Why do I get the feeling that for some people the w word will never end.
Well you are the one banging on about it at the moment.
I’m just trying to find a consensus. Very few have engaged so far, would you like to?
I don’t think a consensus is truly possible because at the edges, at the extremes, there will always be those who want to keep pushing boundaries and those who think everything is PC gone mad. I’m not a fan of a lot of things. I had to do some mandatory training on safeguarding this week. On the gender question there were four options. Male, femail, transgender and queer. I have no idea what the last one even means. I don’t regard trans men as men or trans women as women. But I do respect them as people hope that they can find happiness in their lives as I hope everyone can. But I know some would be offended by what I have just written.
Is that the same Jeremy Clarkson who bought a farm as a tax avoidance wheeze?
He seems genuinely interested in farming.
Oh well, that's alright then. He's bought a farm for IHT avoidance purposes but he does also have an interest in farming.
Did he really? I assume you can back that up.
"Speaking about his decision to make the surprising purchase, Jeremy wrote in The Times, "Land is a better investment than any bank can offer. The Government doesn't get any of my money when I die. "
OMG Mad Nad admits agreeing to see some revenge porn pics.
Is seeing and sharing revenge p0wn pictures treated the same way as sharing and possessing child pictures?
It can be.
The Tory government made revenge porn a crime.
Revenge Porn is the sharing of private, sexual materials, either photos or videos, of another person without their consent and with the purpose of causing embarrassment or distress.
The images are sometimes accompanied by personal information about the subject, including their full name, address and links to their social media profiles.
The offence applies both online and offline and to images which are shared electronically or in a more traditional way so includes the uploading of images on the internet, sharing by text and e-mail, or showing someone a physical or electronic image.
Clarkson, 64, who bought the 312-acre farm in 2012 for £4.25million, said that he chose to do so because he would not be required pay death duties on the land.
That's not exactly hard to understand or ambiguous.
Is that the same Jeremy Clarkson who bought a farm as a tax avoidance wheeze?
He seems genuinely interested in farming.
Oh well, that's alright then. He's bought a farm for IHT avoidance purposes but he does also have an interest in farming.
Did he really? I assume you can back that up.
Yes.
The former Top Gear presenter, who already owned house nearby, said the financial crisis of 2008 forced a farmer to sell the land.
He bought the farm mainly because you don’t pay death duties on land.
Speaking to The Times he said: “That’s the critical thing.
“So rather than just have money in the bank, and get a statement with numbers written on it that gives no one any pleasure at all, you could derive a great deal of pleasure and pass it on to your children.”
So whilst I do think he’s sincere in his love of farming and I love Clarkson’s Farm, do people honestly think Clarkson shouldn't be paying inheritance tax?
Is that the same Jeremy Clarkson who bought a farm as a tax avoidance wheeze?
He seems genuinely interested in farming.
Oh well, that's alright then. He's bought a farm for IHT avoidance purposes but he does also have an interest in farming.
Two points on this. Firstly I think he is genuine in his farming endeavours. He may not have started that way but it’s certainly ended as. Secondly if something that you arrange as a tax efficient venture under current legislation suddenly becomes subject to new legislation then you have the right to be annoyed. Take ISAs. You can save tax free in ISAs up to a limit each year. If the government suddenly decided to change that, you’d have a right to be annoyed.
How about employment? If the government decided to reduce the personal allowance by freezing it in a time of high inflation should I be annoyed?
Are there any taxes a government can increase that wouldn't provoke someone to be annoyed?
Probably not, but that doesn’t mean we should be upset that someone else is annoyed…
Is that the same Jeremy Clarkson who bought a farm as a tax avoidance wheeze?
He seems genuinely interested in farming.
Oh well, that's alright then. He's bought a farm for IHT avoidance purposes but he does also have an interest in farming.
Two points on this. Firstly I think he is genuine in his farming endeavours. He may not have started that way but it’s certainly ended as. Secondly if something that you arrange as a tax efficient venture under current legislation suddenly becomes subject to new legislation then you have the right to be annoyed. Take ISAs. You can save tax free in ISAs up to a limit each year. If the government suddenly decided to change that, you’d have a right to be annoyed.
Would you? As long as it didn't affect the tax status of your current ISAs, you'd have small reason to be upset.
(While we're here, you have to have a seriously high income to be saving £20k year. I'm surprised it's not a hotter topic).
Clarkson, 64, who bought the 312-acre farm in 2012 for £4.25million, said that he chose to do so because he would not be required pay death duties on the land.
That's not exactly hard to understand or ambiguous.
Thanks, I stand corrected. He has certainly been more active in promoting farmer’s interest than the typical person using it as a tax dodge.
Many years ago I said geology/archeology was very male dominated and should be for women only going forward because in my experience women are very good at digging up the past.
LOL.
Actually you might be surprised to know that these days the gender split is very close to 50:50 in Archaeology. 47^ female to 53% male. And that will swing firmly to female in the next few years as the majority of archaeology undergraduates are now female.
Would that be a lingering Time Team effect or is there a more plausible explanation?
Is that the same Jeremy Clarkson who bought a farm as a tax avoidance wheeze?
He seems genuinely interested in farming.
Oh well, that's alright then. He's bought a farm for IHT avoidance purposes but he does also have an interest in farming.
Did he really? I assume you can back that up.
Yes.
The former Top Gear presenter, who already owned house nearby, said the financial crisis of 2008 forced a farmer to sell the land.
He bought the farm mainly because you don’t pay death duties on land.
Speaking to The Times he said: “That’s the critical thing.
“So rather than just have money in the bank, and get a statement with numbers written on it that gives no one any pleasure at all, you could derive a great deal of pleasure and pass it on to your children.”
So whilst I do think he’s sincere in his love of farming and I love Clarkson’s Farm, do people honestly think Clarkson shouldn't be paying inheritance tax?
Well he won’t be, will he. But no, his presumably cast legacy ought to be taxed fairly.
Is that the same Jeremy Clarkson who bought a farm as a tax avoidance wheeze?
He seems genuinely interested in farming.
Oh well, that's alright then. He's bought a farm for IHT avoidance purposes but he does also have an interest in farming.
Two points on this. Firstly I think he is genuine in his farming endeavours. He may not have started that way but it’s certainly ended as. Secondly if something that you arrange as a tax efficient venture under current legislation suddenly becomes subject to new legislation then you have the right to be annoyed. Take ISAs. You can save tax free in ISAs up to a limit each year. If the government suddenly decided to change that, you’d have a right to be annoyed.
Would you? As long as it didn't affect the tax status of your current ISAs, you'd have small reason to be upset.
(While we're here, you have to have a seriously high income to be saving £20k year. I'm surprised it's not a hotter topic).
Yes and Reeves left that untouched for the duration of the parliament.
Clarkson, 64, who bought the 312-acre farm in 2012 for £4.25million, said that he chose to do so because he would not be required pay death duties on the land.
That's not exactly hard to understand or ambiguous.
Although re-reading it I wonder how much that is the Mail’s editorialising. He didn’t actually say that in the quote (which is what I had focused on).
Is that the same Jeremy Clarkson who bought a farm as a tax avoidance wheeze?
He seems genuinely interested in farming.
Oh well, that's alright then. He's bought a farm for IHT avoidance purposes but he does also have an interest in farming.
Two points on this. Firstly I think he is genuine in his farming endeavours. He may not have started that way but it’s certainly ended as. Secondly if something that you arrange as a tax efficient venture under current legislation suddenly becomes subject to new legislation then you have the right to be annoyed. Take ISAs. You can save tax free in ISAs up to a limit each year. If the government suddenly decided to change that, you’d have a right to be annoyed.
Would you? As long as it didn't affect the tax status of your current ISAs, you'd have small reason to be upset.
(While we're here, you have to have a seriously high income to be saving £20k year. I'm surprised it's not a hotter topic).
My implication was that it would be making previous savings liable, in line with the farming example.
Clarkson, 64, who bought the 312-acre farm in 2012 for £4.25million, said that he chose to do so because he would not be required pay death duties on the land.
That's not exactly hard to understand or ambiguous.
Although re-reading it I wonder how much that is the Mail’s editorialising. He didn’t actually say that in the quote (which is what I had focused on).
You've now been told by four different posters quoting three different sources that he actually said the 'critical thing' in buying the farm was to avoid IHT.
The Mail is not editorialising. Nor is the Times, or the Standard. It was the reason he bought it.
He keeps it for other reasons as you and I have both noted. That may have changed his perspective, but @Benpointer was right about his motives.
Is that the same Jeremy Clarkson who bought a farm as a tax avoidance wheeze?
He seems genuinely interested in farming.
Oh well, that's alright then. He's bought a farm for IHT avoidance purposes but he does also have an interest in farming.
To be fair, he bought a farm for IHT avoidance but he is, even if almost accidentally, actually working it himself. And has been doing a great deal of work to support other local farmers through his business ventures.
I think it's fair enough to say he therefore has the right to feel he is a farmer not a tax avoider.
And not the group we should be targeting - people who tie up their money in farmland and lease it out to be farmed by somebody else as an IHT dodge (as Clarkson did at first).
I suspect he decided to farm it himself because he saw an entertainment opportunity in that, but let's say I am wrong and you are right, 'he is a farmer not a tax avoider'...
