A group representing 1,400 private schools will press ahead with plans for a legal challenge against the government’s introduction of VAT from January, the BBC can reveal.
In a board meeting on Thursday, the Independent Schools Council (ISC), the body which includes most independent schools in the UK, voted to pave the way for legal action.
Lord David Pannick KC, one of the country’s leading barristers in cases relating to government decisions, is to lead the challenge which will be brought on behalf of parents, including those with children with special educational needs and disabilities (Send).
Background: Previous studies have explored the association between social media use and mental health among adolescents. However, few studies using nationally representative longitudinal data have explored this relationship for adults and how the effect might change depending on how people use social media.
Objective: This study investigated the longitudinal relationship between the frequency of viewing and posting on social media and mental health problems among UK adults.
Methods: This study included 15,836 adults (aged 16 years and older) who participated in Understanding Society, a UK longitudinal survey. Social media use was measured with questions about the frequency of viewing social media and posting on social media in Understanding Society Wave 11 (2019-2021). We explored viewing and posting separately, as well as a combined exposure: (1) high viewing, high posting; (2) high viewing, low posting; (3) low viewing, high posting; and (4) low viewing, low posting. Mental health problems were measured in Wave 12 (2020-2022) using the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12), a validated scale for identifying symptoms of common mental health problems, where higher scores indicated more mental health problems (0 to 36). Unadjusted and adjusted linear regression models were estimated for viewing social media and posting on social media, adjusting for the baseline GHQ score, gender, age, ethnicity, employment, and education. We found no evidence for effect modification by gender and age so overall associations were reported.
Results: In our adjusted models, we found no evidence of an association between the frequency of viewing social media and mental health problems in the following year. We found that adults who posted daily on social media had more mental health problems than those who never posted on social media, corresponding to a 0.35-point increase in GHQ score (β=0.35, 95% CI 0.01-0.68; P=.04). When we considered both social media behaviors, we found that those who frequently viewed and posted on social media scored 0.31 points higher on the GHQ score (β=0.31, 95% CI 0.04-0.58; P=.03) in the following year compared to those who rarely viewed or posted on social media.
Conclusions: We found that a high frequency of posting on social media was associated with increased mental health problems a year later. However, we did not find evidence of a similar association based on the frequency of viewing social media content. This provides evidence that some types of active social media use (ie, posting) have a stronger link to mental health outcomes than some types of passive social media use (viewing). These results highlighted that the relationship between social media use and mental health is complex, and more research is needed to understand the mechanisms underlying these patterns to inform targeted interventions and policies.
What impact on their results might the inclusion of people as young as 16 in the category of 'adult' have had? Where is their cut-off point of the category 'adolescent'?
People living in the European Union should stockpile emergency supplies in the event of war breaking out or another major emergency, a new report has advised.
As part of this strategy, the EU should advise households to be prepared to be self-sufficient for a minimum of 72 hours in the event of an emergency, the report says.
What sort of utter wazzock doesn't have 72 hours supplies?!
Plenty wouldn’t. Certainly not what we would consider the “fundamental” basic supplies. A lot of people will just get through a packet of say cereal or a weeks worth of tinned soup, and then go and get some more. This is a symptom of the accessibility of convenience shops (the Tesco Metros etc of this world) nowadays. If you live in a flat you might not have the space for a lot of extra food.
I would say anyone over the age of 40-45 was pretty much taught to “keep things in” though.
We used to make do and mend too, but that's also passé it seems. Oh well. I'm as well covered as sensible and dont broadcast it to the 'I'll just take yours' crowd so bring on those bombs
Make do and mend (particularly re consumer goods) might make a comeback if we get a Trump trade war with China - all those cheap parts won’t be quite so easy to source all of a sudden…
Good. Dig for victory too. And the black market. Good times
Rachel Reeves’s tax raid on employer national insurance contributions will not raise “anything like” the £25bn claimed by the Chancellor, the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) has said.
Paul Johnson, director of the IFS said the jobs tax raid will result in lower wages, reducing the amount of revenue raised from employer National Insurance contributions. Lower wages will also reduce the amount of tax collected from employee National Insurance contributions (NICs) and income tax. This means that the Government will raise only £10bn after accounting for lower pay awards and its decision to shield public sector workers.
That is quite some black hole...
I said yesterday the sums don't add up.
A terrible budget for business, for growth, for jobs.
You cannot tax your way to prosperity.
You also can't generate growth from nowhere given that we've had no real growth for 16 years and no one has a clue how to actually create some..
Planning reform and deregulation.
But everyone currently in Westminster is in hock to the vested interests.
People living in the European Union should stockpile emergency supplies in the event of war breaking out or another major emergency, a new report has advised.
As part of this strategy, the EU should advise households to be prepared to be self-sufficient for a minimum of 72 hours in the event of an emergency, the report says.
What sort of utter wazzock doesn't have 72 hours supplies?!
Plenty wouldn’t. Certainly not what we would consider the “fundamental” basic supplies. A lot of people will just get through a packet of say cereal or a weeks worth of tinned soup, and then go and get some more. This is a symptom of the accessibility of convenience shops (the Tesco Metros etc of this world) nowadays. If you live in a flat you might not have the space for a lot of extra food.
I would say anyone over the age of 40-45 was pretty much taught to “keep things in” though.
We used to make do and mend too, but that's also passé it seems. Oh well. I'm as well covered as sensible and dont broadcast it to the 'I'll just take yours' crowd so bring on those bombs
Make do and mend (particularly re consumer goods) might make a comeback if we get a Trump trade war with China - all those cheap parts won’t be quite so easy to source all of a sudden…
If the US starts a trade war with China - those chinese manufactured parts will be cheaper as they have to be sold somewhere..
She's a strong candidate, I think. It's a pity she had to start from behind the eight ball.
Don't understand that, she got 2% in the 2020 primary and has achieved absolutely nothing as VP. Her position and voting etc record makes Bernie Sanders look like Farage. She has 'not Trump' going for her. And that's about it.
She's a strong candidate, I think. It's a pity she had to start from behind the eight ball.
Don't understand that, she got 2% in the 2020 primary and has achieved absolutely nothing as VP. Her position and voting etc record makes Bernie Sanders look like Farage. She has 'not Trump' going for her. And that's about it.
As a matter of interest, what was the last VP you would say achieved something? It's the sort of role where it's hard to be seen to 'achieve' anything. Yet a fair few VPs end up becoming president (assassinations excepted).
A group representing 1,400 private schools will press ahead with plans for a legal challenge against the government’s introduction of VAT from January, the BBC can reveal.
In a board meeting on Thursday, the Independent Schools Council (ISC), the body which includes most independent schools in the UK, voted to pave the way for legal action.
Lord David Pannick KC, one of the country’s leading barristers in cases relating to government decisions, is to lead the challenge which will be brought on behalf of parents, including those with children with special educational needs and disabilities (Send).
A group representing 1,400 private schools will press ahead with plans for a legal challenge against the government’s introduction of VAT from January, the BBC can reveal.
In a board meeting on Thursday, the Independent Schools Council (ISC), the body which includes most independent schools in the UK, voted to pave the way for legal action.
Lord David Pannick KC, one of the country’s leading barristers in cases relating to government decisions, is to lead the challenge which will be brought on behalf of parents, including those with children with special educational needs and disabilities (Send).
The apparent government indifference to the way this change will affect SEND children is quite startling. I'd have expected there to have been a token 'gift' to such parents, as it's an obvious issue.
Their dogmatic hatred of independent schools causes them to turn an intentional blind eye to the plight of disadvantaged children and their families. And they claim that the Tories are the nasty party!
People living in the European Union should stockpile emergency supplies in the event of war breaking out or another major emergency, a new report has advised.
