Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

How Britain voted – politicalbetting.com

1234568

Comments

  • TresTres Posts: 2,724
    tlg86 said:

    dixiedean said:

    Cookie said:

    TimS said:

    Cookie said:

    TimS said:

    kyf_100 said:

    TimS said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Riot police in attendance at a hotel housing illegal migrants in Manchester after "demonstations" by Football Fan types broke out.

    It comes back to your point yesterday about the UK becoming increasingly sectarian. For the benefit of the doubt, as some were throwing around accusations of racism after the last thread, I a) don't think this is a good thing and b) don't support the "football fan types" who are going round causing bother, either.
    It's not though. Only in the hyper-real world of social media, where everything constantly gets amplified, commonly by accounts based a couple of thousand miles East of here.
    PB is resolutely middle class and misses out on a lot of what the hoi polloi are saying. My ex, god love her, was resolutely working class and I follow many of her friends on socials. It is a window into a different world. People are *hopping mad* about this at the minute. I've never seen 'that type' of voter so angry.
    PB is way more exercised by this than anywhere else I've come across.

    Yes people always get angry with mass murderers. You see them shouting at them on the steps of court, and calling for the death penalty. They are a small group but noisy. However, they don't usually make the leap between that and condemning entire groups in society.

    That's new. Why? Because they are being manipulated, by dangerous forces, largely on social media and deliberately amplified by Russian troll accounts. But not just Russians, MAGA Americans too, who have been infected by the cult and have access to Anglo Saxon news. Nobody should be indulging this kind of hideous grief exploitation.
    What? No one in your real world is exercised by the murder of a few kids? It's pretty much the subject the real world is most upset about, in my real world.
    This is the only place I am seeing this being turned into a race war.

    People always get understandably upset by mass murder and want vengeance against the murderer. It happened with countless serial killers through history. They don't usually turn it into a ethno-political issue though. The only reason they are doing so, is because the murderer was black. And because dark forces on social media are manipulating and amplifying the divisive narrative.
    It's because theŕe is so much mystery about the motive. It's just such a weirdly purposeless crime
    Could be incel - but incels usually target older girls. Could be random madman - but seemed to be carefully planned, which random madmen tend to be bad at. Could be Islam - but Rwanda is pretty light on Muslims. So of course there is speculation.
    As others have pointed out, the identity of the individual is protected as he's under 18. So we'll just have to wait.
    The weird language and choices of emphasis of those in charge aren't really helping though. It's not being very well poloticked.
    I get that. I really do.
    BUT. This happened Monday. Most of the Police spent Tuesday having bricks house at them. It's now Wednesday. The total collapse of CAHMS, Children's Services and other agencies over the past few years mean that the detailed records which used
    to be accessible no longer exist. He may not have been on anyone's radar, since the
    thresholds for intervention has been raised skyhigh.
    It's possible the answer is they actually don't
    know what the motivation was yet. Or are merely scratching the surface.
    Even more so if the assailant is uncooperative.
    That’s all fine. In which case, the police should not be ruling anything out. By all means reassure the public and say they don’t think there’s any one else who might do more harm, but don’t say you’re not treating it as terrorism. Right now, it looks exactly like terrorism.
    It looks exactly like a loner with untreated mental health issues. Terrorism is what the EDL lot were up to last night.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 72,300
    HYUFD said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Trump has obviously lost the plot with his race comments about Harris. Surely he loses the election now.

    Yes, particularly his comment that "she happened to turn Black".
    Astonishingly offensive.
    It is offensive but Trump wants to depress black turnout and saying Harris is half Indian as much as black is his attempt to do that while proclaiming he did more than any other president for African Americans
    Good luck with that.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 23,792
    I know what everyone is thinking.

    TRUSS.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 124,008

    I know what everyone is thinking.

    TRUSS.

    'Liz Truss has said that she may not back any of the Tory leadership contenders.

    The former prime minister told The Daily T podcast that the next party leader needed to “take on the establishment” and “groupthink”.
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/07/30/truss-i-may-not-back-any-of-the-tory-leadership-contenders/
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,223
    moonshine said:

    tlg86 said:

    dixiedean said:

    Cookie said:

    TimS said:

    Cookie said:

    TimS said:

    kyf_100 said:

    TimS said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Riot police in attendance at a hotel housing illegal migrants in Manchester after "demonstations" by Football Fan types broke out.

    It comes back to your point yesterday about the UK becoming increasingly sectarian. For the benefit of the doubt, as some were throwing around accusations of racism after the last thread, I a) don't think this is a good thing and b) don't support the "football fan types" who are going round causing bother, either.
    It's not though. Only in the hyper-real world of social media, where everything constantly gets amplified, commonly by accounts based a couple of thousand miles East of here.
    PB is resolutely middle class and misses out on a lot of what the hoi polloi are saying. My ex, god love her, was resolutely working class and I follow many of her friends on socials. It is a window into a different world. People are *hopping mad* about this at the minute. I've never seen 'that type' of voter so angry.
    PB is way more exercised by this than anywhere else I've come across.

    Yes people always get angry with mass murderers. You see them shouting at them on the steps of court, and calling for the death penalty. They are a small group but noisy. However, they don't usually make the leap between that and condemning entire groups in society.

    That's new. Why? Because they are being manipulated, by dangerous forces, largely on social media and deliberately amplified by Russian troll accounts. But not just Russians, MAGA Americans too, who have been infected by the cult and have access to Anglo Saxon news. Nobody should be indulging this kind of hideous grief exploitation.
    What? No one in your real world is exercised by the murder of a few kids? It's pretty much the subject the real world is most upset about, in my real world.
    This is the only place I am seeing this being turned into a race war.

    People always get understandably upset by mass murder and want vengeance against the murderer. It happened with countless serial killers through history. They don't usually turn it into a ethno-political issue though. The only reason they are doing so, is because the murderer was black. And because dark forces on social media are manipulating and amplifying the divisive narrative.
    It's because theŕe is so much mystery about the motive. It's just such a weirdly purposeless crime
    Could be incel - but incels usually target older girls. Could be random madman - but seemed to be carefully planned, which random madmen tend to be bad at. Could be Islam - but Rwanda is pretty light on Muslims. So of course there is speculation.
    As others have pointed out, the identity of the individual is protected as he's under 18. So we'll just have to wait.
    The weird language and choices of emphasis of those in charge aren't really helping though. It's not being very well poloticked.
    I get that. I really do.
    BUT. This happened Monday. Most of the Police spent Tuesday having bricks house at them. It's now Wednesday. The total collapse of CAHMS, Children's Services and other agencies over the past few years mean that the detailed records which used
    to be accessible no longer exist. He may not have been on anyone's radar, since the
    thresholds for intervention has been raised skyhigh.
    It's possible the answer is they actually don't
    know what the motivation was yet. Or are merely scratching the surface.
    Even more so if the assailant is uncooperative.
    That’s all fine. In which case, the police should not be ruling anything out. By all means reassure the public and say they don’t think there’s any one else who might do more harm, but don’t say you’re not treating it as terrorism. Right now, it looks exactly like terrorism.
    All the research shows that if details of high profile suicides are printed in the press, there is a spike in suicide rates shortly thereafter. I suspect a similar effect takes places with US school shootings. To give
    Mthe authorities the benefit of the doubt here, perhaps they wish for the details to be
    suppressed until things cool over, to dampen the likelihood of copycats.
    If a bomb had gone off, there wouldn’t be a debate, would there? Which is an interesting point on the “what is terrorism?” question. The method seems to matter a lot.

    @dixiedean - I think there is a case for someone like Suttcliffe being classed as a terrorist. The question is, was the motive sexual? If so, then probably not terrorism, though the outcome is still the same (lots of terrorised people).

    As for the rioters. You can call them terrorists if you want, but then that lot in Leeds are also terrorists.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 28,976
    Good evening. I’m not having much luck with travel. Aberdeen to London flight delayed by 4 hours on my trip a month ago. Luton to Aberdeen flight cancelled a week and a half ago. Gatwick to Aberdeen flight cancelled tonight after hours of delay. Now on the train to Luton for an 07:15 flight tomorrow.

    Will get about 3 hours sleep. Yay
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 63,137

    Phillips P. OBrien
    @PhillipsPOBrien
    ·
    2h
    More and more stories that Shapiro will be the VP choice of Harris. If she carries Pennsylvania she probably wins the election.


    Probably just needs Michigan to win after that.

  • gettingbettergettingbetter Posts: 561

    Good evening. I’m not having much luck with travel. Aberdeen to London flight delayed by 4 hours on my trip a month ago. Luton to Aberdeen flight cancelled a week and a half ago. Gatwick to Aberdeen flight cancelled tonight after hours of delay. Now on the train to Luton for an 07:15 flight tomorrow.

    Will get about 3 hours sleep. Yay

    Thank God you didn't win the election, the travelling would have been a nightmare.
  • TresTres Posts: 2,724
    tlg86 said:

    moonshine said:

    tlg86 said:

    dixiedean said:

    Cookie said:

    TimS said:

    Cookie said:

    TimS said:

    kyf_100 said:

    TimS said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Riot police in attendance at a hotel housing illegal migrants in Manchester after "demonstations" by Football Fan types broke out.

    It comes back to your point yesterday about the UK becoming increasingly sectarian. For the benefit of the doubt, as some were throwing around accusations of racism after the last thread, I a) don't think this is a good thing and b) don't support the "football fan types" who are going round causing bother, either.
    It's not though. Only in the hyper-real world of social media, where everything constantly gets amplified, commonly by accounts based a couple of thousand miles East of here.
    PB is resolutely middle class and misses out on a lot of what the hoi polloi are saying. My ex, god love her, was resolutely working class and I follow many of her friends on socials. It is a window into a different world. People are *hopping mad* about this at the minute. I've never seen 'that type' of voter so angry.
    PB is way more exercised by this than anywhere else I've come across.

    Yes people always get angry with mass murderers. You see them shouting at them on the steps of court, and calling for the death penalty. They are a small group but noisy. However, they don't usually make the leap between that and condemning entire groups in society.

    That's new. Why? Because they are being manipulated, by dangerous forces, largely on social media and deliberately amplified by Russian troll accounts. But not just Russians, MAGA Americans too, who have been infected by the cult and have access to Anglo Saxon news. Nobody should be indulging this kind of hideous grief exploitation.
    What? No one in your real world is exercised by the murder of a few kids? It's pretty much the subject the real world is most upset about, in my real world.
    This is the only place I am seeing this being turned into a race war.

    People always get understandably upset by mass murder and want vengeance against the murderer. It happened with countless serial killers through history. They don't usually turn it into a ethno-political issue though. The only reason they are doing so, is because the murderer was black. And because dark forces on social media are manipulating and amplifying the divisive narrative.
    It's because theŕe is so much mystery about the motive. It's just such a weirdly purposeless crime
    Could be incel - but incels usually target older girls. Could be random madman - but seemed to be carefully planned, which random madmen tend to be bad at. Could be Islam - but Rwanda is pretty light on Muslims. So of course there is speculation.
    As others have pointed out, the identity of the individual is protected as he's under 18. So we'll just have to wait.
    The weird language and choices of emphasis of those in charge aren't really helping though. It's not being very well poloticked.
    I get that. I really do.
    BUT. This happened Monday. Most of the Police spent Tuesday having bricks house at them. It's now Wednesday. The total collapse of CAHMS, Children's Services and other agencies over the past few years mean that the detailed records which used
    to be accessible no longer exist. He may not have been on anyone's radar, since the
    thresholds for intervention has been raised skyhigh.
    It's possible the answer is they actually don't
    know what the motivation was yet. Or are merely scratching the surface.
    Even more so if the assailant is uncooperative.
    That’s all fine. In which case, the police should not be ruling anything out. By all means reassure the public and say they don’t think there’s any one else who might do more harm, but don’t say you’re not treating it as terrorism. Right now, it looks exactly like terrorism.
    All the research shows that if details of high profile suicides are printed in the press, there is a spike in suicide rates shortly thereafter. I suspect a similar effect takes places with US school shootings. To give
    Mthe authorities the benefit of the doubt here, perhaps they wish for the details to be
    suppressed until things cool over, to dampen the likelihood of copycats.
    If a bomb had gone off, there wouldn’t be a debate, would there? Which is an interesting point on the “what is terrorism?” question. The method seems to matter a lot.

    @dixiedean - I think there is a case for someone like Suttcliffe being classed as a terrorist. The question is, was the motive sexual? If so, then probably not terrorism, though the outcome is still the same (lots of terrorised people).

    As for the rioters. You can call them terrorists if you want, but then that lot in Leeds are also terrorists.
    Were the idiots in Leeds trying to destroy a mosque or a church?
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 22,419
    tlg86 said:

    moonshine said:

    tlg86 said:

    dixiedean said:

    Cookie said:

    TimS said:

    Cookie said:

    TimS said:

    kyf_100 said:

    TimS said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Riot police in attendance at a hotel housing illegal migrants in Manchester after "demonstations" by Football Fan types broke out.

    It comes back to your point yesterday about the UK becoming increasingly sectarian. For the benefit of the doubt, as some were throwing around accusations of racism after the last thread, I a) don't think this is a good thing and b) don't support the "football fan types" who are going round causing bother, either.
    It's not though. Only in the hyper-real world of social media, where everything constantly gets amplified, commonly by accounts based a couple of thousand miles East of here.
    PB is resolutely middle class and misses out on a lot of what the hoi polloi are saying. My ex, god love her, was resolutely working class and I follow many of her friends on socials. It is a window into a different world. People are *hopping mad* about this at the minute. I've never seen 'that type' of voter so angry.
    PB is way more exercised by this than anywhere else I've come across.

    Yes people always get angry with mass murderers. You see them shouting at them on the steps of court, and calling for the death penalty. They are a small group but noisy. However, they don't usually make the leap between that and condemning entire groups in society.

    That's new. Why? Because they are being manipulated, by dangerous forces, largely on social media and deliberately amplified by Russian troll accounts. But not just Russians, MAGA Americans too, who have been infected by the cult and have access to Anglo Saxon news. Nobody should be indulging this kind of hideous grief exploitation.
    What? No one in your real world is exercised by the murder of a few kids? It's pretty much the subject the real world is most upset about, in my real world.
    This is the only place I am seeing this being turned into a race war.

    People always get understandably upset by mass murder and want vengeance against the murderer. It happened with countless serial killers through history. They don't usually turn it into a ethno-political issue though. The only reason they are doing so, is because the murderer was black. And because dark forces on social media are manipulating and amplifying the divisive narrative.
    It's because theŕe is so much mystery about the motive. It's just such a weirdly purposeless crime
    Could be incel - but incels usually target older girls. Could be random madman - but seemed to be carefully planned, which random madmen tend to be bad at. Could be Islam - but Rwanda is pretty light on Muslims. So of course there is speculation.
    As others have pointed out, the identity of the individual is protected as he's under 18. So we'll just have to wait.
    The weird language and choices of emphasis of those in charge aren't really helping though. It's not being very well poloticked.
    I get that. I really do.
    BUT. This happened Monday. Most of the Police spent Tuesday having bricks house at them. It's now Wednesday. The total collapse of CAHMS, Children's Services and other agencies over the past few years mean that the detailed records which used
    to be accessible no longer exist. He may not have been on anyone's radar, since the
    thresholds for intervention has been raised skyhigh.
    It's possible the answer is they actually don't
    know what the motivation was yet. Or are merely scratching the surface.
    Even more so if the assailant is uncooperative.
    That’s all fine. In which case, the police should not be ruling anything out. By all means reassure the public and say they don’t think there’s any one else who might do more harm, but don’t say you’re not treating it as terrorism. Right now, it looks exactly like terrorism.
    All the research shows that if details of high profile suicides are printed in the press, there is a spike in suicide rates shortly thereafter. I suspect a similar effect takes places with US school shootings. To give
    Mthe authorities the benefit of the doubt here, perhaps they wish for the details to be
    suppressed until things cool over, to dampen the likelihood of copycats.
    If a bomb had gone off, there wouldn’t be a debate, would there? Which is an interesting point on the “what is terrorism?” question. The method seems to matter a lot.

    @dixiedean - I think there is a case for someone like Suttcliffe being classed as a terrorist. The question is, was the motive sexual? If so, then probably not terrorism, though the outcome is still the same (lots of terrorised people).

    As for the rioters. You can call them terrorists if you want, but then that lot in Leeds are also terrorists.
    Sutcliffe terrorised women but that was for his own motives, not political ones. He was not a terrorist.

