really you should show the people you are talking about the respect to talk about them with more detail and precision.
Angela Rayner will use speech tomorrow to set out 5 criteria for Labour's new towns: - 40% affordable housing - 'characterful design' - high density - comes w good infrastructure - green space
A male Latino being Latinxy, like the Teletubby Tinky.
3 - This individual - a Tik Tok person called Tynx with a temper on her, La Tynx.
Though I'd go for Tik Tok Tak Toe Tynx.
Sadly, as with the famous students identifying as cats and needing litter trays story, it is entirely possible that it is not true.
But by that point the damage is done. People will believe it, and the bell cannot be unrung.
This may be satire but the phrase "global majority" is common use now and I am perplexed as the point that phrase is trying to prove? Also no race is a global majority anyway
It's a way of saying non-white without saying non-white.
A previous way of saying non-white was "ethnic minority" on the basis that people who are non-white are a minority in the countries where this was being used, such as in Britain.
This term was deprecated, I think in part because being identified as being in a minority was deemed to be negative, and in part because white people are in a minority globally.
Since non-white people are, collectively, in a majority across the world, then the term "global majority" was born.
This to my mind still has two problems. Firstly, you're talking about a huge and diverse group of people as though they were a homogenous whole. Secondly, it's still code for non-white, so why not just say non-white?
The reasons not to use non-white are that it is a negative label, based on what people are not, rather than what they are, and it puts white as being the normal against which other people are defined against. But since all the other terms used are just code for non-white, they don't escape these problems.
So, if you really need to, I'd say, just use non-white, but really you should show the people you are talking about the respect to talk about them with more detail and precision.
identity politics just leaves me cold in any case - to me its divisive
MERCHAN: Mr Costello, I'd like to discuss proper decorum in my courtroom. As a witness on the stand, if you don't like my ruling, you don't say jeez, and you don't say strike it, bc I'm the only one who can do that. And if you don't like my ruling, you don't give me sideeye...
…Merchan, angrily: Are you staring me down right now?
Have any of our lawyer ever witnessed a judge clear the entire court in order to admonish a witness ?
Who is an attorney.
I think it is just the Jury that steps out, not a Court clearance.
And aiui watching these trials, it seems a routine and normal thing to happen. For example I do not think the Jury would not have been in when Mr Trumps 11 offences of Criminal Contempt were discussed, or when debates about many items of evidence being admissible or not were discussed, or when motions were litigated.
as we are on the subject of woke nonsense , I see the BBC have a prominent story currently on their webpage about a bisexual who apparently nobody can really relate to her ! I mean what outstanding journalism to get this scoop - up there with Watergate isnt it? I mean being bisexual seems to be positively mainstream these days given the multitude of titles one can be now
You're an idiot. I'm in my 40s and (to my shame) when younger, we always used to laugh at bisexual people as "bi now, gay later". That stigma exists to the present day. Women (or vice versa, if you reverse the roles) don't want to date you, because they think you'll run off with a man, and also, you're thought less of. Like a 'gay who is still pretending, with a member of the opposite sex as a beard'. In the sense that gay, lesbian and even trans identities are largely accepted, people still don't think bi people exist.
But the fact that you think this is "woke nonsense" and "positively mainstream" says more about you than it does about bisexual people - of whom I think we have a few on the site.
Feel a bit ashamed myself as I must confess I had no idea whatsoever how bad this was and how many people were involved and for how long it had festered as one government after another lied and hid the truth.
Just appalling.
What was new to me was doctors conducting clinical trials which they knew to be hazardous on patients without either their consent or knowledge. I'd long had a sense that politicians had brushed something under the carpet.
That it's forty years ago means trials are unlikely - but that it took so long for it to be made public by an enquiry which politicians said for decades was unnecessary is pretty stunning.
The depth of Ken Clarke's apparent wilful ignorance, and his continuing refusal to accept he might have been at fault, was also a disappointment to someone who had previously rather admired him as a politician.
Unfortunately Ken Clarke, as gifted a politican as he is/was, has always has that very bumptious and arrogant side to him.
Generally people have given him the benefit of the doubt and turned a blind eye to his arrogance as he's always been a likable character, but on this occasion he needed to rise to the occasion and he singularly failed...
It seems to me that the important date from which to start asking questions about ministers is 1983. That was when the WHO and Lancet both issued reports on the possibility of infected blood products.Since then the following have been Health Secretary:
Norman Fowler John Moore Ken Clarke William Waldegrave Virginia Bottomley Stephen Dorrell Frank Dobson Alan Milburn John Reid Alan Johnson Andy Burnham Andrew Landsley Jeremy Hunt.
Hunt became Health secretary in 2012 but it wasn't until May came to power as PM that anything was actually done about having a proper investigation.
All of these politicians could and should have known and done something about the scandal but none of them did.
All of this is edge case marginal gains. The country made up its collective mind some time back. We're just marking time. You want an education horror story? Special needs. Sorry to keep banging on about it, but it affects so many voters. And the current situation is immoral.
I remember a friend at secondary school - genius at electronics - being told he couldn't progress at electronics as he was dyslexic and partially colour-blind. Despite having proven he could do the amazing things. So he was sent on a work placement stacking shelves in a supermarket instead. Where he remained for years doffing his cap to his betters.
Feel a bit ashamed myself as I must confess I had no idea whatsoever how bad this was and how many people were involved and for how long it had festered as one government after another lied and hid the truth.
Just appalling.
What was new to me was doctors conducting clinical trials which they knew to be hazardous on patients without either their consent or knowledge. I'd long had a sense that politicians had brushed something under the carpet.
That it's forty years ago means trials are unlikely - but that it took so long for it to be made public by an enquiry which politicians said for decades was unnecessary is pretty stunning.
The depth of Ken Clarke's apparent wilful ignorance, and his continuing refusal to accept he might have been at fault, was also a disappointment to someone who had previously rather admired him as a politician.
Unfortunately Ken Clarke, as gifted a politican as he is/was, has always has that very bumptious and arrogant side to him.
Generally people have given him the benefit of the doubt and turned a blind eye to his arrogance as he's always been a likable character, but on this occasion he needed to rise to the occasion and he singularly failed...
I have not read the report and will not have time.
How did Norman Fowler HS from 1981-1987 do on this one?
I can't help but notice interest rates appear to be going.... precisely nowhere.
Could this be the new normal?
For most of my life, a 5.25% base rate would have been considered lowish.
It really depends where inflation is IMO.
An inflation number of 2.5% and an interest rate of around 4% is ideal for everyone (borrowers/spenders and savers) but you're right that an IR of around 5% isn't to be sniffed at, historically...
as we are on the subject of woke nonsense , I see the BBC have a prominent story currently on their webpage about a bisexual who apparently nobody can really relate to her ! I mean what outstanding journalism to get this scoop - up there with Watergate isnt it? I mean being bisexual seems to be positively mainstream these days given the multitude of titles one can be now
You're an idiot. I'm in my 40s and (to my shame) when younger, we always used to laugh at bisexual people as "bi now, gay later". That stigma exists to the present day. Women (or vice versa, if you reverse the roles) don't want to date you, because they think you'll run off with a man, and also, you're thought less of. Like a 'gay who is still pretending, with a member of the opposite sex as a beard'. In the sense that gay, lesbian and even trans identities are largely accepted, people still don't think bi people exist.
But the fact that you think this is "woke nonsense" and "positively mainstream" says more about you than it does about bisexual people - of whom I think we have a few on the site.
oh grow up
Right back at you bud. I didn't start a post with "as we are on the subject of woke nonsense"
Feel a bit ashamed myself as I must confess I had no idea whatsoever how bad this was and how many people were involved and for how long it had festered as one government after another lied and hid the truth.
Just appalling.
What was new to me was doctors conducting clinical trials which they knew to be hazardous on patients without either their consent or knowledge. I'd long had a sense that politicians had brushed something under the carpet.
That it's forty years ago means trials are unlikely - but that it took so long for it to be made public by an enquiry which politicians said for decades was unnecessary is pretty stunning.
The depth of Ken Clarke's apparent wilful ignorance, and his continuing refusal to accept he might have been at fault, was also a disappointment to someone who had previously rather admired him as a politician.
Unfortunately Ken Clarke, as gifted a politican as he is/was, has always has that very bumptious and arrogant side to him.
Generally people have given him the benefit of the doubt and turned a blind eye to his arrogance as he's always been a likable character, but on this occasion he needed to rise to the occasion and he singularly failed...
It seems to me that the important date from which to start asking questions about ministers is 1983. That was when the WHO and Lancet both issued reports on the possibility of infected blood products.Since then the following have been Health Secretary:
Norman Fowler John Moore Ken Clarke William Waldegrave Virginia Bottomley Stephen Dorrell Frank Dobson Alan Milburn John Reid Alan Johnson Andy Burnham Andrew Landsley Jeremy Hunt.
Hunt became Health secretary in 2012 but it wasn't until May came to power as PM that anything was actually done about having a proper investigation.
All of these politicians could and should have known and done something about the scandal but none of them did.
David Owen was on the radio earlier this evening talking about the parliamentary questions he'd put in the mid/late 1970s about it. Said it was common knowledge amongst practitioners, politicians, civil servants.
Excellent by @michaelpforan on the failures at Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre- where a male CEO unlawfully harassed, discriminated against & sacked a female employee in name of gender ideology
Why Roz Adams won | Michael Foran | The Critic Magazine
I really do wonder why you're so obsessed with this. Don't you live in Jersey or Guernsey where the trans population is basically zero?
It comes off as weird and obsessive and mean spirited, which is a shame as when you're posting about other stuff you seem like a genuinely nice person.
...It was about a charity for rape victims led by a man who cheated his way into his job...
No. I don't think so. He claimed to be a woman but he had no GRC either here or in India. He was legally and biologically a man. The post was reserved for women - lawfully - under the Equality Act. He cheated. He was a mate of Nicola's. His partner got a £1.4 million contract for something or other. And he got put into various bodies with which the SNP was consulting and said all the things the SNP wanted to hear.
The judgment is damning. I have read all 109 pages. My fellow lawyer in the LegalFeminists was the barrister who acted for the complainant. She also won the recent case brought by Rachel Meade against Social Work England, the regulator and Westminster City Council for discrimination. In that case she got exemplary damages, which is pretty rare and happens only when the defendant has behaved very badly indeed.
We are talking about accountability. Well here we have an example. This was not about someone acting in good faith and getting the law wrong. This was someone who suborned an organisation's purposes, showed no regard for rape victims, deliberately ignored the law and set out to destroy a woman's career because she dared disagree with him. He and the rest of the senior management responsible for this fiasco should resign. And, if not be sacked.
It's just more weird, bee in the bonnet, traaaaaaaaaans stuff again, which I really don't want to engage with. Many of my IRL friends are trans or gender nonconforming, and they are all good eggs.
I don't want to get dragged into the mud of the argument, but one thing I've always felt is how fash-adjacent TERF ideology is. Note the people eagerly rallying around JK Wizardstick these days. "Men should be men and women should be women" is one step away from "and women should get back to the kitchen" which is why I find *trans exclusionary* feminism so odd.
But as I say, I don't want to turn this into another trans thread. I just want trans people to be allowed to get on with their lives.
I know there are those saying 'trans is political' but most trans people I know aren't, and just want to live their lives without their bodies being turned into another outpost of the culture war.
Again as I said the other day, I won't engage in endless trans debate, but if trans or gender nonconforming people are reading this thread, know that there are people who support you. You are valid.
But rape victims aren't valid to you. You won't say you support them. Or women who have been harassed and discriminated against.
I've always felt is how fash-adjacent TERF ideology is
How do you think the ERCC behaved - happy with that, or see room for improvement?
I think all children should be forced onto hormones for at least three months, to explore their gender identity.
I think skirts should be mandatory in schools, except in Scotland.
I think boobies should be free on the NHS for anyone who wants them.
I also think the trans debate is incredibly boring and, as I said in my last-but-one post, I think you're a nice person when you're not banging on about it endlessly. I've been nothing but polite, and yet I'm being called "despicable" and "rude" for daring to say that trans people have a right to exist.
Frankly, F the pair of you.
Find one post from either me or @Cyclefree where we have said "trans people don't have a right to exist".
There aren't any.
This is "no debate" by another name - now presented as "moral panic".
What I have said - consistently - is that where "men who think they are women/trans women"'s right impose on those on those of natal women there needs to be careful balancing of rights - and as Employment Tribunal's have repeatedly shown public bodies (almost always not companies) have been getting this wrong.
Trans rights are NOT superior to women's rights - which is how ERCC operated - led by a man who said he was a woman.
Perhaps you could "reframe your trauma perspective" from "trans rights" to "trans rights AND women's rights?
There are a million and one places on the internet you can go and spout your hatred of trans people. It's a shame you do it here, as I quite like it here.
Trans people exist. Trans people are valid. Trans people are human beings, just like you and I. Gender exists, and children should be allowed to learn about it in school. Their identities should not be denied to them by an authoritarian government in its death throes, looking to sow a bit of division and pick on a minority in the name of identity politics.
If you don't agree with that, fine. But I'll keep on arguing with you until my last breath, because I hate everything the TERF ideology stands for. Whether the rest of the site wants to hear that debate on a daily basis I will leave up to you.
Where have I posted that I hate Trans people?
Gender identity is a belief system - you believe it, I don't.
That's fine by me - but not by you, it would appear.
Roman Catholicism is a belief system - I don't believe that either.
Do you believe it?
If not, do you hate Roman Catholics, do you believe they do not have a right to exist, are they not human beings?
I would have hoped we are long past the point of believing we had to enforce belief systems on non-believers - or one would have thought so.
The reason I post about this is because:
i) It has to do with politics. Just ask Nicola Sturgeon or the Scottish Greens ii) It has to do with human rights - just ask women sportswomen iii) It has to do with the rule of law - see today (in a long line of) Employment Tribunal Cases.
It's not going away, however much you might want NO DEBATE"a moral panic" (sic)
And you also posted approvingly of the new section 28 laws which literally seek to deny the existence of trans people under the age of 18, as was commented on in the previous thread. How do you talk to a trans or gender questioning 15 year old as a teacher when the law says "schools should not teach about the broader concept of gender identity" in black and white?
I'm not a full on ideologue, I've never said trans women should be competing in professional sports, nor should a man be able to self ID today and walk into a woman's changing room tomorrow no questions asked - the debate is nuanced.
You keep saying I want to "no debate you" and yet I'm here every day, debating you, as politely as I can, even when I'm called "despicable" by certain posters on this site. As I say, I do think you're an alright sort and I enjoy your non-trans posts and debate. I just feel like some of the material you post denies the very existence of trans people, which has real world consequences. I''m sorry if you feel differently, but I don't spam the site with gender stuff at all - I only respond with alternative viewpoints when others post it.
This is a rather good journalistic source for trans positive perspectives on some of the things you post about - https://www.erininthemorning.com/
Anyway. I disagree with you, but I do not dislike you. I hope that makes sense.
If you're relying on erininthemorning, may I suggest reading more widely?
The prominent American transgender activist Erin Reed has repeatedly and insistently made demonstrably false claims about pediatric gender medicine.
During the two weeks since the publication of the Cass Review, England’s mammoth report about this controversial and politicized medical field, Reed has emitted a fusillade of false claims about the review, its findings and the systematic literature reviews on which it was partially based. Reed has only doubled down when fact checked, even when the corrections have come from lead author of the report, pediatrician Dr. Hilary Cass, herself.
Feel a bit ashamed myself as I must confess I had no idea whatsoever how bad this was and how many people were involved and for how long it had festered as one government after another lied and hid the truth.
Just appalling.
What was new to me was doctors conducting clinical trials which they knew to be hazardous on patients without either their consent or knowledge. I'd long had a sense that politicians had brushed something under the carpet.
That it's forty years ago means trials are unlikely - but that it took so long for it to be made public by an enquiry which politicians said for decades was unnecessary is pretty stunning.
The depth of Ken Clarke's apparent wilful ignorance, and his continuing refusal to accept he might have been at fault, was also a disappointment to someone who had previously rather admired him as a politician.
Unfortunately Ken Clarke, as gifted a politican as he is/was, has always has that very bumptious and arrogant side to him.
Generally people have given him the benefit of the doubt and turned a blind eye to his arrogance as he's always been a likable character, but on this occasion he needed to rise to the occasion and he singularly failed...
It seems to me that the important date from which to start asking questions about ministers is 1983. That was when the WHO and Lancet both issued reports on the possibility of infected blood products.Since then the following have been Health Secretary:
Norman Fowler John Moore Ken Clarke William Waldegrave Virginia Bottomley Stephen Dorrell Frank Dobson Alan Milburn John Reid Alan Johnson Andy Burnham Andrew Landsley Jeremy Hunt.
Hunt became Health secretary in 2012 but it wasn't until May came to power as PM that anything was actually done about having a proper investigation.
All of these politicians could and should have known and done something about the scandal but none of them did.
Burnham claims basically he asked questions and was blatantly lied to by officials.
A male Latino being Latinxy, like the Teletubby Tinky.
3 - This individual - a Tik Tok person called Tynx with a temper on her, La Tynx.
Though I'd go for Tik Tok Tak Toe Tynx.
Sadly, as with the famous students identifying as cats and needing litter trays story, it is entirely possible that it is not true.
But by that point the damage is done. People will believe it, and the bell cannot be unrung.
This may be satire but the phrase "global majority" is common use now and I am perplexed as the point that phrase is trying to prove? Also no race is a global majority anyway
It's a way of saying non-white without saying non-white.