As part of this strategy, the EU should advise households to be prepared to be self-sufficient for a minimum of 72 hours in the event of an emergency, the report says.
Germans have been officially advised to store 10 days' worth of supplies since 2016
Apologies if this has been covered but I need to raise this concern somewhere and think PB is a proven place to check things! I'm astonished how little focus is on the impact on part time workers / low paid jobs by the employer NI changes - especially the secondary threshold being lowered to £5k from £9.1k pa. I make it that the employer NI cost for someone earning just £12,000pa will increase from the current £400pa to a stonking £1,050pa.
I think that's right and surely that's going to risk lost jobs, the Chancellor previously called Employer NI raises as a tax on jobs, but isn't this actually a tax on low-paying jobs and those who most likely can least afford to risk those jobs?
I know the employment allowance is doubled at least but....
Ever since the minimum wage was introdced we have had crocodile tears about how its going to cost jobs for the lowest paid. Yet we are still waiting for this tsunami of unemployment.
Until about 6 months ago, it was beneficial for large employers to offer no more than 16 hours a week, so that pay was under the Secondary Threshold. This was compounded by the fact working tax credit kicks in at 16 hours.
Why design a system to get people to work 2 days a week to survive on additional benefits while at the same time large employers avoid NI contributions ?
In the vast majority of the country people can walk into low paid, part time work.
The problem is that it is the employees not the employers incentivised to go for 16 hours. Work 16 hours and you can get potentially tens of thousands in benefits on top of that, but work any more and you're taxed at about 80%
For employers there's no real incentive like that. Oh and it's a legal requirement to allow "flexible working" unless there's a good reason not to - so employers are obliged to accept part timers if they can.
The only solution is to have serious reforms so that employees want to work full time as they're better off if they do.
The Budget did absolutely nothing to fix the situation.
80%?
The effective tax and benefit withdrawal rate under Universal credit can mean the effective "tax" rate is between 73% and 80%.
Now we can quibble that this isn't really tax but a design fault of the benefit system, but if you are in that situation you don't really care whether its called tax or not, you just know its a huge impediment to work.
She's a strong candidate, I think. It's a pity she had to start from behind the eight ball.
Don't understand that, she got 2% in the 2020 primary and has achieved absolutely nothing as VP. Her position and voting etc record makes Bernie Sanders look like Farage. She has 'not Trump' going for her. And that's about it.
As a matter of interest, what was the last VP you would say achieved something? It's the sort of role where it's hard to be seen to 'achieve' anything. Yet a fair few VPs end up becoming president (assassinations excepted).
Mike Pence achieved not plunging the US into chaos if he'd done what Trump wanted in Jan 2021.
A group representing 1,400 private schools will press ahead with plans for a legal challenge against the government’s introduction of VAT from January, the BBC can reveal.
In a board meeting on Thursday, the Independent Schools Council (ISC), the body which includes most independent schools in the UK, voted to pave the way for legal action.
Lord David Pannick KC, one of the country’s leading barristers in cases relating to government decisions, is to lead the challenge which will be brought on behalf of parents, including those with children with special educational needs and disabilities (Send).
The apparent government indifference to the way this change will affect SEND children is quite startling. I'd have expected there to have been a token 'gift' to such parents, as it's an obvious issue.
Their dogmatic hatred of independent schools causes them to turn an intentional blind eye to the plight of disadvantaged children and their families. And they claim that the Tories are the nasty party!
I'm against this change to the status of independent schools. But since it was announced, lots of people have raised the issue of SEND children. And the government has (to my ears at least) been silent.
What's the government's position on this? Have they addressed it and I've missed it?
She's a strong candidate, I think. It's a pity she had to start from behind the eight ball.
Don't understand that, she got 2% in the 2020 primary and has achieved absolutely nothing as VP. Her position and voting etc record makes Bernie Sanders look like Farage. She has 'not Trump' going for her. And that's about it.
Yes, it’s an unpopular view but she’s absolutely the worst presidential candidate of all time. She has nothing in her favour except ‘not Trump’.
She's a strong candidate, I think. It's a pity she had to start from behind the eight ball.
Don't understand that, she got 2% in the 2020 primary and has achieved absolutely nothing as VP. Her position and voting etc record makes Bernie Sanders look like Farage. She has 'not Trump' going for her. And that's about it.
As a matter of interest, what was the last VP you would say achieved something? It's the sort of role where it's hard to be seen to 'achieve' anything. Yet a fair few VPs end up becoming president (assassinations excepted).
Agreed, I always thought the VPs job was a "spare". I didn't think they actually did or were responsible for anything.
She's a strong candidate, I think. It's a pity she had to start from behind the eight ball.
Don't understand that, she got 2% in the 2020 primary and has achieved absolutely nothing as VP. Her position and voting etc record makes Bernie Sanders look like Farage. She has 'not Trump' going for her. And that's about it.
As a matter of interest, what was the last VP you would say achieved something? It's the sort of role where it's hard to be seen to 'achieve' anything. Yet a fair few VPs end up becoming president (assassinations excepted).
Mike Pence achieved not plunging the US into chaos if he'd done what Trump wanted in Jan 2021.
I'd say that's a slightly different and unusual case... but yes. And it would be slightly unfair to judge Harris poorly because she's not been in the position to stop a coup...
She's a strong candidate, I think. It's a pity she had to start from behind the eight ball.
Don't understand that, she got 2% in the 2020 primary and has achieved absolutely nothing as VP. Her position and voting etc record makes Bernie Sanders look like Farage. She has 'not Trump' going for her. And that's about it.
As a matter of interest, what was the last VP you would say achieved something? It's the sort of role where it's hard to be seen to 'achieve' anything. Yet a fair few VPs end up becoming president (assassinations excepted).
Fair point. Although with Kamala being border czar and never visiting the border when immigration is a hot button topic is pretty lame. And she seems to be keen on 'fresh start' which makes you wonder what was the point of her being the number 2 for 4 years. She leaves me utterly cold. A nothing in a pant suit. But there we are, we get her or comedy gold. Happy days.
She's a strong candidate, I think. It's a pity she had to start from behind the eight ball.
Don't understand that, she got 2% in the 2020 primary and has achieved absolutely nothing as VP. Her position and voting etc record makes Bernie Sanders look like Farage. She has 'not Trump' going for her. And that's about it.
..er how about well educated, successful woman who is articulate, thoughtful and intelligent. I would swap her for any of the goons that we have in government here at the moment, or for that matter those who were in government here previously!
She's a strong candidate, I think. It's a pity she had to start from behind the eight ball.
Don't understand that, she got 2% in the 2020 primary and has achieved absolutely nothing as VP. Her position and voting etc record makes Bernie Sanders look like Farage. She has 'not Trump' going for her. And that's about it.
Yes, it’s an unpopular view but she’s absolutely the worst presidential candidate of all time. She has nothing in her favour except ‘not Trump’.
Yes, she really is. Far worse than Trump in 2016, 2020, or 2024. A terrible candidate. The worst of the worst, the lowest of the low.
A group representing 1,400 private schools will press ahead with plans for a legal challenge against the government’s introduction of VAT from January, the BBC can reveal.
In a board meeting on Thursday, the Independent Schools Council (ISC), the body which includes most independent schools in the UK, voted to pave the way for legal action.
Lord David Pannick KC, one of the country’s leading barristers in cases relating to government decisions, is to lead the challenge which will be brought on behalf of parents, including those with children with special educational needs and disabilities (Send).
The apparent government indifference to the way this change will affect SEND children is quite startling. I'd have expected there to have been a token 'gift' to such parents, as it's an obvious issue.
Their dogmatic hatred of independent schools causes them to turn an intentional blind eye to the plight of disadvantaged children and their families. And they claim that the Tories are the nasty party!