    Terrorise and terrorism may share the same etymon but they are different words that mean different things.
  • EScrymgeourEScrymgeour Posts: 141

    Good Twitter exchange about one of the rioters: https://x.com/_jasminehahn/status/1818593389907997019

    Is that called, having the receipts?
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 63,137

    Anthony Scaramucci
    @Scaramucci

    Brief explanation of Trump world, for those who have never personally experienced it: Project 2025. They are furious. Backstabbed by transactional Trump. They all went to work there, knowing that he was fully throated in his support for them and now like everything in his life, it’s no longer working for him so he’s backing up the bus on them. They are betrayed. And of course, Trump is deploying his go to line: “I barely knew these people” yet they were all loyal long-standing supporters and employees of his. Everyone thought working on Project 2025 would put them on fast track to a job in the admin. Now anybody who officially worked on it is toxic.
  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 4,951
    Yokes said:

    POTUS.

    Harris is now best priced 11/8 on the fixed odds markets. I said last night that 6/4 available is value in a 50-50 race so clearly others in the market think the same. 11/8 at this point is still value, however:

    1. Current enthusiasm, which fair to say the Democrats have done a great job in pushing air into, has still to soldify into a sense that they will actually turn out so motivation has to be sustained> Some of that enthusiasm is in groups that dont necessarily turn out to the highest levels.

    2. Something has to give on the economy even in perception terms to help secure Harris' position..like a Fed rate cut..

    3. Choice of VP will matter so that just doesnt need to be ballsed up

    4. Differential turnout is what wins this for Trump. Lets say you'd had 100% turnout I'd be certain he'd lose by a good margin, but clearly we don't. If they keep point 1 sustained then Trumps hard ceiling of support will simply not be enough.

    Couple of things regarding our mates in Israel & Iran to post about but that can wait til later, ive just come in from a night run and I'm stinking the house out.

    I think there is mega swingback to Harris on the fact that a) she isn't Trump, b) she isn't biden and c) most of the media - be it the papers in the US or the rampant anti trump sentiment on PB - is currently dominating the narrative.

    I'm not a trumper and I would prefer Kamala win but I urge caution at this point. That photo of Trump, nearly assassinated, bleeding from his ear, fist pumping the crowd will still resonate.

    Kamala is still a black woman who put a lot of black men behind bars for weed related offences. And black men in the US have a problem voting for women, see the surprisingly large number of black men willing to vote for Trump in 2016.

    There is also the RCS point, that incumbents around the world are losing due to the last three or four years being years of rampant inflation without corresponding wage growth. Most people feel poorer, and people tend not to vote for administrations that have made them poorer.

    I don't think trump is a slam dunk, but I think we should take Kamala ramping with a pinch of salt. Remember Milifandom? Yeah, that, but the US this time.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 13,782
    vino said:



    Agree - trust the voters - as I said I've got my car sticker
    "Don't Blame Me - I Voted Reform"

    Try to find a spot between the rust patches on your K reg Micra for it
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 32,967
    "More than 100 people have been arrested in a protest in central London following the murders and subsequent riots in Southport, the Metropolitan Police has said."

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4ng1254ndeo
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 13,782
    Omnium said:


    Are there any out and out Trump supporters on PB? I know @HYUFD is at least somewhat supportive, but even the much missed Plato wasn't entirely in his camp.

    I wouldn't say I am a supporter because I would have laughed my head off if he'd had his blown off but I do want him to win because it would be funny.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 23,792
    One of the big unanswered questions is whether PBers would prefer Liz TRUSS over Donald Trump, as US president. I suspect it’s a poser that has been exercising the mind of @williamglenn - and rightly so.

    Interesting,
  • Nunu5Nunu5 Posts: 976
    Nigelb said:

    Nunu5 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Trump has obviously lost the plot with his race comments about Harris. Surely he loses the election now.

    It will be forgotten in a weeks time
    It won’t.
    There are enough clips there for a dozen campaign ads. Expect it.
    Yeah. I doubt it will hurt him much. He's said about a million as or more crazy and it hasn't really effected him. His voters just don't care
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 63,137

    The Lincoln Project
    @ProjectLincoln
    ·
    1h
    Have to say,
    @LaCivitaC

    and Susie Wiles are masterfully orchestrating Trump's downfall. Letting Trump just be Trump out in the open is the best sabotage anyone could ever plan.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 63,137
    Nunu5 said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nunu5 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Trump has obviously lost the plot with his race comments about Harris. Surely he loses the election now.

    It will be forgotten in a weeks time
    It won’t.
    There are enough clips there for a dozen campaign ads. Expect it.
    Yeah. I doubt it will hurt him much. He's said about a million as or more crazy and it hasn't really effected him. His voters just don't care
    He'll only needs to fuck off a few thousand indepedents and/or black voters in key swing counties to be fucked.

    It does not matter how many votes he piles up in Kentucky.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 63,137
    Andy_JS said:

    "More than 100 people have been arrested in a protest in central London following the murders and subsequent riots in Southport, the Metropolitan Police has said."

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4ng1254ndeo

    That partly tells you that the Met have far more resource than the thin blue line of Southport.
  • Nunu5Nunu5 Posts: 976
    Andy_JS said:

    "More than 100 people have been arrested in a protest in central London following the murders and subsequent riots in Southport, the Metropolitan Police has said."

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4ng1254ndeo

    They will play the victim
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 32,967
  • Jim_MillerJim_Miller Posts: 3,040
    On men and crime in the US: " In 2022, the FBI reported that there were 14,441 victims of murder who identified as male, compared to 4,251 victims of murder who identified as female in the United States. A further 93 murder victims were of an unknown gender in that year."
    https://www.statista.com/statistics/1388777/murder-victims-in-the-us-by-gender/

    So, men are far more likely to commit violent crimes in the US -- and more likely to be the victims of most violent crimes.

    Usual caveats about the problems with US crime statistics, but the patterns still seem clear enough.

    True in Britain, too? That I left as an exercise for any reader who knows more about your statistics than I do -- which is almost all of you.

    (I haven't seen any numbers, but it wouldn't surprise me to learn that -- in our prisons -- men are more likely to be victims of rape, than women.)
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 28,976
    Andy_JS said:
    So how do the GOP ditch him? If his campaign now starts to implode…
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,223
    Tres said:

    tlg86 said:

    dixiedean said:

    Cookie said:

    TimS said:

    Cookie said:

    TimS said:

    kyf_100 said:

    TimS said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Riot police in attendance at a hotel housing illegal migrants in Manchester after "demonstations" by Football Fan types broke out.

    It comes back to your point yesterday about the UK becoming increasingly sectarian. For the benefit of the doubt, as some were throwing around accusations of racism after the last thread, I a) don't think this is a good thing and b) don't support the "football fan types" who are going round causing bother, either.
    It's not though. Only in the hyper-real world of social media, where everything constantly gets amplified, commonly by accounts based a couple of thousand miles East of here.
    PB is resolutely middle class and misses out on a lot of what the hoi polloi are saying. My ex, god love her, was resolutely working class and I follow many of her friends on socials. It is a window into a different world. People are *hopping mad* about this at the minute. I've never seen 'that type' of voter so angry.
    PB is way more exercised by this than anywhere else I've come across.

    Yes people always get angry with mass murderers. You see them shouting at them on the steps of court, and calling for the death penalty. They are a small group but noisy. However, they don't usually make the leap between that and condemning entire groups in society.

    That's new. Why? Because they are being manipulated, by dangerous forces, largely on social media and deliberately amplified by Russian troll accounts. But not just Russians, MAGA Americans too, who have been infected by the cult and have access to Anglo Saxon news. Nobody should be indulging this kind of hideous grief exploitation.
    What? No one in your real world is exercised by the murder of a few kids? It's pretty much the subject the real world is most upset about, in my real world.
    This is the only place I am seeing this being turned into a race war.

    People always get understandably upset by mass murder and want vengeance against the murderer. It happened with countless serial killers through history. They don't usually turn it into a ethno-political issue though. The only reason they are doing so, is because the murderer was black. And because dark forces on social media are manipulating and amplifying the divisive narrative.
    It's because theŕe is so much mystery about the motive. It's just such a weirdly purposeless crime
    Could be incel - but incels usually target older girls. Could be random madman - but seemed to be carefully planned, which random madmen tend to be bad at. Could be Islam - but Rwanda is pretty light on Muslims. So of course there is speculation.
    As others have pointed out, the identity of the individual is protected as he's under 18. So we'll just have to wait.
    The weird language and choices of emphasis of those in charge aren't really helping though. It's not being very well poloticked.
    I get that. I really do.
    BUT. This happened Monday. Most of the Police spent Tuesday having bricks house at them. It's now Wednesday. The total collapse of CAHMS, Children's Services and other agencies over the past few years mean that the detailed records which used
    to be accessible no longer exist. He may not have been on anyone's radar, since the
    thresholds for intervention has been raised skyhigh.
    It's possible the answer is they actually don't
    know what the motivation was yet. Or are merely scratching the surface.
    Even more so if the assailant is uncooperative.
    That’s all fine. In which case, the police should not be ruling anything out. By all means reassure the public and say they don’t think there’s any one else who might do more harm, but don’t say you’re not treating it as terrorism. Right now, it looks exactly like terrorism.
    It looks exactly like a loner with untreated mental health issues. Terrorism is what the EDL lot were up to last night.
    Do you think Thomas Mair was a loner with untreated mental health issues?
  • WillGWillG Posts: 2,366

    Andy_JS said:
    So how do the GOP ditch him? If his campaign now starts to implode…
    No chance. The GOP is a cult of personality around the man. And who can replace him? Vance is highly unpopular. Haley is despised by half the base. RDS is a laughing stock.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 39,064
    https://twitter.com/broseph_stalin/status/1818774663851590040

    It's started, exactly what I feared has started, the streets are becoming unsafe for people who look like me, they were already unsafe for my wife who is Jewish.

    I hope the police arrest every single one of these arseholes.
  • WillGWillG Posts: 2,366
    Nunu5 said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nunu5 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Trump has obviously lost the plot with his race comments about Harris. Surely he loses the election now.

    It will be forgotten in a weeks time
    It won’t.
    There are enough clips there for a dozen campaign ads. Expect it.
    Yeah. I doubt it will hurt him much. He's said about a million as or more crazy and it hasn't really effected him. His voters just don't care
    Swing voters care.

    Also, if he is behind by 2 or 3 points in a few weeks time, he will debate Kamala. Which could put him behind 5 or 6 points.
  • TresTres Posts: 2,724
    tlg86 said:

    Tres said:

    tlg86 said:

    dixiedean said:

    Cookie said:

    TimS said:

    Cookie said:

    TimS said:

    kyf_100 said:

    TimS said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Riot police in attendance at a hotel housing illegal migrants in Manchester after "demonstations" by Football Fan types broke out.

    It comes back to your point yesterday about the UK becoming increasingly sectarian. For the benefit of the doubt, as some were throwing around accusations of racism after the last thread, I a) don't think this is a good thing and b) don't support the "football fan types" who are going round causing bother, either.
    It's not though. Only in the hyper-real world of social media, where everything constantly gets amplified, commonly by accounts based a couple of thousand miles East of here.
    PB is resolutely middle class and misses out on a lot of what the hoi polloi are saying. My ex, god love her, was resolutely working class and I follow many of her friends on socials. It is a window into a different world. People are *hopping mad* about this at the minute. I've never seen 'that type' of voter so angry.
    PB is way more exercised by this than anywhere else I've come across.

    Yes people always get angry with mass murderers. You see them shouting at them on the steps of court, and calling for the death penalty. They are a small group but noisy. However, they don't usually make the leap between that and condemning entire groups in society.

    That's new. Why? Because they are being manipulated, by dangerous forces, largely on social media and deliberately amplified by Russian troll accounts. But not just Russians, MAGA Americans too, who have been infected by the cult and have access to Anglo Saxon news. Nobody should be indulging this kind of hideous grief exploitation.
    What? No one in your real world is exercised by the murder of a few kids? It's pretty much the subject the real world is most upset about, in my real world.
    This is the only place I am seeing this being turned into a race war.

    People always get understandably upset by mass murder and want vengeance against the murderer. It happened with countless serial killers through history. They don't usually turn it into a ethno-political issue though. The only reason they are doing so, is because the murderer was black. And because dark forces on social media are manipulating and amplifying the divisive narrative.
    It's because theŕe is so much mystery about the motive. It's just such a weirdly purposeless crime
    Could be incel - but incels usually target older girls. Could be random madman - but seemed to be carefully planned, which random madmen tend to be bad at. Could be Islam - but Rwanda is pretty light on Muslims. So of course there is speculation.
    As others have pointed out, the identity of the individual is protected as he's under 18. So we'll just have to wait.
    The weird language and choices of emphasis of those in charge aren't really helping though. It's not being very well poloticked.
    I get that. I really do.
    BUT. This happened Monday. Most of the Police spent Tuesday having bricks house at them. It's now Wednesday. The total collapse of CAHMS, Children's Services and other agencies over the past few years mean that the detailed records which used
    to be accessible no longer exist. He may not have been on anyone's radar, since the
    thresholds for intervention has been raised skyhigh.
    It's possible the answer is they actually don't
    know what the motivation was yet. Or are merely scratching the surface.
    Even more so if the assailant is uncooperative.
    That’s all fine. In which case, the police should not be ruling anything out. By all means reassure the public and say they don’t think there’s any one else who might do more harm, but don’t say you’re not treating it as terrorism. Right now, it looks exactly like terrorism.
    It looks exactly like a loner with untreated mental health issues. Terrorism is what the EDL lot were up to last night.
    Do you think Thomas Mair was a loner with untreated mental health issues?
    Thomas Mair was a NF and EDL member.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 63,137

    Andy_JS said:
    So how do the GOP ditch him? If his campaign now starts to implode…
    They can't.

    He would have to volunteer to stand down. Perhaps on health grounds.

    ...Yeh right!
  • WillGWillG Posts: 2,366
    MaxPB said:

    https://twitter.com/broseph_stalin/status/1818774663851590040

    It's started, exactly what I feared has started, the streets are becoming unsafe for people who look like me, they were already unsafe for my wife who is Jewish.

    I hope the police arrest every single one of these arseholes.

    I am out of the loop. What was the dynamic inciting this assault?
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 39,064
    WillG said:

    MaxPB said:

    https://twitter.com/broseph_stalin/status/1818774663851590040

    It's started, exactly what I feared has started, the streets are becoming unsafe for people who look like me, they were already unsafe for my wife who is Jewish.

    I hope the police arrest every single one of these arseholes.

    I am out of the loop. What was the dynamic inciting this assault?
    An extension of the idiots out there who tried to burn down a mosque yesterday.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 23,792

    Andy_JS said:
    So how do the GOP ditch him? If his campaign now starts to implode…
    I have long been of the view, stated publicly on here, that neither Biden nor Trump run. I stand by it.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 32,690
    WillG said:

    MaxPB said:

    https://twitter.com/broseph_stalin/status/1818774663851590040

    It's started, exactly what I feared has started, the streets are becoming unsafe for people who look like me, they were already unsafe for my wife who is Jewish.

    I hope the police arrest every single one of these arseholes.

    I am out of the loop. What was the dynamic inciting this assault?
    I assume it is the same idiotic, lying social media posts that have been circulating for the last 36 hours. Egged on by Farage and his 'innocent' questions.
  • WillGWillG Posts: 2,366


    Phillips P. OBrien
    @PhillipsPOBrien
    ·
    2h
    More and more stories that Shapiro will be the VP choice of Harris. If she carries Pennsylvania she probably wins the election.


    Probably just needs Michigan to win after that.

    Shapiro is very charismatic.
  • FossFoss Posts: 1,030
    He’s been charged (via the beeb)
  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 4,951

    I suspect that I am not the only person who reads this site, regularly, who would like to see more women commenting, especially well-informed women, for example, Cyclefree.

    I would love to see more women commenting, as I clashed with Carlotta a bit I dm'ed her a while back to clear the air. She's awesome. I also disagree on stuff with Heathener on a regular basis but think she gives as good as she takes.

    Cyclefree however is a nasty bigot and, unlike Leon, doesn't have the excuse of being perpetually drunk. Her refusal to use she/her pronouns for someone who has completely transitioned and in receipt of a GRC for example.

    Her last post was about the attack on an MP's freedom by pro-trans campaigners ostensibly couched in the importance of freedom of speech. But she neglected to comment on the MPs who have lost their freedom due to non-trans issues, Amess and Cox in the last decade. Her post was not about freedom of speech, but rather about freedom to criticise trans people.

    I'm genuinely really tolerant of other viewpoints, but her misgendering of people with a GRC and blatant transphobia in her posts won't be missed.

  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 32,690

    On men and crime in the US: " In 2022, the FBI reported that there were 14,441 victims of murder who identified as male, compared to 4,251 victims of murder who identified as female in the United States. A further 93 murder victims were of an unknown gender in that year."
    https://www.statista.com/statistics/1388777/murder-victims-in-the-us-by-gender/

    So, men are far more likely to commit violent crimes in the US -- and more likely to be the victims of most violent crimes.