A previous way of saying non-white was "ethnic minority" on the basis that people who are non-white are a minority in the countries where this was being used, such as in Britain.
This term was deprecated, I think in part because being identified as being in a minority was deemed to be negative, and in part because white people are in a minority globally.
Since non-white people are, collectively, in a majority across the world, then the term "global majority" was born.
This to my mind still has two problems. Firstly, you're talking about a huge and diverse group of people as though they were a homogenous whole. Secondly, it's still code for non-white, so why not just say non-white?
The reasons not to use non-white are that it is a negative label, based on what people are not, rather than what they are, and it puts white as being the normal against which other people are defined against. But since all the other terms used are just code for non-white, they don't escape these problems.
So, if you really need to, I'd say, just use non-white, but really you should show the people you are talking about the respect to talk about them with more detail and precision.
identity politics just leaves me cold in any case - to me its divisive
I come to this from a data analysis point of view. If you want to understand ways in which you can improve education and health outcomes it helps to be able to look at the detail in your data by splitting it into different groups.
Perhaps kids born in the summer struggle at primary school because they start school at too young an age? Maybe people with a West African background have a higher rate of strokes? Could depression be affected by how far people live from the sea?
So you need to have a way to label these groups of people so that you can talk about them, and if the people who live more than 25km from the coast find terms like "landlubber" offensive, then I guess you ought to find a better name.
as we are on the subject of woke nonsense , I see the BBC have a prominent story currently on their webpage about a bisexual who apparently nobody can really relate to her ! I mean what outstanding journalism to get this scoop - up there with Watergate isnt it? I mean being bisexual seems to be positively mainstream these days given the multitude of titles one can be now
You're an idiot. I'm in my 40s and (to my shame) when younger, we always used to laugh at bisexual people as "bi now, gay later". That stigma exists to the present day. Women (or vice versa, if you reverse the roles) don't want to date you, because they think you'll run off with a man, and also, you're thought less of. Like a 'gay who is still pretending, with a member of the opposite sex as a beard'. In the sense that gay, lesbian and even trans identities are largely accepted, people still don't think bi people exist.
But the fact that you think this is "woke nonsense" and "positively mainstream" says more about you than it does about bisexual people - of whom I think we have a few on the site.
oh grow up
Right back at you bud. I didn't start a post with "as we are on the subject of woke nonsense"
Feel a bit ashamed myself as I must confess I had no idea whatsoever how bad this was and how many people were involved and for how long it had festered as one government after another lied and hid the truth.
Just appalling.
What was new to me was doctors conducting clinical trials which they knew to be hazardous on patients without either their consent or knowledge. I'd long had a sense that politicians had brushed something under the carpet.
That it's forty years ago means trials are unlikely - but that it took so long for it to be made public by an enquiry which politicians said for decades was unnecessary is pretty stunning.
The depth of Ken Clarke's apparent wilful ignorance, and his continuing refusal to accept he might have been at fault, was also a disappointment to someone who had previously rather admired him as a politician.
Unfortunately Ken Clarke, as gifted a politican as he is/was, has always has that very bumptious and arrogant side to him.
Generally people have given him the benefit of the doubt and turned a blind eye to his arrogance as he's always been a likable character, but on this occasion he needed to rise to the occasion and he singularly failed...
It seems to me that the important date from which to start asking questions about ministers is 1983. That was when the WHO and Lancet both issued reports on the possibility of infected blood products.Since then the following have been Health Secretary:
Norman Fowler John Moore Ken Clarke William Waldegrave Virginia Bottomley Stephen Dorrell Frank Dobson Alan Milburn John Reid Alan Johnson Andy Burnham Andrew Landsley Jeremy Hunt.
Hunt became Health secretary in 2012 but it wasn't until May came to power as PM that anything was actually done about having a proper investigation.
All of these politicians could and should have known and done something about the scandal but none of them did.
That's 13 Health Secretaries in 29 years. A scandal. Meanwhile if Gillian Keegan makes it to July we'll have had 9 Education Secretaries in 9 years. Why not just get someone on supply? I'm available at a cheaper rate.
Excellent by @michaelpforan on the failures at Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre- where a male CEO unlawfully harassed, discriminated against & sacked a female employee in name of gender ideology
Why Roz Adams won | Michael Foran | The Critic Magazine
I really do wonder why you're so obsessed with this. Don't you live in Jersey or Guernsey where the trans population is basically zero?
It comes off as weird and obsessive and mean spirited, which is a shame as when you're posting about other stuff you seem like a genuinely nice person.
...It was about a charity for rape victims led by a man who cheated his way into his job...
No. I don't think so. He claimed to be a woman but he had no GRC either here or in India. He was legally and biologically a man. The post was reserved for women - lawfully - under the Equality Act. He cheated. He was a mate of Nicola's. His partner got a £1.4 million contract for something or other. And he got put into various bodies with which the SNP was consulting and said all the things the SNP wanted to hear.
The judgment is damning. I have read all 109 pages. My fellow lawyer in the LegalFeminists was the barrister who acted for the complainant. She also won the recent case brought by Rachel Meade against Social Work England, the regulator and Westminster City Council for discrimination. In that case she got exemplary damages, which is pretty rare and happens only when the defendant has behaved very badly indeed.
We are talking about accountability. Well here we have an example. This was not about someone acting in good faith and getting the law wrong. This was someone who suborned an organisation's purposes, showed no regard for rape victims, deliberately ignored the law and set out to destroy a woman's career because she dared disagree with him. He and the rest of the senior management responsible for this fiasco should resign. And, if not be sacked.
It's just more weird, bee in the bonnet, traaaaaaaaaans stuff again, which I really don't want to engage with. Many of my IRL friends are trans or gender nonconforming, and they are all good eggs.
I don't want to get dragged into the mud of the argument, but one thing I've always felt is how fash-adjacent TERF ideology is. Note the people eagerly rallying around JK Wizardstick these days. "Men should be men and women should be women" is one step away from "and women should get back to the kitchen" which is why I find *trans exclusionary* feminism so odd.
But as I say, I don't want to turn this into another trans thread. I just want trans people to be allowed to get on with their lives.
I know there are those saying 'trans is political' but most trans people I know aren't, and just want to live their lives without their bodies being turned into another outpost of the culture war.
Again as I said the other day, I won't engage in endless trans debate, but if trans or gender nonconforming people are reading this thread, know that there are people who support you. You are valid.
But rape victims aren't valid to you. You won't say you support them. Or women who have been harassed and discriminated against.
I've always felt is how fash-adjacent TERF ideology is
How do you think the ERCC behaved - happy with that, or see room for improvement?
I think all children should be forced onto hormones for at least three months, to explore their gender identity.
I think skirts should be mandatory in schools, except in Scotland.
I think boobies should be free on the NHS for anyone who wants them.
I also think the trans debate is incredibly boring and, as I said in my last-but-one post, I think you're a nice person when you're not banging on about it endlessly. I've been nothing but polite, and yet I'm being called "despicable" and "rude" for daring to say that trans people have a right to exist.
Frankly, F the pair of you.
Find one post from either me or @Cyclefree where we have said "trans people don't have a right to exist".
There aren't any.
This is "no debate" by another name - now presented as "moral panic".
What I have said - consistently - is that where "men who think they are women/trans women"'s right impose on those on those of natal women there needs to be careful balancing of rights - and as Employment Tribunal's have repeatedly shown public bodies (almost always not companies) have been getting this wrong.
Trans rights are NOT superior to women's rights - which is how ERCC operated - led by a man who said he was a woman.
Perhaps you could "reframe your trauma perspective" from "trans rights" to "trans rights AND women's rights?
There are a million and one places on the internet you can go and spout your hatred of trans people. It's a shame you do it here, as I quite like it here.
Trans people exist. Trans people are valid. Trans people are human beings, just like you and I. Gender exists, and children should be allowed to learn about it in school. Their identities should not be denied to them by an authoritarian government in its death throes, looking to sow a bit of division and pick on a minority in the name of identity politics.
If you don't agree with that, fine. But I'll keep on arguing with you until my last breath, because I hate everything the TERF ideology stands for. Whether the rest of the site wants to hear that debate on a daily basis I will leave up to you.
Where have I posted that I hate Trans people?
Gender identity is a belief system - you believe it, I don't.
That's fine by me - but not by you, it would appear.
Roman Catholicism is a belief system - I don't believe that either.
Do you believe it?
If not, do you hate Roman Catholics, do you believe they do not have a right to exist, are they not human beings?
I would have hoped we are long past the point of believing we had to enforce belief systems on non-believers - or one would have thought so.
The reason I post about this is because:
i) It has to do with politics. Just ask Nicola Sturgeon or the Scottish Greens ii) It has to do with human rights - just ask women sportswomen iii) It has to do with the rule of law - see today (in a long line of) Employment Tribunal Cases.
It's not going away, however much you might want NO DEBATE"a moral panic" (sic)
And you also posted approvingly of the new section 28 laws which literally seek to deny the existence of trans people under the age of 18, as was commented on in the previous thread. How do you talk to a trans or gender questioning 15 year old as a teacher when the law says "schools should not teach about the broader concept of gender identity" in black and white?
I'm not a full on ideologue, I've never said trans women should be competing in professional sports, nor should a man be able to self ID today and walk into a woman's changing room tomorrow no questions asked - the debate is nuanced.
You keep saying I want to "no debate you" and yet I'm here every day, debating you, as politely as I can, even when I'm called "despicable" by certain posters on this site. As I say, I do think you're an alright sort and I enjoy your non-trans posts and debate. I just feel like some of the material you post denies the very existence of trans people, which has real world consequences. I''m sorry if you feel differently, but I don't spam the site with gender stuff at all - I only respond with alternative viewpoints when others post it.
This is a rather good journalistic source for trans positive perspectives on some of the things you post about - https://www.erininthemorning.com/
Anyway. I disagree with you, but I do not dislike you. I hope that makes sense.
If you're relying on erininthemorning, may I suggest reading more widely?
The prominent American transgender activist Erin Reed has repeatedly and insistently made demonstrably false claims about pediatric gender medicine.
During the two weeks since the publication of the Cass Review, England’s mammoth report about this controversial and politicized medical field, Reed has emitted a fusillade of false claims about the review, its findings and the systematic literature reviews on which it was partially based. Reed has only doubled down when fact checked, even when the corrections have come from lead author of the report, pediatrician Dr. Hilary Cass, herself.
I'm not relying at all, I'm suggesting alternative viewpoints that may help you get out of the filter bubble.
I read both trans positive and trans critical stuff and make up my own mind.
I'm not an ideologue in the vein of "self ID must be accepted uncritically and men can self ID and compete in womens sport and use the changing rooms tomorrow" but I'm also far from a TERF, as you know. I just want trans people to be left alone to live their own lives.
As you live on Jersey (?) or Alderney (?) I might suggest you have little real world experience of trans people and as much fun as back and forthing over trans positive and trans negative newsletters is, if you ever want to meet a *real* trans person come over to London some time and I'll introduce you. The ones I know are quite harmless, and generally very kind.
Feel a bit ashamed myself as I must confess I had no idea whatsoever how bad this was and how many people were involved and for how long it had festered as one government after another lied and hid the truth.
Just appalling.
What was new to me was doctors conducting clinical trials which they knew to be hazardous on patients without either their consent or knowledge. I'd long had a sense that politicians had brushed something under the carpet.
That it's forty years ago means trials are unlikely - but that it took so long for it to be made public by an enquiry which politicians said for decades was unnecessary is pretty stunning.
The depth of Ken Clarke's apparent wilful ignorance, and his continuing refusal to accept he might have been at fault, was also a disappointment to someone who had previously rather admired him as a politician.
Unfortunately Ken Clarke, as gifted a politican as he is/was, has always has that very bumptious and arrogant side to him.
Generally people have given him the benefit of the doubt and turned a blind eye to his arrogance as he's always been a likable character, but on this occasion he needed to rise to the occasion and he singularly failed...
It seems to me that the important date from which to start asking questions about ministers is 1983. That was when the WHO and Lancet both issued reports on the possibility of infected blood products.Since then the following have been Health Secretary:
Norman Fowler John Moore Ken Clarke William Waldegrave Virginia Bottomley Stephen Dorrell Frank Dobson Alan Milburn John Reid Alan Johnson Andy Burnham Andrew Landsley Jeremy Hunt.
Hunt became Health secretary in 2012 but it wasn't until May came to power as PM that anything was actually done about having a proper investigation.
All of these politicians could and should have known and done something about the scandal but none of them did.
Burnham claims basically he asked questions and was blatantly lied to by officials.
There's an inquiry in itself right there.
That’s quite believable. See Rory Stewart being serially lied to by officials who regarded his “breaking” their lies as rather rude.
Feel a bit ashamed myself as I must confess I had no idea whatsoever how bad this was and how many people were involved and for how long it had festered as one government after another lied and hid the truth.
Just appalling.
What was new to me was doctors conducting clinical trials which they knew to be hazardous on patients without either their consent or knowledge. I'd long had a sense that politicians had brushed something under the carpet.
That it's forty years ago means trials are unlikely - but that it took so long for it to be made public by an enquiry which politicians said for decades was unnecessary is pretty stunning.
The depth of Ken Clarke's apparent wilful ignorance, and his continuing refusal to accept he might have been at fault, was also a disappointment to someone who had previously rather admired him as a politician.
Unfortunately Ken Clarke, as gifted a politican as he is/was, has always has that very bumptious and arrogant side to him.
Generally people have given him the benefit of the doubt and turned a blind eye to his arrogance as he's always been a likable character, but on this occasion he needed to rise to the occasion and he singularly failed...
It seems to me that the important date from which to start asking questions about ministers is 1983. That was when the WHO and Lancet both issued reports on the possibility of infected blood products.Since then the following have been Health Secretary:
Norman Fowler John Moore Ken Clarke William Waldegrave Virginia Bottomley Stephen Dorrell Frank Dobson Alan Milburn John Reid Alan Johnson Andy Burnham Andrew Landsley Jeremy Hunt.
Hunt became Health secretary in 2012 but it wasn't until May came to power as PM that anything was actually done about having a proper investigation.
All of these politicians could and should have known and done something about the scandal but none of them did.
The complete and utter failure of HMG/British state across both Conservative and Labour governments over 30+ years and an incredible 14 Health Secretarys speaks for itself.
There's nothing much else to say really is there? It's just a day that shames Britain.
Feel a bit ashamed myself as I must confess I had no idea whatsoever how bad this was and how many people were involved and for how long it had festered as one government after another lied and hid the truth.
Just appalling.
What was new to me was doctors conducting clinical trials which they knew to be hazardous on patients without either their consent or knowledge. I'd long had a sense that politicians had brushed something under the carpet.
That it's forty years ago means trials are unlikely - but that it took so long for it to be made public by an enquiry which politicians said for decades was unnecessary is pretty stunning.
The depth of Ken Clarke's apparent wilful ignorance, and his continuing refusal to accept he might have been at fault, was also a disappointment to someone who had previously rather admired him as a politician.
Unfortunately Ken Clarke, as gifted a politican as he is/was, has always has that very bumptious and arrogant side to him.
Generally people have given him the benefit of the doubt and turned a blind eye to his arrogance as he's always been a likable character, but on this occasion he needed to rise to the occasion and he singularly failed...
It seems to me that the important date from which to start asking questions about ministers is 1983. That was when the WHO and Lancet both issued reports on the possibility of infected blood products.Since then the following have been Health Secretary:
Norman Fowler John Moore Ken Clarke William Waldegrave Virginia Bottomley Stephen Dorrell Frank Dobson Alan Milburn John Reid Alan Johnson Andy Burnham Andrew Landsley Jeremy Hunt.
Hunt became Health secretary in 2012 but it wasn't until May came to power as PM that anything was actually done about having a proper investigation.
All of these politicians could and should have known and done something about the scandal but none of them did.
Burnham claims basically he asked questions and was blatantly lied to by officials.
There's an inquiry in itself right there.
That’s quite believable. See Rory Stewart being serially lied to by officials who regarded his “breaking” their lies as rather rude.
Spads get a rum deal - but at least they are a separate 'voice' in a ministers ear.
Feel a bit ashamed myself as I must confess I had no idea whatsoever how bad this was and how many people were involved and for how long it had festered as one government after another lied and hid the truth.
Just appalling.
What was new to me was doctors conducting clinical trials which they knew to be hazardous on patients without either their consent or knowledge. I'd long had a sense that politicians had brushed something under the carpet.
That it's forty years ago means trials are unlikely - but that it took so long for it to be made public by an enquiry which politicians said for decades was unnecessary is pretty stunning.
The depth of Ken Clarke's apparent wilful ignorance, and his continuing refusal to accept he might have been at fault, was also a disappointment to someone who had previously rather admired him as a politician.
Unfortunately Ken Clarke, as gifted a politican as he is/was, has always has that very bumptious and arrogant side to him.
Generally people have given him the benefit of the doubt and turned a blind eye to his arrogance as he's always been a likable character, but on this occasion he needed to rise to the occasion and he singularly failed...
It seems to me that the important date from which to start asking questions about ministers is 1983. That was when the WHO and Lancet both issued reports on the possibility of infected blood products.Since then the following have been Health Secretary:
Norman Fowler John Moore Ken Clarke William Waldegrave Virginia Bottomley Stephen Dorrell Frank Dobson Alan Milburn John Reid Alan Johnson Andy Burnham Andrew Landsley Jeremy Hunt.
Hunt became Health secretary in 2012 but it wasn't until May came to power as PM that anything was actually done about having a proper investigation.