...The IHT changes aren't an issue to him if he's not a tax avoider.
Given an election campaign Labour will be back up to where they were before.
SPLORG 46%. the combined unpopularity of Lab/Con (54%) is remarkable and even several points down from 4th July. As compared with the GE of 2017, (Lab/Con combined over 80%) it's another era altogether.
Is that the same Jeremy Clarkson who bought a farm as a tax avoidance wheeze?
He seems genuinely interested in farming.
Oh well, that's alright then. He's bought a farm for IHT avoidance purposes but he does also have an interest in farming.
To be fair, he bought a farm for IHT avoidance but he is, even if almost accidentally, actually working it himself. And has been doing a great deal of work to support other local farmers through his business ventures.
I think it's fair enough to say he therefore has the right to feel he is a farmer not a tax avoider.
And not the group we should be targeting - people who tie up their money in farmland and lease it out to be farmed by somebody else as an IHT dodge (as Clarkson did at first).
I suspect he decided to farm it himself because he saw an entertainment opportunity in that, but let's say I am wrong and you are right, 'he is a farmer not a tax avoider'...
...The IHT changes aren't an issue to him if he's not a tax avoider.
Surely he’s all three. Initially avoiding tax, then choose to make a TV show and discovered he rather liked farming?
Is that the same Jeremy Clarkson who bought a farm as a tax avoidance wheeze?
He seems genuinely interested in farming.
Oh well, that's alright then. He's bought a farm for IHT avoidance purposes but he does also have an interest in farming.
To be fair, he bought a farm for IHT avoidance but he is, even if almost accidentally, actually working it himself. And has been doing a great deal of work to support other local farmers through his business ventures.
I think it's fair enough to say he therefore has the right to feel he is a farmer not a tax avoider.
And not the group we should be targeting - people who tie up their money in farmland and lease it out to be farmed by somebody else as an IHT dodge (as Clarkson did at first).
I suspect he decided to farm it himself because he saw an entertainment opportunity in that, but let's say I am wrong and you are right, 'he is a farmer not a tax avoider'...
The IHT changes aren't an issue to him if he's not a tax avoider.
Well, actually I sort of agree with you, because my concern with this policy is about the damage that will be done to family farm units. A lot of land will have to be sold to pay IHT and be gobbled up by large firms who will manage it badly. I think that's highly undesirable and stupid.
They had this issue under inheritance tax laws in France 30-40 years and it was causing chaos.
But that doesn't apply to Clarkson. His children won't be farming the land when he snuffs it. So he's not vitally affected either way.
Many years ago I said geology/archeology was very male dominated and should be for women only going forward because in my experience women are very good at digging up the past.
LOL.
Actually you might be surprised to know that these days the gender split is very close to 50:50 in Archaeology. 47^ female to 53% male. And that will swing firmly to female in the next few years as the majority of archaeology undergraduates are now female.
Would that be a lingering Time Team effect or is there a more plausible explanation?
Not sure. Archaeology is primarily an arts course - wrongly in my opinion - and my understanding is they have a much higher female to male ratio traditionally. When I went to Uni there were only two places in the UK that offered a science degree in Archaeology - The Institute of Archaeology in London and University College Cardiff. Hence the reason I went to Cardiff. Not sure how much that has changed.
Clarkson, 64, who bought the 312-acre farm in 2012 for £4.25million, said that he chose to do so because he would not be required pay death duties on the land.
That's not exactly hard to understand or ambiguous.
Although re-reading it I wonder how much that is the Mail’s editorialising. He didn’t actually say that in the quote (which is what I had focused on).
You've now been told by four different posters quoting three different sources that he actually said the 'critical thing' in buying the farm was to avoid IHT.
The Mail is not editorialising. Nor is the Times, or the Standard. It was the reason he bought it.
He keeps it for other reasons as you and I have both noted. That may have changed his perspective, but @Benpointer was right about his motives.
Just curious what was actually said rather than reporting!
Is that the same Jeremy Clarkson who bought a farm as a tax avoidance wheeze?
He seems genuinely interested in farming.
Oh well, that's alright then. He's bought a farm for IHT avoidance purposes but he does also have an interest in farming.
Two points on this. Firstly I think he is genuine in his farming endeavours. He may not have started that way but it’s certainly ended as. Secondly if something that you arrange as a tax efficient venture under current legislation suddenly becomes subject to new legislation then you have the right to be annoyed. Take ISAs. You can save tax free in ISAs up to a limit each year. If the government suddenly decided to change that, you’d have a right to be annoyed.
Would you? As long as it didn't affect the tax status of your current ISAs, you'd have small reason to be upset.
(While we're here, you have to have a seriously high income to be saving £20k year. I'm surprised it's not a hotter topic).
Yes and Reeves left that untouched for the duration of the parliament.
£20 000 is a lot of spare after tax income.
£20,000 sounds a lot but the average mortgage repayment is close to that figure, so if HMG wishes to incentivise saving by middle-aged, middle class families who have paid off the mortgage, rather than spaff it away on Leon-inspired exotic holidays, then maybe it is about right.
Why do I get the feeling that for some people the w word will never end.
Well you are the one banging on about it at the moment.
I’m just trying to find a consensus. Very few have engaged so far, would you like to?
I don’t think a consensus is truly possible because at the edges, at the extremes, there will always be those who want to keep pushing boundaries and those who think everything is PC gone mad. I’m not a fan of a lot of things. I had to do some mandatory training on safeguarding this week. On the gender question there were four options. Male, femail, transgender and queer. I have no idea what the last one even means. I don’t regard trans men as men or trans women as women. But I do respect them as people hope that they can find happiness in their lives as I hope everyone can. But I know some would be offended by what I have just written.
Thanks for engaging. We don’t agree much I expect but I still think we can find common ground.
Queer isn’t a gender, so that doesn’t make any sense to me. I’m sure there is a name for queer but it’s not gender.
Anyway that aside, I think people are male or female in terms of sex and that will always be the case. But in terms of living, I think we agree they should be able to live freely?
So in my view for sports you just have a trans category even a trans male and trans female category. They are banned from competing in events that aren’t for their sex.
And same for bathrooms where possible, just have a trans male and trans female one.
My question would be, what are trans men and trans women? If they are not men and women as we agree, perhaps they are just people
Is that the same Jeremy Clarkson who bought a farm as a tax avoidance wheeze?
He seems genuinely interested in farming.
Oh well, that's alright then. He's bought a farm for IHT avoidance purposes but he does also have an interest in farming.
To be fair, he bought a farm for IHT avoidance but he is, even if almost accidentally, actually working it himself. And has been doing a great deal of work to support other local farmers through his business ventures.
I think it's fair enough to say he therefore has the right to feel he is a farmer not a tax avoider.
And not the group we should be targeting - people who tie up their money in farmland and lease it out to be farmed by somebody else as an IHT dodge (as Clarkson did at first).
I suspect he decided to farm it himself because he saw an entertainment opportunity in that, but let's say I am wrong and you are right, 'he is a farmer not a tax avoider'...
The IHT changes aren't an issue to him if he's not a tax avoider.
Well, actually I sort of agree with you, because my concern with this policy is about the damage that will be done to family farm units. A lot of land will have to be sold to pay IHT and be gobbled up by large firms who will manage it badly. I think that's highly undesirable and stupid.
They had this issue under inheritance tax laws in France 30-40 years and it was causing chaos.
But that doesn't apply to Clarkson. His children won't be farming the land when he snuffs it. So he's not vitally affected either way.
Best approach would be to abolish IHT and introduce a wealth tax imo.
Many years ago I said geology/archeology was very male dominated and should be for women only going forward because in my experience women are very good at digging up the past.
LOL.
Actually you might be surprised to know that these days the gender split is very close to 50:50 in Archaeology. 47^ female to 53% male. And that will swing firmly to female in the next few years as the majority of archaeology undergraduates are now female.
Would that be a lingering Time Team effect or is there a more plausible explanation?
Not sure. Archaeology is primarily an arts course - wrongly in my opinion - and my understanding is they have a much higher female to male ratio traditionally. When I went to Uni there were only two places in the UK that offered a science degree in Archaeology - The Institute of Archaeology in London and University College Cardiff. Hence the reason I went to Cardiff. Not sure how much that has changed.
For some time the number of females going to university has exceeded the number of males, and this isn't just in the UK.
UK Females under 30 also have higher employment rates than males too.
On the subject of AR, this letter in the FT makes a good point:
I don't agree with his reasoning, which is not supported by any evidence other than assertion. Land is not worth anything unless you sell it, or need a mortgage on it. So it shouldn't affect cash flow.
Labour should stick to its guns on the IHT changes and the Tories should explain where they will find the money from.
Not giving massive pay rises to Labour voting GPs and train drivers for starters
We don't know if that is the case because Rishi called the election to avoid deciding on the pay rises..
And from tomorrow's Times article from Tim Shipman's new book - talking about why the election was in July.
The discussions increasingly focused on upcoming problems, of which overcrowding in prisons was a concern of Dowden’s.
The bigger problem was imminent public sector pay deals, where the unions could hold the government to ransom. Finally, there was illegal migration, with a new armada of small boats predicted and the issue of whether they would be able to get a repatriation flight to Rwanda in the air before polling day.