    Usual caveats about the problems with US crime statistics, but the patterns still seem clear enough.

    True in Britain, too? That I left as an exercise for any reader who knows more about your statistics than I do -- which is almost all of you.

    (I haven't seen any numbers, but it wouldn't surprise me to learn that -- in our prisons -- men are more likely to be victims of rape, than women.)

    In the UK it looks like it is about 75%:25% male to female for murder victims. In 2022/23, 590 murders, 416 male, 174 female.

    https://www.statista.com/statistics/1221306/homicides-in-england-and-wales-by-gender/
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 17,559
    kyf_100 said:

    Yokes said:

    POTUS.

    Harris is now best priced 11/8 on the fixed odds markets. I said last night that 6/4 available is value in a 50-50 race so clearly others in the market think the same. 11/8 at this point is still value, however:

    1. Current enthusiasm, which fair to say the Democrats have done a great job in pushing air into, has still to soldify into a sense that they will actually turn out so motivation has to be sustained> Some of that enthusiasm is in groups that dont necessarily turn out to the highest levels.

    2. Something has to give on the economy even in perception terms to help secure Harris' position..like a Fed rate cut..

    3. Choice of VP will matter so that just doesnt need to be ballsed up

    4. Differential turnout is what wins this for Trump. Lets say you'd had 100% turnout I'd be certain he'd lose by a good margin, but clearly we don't. If they keep point 1 sustained then Trumps hard ceiling of support will simply not be enough.

    Couple of things regarding our mates in Israel & Iran to post about but that can wait til later, ive just come in from a night run and I'm stinking the house out.

    I think there is mega swingback to Harris on the fact that a) she isn't Trump, b) she isn't biden and c) most of the media - be it the papers in the US or the rampant anti trump sentiment on PB - is currently dominating the narrative.

    I'm not a trumper and I would prefer Kamala win but I urge caution at this point. That photo of Trump, nearly assassinated, bleeding from his ear, fist pumping the crowd will still resonate.

    Kamala is still a black woman who put a lot of black men behind bars for weed related offences. And black men in the US have a problem voting for women, see the surprisingly large number of black men willing to vote for Trump in 2016.

    There is also the RCS point, that incumbents around the world are losing due to the last three or four years being years of rampant inflation without corresponding wage growth. Most people feel poorer, and people tend not to vote for administrations that have made them poorer.

    I don't think trump is a slam dunk, but I think we should take Kamala ramping with a pinch of salt. Remember Milifandom? Yeah, that, but the US this time.
    A Democrat Responds -

    1. Air being pushed is both Democratic inflation AND also Republican deflation. Harris campaign & other Dems bird-dogged bunch of Vance twats (sp) for the media, but of course NOT responses and rejoinders by DJT & JDV. Which have proved (so far anyway) to be LESS than effective from their own point(s) of view.

    As for turnout, early indications via polling that Kamala Harris has considerable upside potential to boost turnout of, for instance, African Americans and younger voters: two groups absolutely critical for Democrats up and down the ballot - from White House to State House to Court House.

    2. Easing of inflation also helpful; the economy is the 800,000 lb gorilla in the election.

    3. Given proper vetting, reckon any KH VP pick will be helpful to her campaign, or at least NOT negative. Note that she has known all of the Dem prospects on first-name basis for years, quite unlike Trump or Trumpworld re: Vance & etc.

    4. Turnout calculated for POTUS election on state-by-state basis. You are right re: current "swing-back" would add that Trump-Vance are keeping the narrative alive via their membership in the Screw Up of the Day Club. Each new dawn another dumb thing JD Vance said ten years ago, or yesterday (not that it matters), followed or maybe preceded by yet another Trump eruption that is WAY off whatever message, strategy or semblance of strategy from what passes for the Trump-Vance campaign.

    Agree with you that we need to take Kamala Harris - or rather The Inevitability of KH - with LARGE pinch of salt. This race is a marathon (not a super-iron-person enduro as per usual) not a dash or even a sprint. Hurdles more like it.

    Plenty of twists & turns to come, boys & girls & etc., etc. With thrills & spills aplenty. Also more screw ups by all sides:

    PLUS heed the SSI Credo - NEVER UNDERESTIMATE DONALD TRUMP

    That's how we got here, remember?
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 39,064
    Foss said:

    He’s been charged (via the beeb)

    Good, hopefully this forwards action will calm people down.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 32,690
    kyf_100 said:

    I suspect that I am not the only person who reads this site, regularly, who would like to see more women commenting, especially well-informed women, for example, Cyclefree.

    I would love to see more women commenting, as I clashed with Carlotta a bit I dm'ed her a while back to clear the air. She's awesome. I also disagree on stuff with Heathener on a regular basis but think she gives as good as she takes.

    Cyclefree however is a nasty bigot and, unlike Leon, doesn't have the excuse of being perpetually drunk. Her refusal to use she/her pronouns for someone who has completely transitioned and in receipt of a GRC for example.

    Her last post was about the attack on an MP's freedom by pro-trans campaigners ostensibly couched in the importance of freedom of speech. But she neglected to comment on the MPs who have lost their freedom due to non-trans issues, Amess and Cox in the last decade. Her post was not about freedom of speech, but rather about freedom to criticise trans people.

    I'm genuinely really tolerant of other viewpoints, but her misgendering of people with a GRC and blatant transphobia in her posts won't be missed.

    I would rather read a dozen posts from Cyclefree than one from you. At least hers are informed and reasoned unlike your wild rants.
  • Tim_in_RuislipTim_in_Ruislip Posts: 436
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cj50ljn44j8o

    A 17-year-old has been charged with murder and attempted murder over a knife attack at a dance class in Southport.

    The male teenager, who cannot be named because of his age, has been charged with three counts of murder and 10 counts of attempted murder.

    Bebe King, six, Elsie Dot Stancombe, seven, and nine-year-old Alice Dasilva Aguiar died after the attack at the Taylor Swift-themed class in the Merseyside town on Monday.

    Eight other children and two adults who were at the event in the Hart Space community centre were also injured, with several still in a critical condition.

    The accused will appear at Liverpool City Magistrates’ Court on Thursday morning.

    Sarah Hammond, Chief Crown Prosecutor for CPS Mersey-Cheshire, said: "We remind all concerned that criminal proceedings against the defendant are active and that he has the right to a fair trial.

    "It is extremely important that there should be no reporting, commentary, or sharing of information online which could in any way prejudice these proceedings.

    "Our thoughts remain with the families of all of those affected by these harrowing events."
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 17,559


    Anthony Scaramucci
    @Scaramucci

    Brief explanation of Trump world, for those who have never personally experienced it: Project 2025. They are furious. Backstabbed by transactional Trump. They all went to work there, knowing that he was fully throated in his support for them and now like everything in his life, it’s no longer working for him so he’s backing up the bus on them. They are betrayed. And of course, Trump is deploying his go to line: “I barely knew these people” yet they were all loyal long-standing supporters and employees of his. Everyone thought working on Project 2025 would put them on fast track to a job in the admin. Now anybody who officially worked on it is toxic.

    Personally would love for some edgy film-maker to do remake/update of "Seven Days in May" with Project 2025 as part of the plot; never know, if Trump does win this year, then 2025 could perhaps see them back in business . . . and in the policy divers seat.

    Trump still thinks their schemes are just nifty. Just the optics is bad right now!
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 22,419

    kyf_100 said:

    Yokes said:

    POTUS.

    Harris is now best priced 11/8 on the fixed odds markets. I said last night that 6/4 available is value in a 50-50 race so clearly others in the market think the same. 11/8 at this point is still value, however:

    1. Current enthusiasm, which fair to say the Democrats have done a great job in pushing air into, has still to soldify into a sense that they will actually turn out so motivation has to be sustained> Some of that enthusiasm is in groups that dont necessarily turn out to the highest levels.

    2. Something has to give on the economy even in perception terms to help secure Harris' position..like a Fed rate cut..

    3. Choice of VP will matter so that just doesnt need to be ballsed up

    4. Differential turnout is what wins this for Trump. Lets say you'd had 100% turnout I'd be certain he'd lose by a good margin, but clearly we don't. If they keep point 1 sustained then Trumps hard ceiling of support will simply not be enough.

    Couple of things regarding our mates in Israel & Iran to post about but that can wait til later, ive just come in from a night run and I'm stinking the house out.

    I think there is mega swingback to Harris on the fact that a) she isn't Trump, b) she isn't biden and c) most of the media - be it the papers in the US or the rampant anti trump sentiment on PB - is currently dominating the narrative.

    I'm not a trumper and I would prefer Kamala win but I urge caution at this point. That photo of Trump, nearly assassinated, bleeding from his ear, fist pumping the crowd will still resonate.

    Kamala is still a black woman who put a lot of black men behind bars for weed related offences. And black men in the US have a problem voting for women, see the surprisingly large number of black men willing to vote for Trump in 2016.

    There is also the RCS point, that incumbents around the world are losing due to the last three or four years being years of rampant inflation without corresponding wage growth. Most people feel poorer, and people tend not to vote for administrations that have made them poorer.

    I don't think trump is a slam dunk, but I think we should take Kamala ramping with a pinch of salt. Remember Milifandom? Yeah, that, but the US this time.
    A Democrat Responds -

    1. Air being pushed is both Democratic inflation AND also Republican deflation. Harris campaign & other Dems bird-dogged bunch of Vance twats (sp) for the media, but of course NOT responses and rejoinders by DJT & JDV. Which have proved (so far anyway) to be LESS than effective from their own point(s) of view.

    As for turnout, early indications via polling that Kamala Harris has considerable upside potential to boost turnout of, for instance, African Americans and younger voters: two groups absolutely critical for Democrats up and down the ballot - from White House to State House to Court House.

    2. Easing of inflation also helpful; the economy is the 800,000 lb gorilla in the election.

    3. Given proper vetting, reckon any KH VP pick will be helpful to her campaign, or at least NOT negative. Note that she has known all of the Dem prospects on first-name basis for years, quite unlike Trump or Trumpworld re: Vance & etc.

    4. Turnout calculated for POTUS election on state-by-state basis. You are right re: current "swing-back" would add that Trump-Vance are keeping the narrative alive via their membership in the Screw Up of the Day Club. Each new dawn another dumb thing JD Vance said ten years ago, or yesterday (not that it matters), followed or maybe preceded by yet another Trump eruption that is WAY off whatever message, strategy or semblance of strategy from what passes for the Trump-Vance campaign.

    Agree with you that we need to take Kamala Harris - or rather The Inevitability of KH - with LARGE pinch of salt. This race is a marathon (not a super-iron-person enduro as per usual) not a dash or even a sprint. Hurdles more like it.

    Plenty of twists & turns to come, boys & girls & etc., etc. With thrills & spills aplenty. Also more screw ups by all sides:

    PLUS heed the SSI Credo - NEVER UNDERESTIMATE DONALD TRUMP

    That's how we got here, remember?
    I think the air being pushed is primarily from independents/normal people simply breathing a collective sigh of relief that one of the two geriatric old men at the top of the tickets has now gone and there's a viable candidate for President.

    Which is why Harris is going to win.

    Haley was right in saying the first party to drop their 80 year old would win.
  • Tim_in_RuislipTim_in_Ruislip Posts: 436

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cj50ljn44j8o

    A 17-year-old has been charged with murder and attempted murder over a knife attack at a dance class in Southport.

    The male teenager, who cannot be named because of his age, has been charged with three counts of murder and 10 counts of attempted murder.

    Bebe King, six, Elsie Dot Stancombe, seven, and nine-year-old Alice Dasilva Aguiar died after the attack at the Taylor Swift-themed class in the Merseyside town on Monday.

    Eight other children and two adults who were at the event in the Hart Space community centre were also injured, with several still in a critical condition.

    The accused will appear at Liverpool City Magistrates’ Court on Thursday morning.

    Sarah Hammond, Chief Crown Prosecutor for CPS Mersey-Cheshire, said: "We remind all concerned that criminal proceedings against the defendant are active and that he has the right to a fair trial.

    "It is extremely important that there should be no reporting, commentary, or sharing of information online which could in any way prejudice these proceedings.

    "Our thoughts remain with the families of all of those affected by these harrowing events."

    Time for the internet to stfu.
  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 4,951

    kyf_100 said:

    I suspect that I am not the only person who reads this site, regularly, who would like to see more women commenting, especially well-informed women, for example, Cyclefree.

    I would love to see more women commenting, as I clashed with Carlotta a bit I dm'ed her a while back to clear the air. She's awesome. I also disagree on stuff with Heathener on a regular basis but think she gives as good as she takes.

    Cyclefree however is a nasty bigot and, unlike Leon, doesn't have the excuse of being perpetually drunk. Her refusal to use she/her pronouns for someone who has completely transitioned and in receipt of a GRC for example.

    Her last post was about the attack on an MP's freedom by pro-trans campaigners ostensibly couched in the importance of freedom of speech. But she neglected to comment on the MPs who have lost their freedom due to non-trans issues, Amess and Cox in the last decade. Her post was not about freedom of speech, but rather about freedom to criticise trans people.

    I'm genuinely really tolerant of other viewpoints, but her misgendering of people with a GRC and blatant transphobia in her posts won't be missed.

    I would rather read a dozen posts from Cyclefree than one from you. At least hers are informed and reasoned unlike your wild rants.
    Citation required.

    I mostly talk about capital gains tax and the erosion of civil liberties. If you can find a wild rant, I'm up for responding to it.

    I think in fact you're you're just a bigoted transphobe, and can't stand that I, as an intellectual libertarian, can put forward a convincing case for trans rights.

    But hey, please tell me about my wild rants again.
  • Nunu5Nunu5 Posts: 976

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cj50ljn44j8o

    A 17-year-old has been charged with murder and attempted murder over a knife attack at a dance class in Southport.

    The male teenager, who cannot be named because of his age, has been charged with three counts of murder and 10 counts of attempted murder.

    Bebe King, six, Elsie Dot Stancombe, seven, and nine-year-old Alice Dasilva Aguiar died after the attack at the Taylor Swift-themed class in the Merseyside town on Monday.

    Eight other children and two adults who were at the event in the Hart Space community centre were also injured, with several still in a critical condition.

    The accused will appear at Liverpool City Magistrates’ Court on Thursday morning.

    Sarah Hammond, Chief Crown Prosecutor for CPS Mersey-Cheshire, said: "We remind all concerned that criminal proceedings against the defendant are active and that he has the right to a fair trial.

    "It is extremely important that there should be no reporting, commentary, or sharing of information online which could in any way prejudice these proceedings.

    "Our thoughts remain with the families of all of those affected by these harrowing events."

    He stabbed 13 different people before being stopped?!
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 17,559
    Stereodog said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Trump doubles down on his car crash outing earlier.


    Donald J. Trump

    @realDonaldTrump

    ·
    1h
    Crazy Kamala is saying she’s Indian, not Black. This is a big deal. Stone cold phony. She uses everybody, including her racial identity!


    ==

    In the clip he posts she literally says 'you look like ONE HALF of my family".

    Has Donald Trump never heard of mixed-race people? About 10% of the US population, or 34 million people, identified as being in that category at the last census.
    It does not compute for racists who believe in racial purity.
    Trump thinks like a property developer not a politician. He sees people as interest groups he can give a bung to in return for support. "I'll do x for the Hispanics and Y for the blacks". It's like buying off stakeholders during a big property deal. When someone doesn't fit neatly into a group it unsettles him because they're harder to buy.
    Also worrisome to those doing deals (or not) with Trump, is that it turns out that part of "The Art of the Deal" is that there's ALWAYS a catch.

    Just ask Mike Pence (in private).
  • FossFoss Posts: 1,030
    Nunu5 said:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cj50ljn44j8o

    A 17-year-old has been charged with murder and attempted murder over a knife attack at a dance class in Southport.

    The male teenager, who cannot be named because of his age, has been charged with three counts of murder and 10 counts of attempted murder.

    Bebe King, six, Elsie Dot Stancombe, seven, and nine-year-old Alice Dasilva Aguiar died after the attack at the Taylor Swift-themed class in the Merseyside town on Monday.

    Eight other children and two adults who were at the event in the Hart Space community centre were also injured, with several still in a critical condition.

    The accused will appear at Liverpool City Magistrates’ Court on Thursday morning.

    Sarah Hammond, Chief Crown Prosecutor for CPS Mersey-Cheshire, said: "We remind all concerned that criminal proceedings against the defendant are active and that he has the right to a fair trial.

    "It is extremely important that there should be no reporting, commentary, or sharing of information online which could in any way prejudice these proceedings.

    "Our thoughts remain with the families of all of those affected by these harrowing events."

    He stabbed 13 different people before being stopped?!
    11 of them were prepubescent. The poor sods didn’t stand a chance.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 32,690
    Nunu5 said:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cj50ljn44j8o

    A 17-year-old has been charged with murder and attempted murder over a knife attack at a dance class in Southport.