All of these politicians could and should have known and done something about the scandal but none of them did.
That's 13 Health Secretaries in 29 years. A scandal. Meanwhile if Gillian Keegan makes it to July we'll have had 9 Education Secretaries in 9 years. Why not just get someone on supply? I'm available at a cheaper rate.
Excellent by @michaelpforan on the failures at Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre- where a male CEO unlawfully harassed, discriminated against & sacked a female employee in name of gender ideology
Why Roz Adams won | Michael Foran | The Critic Magazine
I really do wonder why you're so obsessed with this. Don't you live in Jersey or Guernsey where the trans population is basically zero?
It comes off as weird and obsessive and mean spirited, which is a shame as when you're posting about other stuff you seem like a genuinely nice person.
...It was about a charity for rape victims led by a man who cheated his way into his job...
No. I don't think so. He claimed to be a woman but he had no GRC either here or in India. He was legally and biologically a man. The post was reserved for women - lawfully - under the Equality Act. He cheated. He was a mate of Nicola's. His partner got a £1.4 million contract for something or other. And he got put into various bodies with which the SNP was consulting and said all the things the SNP wanted to hear.
The judgment is damning. I have read all 109 pages. My fellow lawyer in the LegalFeminists was the barrister who acted for the complainant. She also won the recent case brought by Rachel Meade against Social Work England, the regulator and Westminster City Council for discrimination. In that case she got exemplary damages, which is pretty rare and happens only when the defendant has behaved very badly indeed.
We are talking about accountability. Well here we have an example. This was not about someone acting in good faith and getting the law wrong. This was someone who suborned an organisation's purposes, showed no regard for rape victims, deliberately ignored the law and set out to destroy a woman's career because she dared disagree with him. He and the rest of the senior management responsible for this fiasco should resign. And, if not be sacked.
It's just more weird, bee in the bonnet, traaaaaaaaaans stuff again, which I really don't want to engage with. Many of my IRL friends are trans or gender nonconforming, and they are all good eggs.
I don't want to get dragged into the mud of the argument, but one thing I've always felt is how fash-adjacent TERF ideology is. Note the people eagerly rallying around JK Wizardstick these days. "Men should be men and women should be women" is one step away from "and women should get back to the kitchen" which is why I find *trans exclusionary* feminism so odd.
But as I say, I don't want to turn this into another trans thread. I just want trans people to be allowed to get on with their lives.
I know there are those saying 'trans is political' but most trans people I know aren't, and just want to live their lives without their bodies being turned into another outpost of the culture war.
Again as I said the other day, I won't engage in endless trans debate, but if trans or gender nonconforming people are reading this thread, know that there are people who support you. You are valid.
But rape victims aren't valid to you. You won't say you support them. Or women who have been harassed and discriminated against.
I've always felt is how fash-adjacent TERF ideology is
How do you think the ERCC behaved - happy with that, or see room for improvement?
I think all children should be forced onto hormones for at least three months, to explore their gender identity.
I think skirts should be mandatory in schools, except in Scotland.
I think boobies should be free on the NHS for anyone who wants them.
I also think the trans debate is incredibly boring and, as I said in my last-but-one post, I think you're a nice person when you're not banging on about it endlessly. I've been nothing but polite, and yet I'm being called "despicable" and "rude" for daring to say that trans people have a right to exist.
Frankly, F the pair of you.
Find one post from either me or @Cyclefree where we have said "trans people don't have a right to exist".
There aren't any.
This is "no debate" by another name - now presented as "moral panic".
What I have said - consistently - is that where "men who think they are women/trans women"'s right impose on those on those of natal women there needs to be careful balancing of rights - and as Employment Tribunal's have repeatedly shown public bodies (almost always not companies) have been getting this wrong.
Trans rights are NOT superior to women's rights - which is how ERCC operated - led by a man who said he was a woman.
Perhaps you could "reframe your trauma perspective" from "trans rights" to "trans rights AND women's rights?
There are a million and one places on the internet you can go and spout your hatred of trans people. It's a shame you do it here, as I quite like it here.
Trans people exist. Trans people are valid. Trans people are human beings, just like you and I. Gender exists, and children should be allowed to learn about it in school. Their identities should not be denied to them by an authoritarian government in its death throes, looking to sow a bit of division and pick on a minority in the name of identity politics.
If you don't agree with that, fine. But I'll keep on arguing with you until my last breath, because I hate everything the TERF ideology stands for. Whether the rest of the site wants to hear that debate on a daily basis I will leave up to you.
Where have I posted that I hate Trans people?
Gender identity is a belief system - you believe it, I don't.
That's fine by me - but not by you, it would appear.
Roman Catholicism is a belief system - I don't believe that either.
Do you believe it?
If not, do you hate Roman Catholics, do you believe they do not have a right to exist, are they not human beings?
I would have hoped we are long past the point of believing we had to enforce belief systems on non-believers - or one would have thought so.
The reason I post about this is because:
i) It has to do with politics. Just ask Nicola Sturgeon or the Scottish Greens ii) It has to do with human rights - just ask women sportswomen iii) It has to do with the rule of law - see today (in a long line of) Employment Tribunal Cases.
It's not going away, however much you might want NO DEBATE"a moral panic" (sic)
And you also posted approvingly of the new section 28 laws which literally seek to deny the existence of trans people under the age of 18, as was commented on in the previous thread. How do you talk to a trans or gender questioning 15 year old as a teacher when the law says "schools should not teach about the broader concept of gender identity" in black and white?
I'm not a full on ideologue, I've never said trans women should be competing in professional sports, nor should a man be able to self ID today and walk into a woman's changing room tomorrow no questions asked - the debate is nuanced.
You keep saying I want to "no debate you" and yet I'm here every day, debating you, as politely as I can, even when I'm called "despicable" by certain posters on this site. As I say, I do think you're an alright sort and I enjoy your non-trans posts and debate. I just feel like some of the material you post denies the very existence of trans people, which has real world consequences. I''m sorry if you feel differently, but I don't spam the site with gender stuff at all - I only respond with alternative viewpoints when others post it.
This is a rather good journalistic source for trans positive perspectives on some of the things you post about - https://www.erininthemorning.com/
Anyway. I disagree with you, but I do not dislike you. I hope that makes sense.
If you're relying on erininthemorning, may I suggest reading more widely?
The prominent American transgender activist Erin Reed has repeatedly and insistently made demonstrably false claims about pediatric gender medicine.
During the two weeks since the publication of the Cass Review, England’s mammoth report about this controversial and politicized medical field, Reed has emitted a fusillade of false claims about the review, its findings and the systematic literature reviews on which it was partially based. Reed has only doubled down when fact checked, even when the corrections have come from lead author of the report, pediatrician Dr. Hilary Cass, herself.
As you live on Jersey (?) or Alderney (?) I might suggest you have little real world experience of trans people and as much fun as back and forthing over trans positive and trans negative newsletters is, if you ever want to meet a *real* trans person come over to London some time and I'll introduce you. The ones I know are quite harmless, and generally very kind.
I have no argument with them - it's with the belief system that some activists seek to impose on others,
I now live in Brighton - the UK's LGBTQIWTF+ capital - until the inner London Borough of Newham stole the crown because the ONS mucked up the census so a disproportionately unlikely number of muslim non-native English speakers identified as trans.
That's why "inclusive" language is often "exclusive" - how many non-native English "cervix havers" will die of cervical cancer because - as - "Women" - they didn't know testing applied to them?
Feel a bit ashamed myself as I must confess I had no idea whatsoever how bad this was and how many people were involved and for how long it had festered as one government after another lied and hid the truth.
Just appalling.
What was new to me was doctors conducting clinical trials which they knew to be hazardous on patients without either their consent or knowledge. I'd long had a sense that politicians had brushed something under the carpet.
That it's forty years ago means trials are unlikely - but that it took so long for it to be made public by an enquiry which politicians said for decades was unnecessary is pretty stunning.
The depth of Ken Clarke's apparent wilful ignorance, and his continuing refusal to accept he might have been at fault, was also a disappointment to someone who had previously rather admired him as a politician.
Unfortunately Ken Clarke, as gifted a politican as he is/was, has always has that very bumptious and arrogant side to him.
Generally people have given him the benefit of the doubt and turned a blind eye to his arrogance as he's always been a likable character, but on this occasion he needed to rise to the occasion and he singularly failed...
It seems to me that the important date from which to start asking questions about ministers is 1983. That was when the WHO and Lancet both issued reports on the possibility of infected blood products.Since then the following have been Health Secretary:
Norman Fowler John Moore Ken Clarke William Waldegrave Virginia Bottomley Stephen Dorrell Frank Dobson Alan Milburn John Reid Alan Johnson Andy Burnham Andrew Landsley Jeremy Hunt.
Hunt became Health secretary in 2012 but it wasn't until May came to power as PM that anything was actually done about having a proper investigation.
All of these politicians could and should have known and done something about the scandal but none of them did.
The complete and utter failure of HMG/British state across both Conservative and Labour governments over 30+ years and an incredible 13 Health Secretarys speaks for itself.
There's nothing much else to say really is there? It's just a day that shames Britain.
The. End.
Actually I have been thinking about this and it doesn't shame Britain.
It shames the governing class. Both parties. Whitehall. The whole bloody lot.
The PPEs and the law degrees and the handshakes and the clubs and the tennis and drinks at the weekend and the away days examining policy in the Chilterns and the book deals and the possibility of work as at leading lobbying firm or PR company in the twilight years and could you get an internship for my niece old boy etc etc.
Excellent by @michaelpforan on the failures at Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre- where a male CEO unlawfully harassed, discriminated against & sacked a female employee in name of gender ideology
Why Roz Adams won | Michael Foran | The Critic Magazine
I really do wonder why you're so obsessed with this. Don't you live in Jersey or Guernsey where the trans population is basically zero?
It comes off as weird and obsessive and mean spirited, which is a shame as when you're posting about other stuff you seem like a genuinely nice person.
...It was about a charity for rape victims led by a man who cheated his way into his job...
No. I don't think so. He claimed to be a woman but he had no GRC either here or in India. He was legally and biologically a man. The post was reserved for women - lawfully - under the Equality Act. He cheated. He was a mate of Nicola's. His partner got a £1.4 million contract for something or other. And he got put into various bodies with which the SNP was consulting and said all the things the SNP wanted to hear.
The judgment is damning. I have read all 109 pages. My fellow lawyer in the LegalFeminists was the barrister who acted for the complainant. She also won the recent case brought by Rachel Meade against Social Work England, the regulator and Westminster City Council for discrimination. In that case she got exemplary damages, which is pretty rare and happens only when the defendant has behaved very badly indeed.
We are talking about accountability. Well here we have an example. This was not about someone acting in good faith and getting the law wrong. This was someone who suborned an organisation's purposes, showed no regard for rape victims, deliberately ignored the law and set out to destroy a woman's career because she dared disagree with him. He and the rest of the senior management responsible for this fiasco should resign. And, if not be sacked.
It's just more weird, bee in the bonnet, traaaaaaaaaans stuff again, which I really don't want to engage with. Many of my IRL friends are trans or gender nonconforming, and they are all good eggs.
I don't want to get dragged into the mud of the argument, but one thing I've always felt is how fash-adjacent TERF ideology is. Note the people eagerly rallying around JK Wizardstick these days. "Men should be men and women should be women" is one step away from "and women should get back to the kitchen" which is why I find *trans exclusionary* feminism so odd.
But as I say, I don't want to turn this into another trans thread. I just want trans people to be allowed to get on with their lives.
I know there are those saying 'trans is political' but most trans people I know aren't, and just want to live their lives without their bodies being turned into another outpost of the culture war.
Again as I said the other day, I won't engage in endless trans debate, but if trans or gender nonconforming people are reading this thread, know that there are people who support you. You are valid.
But rape victims aren't valid to you. You won't say you support them. Or women who have been harassed and discriminated against.
I've always felt is how fash-adjacent TERF ideology is
How do you think the ERCC behaved - happy with that, or see room for improvement?
I think all children should be forced onto hormones for at least three months, to explore their gender identity.
I think skirts should be mandatory in schools, except in Scotland.
I think boobies should be free on the NHS for anyone who wants them.
I also think the trans debate is incredibly boring and, as I said in my last-but-one post, I think you're a nice person when you're not banging on about it endlessly. I've been nothing but polite, and yet I'm being called "despicable" and "rude" for daring to say that trans people have a right to exist.
Frankly, F the pair of you.
Find one post from either me or @Cyclefree where we have said "trans people don't have a right to exist".
There aren't any.
This is "no debate" by another name - now presented as "moral panic".
What I have said - consistently - is that where "men who think they are women/trans women"'s right impose on those on those of natal women there needs to be careful balancing of rights - and as Employment Tribunal's have repeatedly shown public bodies (almost always not companies) have been getting this wrong.
Trans rights are NOT superior to women's rights - which is how ERCC operated - led by a man who said he was a woman.
Perhaps you could "reframe your trauma perspective" from "trans rights" to "trans rights AND women's rights?
There are a million and one places on the internet you can go and spout your hatred of trans people. It's a shame you do it here, as I quite like it here.
Trans people exist. Trans people are valid. Trans people are human beings, just like you and I. Gender exists, and children should be allowed to learn about it in school. Their identities should not be denied to them by an authoritarian government in its death throes, looking to sow a bit of division and pick on a minority in the name of identity politics.
If you don't agree with that, fine. But I'll keep on arguing with you until my last breath, because I hate everything the TERF ideology stands for. Whether the rest of the site wants to hear that debate on a daily basis I will leave up to you.
Where have I posted that I hate Trans people?
Gender identity is a belief system - you believe it, I don't.
That's fine by me - but not by you, it would appear.
Roman Catholicism is a belief system - I don't believe that either.
Do you believe it?
If not, do you hate Roman Catholics, do you believe they do not have a right to exist, are they not human beings?
I would have hoped we are long past the point of believing we had to enforce belief systems on non-believers - or one would have thought so.
The reason I post about this is because:
i) It has to do with politics. Just ask Nicola Sturgeon or the Scottish Greens ii) It has to do with human rights - just ask women sportswomen iii) It has to do with the rule of law - see today (in a long line of) Employment Tribunal Cases.
It's not going away, however much you might want NO DEBATE"a moral panic" (sic)
And you also posted approvingly of the new section 28 laws which literally seek to deny the existence of trans people under the age of 18, as was commented on in the previous thread. How do you talk to a trans or gender questioning 15 year old as a teacher when the law says "schools should not teach about the broader concept of gender identity" in black and white?
I'm not a full on ideologue, I've never said trans women should be competing in professional sports, nor should a man be able to self ID today and walk into a woman's changing room tomorrow no questions asked - the debate is nuanced.
You keep saying I want to "no debate you" and yet I'm here every day, debating you, as politely as I can, even when I'm called "despicable" by certain posters on this site. As I say, I do think you're an alright sort and I enjoy your non-trans posts and debate. I just feel like some of the material you post denies the very existence of trans people, which has real world consequences. I''m sorry if you feel differently, but I don't spam the site with gender stuff at all - I only respond with alternative viewpoints when others post it.
This is a rather good journalistic source for trans positive perspectives on some of the things you post about - https://www.erininthemorning.com/
Anyway. I disagree with you, but I do not dislike you. I hope that makes sense.
If you're relying on erininthemorning, may I suggest reading more widely?
The prominent American transgender activist Erin Reed has repeatedly and insistently made demonstrably false claims about pediatric gender medicine.
During the two weeks since the publication of the Cass Review, England’s mammoth report about this controversial and politicized medical field, Reed has emitted a fusillade of false claims about the review, its findings and the systematic literature reviews on which it was partially based. Reed has only doubled down when fact checked, even when the corrections have come from lead author of the report, pediatrician Dr. Hilary Cass, herself.
MERCHAN: Mr Costello, I'd like to discuss proper decorum in my courtroom. As a witness on the stand, if you don't like my ruling, you don't say jeez, and you don't say strike it, bc I'm the only one who can do that. And if you don't like my ruling, you don't give me sideeye...
…Merchan, angrily: Are you staring me down right now?
Have any of our lawyer ever witnessed a judge clear the entire court in order to admonish a witness ?
Who is an attorney.
I think it is just the Jury that steps out, not a Court clearance.
And aiui watching these trials, it seems a routine and normal thing to happen. For example I do not think the Jury would not have been in when Mr Trumps 11 offences of Criminal Contempt were discussed, or when debates about many items of evidence being admissible or not were discussed, or when motions were litigated.
As it happens, here is a good example from today of the type of argument that happens in the absence of the jury.
It's a small bomb that is now under some claims from the Defence. It is a vid segment, and the agreement is - rather than getting a TV archivist in to testify to it's authenticity (without which the vid would be 'hearsay' in Usonian terms) after some argy-bargy the prosecution have agreed that the authenticity shall be confirmed to the Jury, but the display will be limited to a single still image.
Excellent by @michaelpforan on the failures at Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre- where a male CEO unlawfully harassed, discriminated against & sacked a female employee in name of gender ideology
Why Roz Adams won | Michael Foran | The Critic Magazine
I really do wonder why you're so obsessed with this. Don't you live in Jersey or Guernsey where the trans population is basically zero?
It comes off as weird and obsessive and mean spirited, which is a shame as when you're posting about other stuff you seem like a genuinely nice person.
...It was about a charity for rape victims led by a man who cheated his way into his job...