Anyway, so what if Clarkson bought the farm for its tax advantages? It's not illegal and his Netflix series is a blast
Absolutely, and it's his perfect right to protest if he's losing out through tax changes. But it's also perfectly fair that a democratically elected government can set the tax rates it thinks are appropriate.
Is that the same Jeremy Clarkson who bought a farm as a tax avoidance wheeze?
He seems genuinely interested in farming.
Oh well, that's alright then. He's bought a farm for IHT avoidance purposes but he does also have an interest in farming.
Two points on this. Firstly I think he is genuine in his farming endeavours. He may not have started that way but it’s certainly ended as. Secondly if something that you arrange as a tax efficient venture under current legislation suddenly becomes subject to new legislation then you have the right to be annoyed. Take ISAs. You can save tax free in ISAs up to a limit each year. If the government suddenly decided to change that, you’d have a right to be annoyed.
Would you? As long as it didn't affect the tax status of your current ISAs, you'd have small reason to be upset.
(While we're here, you have to have a seriously high income to be saving £20k year. I'm surprised it's not a hotter topic).
Yes and Reeves left that untouched for the duration of the parliament.
£20 000 is a lot of spare after tax income.
£20,000 sounds a lot but the average mortgage repayment is close to that figure, so if HMG wishes to incentivise saving by middle-aged, middle class families who have paid off the mortgage, rather than spaff it away on Leon-inspired exotic holidays, then maybe it is about right.
The south is clearly a different place because How big is the mortgage because our mortgage is £300 a month and even twin A's mortgage is £650 a month..
"Julie Bindel reveals that officers visited her home over an alleged hate crime after a complaint ‘from a transgender man in the Netherlands’"
If the police are going to follow up every complaint about an online post, surely they need to follow up every single report of a burglary and indeed every single report of any other potential crime.
What is more serious?
1) Someone ringing the police to say there home has been burgled
2) Someone ringing the police (from the Netherlands) about an online post
No photos. Mad Nad doing a hatchet job about sexual proclivities. Main target William Wragg, who was admitted to hospital when suicidal and gave an interview recently.
No mention of the interesting circumstances in which she broke up her own marriage.
On the subject of AR, this letter in the FT makes a good point:
I don't agree with his reasoning, which is not supported by any evidence other than assertion. Land is not worth anything unless you sell it, or need a mortgage on it. So it shouldn't affect cash flow.
"Land is not worth anything unless you sell it". Quite a novel approach to value if I may say so. I suppose in this view nothing is worth anything unless you sell it. Fortunately Paul Cheshire's words represent a sounder approach to land value than yours
Why do I get the feeling that for some people the w word will never end.
Well you are the one banging on about it at the moment.
I’m just trying to find a consensus. Very few have engaged so far, would you like to?
I don’t think a consensus is truly possible because at the edges, at the extremes, there will always be those who want to keep pushing boundaries and those who think everything is PC gone mad. I’m not a fan of a lot of things. I had to do some mandatory training on safeguarding this week. On the gender question there were four options. Male, femail, transgender and queer. I have no idea what the last one even means. I don’t regard trans men as men or trans women as women. But I do respect them as people hope that they can find happiness in their lives as I hope everyone can. But I know some would be offended by what I have just written.
Thanks for engaging. We don’t agree much I expect but I still think we can find common ground.
Queer isn’t a gender, so that doesn’t make any sense to me. I’m sure there is a name for queer but it’s not gender.
Anyway that aside, I think people are male or female in terms of sex and that will always be the case. But in terms of living, I think we agree they should be able to live freely?
So in my view for sports you just have a trans category even a trans male and trans female category. They are banned from competing in events that aren’t for their sex.
And same for bathrooms where possible, just have a trans male and trans female one.
My question would be, what are trans men and trans women? If they are not men and women as we agree, perhaps they are just people
Of course everyone should be able to live their lives freely, but we all need to rub along together too, so there will always be issues. There is a recent case of a trans women, with presumably still working male genetalia (allegedly trying to get his girlfriend pregnant) harassing female colleagues in a female changing room.
For sport I’d suggest that men’s could become open to all, as I don’t think a there are any sports where women have an advantage. So a transwoman would compete as a woman but in the open cataegory.
Bathrooms - why not take the approach I found at Auckland Uni in the 1990’s. Simply have uninsex toilets with all cubicles.
On the subject of AR, this letter in the FT makes a good point:
The guy is a fucking idiot. He uses a small percentage of people misuing a tax loophole as an excuse for an attack on the whole farming industry.
He is also wrong. There was no great jump in agricultural land value following the intrduction of relief in 1984. In fact landvalues in the late 80s were significantly lower than they were in the early 80s by about 20%. The big jump came after 2000 when land values increased from around £3,500 an acre in 2000 (Still lower than in 1980) to around £9,000 an acre in 2015.
So in every meaningful way the article is bollocks.
"Julie Bindel reveals that officers visited her home over an alleged hate crime after a complaint ‘from a transgender man in the Netherlands’"
If the police are going to follow up every complaint about an online post, surely they need to follow up every single report of a burglary and indeed every single report of any other potential crime.
What is more serious?
1) Someone ringing the police to say there home has been burgled
2) Someone ringing the police (from the Netherlands) about an online post
Why do I get the feeling that for some people the w word will never end.
Well you are the one banging on about it at the moment.
I’m just trying to find a consensus. Very few have engaged so far, would you like to?
I don’t think a consensus is truly possible because at the edges, at the extremes, there will always be those who want to keep pushing boundaries and those who think everything is PC gone mad. I’m not a fan of a lot of things. I had to do some mandatory training on safeguarding this week. On the gender question there were four options. Male, femail, transgender and queer. I have no idea what the last one even means. I don’t regard trans men as men or trans women as women. But I do respect them as people hope that they can find happiness in their lives as I hope everyone can. But I know some would be offended by what I have just written.
Thanks for engaging. We don’t agree much I expect but I still think we can find common ground.
Queer isn’t a gender, so that doesn’t make any sense to me. I’m sure there is a name for queer but it’s not gender.
Anyway that aside, I think people are male or female in terms of sex and that will always be the case. But in terms of living, I think we agree they should be able to live freely?
So in my view for sports you just have a trans category even a trans male and trans female category. They are banned from competing in events that aren’t for their sex.
And same for bathrooms where possible, just have a trans male and trans female one.
My question would be, what are trans men and trans women? If they are not men and women as we agree, perhaps they are just people
Can't fault you on any of this. I think you are spot on.
On the subject of AR, this letter in the FT makes a good point:
The guy is a fucking idiot. He uses a small percentage of people misuing a tax loophole as an excuse for an attack on the whole farming industry.
He is also wrong. There was no great jump in agricultural land value following the intrduction of relief in 1984. In fact landvalues in the late 80s were significantly lower than they were in the early 80s by about 20%. The big jump came after 2000 when land values increased from around £3,500 an acre in 2000 (Still lower than in 1980) to around £9,000 an acre in 2015.
So in every meaningful way the article is bollocks.
Yes, but 100% relief only came in 1992, so has a part to play in the trebling of land prices to 2015. It certainly wasn't the profitability of farming trebling.
On the subject of AR, this letter in the FT makes a good point:
The guy is a fucking idiot. He uses a small percentage of people misuing a tax loophole as an excuse for an attack on the whole farming industry.
He is also wrong. There was no great jump in agricultural land value following the intrduction of relief in 1984. In fact landvalues in the late 80s were significantly lower than they were in the early 80s by about 20%. The big jump came after 2000 when land values increased from around £3,500 an acre in 2000 (Still lower than in 1980) to around £9,000 an acre in 2015.
So in every meaningful way the article is bollocks.
Yes, but 100% relief only came in 1992, so has a part to play in the trebling of land prices to 2015. It certainly wasn't the profitability of farming trebling.
And again land values didn't change much (in fact dropped slightly) between 1992 and 2004 which is when they took off.
Why do I get the feeling that for some people the w word will never end.
Well you are the one banging on about it at the moment.
I’m just trying to find a consensus. Very few have engaged so far, would you like to?
I don’t think a consensus is truly possible because at the edges, at the extremes, there will always be those who want to keep pushing boundaries and those who think everything is PC gone mad. I’m not a fan of a lot of things. I had to do some mandatory training on safeguarding this week. On the gender question there were four options. Male, femail, transgender and queer. I have no idea what the last one even means. I don’t regard trans men as men or trans women as women. But I do respect them as people hope that they can find happiness in their lives as I hope everyone can. But I know some would be offended by what I have just written.
Thanks for engaging. We don’t agree much I expect but I still think we can find common ground.
Queer isn’t a gender, so that doesn’t make any sense to me. I’m sure there is a name for queer but it’s not gender.
Anyway that aside, I think people are male or female in terms of sex and that will always be the case. But in terms of living, I think we agree they should be able to live freely?
So in my view for sports you just have a trans category even a trans male and trans female category. They are banned from competing in events that aren’t for their sex.
And same for bathrooms where possible, just have a trans male and trans female one.