    The male teenager, who cannot be named because of his age, has been charged with three counts of murder and 10 counts of attempted murder.

    Bebe King, six, Elsie Dot Stancombe, seven, and nine-year-old Alice Dasilva Aguiar died after the attack at the Taylor Swift-themed class in the Merseyside town on Monday.

    Eight other children and two adults who were at the event in the Hart Space community centre were also injured, with several still in a critical condition.

    The accused will appear at Liverpool City Magistrates’ Court on Thursday morning.

    Sarah Hammond, Chief Crown Prosecutor for CPS Mersey-Cheshire, said: "We remind all concerned that criminal proceedings against the defendant are active and that he has the right to a fair trial.

    "It is extremely important that there should be no reporting, commentary, or sharing of information online which could in any way prejudice these proceedings.

    "Our thoughts remain with the families of all of those affected by these harrowing events."

    He stabbed 13 different people before being stopped?!
    Some people did try to stop him - the teacher and the guy who owned the building. Both were stabbed themselves.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 32,690
    kyf_100 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    I suspect that I am not the only person who reads this site, regularly, who would like to see more women commenting, especially well-informed women, for example, Cyclefree.

    I would love to see more women commenting, as I clashed with Carlotta a bit I dm'ed her a while back to clear the air. She's awesome. I also disagree on stuff with Heathener on a regular basis but think she gives as good as she takes.

    Cyclefree however is a nasty bigot and, unlike Leon, doesn't have the excuse of being perpetually drunk. Her refusal to use she/her pronouns for someone who has completely transitioned and in receipt of a GRC for example.

    Her last post was about the attack on an MP's freedom by pro-trans campaigners ostensibly couched in the importance of freedom of speech. But she neglected to comment on the MPs who have lost their freedom due to non-trans issues, Amess and Cox in the last decade. Her post was not about freedom of speech, but rather about freedom to criticise trans people.

    I'm genuinely really tolerant of other viewpoints, but her misgendering of people with a GRC and blatant transphobia in her posts won't be missed.

    I would rather read a dozen posts from Cyclefree than one from you. At least hers are informed and reasoned unlike your wild rants.
    Citation required.

    I mostly talk about capital gains tax and the erosion of civil liberties. If you can find a wild rant, I'm up for responding to it.

    I think in fact you're you're just a bigoted transphobe, and can't stand that I, as an intellectual libertarian, can put forward a convincing case for trans rights.

    But hey, please tell me about my wild rants again.
    Every time you write about trans rights. You are unwilling to compromise or see anyone elses point of view and just label everyone who disagrees with you as a transphobe. This posting being a case in point. 'Intellectual' is certainly not a word I would associate with you.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 32,690

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cj50ljn44j8o

    A 17-year-old has been charged with murder and attempted murder over a knife attack at a dance class in Southport.

    The male teenager, who cannot be named because of his age, has been charged with three counts of murder and 10 counts of attempted murder.

    Bebe King, six, Elsie Dot Stancombe, seven, and nine-year-old Alice Dasilva Aguiar died after the attack at the Taylor Swift-themed class in the Merseyside town on Monday.

    Eight other children and two adults who were at the event in the Hart Space community centre were also injured, with several still in a critical condition.

    The accused will appear at Liverpool City Magistrates’ Court on Thursday morning.

    Sarah Hammond, Chief Crown Prosecutor for CPS Mersey-Cheshire, said: "We remind all concerned that criminal proceedings against the defendant are active and that he has the right to a fair trial.

    "It is extremely important that there should be no reporting, commentary, or sharing of information online which could in any way prejudice these proceedings.

    "Our thoughts remain with the families of all of those affected by these harrowing events."

    Time for the internet to stfu.
    That point was 48 hours ago.
  • Tim_in_RuislipTim_in_Ruislip Posts: 436

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cj50ljn44j8o

    A 17-year-old has been charged with murder and attempted murder over a knife attack at a dance class in Southport.

    The male teenager, who cannot be named because of his age, has been charged with three counts of murder and 10 counts of attempted murder.

    Bebe King, six, Elsie Dot Stancombe, seven, and nine-year-old Alice Dasilva Aguiar died after the attack at the Taylor Swift-themed class in the Merseyside town on Monday.

    Eight other children and two adults who were at the event in the Hart Space community centre were also injured, with several still in a critical condition.

    The accused will appear at Liverpool City Magistrates’ Court on Thursday morning.

    Sarah Hammond, Chief Crown Prosecutor for CPS Mersey-Cheshire, said: "We remind all concerned that criminal proceedings against the defendant are active and that he has the right to a fair trial.

    "It is extremely important that there should be no reporting, commentary, or sharing of information online which could in any way prejudice these proceedings.

    "Our thoughts remain with the families of all of those affected by these harrowing events."

    Time for the internet to stfu.
    That point was 48 hours ago.
    Indeed.
  • YokesYokes Posts: 1,345
    Loos like Josh Shapiro for Harris' VP
  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 4,951
    edited July 31

    kyf_100 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    I suspect that I am not the only person who reads this site, regularly, who would like to see more women commenting, especially well-informed women, for example, Cyclefree.

    I would love to see more women commenting, as I clashed with Carlotta a bit I dm'ed her a while back to clear the air. She's awesome. I also disagree on stuff with Heathener on a regular basis but think she gives as good as she takes.

    Cyclefree however is a nasty bigot and, unlike Leon, doesn't have the excuse of being perpetually drunk. Her refusal to use she/her pronouns for someone who has completely transitioned and in receipt of a GRC for example.

    Her last post was about the attack on an MP's freedom by pro-trans campaigners ostensibly couched in the importance of freedom of speech. But she neglected to comment on the MPs who have lost their freedom due to non-trans issues, Amess and Cox in the last decade. Her post was not about freedom of speech, but rather about freedom to criticise trans people.

    I'm genuinely really tolerant of other viewpoints, but her misgendering of people with a GRC and blatant transphobia in her posts won't be missed.

    I would rather read a dozen posts from Cyclefree than one from you. At least hers are informed and reasoned unlike your wild rants.
    Citation required.

    I mostly talk about capital gains tax and the erosion of civil liberties. If you can find a wild rant, I'm up for responding to it.

    I think in fact you're you're just a bigoted transphobe, and can't stand that I, as an intellectual libertarian, can put forward a convincing case for trans rights.

    But hey, please tell me about my wild rants again.
    Every time you write about trans rights. You are unwilling to compromise or see anyone elses point of view and just label everyone who disagrees with you as a transphobe. This posting being a case in point. 'Intellectual' is certainly not a word I would associate with you.
    That's demonstrably not true, for example I've disagreed with 148grss on the issue of trans women in sport. My opinion there is if you went through male puberty you will always have an advantage regardless of how you identify, and also, don't trans people have more important issues to fight like not being harassed on the street?

    I rarely mention trans stuff, in fact I never mention it at all unless it's brought up in a thread, such as my point regarding Cyclefree's last transphobic post. I don't generally speak on trans issues unless brought up by others. Most people would probably suggest my posting interests are on taxation, individual liberties, the housing market and random obscure star trek references. I don't bring up trans stuff unless it's already topic du jour, and repeatedly comment on how I wish it wasn't.

    I make no secret of the fact that as a cosmopolitan Londoner I have a ton of queer friends including several trans ones. I feel like when people make bigoted remarks, it's my civil duty to correct them. But I don't go out of my way to start fights or bring up that particular topic. I'm more interested in chatting about planning permission or tax liabilities, tbh.

    Your suggestion that I go on "wild rants" says a great deal more about you than it does about me. It suggests that you believe anyone who stands up for trans rights is both "wild" and "ranting" when in actual fact I've done my best to engage with debate as politely and as respectfully as I can.

    My perspective is drawn from my libertarian values, in fact I think the last time I mentioned trans stuff was jokingly pointing out that I have occasionally thrown copies of Nozick at my trans friends because I think that trans-ism and individualism are actually quite compatible ideas. Now, if you think that someone who jokes about throwing copies of Nozick about is not a person you would associate being "intellectual" with, I'm not sure what is.

    Perhaps we could have a game of chess or take a timed IQ test together? What would you require to prove that I'm your intellectual equal?

    Or maybe you could just eff off and actually behave like the libertarian you profess to be, which involves staying the hell out of other people's right to be who they choose to be.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 32,690
    kyf_100 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    I suspect that I am not the only person who reads this site, regularly, who would like to see more women commenting, especially well-informed women, for example, Cyclefree.

    I would love to see more women commenting, as I clashed with Carlotta a bit I dm'ed her a while back to clear the air. She's awesome. I also disagree on stuff with Heathener on a regular basis but think she gives as good as she takes.

    Cyclefree however is a nasty bigot and, unlike Leon, doesn't have the excuse of being perpetually drunk. Her refusal to use she/her pronouns for someone who has completely transitioned and in receipt of a GRC for example.

    Her last post was about the attack on an MP's freedom by pro-trans campaigners ostensibly couched in the importance of freedom of speech. But she neglected to comment on the MPs who have lost their freedom due to non-trans issues, Amess and Cox in the last decade. Her post was not about freedom of speech, but rather about freedom to criticise trans people.

    I'm genuinely really tolerant of other viewpoints, but her misgendering of people with a GRC and blatant transphobia in her posts won't be missed.

    I would rather read a dozen posts from Cyclefree than one from you. At least hers are informed and reasoned unlike your wild rants.
    Citation required.

    I mostly talk about capital gains tax and the erosion of civil liberties. If you can find a wild rant, I'm up for responding to it.

    I think in fact you're you're just a bigoted transphobe, and can't stand that I, as an intellectual libertarian, can put forward a convincing case for trans rights.

    But hey, please tell me about my wild rants again.
    Every time you write about trans rights. You are unwilling to compromise or see anyone elses point of view and just label everyone who disagrees with you as a transphobe. This posting being a case in point. 'Intellectual' is certainly not a word I would associate with you.
    That's demonstrably not true, for example I've disagreed with 148grss on the issue of trans women in sport. My opinion there is if you went through male puberty you will always have an advantage regardless of how you identify, and also, don't trans people have more important issues to fight like not being harassed on the street?

    I rarely mention trans stuff, in fact I never mention it at all unless it's brought up in a thread, such as my point regarding Cyclefree's last transphobic post. I don't generally speak on trans issues unless brought up by others. Most people would probably suggest my posting interests are on taxation, individual liberties, the housing market and random obscure star trek references. I don't bring up trans stuff unless it's already topic du jour, and repeatedly comment on how I wish it wasn't.

    I make no secret of the fact that as a cosmopolitan Londoner I have a ton of queer friends including several trans ones. I feel like when people make bigoted remarks, it's my civil duty to correct them. But I don't go out of my way to start fights or bring up that particular topic. I'm more interested in chatting about planning permission or tax liabilities, tbh.

    Your suggestion that I go on "wild rants" says a great deal more about you than it does about me. It suggests that you believe anyone who stands up for trans rights is both "wild" and "ranting" when in actual fact I've done my best to engage with debate as politely and as respectfully as I can.

    My perspective is drawn from my libertarian values, in fact I think the last time I mentioned trans stuff was jokingly pointing out that I have occasionally thrown copies of Nozick at my trans friends because I think that trans-ism and individualism are actually quite compatible ideas. Now, if you think that someone who jokes about throwing copies of Nozick about is not a person you would associate being "intellectual" with, I'm not sure what is.

    Perhaps we could have a game of chess or take a timed IQ test together? What would you require to prove that I'm your intellectual equal?

    Or maybe you could just eff off and actually behave like the libertarian you profess to be, which involves staying the hell out of other people's right to be who they choose to be.
    I do accept that you have every right to be a knob - as you so often demonstrate on here.

    However you do not have the right to bully the female participants in this group just because you disagree with them. As I said, Cyclefree was, is and always will be a far more valuable contributor to this site than you could ever be.
  • Nunu5Nunu5 Posts: 976
    I think we need new legislation against elons Twitter/x.
    Too much shouting fire in a crowded theatre on therem
  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 4,951

    kyf_100 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    I suspect that I am not the only person who reads this site, regularly, who would like to see more women commenting, especially well-informed women, for example, Cyclefree.

    I would love to see more women commenting, as I clashed with Carlotta a bit I dm'ed her a while back to clear the air. She's awesome. I also disagree on stuff with Heathener on a regular basis but think she gives as good as she takes.

    Cyclefree however is a nasty bigot and, unlike Leon, doesn't have the excuse of being perpetually drunk. Her refusal to use she/her pronouns for someone who has completely transitioned and in receipt of a GRC for example.

    Her last post was about the attack on an MP's freedom by pro-trans campaigners ostensibly couched in the importance of freedom of speech. But she neglected to comment on the MPs who have lost their freedom due to non-trans issues, Amess and Cox in the last decade. Her post was not about freedom of speech, but rather about freedom to criticise trans people.

    I'm genuinely really tolerant of other viewpoints, but her misgendering of people with a GRC and blatant transphobia in her posts won't be missed.

    I would rather read a dozen posts from Cyclefree than one from you. At least hers are informed and reasoned unlike your wild rants.
    Citation required.

    I mostly talk about capital gains tax and the erosion of civil liberties. If you can find a wild rant, I'm up for responding to it.

    I think in fact you're you're just a bigoted transphobe, and can't stand that I, as an intellectual libertarian, can put forward a convincing case for trans rights.

    But hey, please tell me about my wild rants again.
    Every time you write about trans rights. You are unwilling to compromise or see anyone elses point of view and just label everyone who disagrees with you as a transphobe. This posting being a case in point. 'Intellectual' is certainly not a word I would associate with you.
    That's demonstrably not true, for example I've disagreed with 148grss on the issue of trans women in sport. My opinion there is if you went through male puberty you will always have an advantage regardless of how you identify, and also, don't trans people have more important issues to fight like not being harassed on the street?

    I rarely mention trans stuff, in fact I never mention it at all unless it's brought up in a thread, such as my point regarding Cyclefree's last transphobic post. I don't generally speak on trans issues unless brought up by others. Most people would probably suggest my posting interests are on taxation, individual liberties, the housing market and random obscure star trek references. I don't bring up trans stuff unless it's already topic du jour, and repeatedly comment on how I wish it wasn't.

    I make no secret of the fact that as a cosmopolitan Londoner I have a ton of queer friends including several trans ones. I feel like when people make bigoted remarks, it's my civil duty to correct them. But I don't go out of my way to start fights or bring up that particular topic. I'm more interested in chatting about planning permission or tax liabilities, tbh.

    Your suggestion that I go on "wild rants" says a great deal more about you than it does about me. It suggests that you believe anyone who stands up for trans rights is both "wild" and "ranting" when in actual fact I've done my best to engage with debate as politely and as respectfully as I can.

    My perspective is drawn from my libertarian values, in fact I think the last time I mentioned trans stuff was jokingly pointing out that I have occasionally thrown copies of Nozick at my trans friends because I think that trans-ism and individualism are actually quite compatible ideas. Now, if you think that someone who jokes about throwing copies of Nozick about is not a person you would associate being "intellectual" with, I'm not sure what is.

    Perhaps we could have a game of chess or take a timed IQ test together? What would you require to prove that I'm your intellectual equal?

    Or maybe you could just eff off and actually behave like the libertarian you profess to be, which involves staying the hell out of other people's right to be who they choose to be.
    I do accept that you have every right to be a knob - as you so often demonstrate on here.

    However you do not have the right to bully the female participants in this group just because you disagree with them. As I said, Cyclefree was, is and always will be a far more valuable contributor to this site than you could ever be.
    I have never bullied the female contributors on here and would like you to either provide concrete evidence for that statement or retract it.

    Literally, prove it. Or fuck off.

    In my earlier post I actually pointed out I reached out to Carlotta privately after clashing with her on the trans issue because I think she's pretty awesome and I wanted to clear the air after we had a disagreement. I value her contributions here, as I value the contributions of other female posters.

    Cyclefree is different, as her most recent posts have been pure transphobia. But, as a libertarian, I respect her right to post them. The correct place for disagreement is in the comments section, and I've never said otherwise. If she wants to flounce rather than defend her opinions, that's her call.

  • YokesYokes Posts: 1,345
    Noted that US airlines have cancelled flights to Tel Aviv later today. To be clear the US govt advises airlines, at times, very directly on where to fly rather than give wider advice that the airlines decide how to interpret

  • Tim_in_RuislipTim_in_Ruislip Posts: 436
    edited August 1
    kyf_100 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    I suspect that I am not the only person who reads this site, regularly, who would like to see more women commenting, especially well-informed women, for example, Cyclefree.

    I would love to see more women commenting, as I clashed with Carlotta a bit I dm'ed her a while back to clear the air. She's awesome. I also disagree on stuff with Heathener on a regular basis but think she gives as good as she takes.