No. I don't think so. He claimed to be a woman but he had no GRC either here or in India. He was legally and biologically a man. The post was reserved for women - lawfully - under the Equality Act. He cheated. He was a mate of Nicola's. His partner got a £1.4 million contract for something or other. And he got put into various bodies with which the SNP was consulting and said all the things the SNP wanted to hear.
The judgment is damning. I have read all 109 pages. My fellow lawyer in the LegalFeminists was the barrister who acted for the complainant. She also won the recent case brought by Rachel Meade against Social Work England, the regulator and Westminster City Council for discrimination. In that case she got exemplary damages, which is pretty rare and happens only when the defendant has behaved very badly indeed.
We are talking about accountability. Well here we have an example. This was not about someone acting in good faith and getting the law wrong. This was someone who suborned an organisation's purposes, showed no regard for rape victims, deliberately ignored the law and set out to destroy a woman's career because she dared disagree with him. He and the rest of the senior management responsible for this fiasco should resign. And, if not be sacked.
It's just more weird, bee in the bonnet, traaaaaaaaaans stuff again, which I really don't want to engage with. Many of my IRL friends are trans or gender nonconforming, and they are all good eggs.
I don't want to get dragged into the mud of the argument, but one thing I've always felt is how fash-adjacent TERF ideology is. Note the people eagerly rallying around JK Wizardstick these days. "Men should be men and women should be women" is one step away from "and women should get back to the kitchen" which is why I find *trans exclusionary* feminism so odd.
But as I say, I don't want to turn this into another trans thread. I just want trans people to be allowed to get on with their lives.
I know there are those saying 'trans is political' but most trans people I know aren't, and just want to live their lives without their bodies being turned into another outpost of the culture war.
Again as I said the other day, I won't engage in endless trans debate, but if trans or gender nonconforming people are reading this thread, know that there are people who support you. You are valid.
But rape victims aren't valid to you. You won't say you support them. Or women who have been harassed and discriminated against.
I've always felt is how fash-adjacent TERF ideology is
How do you think the ERCC behaved - happy with that, or see room for improvement?
I think all children should be forced onto hormones for at least three months, to explore their gender identity.
I think skirts should be mandatory in schools, except in Scotland.
I think boobies should be free on the NHS for anyone who wants them.
I also think the trans debate is incredibly boring and, as I said in my last-but-one post, I think you're a nice person when you're not banging on about it endlessly. I've been nothing but polite, and yet I'm being called "despicable" and "rude" for daring to say that trans people have a right to exist.
Frankly, F the pair of you.
Find one post from either me or @Cyclefree where we have said "trans people don't have a right to exist".
There aren't any.
This is "no debate" by another name - now presented as "moral panic".
What I have said - consistently - is that where "men who think they are women/trans women"'s right impose on those on those of natal women there needs to be careful balancing of rights - and as Employment Tribunal's have repeatedly shown public bodies (almost always not companies) have been getting this wrong.
Trans rights are NOT superior to women's rights - which is how ERCC operated - led by a man who said he was a woman.
Perhaps you could "reframe your trauma perspective" from "trans rights" to "trans rights AND women's rights?
There are a million and one places on the internet you can go and spout your hatred of trans people. It's a shame you do it here, as I quite like it here.
Trans people exist. Trans people are valid. Trans people are human beings, just like you and I. Gender exists, and children should be allowed to learn about it in school. Their identities should not be denied to them by an authoritarian government in its death throes, looking to sow a bit of division and pick on a minority in the name of identity politics.
If you don't agree with that, fine. But I'll keep on arguing with you until my last breath, because I hate everything the TERF ideology stands for. Whether the rest of the site wants to hear that debate on a daily basis I will leave up to you.
Where have I posted that I hate Trans people?
Gender identity is a belief system - you believe it, I don't.
That's fine by me - but not by you, it would appear.
Roman Catholicism is a belief system - I don't believe that either.
Do you believe it?
If not, do you hate Roman Catholics, do you believe they do not have a right to exist, are they not human beings?
I would have hoped we are long past the point of believing we had to enforce belief systems on non-believers - or one would have thought so.
The reason I post about this is because:
i) It has to do with politics. Just ask Nicola Sturgeon or the Scottish Greens ii) It has to do with human rights - just ask women sportswomen iii) It has to do with the rule of law - see today (in a long line of) Employment Tribunal Cases.
It's not going away, however much you might want NO DEBATE"a moral panic" (sic)
And you also posted approvingly of the new section 28 laws which literally seek to deny the existence of trans people under the age of 18, as was commented on in the previous thread. How do you talk to a trans or gender questioning 15 year old as a teacher when the law says "schools should not teach about the broader concept of gender identity" in black and white?
I'm not a full on ideologue, I've never said trans women should be competing in professional sports, nor should a man be able to self ID today and walk into a woman's changing room tomorrow no questions asked - the debate is nuanced.
You keep saying I want to "no debate you" and yet I'm here every day, debating you, as politely as I can, even when I'm called "despicable" by certain posters on this site. As I say, I do think you're an alright sort and I enjoy your non-trans posts and debate. I just feel like some of the material you post denies the very existence of trans people, which has real world consequences. I''m sorry if you feel differently, but I don't spam the site with gender stuff at all - I only respond with alternative viewpoints when others post it.
This is a rather good journalistic source for trans positive perspectives on some of the things you post about - https://www.erininthemorning.com/
Anyway. I disagree with you, but I do not dislike you. I hope that makes sense.
If you're relying on erininthemorning, may I suggest reading more widely?
The prominent American transgender activist Erin Reed has repeatedly and insistently made demonstrably false claims about pediatric gender medicine.
During the two weeks since the publication of the Cass Review, England’s mammoth report about this controversial and politicized medical field, Reed has emitted a fusillade of false claims about the review, its findings and the systematic literature reviews on which it was partially based. Reed has only doubled down when fact checked, even when the corrections have come from lead author of the report, pediatrician Dr. Hilary Cass, herself.
Excellent by @michaelpforan on the failures at Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre- where a male CEO unlawfully harassed, discriminated against & sacked a female employee in name of gender ideology
Why Roz Adams won | Michael Foran | The Critic Magazine
I really do wonder why you're so obsessed with this. Don't you live in Jersey or Guernsey where the trans population is basically zero?
It comes off as weird and obsessive and mean spirited, which is a shame as when you're posting about other stuff you seem like a genuinely nice person.
...It was about a charity for rape victims led by a man who cheated his way into his job...
No. I don't think so. He claimed to be a woman but he had no GRC either here or in India. He was legally and biologically a man. The post was reserved for women - lawfully - under the Equality Act. He cheated. He was a mate of Nicola's. His partner got a £1.4 million contract for something or other. And he got put into various bodies with which the SNP was consulting and said all the things the SNP wanted to hear.
The judgment is damning. I have read all 109 pages. My fellow lawyer in the LegalFeminists was the barrister who acted for the complainant. She also won the recent case brought by Rachel Meade against Social Work England, the regulator and Westminster City Council for discrimination. In that case she got exemplary damages, which is pretty rare and happens only when the defendant has behaved very badly indeed.
We are talking about accountability. Well here we have an example. This was not about someone acting in good faith and getting the law wrong. This was someone who suborned an organisation's purposes, showed no regard for rape victims, deliberately ignored the law and set out to destroy a woman's career because she dared disagree with him. He and the rest of the senior management responsible for this fiasco should resign. And, if not be sacked.
It's just more weird, bee in the bonnet, traaaaaaaaaans stuff again, which I really don't want to engage with. Many of my IRL friends are trans or gender nonconforming, and they are all good eggs.
I don't want to get dragged into the mud of the argument, but one thing I've always felt is how fash-adjacent TERF ideology is. Note the people eagerly rallying around JK Wizardstick these days. "Men should be men and women should be women" is one step away from "and women should get back to the kitchen" which is why I find *trans exclusionary* feminism so odd.
But as I say, I don't want to turn this into another trans thread. I just want trans people to be allowed to get on with their lives.
I know there are those saying 'trans is political' but most trans people I know aren't, and just want to live their lives without their bodies being turned into another outpost of the culture war.
Again as I said the other day, I won't engage in endless trans debate, but if trans or gender nonconforming people are reading this thread, know that there are people who support you. You are valid.
But rape victims aren't valid to you. You won't say you support them. Or women who have been harassed and discriminated against.
I've always felt is how fash-adjacent TERF ideology is
How do you think the ERCC behaved - happy with that, or see room for improvement?
I think all children should be forced onto hormones for at least three months, to explore their gender identity.
I think skirts should be mandatory in schools, except in Scotland.
I think boobies should be free on the NHS for anyone who wants them.
I also think the trans debate is incredibly boring and, as I said in my last-but-one post, I think you're a nice person when you're not banging on about it endlessly. I've been nothing but polite, and yet I'm being called "despicable" and "rude" for daring to say that trans people have a right to exist.
Frankly, F the pair of you.
Find one post from either me or @Cyclefree where we have said "trans people don't have a right to exist".
There aren't any.
This is "no debate" by another name - now presented as "moral panic".
What I have said - consistently - is that where "men who think they are women/trans women"'s right impose on those on those of natal women there needs to be careful balancing of rights - and as Employment Tribunal's have repeatedly shown public bodies (almost always not companies) have been getting this wrong.
Trans rights are NOT superior to women's rights - which is how ERCC operated - led by a man who said he was a woman.
Perhaps you could "reframe your trauma perspective" from "trans rights" to "trans rights AND women's rights?
There are a million and one places on the internet you can go and spout your hatred of trans people. It's a shame you do it here, as I quite like it here.
Trans people exist. Trans people are valid. Trans people are human beings, just like you and I. Gender exists, and children should be allowed to learn about it in school. Their identities should not be denied to them by an authoritarian government in its death throes, looking to sow a bit of division and pick on a minority in the name of identity politics.
If you don't agree with that, fine. But I'll keep on arguing with you until my last breath, because I hate everything the TERF ideology stands for. Whether the rest of the site wants to hear that debate on a daily basis I will leave up to you.
Where have I posted that I hate Trans people?
Gender identity is a belief system - you believe it, I don't.
That's fine by me - but not by you, it would appear.
Roman Catholicism is a belief system - I don't believe that either.
Do you believe it?
If not, do you hate Roman Catholics, do you believe they do not have a right to exist, are they not human beings?
I would have hoped we are long past the point of believing we had to enforce belief systems on non-believers - or one would have thought so.
The reason I post about this is because:
i) It has to do with politics. Just ask Nicola Sturgeon or the Scottish Greens ii) It has to do with human rights - just ask women sportswomen iii) It has to do with the rule of law - see today (in a long line of) Employment Tribunal Cases.
It's not going away, however much you might want NO DEBATE"a moral panic" (sic)
And you also posted approvingly of the new section 28 laws which literally seek to deny the existence of trans people under the age of 18, as was commented on in the previous thread. How do you talk to a trans or gender questioning 15 year old as a teacher when the law says "schools should not teach about the broader concept of gender identity" in black and white?
I'm not a full on ideologue, I've never said trans women should be competing in professional sports, nor should a man be able to self ID today and walk into a woman's changing room tomorrow no questions asked - the debate is nuanced.
You keep saying I want to "no debate you" and yet I'm here every day, debating you, as politely as I can, even when I'm called "despicable" by certain posters on this site. As I say, I do think you're an alright sort and I enjoy your non-trans posts and debate. I just feel like some of the material you post denies the very existence of trans people, which has real world consequences. I''m sorry if you feel differently, but I don't spam the site with gender stuff at all - I only respond with alternative viewpoints when others post it.
This is a rather good journalistic source for trans positive perspectives on some of the things you post about - https://www.erininthemorning.com/
Anyway. I disagree with you, but I do not dislike you. I hope that makes sense.
If you're relying on erininthemorning, may I suggest reading more widely?
The prominent American transgender activist Erin Reed has repeatedly and insistently made demonstrably false claims about pediatric gender medicine.
During the two weeks since the publication of the Cass Review, England’s mammoth report about this controversial and politicized medical field, Reed has emitted a fusillade of false claims about the review, its findings and the systematic literature reviews on which it was partially based. Reed has only doubled down when fact checked, even when the corrections have come from lead author of the report, pediatrician Dr. Hilary Cass, herself.
I'm not relying at all, I'm suggesting alternative viewpoints that may help you get out of the filter bubble.
I read both trans positive and trans critical stuff and make up my own mind.
I'm not an ideologue in the vein of "self ID must be accepted uncritically and men can self ID and compete in womens sport and use the changing rooms tomorrow" but I'm also far from a TERF, as you know. I just want trans people to be left alone to live their own lives.
As you live on Jersey (?) or Alderney (?) I might suggest you have little real world experience of trans people and as much fun as back and forthing over trans positive and trans negative newsletters is, if you ever want to meet a *real* trans person come over to London some time and I'll introduce you. The ones I know are quite harmless, and generally very kind.
I’m kinda curious as to why you believe that Jersey and Alderney have no trans people. Have their local governments enacted No Trans Zones? Or is it something in the water?
Excellent by @michaelpforan on the failures at Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre- where a male CEO unlawfully harassed, discriminated against & sacked a female employee in name of gender ideology
Why Roz Adams won | Michael Foran | The Critic Magazine
I really do wonder why you're so obsessed with this. Don't you live in Jersey or Guernsey where the trans population is basically zero?
It comes off as weird and obsessive and mean spirited, which is a shame as when you're posting about other stuff you seem like a genuinely nice person.
...It was about a charity for rape victims led by a man who cheated his way into his job...
No. I don't think so. He claimed to be a woman but he had no GRC either here or in India. He was legally and biologically a man. The post was reserved for women - lawfully - under the Equality Act. He cheated. He was a mate of Nicola's. His partner got a £1.4 million contract for something or other. And he got put into various bodies with which the SNP was consulting and said all the things the SNP wanted to hear.
The judgment is damning. I have read all 109 pages. My fellow lawyer in the LegalFeminists was the barrister who acted for the complainant. She also won the recent case brought by Rachel Meade against Social Work England, the regulator and Westminster City Council for discrimination. In that case she got exemplary damages, which is pretty rare and happens only when the defendant has behaved very badly indeed.
We are talking about accountability. Well here we have an example. This was not about someone acting in good faith and getting the law wrong. This was someone who suborned an organisation's purposes, showed no regard for rape victims, deliberately ignored the law and set out to destroy a woman's career because she dared disagree with him. He and the rest of the senior management responsible for this fiasco should resign. And, if not be sacked.
It's just more weird, bee in the bonnet, traaaaaaaaaans stuff again, which I really don't want to engage with. Many of my IRL friends are trans or gender nonconforming, and they are all good eggs.
I don't want to get dragged into the mud of the argument, but one thing I've always felt is how fash-adjacent TERF ideology is. Note the people eagerly rallying around JK Wizardstick these days. "Men should be men and women should be women" is one step away from "and women should get back to the kitchen" which is why I find *trans exclusionary* feminism so odd.
But as I say, I don't want to turn this into another trans thread. I just want trans people to be allowed to get on with their lives.
I know there are those saying 'trans is political' but most trans people I know aren't, and just want to live their lives without their bodies being turned into another outpost of the culture war.
Again as I said the other day, I won't engage in endless trans debate, but if trans or gender nonconforming people are reading this thread, know that there are people who support you. You are valid.
But rape victims aren't valid to you. You won't say you support them. Or women who have been harassed and discriminated against.
I've always felt is how fash-adjacent TERF ideology is
How do you think the ERCC behaved - happy with that, or see room for improvement?
I think all children should be forced onto hormones for at least three months, to explore their gender identity.
I think skirts should be mandatory in schools, except in Scotland.
I think boobies should be free on the NHS for anyone who wants them.
I also think the trans debate is incredibly boring and, as I said in my last-but-one post, I think you're a nice person when you're not banging on about it endlessly. I've been nothing but polite, and yet I'm being called "despicable" and "rude" for daring to say that trans people have a right to exist.
Frankly, F the pair of you.
Find one post from either me or @Cyclefree where we have said "trans people don't have a right to exist".
There aren't any.
This is "no debate" by another name - now presented as "moral panic".
What I have said - consistently - is that where "men who think they are women/trans women"'s right impose on those on those of natal women there needs to be careful balancing of rights - and as Employment Tribunal's have repeatedly shown public bodies (almost always not companies) have been getting this wrong.
Trans rights are NOT superior to women's rights - which is how ERCC operated - led by a man who said he was a woman.
Perhaps you could "reframe your trauma perspective" from "trans rights" to "trans rights AND women's rights?
There are a million and one places on the internet you can go and spout your hatred of trans people. It's a shame you do it here, as I quite like it here.
Trans people exist. Trans people are valid. Trans people are human beings, just like you and I. Gender exists, and children should be allowed to learn about it in school. Their identities should not be denied to them by an authoritarian government in its death throes, looking to sow a bit of division and pick on a minority in the name of identity politics.
If you don't agree with that, fine. But I'll keep on arguing with you until my last breath, because I hate everything the TERF ideology stands for. Whether the rest of the site wants to hear that debate on a daily basis I will leave up to you.
Where have I posted that I hate Trans people?
Gender identity is a belief system - you believe it, I don't.
That's fine by me - but not by you, it would appear.
Roman Catholicism is a belief system - I don't believe that either.
Do you believe it?
If not, do you hate Roman Catholics, do you believe they do not have a right to exist, are they not human beings?
I would have hoped we are long past the point of believing we had to enforce belief systems on non-believers - or one would have thought so.
The reason I post about this is because:
i) It has to do with politics. Just ask Nicola Sturgeon or the Scottish Greens ii) It has to do with human rights - just ask women sportswomen iii) It has to do with the rule of law - see today (in a long line of) Employment Tribunal Cases.