Yes this is 2024’s version of fox hunting, except that this time they’re hunting SEND kids instead of foxes.
She's a strong candidate, I think. It's a pity she had to start from behind the eight ball.
Don't understand that, she got 2% in the 2020 primary and has achieved absolutely nothing as VP. Her position and voting etc record makes Bernie Sanders look like Farage. She has 'not Trump' going for her. And that's about it.
..er how about well educated, successful woman who is articulate, thoughtful and intelligent. I would swap her for any of the goons that we have in government here at the moment, or for that matter those who were in government here previously!
She's certainly not articulate imo. I mean, great, if you like her then wonderful. I don't.
Apologies if this has been covered but I need to raise this concern somewhere and think PB is a proven place to check things! I'm astonished how little focus is on the impact on part time workers / low paid jobs by the employer NI changes - especially the secondary threshold being lowered to £5k from £9.1k pa. I make it that the employer NI cost for someone earning just £12,000pa will increase from the current £400pa to a stonking £1,050pa.
I think that's right and surely that's going to risk lost jobs, the Chancellor previously called Employer NI raises as a tax on jobs, but isn't this actually a tax on low-paying jobs and those who most likely can least afford to risk those jobs?
I know the employment allowance is doubled at least but....
Ever since the minimum wage was introdced we have had crocodile tears about how its going to cost jobs for the lowest paid. Yet we are still waiting for this tsunami of unemployment.
Until about 6 months ago, it was beneficial for large employers to offer no more than 16 hours a week, so that pay was under the Secondary Threshold. This was compounded by the fact working tax credit kicks in at 16 hours.
Why design a system to get people to work 2 days a week to survive on additional benefits while at the same time large employers avoid NI contributions ?
In the vast majority of the country people can walk into low paid, part time work.
The problem is that it is the employees not the employers incentivised to go for 16 hours. Work 16 hours and you can get potentially tens of thousands in benefits on top of that, but work any more and you're taxed at about 80%
For employers there's no real incentive like that. Oh and it's a legal requirement to allow "flexible working" unless there's a good reason not to - so employers are obliged to accept part timers if they can.
The only solution is to have serious reforms so that employees want to work full time as they're better off if they do.
The Budget did absolutely nothing to fix the situation.
80%?
Yes.
Income tax, national insurance, plus 55% taper on top of those, plus the loss of other benefits such as Council Tax support, free dentistry, prescriptions etc
A group representing 1,400 private schools will press ahead with plans for a legal challenge against the government’s introduction of VAT from January, the BBC can reveal.
In a board meeting on Thursday, the Independent Schools Council (ISC), the body which includes most independent schools in the UK, voted to pave the way for legal action.
Lord David Pannick KC, one of the country’s leading barristers in cases relating to government decisions, is to lead the challenge which will be brought on behalf of parents, including those with children with special educational needs and disabilities (Send).
The apparent government indifference to the way this change will affect SEND children is quite startling. I'd have expected there to have been a token 'gift' to such parents, as it's an obvious issue.
Their dogmatic hatred of independent schools causes them to turn an intentional blind eye to the plight of disadvantaged children and their families. And they claim that the Tories are the nasty party!
I'm against this change to the status of independent schools. But since it was announced, lots of people have raised the issue of SEND children. And the government has (to my ears at least) been silent.
What's the government's position on this? Have they addressed it and I've missed it?
The provision for SEND in this country was already terrible. The Labour Party has managed to make it worse. The Labour Party's first instinct to attempt to create greater equity is not to raise everyone up, but to always dumb down to the lowest level of mediocrity.
"This was the worst Budget I have ever heard a British Chancellor deliver, by an enormous margin." - Allister Heath today.
"This was the best Budget I have ever heard a British Chancellor deliver, by a massive margin." Allister Heath on Kwarteng budget.
⁷ That's a philosophical question I don't think I've encountered before.
Which is bigger; enormous or massive?...
Pause
Pause
YOU BROKE MY BRAIN.
Enormous is bigger.
Massive derives from the word relating to acceleration so is technically about speed, after a fashion.
Massive derives from mass, which derives from maza, Greek for barley
Are you on speed?
Speed?
“Pop quiz, hotshot. There's a bomb on a bus. Once the bus goes 50 miles an hour, the bomb is armed. If it drops below 50, it blows up. What do you do? What do you do?”
Stay on board until my destination. Never known a bus to get to 50mph.
She's a strong candidate, I think. It's a pity she had to start from behind the eight ball.
Don't understand that, she got 2% in the 2020 primary and has achieved absolutely nothing as VP. Her position and voting etc record makes Bernie Sanders look like Farage. She has 'not Trump' going for her. And that's about it.
As a matter of interest, what was the last VP you would say achieved something? It's the sort of role where it's hard to be seen to 'achieve' anything. Yet a fair few VPs end up becoming president (assassinations excepted).
Agreed, I always thought the VPs job was a "spare". I didn't think they actually did or were responsible for anything.
She's a strong candidate, I think. It's a pity she had to start from behind the eight ball.
Don't understand that, she got 2% in the 2020 primary and has achieved absolutely nothing as VP. Her position and voting etc record makes Bernie Sanders look like Farage. She has 'not Trump' going for her. And that's about it.
Yes, it’s an unpopular view but she’s absolutely the worst presidential candidate of all time. She has nothing in her favour except ‘not Trump’.
Michael Dukakis. Walter Mondale. Hubert Humphrey. George Wallace. Ralph Nader. That dippy Libertarian who was stoned. Barry Goldwater. Strom Thurmond. And that's just post-WW2
She's a strong candidate, I think. It's a pity she had to start from behind the eight ball.
Don't understand that, she got 2% in the 2020 primary and has achieved absolutely nothing as VP. Her position and voting etc record makes Bernie Sanders look like Farage. She has 'not Trump' going for her. And that's about it.
Yes, it’s an unpopular view but she’s absolutely the worst presidential candidate of all time. She has nothing in her favour except ‘not Trump’.
Totally disagree. She speaks extremely well. She answers questions clearly and concisely. She presents her arguments with the clarity of a top class lawyer, which, of course, she was. Her positions on abortion, on immigration and on helping those less advantaged are principled, moral and correct (imv). I think she is one of the best candidates in recent times.
She's a strong candidate, I think. It's a pity she had to start from behind the eight ball.
Don't understand that, she got 2% in the 2020 primary and has achieved absolutely nothing as VP. Her position and voting etc record makes Bernie Sanders look like Farage. She has 'not Trump' going for her. And that's about it.
As a matter of interest, what was the last VP you would say achieved something? It's the sort of role where it's hard to be seen to 'achieve' anything. Yet a fair few VPs end up becoming president (assassinations excepted).
Mike Pence achieved not plunging the US into chaos if he'd done what Trump wanted in Jan 2021.
I'd say that's a slightly different and unusual case... but yes. And it would be slightly unfair to judge Harris poorly because she's not been in the position to stop a coup...
She's a strong candidate, I think. It's a pity she had to start from behind the eight ball.
Don't understand that, she got 2% in the 2020 primary and has achieved absolutely nothing as VP. Her position and voting etc record makes Bernie Sanders look like Farage. She has 'not Trump' going for her. And that's about it.
As a matter of interest, what was the last VP you would say achieved something? It's the sort of role where it's hard to be seen to 'achieve' anything. Yet a fair few VPs end up becoming president (assassinations excepted).
Agreed, I always thought the VPs job was a "spare". I didn't think they actually did or were responsible for anything.
She's a strong candidate, I think. It's a pity she had to start from behind the eight ball.