    Cyclefree however is a nasty bigot and, unlike Leon, doesn't have the excuse of being perpetually drunk. Her refusal to use she/her pronouns for someone who has completely transitioned and in receipt of a GRC for example.

    Her last post was about the attack on an MP's freedom by pro-trans campaigners ostensibly couched in the importance of freedom of speech. But she neglected to comment on the MPs who have lost their freedom due to non-trans issues, Amess and Cox in the last decade. Her post was not about freedom of speech, but rather about freedom to criticise trans people.

    I'm genuinely really tolerant of other viewpoints, but her misgendering of people with a GRC and blatant transphobia in her posts won't be missed.

    I would rather read a dozen posts from Cyclefree than one from you. At least hers are informed and reasoned unlike your wild rants.
    Citation required.

    I mostly talk about capital gains tax and the erosion of civil liberties. If you can find a wild rant, I'm up for responding to it.

    I think in fact you're you're just a bigoted transphobe, and can't stand that I, as an intellectual libertarian, can put forward a convincing case for trans rights.

    But hey, please tell me about my wild rants again.
    Every time you write about trans rights. You are unwilling to compromise or see anyone elses point of view and just label everyone who disagrees with you as a transphobe. This posting being a case in point. 'Intellectual' is certainly not a word I would associate with you.
    That's demonstrably not true, for example I've disagreed with 148grss on the issue of trans women in sport. My opinion there is if you went through male puberty you will always have an advantage regardless of how you identify, and also, don't trans people have more important issues to fight like not being harassed on the street?

    I rarely mention trans stuff, in fact I never mention it at all unless it's brought up in a thread, such as my point regarding Cyclefree's last transphobic post. I don't generally speak on trans issues unless brought up by others. Most people would probably suggest my posting interests are on taxation, individual liberties, the housing market and random obscure star trek references. I don't bring up trans stuff unless it's already topic du jour, and repeatedly comment on how I wish it wasn't.

    I make no secret of the fact that as a cosmopolitan Londoner I have a ton of queer friends including several trans ones. I feel like when people make bigoted remarks, it's my civil duty to correct them. But I don't go out of my way to start fights or bring up that particular topic. I'm more interested in chatting about planning permission or tax liabilities, tbh.

    Your suggestion that I go on "wild rants" says a great deal more about you than it does about me. It suggests that you believe anyone who stands up for trans rights is both "wild" and "ranting" when in actual fact I've done my best to engage with debate as politely and as respectfully as I can.

    My perspective is drawn from my libertarian values, in fact I think the last time I mentioned trans stuff was jokingly pointing out that I have occasionally thrown copies of Nozick at my trans friends because I think that trans-ism and individualism are actually quite compatible ideas. Now, if you think that someone who jokes about throwing copies of Nozick about is not a person you would associate being "intellectual" with, I'm not sure what is.

    Perhaps we could have a game of chess or take a timed IQ test together? What would you require to prove that I'm your intellectual equal?

    Or maybe you could just eff off and actually behave like the libertarian you profess to be, which involves staying the hell out of other people's right to be who they choose to be.
    I do accept that you have every right to be a knob - as you so often demonstrate on here.

    However you do not have the right to bully the female participants in this group just because you disagree with them. As I said, Cyclefree was, is and always will be a far more valuable contributor to this site than you could ever be.
    I have never bullied the female contributors on here and would like you to either provide concrete evidence for that statement or retract it.

    Literally, prove it. Or fuck off.

    In my earlier post I actually pointed out I reached out to Carlotta privately after clashing with her on the trans issue because I think she's pretty awesome and I wanted to clear the air after we had a disagreement. I value her contributions here, as I value the contributions of other female posters.

    Cyclefree is different, as her most recent posts have been pure transphobia. But, as a libertarian, I respect her right to post them. The correct place for disagreement is in the comments section, and I've never said otherwise. If she wants to flounce rather than defend her opinions, that's her call.

    I've appreciated Cyclefree's output on this site, over the years.

    I do, occasionally, read her twitter and clearly over time she's become more, erm, vehement? radicalised? The nuance is increasingly lost and many more tweets/retweets that are in-your-face, screw-the-haters etc.

    I mean it's basically the same story on the twitter accounts for all single-issue rights campaigners. Everything is black and white, our-rights-are-absolute-and-non-negotiable, it's-us-against-the-world etc etc.

    Nuanced cyclefree, please come back!
  • SirNorfolkPassmoreSirNorfolkPassmore Posts: 7,168
    edited August 1
    Yokes said:

    Loos like Josh Shapiro for Harris' VP

    I just think whoever is chosen as Harris' VP candidate should be allowed to choose the design of his or her own lavatories. Maybe they will want them to be like the Governor of Pennsylvania, or maybe not. But let's not impose our own tastes in bathroom style on that person.
  • YokesYokes Posts: 1,345

    Yokes said:

    Loos like Josh Shapiro for Harris' VP

    I just think whoever is chosen as Harris' VP candidate should be allowed to choose the design of his or her own lavatories. Maybe they will want them to be like the Governor of Pennsylvania, or maybe not. But let's not impose our own tastes in bathroom style on that person.
    Typos leave way too much room for responses.
  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 4,951

    kyf_100 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    I suspect that I am not the only person who reads this site, regularly, who would like to see more women commenting, especially well-informed women, for example, Cyclefree.

    I would love to see more women commenting, as I clashed with Carlotta a bit I dm'ed her a while back to clear the air. She's awesome. I also disagree on stuff with Heathener on a regular basis but think she gives as good as she takes.

    Cyclefree however is a nasty bigot and, unlike Leon, doesn't have the excuse of being perpetually drunk. Her refusal to use she/her pronouns for someone who has completely transitioned and in receipt of a GRC for example.

    Her last post was about the attack on an MP's freedom by pro-trans campaigners ostensibly couched in the importance of freedom of speech. But she neglected to comment on the MPs who have lost their freedom due to non-trans issues, Amess and Cox in the last decade. Her post was not about freedom of speech, but rather about freedom to criticise trans people.

    I'm genuinely really tolerant of other viewpoints, but her misgendering of people with a GRC and blatant transphobia in her posts won't be missed.

    I would rather read a dozen posts from Cyclefree than one from you. At least hers are informed and reasoned unlike your wild rants.
    Citation required.

    I mostly talk about capital gains tax and the erosion of civil liberties. If you can find a wild rant, I'm up for responding to it.

    I think in fact you're you're just a bigoted transphobe, and can't stand that I, as an intellectual libertarian, can put forward a convincing case for trans rights.

    But hey, please tell me about my wild rants again.
    Every time you write about trans rights. You are unwilling to compromise or see anyone elses point of view and just label everyone who disagrees with you as a transphobe. This posting being a case in point. 'Intellectual' is certainly not a word I would associate with you.
    That's demonstrably not true, for example I've disagreed with 148grss on the issue of trans women in sport. My opinion there is if you went through male puberty you will always have an advantage regardless of how you identify, and also, don't trans people have more important issues to fight like not being harassed on the street?

    I rarely mention trans stuff, in fact I never mention it at all unless it's brought up in a thread, such as my point regarding Cyclefree's last transphobic post. I don't generally speak on trans issues unless brought up by others. Most people would probably suggest my posting interests are on taxation, individual liberties, the housing market and random obscure star trek references. I don't bring up trans stuff unless it's already topic du jour, and repeatedly comment on how I wish it wasn't.

    I make no secret of the fact that as a cosmopolitan Londoner I have a ton of queer friends including several trans ones. I feel like when people make bigoted remarks, it's my civil duty to correct them. But I don't go out of my way to start fights or bring up that particular topic. I'm more interested in chatting about planning permission or tax liabilities, tbh.

    Your suggestion that I go on "wild rants" says a great deal more about you than it does about me. It suggests that you believe anyone who stands up for trans rights is both "wild" and "ranting" when in actual fact I've done my best to engage with debate as politely and as respectfully as I can.

    My perspective is drawn from my libertarian values, in fact I think the last time I mentioned trans stuff was jokingly pointing out that I have occasionally thrown copies of Nozick at my trans friends because I think that trans-ism and individualism are actually quite compatible ideas. Now, if you think that someone who jokes about throwing copies of Nozick about is not a person you would associate being "intellectual" with, I'm not sure what is.

    Perhaps we could have a game of chess or take a timed IQ test together? What would you require to prove that I'm your intellectual equal?

    Or maybe you could just eff off and actually behave like the libertarian you profess to be, which involves staying the hell out of other people's right to be who they choose to be.
    I do accept that you have every right to be a knob - as you so often demonstrate on here.

    However you do not have the right to bully the female participants in this group just because you disagree with them. As I said, Cyclefree was, is and always will be a far more valuable contributor to this site than you could ever be.
    I have never bullied the female contributors on here and would like you to either provide concrete evidence for that statement or retract it.

    Literally, prove it. Or fuck off.

    In my earlier post I actually pointed out I reached out to Carlotta privately after clashing with her on the trans issue because I think she's pretty awesome and I wanted to clear the air after we had a disagreement. I value her contributions here, as I value the contributions of other female posters.

    Cyclefree is different, as her most recent posts have been pure transphobia. But, as a libertarian, I respect her right to post them. The correct place for disagreement is in the comments section, and I've never said otherwise. If she wants to flounce rather than defend her opinions, that's her call.

    I've appreciated Cyclefree's output on this site, over the years.

    I do, occasionally, read her twitter and clearly over time she's become more, erm, vehement? radicalised? The nuance is increasingly lost and many more tweets/retweets that are in-your-face, screw-the-haters etc.

    I mean it's basically the same story on the twitter accounts for all single-issue rights campaigners. Everything is black and white, our-rights-are-absolute-and-non-negotiable, it's-us-against-the-world etc etc.

    Nuanced cyclefree, please come back!
    I agree.

    Cyclefree has been an excellent and insightful commentator for years, but radicalised on this topic.

    Honestly, I don't like to talk about trans stuff. When It's brought up on PB, I start by opining how I really don't want to discuss this topic here. There are other forums. I have trans friends, so it's very personal to me. I will defend the rights of my friends to my last breath, if it's the topic du jour. But I'd really rather talk about something else. And I don't appreciate being called "ranting" for standing up for the rights of people I care deeply about. Anyway. End of rant. Bedtime.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 32,967

    Andy_JS said:
    So how do the GOP ditch him? If his campaign now starts to implode…
    Maybe it starts with Trump ditching Vance.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 52,312
    Andy_JS said:

    Andy_JS said:
    So how do the GOP ditch him? If his campaign now starts to implode…
    Maybe it starts with Trump ditching Vance.
    On cue:

    https://x.com/vivekgramaswamy/status/1818769155971060223

    The hard truth is we need a massive reset right now. The criticism that Kamala mounted a coup on Biden isn’t landing, neither is the claim that she covered up Biden’s cognitive decline. None of that matters to voters now. We need to offer our vision for the future of America, it’s the only way we’re going to win this election.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,512
    I didn't know Trump was human until a number of years ago when he happened to turn human and now he wants to be known as human.

    So I don't know - Is he a caricature? Or is he human?
  • WillGWillG Posts: 2,366

    Andy_JS said:

    Andy_JS said:
    So how do the GOP ditch him? If his campaign now starts to implode…
    Maybe it starts with Trump ditching Vance.
    On cue:

    https://x.com/vivekgramaswamy/status/1818769155971060223

    The hard truth is we need a massive reset right now. The criticism that Kamala mounted a coup on Biden isn’t landing, neither is the claim that she covered up Biden’s cognitive decline. None of that matters to voters now. We need to offer our vision for the future of America, it’s the only way we’re going to win this election.
    They have offered their vision for the future of America. It is called Project 2025, it is completely abhorrent and the voters hate it.
  • WillGWillG Posts: 2,366

    kyf_100 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    I suspect that I am not the only person who reads this site, regularly, who would like to see more women commenting, especially well-informed women, for example, Cyclefree.

    I would love to see more women commenting, as I clashed with Carlotta a bit I dm'ed her a while back to clear the air. She's awesome. I also disagree on stuff with Heathener on a regular basis but think she gives as good as she takes.

    Cyclefree however is a nasty bigot and, unlike Leon, doesn't have the excuse of being perpetually drunk. Her refusal to use she/her pronouns for someone who has completely transitioned and in receipt of a GRC for example.

    Her last post was about the attack on an MP's freedom by pro-trans campaigners ostensibly couched in the importance of freedom of speech. But she neglected to comment on the MPs who have lost their freedom due to non-trans issues, Amess and Cox in the last decade. Her post was not about freedom of speech, but rather about freedom to criticise trans people.

    I'm genuinely really tolerant of other viewpoints, but her misgendering of people with a GRC and blatant transphobia in her posts won't be missed.

    I would rather read a dozen posts from Cyclefree than one from you. At least hers are informed and reasoned unlike your wild rants.
    Citation required.

    I mostly talk about capital gains tax and the erosion of civil liberties. If you can find a wild rant, I'm up for responding to it.

    I think in fact you're you're just a bigoted transphobe, and can't stand that I, as an intellectual libertarian, can put forward a convincing case for trans rights.

    But hey, please tell me about my wild rants again.
    Every time you write about trans rights. You are unwilling to compromise or see anyone elses point of view and just label everyone who disagrees with you as a transphobe. This posting being a case in point. 'Intellectual' is certainly not a word I would associate with you.
    That's demonstrably not true, for example I've disagreed with 148grss on the issue of trans women in sport. My opinion there is if you went through male puberty you will always have an advantage regardless of how you identify, and also, don't trans people have more important issues to fight like not being harassed on the street?

    I rarely mention trans stuff, in fact I never mention it at all unless it's brought up in a thread, such as my point regarding Cyclefree's last transphobic post. I don't generally speak on trans issues unless brought up by others. Most people would probably suggest my posting interests are on taxation, individual liberties, the housing market and random obscure star trek references. I don't bring up trans stuff unless it's already topic du jour, and repeatedly comment on how I wish it wasn't.

    I make no secret of the fact that as a cosmopolitan Londoner I have a ton of queer friends including several trans ones. I feel like when people make bigoted remarks, it's my civil duty to correct them. But I don't go out of my way to start fights or bring up that particular topic. I'm more interested in chatting about planning permission or tax liabilities, tbh.

    Your suggestion that I go on "wild rants" says a great deal more about you than it does about me. It suggests that you believe anyone who stands up for trans rights is both "wild" and "ranting" when in actual fact I've done my best to engage with debate as politely and as respectfully as I can.

    My perspective is drawn from my libertarian values, in fact I think the last time I mentioned trans stuff was jokingly pointing out that I have occasionally thrown copies of Nozick at my trans friends because I think that trans-ism and individualism are actually quite compatible ideas. Now, if you think that someone who jokes about throwing copies of Nozick about is not a person you would associate being "intellectual" with, I'm not sure what is.

    Perhaps we could have a game of chess or take a timed IQ test together? What would you require to prove that I'm your intellectual equal?

    Or maybe you could just eff off and actually behave like the libertarian you profess to be, which involves staying the hell out of other people's right to be who they choose to be.
    I do accept that you have every right to be a knob - as you so often demonstrate on here.

    However you do not have the right to bully the female participants in this group just because you disagree with them. As I said, Cyclefree was, is and always will be a far more valuable contributor to this site than you could ever be.
    I have never bullied the female contributors on here and would like you to either provide concrete evidence for that statement or retract it.

    Literally, prove it. Or fuck off.

    In my earlier post I actually pointed out I reached out to Carlotta privately after clashing with her on the trans issue because I think she's pretty awesome and I wanted to clear the air after we had a disagreement. I value her contributions here, as I value the contributions of other female posters.

    Cyclefree is different, as her most recent posts have been pure transphobia. But, as a libertarian, I respect her right to post them. The correct place for disagreement is in the comments section, and I've never said otherwise. If she wants to flounce rather than defend her opinions, that's her call.

    I've appreciated Cyclefree's output on this site, over the years.

    I do, occasionally, read her twitter and clearly over time she's become more, erm, vehement? radicalised? The nuance is increasingly lost and many more tweets/retweets that are in-your-face, screw-the-haters etc.

    I mean it's basically the same story on the twitter accounts for all single-issue rights campaigners. Everything is black and white, our-rights-are-absolute-and-non-negotiable, it's-us-against-the-world etc etc.

    Nuanced cyclefree, please come back!
    Twitter rots brains. Just look at how Elon Musk got on the Trump train and ranting about the woke mind virus.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 72,300
    .