It's not going away, however much you might want NO DEBATE"a moral panic" (sic)
And you also posted approvingly of the new section 28 laws which literally seek to deny the existence of trans people under the age of 18, as was commented on in the previous thread. How do you talk to a trans or gender questioning 15 year old as a teacher when the law says "schools should not teach about the broader concept of gender identity" in black and white?
I'm not a full on ideologue, I've never said trans women should be competing in professional sports, nor should a man be able to self ID today and walk into a woman's changing room tomorrow no questions asked - the debate is nuanced.
You keep saying I want to "no debate you" and yet I'm here every day, debating you, as politely as I can, even when I'm called "despicable" by certain posters on this site. As I say, I do think you're an alright sort and I enjoy your non-trans posts and debate. I just feel like some of the material you post denies the very existence of trans people, which has real world consequences. I''m sorry if you feel differently, but I don't spam the site with gender stuff at all - I only respond with alternative viewpoints when others post it.
This is a rather good journalistic source for trans positive perspectives on some of the things you post about - https://www.erininthemorning.com/
Anyway. I disagree with you, but I do not dislike you. I hope that makes sense.
If you're relying on erininthemorning, may I suggest reading more widely?
The prominent American transgender activist Erin Reed has repeatedly and insistently made demonstrably false claims about pediatric gender medicine.
During the two weeks since the publication of the Cass Review, England’s mammoth report about this controversial and politicized medical field, Reed has emitted a fusillade of false claims about the review, its findings and the systematic literature reviews on which it was partially based. Reed has only doubled down when fact checked, even when the corrections have come from lead author of the report, pediatrician Dr. Hilary Cass, herself.
As you live on Jersey (?) or Alderney (?) I might suggest you have little real world experience of trans people and as much fun as back and forthing over trans positive and trans negative newsletters is, if you ever want to meet a *real* trans person come over to London some time and I'll introduce you. The ones I know are quite harmless, and generally very kind.
I have no argument with them - it's with the belief system that some activists seek to impose on others,
I now live in Brighton - the UK's LGBTQIWTF+ capital - until the inner London Borough of Newham stole the crown because the ONS mucked up the census so a disproportionately unlikely number of muslim non-native English speakers identified as trans.
That's why "inclusive" language is often "exclusive" - how many non-native English "cervix havers" will die of cervical cancer because - as - "Women" - they didn't know testing applied to them?
I do get that, and I don't subscribe to the "woke gone mad" "anyone can use the woman's loo if they self identify, even if they have a beard" etc - I believe in safeguarding.
My take is that most trans people are pretty genuine about it, and pretty committed - the physical changes are just not something that a perv is going to do, outside of intense marginal cases, which, of course, exist, and need to be picked up on. Hence safeguarding.
This is an insanely long link, called the Gender Dysphoria Bible. It's mostly trans people explaining to other trans people what they're feeling.
It's a ridiculously long read, but it rings true to how every trans person I've ever met IRL acts -https://genderdysphoria.fyi/en
So I think they're harmless buggers who want to do their utmost to be good, feminist women. Not men invading female spaces, but women trying to express solidarity with other women.
The "outliers" of pervy men predending to be women to access female only spaces are outliers, though they do exist. And that is why safeguarding is needed - for the sake of both cis and trans women, who are both at risk of assault from men.
I just want trans women to be treated with kindness. Some of the invective on twitter and identity politics actively hurts sweet, innocent people who have no desire other than to present as the sex they believe they are born to. You may disagree with that, if you're a biological essentialist, but these people deserve kindness, not scorn, even if you think they're mentally ill -- personally I think most cultures have always had gender nonconforming people, hijras in india etc. They're a minority who deserve to be given a modicum of respect.
Anyway, that's my view.
Do enjoy Brighton, it's lovely (though the beach is crap!)
Feel a bit ashamed myself as I must confess I had no idea whatsoever how bad this was and how many people were involved and for how long it had festered as one government after another lied and hid the truth.
Just appalling.
What was new to me was doctors conducting clinical trials which they knew to be hazardous on patients without either their consent or knowledge. I'd long had a sense that politicians had brushed something under the carpet.
That it's forty years ago means trials are unlikely - but that it took so long for it to be made public by an enquiry which politicians said for decades was unnecessary is pretty stunning.
The depth of Ken Clarke's apparent wilful ignorance, and his continuing refusal to accept he might have been at fault, was also a disappointment to someone who had previously rather admired him as a politician.
Unfortunately Ken Clarke, as gifted a politican as he is/was, has always has that very bumptious and arrogant side to him.
Generally people have given him the benefit of the doubt and turned a blind eye to his arrogance as he's always been a likable character, but on this occasion he needed to rise to the occasion and he singularly failed...
It seems to me that the important date from which to start asking questions about ministers is 1983. That was when the WHO and Lancet both issued reports on the possibility of infected blood products.Since then the following have been Health Secretary:
Norman Fowler John Moore Ken Clarke William Waldegrave Virginia Bottomley Stephen Dorrell Frank Dobson Alan Milburn John Reid Alan Johnson Andy Burnham Andrew Landsley Jeremy Hunt.
Hunt became Health secretary in 2012 but it wasn't until May came to power as PM that anything was actually done about having a proper investigation.
All of these politicians could and should have known and done something about the scandal but none of them did.
That's 13 Health Secretaries in 29 years. A scandal. Meanwhile if Gillian Keegan makes it to July we'll have had 9 Education Secretaries in 9 years. Why not just get someone on supply? I'm available at a cheaper rate.
14
Patricia Hewitt is missing
You are right, apologies I missed her in the list.
Wouldn't it have been easier to list the categories of people who aren't encouraged to apply....straight white middle class men without ADHD / Autism...please don't apply, thanks...done.
Excellent by @michaelpforan on the failures at Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre- where a male CEO unlawfully harassed, discriminated against & sacked a female employee in name of gender ideology
Why Roz Adams won | Michael Foran | The Critic Magazine
I really do wonder why you're so obsessed with this. Don't you live in Jersey or Guernsey where the trans population is basically zero?
It comes off as weird and obsessive and mean spirited, which is a shame as when you're posting about other stuff you seem like a genuinely nice person.
...It was about a charity for rape victims led by a man who cheated his way into his job...
No. I don't think so. He claimed to be a woman but he had no GRC either here or in India. He was legally and biologically a man. The post was reserved for women - lawfully - under the Equality Act. He cheated. He was a mate of Nicola's. His partner got a £1.4 million contract for something or other. And he got put into various bodies with which the SNP was consulting and said all the things the SNP wanted to hear.
The judgment is damning. I have read all 109 pages. My fellow lawyer in the LegalFeminists was the barrister who acted for the complainant. She also won the recent case brought by Rachel Meade against Social Work England, the regulator and Westminster City Council for discrimination. In that case she got exemplary damages, which is pretty rare and happens only when the defendant has behaved very badly indeed.
We are talking about accountability. Well here we have an example. This was not about someone acting in good faith and getting the law wrong. This was someone who suborned an organisation's purposes, showed no regard for rape victims, deliberately ignored the law and set out to destroy a woman's career because she dared disagree with him. He and the rest of the senior management responsible for this fiasco should resign. And, if not be sacked.
It's just more weird, bee in the bonnet, traaaaaaaaaans stuff again, which I really don't want to engage with. Many of my IRL friends are trans or gender nonconforming, and they are all good eggs.
I don't want to get dragged into the mud of the argument, but one thing I've always felt is how fash-adjacent TERF ideology is. Note the people eagerly rallying around JK Wizardstick these days. "Men should be men and women should be women" is one step away from "and women should get back to the kitchen" which is why I find *trans exclusionary* feminism so odd.
But as I say, I don't want to turn this into another trans thread. I just want trans people to be allowed to get on with their lives.
I know there are those saying 'trans is political' but most trans people I know aren't, and just want to live their lives without their bodies being turned into another outpost of the culture war.
Again as I said the other day, I won't engage in endless trans debate, but if trans or gender nonconforming people are reading this thread, know that there are people who support you. You are valid.
But rape victims aren't valid to you. You won't say you support them. Or women who have been harassed and discriminated against.
I've always felt is how fash-adjacent TERF ideology is
How do you think the ERCC behaved - happy with that, or see room for improvement?
I think all children should be forced onto hormones for at least three months, to explore their gender identity.
I think skirts should be mandatory in schools, except in Scotland.
I think boobies should be free on the NHS for anyone who wants them.
I also think the trans debate is incredibly boring and, as I said in my last-but-one post, I think you're a nice person when you're not banging on about it endlessly. I've been nothing but polite, and yet I'm being called "despicable" and "rude" for daring to say that trans people have a right to exist.
Frankly, F the pair of you.
Find one post from either me or @Cyclefree where we have said "trans people don't have a right to exist".
There aren't any.
This is "no debate" by another name - now presented as "moral panic".
What I have said - consistently - is that where "men who think they are women/trans women"'s right impose on those on those of natal women there needs to be careful balancing of rights - and as Employment Tribunal's have repeatedly shown public bodies (almost always not companies) have been getting this wrong.
Trans rights are NOT superior to women's rights - which is how ERCC operated - led by a man who said he was a woman.
Perhaps you could "reframe your trauma perspective" from "trans rights" to "trans rights AND women's rights?
There are a million and one places on the internet you can go and spout your hatred of trans people. It's a shame you do it here, as I quite like it here.
Trans people exist. Trans people are valid. Trans people are human beings, just like you and I. Gender exists, and children should be allowed to learn about it in school. Their identities should not be denied to them by an authoritarian government in its death throes, looking to sow a bit of division and pick on a minority in the name of identity politics.
If you don't agree with that, fine. But I'll keep on arguing with you until my last breath, because I hate everything the TERF ideology stands for. Whether the rest of the site wants to hear that debate on a daily basis I will leave up to you.
Where have I posted that I hate Trans people?
Gender identity is a belief system - you believe it, I don't.
That's fine by me - but not by you, it would appear.
Roman Catholicism is a belief system - I don't believe that either.
Do you believe it?
If not, do you hate Roman Catholics, do you believe they do not have a right to exist, are they not human beings?
I would have hoped we are long past the point of believing we had to enforce belief systems on non-believers - or one would have thought so.
The reason I post about this is because:
i) It has to do with politics. Just ask Nicola Sturgeon or the Scottish Greens ii) It has to do with human rights - just ask women sportswomen iii) It has to do with the rule of law - see today (in a long line of) Employment Tribunal Cases.
It's not going away, however much you might want NO DEBATE"a moral panic" (sic)
And you also posted approvingly of the new section 28 laws which literally seek to deny the existence of trans people under the age of 18, as was commented on in the previous thread. How do you talk to a trans or gender questioning 15 year old as a teacher when the law says "schools should not teach about the broader concept of gender identity" in black and white?
I'm not a full on ideologue, I've never said trans women should be competing in professional sports, nor should a man be able to self ID today and walk into a woman's changing room tomorrow no questions asked - the debate is nuanced.
You keep saying I want to "no debate you" and yet I'm here every day, debating you, as politely as I can, even when I'm called "despicable" by certain posters on this site. As I say, I do think you're an alright sort and I enjoy your non-trans posts and debate. I just feel like some of the material you post denies the very existence of trans people, which has real world consequences. I''m sorry if you feel differently, but I don't spam the site with gender stuff at all - I only respond with alternative viewpoints when others post it.
This is a rather good journalistic source for trans positive perspectives on some of the things you post about - https://www.erininthemorning.com/
Anyway. I disagree with you, but I do not dislike you. I hope that makes sense.
If you're relying on erininthemorning, may I suggest reading more widely?
The prominent American transgender activist Erin Reed has repeatedly and insistently made demonstrably false claims about pediatric gender medicine.
During the two weeks since the publication of the Cass Review, England’s mammoth report about this controversial and politicized medical field, Reed has emitted a fusillade of false claims about the review, its findings and the systematic literature reviews on which it was partially based. Reed has only doubled down when fact checked, even when the corrections have come from lead author of the report, pediatrician Dr. Hilary Cass, herself.
As you live on Jersey (?) or Alderney (?) I might suggest you have little real world experience of trans people and as much fun as back and forthing over trans positive and trans negative newsletters is, if you ever want to meet a *real* trans person come over to London some time and I'll introduce you. The ones I know are quite harmless, and generally very kind.
I have no argument with them - it's with the belief system that some activists seek to impose on others,
I now live in Brighton - the UK's LGBTQIWTF+ capital - until the inner London Borough of Newham stole the crown because the ONS mucked up the census so a disproportionately unlikely number of muslim non-native English speakers identified as trans.
That's why "inclusive" language is often "exclusive" - how many non-native English "cervix havers" will die of cervical cancer because - as - "Women" - they didn't know testing applied to them?
With regards to the ONS data, this is not necessarily the case. Michael Biggs - the author of the Spectator article - drew his conclusions by cross-referencing trans to ethnicity/language data at smaller-scale geographic areas. Due to the inherent inaccuracy of information at such small levels of granularity and the application of blurring methods at that level to defeat jigsaw identification, that approach can't be guaranteed to work. It's the statistical equivalent of "zoom and enhance".
Feel a bit ashamed myself as I must confess I had no idea whatsoever how bad this was and how many people were involved and for how long it had festered as one government after another lied and hid the truth.
Just appalling.
What was new to me was doctors conducting clinical trials which they knew to be hazardous on patients without either their consent or knowledge. I'd long had a sense that politicians had brushed something under the carpet.
That it's forty years ago means trials are unlikely - but that it took so long for it to be made public by an enquiry which politicians said for decades was unnecessary is pretty stunning.
The depth of Ken Clarke's apparent wilful ignorance, and his continuing refusal to accept he might have been at fault, was also a disappointment to someone who had previously rather admired him as a politician.
Unfortunately Ken Clarke, as gifted a politican as he is/was, has always has that very bumptious and arrogant side to him.
Generally people have given him the benefit of the doubt and turned a blind eye to his arrogance as he's always been a likable character, but on this occasion he needed to rise to the occasion and he singularly failed...
It seems to me that the important date from which to start asking questions about ministers is 1983. That was when the WHO and Lancet both issued reports on the possibility of infected blood products.Since then the following have been Health Secretary:
Norman Fowler John Moore Ken Clarke William Waldegrave Virginia Bottomley Stephen Dorrell Frank Dobson Alan Milburn John Reid Alan Johnson Andy Burnham Andrew Landsley Jeremy Hunt.
Hunt became Health secretary in 2012 but it wasn't until May came to power as PM that anything was actually done about having a proper investigation.
All of these politicians could and should have known and done something about the scandal but none of them did.
David Owen was on the radio earlier this evening talking about the parliamentary questions he'd put in the mid/late 1970s about it. Said it was common knowledge amongst practitioners, politicians, civil servants.
Which of course adds even more politicians into the list of shame.
Though as Rottenborough points out it should also include a long list of senior civil servants (PPS level?) who presumably advised their ministers not to bother with it or that any attempt to make something of it would be 'courageous'.
Wouldn't it have been easier to list the categories of people who aren't encouraged to apply....straight white middle class men without ADHD / Autism...please don't apply, thanks...done.
Satya Nadella says Windows PCs will have a photographic memory feature called Recall that will remember and understand everything you do on your computer by taking constant screenshots.
Excellent by @michaelpforan on the failures at Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre- where a male CEO unlawfully harassed, discriminated against & sacked a female employee in name of gender ideology
Why Roz Adams won | Michael Foran | The Critic Magazine
I really do wonder why you're so obsessed with this. Don't you live in Jersey or Guernsey where the trans population is basically zero?
It comes off as weird and obsessive and mean spirited, which is a shame as when you're posting about other stuff you seem like a genuinely nice person.
...It was about a charity for rape victims led by a man who cheated his way into his job...
No. I don't think so. He claimed to be a woman but he had no GRC either here or in India. He was legally and biologically a man. The post was reserved for women - lawfully - under the Equality Act. He cheated. He was a mate of Nicola's. His partner got a £1.4 million contract for something or other. And he got put into various bodies with which the SNP was consulting and said all the things the SNP wanted to hear.
The judgment is damning. I have read all 109 pages. My fellow lawyer in the LegalFeminists was the barrister who acted for the complainant. She also won the recent case brought by Rachel Meade against Social Work England, the regulator and Westminster City Council for discrimination. In that case she got exemplary damages, which is pretty rare and happens only when the defendant has behaved very badly indeed.
We are talking about accountability. Well here we have an example. This was not about someone acting in good faith and getting the law wrong. This was someone who suborned an organisation's purposes, showed no regard for rape victims, deliberately ignored the law and set out to destroy a woman's career because she dared disagree with him. He and the rest of the senior management responsible for this fiasco should resign. And, if not be sacked.
It's just more weird, bee in the bonnet, traaaaaaaaaans stuff again, which I really don't want to engage with. Many of my IRL friends are trans or gender nonconforming, and they are all good eggs.
I don't want to get dragged into the mud of the argument, but one thing I've always felt is how fash-adjacent TERF ideology is. Note the people eagerly rallying around JK Wizardstick these days. "Men should be men and women should be women" is one step away from "and women should get back to the kitchen" which is why I find *trans exclusionary* feminism so odd.
But as I say, I don't want to turn this into another trans thread. I just want trans people to be allowed to get on with their lives.
I know there are those saying 'trans is political' but most trans people I know aren't, and just want to live their lives without their bodies being turned into another outpost of the culture war.