Don't understand that, she got 2% in the 2020 primary and has achieved absolutely nothing as VP. Her position and voting etc record makes Bernie Sanders look like Farage. She has 'not Trump' going for her. And that's about it.
As a matter of interest, what was the last VP you would say achieved something? It's the sort of role where it's hard to be seen to 'achieve' anything. Yet a fair few VPs end up becoming president (assassinations excepted).
Mike Pence achieved not plunging the US into chaos if he'd done what Trump wanted in Jan 2021.
I'd say that's a slightly different and unusual case... but yes. And it would be slightly unfair to judge Harris poorly because she's not been in the position to stop a coup...
Yet...
But to call someone, dropped into the role with so little time ahead of the election, who's now neck and neck with Trump, "nothing"; "the worst of all time" etc says rather more about the commenters than it does about the candidate. IMO.
Anyway, let's see how good a President she turns out to be.
Anyway before I disappear off into the ether again in the next day ir so, my US prediction is for the following states go be won by Trump in an easy EC victory for him
All of 2020 plus
Pennsylvania Michigan (Coin Toss) Wisconsin Georgia Nevada Arizona (Coin toss) Virginia (Perhaps) New Hampshire
Why New Hampshire?
Because he'll run her very close there. I think NJ might ge close enough to raise some eyebrows too
A few months ago I thought of writing an article about how modern-day issues - abortion, trans, immigration, insurrection - produced choropleths which can be used to produce bands of states, which when compared to the existing state rankings could indicate value or a flip. I abandoned it because of time issues, but one of those maps stuck in my mind because it had NH as red. It's too late to revisit but it's beginning to bug me...
Had to laugh at this:
High-Risk States (AR, IA, IN, MO, NE, NH, OH, SC, WV): All of these states have passed some anti-trans adult laws, but they haven't reached the same level of severity as the worst states. Missouri and West Virginia, for example, prohibit gender-affirming care for incarcerated adults as well as transgender youth…
Imagine going so far as to not fund sex changes for prisoners and children.
So you think it good policy to legally prohibit the supply of hormones, for example, to transitioned individuals ?
Fake news. The law prohibits inmates being given gender transition surgery, not medication:
That's a prohibition on surgery, not "gender affirming care", then.
Would you say the people who wrote the article were fearmongering in that case?
Given the bit that Sandpit quoted said "High-Risk States (AR, IA, IN, MO, NE, NH, OH, SC, WV): All of these states have passed some anti-trans adult laws, but they haven't reached the same level of severity as the worst states. Missouri and West Virginia, for example, prohibit gender-affirming care for incarcerated adults as well as transgender youth…", it would appear not. Which bit in that passage do you think is factually inaccurate?
It's not gender-affirming "care" that's being prohibited for incarcerated adults but surgery.
I think the latter is included in the former. As it appears does the author. Insofar as rapidly-evolving terms can be said to have a definition that is.
They define what's prohibited for inmates in the law:
(a) Surgical procedures that sterilize, including, but not limited to, castration, vasectomy, hysterectomy, oophorectomy, orchiectomy, or penectomy; (b) Surgical procedures that artificially construct tissue with the appearance of genitalia that differs from the individual's biological sex, including, but not limited to, metoidioplasty, phalloplasty, or vaginoplasty; or (c) Augmentation mammoplasty or subcutaneous mastectomy
I'm not sure you can construct a definition of "gender-affirming care" that excludes those things
(Incidentally, what is the "or" doing at the end of clause b? Breasts aren't genitals.)
Since men commit crime, particularly violent crime, at far greater rates than women, I think at the very least MTF transitions in prisons should be encouraged. Subsidised, even. Perhaps mandatory for violent rapists. Give them boobies and a snatch and see how much *they* like being harassed, fondled and groped and have men tell them it's not serious, that they were leading the guy on just by existing.
Sarcasm obviously, becoming a woman certainly isn't a punishment, but you get my point
IIRC the Unabomber was closeted trans (and explored the possibility of a sex change in his 20s), which is where much of his rage came from. Leading to this hilarious tweet https://x.com/sentientist/status/1667970304487092224
It's a compelling argument. Do the anti-Trans brigade *want* more unabombers? Because this is how you get more unabombers.
She's a strong candidate, I think. It's a pity she had to start from behind the eight ball.
Don't understand that, she got 2% in the 2020 primary and has achieved absolutely nothing as VP. Her position and voting etc record makes Bernie Sanders look like Farage. She has 'not Trump' going for her. And that's about it.
Yes, it’s an unpopular view but she’s absolutely the worst presidential candidate of all time. She has nothing in her favour except ‘not Trump’.
Worst of all time even as hyperbole is pretty ridiculous. I really don't get it at all.
Is she amazing? Probably not, though just referring to past primaries doesn't mean anything, Biden went through two and still ended up winning a third and the presidency. Record as VP? Not much to go on.
The campaign itself? Hard to judge these things until we see the outcomes. She's not done much open questioning, but had plenty of the big crowd events Americans love. She's reached out to disaffected Republicans and taken a tougher stance on the border etc to serk to address concerns. And the end result is it's sadly still 50/50, but hardly disastrous then.
So is it enough? Probably not, and that will be it's own statement. But has she been horrendous? No.
She's a strong candidate, I think. It's a pity she had to start from behind the eight ball.
Don't understand that, she got 2% in the 2020 primary and has achieved absolutely nothing as VP. Her position and voting etc record makes Bernie Sanders look like Farage. She has 'not Trump' going for her. And that's about it.
Yes, it’s an unpopular view but she’s absolutely the worst presidential candidate of all time. She has nothing in her favour except ‘not Trump’.
Totally disagree. She speaks extremely well. She answers questions clearly and concisely. She presents her arguments with the clarity of a top class lawyer, which, of course, she was. Her positions on abortion, on immigration and on helping those less advantaged are principled, moral and correct (imv). I think she is one of the best candidates in recent times.
QUESTION: "What's your message to Michigan voters on the economy? We have auto workers being laid off. The average person can't afford groceries or their rent."
KAMALA: "Let me start with this: I come from a middle class family."
She's a strong candidate, I think. It's a pity she had to start from behind the eight ball.
Don't understand that, she got 2% in the 2020 primary and has achieved absolutely nothing as VP. Her position and voting etc record makes Bernie Sanders look like Farage. She has 'not Trump' going for her. And that's about it.
As a matter of interest, what was the last VP you would say achieved something? It's the sort of role where it's hard to be seen to 'achieve' anything. Yet a fair few VPs end up becoming president (assassinations excepted).
Agreed, I always thought the VPs job was a "spare". I didn't think they actually did or were responsible for anything.
Serious question here, not trying to provoke just soliciting opinions
I think most of us agree the country is in a mess, don't think that is in dispute
So given that how many believe a government can actually get elected with policies that could fix the mess.
Personally my view is however you fix it either to the left or right......you wont get elected being honest about it
Arguably we have that now, with managerialist technocrats Starmer and Reeves running the ship, and they've certainly been laying on the gloomstering and doomstering.
The idea politicians can't be honest comes from 2017 but imo blaming the social care manifesto completely misreads that election. Lynton Crosby ran a dire campaign apparently designed for Boris, but most important were the two terrorist outrages against a backdrop of massive police cuts. Law and order scuppered the law and order party.
Anyway before I disappear off into the ether again in the next day ir so, my US prediction is for the following states go be won by Trump in an easy EC victory for him
All of 2020 plus
Pennsylvania Michigan (Coin Toss) Wisconsin Georgia Nevada Arizona (Coin toss) Virginia (Perhaps) New Hampshire
Why New Hampshire?