    Andy_JS said:

    Andy_JS said:
    So how do the GOP ditch him? If his campaign now starts to implode…
    Maybe it starts with Trump ditching Vance.
    On cue:

    https://x.com/vivekgramaswamy/status/1818769155971060223

    The hard truth is we need a massive reset right now. The criticism that Kamala mounted a coup on Biden isn’t landing, neither is the claim that she covered up Biden’s cognitive decline. None of that matters to voters now. We need to offer our vision for the future of America, it’s the only way we’re going to win this election.
    Vivek has been lobbying to replace Vance for several days now.
    He’s another deeply strange right winger, not entirely tethered to the real world, but a far better communicator than Vance.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,417
    Nigelb said:

    .

    Andy_JS said:

    Andy_JS said:
    So how do the GOP ditch him? If his campaign now starts to implode…
    Maybe it starts with Trump ditching Vance.
    On cue:

    https://x.com/vivekgramaswamy/status/1818769155971060223

    The hard truth is we need a massive reset right now. The criticism that Kamala mounted a coup on Biden isn’t landing, neither is the claim that she covered up Biden’s cognitive decline. None of that matters to voters now. We need to offer our vision for the future of America, it’s the only way we’re going to win this election.
    Vivek has been lobbying to replace Vance for several days now.
    He’s another deeply strange right winger, not entirely tethered to the real world, but a far better communicator than Vance.
    2028 GOP race is between him, Haley and Desantis I think
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,417
    https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cjerw7jrl0lo good on the Welsh govt for offering this
  • TazTaz Posts: 15,049
    Nigelb said:

    .

    Andy_JS said:

    Andy_JS said:
    So how do the GOP ditch him? If his campaign now starts to implode…
    Maybe it starts with Trump ditching Vance.
    On cue:

    https://x.com/vivekgramaswamy/status/1818769155971060223

    The hard truth is we need a massive reset right now. The criticism that Kamala mounted a coup on Biden isn’t landing, neither is the claim that she covered up Biden’s cognitive decline. None of that matters to voters now. We need to offer our vision for the future of America, it’s the only way we’re going to win this election.
    Vivek has been lobbying to replace Vance for several days now.
    He’s another deeply strange right winger, not entirely tethered to the real world, but a far better communicator than Vance.
    I listen to the Merryn Somerset-Webb Bloomberg money Podcast and last year she interviewed him as he had released a book on "woke capitalism" which was mainly railing against ESG. He sounded rational in some of what he said, ESG was not an investment recipe for success and the likes of Blackrock were exerting political influence on companies, something they have been rolling back on. However he does seem to have become rather more of a fringe figure and rather more eccentric.

    The Republicans, unless they replace Trump, are in the position of one of TSE's Stepmoms in November and that is a good thing. Hopefully for 2028 they will return to sanity.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,512
    WillG said:

    kyf_100 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    I suspect that I am not the only person who reads this site, regularly, who would like to see more women commenting, especially well-informed women, for example, Cyclefree.

    I would love to see more women commenting, as I clashed with Carlotta a bit I dm'ed her a while back to clear the air. She's awesome. I also disagree on stuff with Heathener on a regular basis but think she gives as good as she takes.

    Cyclefree however is a nasty bigot and, unlike Leon, doesn't have the excuse of being perpetually drunk. Her refusal to use she/her pronouns for someone who has completely transitioned and in receipt of a GRC for example.

    Her last post was about the attack on an MP's freedom by pro-trans campaigners ostensibly couched in the importance of freedom of speech. But she neglected to comment on the MPs who have lost their freedom due to non-trans issues, Amess and Cox in the last decade. Her post was not about freedom of speech, but rather about freedom to criticise trans people.

    I'm genuinely really tolerant of other viewpoints, but her misgendering of people with a GRC and blatant transphobia in her posts won't be missed.

    I would rather read a dozen posts from Cyclefree than one from you. At least hers are informed and reasoned unlike your wild rants.
    Citation required.

    I mostly talk about capital gains tax and the erosion of civil liberties. If you can find a wild rant, I'm up for responding to it.

    I think in fact you're you're just a bigoted transphobe, and can't stand that I, as an intellectual libertarian, can put forward a convincing case for trans rights.

    But hey, please tell me about my wild rants again.
    Every time you write about trans rights. You are unwilling to compromise or see anyone elses point of view and just label everyone who disagrees with you as a transphobe. This posting being a case in point. 'Intellectual' is certainly not a word I would associate with you.
    That's demonstrably not true, for example I've disagreed with 148grss on the issue of trans women in sport. My opinion there is if you went through male puberty you will always have an advantage regardless of how you identify, and also, don't trans people have more important issues to fight like not being harassed on the street?

    I rarely mention trans stuff, in fact I never mention it at all unless it's brought up in a thread, such as my point regarding Cyclefree's last transphobic post. I don't generally speak on trans issues unless brought up by others. Most people would probably suggest my posting interests are on taxation, individual liberties, the housing market and random obscure star trek references. I don't bring up trans stuff unless it's already topic du jour, and repeatedly comment on how I wish it wasn't.

    I make no secret of the fact that as a cosmopolitan Londoner I have a ton of queer friends including several trans ones. I feel like when people make bigoted remarks, it's my civil duty to correct them. But I don't go out of my way to start fights or bring up that particular topic. I'm more interested in chatting about planning permission or tax liabilities, tbh.

    Your suggestion that I go on "wild rants" says a great deal more about you than it does about me. It suggests that you believe anyone who stands up for trans rights is both "wild" and "ranting" when in actual fact I've done my best to engage with debate as politely and as respectfully as I can.

    My perspective is drawn from my libertarian values, in fact I think the last time I mentioned trans stuff was jokingly pointing out that I have occasionally thrown copies of Nozick at my trans friends because I think that trans-ism and individualism are actually quite compatible ideas. Now, if you think that someone who jokes about throwing copies of Nozick about is not a person you would associate being "intellectual" with, I'm not sure what is.

    Perhaps we could have a game of chess or take a timed IQ test together? What would you require to prove that I'm your intellectual equal?

    Or maybe you could just eff off and actually behave like the libertarian you profess to be, which involves staying the hell out of other people's right to be who they choose to be.
    I do accept that you have every right to be a knob - as you so often demonstrate on here.

    However you do not have the right to bully the female participants in this group just because you disagree with them. As I said, Cyclefree was, is and always will be a far more valuable contributor to this site than you could ever be.
    I have never bullied the female contributors on here and would like you to either provide concrete evidence for that statement or retract it.

    Literally, prove it. Or fuck off.

    In my earlier post I actually pointed out I reached out to Carlotta privately after clashing with her on the trans issue because I think she's pretty awesome and I wanted to clear the air after we had a disagreement. I value her contributions here, as I value the contributions of other female posters.

    Cyclefree is different, as her most recent posts have been pure transphobia. But, as a libertarian, I respect her right to post them. The correct place for disagreement is in the comments section, and I've never said otherwise. If she wants to flounce rather than defend her opinions, that's her call.

    I've appreciated Cyclefree's output on this site, over the years.

    I do, occasionally, read her twitter and clearly over time she's become more, erm, vehement? radicalised? The nuance is increasingly lost and many more tweets/retweets that are in-your-face, screw-the-haters etc.

    I mean it's basically the same story on the twitter accounts for all single-issue rights campaigners. Everything is black and white, our-rights-are-absolute-and-non-negotiable, it's-us-against-the-world etc etc.

    Nuanced cyclefree, please come back!
    Twitter rots brains. Just look at how Elon Musk got on the Trump train and ranting about the woke mind virus.
    Nah. I don't think Twitter rots brains. Twitter, like an excess of alcohol, shows what a person is truly like.
  • TazTaz Posts: 15,049
    kyf_100 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    I suspect that I am not the only person who reads this site, regularly, who would like to see more women commenting, especially well-informed women, for example, Cyclefree.

    I would love to see more women commenting, as I clashed with Carlotta a bit I dm'ed her a while back to clear the air. She's awesome. I also disagree on stuff with Heathener on a regular basis but think she gives as good as she takes.

    Cyclefree however is a nasty bigot and, unlike Leon, doesn't have the excuse of being perpetually drunk. Her refusal to use she/her pronouns for someone who has completely transitioned and in receipt of a GRC for example.

    Her last post was about the attack on an MP's freedom by pro-trans campaigners ostensibly couched in the importance of freedom of speech. But she neglected to comment on the MPs who have lost their freedom due to non-trans issues, Amess and Cox in the last decade. Her post was not about freedom of speech, but rather about freedom to criticise trans people.

    I'm genuinely really tolerant of other viewpoints, but her misgendering of people with a GRC and blatant transphobia in her posts won't be missed.

    I would rather read a dozen posts from Cyclefree than one from you. At least hers are informed and reasoned unlike your wild rants.
    Citation required.

    I mostly talk about capital gains tax and the erosion of civil liberties. If you can find a wild rant, I'm up for responding to it.

    I think in fact you're you're just a bigoted transphobe, and can't stand that I, as an intellectual libertarian, can put forward a convincing case for trans rights.

    But hey, please tell me about my wild rants again.
    Every time you write about trans rights. You are unwilling to compromise or see anyone elses point of view and just label everyone who disagrees with you as a transphobe. This posting being a case in point. 'Intellectual' is certainly not a word I would associate with you.
    That's demonstrably not true, for example I've disagreed with 148grss on the issue of trans women in sport. My opinion there is if you went through male puberty you will always have an advantage regardless of how you identify, and also, don't trans people have more important issues to fight like not being harassed on the street?

    I rarely mention trans stuff, in fact I never mention it at all unless it's brought up in a thread, such as my point regarding Cyclefree's last transphobic post. I don't generally speak on trans issues unless brought up by others. Most people would probably suggest my posting interests are on taxation, individual liberties, the housing market and random obscure star trek references. I don't bring up trans stuff unless it's already topic du jour, and repeatedly comment on how I wish it wasn't.

    I make no secret of the fact that as a cosmopolitan Londoner I have a ton of queer friends including several trans ones. I feel like when people make bigoted remarks, it's my civil duty to correct them. But I don't go out of my way to start fights or bring up that particular topic. I'm more interested in chatting about planning permission or tax liabilities, tbh.

    Your suggestion that I go on "wild rants" says a great deal more about you than it does about me. It suggests that you believe anyone who stands up for trans rights is both "wild" and "ranting" when in actual fact I've done my best to engage with debate as politely and as respectfully as I can.

    My perspective is drawn from my libertarian values, in fact I think the last time I mentioned trans stuff was jokingly pointing out that I have occasionally thrown copies of Nozick at my trans friends because I think that trans-ism and individualism are actually quite compatible ideas. Now, if you think that someone who jokes about throwing copies of Nozick about is not a person you would associate being "intellectual" with, I'm not sure what is.

    Perhaps we could have a game of chess or take a timed IQ test together? What would you require to prove that I'm your intellectual equal?

    Or maybe you could just eff off and actually behave like the libertarian you profess to be, which involves staying the hell out of other people's right to be who they choose to be.
    I do accept that you have every right to be a knob - as you so often demonstrate on here.

    However you do not have the right to bully the female participants in this group just because you disagree with them. As I said, Cyclefree was, is and always will be a far more valuable contributor to this site than you could ever be.
    I have never bullied the female contributors on here and would like you to either provide concrete evidence for that statement or retract it.

    Literally, prove it. Or fuck off.

    In my earlier post I actually pointed out I reached out to Carlotta privately after clashing with her on the trans issue because I think she's pretty awesome and I wanted to clear the air after we had a disagreement. I value her contributions here, as I value the contributions of other female posters.

    Cyclefree is different, as her most recent posts have been pure transphobia. But, as a libertarian, I respect her right to post them. The correct place for disagreement is in the comments section, and I've never said otherwise. If she wants to flounce rather than defend her opinions, that's her call.

    I've appreciated Cyclefree's output on this site, over the years.

    I do, occasionally, read her twitter and clearly over time she's become more, erm, vehement? radicalised? The nuance is increasingly lost and many more tweets/retweets that are in-your-face, screw-the-haters etc.

    I mean it's basically the same story on the twitter accounts for all single-issue rights campaigners. Everything is black and white, our-rights-are-absolute-and-non-negotiable, it's-us-against-the-world etc etc.

    Nuanced cyclefree, please come back!
    I agree.

    Cyclefree has been an excellent and insightful commentator for years, but radicalised on this topic.

    Honestly, I don't like to talk about trans stuff. When It's brought up on PB, I start by opining how I really don't want to discuss this topic here. There are other forums. I have trans friends, so it's very personal to me. I will defend the rights of my friends to my last breath, if it's the topic du jour. But I'd really rather talk about something else. And I don't appreciate being called "ranting" for standing up for the rights of people I care deeply about. Anyway. End of rant. Bedtime.
    Women, know your place.
  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 4,951
    edited August 1
    Taz said:

    kyf_100 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    I suspect that I am not the only person who reads this site, regularly, who would like to see more women commenting, especially well-informed women, for example, Cyclefree.

    I would love to see more women commenting, as I clashed with Carlotta a bit I dm'ed her a while back to clear the air. She's awesome. I also disagree on stuff with Heathener on a regular basis but think she gives as good as she takes.

    Cyclefree however is a nasty bigot and, unlike Leon, doesn't have the excuse of being perpetually drunk. Her refusal to use she/her pronouns for someone who has completely transitioned and in receipt of a GRC for example.

    Her last post was about the attack on an MP's freedom by pro-trans campaigners ostensibly couched in the importance of freedom of speech. But she neglected to comment on the MPs who have lost their freedom due to non-trans issues, Amess and Cox in the last decade. Her post was not about freedom of speech, but rather about freedom to criticise trans people.

    I'm genuinely really tolerant of other viewpoints, but her misgendering of people with a GRC and blatant transphobia in her posts won't be missed.

    I would rather read a dozen posts from Cyclefree than one from you. At least hers are informed and reasoned unlike your wild rants.
    Citation required.

    I mostly talk about capital gains tax and the erosion of civil liberties. If you can find a wild rant, I'm up for responding to it.

    I think in fact you're you're just a bigoted transphobe, and can't stand that I, as an intellectual libertarian, can put forward a convincing case for trans rights.

    But hey, please tell me about my wild rants again.
    Every time you write about trans rights. You are unwilling to compromise or see anyone elses point of view and just label everyone who disagrees with you as a transphobe. This posting being a case in point. 'Intellectual' is certainly not a word I would associate with you.
    That's demonstrably not true, for example I've disagreed with 148grss on the issue of trans women in sport. My opinion there is if you went through male puberty you will always have an advantage regardless of how you identify, and also, don't trans people have more important issues to fight like not being harassed on the street?

    I rarely mention trans stuff, in fact I never mention it at all unless it's brought up in a thread, such as my point regarding Cyclefree's last transphobic post. I don't generally speak on trans issues unless brought up by others. Most people would probably suggest my posting interests are on taxation, individual liberties, the housing market and random obscure star trek references. I don't bring up trans stuff unless it's already topic du jour, and repeatedly comment on how I wish it wasn't.

    I make no secret of the fact that as a cosmopolitan Londoner I have a ton of queer friends including several trans ones. I feel like when people make bigoted remarks, it's my civil duty to correct them. But I don't go out of my way to start fights or bring up that particular topic. I'm more interested in chatting about planning permission or tax liabilities, tbh.

    Your suggestion that I go on "wild rants" says a great deal more about you than it does about me. It suggests that you believe anyone who stands up for trans rights is both "wild" and "ranting" when in actual fact I've done my best to engage with debate as politely and as respectfully as I can.

    My perspective is drawn from my libertarian values, in fact I think the last time I mentioned trans stuff was jokingly pointing out that I have occasionally thrown copies of Nozick at my trans friends because I think that trans-ism and individualism are actually quite compatible ideas. Now, if you think that someone who jokes about throwing copies of Nozick about is not a person you would associate being "intellectual" with, I'm not sure what is.

    Perhaps we could have a game of chess or take a timed IQ test together? What would you require to prove that I'm your intellectual equal?

    Or maybe you could just eff off and actually behave like the libertarian you profess to be, which involves staying the hell out of other people's right to be who they choose to be.
    I do accept that you have every right to be a knob - as you so often demonstrate on here.

    However you do not have the right to bully the female participants in this group just because you disagree with them. As I said, Cyclefree was, is and always will be a far more valuable contributor to this site than you could ever be.
    I have never bullied the female contributors on here and would like you to either provide concrete evidence for that statement or retract it.

    Literally, prove it. Or fuck off.

    In my earlier post I actually pointed out I reached out to Carlotta privately after clashing with her on the trans issue because I think she's pretty awesome and I wanted to clear the air after we had a disagreement. I value her contributions here, as I value the contributions of other female posters.

    Cyclefree is different, as her most recent posts have been pure transphobia. But, as a libertarian, I respect her right to post them. The correct place for disagreement is in the comments section, and I've never said otherwise. If she wants to flounce rather than defend her opinions, that's her call.

    I've appreciated Cyclefree's output on this site, over the years.

    I do, occasionally, read her twitter and clearly over time she's become more, erm, vehement? radicalised? The nuance is increasingly lost and many more tweets/retweets that are in-your-face, screw-the-haters etc.