Again as I said the other day, I won't engage in endless trans debate, but if trans or gender nonconforming people are reading this thread, know that there are people who support you. You are valid.
But rape victims aren't valid to you. You won't say you support them. Or women who have been harassed and discriminated against.
I've always felt is how fash-adjacent TERF ideology is
How do you think the ERCC behaved - happy with that, or see room for improvement?
I think all children should be forced onto hormones for at least three months, to explore their gender identity.
I think skirts should be mandatory in schools, except in Scotland.
I think boobies should be free on the NHS for anyone who wants them.
I also think the trans debate is incredibly boring and, as I said in my last-but-one post, I think you're a nice person when you're not banging on about it endlessly. I've been nothing but polite, and yet I'm being called "despicable" and "rude" for daring to say that trans people have a right to exist.
Frankly, F the pair of you.
Find one post from either me or @Cyclefree where we have said "trans people don't have a right to exist".
There aren't any.
This is "no debate" by another name - now presented as "moral panic".
What I have said - consistently - is that where "men who think they are women/trans women"'s right impose on those on those of natal women there needs to be careful balancing of rights - and as Employment Tribunal's have repeatedly shown public bodies (almost always not companies) have been getting this wrong.
Trans rights are NOT superior to women's rights - which is how ERCC operated - led by a man who said he was a woman.
Perhaps you could "reframe your trauma perspective" from "trans rights" to "trans rights AND women's rights?
There are a million and one places on the internet you can go and spout your hatred of trans people. It's a shame you do it here, as I quite like it here.
Trans people exist. Trans people are valid. Trans people are human beings, just like you and I. Gender exists, and children should be allowed to learn about it in school. Their identities should not be denied to them by an authoritarian government in its death throes, looking to sow a bit of division and pick on a minority in the name of identity politics.
If you don't agree with that, fine. But I'll keep on arguing with you until my last breath, because I hate everything the TERF ideology stands for. Whether the rest of the site wants to hear that debate on a daily basis I will leave up to you.
Where have I posted that I hate Trans people?
Gender identity is a belief system - you believe it, I don't.
That's fine by me - but not by you, it would appear.
Roman Catholicism is a belief system - I don't believe that either.
Do you believe it?
If not, do you hate Roman Catholics, do you believe they do not have a right to exist, are they not human beings?
I would have hoped we are long past the point of believing we had to enforce belief systems on non-believers - or one would have thought so.
The reason I post about this is because:
i) It has to do with politics. Just ask Nicola Sturgeon or the Scottish Greens ii) It has to do with human rights - just ask women sportswomen iii) It has to do with the rule of law - see today (in a long line of) Employment Tribunal Cases.
It's not going away, however much you might want NO DEBATE"a moral panic" (sic)
And you also posted approvingly of the new section 28 laws which literally seek to deny the existence of trans people under the age of 18, as was commented on in the previous thread. How do you talk to a trans or gender questioning 15 year old as a teacher when the law says "schools should not teach about the broader concept of gender identity" in black and white?
I'm not a full on ideologue, I've never said trans women should be competing in professional sports, nor should a man be able to self ID today and walk into a woman's changing room tomorrow no questions asked - the debate is nuanced.
You keep saying I want to "no debate you" and yet I'm here every day, debating you, as politely as I can, even when I'm called "despicable" by certain posters on this site. As I say, I do think you're an alright sort and I enjoy your non-trans posts and debate. I just feel like some of the material you post denies the very existence of trans people, which has real world consequences. I''m sorry if you feel differently, but I don't spam the site with gender stuff at all - I only respond with alternative viewpoints when others post it.
This is a rather good journalistic source for trans positive perspectives on some of the things you post about - https://www.erininthemorning.com/
Anyway. I disagree with you, but I do not dislike you. I hope that makes sense.
If you're relying on erininthemorning, may I suggest reading more widely?
The prominent American transgender activist Erin Reed has repeatedly and insistently made demonstrably false claims about pediatric gender medicine.
During the two weeks since the publication of the Cass Review, England’s mammoth report about this controversial and politicized medical field, Reed has emitted a fusillade of false claims about the review, its findings and the systematic literature reviews on which it was partially based. Reed has only doubled down when fact checked, even when the corrections have come from lead author of the report, pediatrician Dr. Hilary Cass, herself.
I'm not relying at all, I'm suggesting alternative viewpoints that may help you get out of the filter bubble.
I read both trans positive and trans critical stuff and make up my own mind.
I'm not an ideologue in the vein of "self ID must be accepted uncritically and men can self ID and compete in womens sport and use the changing rooms tomorrow" but I'm also far from a TERF, as you know. I just want trans people to be left alone to live their own lives.
As you live on Jersey (?) or Alderney (?) I might suggest you have little real world experience of trans people and as much fun as back and forthing over trans positive and trans negative newsletters is, if you ever want to meet a *real* trans person come over to London some time and I'll introduce you. The ones I know are quite harmless, and generally very kind.
I’m kinda curious as to why you believe that Jersey and Alderney have no trans people. Have their local governments enacted No Trans Zones? Or is it something in the water?
I have a trans friend from Guernsey.
TL;DR, its such a small place that there are no other similar people in your peer group. Guernsey population is about 60k, transgenderism is supposedly about 0.5% of the population so technically as many as 300. But... most of them leave. Because that's more like ten or twenty in your peer group (plus or minus ten years), and tbh I've been to the islands and it's not a very LGBTQ friendly place, so you get natural attrition.
Net result is, if you're queer and living in the dependencies, you do a Bronski Beat Smalltown Boy exit to the big city. An unscientific study I know, but I've had a beer in Guernsey with a visibly queer friend and it was not the most welcoming environment (lovely place other than that, though, very beautiful, just a bit... backward for a londoner)
Satya Nadella says Windows PCs will have a photographic memory feature called Recall that will remember and understand everything you do on your computer by taking constant screenshots.
Feel a bit ashamed myself as I must confess I had no idea whatsoever how bad this was and how many people were involved and for how long it had festered as one government after another lied and hid the truth.
Just appalling.
What was new to me was doctors conducting clinical trials which they knew to be hazardous on patients without either their consent or knowledge. I'd long had a sense that politicians had brushed something under the carpet.
That it's forty years ago means trials are unlikely - but that it took so long for it to be made public by an enquiry which politicians said for decades was unnecessary is pretty stunning.
The depth of Ken Clarke's apparent wilful ignorance, and his continuing refusal to accept he might have been at fault, was also a disappointment to someone who had previously rather admired him as a politician.
It used to be surprisingly common to do things to people without their consent, however horrifying that may seem today. The "doctor knows best" attitude was so strong.
Satya Nadella says Windows PCs will have a photographic memory feature called Recall that will remember and understand everything you do on your computer by taking constant screenshots.
Satya Nadella says Windows PCs will have a photographic memory feature called Recall that will remember and understand everything you do on your computer by taking constant screenshots.
Satya Nadella says Windows PCs will have a photographic memory feature called Recall that will remember and understand everything you do on your computer by taking constant screenshots.
Wouldn't it have been easier to list the categories of people who aren't encouraged to apply....straight white middle class men without ADHD / Autism...please don't apply, thanks...done.
Actually when you look at the essential and desirable criteria on the person spec that is just the sort of person who is going to get hired. The advert is just window dressing.
Wouldn't it have been easier to list the categories of people who aren't encouraged to apply....straight white middle class men without ADHD / Autism...please don't apply, thanks...done.
Actually when you look at the essential and desirable criteria on the person spec that is just the sort of person who is going to get hired. The advert is just window dressing.
Maybe not straight and probably upper middle class. But yes we all know that this stuff is mostly virtue signalling, but now they have to virtue signal so many groups it looks like spoof and unintentionally offensive.
"Woman killed in dog attack in east London - as police seize two XL bullys Police say the woman in her 50s died at the scene in Hornchurch, with the XL bullys contained inside a room in the house before being seized by officers."
I can't help but notice interest rates appear to be going.... precisely nowhere.
Could this be the new normal?
The Government supporters will be trying to wring every drop of feelgood juice out of Wednesday morning's inflation figures, If it goes sub 2%, there'll be the usual old,nonsense about how wonderful Sunak and the Tories are - the Party will unite around Sunak and Hunt and claim they should be given another five years, etc.
For them, cutting interest rates equals self preservation.
“The Government supporters will be trying to wring every drop of feelgood juice out of Wednesday morning's inflation figures”.
Why shouldn’t they? It’s Labours fault.
They made such a fuss out of Truss crashing the economy (truth is she didn’t) and that the high mortgages are all down to Liz Truss fault (truth is they arn’t) it allows Sunak to claim credit for miraculously turning the economy around from that mess Truss left him. But out of the last five years Truss has had economic control for about 50 days, who had the control the rest of the time?
Labour have handed the economic win to Sunak by focussing on 50 days, not the other 1300.
"Woman killed in dog attack in east London - as police seize two XL bullys Police say the woman in her 50s died at the scene in Hornchurch, with the XL bullys contained inside a room in the house before being seized by officers."
Quite so. Just shoot all these dogs. Exterminate them. They should not exist, owning them is like owning an unreliable Nazi era flamethrower that you keep in the kitchen, where kids run around
Wouldn't it have been easier to list the categories of people who aren't encouraged to apply....straight white middle class men without ADHD / Autism...please don't apply, thanks...done.
Actually when you look at the essential and desirable criteria on the person spec that is just the sort of person who is going to get hired. The advert is just window dressing.
MERCHAN: Mr Costello, I'd like to discuss proper decorum in my courtroom. As a witness on the stand, if you don't like my ruling, you don't say jeez, and you don't say strike it, bc I'm the only one who can do that. And if you don't like my ruling, you don't give me sideeye...
…Merchan, angrily: Are you staring me down right now?
Have any of our lawyer ever witnessed a judge clear the entire court in order to admonish a witness ?
Who is an attorney.
I think it is just the Jury that steps out, not a Court clearance.
And aiui watching these trials, it seems a routine and normal thing to happen. For example I do not think the Jury would not have been in when Mr Trumps 11 offences of Criminal Contempt were discussed, or when debates about many items of evidence being admissible or not were discussed, or when motions were litigated.
That's not what happened. The jury were sent out for his first admonishment, and he continued to sass the judge. At which point the entire court, including prosecution, defence and the gaggle of reporters, was cleared.
I can't help but notice interest rates appear to be going.... precisely nowhere.
Could this be the new normal?
The Government supporters will be trying to wring every drop of feelgood juice out of Wednesday morning's inflation figures, If it goes sub 2%, there'll be the usual old,nonsense about how wonderful Sunak and the Tories are - the Party will unite around Sunak and Hunt and claim they should be given another five years, etc.
For them, cutting interest rates equals self preservation.
“The Government supporters will be trying to wring every drop of feelgood juice out of Wednesday morning's inflation figures”.
Why shouldn’t they? It’s Labours fault.
They made such a fuss out of Truss crashing the economy (truth is she didn’t) and that the high mortgages are all down to Liz Truss fault (truth is they arn’t) it allows Sunak to claim credit for miraculously turning the economy around from that mess Truss left him. But out of the last five years Truss has had economic control for about 50 days, who had the control the rest of the time?
Labour have handed the economic win to Sunak by focussing on 50 days, not the other 1300.
Except yesterday's polls show greatly increased economic optimism, with no improvement in the government or Sunak's approval.
Very likely not. Cohen has already done time, having pled guilty to fraud,
And he's since then reached a financial settlement with the Trump organisation. ..In early 2019, Cohen sued the Trump Organization for allegedly failing to reimburse his legal fees; in July 2023, the parties reached a settlement ahead of a planned trial...
Feel a bit ashamed myself as I must confess I had no idea whatsoever how bad this was and how many people were involved and for how long it had festered as one government after another lied and hid the truth.
Just appalling.
What was new to me was doctors conducting clinical trials which they knew to be hazardous on patients without either their consent or knowledge. I'd long had a sense that politicians had brushed something under the carpet.
That it's forty years ago means trials are unlikely - but that it took so long for it to be made public by an enquiry which politicians said for decades was unnecessary is pretty stunning.
The depth of Ken Clarke's apparent wilful ignorance, and his continuing refusal to accept he might have been at fault, was also a disappointment to someone who had previously rather admired him as a politician.
Unfortunately Ken Clarke, as gifted a politican as he is/was, has always has that very bumptious and arrogant side to him.
Generally people have given him the benefit of the doubt and turned a blind eye to his arrogance as he's always been a likable character, but on this occasion he needed to rise to the occasion and he singularly failed...
It seems to me that the important date from which to start asking questions about ministers is 1983. That was when the WHO and Lancet both issued reports on the possibility of infected blood products.Since then the following have been Health Secretary:
Norman Fowler John Moore Ken Clarke William Waldegrave Virginia Bottomley Stephen Dorrell Frank Dobson Alan Milburn John Reid Alan Johnson Andy Burnham Andrew Landsley Jeremy Hunt.
Hunt became Health secretary in 2012 but it wasn't until May came to power as PM that anything was actually done about having a proper investigation.
All of these politicians could and should have known and done something about the scandal but none of them did.
Burnham claims basically he asked questions and was blatantly lied to by officials.
There's an inquiry in itself right there.
I wouldn't trust Burnham on this. Remember the first inquiry into the Stafford scandal? It took the coalition to launch a proper public inquiry.
MERCHAN: Mr Costello, I'd like to discuss proper decorum in my courtroom. As a witness on the stand, if you don't like my ruling, you don't say jeez, and you don't say strike it, bc I'm the only one who can do that. And if you don't like my ruling, you don't give me sideeye...
…Merchan, angrily: Are you staring me down right now?
Have any of our lawyer ever witnessed a judge clear the entire court in order to admonish a witness ?
Who is an attorney.
I think it is just the Jury that steps out, not a Court clearance.
And aiui watching these trials, it seems a routine and normal thing to happen. For example I do not think the Jury would not have been in when Mr Trumps 11 offences of Criminal Contempt were discussed, or when debates about many items of evidence being admissible or not were discussed, or when motions were litigated.
That's not what happened. The jury were sent out for his first admonishment, and he continued to sass the judge. At which point the entire court, including prosecution, defence and the gaggle of reporters, was cleared.
"Woman killed in dog attack in east London - as police seize two XL bullys Police say the woman in her 50s died at the scene in Hornchurch, with the XL bullys contained inside a room in the house before being seized by officers."
The photo on that story is astonishing. It looks like a 1969 version of Brookside - concrete street, mix of dwellings up to about 196x, Rover 2000 TC, and so on.
"Woman killed in dog attack in east London - as police seize two XL bullys Police say the woman in her 50s died at the scene in Hornchurch, with the XL bullys contained inside a room in the house before being seized by officers."
The photo on that story is astonishing. It looks like a 1969 version of Brookside - concrete street, mix of dwellings up to about 196x, Rover 2000 TC, and so on.
The car under the cover on the other driveway is a Rover P5, I think. Uncovered in the Google images from 2014 and 2012.
And they have both been parked in the same positions in Google back to 2014 and 2008.
Satya Nadella says Windows PCs will have a photographic memory feature called Recall that will remember and understand everything you do on your computer by taking constant screenshots.
I can't help but notice interest rates appear to be going.... precisely nowhere.
Could this be the new normal?
The Government supporters will be trying to wring every drop of feelgood juice out of Wednesday morning's inflation figures, If it goes sub 2%, there'll be the usual old,nonsense about how wonderful Sunak and the Tories are - the Party will unite around Sunak and Hunt and claim they should be given another five years, etc.
For them, cutting interest rates equals self preservation.
“The Government supporters will be trying to wring every drop of feelgood juice out of Wednesday morning's inflation figures”.
Why shouldn’t they? It’s Labours fault.
They made such a fuss out of Truss crashing the economy (truth is she didn’t) and that the high mortgages are all down to Liz Truss fault (truth is they arn’t) it allows Sunak to claim credit for miraculously turning the economy around from that mess Truss left him. But out of the last five years Truss has had economic control for about 50 days, who had the control the rest of the time?
Labour have handed the economic win to Sunak by focussing on 50 days, not the other 1300.
Norman Lamont wasn't wrong about the green shoots in 1997, but he still lost his seat. If anything, a recovering economy will mean people are less afraid that Labour will stuff it up. The Tories can hardly claim credit for the economic cycle. The point is, no matter what now. The die is cast and the Tories ate doomed.
"Woman killed in dog attack in east London - as police seize two XL bullys Police say the woman in her 50s died at the scene in Hornchurch, with the XL bullys contained inside a room in the house before being seized by officers."
The photo on that story is astonishing. It looks like a 1969 version of Brookside - concrete street, mix of dwellings up to about 196x, Rover 2000 TC, and so on.
The car under the cover on the other driveway is a Rover P5, I think. Uncovered in the Google images from 2014 and 2012.
And they have both been parked in the same positions in Google back to 2014 and 2008.
"Woman killed in dog attack in east London - as police seize two XL bullys Police say the woman in her 50s died at the scene in Hornchurch, with the XL bullys contained inside a room in the house before being seized by officers."
The photo on that story is astonishing. It looks like a 1969 version of Brookside - concrete street, mix of dwellings up to about 196x, Rover 2000 TC, and so on.
The car under the cover on the other driveway is a Rover P5, I think. Uncovered in the Google images from 2014 and 2012.
And they have both been parked in the same positions in Google back to 2014 and 2008.
"Woman killed in dog attack in east London - as police seize two XL bullys Police say the woman in her 50s died at the scene in Hornchurch, with the XL bullys contained inside a room in the house before being seized by officers."