My question would be, what are trans men and trans women? If they are not men and women as we agree, perhaps they are just people
On the subject of AR, this letter in the FT makes a good point:
The guy is a fucking idiot. He uses a small percentage of people misuing a tax loophole as an excuse for an attack on the whole farming industry.
He is also wrong. There was no great jump in agricultural land value following the intrduction of relief in 1984. In fact landvalues in the late 80s were significantly lower than they were in the early 80s by about 20%. The big jump came after 2000 when land values increased from around £3,500 an acre in 2000 (Still lower than in 1980) to around £9,000 an acre in 2015.
So in every meaningful way the article is bollocks.
Yes, but 100% relief only came in 1992, so has a part to play in the trebling of land prices to 2015. It certainly wasn't the profitability of farming trebling.
And again land values didn't change much (in fact dropped slightly) between 1992 and 2004 which is when they took off.
Why do you think land prices took off?
And do you really think that the value of 100% AR didn't increase prices?
Given an election campaign Labour will be back up to where they were before.
Hardly given Labour began on over 40% and ended up on 33% in July.
Opinium not brilliant for Kemi but still a swing of just under 2% from Labour to the Tories since the GE so not great for Starmer either.
Brilliant poll for Farage whose Reform party is up 7% on the 14% they got at the GE to 21%. LDs and SNP basically unchanged since the GE like the Tories in voteshare, Greens up but by just 1%
Opposition parties flourish at this stage of a Parliament, and in local elections it can be any of them who do well. But it's hard to see the Conservative election win evolving from those figures.
On the subject of AR, this letter in the FT makes a good point:
The guy is a fucking idiot. He uses a small percentage of people misuing a tax loophole as an excuse for an attack on the whole farming industry.
He is also wrong. There was no great jump in agricultural land value following the intrduction of relief in 1984. In fact landvalues in the late 80s were significantly lower than they were in the early 80s by about 20%. The big jump came after 2000 when land values increased from around £3,500 an acre in 2000 (Still lower than in 1980) to around £9,000 an acre in 2015.
So in every meaningful way the article is bollocks.
Yes, but 100% relief only came in 1992, so has a part to play in the trebling of land prices to 2015. It certainly wasn't the profitability of farming trebling.
And again land values didn't change much (in fact dropped slightly) between 1992 and 2004 which is when they took off.
Why do you think land prices took off?
And do you really think that the value of 100% AR didn't increase prices?
Why do I get the feeling that for some people the w word will never end.
Well you are the one banging on about it at the moment.
I’m just trying to find a consensus. Very few have engaged so far, would you like to?
I don’t think a consensus is truly possible because at the edges, at the extremes, there will always be those who want to keep pushing boundaries and those who think everything is PC gone mad. I’m not a fan of a lot of things. I had to do some mandatory training on safeguarding this week. On the gender question there were four options. Male, femail, transgender and queer. I have no idea what the last one even means. I don’t regard trans men as men or trans women as women. But I do respect them as people hope that they can find happiness in their lives as I hope everyone can. But I know some would be offended by what I have just written.
Thanks for engaging. We don’t agree much I expect but I still think we can find common ground.
Queer isn’t a gender, so that doesn’t make any sense to me. I’m sure there is a name for queer but it’s not gender.
Anyway that aside, I think people are male or female in terms of sex and that will always be the case. But in terms of living, I think we agree they should be able to live freely?
So in my view for sports you just have a trans category even a trans male and trans female category. They are banned from competing in events that aren’t for their sex.
And same for bathrooms where possible, just have a trans male and trans female one.
My question would be, what are trans men and trans women? If they are not men and women as we agree, perhaps they are just people
Can't fault you on any of this. I think you are spot on.
Thanks, I am trying to genuinely find consensus where I can and I have moved on certain issues and am happy to say so.
Others may disagree but I do think I fit firmly in the middle on most issues.
As if there aren’t enough people in Rwanda already
What’s good about Rwanda if used to take large volumes of people is that it has a strong track record, in the recent past, of integrating all sorts of backgrounds seamlessly with no social unrest.
Why do I get the feeling that for some people the w word will never end.
Well you are the one banging on about it at the moment.
I’m just trying to find a consensus. Very few have engaged so far, would you like to?
I don’t think a consensus is truly possible because at the edges, at the extremes, there will always be those who want to keep pushing boundaries and those who think everything is PC gone mad. I’m not a fan of a lot of things. I had to do some mandatory training on safeguarding this week. On the gender question there were four options. Male, femail, transgender and queer. I have no idea what the last one even means. I don’t regard trans men as men or trans women as women. But I do respect them as people hope that they can find happiness in their lives as I hope everyone can. But I know some would be offended by what I have just written.
Thanks for engaging. We don’t agree much I expect but I still think we can find common ground.
Queer isn’t a gender, so that doesn’t make any sense to me. I’m sure there is a name for queer but it’s not gender.
Anyway that aside, I think people are male or female in terms of sex and that will always be the case. But in terms of living, I think we agree they should be able to live freely?
So in my view for sports you just have a trans category even a trans male and trans female category. They are banned from competing in events that aren’t for their sex.
And same for bathrooms where possible, just have a trans male and trans female one.
My question would be, what are trans men and trans women? If they are not men and women as we agree, perhaps they are just people
Four different gender based lavatories?
Is that enough?
If you are willing to engage with me then I’m sure we can find consensus.
@MikeL actually to be honest that’s what gets my back up about these issue where the police investigate.
My AirPods got nicked, the police literally didn’t want to know. That gets my back up as they are worth a decent amount of money and I can track them by GPS to a high accuracy. They literally didn’t want to know.
Given an election campaign Labour will be back up to where they were before.
Hardly given Labour began on over 40% and ended up on 33% in July.
Opinium not brilliant for Kemi but still a swing of just under 2% from Labour to the Tories since the GE so not great for Starmer either.
Brilliant poll for Farage whose Reform party is up 7% on the 14% they got at the GE to 21%. LDs and SNP basically unchanged since the GE like the Tories in voteshare, Greens up but by just 1%
Opposition parties flourish at this stage of a Parliament, and in local elections it can be any of them who do well. But it's hard to see the Conservative election win evolving from those figures.
I think Starmer is taking an interestingly honest approach to government.
A large part of the disillusionment that voters have for politics is down to their experience of populist politicians that promise loads, but fail to deliver. Often because their proposed solutions are undeliverable, and while those work to get elected they are a problem in government.
Starmer is staking his government on under-promising, but over-delivering, and gambling that voters are mature enough to recognise this in 2029.
Of course, he has to actually deliver for this to work, and voters to be grateful rather than just bank the gains and demand more.
Why do I get the feeling that for some people the w word will never end.
Well you are the one banging on about it at the moment.
I’m just trying to find a consensus. Very few have engaged so far, would you like to?
I don’t think a consensus is truly possible because at the edges, at the extremes, there will always be those who want to keep pushing boundaries and those who think everything is PC gone mad. I’m not a fan of a lot of things. I had to do some mandatory training on safeguarding this week. On the gender question there were four options. Male, femail, transgender and queer. I have no idea what the last one even means. I don’t regard trans men as men or trans women as women. But I do respect them as people hope that they can find happiness in their lives as I hope everyone can. But I know some would be offended by what I have just written.
Thanks for engaging. We don’t agree much I expect but I still think we can find common ground.
Queer isn’t a gender, so that doesn’t make any sense to me. I’m sure there is a name for queer but it’s not gender.
Anyway that aside, I think people are male or female in terms of sex and that will always be the case. But in terms of living, I think we agree they should be able to live freely?
So in my view for sports you just have a trans category even a trans male and trans female category. They are banned from competing in events that aren’t for their sex.
And same for bathrooms where possible, just have a trans male and trans female one.
My question would be, what are trans men and trans women? If they are not men and women as we agree, perhaps they are just people
Of course everyone should be able to live their lives freely, but we all need to rub along together too, so there will always be issues. There is a recent case of a trans women, with presumably still working male genetalia (allegedly trying to get his girlfriend pregnant) harassing female colleagues in a female changing room.
For sport I’d suggest that men’s could become open to all, as I don’t think a there are any sports where women have an advantage. So a transwoman would compete as a woman but in the open cataegory.
Bathrooms - why not take the approach I found at Auckland Uni in the 1990’s. Simply have uninsex toilets with all cubicles.
There are times (thinking of sporting events) where urinals are handy to get numbers moving quickly. But men tend not to care about who sees them have a wee, so I think you’re right. We could have toilets, with floor to ceiling doors on the cubicles, and some urinals for overflow (if you’ll excuse the expression).
We all then just have to promise not to often have a massive stinky number two outside of the house, to respect all users.
But I am a man and defer to women on the matter, since I am basically asking to use their loos to solve issues for a tiny number of other men who have transitioned.
Why do I get the feeling that for some people the w word will never end.
Well you are the one banging on about it at the moment.
I’m just trying to find a consensus. Very few have engaged so far, would you like to?
I don’t think a consensus is truly possible because at the edges, at the extremes, there will always be those who want to keep pushing boundaries and those who think everything is PC gone mad. I’m not a fan of a lot of things. I had to do some mandatory training on safeguarding this week. On the gender question there were four options. Male, femail, transgender and queer. I have no idea what the last one even means. I don’t regard trans men as men or trans women as women. But I do respect them as people hope that they can find happiness in their lives as I hope everyone can. But I know some would be offended by what I have just written.