    I mean it's basically the same story on the twitter accounts for all single-issue rights campaigners. Everything is black and white, our-rights-are-absolute-and-non-negotiable, it's-us-against-the-world etc etc.

    Nuanced cyclefree, please come back!
    I agree.

    Cyclefree has been an excellent and insightful commentator for years, but radicalised on this topic.

    Honestly, I don't like to talk about trans stuff. When It's brought up on PB, I start by opining how I really don't want to discuss this topic here. There are other forums. I have trans friends, so it's very personal to me. I will defend the rights of my friends to my last breath, if it's the topic du jour. But I'd really rather talk about something else. And I don't appreciate being called "ranting" for standing up for the rights of people I care deeply about. Anyway. End of rant. Bedtime.
    Women, know your place.
    Deleted actually as I'm not going to engage with you.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 8,361

    WillG said:

    kyf_100 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    I suspect that I am not the only person who reads this site, regularly, who would like to see more women commenting, especially well-informed women, for example, Cyclefree.

    I would love to see more women commenting, as I clashed with Carlotta a bit I dm'ed her a while back to clear the air. She's awesome. I also disagree on stuff with Heathener on a regular basis but think she gives as good as she takes.

    Cyclefree however is a nasty bigot and, unlike Leon, doesn't have the excuse of being perpetually drunk. Her refusal to use she/her pronouns for someone who has completely transitioned and in receipt of a GRC for example.

    Her last post was about the attack on an MP's freedom by pro-trans campaigners ostensibly couched in the importance of freedom of speech. But she neglected to comment on the MPs who have lost their freedom due to non-trans issues, Amess and Cox in the last decade. Her post was not about freedom of speech, but rather about freedom to criticise trans people.

    I'm genuinely really tolerant of other viewpoints, but her misgendering of people with a GRC and blatant transphobia in her posts won't be missed.

    I would rather read a dozen posts from Cyclefree than one from you. At least hers are informed and reasoned unlike your wild rants.
    Citation required.

    I mostly talk about capital gains tax and the erosion of civil liberties. If you can find a wild rant, I'm up for responding to it.

    I think in fact you're you're just a bigoted transphobe, and can't stand that I, as an intellectual libertarian, can put forward a convincing case for trans rights.

    But hey, please tell me about my wild rants again.
    Every time you write about trans rights. You are unwilling to compromise or see anyone elses point of view and just label everyone who disagrees with you as a transphobe. This posting being a case in point. 'Intellectual' is certainly not a word I would associate with you.
    That's demonstrably not true, for example I've disagreed with 148grss on the issue of trans women in sport. My opinion there is if you went through male puberty you will always have an advantage regardless of how you identify, and also, don't trans people have more important issues to fight like not being harassed on the street?

    I rarely mention trans stuff, in fact I never mention it at all unless it's brought up in a thread, such as my point regarding Cyclefree's last transphobic post. I don't generally speak on trans issues unless brought up by others. Most people would probably suggest my posting interests are on taxation, individual liberties, the housing market and random obscure star trek references. I don't bring up trans stuff unless it's already topic du jour, and repeatedly comment on how I wish it wasn't.

    I make no secret of the fact that as a cosmopolitan Londoner I have a ton of queer friends including several trans ones. I feel like when people make bigoted remarks, it's my civil duty to correct them. But I don't go out of my way to start fights or bring up that particular topic. I'm more interested in chatting about planning permission or tax liabilities, tbh.

    Your suggestion that I go on "wild rants" says a great deal more about you than it does about me. It suggests that you believe anyone who stands up for trans rights is both "wild" and "ranting" when in actual fact I've done my best to engage with debate as politely and as respectfully as I can.

    My perspective is drawn from my libertarian values, in fact I think the last time I mentioned trans stuff was jokingly pointing out that I have occasionally thrown copies of Nozick at my trans friends because I think that trans-ism and individualism are actually quite compatible ideas. Now, if you think that someone who jokes about throwing copies of Nozick about is not a person you would associate being "intellectual" with, I'm not sure what is.

    Perhaps we could have a game of chess or take a timed IQ test together? What would you require to prove that I'm your intellectual equal?

    Or maybe you could just eff off and actually behave like the libertarian you profess to be, which involves staying the hell out of other people's right to be who they choose to be.
    I do accept that you have every right to be a knob - as you so often demonstrate on here.

    However you do not have the right to bully the female participants in this group just because you disagree with them. As I said, Cyclefree was, is and always will be a far more valuable contributor to this site than you could ever be.
    I have never bullied the female contributors on here and would like you to either provide concrete evidence for that statement or retract it.

    Literally, prove it. Or fuck off.

    In my earlier post I actually pointed out I reached out to Carlotta privately after clashing with her on the trans issue because I think she's pretty awesome and I wanted to clear the air after we had a disagreement. I value her contributions here, as I value the contributions of other female posters.

    Cyclefree is different, as her most recent posts have been pure transphobia. But, as a libertarian, I respect her right to post them. The correct place for disagreement is in the comments section, and I've never said otherwise. If she wants to flounce rather than defend her opinions, that's her call.

    I've appreciated Cyclefree's output on this site, over the years.

    I do, occasionally, read her twitter and clearly over time she's become more, erm, vehement? radicalised? The nuance is increasingly lost and many more tweets/retweets that are in-your-face, screw-the-haters etc.

    I mean it's basically the same story on the twitter accounts for all single-issue rights campaigners. Everything is black and white, our-rights-are-absolute-and-non-negotiable, it's-us-against-the-world etc etc.

    Nuanced cyclefree, please come back!
    Twitter rots brains. Just look at how Elon Musk got on the Trump train and ranting about the woke mind virus.
    Nah. I don't think Twitter rots brains. Twitter, like an excess of alcohol, shows what a person is truly like.
    An excess of alcohol definitely changes a person, it does not merely reveal who they are.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 28,885
    MaxPB said:

    Nunu5 said:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cj50ljn44j8o

    A 17-year-old has been charged with murder and attempted murder over a knife attack at a dance class in Southport.

    The male teenager, who cannot be named because of his age, has been charged with three counts of murder and 10 counts of attempted murder.

    Bebe King, six, Elsie Dot Stancombe, seven, and nine-year-old Alice Dasilva Aguiar died after the attack at the Taylor Swift-themed class in the Merseyside town on Monday.

    Eight other children and two adults who were at the event in the Hart Space community centre were also injured, with several still in a critical condition.

    The accused will appear at Liverpool City Magistrates’ Court on Thursday morning.

    Sarah Hammond, Chief Crown Prosecutor for CPS Mersey-Cheshire, said: "We remind all concerned that criminal proceedings against the defendant are active and that he has the right to a fair trial.

    "It is extremely important that there should be no reporting, commentary, or sharing of information online which could in any way prejudice these proceedings.

    "Our thoughts remain with the families of all of those affected by these harrowing events."

    He stabbed 13 different people before being stopped?!
    Yes, 11 primary school aged kids, the dance teacher who tried to save the kids and an office worker from the neighbouring building who heard screams tried to tackle the guy but got stabbed in the leg. It was only once a personal trainer who heard the commotion from outside came to the scene and managed to take him down and keep him suppressed until the police arrived. Without him it would have been 13 dead, he deserves a lot of recognition and praise.

    Running towards a horror scene like that unarmed to tackle a knife wielding murderer or terrorist is the ultimate act of bravery and he saved many lives.
    I am reminded of that self-defence teacher who had a huge following teaching shopkeepers and the like to defend their shops without weapons. He was banned from entering the UK as a dangerous person by the Home Secretary of the time - one Theresa May afraicr. Disgraceful.
  • Daveyboy1961Daveyboy1961 Posts: 3,947

    WillG said:

    kyf_100 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    I suspect that I am not the only person who reads this site, regularly, who would like to see more women commenting, especially well-informed women, for example, Cyclefree.

    I would love to see more women commenting, as I clashed with Carlotta a bit I dm'ed her a while back to clear the air. She's awesome. I also disagree on stuff with Heathener on a regular basis but think she gives as good as she takes.

    Cyclefree however is a nasty bigot and, unlike Leon, doesn't have the excuse of being perpetually drunk. Her refusal to use she/her pronouns for someone who has completely transitioned and in receipt of a GRC for example.

    Her last post was about the attack on an MP's freedom by pro-trans campaigners ostensibly couched in the importance of freedom of speech. But she neglected to comment on the MPs who have lost their freedom due to non-trans issues, Amess and Cox in the last decade. Her post was not about freedom of speech, but rather about freedom to criticise trans people.

    I'm genuinely really tolerant of other viewpoints, but her misgendering of people with a GRC and blatant transphobia in her posts won't be missed.

    I would rather read a dozen posts from Cyclefree than one from you. At least hers are informed and reasoned unlike your wild rants.
    Citation required.

    I mostly talk about capital gains tax and the erosion of civil liberties. If you can find a wild rant, I'm up for responding to it.

    I think in fact you're you're just a bigoted transphobe, and can't stand that I, as an intellectual libertarian, can put forward a convincing case for trans rights.

    But hey, please tell me about my wild rants again.
    Every time you write about trans rights. You are unwilling to compromise or see anyone elses point of view and just label everyone who disagrees with you as a transphobe. This posting being a case in point. 'Intellectual' is certainly not a word I would associate with you.
    That's demonstrably not true, for example I've disagreed with 148grss on the issue of trans women in sport. My opinion there is if you went through male puberty you will always have an advantage regardless of how you identify, and also, don't trans people have more important issues to fight like not being harassed on the street?

    I rarely mention trans stuff, in fact I never mention it at all unless it's brought up in a thread, such as my point regarding Cyclefree's last transphobic post. I don't generally speak on trans issues unless brought up by others. Most people would probably suggest my posting interests are on taxation, individual liberties, the housing market and random obscure star trek references. I don't bring up trans stuff unless it's already topic du jour, and repeatedly comment on how I wish it wasn't.

    I make no secret of the fact that as a cosmopolitan Londoner I have a ton of queer friends including several trans ones. I feel like when people make bigoted remarks, it's my civil duty to correct them. But I don't go out of my way to start fights or bring up that particular topic. I'm more interested in chatting about planning permission or tax liabilities, tbh.

    Your suggestion that I go on "wild rants" says a great deal more about you than it does about me. It suggests that you believe anyone who stands up for trans rights is both "wild" and "ranting" when in actual fact I've done my best to engage with debate as politely and as respectfully as I can.

    My perspective is drawn from my libertarian values, in fact I think the last time I mentioned trans stuff was jokingly pointing out that I have occasionally thrown copies of Nozick at my trans friends because I think that trans-ism and individualism are actually quite compatible ideas. Now, if you think that someone who jokes about throwing copies of Nozick about is not a person you would associate being "intellectual" with, I'm not sure what is.

    Perhaps we could have a game of chess or take a timed IQ test together? What would you require to prove that I'm your intellectual equal?

    Or maybe you could just eff off and actually behave like the libertarian you profess to be, which involves staying the hell out of other people's right to be who they choose to be.
    I do accept that you have every right to be a knob - as you so often demonstrate on here.

    However you do not have the right to bully the female participants in this group just because you disagree with them. As I said, Cyclefree was, is and always will be a far more valuable contributor to this site than you could ever be.
    I have never bullied the female contributors on here and would like you to either provide concrete evidence for that statement or retract it.

    Literally, prove it. Or fuck off.

    In my earlier post I actually pointed out I reached out to Carlotta privately after clashing with her on the trans issue because I think she's pretty awesome and I wanted to clear the air after we had a disagreement. I value her contributions here, as I value the contributions of other female posters.

    Cyclefree is different, as her most recent posts have been pure transphobia. But, as a libertarian, I respect her right to post them. The correct place for disagreement is in the comments section, and I've never said otherwise. If she wants to flounce rather than defend her opinions, that's her call.

    I've appreciated Cyclefree's output on this site, over the years.

    I do, occasionally, read her twitter and clearly over time she's become more, erm, vehement? radicalised? The nuance is increasingly lost and many more tweets/retweets that are in-your-face, screw-the-haters etc.

    I mean it's basically the same story on the twitter accounts for all single-issue rights campaigners. Everything is black and white, our-rights-are-absolute-and-non-negotiable, it's-us-against-the-world etc etc.

    Nuanced cyclefree, please come back!
    Twitter rots brains. Just look at how Elon Musk got on the Trump train and ranting about the woke mind virus.
    Nah. I don't think Twitter rots brains. Twitter, like an excess of alcohol, shows what a person is truly like.

    Also hot evenings with nothing to do...
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 23,156

    I didn't know Trump was human until a number of years ago when he happened to turn human and now he wants to be known as human.

    So I don't know - Is he a caricature? Or is he human?

    Orange-utan surely?
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,516
    edited August 1
    How long can Thames Water hold out ? Yet another debt downgrade.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/07/31/thames-water-troubles-mount-after-second-debt-downgrade/

    "Environment Secretary Steve Reed last week said the group remained “financially viable” and would not need to be nationalised.

    Mr Reed added that there was “no need to have undue concerns at the moment”.

    I cant help but think that will bite his arse in the coming months and Reeves will do he blame everyone but herself routine as she suddenly has to find a few billion more.

    And while she does have a point on the behaviour the various owners, it does rather raise the question of why she's letting MaQuarie one of the villains of the piece take control of the nations gas grid. Clearly she hasnt been "learning the lessons"

    https://www.ft.com/content/9b615f98-f88c-4086-a3ab-3858ed299ca5

  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,512

    MaxPB said:

    Nunu5 said:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cj50ljn44j8o

    A 17-year-old has been charged with murder and attempted murder over a knife attack at a dance class in Southport.

    The male teenager, who cannot be named because of his age, has been charged with three counts of murder and 10 counts of attempted murder.

    Bebe King, six, Elsie Dot Stancombe, seven, and nine-year-old Alice Dasilva Aguiar died after the attack at the Taylor Swift-themed class in the Merseyside town on Monday.

    Eight other children and two adults who were at the event in the Hart Space community centre were also injured, with several still in a critical condition.

    The accused will appear at Liverpool City Magistrates’ Court on Thursday morning.

    Sarah Hammond, Chief Crown Prosecutor for CPS Mersey-Cheshire, said: "We remind all concerned that criminal proceedings against the defendant are active and that he has the right to a fair trial.

    "It is extremely important that there should be no reporting, commentary, or sharing of information online which could in any way prejudice these proceedings.

    "Our thoughts remain with the families of all of those affected by these harrowing events."

    He stabbed 13 different people before being stopped?!
    Yes, 11 primary school aged kids, the dance teacher who tried to save the kids and an office worker from the neighbouring building who heard screams tried to tackle the guy but got stabbed in the leg. It was only once a personal trainer who heard the commotion from outside came to the scene and managed to take him down and keep him suppressed until the police arrived. Without him it would have been 13 dead, he deserves a lot of recognition and praise.

    Running towards a horror scene like that unarmed to tackle a knife wielding murderer or terrorist is the ultimate act of bravery and he saved many lives.
    I am reminded of that self-defence teacher who had a huge following teaching shopkeepers and the like to defend their shops without weapons. He was banned from entering the UK as a dangerous person by the Home Secretary of the time - one Theresa May afraicr. Disgraceful.
    Linky, pleaase.
  • eekeek Posts: 28,592
    edited August 1
    kyf_100 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    I suspect that I am not the only person who reads this site, regularly, who would like to see more women commenting, especially well-informed women, for example, Cyclefree.

    I would love to see more women commenting, as I clashed with Carlotta a bit I dm'ed her a while back to clear the air. She's awesome. I also disagree on stuff with Heathener on a regular basis but think she gives as good as she takes.

    Cyclefree however is a nasty bigot and, unlike Leon, doesn't have the excuse of being perpetually drunk. Her refusal to use she/her pronouns for someone who has completely transitioned and in receipt of a GRC for example.

    Her last post was about the attack on an MP's freedom by pro-trans campaigners ostensibly couched in the importance of freedom of speech. But she neglected to comment on the MPs who have lost their freedom due to non-trans issues, Amess and Cox in the last decade. Her post was not about freedom of speech, but rather about freedom to criticise trans people.

    I'm genuinely really tolerant of other viewpoints, but her misgendering of people with a GRC and blatant transphobia in her posts won't be missed.

    I would rather read a dozen posts from Cyclefree than one from you. At least hers are informed and reasoned unlike your wild rants.
    Citation required.

    I mostly talk about capital gains tax and the erosion of civil liberties. If you can find a wild rant, I'm up for responding to it.

    I think in fact you're you're just a bigoted transphobe, and can't stand that I, as an intellectual libertarian, can put forward a convincing case for trans rights.