The photo on that story is astonishing. It looks like a 1969 version of Brookside - concrete street, mix of dwellings up to about 196x, Rover 2000 TC, and so on.
The car under the cover on the other driveway is a Rover P5, I think. Uncovered in the Google images from 2014 and 2012.
And they have both been parked in the same positions in Google back to 2014 and 2008.
For those not suffering from scandal fatigue, this week should be a climactic one in the Post Office Inquiry. Paula Vennels is scheduled for three days, Wednesday to Friday. Will she, I wonder, have noted the public outrage at the duplicity shown by the guilty ones in the Blood scandal? Will she decide it is time to come clean? Don't hold your breath.
Incidentally, today's witness will be much less well known than PV and may be thought of by some as a disappointing undercard to the main event, but don't be misled. Alwyn Lyons joined the PO in 1984 and rose to become Company Secretary in 2017. In Nick Wallis's book on the scandal, she is described as a 'furiously loyal, old fashioned company retainer' who had the ear of the Board. in 2012 one of the Second Sight investigators mentioned to her that he had been told by Fujitsu that remore access to Horizon was indeed possible. She denied it:
'No that's completely wrong. There is no question of remote access. It's impossible. We know it can't happen.'
For those not suffering from scandal fatigue, this week should be a climactic one in the Post Office Inquiry. Paula Vennels is scheduled for three days, Wednesday to Friday. Will she, I wonder, have noted the public outrage at the duplicity shown by the guilty ones in the Blood scandal? Will she decide it is time to come clean? Don't hold your breath.
Incidentally, today's witness will be much less well known than PV and may be thought of by some as a disappointing undercard to the main event, but don't be misled. Alwyn Lyons joined the PO in 1984 and rose to become Company Secretary in 2017. In Nick Wallis's book on the scandal, she is described as a 'furiously loyal, old fashioned company retainer' who had the ear of the Board. in 2012 one of the Second Sight investigators mentioned to her that he had been told by Fujitsu that remore access to Horizon was indeed possible. She denied it:
'No that's completely wrong. There is no question of remote access. It's impossible. We know it can't happen.'
I wonder if she will be so forthright today.
I love it when people who probably find it hard to turn a computer on, state categorically what computer systems can and cannot do...
For those not suffering from scandal fatigue, this week should be a climactic one in the Post Office Inquiry. Paula Vennels is scheduled for three days, Wednesday to Friday. Will she, I wonder, have noted the public outrage at the duplicity shown by the guilty ones in the Blood scandal? Will she decide it is time to come clean? Don't hold your breath.
Incidentally, today's witness will be much less well known than PV and may be thought of by some as a disappointing undercard to the main event, but don't be misled. Alwyn Lyons joined the PO in 1984 and rose to become Company Secretary in 2017. In Nick Wallis's book on the scandal, she is described as a 'furiously loyal, old fashioned company retainer' who had the ear of the Board. in 2012 one of the Second Sight investigators mentioned to her that he had been told by Fujitsu that remore access to Horizon was indeed possible. She denied it:
'No that's completely wrong. There is no question of remote access. It's impossible. We know it can't happen.'
I wonder if she will be so forthright today.
As was said last week, Jason Beer vs Paula Vennells should really have been next to Olexandr Usyk vs Tyson Fury on the pay-per-view channel.
Alwyn Lyons today should be good value as well, she clearly has no idea what computers do or how they work, beyond her own little spreadsheets.
All of this is edge case marginal gains. The country made up its collective mind some time back. We're just marking time. You want an education horror story? Special needs. Sorry to keep banging on about it, but it affects so many voters. And the current situation is immoral.
Yep. And you have used the correct word - immoral. Saying FU to special needs kids is a choice the Tories have made. They don't matter.
Shouldn't be surprised though - Other People always matter less to Tories.
The question for Ministers is what happens if they get into a playground or nursery.
Had to go to minor injuries unit for a tetanus and antibiotics after a dog bit me whilst leafletting on Friday. There are too many dogs in this country, I hope the soaring costs of vet bills will reduce the numbers.
Feel a bit ashamed myself as I must confess I had no idea whatsoever how bad this was and how many people were involved and for how long it had festered as one government after another lied and hid the truth.
Just appalling.
What was new to me was doctors conducting clinical trials which they knew to be hazardous on patients without either their consent or knowledge. I'd long had a sense that politicians had brushed something under the carpet.
That it's forty years ago means trials are unlikely - but that it took so long for it to be made public by an enquiry which politicians said for decades was unnecessary is pretty stunning.
The depth of Ken Clarke's apparent wilful ignorance, and his continuing refusal to accept he might have been at fault, was also a disappointment to someone who had previously rather admired him as a politician.
Unfortunately Ken Clarke, as gifted a politican as he is/was, has always has that very bumptious and arrogant side to him.
Generally people have given him the benefit of the doubt and turned a blind eye to his arrogance as he's always been a likable character, but on this occasion he needed to rise to the occasion and he singularly failed...
It seems to me that the important date from which to start asking questions about ministers is 1983. That was when the WHO and Lancet both issued reports on the possibility of infected blood products.Since then the following have been Health Secretary:
Norman Fowler John Moore Ken Clarke William Waldegrave Virginia Bottomley Stephen Dorrell Frank Dobson Alan Milburn John Reid Alan Johnson Andy Burnham Andrew Landsley Jeremy Hunt.
Hunt became Health secretary in 2012 but it wasn't until May came to power as PM that anything was actually done about having a proper investigation.
All of these politicians could and should have known and done something about the scandal but none of them did.
Burnham claims basically he asked questions and was blatantly lied to by officials.
There's an inquiry in itself right there.
Almost certainly true. The civil service acting as a self-preserving body has been self-evident for a long long time. I have no doubt that some ministers are happy to lie for political reasons, others may not know about the issue under the carpet. But ministers asking questions and being openly lied to? Plenty of evidence.
Feel a bit ashamed myself as I must confess I had no idea whatsoever how bad this was and how many people were involved and for how long it had festered as one government after another lied and hid the truth.
Just appalling.
What was new to me was doctors conducting clinical trials which they knew to be hazardous on patients without either their consent or knowledge. I'd long had a sense that politicians had brushed something under the carpet.
That it's forty years ago means trials are unlikely - but that it took so long for it to be made public by an enquiry which politicians said for decades was unnecessary is pretty stunning.
The depth of Ken Clarke's apparent wilful ignorance, and his continuing refusal to accept he might have been at fault, was also a disappointment to someone who had previously rather admired him as a politician.
Unfortunately Ken Clarke, as gifted a politican as he is/was, has always has that very bumptious and arrogant side to him.
Generally people have given him the benefit of the doubt and turned a blind eye to his arrogance as he's always been a likable character, but on this occasion he needed to rise to the occasion and he singularly failed...
It seems to me that the important date from which to start asking questions about ministers is 1983. That was when the WHO and Lancet both issued reports on the possibility of infected blood products.Since then the following have been Health Secretary:
Norman Fowler John Moore Ken Clarke William Waldegrave Virginia Bottomley Stephen Dorrell Frank Dobson Alan Milburn John Reid Alan Johnson Andy Burnham Andrew Landsley Jeremy Hunt.
Hunt became Health secretary in 2012 but it wasn't until May came to power as PM that anything was actually done about having a proper investigation.
All of these politicians could and should have known and done something about the scandal but none of them did.
Burnham claims basically he asked questions and was blatantly lied to by officials.
There's an inquiry in itself right there.
Almost certainly true. The civil service acting as a self-preserving body has been self-evident for a long long time. I have no doubt that some ministers are happy to lie for political reasons, others may not know about the issue under the carpet. But ministers asking questions and being openly lied to? Plenty of evidence.
So what do we do?
As I mention below, Burnham has very poor form when it comes to health inquiries. Treat his comments with *deep* suspicion.
Feel a bit ashamed myself as I must confess I had no idea whatsoever how bad this was and how many people were involved and for how long it had festered as one government after another lied and hid the truth.
Just appalling.
What was new to me was doctors conducting clinical trials which they knew to be hazardous on patients without either their consent or knowledge. I'd long had a sense that politicians had brushed something under the carpet.
That it's forty years ago means trials are unlikely - but that it took so long for it to be made public by an enquiry which politicians said for decades was unnecessary is pretty stunning.
The depth of Ken Clarke's apparent wilful ignorance, and his continuing refusal to accept he might have been at fault, was also a disappointment to someone who had previously rather admired him as a politician.
Unfortunately Ken Clarke, as gifted a politican as he is/was, has always has that very bumptious and arrogant side to him.
Generally people have given him the benefit of the doubt and turned a blind eye to his arrogance as he's always been a likable character, but on this occasion he needed to rise to the occasion and he singularly failed...
It seems to me that the important date from which to start asking questions about ministers is 1983. That was when the WHO and Lancet both issued reports on the possibility of infected blood products.Since then the following have been Health Secretary:
Norman Fowler John Moore Ken Clarke William Waldegrave Virginia Bottomley Stephen Dorrell Frank Dobson Alan Milburn John Reid Alan Johnson Andy Burnham Andrew Landsley Jeremy Hunt.
Hunt became Health secretary in 2012 but it wasn't until May came to power as PM that anything was actually done about having a proper investigation.
All of these politicians could and should have known and done something about the scandal but none of them did.
Burnham claims basically he asked questions and was blatantly lied to by officials.
There's an inquiry in itself right there.
I wouldn't trust Burnham on this. Remember the first inquiry into the Stafford scandal? It took the coalition to launch a proper public inquiry.
Burnham was Minister of State (Department of Health) (Delivery and Quality) during the height of the scandal. His fingers are all over it.
To be fair, although I agree with your main point, one problem we have in our system of government is that most of our senior civil servants do routinely lie.
Even the slightly more intelligent ones who know which way up to hold the pencil.
The question for Ministers is what happens if they get into a playground or nursery.
Had to go to minor injuries unit for a tetanus and antibiotics after a dog bit me whilst leafletting on Friday. There are too many dogs in this country, I hope the soaring costs of vet bills will reduce the numbers.
As a resource for everyone who will be leafleting and canvassing in the election later this year (or early next) the Animal and Plant Health Agency have published a dataset of the dog population per postcode district.
Feel a bit ashamed myself as I must confess I had no idea whatsoever how bad this was and how many people were involved and for how long it had festered as one government after another lied and hid the truth.
Just appalling.
What was new to me was doctors conducting clinical trials which they knew to be hazardous on patients without either their consent or knowledge. I'd long had a sense that politicians had brushed something under the carpet.
That it's forty years ago means trials are unlikely - but that it took so long for it to be made public by an enquiry which politicians said for decades was unnecessary is pretty stunning.
The depth of Ken Clarke's apparent wilful ignorance, and his continuing refusal to accept he might have been at fault, was also a disappointment to someone who had previously rather admired him as a politician.
Unfortunately Ken Clarke, as gifted a politican as he is/was, has always has that very bumptious and arrogant side to him.
Generally people have given him the benefit of the doubt and turned a blind eye to his arrogance as he's always been a likable character, but on this occasion he needed to rise to the occasion and he singularly failed...
It seems to me that the important date from which to start asking questions about ministers is 1983. That was when the WHO and Lancet both issued reports on the possibility of infected blood products.Since then the following have been Health Secretary:
Norman Fowler John Moore Ken Clarke William Waldegrave Virginia Bottomley Stephen Dorrell Frank Dobson Alan Milburn John Reid Alan Johnson Andy Burnham Andrew Landsley Jeremy Hunt.
Hunt became Health secretary in 2012 but it wasn't until May came to power as PM that anything was actually done about having a proper investigation.
All of these politicians could and should have known and done something about the scandal but none of them did.
Burnham claims basically he asked questions and was blatantly lied to by officials.
There's an inquiry in itself right there.
I wouldn't trust Burnham on this. Remember the first inquiry into the Stafford scandal? It took the coalition to launch a proper public inquiry.
Burnham was Minister of State (Department of Health) (Delivery and Quality) during the height of the scandal. His fingers are all over it.
To be fair, although I agree with your main point, one problem we have in our system of government is that most of our senior civil servants do routinely lie.
Even the slightly more intelligent ones who know which way up to hold the pencil.
Then again, it's easy to have a situation where a civil servant lies, and the minister knows he is being lied to, but that's a convenient situation for both of them.
These 'officials' need naming. I assume that, as in all good government, the lies were documented?
Feel a bit ashamed myself as I must confess I had no idea whatsoever how bad this was and how many people were involved and for how long it had festered as one government after another lied and hid the truth.
Just appalling.
What was new to me was doctors conducting clinical trials which they knew to be hazardous on patients without either their consent or knowledge. I'd long had a sense that politicians had brushed something under the carpet.
That it's forty years ago means trials are unlikely - but that it took so long for it to be made public by an enquiry which politicians said for decades was unnecessary is pretty stunning.
The depth of Ken Clarke's apparent wilful ignorance, and his continuing refusal to accept he might have been at fault, was also a disappointment to someone who had previously rather admired him as a politician.
Unfortunately Ken Clarke, as gifted a politican as he is/was, has always has that very bumptious and arrogant side to him.
Generally people have given him the benefit of the doubt and turned a blind eye to his arrogance as he's always been a likable character, but on this occasion he needed to rise to the occasion and he singularly failed...
It seems to me that the important date from which to start asking questions about ministers is 1983. That was when the WHO and Lancet both issued reports on the possibility of infected blood products.Since then the following have been Health Secretary:
Norman Fowler John Moore Ken Clarke William Waldegrave Virginia Bottomley Stephen Dorrell Frank Dobson Alan Milburn John Reid Alan Johnson Andy Burnham Andrew Landsley Jeremy Hunt.
Hunt became Health secretary in 2012 but it wasn't until May came to power as PM that anything was actually done about having a proper investigation.
All of these politicians could and should have known and done something about the scandal but none of them did.
Burnham claims basically he asked questions and was blatantly lied to by officials.
There's an inquiry in itself right there.
Almost certainly true. The civil service acting as a self-preserving body has been self-evident for a long long time. I have no doubt that some ministers are happy to lie for political reasons, others may not know about the issue under the carpet. But ministers asking questions and being openly lied to? Plenty of evidence.
So what do we do?
As I mention below, Burnham has very poor form when it comes to health inquiries. Treat his comments with *deep* suspicion.
Burnham by himself? Sure. But in this case he fits the wider pattern of evidence gathered over the course of at least 50 years.
Feel a bit ashamed myself as I must confess I had no idea whatsoever how bad this was and how many people were involved and for how long it had festered as one government after another lied and hid the truth.
Just appalling.
What was new to me was doctors conducting clinical trials which they knew to be hazardous on patients without either their consent or knowledge. I'd long had a sense that politicians had brushed something under the carpet.
That it's forty years ago means trials are unlikely - but that it took so long for it to be made public by an enquiry which politicians said for decades was unnecessary is pretty stunning.
The depth of Ken Clarke's apparent wilful ignorance, and his continuing refusal to accept he might have been at fault, was also a disappointment to someone who had previously rather admired him as a politician.
Unfortunately Ken Clarke, as gifted a politican as he is/was, has always has that very bumptious and arrogant side to him.
Generally people have given him the benefit of the doubt and turned a blind eye to his arrogance as he's always been a likable character, but on this occasion he needed to rise to the occasion and he singularly failed...
It seems to me that the important date from which to start asking questions about ministers is 1983. That was when the WHO and Lancet both issued reports on the possibility of infected blood products.Since then the following have been Health Secretary:
Norman Fowler John Moore Ken Clarke William Waldegrave Virginia Bottomley Stephen Dorrell Frank Dobson Alan Milburn John Reid Alan Johnson Andy Burnham Andrew Landsley Jeremy Hunt.
Hunt became Health secretary in 2012 but it wasn't until May came to power as PM that anything was actually done about having a proper investigation.
All of these politicians could and should have known and done something about the scandal but none of them did.
Burnham claims basically he asked questions and was blatantly lied to by officials.
There's an inquiry in itself right there.
I wouldn't trust Burnham on this. Remember the first inquiry into the Stafford scandal? It took the coalition to launch a proper public inquiry.
Burnham was Minister of State (Department of Health) (Delivery and Quality) during the height of the scandal. His fingers are all over it.
To be fair, although I agree with your main point, one problem we have in our system of government is that most of our senior civil servants do routinely lie.
Even the slightly more intelligent ones who know which way up to hold the pencil.
Then again, it's easy to have a situation where a civil servant lies, and the minister knows he is being lied to, but that's a convenient situation for both of them.
These 'officials' need naming. I assume that, as in all good government, the lies were documented?
'Was 1963 a particularly bad winter?'
'On the contrary, Minister. All sorts of embarrassing files were lost.'
Anyway, it's much more likely that the untruths are more weasel than outright lie.
I am not aware of any conclusive evidence, that sort of thing.
Feel a bit ashamed myself as I must confess I had no idea whatsoever how bad this was and how many people were involved and for how long it had festered as one government after another lied and hid the truth.
Just appalling.
What was new to me was doctors conducting clinical trials which they knew to be hazardous on patients without either their consent or knowledge. I'd long had a sense that politicians had brushed something under the carpet.
That it's forty years ago means trials are unlikely - but that it took so long for it to be made public by an enquiry which politicians said for decades was unnecessary is pretty stunning.
The depth of Ken Clarke's apparent wilful ignorance, and his continuing refusal to accept he might have been at fault, was also a disappointment to someone who had previously rather admired him as a politician.
Unfortunately Ken Clarke, as gifted a politican as he is/was, has always has that very bumptious and arrogant side to him.