Because he'll run her very close there. I think NJ might ge close enough to raise some eyebrows too
A few months ago I thought of writing an article about how modern-day issues - abortion, trans, immigration, insurrection - produced choropleths which can be used to produce bands of states, which when compared to the existing state rankings could indicate value or a flip. I abandoned it because of time issues, but one of those maps stuck in my mind because it had NH as red. It's too late to revisit but it's beginning to bug me...
Had to laugh at this:
High-Risk States (AR, IA, IN, MO, NE, NH, OH, SC, WV): All of these states have passed some anti-trans adult laws, but they haven't reached the same level of severity as the worst states. Missouri and West Virginia, for example, prohibit gender-affirming care for incarcerated adults as well as transgender youth…
Imagine going so far as to not fund sex changes for prisoners and children.
So you think it good policy to legally prohibit the supply of hormones, for example, to transitioned individuals ?
Fake news. The law prohibits inmates being given gender transition surgery, not medication:
That's a prohibition on surgery, not "gender affirming care", then.
Would you say the people who wrote the article were fearmongering in that case?
Given the bit that Sandpit quoted said "High-Risk States (AR, IA, IN, MO, NE, NH, OH, SC, WV): All of these states have passed some anti-trans adult laws, but they haven't reached the same level of severity as the worst states. Missouri and West Virginia, for example, prohibit gender-affirming care for incarcerated adults as well as transgender youth…", it would appear not. Which bit in that passage do you think is factually inaccurate?
It's not gender-affirming "care" that's being prohibited for incarcerated adults but surgery.
I think the latter is included in the former. As it appears does the author. Insofar as rapidly-evolving terms can be said to have a definition that is.
They define what's prohibited for inmates in the law:
(a) Surgical procedures that sterilize, including, but not limited to, castration, vasectomy, hysterectomy, oophorectomy, orchiectomy, or penectomy; (b) Surgical procedures that artificially construct tissue with the appearance of genitalia that differs from the individual's biological sex, including, but not limited to, metoidioplasty, phalloplasty, or vaginoplasty; or (c) Augmentation mammoplasty or subcutaneous mastectomy
I'm not sure you can construct a definition of "gender-affirming care" that excludes those things
(Incidentally, what is the "or" doing at the end of clause b? Breasts aren't genitals.)
Since men commit crime, particularly violent crime, at far greater rates than women, I think at the very least MTF transitions in prisons should be encouraged. Subsidised, even. Perhaps mandatory for violent rapists. Give them boobies and a snatch and see how much *they* like being harassed, fondled and groped and have men tell them it's not serious, that they were leading the guy on just by existing.
Sarcasm obviously, becoming a woman certainly isn't a punishment, but you get my point
IIRC the Unabomber was closeted trans (and explored the possibility of a sex change in his 20s), which is where much of his rage came from. Leading to this hilarious tweet https://x.com/sentientist/status/1667970304487092224
It's a compelling argument. Do the anti-Trans brigade *want* more unabombers? Because this is how you get more unabombers.
Have you as a male ever tried to report violent crime against you by a woman? Domestic violence in particular underreported when it is female on male. Support is also not there
Anyway before I disappear off into the ether again in the next day ir so, my US prediction is for the following states go be won by Trump in an easy EC victory for him
All of 2020 plus
Pennsylvania Michigan (Coin Toss) Wisconsin Georgia Nevada Arizona (Coin toss) Virginia (Perhaps) New Hampshire
Why New Hampshire?
Because he'll run her very close there. I think NJ might ge close enough to raise some eyebrows too
A few months ago I thought of writing an article about how modern-day issues - abortion, trans, immigration, insurrection - produced choropleths which can be used to produce bands of states, which when compared to the existing state rankings could indicate value or a flip. I abandoned it because of time issues, but one of those maps stuck in my mind because it had NH as red. It's too late to revisit but it's beginning to bug me...
Had to laugh at this:
High-Risk States (AR, IA, IN, MO, NE, NH, OH, SC, WV): All of these states have passed some anti-trans adult laws, but they haven't reached the same level of severity as the worst states. Missouri and West Virginia, for example, prohibit gender-affirming care for incarcerated adults as well as transgender youth…
Imagine going so far as to not fund sex changes for prisoners and children.
So you think it good policy to legally prohibit the supply of hormones, for example, to transitioned individuals ?
Fake news. The law prohibits inmates being given gender transition surgery, not medication:
That's a prohibition on surgery, not "gender affirming care", then.
Would you say the people who wrote the article were fearmongering in that case?
Given the bit that Sandpit quoted said "High-Risk States (AR, IA, IN, MO, NE, NH, OH, SC, WV): All of these states have passed some anti-trans adult laws, but they haven't reached the same level of severity as the worst states. Missouri and West Virginia, for example, prohibit gender-affirming care for incarcerated adults as well as transgender youth…", it would appear not. Which bit in that passage do you think is factually inaccurate?
It's not gender-affirming "care" that's being prohibited for incarcerated adults but surgery.
I think the latter is included in the former. As it appears does the author. Insofar as rapidly-evolving terms can be said to have a definition that is.
They define what's prohibited for inmates in the law:
(a) Surgical procedures that sterilize, including, but not limited to, castration, vasectomy, hysterectomy, oophorectomy, orchiectomy, or penectomy; (b) Surgical procedures that artificially construct tissue with the appearance of genitalia that differs from the individual's biological sex, including, but not limited to, metoidioplasty, phalloplasty, or vaginoplasty; or (c) Augmentation mammoplasty or subcutaneous mastectomy
I'm not sure you can construct a definition of "gender-affirming care" that excludes those things
(Incidentally, what is the "or" doing at the end of clause b? Breasts aren't genitals.)
Since men commit crime, particularly violent crime, at far greater rates than women, I think at the very least MTF transitions in prisons should be encouraged. Subsidised, even. Perhaps mandatory for violent rapists. Give them boobies and a snatch and see how much *they* like being harassed, fondled and groped and have men tell them it's not serious, that they were leading the guy on just by existing.
Sarcasm obviously, becoming a woman certainly isn't a punishment, but you get my point
IIRC the Unabomber was closeted trans (and explored the possibility of a sex change in his 20s), which is where much of his rage came from. Leading to this hilarious tweet https://x.com/sentientist/status/1667970304487092224
It's a compelling argument. Do the anti-Trans brigade *want* more unabombers? Because this is how you get more unabombers.
Have you as a male ever tried to report violent crime against you by a woman? Domestic violence in particular underreported when it is female on male. Support is also not there
To give an example....imagine a male mp of which ever party slaps their wife in public....doubt they would remain in the party for long. A female mp does it not only still in party but often noised as a potential party leader
She's a strong candidate, I think. It's a pity she had to start from behind the eight ball.
Don't understand that, she got 2% in the 2020 primary and has achieved absolutely nothing as VP. Her position and voting etc record makes Bernie Sanders look like Farage. She has 'not Trump' going for her. And that's about it.
She's blossomed in the spotlight. One of those people who clearly enjoys it but not in a narcissistic way. Smart, articulate, robust, charismatic, heart in the right place. Manages that sweet spot combination of serious mindedness with a light touch and a good sense of humour. A consensus seeker when that is so needed in America. And last but not least a palpable affinity for democracy and the constitution.
People living in the European Union should stockpile emergency supplies in the event of war breaking out or another major emergency, a new report has advised.
As part of this strategy, the EU should advise households to be prepared to be self-sufficient for a minimum of 72 hours in the event of an emergency, the report says.
People should always have a few basics in stockpile IMHO. It’s just good common sense.
It's probably a useful question to ask next time Mormon missionaries appear on your doorstep. They are past-masters at it.
Anyway before I disappear off into the ether again in the next day ir so, my US prediction is for the following states go be won by Trump in an easy EC victory for him
All of 2020 plus
Pennsylvania Michigan (Coin Toss) Wisconsin Georgia Nevada Arizona (Coin toss) Virginia (Perhaps) New Hampshire
Why New Hampshire?