Thanks for engaging. We don’t agree much I expect but I still think we can find common ground.
Queer isn’t a gender, so that doesn’t make any sense to me. I’m sure there is a name for queer but it’s not gender.
Anyway that aside, I think people are male or female in terms of sex and that will always be the case. But in terms of living, I think we agree they should be able to live freely?
So in my view for sports you just have a trans category even a trans male and trans female category. They are banned from competing in events that aren’t for their sex.
And same for bathrooms where possible, just have a trans male and trans female one.
My question would be, what are trans men and trans women? If they are not men and women as we agree, perhaps they are just people
Four different gender based lavatories?
Is that enough?
If you are willing to engage with me then I’m sure we can find consensus.
Perhaps just an “other” bathroom would suffice?
At what point does one graduate from "other" to one's respective male/female lavatories?
Or does one remain an "other" in perpetuity? Like "whites only" drinking fountains from which you are permanently excluded.
No desire to share photos of trans people, so I'll stick with relatively famous ones - Would you demand Laverne Cox, India Willoughby and Trace Lysette use the "other" loo in perpetuity? Or are they woman enough for you?
Is having one's winkie cut off the "cut off point" so to speak, at which you are allowed into the gendered bathroom? What about those who have their winkies cut off, but whose faces never look feminine enough?
Why do I get the feeling that for some people the w word will never end.
Well you are the one banging on about it at the moment.
I’m just trying to find a consensus. Very few have engaged so far, would you like to?
I don’t think a consensus is truly possible because at the edges, at the extremes, there will always be those who want to keep pushing boundaries and those who think everything is PC gone mad. I’m not a fan of a lot of things. I had to do some mandatory training on safeguarding this week. On the gender question there were four options. Male, femail, transgender and queer. I have no idea what the last one even means. I don’t regard trans men as men or trans women as women. But I do respect them as people hope that they can find happiness in their lives as I hope everyone can. But I know some would be offended by what I have just written.
Thanks for engaging. We don’t agree much I expect but I still think we can find common ground.
Queer isn’t a gender, so that doesn’t make any sense to me. I’m sure there is a name for queer but it’s not gender.
Anyway that aside, I think people are male or female in terms of sex and that will always be the case. But in terms of living, I think we agree they should be able to live freely?
So in my view for sports you just have a trans category even a trans male and trans female category. They are banned from competing in events that aren’t for their sex.
And same for bathrooms where possible, just have a trans male and trans female one.
My question would be, what are trans men and trans women? If they are not men and women as we agree, perhaps they are just people
Of course everyone should be able to live their lives freely, but we all need to rub along together too, so there will always be issues. There is a recent case of a trans women, with presumably still working male genetalia (allegedly trying to get his girlfriend pregnant) harassing female colleagues in a female changing room.
For sport I’d suggest that men’s could become open to all, as I don’t think a there are any sports where women have an advantage. So a transwoman would compete as a woman but in the open cataegory.
Bathrooms - why not take the approach I found at Auckland Uni in the 1990’s. Simply have uninsex toilets with all cubicles.
There are times (thinking of sporting events) where urinals are handy to get numbers moving quickly. But men tend not to care about who sees them have a wee, so I think you’re right. We could have toilets, with floor to ceiling doors on the cubicles, and some urinals for overflow (if you’ll excuse the expression).
We all then just have to promise not to often have a massive stinky number two outside of the house, to respect all users.
But I am a man and defer to women on the matter, since I am basically asking to use their loos to solve issues for a tiny number of other men who have transitioned.
I was thinking more about workplaces etc that could simply adopt unisex loos, but actually having urinals alongside cubicles is already a preven winner. Back when the wife and I did a lot of off road running many races hired toilets. The best model was to have a mix of a urinal and cubicles, as those who could use the urinal did so quickly, and thus left the cubicles for those who needed them.
Why do I get the feeling that for some people the w word will never end.
Well you are the one banging on about it at the moment.
I’m just trying to find a consensus. Very few have engaged so far, would you like to?
I don’t think a consensus is truly possible because at the edges, at the extremes, there will always be those who want to keep pushing boundaries and those who think everything is PC gone mad. I’m not a fan of a lot of things. I had to do some mandatory training on safeguarding this week. On the gender question there were four options. Male, femail, transgender and queer. I have no idea what the last one even means. I don’t regard trans men as men or trans women as women. But I do respect them as people hope that they can find happiness in their lives as I hope everyone can. But I know some would be offended by what I have just written.
Thanks for engaging. We don’t agree much I expect but I still think we can find common ground.
Queer isn’t a gender, so that doesn’t make any sense to me. I’m sure there is a name for queer but it’s not gender.
Anyway that aside, I think people are male or female in terms of sex and that will always be the case. But in terms of living, I think we agree they should be able to live freely?
So in my view for sports you just have a trans category even a trans male and trans female category. They are banned from competing in events that aren’t for their sex.
And same for bathrooms where possible, just have a trans male and trans female one.
My question would be, what are trans men and trans women? If they are not men and women as we agree, perhaps they are just people
Four different gender based lavatories?
Is that enough?
If you are willing to engage with me then I’m sure we can find consensus.
Perhaps just an “other” bathroom would suffice?
At what point does one graduate from "other" to one's respective male/female lavatories?
Or does one remain an "other" in perpetuity? Like "whites only" drinking fountains from which you are permanently excluded.
No desire to share photos of trans people, so I'll stick with relatively famous ones - Would you demand Laverne Cox, India Willoughby and Trace Lysette use the "other" loo in perpetuity? Or are they woman enough for you?
Is having one's winkie cut off the "cut off point" so to speak, at which you are allowed into the gendered bathroom? What about those who have their winkies cut off, but whose faces never look feminine enough?
I’m happy to engage with you too on this and thank you for doing so. I hope we too can find some common ground.
I honestly don’t know to be honest. I think I’d be comfortable at any point but for the purposes of women’s safety I’d be more interested to defer to what any women here think.
Why do I get the feeling that for some people the w word will never end.
Well you are the one banging on about it at the moment.
I’m just trying to find a consensus. Very few have engaged so far, would you like to?
I don’t think a consensus is truly possible because at the edges, at the extremes, there will always be those who want to keep pushing boundaries and those who think everything is PC gone mad. I’m not a fan of a lot of things. I had to do some mandatory training on safeguarding this week. On the gender question there were four options. Male, femail, transgender and queer. I have no idea what the last one even means. I don’t regard trans men as men or trans women as women. But I do respect them as people hope that they can find happiness in their lives as I hope everyone can. But I know some would be offended by what I have just written.
Thanks for engaging. We don’t agree much I expect but I still think we can find common ground.
Queer isn’t a gender, so that doesn’t make any sense to me. I’m sure there is a name for queer but it’s not gender.
Anyway that aside, I think people are male or female in terms of sex and that will always be the case. But in terms of living, I think we agree they should be able to live freely?
So in my view for sports you just have a trans category even a trans male and trans female category. They are banned from competing in events that aren’t for their sex.
And same for bathrooms where possible, just have a trans male and trans female one.
My question would be, what are trans men and trans women? If they are not men and women as we agree, perhaps they are just people
Four different gender based lavatories?
Is that enough?
If you are willing to engage with me then I’m sure we can find consensus.
Perhaps just an “other” bathroom would suffice?
At what point does one graduate from "other" to one's respective male/female lavatories?
Or does one remain an "other" in perpetuity? Like "whites only" drinking fountains from which you are permanently excluded.
No desire to share photos of trans people, so I'll stick with relatively famous ones - Would you demand Laverne Cox, India Willoughby and Trace Lysette use the "other" loo in perpetuity? Or are they woman enough for you?
Is having one's winkie cut off the "cut off point" so to speak, at which you are allowed into the gendered bathroom? What about those who have their winkies cut off, but whose faces never look feminine enough?
More simply, who is going to police this?
Isn't it simply better to prosecute lewd behaviour in public toilets and changing rooms whatever the gender of the offender?
On the subject of AR, this letter in the FT makes a good point:
The guy is a fucking idiot. He uses a small percentage of people misuing a tax loophole as an excuse for an attack on the whole farming industry
But that’s the thing about economics. If a small number of people are willing to pay a high price then the invisible hand adjusts all land prices accordingly.
I think everyone (other than the small percentage you mention above) would be happy if agricultural land prices crashed?
Given an election campaign Labour will be back up to where they were before.
Hardly given Labour began on over 40% and ended up on 33% in July.
Opinium not brilliant for Kemi but still a swing of just under 2% from Labour to the Tories since the GE so not great for Starmer either.
Brilliant poll for Farage whose Reform party is up 7% on the 14% they got at the GE to 21%. LDs and SNP basically unchanged since the GE like the Tories in voteshare, Greens up but by just 1%
Opposition parties flourish at this stage of a Parliament, and in local elections it can be any of them who do well. But it's hard to see the Conservative election win evolving from those figures.
I think Starmer is taking an interestingly honest approach to government.
A large part of the disillusionment that voters have for politics is down to their experience of populist politicians that promise loads, but fail to deliver. Often because their proposed solutions are undeliverable, and while those work to get elected they are a problem in government.