    But hey, please tell me about my wild rants again.
    Every time you write about trans rights. You are unwilling to compromise or see anyone elses point of view and just label everyone who disagrees with you as a transphobe. This posting being a case in point. 'Intellectual' is certainly not a word I would associate with you.
    That's demonstrably not true, for example I've disagreed with 148grss on the issue of trans women in sport. My opinion there is if you went through male puberty you will always have an advantage regardless of how you identify, and also, don't trans people have more important issues to fight like not being harassed on the street?

    I rarely mention trans stuff, in fact I never mention it at all unless it's brought up in a thread, such as my point regarding Cyclefree's last transphobic post. I don't generally speak on trans issues unless brought up by others. Most people would probably suggest my posting interests are on taxation, individual liberties, the housing market and random obscure star trek references. I don't bring up trans stuff unless it's already topic du jour, and repeatedly comment on how I wish it wasn't.

    I make no secret of the fact that as a cosmopolitan Londoner I have a ton of queer friends including several trans ones. I feel like when people make bigoted remarks, it's my civil duty to correct them. But I don't go out of my way to start fights or bring up that particular topic. I'm more interested in chatting about planning permission or tax liabilities, tbh.

    Your suggestion that I go on "wild rants" says a great deal more about you than it does about me. It suggests that you believe anyone who stands up for trans rights is both "wild" and "ranting" when in actual fact I've done my best to engage with debate as politely and as respectfully as I can.

    My perspective is drawn from my libertarian values, in fact I think the last time I mentioned trans stuff was jokingly pointing out that I have occasionally thrown copies of Nozick at my trans friends because I think that trans-ism and individualism are actually quite compatible ideas. Now, if you think that someone who jokes about throwing copies of Nozick about is not a person you would associate being "intellectual" with, I'm not sure what is.

    Perhaps we could have a game of chess or take a timed IQ test together? What would you require to prove that I'm your intellectual equal?

    Or maybe you could just eff off and actually behave like the libertarian you profess to be, which involves staying the hell out of other people's right to be who they choose to be.
    I do accept that you have every right to be a knob - as you so often demonstrate on here.

    However you do not have the right to bully the female participants in this group just because you disagree with them. As I said, Cyclefree was, is and always will be a far more valuable contributor to this site than you could ever be.
    I have never bullied the female contributors on here and would like you to either provide concrete evidence for that statement or retract it.

    Literally, prove it. Or fuck off.

    In my earlier post I actually pointed out I reached out to Carlotta privately after clashing with her on the trans issue because I think she's pretty awesome and I wanted to clear the air after we had a disagreement. I value her contributions here, as I value the contributions of other female posters.

    Cyclefree is different, as her most recent posts have been pure transphobia. But, as a libertarian, I respect her right to post them. The correct place for disagreement is in the comments section, and I've never said otherwise. If she wants to flounce rather than defend her opinions, that's her call.

    I've appreciated Cyclefree's output on this site, over the years.

    I do, occasionally, read her twitter and clearly over time she's become more, erm, vehement? radicalised? The nuance is increasingly lost and many more tweets/retweets that are in-your-face, screw-the-haters etc.

    I mean it's basically the same story on the twitter accounts for all single-issue rights campaigners. Everything is black and white, our-rights-are-absolute-and-non-negotiable, it's-us-against-the-world etc etc.

    Nuanced cyclefree, please come back!
    I agree.

    Cyclefree has been an excellent and insightful commentator for years, but radicalised on this topic.

    Honestly, I don't like to talk about trans stuff. When It's brought up on PB, I start by opining how I really don't want to discuss this topic here. There are other forums. I have trans friends, so it's very personal to me. I will defend the rights of my friends to my last breath, if it's the topic du jour. But I'd really rather talk about something else. And I don't appreciate being called "ranting" for standing up for the rights of people I care deeply about. Anyway. End of rant. Bedtime.
    Sorry but she hasn't been radicalised - she has a very valid viewpoint that there should be women only spaces because many people have been attacked by men. Likewise Muslim women have valid religious reasons for wanting 100% women only areas.

    There are also a number (not huge but significant) of abusers who pretend to be Trans to get themselves into such spaces..

    You then have a problem that is impossible to fix

    1) Trans people think they have the right to go anywhere
    2) Some people pretending to be trans are actually not trans but abusers seeking access to places they would not otherwise have easy access to.
    3) women wish to be protected from the 2nd type.

    CycleFree's viewpoint is that point 2 is very important and so 1 has to be restricted, trans people think 2 is irrelevant so point 3 is irrelevant.

    So how do you square points 1 and 3 while point 2 is a very valid risk...

  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,811

    How long can Thames Water hold out ? Yet another debt downgrade.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/07/31/thames-water-troubles-mount-after-second-debt-downgrade/

    "Environment Secretary Steve Reed last week said the group remained “financially viable” and would not need to be nationalised.

    Mr Reed added that there was “no need to have undue concerns at the moment”.

    I cant help but think that will bite his arse in the coming months and Reeves will do he blame everyone but herself routine as she suddenly has to find a few billion more.

    And while she does have a point on the behaviour the various owners, it does rather raise the question of why she's letting MaQuarie one of the villains of the piece take control of the nations gas grid. Clearly she hasnt been "learning the lessons"

    https://www.ft.com/content/9b615f98-f88c-4086-a3ab-3858ed299ca5

    There's a lot of shit to come out there.

    And some more bad news on the accounts as well.
  • AnthonyTAnthonyT Posts: 94
    kyf_100 said:

    I suspect that I am not the only person who reads this site, regularly, who would like to see more women commenting, especially well-informed women, for example, Cyclefree.

    I would love to see more women commenting, as I clashed with Carlotta a bit I dm'ed her a while back to clear the air. She's awesome. I also disagree on stuff with Heathener on a regular basis but think she gives as good as she takes.

    Cyclefree however is a nasty bigot and, unlike Leon, doesn't have the excuse of being perpetually drunk. Her refusal to use she/her pronouns for someone who has completely transitioned and in receipt of a GRC for example.

    Her last post was about the attack on an MP's freedom by pro-trans campaigners ostensibly couched in the importance of freedom of speech. But she neglected to comment on the MPs who have lost their freedom due to non-trans issues, Amess and Cox in the last decade. Her post was not about freedom of speech, but rather about freedom to criticise trans people.

    I'm genuinely really tolerant of other viewpoints, but her misgendering of people with a GRC and blatant transphobia in her posts won't be missed.

    This is her last header where she specifically mentions Amess and Cox.

    https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2024/06/17/a-point-of-agreement/

    "On June 15th. Just one day short of 8 years to the day since a female Labour MP, Jo Cox, was murdered by a far right extremist, Thomas Mair, in what was described by the judge as an act of terrorism. One other MP, David Amess, was murdered in October 2021, also by a terrorist, Ali Harbi Ali, an IS fanatic. Stephen Timms survived an attempt to murder him in 2010 by Roshonara Choudhry, an Al-Qaeda sympathiser."

    Since you got that wrong you owe an apology. Though since she has left possibly because of misogynistic attacks by people like you that would be pointless. Still driving women away from public forums is what misogynists like you do so doubtless you're proud of yourself.
  • eekeek Posts: 28,592
    WillG said:
    That's not news - Trump visited Epstein's paedo island on a number of occasions.
  • MisterBedfordshireMisterBedfordshire Posts: 2,252
    edited August 1
    MaxPB said:

    https://twitter.com/broseph_stalin/status/1818774663851590040

    It's started, exactly what I feared has started, the streets are becoming unsafe for people who look like me, they were already unsafe for my wife who is Jewish.

    I hope the police arrest every single one of these arseholes.

    Appalling scenes in Shankhill Road Hartlepool. The Asian people living in Falls district of Hartlepool feel under siege today.
  • eekeek Posts: 28,592

    Andy_JS said:

    Andy_JS said:
    So how do the GOP ditch him? If his campaign now starts to implode…
    Maybe it starts with Trump ditching Vance.
    On cue:

    https://x.com/vivekgramaswamy/status/1818769155971060223

    The hard truth is we need a massive reset right now. The criticism that Kamala mounted a coup on Biden isn’t landing, neither is the claim that she covered up Biden’s cognitive decline. None of that matters to voters now. We need to offer our vision for the future of America, it’s the only way we’re going to win this election.
    I thought that the GOP had been offering their vision of America for the past 3 years - it's Gilead..

  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 11,516

    Andy_JS said:

    "More than 100 people have been arrested in a protest in central London following the murders and subsequent riots in Southport, the Metropolitan Police has said."

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4ng1254ndeo

    That partly tells you that the Met have far more resource than the thin blue line of Southport.
    … and could be better prepared because they’d seen this play out once already.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,516

    MaxPB said:

    https://twitter.com/broseph_stalin/status/1818774663851590040

    It's started, exactly what I feared has started, the streets are becoming unsafe for people who look like me, they were already unsafe for my wife who is Jewish.

    I hope the police arrest every single one of these arseholes.

    Appalling scenes in Shankhill Road Hartlepool. The Asian people living in Falls district of Hartlepool feel under siege today.
    Sounds like Luton
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 55,046

    How long can Thames Water hold out ? Yet another debt downgrade.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/07/31/thames-water-troubles-mount-after-second-debt-downgrade/

    "Environment Secretary Steve Reed last week said the group remained “financially viable” and would not need to be nationalised.

    Mr Reed added that there was “no need to have undue concerns at the moment”.

    I cant help but think that will bite his arse in the coming months and Reeves will do he blame everyone but herself routine as she suddenly has to find a few billion more.

    And while she does have a point on the behaviour the various owners, it does rather raise the question of why she's letting MaQuarie one of the villains of the piece take control of the nations gas grid. Clearly she hasnt been "learning the lessons"

    https://www.ft.com/content/9b615f98-f88c-4086-a3ab-3858ed299ca5

    That sounds awfully like the football club chairman saying he has every confidence in the team manager.

    They’ll be bust by next month, the shareholders wiped out and the debtholders seeing pennies on the pound.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,038

    How long can Thames Water hold out ? Yet another debt downgrade.

    "Environment Secretary Steve Reed last week said the group remained “financially viable” and would not need to be nationalised.

    Mr Reed added that there was “no need to have undue concerns at the moment”.

    I cant help but think that will bite his arse in the coming months and Reeves will do he blame everyone but herself routine as she suddenly has to find a few billion more.

    And while she does have a point on the behaviour the various owners, it does rather raise the question of why she's letting MaQuarie one of the villains of the piece take control of the nations gas grid. Clearly she hasnt been "learning the lessons"

    https://www.ft.com/content/9b615f98-f88c-4086-a3ab-3858ed299ca5

    Thames Water has looked doomed ever since interest rates went over about 1%. They were used as a source of capital and cheap debt by the owners as a way of monetising the income flow that came from their customers like they were gilts. The problem is that they got too greedy and the regulator was too stupid to spot the obvious risk, that that income flow was fixed by the margin they were allowed on their services, not by the rate of interest. As soon as the rate of interest increased the sustainable debt fell and the owners refused to pay it back, trying to blackmail the regulator into allowing additional charges instead.

    It is a classic example of inept and incompetent regulation. Whether that is simply incompetence in the regulator or incompetence on the part of the people who set up the structure is a bit complicated but it is clear neither were fit for purpose.

    What does the Chancellor do about it? Well, she should start by making it clear that McQuarie do not get to repeat their efforts in another part of our infrastructure. The shareholders must be completely wiped out. The bond holders are going to have to suffer too so that people no longer treat our infrastructure like gilts when they are not. The special administrator should sue for at least the last dividend paid on the basis the business does not have distributable funds. All of this will help but if the water and sewage of a large part of the country is to continue to flow this is going to cost public money.


  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,516
    Sandpit said:

    How long can Thames Water hold out ? Yet another debt downgrade.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/07/31/thames-water-troubles-mount-after-second-debt-downgrade/

    "Environment Secretary Steve Reed last week said the group remained “financially viable” and would not need to be nationalised.

    Mr Reed added that there was “no need to have undue concerns at the moment”.

    I cant help but think that will bite his arse in the coming months and Reeves will do he blame everyone but herself routine as she suddenly has to find a few billion more.

    And while she does have a point on the behaviour the various owners, it does rather raise the question of why she's letting MaQuarie one of the villains of the piece take control of the nations gas grid. Clearly she hasnt been "learning the lessons"

    https://www.ft.com/content/9b615f98-f88c-4086-a3ab-3858ed299ca5

    That sounds awfully like the football club chairman saying he has every confidence in the team manager.

    They’ll be bust by next month, the shareholders wiped out and the debtholders seeing pennies on the pound.
    Well if they go there will be lots of unpleasant consequences.

    The bills in the SE will jump substantially to
    The development projects of Thames Water will come to a stop
    Job losses
    The Thames Tideway project will need support


    But on the upside none of the directors will go to jail and the Civil servants will get more lessons they can learn.
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 5,398
    This website becomes very depressing to read when it descends in to name calling. Although what I would observe is that there has obviously been a shift in the acceptable discourse over the 'trans' issue. It is quite interesting that the view that Cyclefree sets out was a few years ago the one that was viewed as radical, now it has switched over to being the mainstream view, with little or no support for the position set out by kyf_100.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,516
    edited August 1
    DavidL said:

    How long can Thames Water hold out ? Yet another debt downgrade.

    "Environment Secretary Steve Reed last week said the group remained “financially viable” and would not need to be nationalised.

    Mr Reed added that there was “no need to have undue concerns at the moment”.

    I cant help but think that will bite his arse in the coming months and Reeves will do he blame everyone but herself routine as she suddenly has to find a few billion more.

    And while she does have a point on the behaviour the various owners, it does rather raise the question of why she's letting MaQuarie one of the villains of the piece take control of the nations gas grid. Clearly she hasnt been "learning the lessons"

    https://www.ft.com/content/9b615f98-f88c-4086-a3ab-3858ed299ca5

    Thames Water has looked doomed ever since interest rates went over about 1%. They were used as a source of capital and cheap debt by the owners as a way of monetising the income flow that came from their customers like they were gilts. The problem is that they got too greedy and the regulator was too stupid to spot the obvious risk, that that income flow was fixed by the margin they were allowed on their services, not by the rate of interest. As soon as the rate of interest increased the sustainable debt fell and the owners refused to pay it back, trying to blackmail the regulator into allowing additional charges instead.

    It is a classic example of inept and incompetent regulation. Whether that is simply incompetence in the regulator or incompetence on the part of the people who set up the structure is a bit complicated but it is clear neither were fit for purpose.

    What does the Chancellor do about it? Well, she should start by making it clear that McQuarie do not get to repeat their efforts in another part of our infrastructure. The shareholders must be completely wiped out. The bond holders are going to have to suffer too so that people no longer treat our infrastructure like gilts when they are not. The special administrator should sue for at least the last dividend paid on the basis the business does not have distributable funds. All of this will help but if the water and sewage of a large part of the country is to continue to flow this is going to cost public money.


    I cant see any other way but HMG will have to put its hand in its pocket. And while everyone is focussing on TW, lets not forget it has a large supply chain which is essential to keeping water flowing. TW has outsourced lots of key skills such as maintenance and cannot function if its suppliers are dragged down too. On the other hand those same suppliers of they survive will be ramming their prices up and demanding pro forma payment. Somebody is going to have to stump up the cash.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,984

    NEW THREAD

  • DavidL said:

    How long can Thames Water hold out ? Yet another debt downgrade.

    "Environment Secretary Steve Reed last week said the group remained “financially viable” and would not need to be nationalised.

    Mr Reed added that there was “no need to have undue concerns at the moment”.

    I cant help but think that will bite his arse in the coming months and Reeves will do he blame everyone but herself routine as she suddenly has to find a few billion more.

    And while she does have a point on the behaviour the various owners, it does rather raise the question of why she's letting MaQuarie one of the villains of the piece take control of the nations gas grid. Clearly she hasnt been "learning the lessons"

    https://www.ft.com/content/9b615f98-f88c-4086-a3ab-3858ed299ca5

    Thames Water has looked doomed ever since interest rates went over about 1%. They were used as a source of capital and cheap debt by the owners as a way of monetising the income flow that came from their customers like they were gilts. The problem is that they got too greedy and the regulator was too stupid to spot the obvious risk, that that income flow was fixed by the margin they were allowed on their services, not by the rate of interest. As soon as the rate of interest increased the sustainable debt fell and the owners refused to pay it back, trying to blackmail the regulator into allowing additional charges instead.

    It is a classic example of inept and incompetent regulation. Whether that is simply incompetence in the regulator or incompetence on the part of the people who set up the structure is a bit complicated but it is clear neither were fit for purpose.
    Them and many many others.

    The oil price is rocketing with the latest middle east goings on. You can forget interest rate cuts any time soon.

    In fact with the Tory inflationary actions like double digit minimum wage rises and Ldbour inflationary actions like doctors 22% pensionsble pay rises, the next interest rate change may well be up.





This discussion has been closed.