Generally people have given him the benefit of the doubt and turned a blind eye to his arrogance as he's always been a likable character, but on this occasion he needed to rise to the occasion and he singularly failed...
It seems to me that the important date from which to start asking questions about ministers is 1983. That was when the WHO and Lancet both issued reports on the possibility of infected blood products.Since then the following have been Health Secretary:
Norman Fowler John Moore Ken Clarke William Waldegrave Virginia Bottomley Stephen Dorrell Frank Dobson Alan Milburn John Reid Alan Johnson Andy Burnham Andrew Landsley Jeremy Hunt.
Hunt became Health secretary in 2012 but it wasn't until May came to power as PM that anything was actually done about having a proper investigation.
All of these politicians could and should have known and done something about the scandal but none of them did.
Burnham claims basically he asked questions and was blatantly lied to by officials.
There's an inquiry in itself right there.
Almost certainly true. The civil service acting as a self-preserving body has been self-evident for a long long time. I have no doubt that some ministers are happy to lie for political reasons, others may not know about the issue under the carpet. But ministers asking questions and being openly lied to? Plenty of evidence.
So what do we do?
There's perhaps an element of CYA in his comments ? Without the actual evidence it's hard to say.
One thing very clear from the report is that blame rests on doctors, civil servants and ministers alike - and in quite a lot of cases it's hard to distinguish between uncritically and incuriously following department policy and insisting on its truth without checking - and active dishonesty. (Though in some cases it's very clear indeed.)
Comments
"Britain's day of shame."
Feel a bit ashamed myself as I must confess I had no idea whatsoever how bad this was and how many people were involved and for how long it had festered as one government after another lied and hid the truth.
Just appalling.
The country made up its collective mind some time back.
We're just marking time.
You want an education horror story? Special needs. Sorry to keep banging on about it, but it affects so many voters. And the current situation is immoral.
You sound, with respect, just like tony Blair - you think it's ok for a socialist government to be elected provided it knows its place, tugs its forelock and has the good taste not to do anything actually socialist. Why not just rejoice?
But the fact that you think this is "woke nonsense" and "positively mainstream" says more about you than it does about bisexual people - of whom I think we have a few on the site.
Gender identity is a belief system - you believe it, I don't.
That's fine by me - but not by you, it would appear.
Roman Catholicism is a belief system - I don't believe that either.
Do you believe it?
If not, do you hate Roman Catholics, do you believe they do not have a right to exist, are they not human beings?
I would have hoped we are long past the point of believing we had to enforce belief systems on non-believers - or one would have thought so.
The reason I post about this is because:
i) It has to do with politics. Just ask Nicola Sturgeon or the Scottish Greens
ii) It has to do with human rights - just ask women sportswomen
iii) It has to do with the rule of law - see today (in a long line of) Employment Tribunal Cases.
It's not going away, however much you might want NO DEBATE "a moral panic" (sic)
Remember when Cameron upset the police with a Hillsborough enquiry that actually reported?
That it's forty years ago means trials are unlikely - but that it took so long for it to be made public by an enquiry which politicians said for decades was unnecessary is pretty stunning.
The depth of Ken Clarke's apparent wilful ignorance, and his continuing refusal to accept he might have been at fault, was also a disappointment to someone who had previously rather admired him as a politician.
Generally people have given him the benefit of the doubt and turned a blind eye to his arrogance as he's always been a likable character, but on this occasion he needed to rise to the occasion and he singularly failed...
Although the scale of human misery on this one is especially appalling.
We don't know the exact form of the policy. We don't know when it would get through Parliament or be enacted. There would presumably be some sort of transitional arrangements. It seems likely there will be a period of adjustment during which schools will be able to try to find efficiencies or new markets.
On the last thread, Casino was very blasé about universities having to adapt to changed visa rules, if I recall. Governments can change rules in a manner that has big impacts on a sector. Perhaps it's for the best if Government, cognisant of this, make changes more slowly.
Maybe that is part of the problem? Far too many lawyers and PPEs in parliament.
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2024/mar/12/overseas-students-undermining-uk-higher-education-warns-cleverly
"Foreign students may be undermining UK higher education, says Cleverly"
Regarding your second paragraph I have no idea what you are trying to say, nor frankly do I care. Suffice to say, I'd like to see a left of centre government with a more radical programme than I expect Labour will implement, but to be fair I suspect any such programme would not gather sufficient support nationally.
Faisal Islam
@faisalislam
·
2h
Looks like a major “announcement” on energy bills is imminent … another
@politicalpics
long lens scoop… Big Six have been briefed … something to do with the energy price cap adjustment (cut) from July (coming by Friday), further policy on smart meters (rollout has stalled)
https://x.com/faisalislam/status/1792635483312292272
Wrongthink in response to such nonsense leads to referrals.
And you also posted approvingly of the new section 28 laws which literally seek to deny the existence of trans people under the age of 18, as was commented on in the previous thread. How do you talk to a trans or gender questioning 15 year old as a teacher when the law says "schools should not teach about the broader concept of gender identity" in black and white?
I'm not a full on ideologue, I've never said trans women should be competing in professional sports, nor should a man be able to self ID today and walk into a woman's changing room tomorrow no questions asked - the debate is nuanced.
You keep saying I want to "no debate you" and yet I'm here every day, debating you, as politely as I can, even when I'm called "despicable" by certain posters on this site. As I say, I do think you're an alright sort and I enjoy your non-trans posts and debate. I just feel like some of the material you post denies the very existence of trans people, which has real world consequences. I''m sorry if you feel differently, but I don't spam the site with gender stuff at all - I only respond with alternative viewpoints when others post it.
This is a rather good journalistic source for trans positive perspectives on some of the things you post about - https://www.erininthemorning.com/
Anyway. I disagree with you, but I do not dislike you. I hope that makes sense.
A previous way of saying non-white was "ethnic minority" on the basis that people who are non-white are a minority in the countries where this was being used, such as in Britain.
This term was deprecated, I think in part because being identified as being in a minority was deemed to be negative, and in part because white people are in a minority globally.
Since non-white people are, collectively, in a majority across the world, then the term "global majority" was born.
This to my mind still has two problems. Firstly, you're talking about a huge and diverse group of people as though they were a homogenous whole. Secondly, it's still code for non-white, so why not just say non-white?
The reasons not to use non-white are that it is a negative label, based on what people are not, rather than what they are, and it puts white as being the normal against which other people are defined against. But since all the other terms used are just code for non-white, they don't escape these problems.
So, if you really need to, I'd say, just use non-white, but really you should show the people you are talking about the respect to talk about them with more detail and precision.
Hugo Gye
@HugoGye
·
33m
New
Angela Rayner will use speech tomorrow to set out 5 criteria for Labour's new towns:
- 40% affordable housing
- 'characterful design'
- high density
- comes w good infrastructure
- green space
https://x.com/HugoGye/status/1792669484169547891
===
"affordable housing" should get a few laughs.
And aiui watching these trials, it seems a routine and normal thing to happen. For example I do not think the Jury would not have been in when Mr Trumps 11 offences of Criminal Contempt were discussed, or when debates about many items of evidence being admissible or not were discussed, or when motions were litigated.
Norman Fowler
John Moore
Ken Clarke
William Waldegrave
Virginia Bottomley
Stephen Dorrell
Frank Dobson
Alan Milburn
John Reid
Alan Johnson
Andy Burnham
Andrew Landsley
Jeremy Hunt.
Hunt became Health secretary in 2012 but it wasn't until May came to power as PM that anything was actually done about having a proper investigation.
All of these politicians could and should have known and done something about the scandal but none of them did.
Know your place, Britons.
How did Norman Fowler HS from 1981-1987 do on this one?
He was decent around the handling of AIDS, iirc.
An inflation number of 2.5% and an interest rate of around 4% is ideal for everyone (borrowers/spenders and savers) but you're right that an IR of around 5% isn't to be sniffed at, historically...
But you do you.
What a warrior for making America great again.
https://www.realityslaststand.com/p/activist-blogger-erin-reed-cant-stop
The prominent American transgender activist Erin Reed has repeatedly and insistently made demonstrably false claims about pediatric gender medicine.
During the two weeks since the publication of the Cass Review, England’s mammoth report about this controversial and politicized medical field, Reed has emitted a fusillade of false claims about the review, its findings and the systematic literature reviews on which it was partially based. Reed has only doubled down when fact checked, even when the corrections have come from lead author of the report, pediatrician Dr. Hilary Cass, herself.
There's an inquiry in itself right there.
Perhaps kids born in the summer struggle at primary school because they start school at too young an age? Maybe people with a West African background have a higher rate of strokes? Could depression be affected by how far people live from the sea?
So you need to have a way to label these groups of people so that you can talk about them, and if the people who live more than 25km from the coast find terms like "landlubber" offensive, then I guess you ought to find a better name.
Meanwhile if Gillian Keegan makes it to July we'll have had 9 Education Secretaries in 9 years.
Why not just get someone on supply?
I'm available at a cheaper rate.
I read both trans positive and trans critical stuff and make up my own mind.
I'm not an ideologue in the vein of "self ID must be accepted uncritically and men can self ID and compete in womens sport and use the changing rooms tomorrow" but I'm also far from a TERF, as you know. I just want trans people to be left alone to live their own lives.
As you live on Jersey (?) or Alderney (?) I might suggest you have little real world experience of trans people and as much fun as back and forthing over trans positive and trans negative newsletters is, if you ever want to meet a *real* trans person come over to London some time and I'll introduce you. The ones I know are quite harmless, and generally very kind.
There's nothing much else to say really is there? It's just a day that shames Britain.
The. End.
Patricia Hewitt is missing
I now live in Brighton - the UK's LGBTQIWTF+ capital - until the inner London Borough of Newham stole the crown because the ONS mucked up the census so a disproportionately unlikely number of muslim non-native English speakers identified as trans.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-does-the-census-say-there-are-more-trans-people-in-newham-than-brighton/
That's why "inclusive" language is often "exclusive" - how many non-native English "cervix havers" will die of cervical cancer because - as - "Women" - they didn't know testing applied to them?
It shames the governing class. Both parties. Whitehall. The whole bloody lot.
The PPEs and the law degrees and the handshakes and the clubs and the tennis and drinks at the weekend and the away days examining policy in the Chilterns and the book deals and the possibility of work as at leading lobbying firm or PR company in the twilight years and could you get an internship for my niece old boy etc etc.
It's a small bomb that is now under some claims from the Defence. It is a vid segment, and the agreement is - rather than getting a TV archivist in to testify to it's authenticity (without which the vid would be 'hearsay' in Usonian terms) after some argy-bargy the prosecution have agreed that the authenticity shall be confirmed to the Jury, but the display will be limited to a single still image.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8WiCqb0SkcE
My take is that most trans people are pretty genuine about it, and pretty committed - the physical changes are just not something that a perv is going to do, outside of intense marginal cases, which, of course, exist, and need to be picked up on. Hence safeguarding.
This is an insanely long link, called the Gender Dysphoria Bible. It's mostly trans people explaining to other trans people what they're feeling.
It's a ridiculously long read, but it rings true to how every trans person I've ever met IRL acts -https://genderdysphoria.fyi/en
So I think they're harmless buggers who want to do their utmost to be good, feminist women. Not men invading female spaces, but women trying to express solidarity with other women.
The "outliers" of pervy men predending to be women to access female only spaces are outliers, though they do exist. And that is why safeguarding is needed - for the sake of both cis and trans women, who are both at risk of assault from men.
I just want trans women to be treated with kindness. Some of the invective on twitter and identity politics actively hurts sweet, innocent people who have no desire other than to present as the sex they believe they are born to. You may disagree with that, if you're a biological essentialist, but these people deserve kindness, not scorn, even if you think they're mentally ill -- personally I think most cultures have always had gender nonconforming people, hijras in india etc. They're a minority who deserve to be given a modicum of respect.
Anyway, that's my view.
Do enjoy Brighton, it's lovely (though the beach is crap!)
With respect to the accuracy of E&W Census data, there is an ongoing investigation by the Office for Statistics Regulation (OSR) and the ONS. There's too much to summarise easily (TLDR: it's complicated) but the relevant OSR page is here: https://osr.statisticsauthority.gov.uk/our-work-on-data-about-sex-and-gender-identity/
Though as Rottenborough points out it should also include a long list of senior civil servants (PPS level?) who presumably advised their ministers not to bother with it or that any attempt to make something of it would be 'courageous'.
Satya Nadella says Windows PCs will have a photographic memory feature called Recall that will remember and understand everything you do on your computer by taking constant screenshots.
https://x.com/tsarnick/status/1792680674060832829
TL;DR, its such a small place that there are no other similar people in your peer group. Guernsey population is about 60k, transgenderism is supposedly about 0.5% of the population so technically as many as 300. But... most of them leave. Because that's more like ten or twenty in your peer group (plus or minus ten years), and tbh I've been to the islands and it's not a very LGBTQ friendly place, so you get natural attrition.
Net result is, if you're queer and living in the dependencies, you do a Bronski Beat Smalltown Boy exit to the big city. An unscientific study I know, but I've had a beer in Guernsey with a visibly queer friend and it was not the most welcoming environment (lovely place other than that, though, very beautiful, just a bit... backward for a londoner)
Under questioning from Todd Blanche, Mr Trump's ex-lawyer and fixer admitted to stealing tens of thousands of dollars from his boss' company.
"You did steal from the Trump Organization?" Mr Trump's lead lawyer, asked Cohen on Monday.
"Yes, sir," Cohen replied without hesitation.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-69041401
"Woman killed in dog attack in east London - as police seize two XL bullys
Police say the woman in her 50s died at the scene in Hornchurch, with the XL bullys contained inside a room in the house before being seized by officers."
https://news.sky.com/story/woman-killed-in-dog-attack-as-police-seize-two-xl-bullys-13140219
Why shouldn’t they? It’s Labours fault.
They made such a fuss out of Truss crashing the economy (truth is she didn’t) and that the high mortgages are all down to Liz Truss fault (truth is they arn’t) it allows Sunak to claim credit for miraculously turning the economy around from that mess Truss left him. But out of the last five years Truss has had economic control for about 50 days, who had the control the rest of the time?
Labour have handed the economic win to Sunak by focussing on 50 days, not the other 1300.
Nazi era flamethrower that you keep in the kitchen, where kids run around
Get rid of them all
The jury were sent out for his first
admonishment, and he continued to sass the judge. At which point the entire court, including prosecution, defence and the gaggle of reporters, was cleared.
The transcript, though, remained unsealed.
https://x.com/TylerMcBrien/status/1792721689907741029
Cohen has already done time, having pled guilty to fraud,
And he's since then reached a financial settlement with the Trump organisation.
..In early 2019, Cohen sued the Trump Organization for allegedly failing to reimburse his legal fees; in July 2023, the parties reached a settlement ahead of a planned trial...
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2009/jul/23/mid-staffordshire-nhs-trust-inquiry
Burnham was Minister of State (Department of Health) (Delivery and Quality) during the height of the scandal. His fingers are all over it.
The total clearance was unusual.
However, thing being done without the Jury present are routine, too.
And they have both been parked in the same positions in Google back to 2014 and 2008.
What are the odds that it is cabbie home turf?
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5786764,0.2404068,3a,75y,337.27h,73.37t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1seNqPMud3kKwzeF5lcsAv3A!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu
But seriously, WTF Microsoft, that’s going to be used for negative reasons a whole load more than useful ones.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13421287/Dramatic-moment-devastated-Welsh-farmer-shoots-dead-two-savage-XL-Bully-dogs-killed-22-pregnant-sheep-fun-crazed-attack-left-14-000-pocket.html
The question for Ministers is what happens if they get into a playground or nursery.
Done freelance, I expect. Cabbie Home Turf !
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5786762,0.2403922,3a,75y,316.52h,52.28t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sHmnjjgR-HUKoonpIdr0wSA!2e0!5s20121101T000000!7i13312!8i6656?entry=ttu
A recent Edinburgh crackdown on fraudulent Blue Badge holders was also part of the "War on drivers", apparently.
Incidentally, today's witness will be much less well known than PV and may be thought of by some as a disappointing undercard to the main event, but don't be misled. Alwyn Lyons joined the PO in 1984 and rose to become Company Secretary in 2017. In Nick Wallis's book on the scandal, she is described as a 'furiously loyal, old fashioned company retainer' who had the ear of the Board. in 2012 one of the Second Sight investigators mentioned to her that he had been told by Fujitsu that remore access to Horizon was indeed possible. She denied it:
'No that's completely wrong. There is no question of remote access. It's impossible. We know it can't happen.'
I wonder if she will be so forthright today.
Alwyn Lyons today should be good value as well, she clearly has no idea what computers do or how they work, beyond her own little spreadsheets.
Shouldn't be surprised though - Other People always matter less to Tories.
So what do we do?
Even the slightly more intelligent ones who know which way up to hold the pencil.
https://www.data.gov.uk/dataset/ec8fc820-2e36-49d0-a09c-e2901e10b2e4/dog-population-per-postcode-district
These 'officials' need naming. I assume that, as in all good government, the lies were documented?
'On the contrary, Minister. All sorts of embarrassing files were lost.'
Anyway, it's much more likely that the untruths are more weasel than outright lie.
I am not aware of any conclusive evidence, that sort of thing.
One thing very clear from the report is that blame rests on doctors, civil servants and ministers alike - and in quite a lot of cases it's hard to distinguish between uncritically and incuriously following department policy and insisting on its truth without checking - and active dishonesty.
(Though in some cases it's very clear indeed.)