Starmer is staking his government on under-promising, but over-delivering, and gambling that voters are mature enough to recognise this in 2029.
Of course, he has to actually deliver for this to work, and voters to be grateful rather than just bank the gains and demand more.
Personally I don’t underrate Starmer at all. People have done that since 2020 and he’s proven them wrong every time. I think others write him off too early.
Why do I get the feeling that for some people the w word will never end.
Well you are the one banging on about it at the moment.
I’m just trying to find a consensus. Very few have engaged so far, would you like to?
I don’t think a consensus is truly possible because at the edges, at the extremes, there will always be those who want to keep pushing boundaries and those who think everything is PC gone mad. I’m not a fan of a lot of things. I had to do some mandatory training on safeguarding this week. On the gender question there were four options. Male, femail, transgender and queer. I have no idea what the last one even means. I don’t regard trans men as men or trans women as women. But I do respect them as people hope that they can find happiness in their lives as I hope everyone can. But I know some would be offended by what I have just written.
Thanks for engaging. We don’t agree much I expect but I still think we can find common ground.
Queer isn’t a gender, so that doesn’t make any sense to me. I’m sure there is a name for queer but it’s not gender.
Anyway that aside, I think people are male or female in terms of sex and that will always be the case. But in terms of living, I think we agree they should be able to live freely?
So in my view for sports you just have a trans category even a trans male and trans female category. They are banned from competing in events that aren’t for their sex.
And same for bathrooms where possible, just have a trans male and trans female one.
My question would be, what are trans men and trans women? If they are not men and women as we agree, perhaps they are just people
Of course everyone should be able to live their lives freely, but we all need to rub along together too, so there will always be issues. There is a recent case of a trans women, with presumably still working male genetalia (allegedly trying to get his girlfriend pregnant) harassing female colleagues in a female changing room.
For sport I’d suggest that men’s could become open to all, as I don’t think a there are any sports where women have an advantage. So a transwoman would compete as a woman but in the open cataegory.
Bathrooms - why not take the approach I found at Auckland Uni in the 1990’s. Simply have uninsex toilets with all cubicles.
There are times (thinking of sporting events) where urinals are handy to get numbers moving quickly. But men tend not to care about who sees them have a wee, so I think you’re right. We could have toilets, with floor to ceiling doors on the cubicles, and some urinals for overflow (if you’ll excuse the expression).
We all then just have to promise not to often have a massive stinky number two outside of the house, to respect all users.
But I am a man and defer to women on the matter, since I am basically asking to use their loos to solve issues for a tiny number of other men who have transitioned.
I was thinking more about workplaces etc that could simply adopt unisex loos, but actually having urinals alongside cubicles is already a preven winner. Back when the wife and I did a lot of off road running many races hired toilets. The best model was to have a mix of a urinal and cubicles, as those who could use the urinal did so quickly, and thus left the cubicles for those who needed them.
Yes urinals (especially the big trough style ones)are what make the numbers achievable at stadiums and concert venues. And if I could redesign London theatres I’d do just as you say. One or two massive urinals to turn over numbers (maybe in the basement?) and then as many cubicles as can fit in the existing loos.
Why do I get the feeling that for some people the w word will never end.
Well you are the one banging on about it at the moment.
I’m just trying to find a consensus. Very few have engaged so far, would you like to?
I don’t think a consensus is truly possible because at the edges, at the extremes, there will always be those who want to keep pushing boundaries and those who think everything is PC gone mad. I’m not a fan of a lot of things. I had to do some mandatory training on safeguarding this week. On the gender question there were four options. Male, femail, transgender and queer. I have no idea what the last one even means. I don’t regard trans men as men or trans women as women. But I do respect them as people hope that they can find happiness in their lives as I hope everyone can. But I know some would be offended by what I have just written.
Thanks for engaging. We don’t agree much I expect but I still think we can find common ground.
Queer isn’t a gender, so that doesn’t make any sense to me. I’m sure there is a name for queer but it’s not gender.
Anyway that aside, I think people are male or female in terms of sex and that will always be the case. But in terms of living, I think we agree they should be able to live freely?
So in my view for sports you just have a trans category even a trans male and trans female category. They are banned from competing in events that aren’t for their sex.
And same for bathrooms where possible, just have a trans male and trans female one.
My question would be, what are trans men and trans women? If they are not men and women as we agree, perhaps they are just people
Four different gender based lavatories?
Is that enough?
If you are willing to engage with me then I’m sure we can find consensus.
Perhaps just an “other” bathroom would suffice?
At what point does one graduate from "other" to one's respective male/female lavatories?
Or does one remain an "other" in perpetuity? Like "whites only" drinking fountains from which you are permanently excluded.
No desire to share photos of trans people, so I'll stick with relatively famous ones - Would you demand Laverne Cox, India Willoughby and Trace Lysette use the "other" loo in perpetuity? Or are they woman enough for you?
Is having one's winkie cut off the "cut off point" so to speak, at which you are allowed into the gendered bathroom? What about those who have their winkies cut off, but whose faces never look feminine enough?
More simply, who is going to police this?
Isn't it simply better to prosecute lewd behaviour in public toilets and changing rooms whatever the gender of the offender?
Checks Viz - the Bottom Inspectors, of course!
But seriously, this is the exact point.
There are already laws against lewd behaviour.
There's also no magic forcefield around a gendered lavatory as far as I'm aware, as a man you can just walk into the women's loos and assault a woman if you are so inclined. You don't have to take HRT, become infertile, grow boobies, and have strangers laugh at you in the street, just for the chance to use the women's loos. You can just walk right in. Do we really think trans people are subjecting themselves to all of that, just to gain access to a marginally cleaner lavatory?
Why do I get the feeling that for some people the w word will never end.
Well you are the one banging on about it at the moment.
I’m just trying to find a consensus. Very few have engaged so far, would you like to?
I don’t think a consensus is truly possible because at the edges, at the extremes, there will always be those who want to keep pushing boundaries and those who think everything is PC gone mad. I’m not a fan of a lot of things. I had to do some mandatory training on safeguarding this week. On the gender question there were four options. Male, femail, transgender and queer. I have no idea what the last one even means. I don’t regard trans men as men or trans women as women. But I do respect them as people hope that they can find happiness in their lives as I hope everyone can. But I know some would be offended by what I have just written.
Thanks for engaging. We don’t agree much I expect but I still think we can find common ground.
Queer isn’t a gender, so that doesn’t make any sense to me. I’m sure there is a name for queer but it’s not gender.
Anyway that aside, I think people are male or female in terms of sex and that will always be the case. But in terms of living, I think we agree they should be able to live freely?
So in my view for sports you just have a trans category even a trans male and trans female category. They are banned from competing in events that aren’t for their sex.
And same for bathrooms where possible, just have a trans male and trans female one.
My question would be, what are trans men and trans women? If they are not men and women as we agree, perhaps they are just people
Of course everyone should be able to live their lives freely, but we all need to rub along together too, so there will always be issues. There is a recent case of a trans women, with presumably still working male genetalia (allegedly trying to get his girlfriend pregnant) harassing female colleagues in a female changing room.
For sport I’d suggest that men’s could become open to all, as I don’t think a there are any sports where women have an advantage. So a transwoman would compete as a woman but in the open cataegory.
Bathrooms - why not take the approach I found at Auckland Uni in the 1990’s. Simply have uninsex toilets with all cubicles.
There are times (thinking of sporting events) where urinals are handy to get numbers moving quickly. But men tend not to care about who sees them have a wee, so I think you’re right. We could have toilets, with floor to ceiling doors on the cubicles, and some urinals for overflow (if you’ll excuse the expression).
We all then just have to promise not to often have a massive stinky number two outside of the house, to respect all users.
But I am a man and defer to women on the matter, since I am basically asking to use their loos to solve issues for a tiny number of other men who have transitioned.
I was thinking more about workplaces etc that could simply adopt unisex loos, but actually having urinals alongside cubicles is already a preven winner. Back when the wife and I did a lot of off road running many races hired toilets. The best model was to have a mix of a urinal and cubicles, as those who could use the urinal did so quickly, and thus left the cubicles for those who needed them.
Yes urinals (especially the big trough style ones)are what make the numbers achievable at stadiums and concert venues. And if I could redesign London theatres I’d do just as you say. One or two massive urinals to turn over numbers (maybe in the basement?) and then as many cubicles as can fit in the existing loos.
There are various designs like this for female urinals for events: https://lapee.dk/
Makes a lot of sense - and potentially quite a big money saver. Managing portaloos for events is a pain in the arse.
Given an election campaign Labour will be back up to where they were before.
Hardly given Labour began on over 40% and ended up on 33% in July.
Opinium not brilliant for Kemi but still a swing of just under 2% from Labour to the Tories since the GE so not great for Starmer either.
Brilliant poll for Farage whose Reform party is up 7% on the 14% they got at the GE to 21%. LDs and SNP basically unchanged since the GE like the Tories in voteshare, Greens up but by just 1%
Opposition parties flourish at this stage of a Parliament, and in local elections it can be any of them who do well. But it's hard to see the Conservative election win evolving from those figures.
Not a Tory majority no but a Tory and Reform deal not impossible if Labour leaks more support to them
Why do I get the feeling that for some people the w word will never end.