Because he'll run her very close there. I think NJ might ge close enough to raise some eyebrows too
A few months ago I thought of writing an article about how modern-day issues - abortion, trans, immigration, insurrection - produced choropleths which can be used to produce bands of states, which when compared to the existing state rankings could indicate value or a flip. I abandoned it because of time issues, but one of those maps stuck in my mind because it had NH as red. It's too late to revisit but it's beginning to bug me...
Had to laugh at this:
High-Risk States (AR, IA, IN, MO, NE, NH, OH, SC, WV): All of these states have passed some anti-trans adult laws, but they haven't reached the same level of severity as the worst states. Missouri and West Virginia, for example, prohibit gender-affirming care for incarcerated adults as well as transgender youth…
Imagine going so far as to not fund sex changes for prisoners and children.
So you think it good policy to legally prohibit the supply of hormones, for example, to transitioned individuals ?
Fake news. The law prohibits inmates being given gender transition surgery, not medication:
That's a prohibition on surgery, not "gender affirming care", then.
Would you say the people who wrote the article were fearmongering in that case?
Given the bit that Sandpit quoted said "High-Risk States (AR, IA, IN, MO, NE, NH, OH, SC, WV): All of these states have passed some anti-trans adult laws, but they haven't reached the same level of severity as the worst states. Missouri and West Virginia, for example, prohibit gender-affirming care for incarcerated adults as well as transgender youth…", it would appear not. Which bit in that passage do you think is factually inaccurate?
It's not gender-affirming "care" that's being prohibited for incarcerated adults but surgery.
I think the latter is included in the former. As it appears does the author. Insofar as rapidly-evolving terms can be said to have a definition that is.
They define what's prohibited for inmates in the law:
(a) Surgical procedures that sterilize, including, but not limited to, castration, vasectomy, hysterectomy, oophorectomy, orchiectomy, or penectomy; (b) Surgical procedures that artificially construct tissue with the appearance of genitalia that differs from the individual's biological sex, including, but not limited to, metoidioplasty, phalloplasty, or vaginoplasty; or (c) Augmentation mammoplasty or subcutaneous mastectomy
I'm not sure you can construct a definition of "gender-affirming care" that excludes those things
(Incidentally, what is the "or" doing at the end of clause b? Breasts aren't genitals.)
Since men commit crime, particularly violent crime, at far greater rates than women, I think at the very least MTF transitions in prisons should be encouraged. Subsidised, even. Perhaps mandatory for violent rapists. Give them boobies and a snatch and see how much *they* like being harassed, fondled and groped and have men tell them it's not serious, that they were leading the guy on just by existing.
Sarcasm obviously, becoming a woman certainly isn't a punishment, but you get my point
IIRC the Unabomber was closeted trans (and explored the possibility of a sex change in his 20s), which is where much of his rage came from. Leading to this hilarious tweet https://x.com/sentientist/status/1667970304487092224
It's a compelling argument. Do the anti-Trans brigade *want* more unabombers? Because this is how you get more unabombers.
Have you as a male ever tried to report violent crime against you by a woman? Domestic violence in particular underreported when it is female on male. Support is also not there
I certainly haven't tried to report it, no. Although I am sympathetic.
During an argument she intiated, one woman I dated hit me full force, closed fist, on the jaw. I didn't respond, simply left the room and told her the next day the relationship was over. Had the roles been been reversed, I'd expect to have been imprisoned.
At a work xmas do a few years ago I was inappropriately touched by a woman some 20 years my senior. She was blind drunk, I firmly but politely told her that if the situation were reversed, if I were female and she was male, she would be looking at an HR complaint and dismissal.
The latter still angers me, because I'm a very private person and I do not enjoy having my privates fondled. But as a man, I'm expected to turn the other cheek (no pun intended) or laugh it off.
The difference is that examples of female on male sexual misconduct are comparatively rare, and also as men we are bigger and more in control of the situation. There's no way the lady at the xmas party could have forced herself on me without my consent, for example. I'd have just punched her lights out. Women facing aggressive men generally do not have that option.
Anyway before I disappear off into the ether again in the next day ir so, my US prediction is for the following states go be won by Trump in an easy EC victory for him
All of 2020 plus
Pennsylvania Michigan (Coin Toss) Wisconsin Georgia Nevada Arizona (Coin toss) Virginia (Perhaps) New Hampshire
Why New Hampshire?
Because he'll run her very close there. I think NJ might ge close enough to raise some eyebrows too
A few months ago I thought of writing an article about how modern-day issues - abortion, trans, immigration, insurrection - produced choropleths which can be used to produce bands of states, which when compared to the existing state rankings could indicate value or a flip. I abandoned it because of time issues, but one of those maps stuck in my mind because it had NH as red. It's too late to revisit but it's beginning to bug me...
Had to laugh at this:
High-Risk States (AR, IA, IN, MO, NE, NH, OH, SC, WV): All of these states have passed some anti-trans adult laws, but they haven't reached the same level of severity as the worst states. Missouri and West Virginia, for example, prohibit gender-affirming care for incarcerated adults as well as transgender youth…
Imagine going so far as to not fund sex changes for prisoners and children.
So you think it good policy to legally prohibit the supply of hormones, for example, to transitioned individuals ?
Fake news. The law prohibits inmates being given gender transition surgery, not medication:
That's a prohibition on surgery, not "gender affirming care", then.
Would you say the people who wrote the article were fearmongering in that case?
Given the bit that Sandpit quoted said "High-Risk States (AR, IA, IN, MO, NE, NH, OH, SC, WV): All of these states have passed some anti-trans adult laws, but they haven't reached the same level of severity as the worst states. Missouri and West Virginia, for example, prohibit gender-affirming care for incarcerated adults as well as transgender youth…", it would appear not. Which bit in that passage do you think is factually inaccurate?
It's not gender-affirming "care" that's being prohibited for incarcerated adults but surgery.
I think the latter is included in the former. As it appears does the author. Insofar as rapidly-evolving terms can be said to have a definition that is.
They define what's prohibited for inmates in the law:
(a) Surgical procedures that sterilize, including, but not limited to, castration, vasectomy, hysterectomy, oophorectomy, orchiectomy, or penectomy; (b) Surgical procedures that artificially construct tissue with the appearance of genitalia that differs from the individual's biological sex, including, but not limited to, metoidioplasty, phalloplasty, or vaginoplasty; or (c) Augmentation mammoplasty or subcutaneous mastectomy
I'm not sure you can construct a definition of "gender-affirming care" that excludes those things
(Incidentally, what is the "or" doing at the end of clause b? Breasts aren't genitals.)
Since men commit crime, particularly violent crime, at far greater rates than women, I think at the very least MTF transitions in prisons should be encouraged. Subsidised, even. Perhaps mandatory for violent rapists. Give them boobies and a snatch and see how much *they* like being harassed, fondled and groped and have men tell them it's not serious, that they were leading the guy on just by existing.
Sarcasm obviously, becoming a woman certainly isn't a punishment, but you get my point
IIRC the Unabomber was closeted trans (and explored the possibility of a sex change in his 20s), which is where much of his rage came from. Leading to this hilarious tweet https://x.com/sentientist/status/1667970304487092224
It's a compelling argument. Do the anti-Trans brigade *want* more unabombers? Because this is how you get more unabombers.
Have you as a male ever tried to report violent crime against you by a woman? Domestic violence in particular underreported when it is female on male. Support is also not there
I certainly haven't tried to report it, no. Although I am sympathetic.
During an argument she intiated, one woman I dated hit me full force, closed fist, on the jaw. I didn't respond, simply left the room and told her the next day the relationship was over. Had the roles been been reversed, I'd expect to have been imprisoned.