Well you are the one banging on about it at the moment.
I’m just trying to find a consensus. Very few have engaged so far, would you like to?
I don’t think a consensus is truly possible because at the edges, at the extremes, there will always be those who want to keep pushing boundaries and those who think everything is PC gone mad. I’m not a fan of a lot of things. I had to do some mandatory training on safeguarding this week. On the gender question there were four options. Male, femail, transgender and queer. I have no idea what the last one even means. I don’t regard trans men as men or trans women as women. But I do respect them as people hope that they can find happiness in their lives as I hope everyone can. But I know some would be offended by what I have just written.
Thanks for engaging. We don’t agree much I expect but I still think we can find common ground.
Queer isn’t a gender, so that doesn’t make any sense to me. I’m sure there is a name for queer but it’s not gender.
Anyway that aside, I think people are male or female in terms of sex and that will always be the case. But in terms of living, I think we agree they should be able to live freely?
So in my view for sports you just have a trans category even a trans male and trans female category. They are banned from competing in events that aren’t for their sex.
And same for bathrooms where possible, just have a trans male and trans female one.
My question would be, what are trans men and trans women? If they are not men and women as we agree, perhaps they are just people
Four different gender based lavatories?
Is that enough?
If you are willing to engage with me then I’m sure we can find consensus.
Perhaps just an “other” bathroom would suffice?
At what point does one graduate from "other" to one's respective male/female lavatories?
Or does one remain an "other" in perpetuity? Like "whites only" drinking fountains from which you are permanently excluded.
No desire to share photos of trans people, so I'll stick with relatively famous ones - Would you demand Laverne Cox, India Willoughby and Trace Lysette use the "other" loo in perpetuity? Or are they woman enough for you?
Is having one's winkie cut off the "cut off point" so to speak, at which you are allowed into the gendered bathroom? What about those who have their winkies cut off, but whose faces never look feminine enough?
More simply, who is going to police this?
Isn't it simply better to prosecute lewd behaviour in public toilets and changing rooms whatever the gender of the offender?
Checks Viz - the Bottom Inspectors, of course!
But seriously, this is the exact point.
There are already laws against lewd behaviour.
There's also no magic forcefield around a gendered lavatory as far as I'm aware, as a man you can just walk into the women's loos and assault a woman if you are so inclined. You don't have to take HRT, become infertile, grow boobies, and have strangers laugh at you in the street, just for the chance to use the women's loos. You can just walk right in. Do we really think trans people are subjecting themselves to all of that, just to gain access to a marginally cleaner lavatory?
I don’t think (most women’s) objection is that they think anyone is going to assault them. I think they just want to keep some spaces as (biological) women only in general.
As above, in most public places you could remove the issue by going fully gender neutral plus separate blocks of urinals. Probably would need more cleaners mind.
Why do I get the feeling that for some people the w word will never end.
Well you are the one banging on about it at the moment.
I’m just trying to find a consensus. Very few have engaged so far, would you like to?
I don’t think a consensus is truly possible because at the edges, at the extremes, there will always be those who want to keep pushing boundaries and those who think everything is PC gone mad. I’m not a fan of a lot of things. I had to do some mandatory training on safeguarding this week. On the gender question there were four options. Male, femail, transgender and queer. I have no idea what the last one even means. I don’t regard trans men as men or trans women as women. But I do respect them as people hope that they can find happiness in their lives as I hope everyone can. But I know some would be offended by what I have just written.
Thanks for engaging. We don’t agree much I expect but I still think we can find common ground.
Queer isn’t a gender, so that doesn’t make any sense to me. I’m sure there is a name for queer but it’s not gender.
Anyway that aside, I think people are male or female in terms of sex and that will always be the case. But in terms of living, I think we agree they should be able to live freely?
So in my view for sports you just have a trans category even a trans male and trans female category. They are banned from competing in events that aren’t for their sex.
And same for bathrooms where possible, just have a trans male and trans female one.
My question would be, what are trans men and trans women? If they are not men and women as we agree, perhaps they are just people
Four different gender based lavatories?
Is that enough?
If you are willing to engage with me then I’m sure we can find consensus.
Perhaps just an “other” bathroom would suffice?
At what point does one graduate from "other" to one's respective male/female lavatories?
Or does one remain an "other" in perpetuity? Like "whites only" drinking fountains from which you are permanently excluded.
No desire to share photos of trans people, so I'll stick with relatively famous ones - Would you demand Laverne Cox, India Willoughby and Trace Lysette use the "other" loo in perpetuity? Or are they woman enough for you?
Is having one's winkie cut off the "cut off point" so to speak, at which you are allowed into the gendered bathroom? What about those who have their winkies cut off, but whose faces never look feminine enough?
More simply, who is going to police this?
Isn't it simply better to prosecute lewd behaviour in public toilets and changing rooms whatever the gender of the offender?
"Transgender people should be allowed to live freely." "But let's make lots of rules for them."
How much money did the Tories lose the country by not settling the pay rises in the first place? What an utterly pointless battle that was.
I think you are assuming here that giving in to pay demands prevents strikes. It seems to me that the reverse is true - if unions see that striking works, more strikes ensue.
Why do I get the feeling that for some people the w word will never end.
Well you are the one banging on about it at the moment.
I’m just trying to find a consensus. Very few have engaged so far, would you like to?
I don’t think a consensus is truly possible because at the edges, at the extremes, there will always be those who want to keep pushing boundaries and those who think everything is PC gone mad. I’m not a fan of a lot of things. I had to do some mandatory training on safeguarding this week. On the gender question there were four options. Male, femail, transgender and queer. I have no idea what the last one even means. I don’t regard trans men as men or trans women as women. But I do respect them as people hope that they can find happiness in their lives as I hope everyone can. But I know some would be offended by what I have just written.
Thanks for engaging. We don’t agree much I expect but I still think we can find common ground.
Queer isn’t a gender, so that doesn’t make any sense to me. I’m sure there is a name for queer but it’s not gender.
Anyway that aside, I think people are male or female in terms of sex and that will always be the case. But in terms of living, I think we agree they should be able to live freely?
So in my view for sports you just have a trans category even a trans male and trans female category. They are banned from competing in events that aren’t for their sex.
And same for bathrooms where possible, just have a trans male and trans female one.
My question would be, what are trans men and trans women? If they are not men and women as we agree, perhaps they are just people
Of course everyone should be able to live their lives freely, but we all need to rub along together too, so there will always be issues. There is a recent case of a trans women, with presumably still working male genetalia (allegedly trying to get his girlfriend pregnant) harassing female colleagues in a female changing room.
For sport I’d suggest that men’s could become open to all, as I don’t think a there are any sports where women have an advantage. So a transwoman would compete as a woman but in the open cataegory.
Bathrooms - why not take the approach I found at Auckland Uni in the 1990’s. Simply have uninsex toilets with all cubicles.
There are times (thinking of sporting events) where urinals are handy to get numbers moving quickly. But men tend not to care about who sees them have a wee, so I think you’re right. We could have toilets, with floor to ceiling doors on the cubicles, and some urinals for overflow (if you’ll excuse the expression).
We all then just have to promise not to often have a massive stinky number two outside of the house, to respect all users.
But I am a man and defer to women on the matter, since I am basically asking to use their loos to solve issues for a tiny number of other men who have transitioned.
I was thinking more about workplaces etc that could simply adopt unisex loos, but actually having urinals alongside cubicles is already a preven winner. Back when the wife and I did a lot of off road running many races hired toilets. The best model was to have a mix of a urinal and cubicles, as those who could use the urinal did so quickly, and thus left the cubicles for those who needed them.
Yes urinals (especially the big trough style ones)are what make the numbers achievable at stadiums and concert venues. And if I could redesign London theatres I’d do just as you say. One or two massive urinals to turn over numbers (maybe in the basement?) and then as many cubicles as can fit in the existing loos.
There are various designs like this for female urinals for events: https://lapee.dk/
Makes a lot of sense - and potentially quite a big money saver. Managing portaloos for events is a pain in the arse.
I defer to someone with the appropriate biology to comment.
How much money did the Tories lose the country by not settling the pay rises in the first place? What an utterly pointless battle that was.
I think you are assuming here that giving in to pay demands prevents strikes. It seems to me that the reverse is true - if unions see that striking works, more strikes ensue.
There was an election coming - so the risk was the Government called an election and discovered that various days of news coverage would be teachers / train drivers ... on strike.
Now the unknown is given that the Tories only got 120 seats would it have made much of a difference...
On the subject of AR, this letter in the FT makes a good point:
The guy is a fucking idiot. He uses a small percentage of people misuing a tax loophole as an excuse for an attack on the whole farming industry
But that’s the thing about economics. If a small number of people are willing to pay a high price then the invisible hand adjusts all land prices accordingly.
I think everyone (other than the small percentage you mention above) would be happy if agricultural land prices crashed?
S
Yes, the invisible hand (market) here reflects the fact that, supply being near enough perfectly inelastic, the price of land is set by demand, which is certainly affected by tax incentives. Reducing them will surely push land prices down, and this is a beneficial side effect of a policy designed to raise tax revenue.
How much money did the Tories lose the country by not settling the pay rises in the first place? What an utterly pointless battle that was.