At a work xmas do a few years ago I was inappropriately touched by a woman some 20 years my senior. She was blind drunk, I firmly but politely told her that if the situation were reversed, if I were female and she was male, she would be looking at an HR complaint and dismissal.
The latter still angers me, because I'm a very private person and I do not enjoy having my privates fondled. But as a man, I'm expected to turn the other cheek (no pun intended) or laugh it off.
The difference is that examples of female on male sexual misconduct are comparatively rare, and also as men we are bigger and more in control of the situation. There's no way the lady at the xmas party could have forced herself on me without my consent, for example. I'd have just punched her lights out. Women facing aggressive men generally do not have that option.
I wasn't suggesting some men can't handle it. Just like some women can't handle it. However a lot of times such as your second example a senior woman hitting on you, the pressures to comply are not necessarily physical just as they aren't for example when a male boss hits on a junior female...its fear of being eased out of a job.
In addition many men are raised to be fairly traditional....I for example was always raised as never hit a girl...sounds like you were too. When it happened to you, you walked away....what happens though when its the woman you have moved in with, finances tied etc....not so easy to just walk out and have nothing more to do.
Also dispute comparatively rare.....most domestic violence charities estimate female abusives make at least a third of cases
Anyway before I disappear off into the ether again in the next day ir so, my US prediction is for the following states go be won by Trump in an easy EC victory for him
All of 2020 plus
Pennsylvania Michigan (Coin Toss) Wisconsin Georgia Nevada Arizona (Coin toss) Virginia (Perhaps) New Hampshire
Why New Hampshire?
Because he'll run her very close there. I think NJ might ge close enough to raise some eyebrows too
A few months ago I thought of writing an article about how modern-day issues - abortion, trans, immigration, insurrection - produced choropleths which can be used to produce bands of states, which when compared to the existing state rankings could indicate value or a flip. I abandoned it because of time issues, but one of those maps stuck in my mind because it had NH as red. It's too late to revisit but it's beginning to bug me...
Had to laugh at this:
High-Risk States (AR, IA, IN, MO, NE, NH, OH, SC, WV): All of these states have passed some anti-trans adult laws, but they haven't reached the same level of severity as the worst states. Missouri and West Virginia, for example, prohibit gender-affirming care for incarcerated adults as well as transgender youth…
Imagine going so far as to not fund sex changes for prisoners and children.
So you think it good policy to legally prohibit the supply of hormones, for example, to transitioned individuals ?
Fake news. The law prohibits inmates being given gender transition surgery, not medication:
That's a prohibition on surgery, not "gender affirming care", then.
Would you say the people who wrote the article were fearmongering in that case?
Given the bit that Sandpit quoted said "High-Risk States (AR, IA, IN, MO, NE, NH, OH, SC, WV): All of these states have passed some anti-trans adult laws, but they haven't reached the same level of severity as the worst states. Missouri and West Virginia, for example, prohibit gender-affirming care for incarcerated adults as well as transgender youth…", it would appear not. Which bit in that passage do you think is factually inaccurate?
It's not gender-affirming "care" that's being prohibited for incarcerated adults but surgery.
I think the latter is included in the former. As it appears does the author. Insofar as rapidly-evolving terms can be said to have a definition that is.
They define what's prohibited for inmates in the law:
(a) Surgical procedures that sterilize, including, but not limited to, castration, vasectomy, hysterectomy, oophorectomy, orchiectomy, or penectomy; (b) Surgical procedures that artificially construct tissue with the appearance of genitalia that differs from the individual's biological sex, including, but not limited to, metoidioplasty, phalloplasty, or vaginoplasty; or (c) Augmentation mammoplasty or subcutaneous mastectomy
I'm not sure you can construct a definition of "gender-affirming care" that excludes those things
(Incidentally, what is the "or" doing at the end of clause b? Breasts aren't genitals.)
Since men commit crime, particularly violent crime, at far greater rates than women, I think at the very least MTF transitions in prisons should be encouraged. Subsidised, even. Perhaps mandatory for violent rapists. Give them boobies and a snatch and see how much *they* like being harassed, fondled and groped and have men tell them it's not serious, that they were leading the guy on just by existing.
Sarcasm obviously, becoming a woman certainly isn't a punishment, but you get my point
IIRC the Unabomber was closeted trans (and explored the possibility of a sex change in his 20s), which is where much of his rage came from. Leading to this hilarious tweet https://x.com/sentientist/status/1667970304487092224
It's a compelling argument. Do the anti-Trans brigade *want* more unabombers? Because this is how you get more unabombers.
Have you as a male ever tried to report violent crime against you by a woman? Domestic violence in particular underreported when it is female on male. Support is also not there
I certainly haven't tried to report it, no. Although I am sympathetic.
During an argument she intiated, one woman I dated hit me full force, closed fist, on the jaw. I didn't respond, simply left the room and told her the next day the relationship was over. Had the roles been been reversed, I'd expect to have been imprisoned.
At a work xmas do a few years ago I was inappropriately touched by a woman some 20 years my senior. She was blind drunk, I firmly but politely told her that if the situation were reversed, if I were female and she was male, she would be looking at an HR complaint and dismissal.
The latter still angers me, because I'm a very private person and I do not enjoy having my privates fondled. But as a man, I'm expected to turn the other cheek (no pun intended) or laugh it off.
The difference is that examples of female on male sexual misconduct are comparatively rare, and also as men we are bigger and more in control of the situation. There's no way the lady at the xmas party could have forced herself on me without my consent, for example. I'd have just punched her lights out. Women facing aggressive men generally do not have that option.
I wasn't suggesting some men can't handle it. Just like some women can't handle it. However a lot of times such as your second example a senior woman hitting on you, the pressures to comply are not necessarily physical just as they aren't for example when a male boss hits on a junior female...its fear of being eased out of a job.
In addition many men are raised to be fairly traditional....I for example was always raised as never hit a girl...sounds like you were too. When it happened to you, you walked away....what happens though when its the woman you have moved in with, finances tied etc....not so easy to just walk out and have nothing more to do.
Also dispute comparatively rare.....most domestic violence charities estimate female abusives make at least a third of cases
I'd agree with you, abuse takes many forms and I've seen women be as abusive as men. It's not talked about enough, and men are expected to "man up". I still think women are proportionally more likely to be on the receiving end of abuse, though, but there is much less support out there for men who are.
Anyway before I disappear off into the ether again in the next day ir so, my US prediction is for the following states go be won by Trump in an easy EC victory for him
All of 2020 plus
Pennsylvania Michigan (Coin Toss) Wisconsin Georgia Nevada Arizona (Coin toss) Virginia (Perhaps) New Hampshire
Why New Hampshire?
Because he'll run her very close there. I think NJ might ge close enough to raise some eyebrows too
A few months ago I thought of writing an article about how modern-day issues - abortion, trans, immigration, insurrection - produced choropleths which can be used to produce bands of states, which when compared to the existing state rankings could indicate value or a flip. I abandoned it because of time issues, but one of those maps stuck in my mind because it had NH as red. It's too late to revisit but it's beginning to bug me...
Had to laugh at this:
High-Risk States (AR, IA, IN, MO, NE, NH, OH, SC, WV): All of these states have passed some anti-trans adult laws, but they haven't reached the same level of severity as the worst states. Missouri and West Virginia, for example, prohibit gender-affirming care for incarcerated adults as well as transgender youth…
Imagine going so far as to not fund sex changes for prisoners and children.
So you think it good policy to legally prohibit the supply of hormones, for example, to transitioned individuals ?
Fake news. The law prohibits inmates being given gender transition surgery, not medication:
That's a prohibition on surgery, not "gender affirming care", then.
Would you say the people who wrote the article were fearmongering in that case?
Given the bit that Sandpit quoted said "High-Risk States (AR, IA, IN, MO, NE, NH, OH, SC, WV): All of these states have passed some anti-trans adult laws, but they haven't reached the same level of severity as the worst states. Missouri and West Virginia, for example, prohibit gender-affirming care for incarcerated adults as well as transgender youth…", it would appear not. Which bit in that passage do you think is factually inaccurate?
It's not gender-affirming "care" that's being prohibited for incarcerated adults but surgery.
I think the latter is included in the former. As it appears does the author. Insofar as rapidly-evolving terms can be said to have a definition that is.
They define what's prohibited for inmates in the law:
(a) Surgical procedures that sterilize, including, but not limited to, castration, vasectomy, hysterectomy, oophorectomy, orchiectomy, or penectomy; (b) Surgical procedures that artificially construct tissue with the appearance of genitalia that differs from the individual's biological sex, including, but not limited to, metoidioplasty, phalloplasty, or vaginoplasty; or (c) Augmentation mammoplasty or subcutaneous mastectomy
I'm not sure you can construct a definition of "gender-affirming care" that excludes those things
(Incidentally, what is the "or" doing at the end of clause b? Breasts aren't genitals.)
Since men commit crime, particularly violent crime, at far greater rates than women, I think at the very least MTF transitions in prisons should be encouraged. Subsidised, even. Perhaps mandatory for violent rapists. Give them boobies and a snatch and see how much *they* like being harassed, fondled and groped and have men tell them it's not serious, that they were leading the guy on just by existing.
Sarcasm obviously, becoming a woman certainly isn't a punishment, but you get my point
IIRC the Unabomber was closeted trans (and explored the possibility of a sex change in his 20s), which is where much of his rage came from. Leading to this hilarious tweet https://x.com/sentientist/status/1667970304487092224
It's a compelling argument. Do the anti-Trans brigade *want* more unabombers? Because this is how you get more unabombers.
Have you as a male ever tried to report violent crime against you by a woman? Domestic violence in particular underreported when it is female on male. Support is also not there
I certainly haven't tried to report it, no. Although I am sympathetic.
During an argument she intiated, one woman I dated hit me full force, closed fist, on the jaw. I didn't respond, simply left the room and told her the next day the relationship was over. Had the roles been been reversed, I'd expect to have been imprisoned.
At a work xmas do a few years ago I was inappropriately touched by a woman some 20 years my senior. She was blind drunk, I firmly but politely told her that if the situation were reversed, if I were female and she was male, she would be looking at an HR complaint and dismissal.
The latter still angers me, because I'm a very private person and I do not enjoy having my privates fondled. But as a man, I'm expected to turn the other cheek (no pun intended) or laugh it off.
The difference is that examples of female on male sexual misconduct are comparatively rare, and also as men we are bigger and more in control of the situation. There's no way the lady at the xmas party could have forced herself on me without my consent, for example. I'd have just punched her lights out. Women facing aggressive men generally do not have that option.
I wasn't suggesting some men can't handle it. Just like some women can't handle it. However a lot of times such as your second example a senior woman hitting on you, the pressures to comply are not necessarily physical just as they aren't for example when a male boss hits on a junior female...its fear of being eased out of a job.
In addition many men are raised to be fairly traditional....I for example was always raised as never hit a girl...sounds like you were too. When it happened to you, you walked away....what happens though when its the woman you have moved in with, finances tied etc....not so easy to just walk out and have nothing more to do.
Also dispute comparatively rare.....most domestic violence charities estimate female abusives make at least a third of cases
I'd agree with you, abuse takes many forms and I've seen women be as abusive as men. It's not talked about enough, and men are expected to "man up". I still think women are proportionally more likely to be on the receiving end of abuse, though, but there is much less support out there for men who are.
Definitely woman outnumber men on physical abuse by about 2 to 1....not so convinced about emotional abuse
Comments
But everyone currently in Westminster is in hock to the vested interests.
The Bill appears on my TV regularly.
She has 'not Trump' going for her. And that's about it.
Now we can quibble that this isn't really tax but a design fault of the benefit system, but if you are in that situation you don't really care whether its called tax or not, you just know its a huge impediment to work.
What's the government's position on this? Have they addressed it and I've missed it?
She leaves me utterly cold. A nothing in a pant suit.
But there we are, we get her or comedy gold. Happy days.
You really have drunk the Trumpite kool-aid.
I think most of us agree the country is in a mess, don't think that is in dispute
So given that how many believe a government can actually get elected with policies that could fix the mess.
Personally my view is however you fix it either to the left or right......you wont get elected being honest about it
I mean, great, if you like her then wonderful. I don't.
Income tax, national insurance, plus 55% taper on top of those, plus the loss of other benefits such as Council Tax support, free dentistry, prescriptions etc
NEW THREAD
But to call someone, dropped into the role with so little time ahead of the election, who's now neck and neck with Trump, "nothing"; "the worst of all time" etc says rather more about the commenters than it does about the candidate. IMO.
Anyway, let's see how good a President she turns out to be.
Sarcasm obviously, becoming a woman certainly isn't a punishment, but you get my point
IIRC the Unabomber was closeted trans (and explored the possibility of a sex change in his 20s), which is where much of his rage came from. Leading to this hilarious tweet https://x.com/sentientist/status/1667970304487092224
It's a compelling argument. Do the anti-Trans brigade *want* more unabombers? Because this is how you get more unabombers.
Is she amazing? Probably not, though just referring to past primaries doesn't mean anything, Biden went through two and still ended up winning a third and the presidency. Record as VP? Not much to go on.
The campaign itself? Hard to judge these things until we see the outcomes. She's not done much open questioning, but had plenty of the big crowd events Americans love. She's reached out to disaffected Republicans and taken a tougher stance on the border etc to serk to address concerns. And the end result is it's sadly still 50/50, but hardly disastrous then.
So is it enough? Probably not, and that will be it's own statement. But has she been horrendous? No.
https://x.com/proudelephantus/status/1851393648505549286
QUESTION: "What's your message to Michigan voters on the economy? We have auto workers being laid off. The average person can't afford groceries or their rent."
KAMALA: "Let me start with this: I come from a middle class family."
The idea politicians can't be honest comes from 2017 but imo blaming the social care manifesto completely misreads that election. Lynton Crosby ran a dire campaign apparently designed for Boris, but most important were the two terrorist outrages against a backdrop of massive police cuts. Law and order scuppered the law and order party.
During an argument she intiated, one woman I dated hit me full force, closed fist, on the jaw. I didn't respond, simply left the room and told her the next day the relationship was over. Had the roles been been reversed, I'd expect to have been imprisoned.
At a work xmas do a few years ago I was inappropriately touched by a woman some 20 years my senior. She was blind drunk, I firmly but politely told her that if the situation were reversed, if I were female and she was male, she would be looking at an HR complaint and dismissal.
The latter still angers me, because I'm a very private person and I do not enjoy having my privates fondled. But as a man, I'm expected to turn the other cheek (no pun intended) or laugh it off.
The difference is that examples of female on male sexual misconduct are comparatively rare, and also as men we are bigger and more in control of the situation. There's no way the lady at the xmas party could have forced herself on me without my consent, for example. I'd have just punched her lights out. Women facing aggressive men generally do not have that option.
In addition many men are raised to be fairly traditional....I for example was always raised as never hit a girl...sounds like you were too. When it happened to you, you walked away....what happens though when its the woman you have moved in with, finances tied etc....not so easy to just walk out and have nothing more to do.
Also dispute comparatively rare.....most domestic violence charities estimate female abusives make at least a third of cases