I think you are assuming here that giving in to pay demands prevents strikes. It seems to me that the reverse is true - if unions see that striking works, more strikes ensue.
How much money did the Tories lose the country by not settling the pay rises in the first place? What an utterly pointless battle that was.
I think you are assuming here that giving in to pay demands prevents strikes. It seems to me that the reverse is true - if unions see that striking works, more strikes ensue.
Could the country have survived those previous strikes going on much longer though?
Comments
I’m not a fan of a lot of things. I had to do some mandatory training on safeguarding this week. On the gender question there were four options. Male, femail, transgender and queer. I have no idea what the last one even means.
I don’t regard trans men as men or trans women as women. But I do respect them as people hope that they can find happiness in their lives as I hope everyone can. But I know some would be offended by what I have just written.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/lisa-hogan-jeremy-clarkson-diddly-squat-farm-b966002.html
The Tory government made revenge porn a crime.
Revenge Porn is the sharing of private, sexual materials, either photos or videos, of another person without their consent and with the purpose of causing embarrassment or distress.
The images are sometimes accompanied by personal information about the subject, including their full name, address and links to their social media profiles.
The offence applies both online and offline and to images which are shared electronically or in a more traditional way so includes the uploading of images on the internet, sharing by text and e-mail, or showing someone a physical or electronic image.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a80be45ed915d74e33fc281/revenge-porn-factsheet.pdf
Clarkson, 64, who bought the 312-acre farm in 2012 for £4.25million, said that he chose to do so because he would not be required pay death duties on the land.
That's not exactly hard to understand or ambiguous.
The former Top Gear presenter, who already owned house nearby, said the financial crisis of 2008 forced a farmer to sell the land.
He bought the farm mainly because you don’t pay death duties on land.
Speaking to The Times he said: “That’s the critical thing.
“So rather than just have money in the bank, and get a statement with numbers written on it that gives no one any pleasure at all, you could derive a great deal of pleasure and pass it on to your children.”
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/lisa-hogan-jeremy-clarkson-diddly-squat-farm-b966002.html
So whilst I do think he’s sincere in his love of farming and I love Clarkson’s Farm, do people honestly think Clarkson shouldn't be paying inheritance tax?
👀😮
(While we're here, you have to have a seriously high income to be saving £20k year. I'm surprised it's not a hotter topic).
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/books/article-14088147/The-sordid-photo-evidence-proves-Tory-MPs-gay-group-sex-Commons-NADINE-DORRIES-lifts-lid-explosive-cover-shock-core.html
What he's saying is not at all tenuous. You seem not to be reading it carefully enough.
To quote directly
"He bought the farm mainly because you don’t pay death duties on land. Speaking to The Times he said: “That’s the critical thing."
£20 000 is a lot of spare after tax income.
Next please
The Mail is not editorialising. Nor is the Times, or the Standard. It was the reason he bought it.
He keeps it for other reasons as you and I have both noted. That may have changed his perspective, but @Benpointer was right about his motives.
...The IHT changes aren't an issue to him if he's not a tax avoider.
At 30 secs.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hC5nXXJrV8
They had this issue under inheritance tax laws in France 30-40 years and it was causing chaos.
But that doesn't apply to Clarkson. His children won't be farming the land when he snuffs it. So he's not vitally affected either way.
Queer isn’t a gender, so that doesn’t make any sense to me. I’m sure there is a name for queer but it’s not gender.
Anyway that aside, I think people are male or female in terms of sex and that will always be the case. But in terms of living, I think we agree they should be able to live freely?
So in my view for sports you just have a trans category even a trans male and trans female category. They are banned from competing in events that aren’t for their sex.
And same for bathrooms where possible, just have a trans male and trans female one.
My question would be, what are trans men and trans women? If they are not men and women as we agree, perhaps they are just people
UK Females under 30 also have higher employment rates than males too.
The discussions increasingly focused on upcoming problems, of which overcrowding in prisons was a concern of Dowden’s.
The bigger problem was imminent public sector pay deals, where the unions could hold the government to ransom. Finally, there was illegal migration, with a new armada of small boats predicted and the issue of whether they would be able to get a repatriation flight to Rwanda in the air before polling day.
EXCL: Donald Trump's team is looking at plans to deport illegal migrants to Rwanda.
The scheme was drawn up by the old British Tory government but ditched by Sir Keir Starmer.
https://x.com/kateferguson4/status/1857889485343633450
If the police are going to follow up every complaint about an online post, surely they need to follow up every single report of a burglary and indeed every single report of any other potential crime.
What is more serious?
1) Someone ringing the police to say there home has been burgled
2) Someone ringing the police (from the Netherlands) about an online post
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/11/16/twitter-hate-crime-tweets-pearson-bindel/
No mention of the interesting circumstances in which she broke up her own marriage.
https://archive.ph/xxLlp
For sport I’d suggest that men’s could become open to all, as I don’t think a there are any sports where women have an advantage. So a transwoman would compete as a woman but in the open cataegory.
Bathrooms - why not take the approach I found at Auckland Uni in the 1990’s. Simply have uninsex toilets with all cubicles.
He is also wrong. There was no great jump in agricultural land value following the intrduction of relief in 1984. In fact landvalues in the late 80s were significantly lower than they were in the early 80s by about 20%. The big jump came after 2000 when land values increased from around £3,500 an acre in 2000 (Still lower than in 1980) to around £9,000 an acre in 2015.
So in every meaningful way the article is bollocks.
Historical Socialist kink?
Is that enough?
One still looking for a berth is Alina Habba-Dabba-Doo.
And do you really think that the value of 100% AR didn't increase prices?
Others may disagree but I do think I fit firmly in the middle on most issues.
My issue with the UK policy is that GENUINE asylum seekers weren’t allowed to stay in the UK. That just seems wrong.
Why should Ukrainian refugees for example not be living in Rwanda in the previous UK policy?
Perhaps just an “other” bathroom would suffice?
My AirPods got nicked, the police literally didn’t want to know. That gets my back up as they are worth a decent amount of money and I can track them by GPS to a high accuracy. They literally didn’t want to know.
A large part of the disillusionment that voters have for politics is down to their experience of populist politicians that promise loads, but fail to deliver. Often because their proposed solutions are undeliverable, and while those work to get elected they are a problem in government.
Starmer is staking his government on under-promising, but over-delivering, and gambling that voters are mature enough to recognise this in 2029.
Of course, he has to actually deliver for this to work, and voters to be grateful rather than just bank the gains and demand more.
We all then just have to promise not to often have a massive stinky number two outside of the house, to respect all users.
But I am a man and defer to women on the matter, since I am basically asking to use their loos to solve issues for a tiny number of other men who have transitioned.
Or does one remain an "other" in perpetuity? Like "whites only" drinking fountains from which you are permanently excluded.
No desire to share photos of trans people, so I'll stick with relatively famous ones - Would you demand Laverne Cox, India Willoughby and Trace Lysette use the "other" loo in perpetuity? Or are they woman enough for you?
Is having one's winkie cut off the "cut off point" so to speak, at which you are allowed into the gendered bathroom? What about those who have their winkies cut off, but whose faces never look feminine enough?
I honestly don’t know to be honest. I think I’d be comfortable at any point but for the purposes of women’s safety I’d be more interested to defer to what any women here think.
Isn't it simply better to prosecute lewd behaviour in public toilets and changing rooms whatever the gender of the offender?
I think everyone (other than the small percentage you mention above) would be happy if agricultural land prices crashed?
S
Bluesky is drowning under the weight of the leftists reporting everything. 3000 reports per hour!
But seriously, this is the exact point.
There are already laws against lewd behaviour.
There's also no magic forcefield around a gendered lavatory as far as I'm aware, as a man you can just walk into the women's loos and assault a woman if you are so inclined. You don't have to take HRT, become infertile, grow boobies, and have strangers laugh at you in the street, just for the chance to use the women's loos. You can just walk right in. Do we really think trans people are subjecting themselves to all of that, just to gain access to a marginally cleaner lavatory?
https://x.com/BorisJohnson/status/1857720570307064032
Rwanda 578.
Bonkers.
Election Maps UK
@ElectionMapsUK
·
1h
Westminster Voting Intention:
LAB: 30% (-1)
CON: 24% (=)
RFM: 21% (+1)
LDM: 12% (+2)
GRN: 8% (-2)
SNP: 3% (+1)
Via
@OpiniumResearch
, 11-13 Nov.
https://lapee.dk/
Makes a lot of sense - and potentially quite a big money saver.
Managing portaloos for events is a pain in the arse.
As above, in most public places you could remove the issue by going fully gender neutral plus separate blocks of urinals. Probably would need more cleaners mind.
"But let's make lots of rules for them."
Now the unknown is given that the Tories only got 120 seats would it have made much of a difference...
Just watched my 5-year-old son chat with ChatGPT advanced voice mode for over 45 minutes.
It started with a question about how cars were made.
It explained it in a way that he could understand.
He started peppering it with questions.
Then he told it about his teacher, and that he was learning to count.
ChatGPT started quizzing him on counting, and egging him on, making it into a game.
He was laughing and having a blast, and it (obviously) never lost patience with him...
https://x.com/awilkinson/status/1857477769489428874