For @algarkirk (fpt) - the U.K. government is not a party to the FWS case.
@TOPPING: you answer your own question - if a person is of the male sex they should not be in a female space - their feminine appearance is irrelevant.
As for the lovely @kyf_100 - I could not care less if you call me a man. When I first joined this forum someone (I will not embarrass them) could not believe it when I revealed I was female because I "argued like a man". Lots of assumptions to unpack there. IRL my confusing name has often led to people thinking I'm a man and calling me one over my life or, sometimes, the imagined male's secretary, when they saw me. Says a lot about them and nothing about me. Where I work now someone keeps using my middle male name. So what. As for misgendering - my position is perfectly clear. People are free to believe in gender if they want. They are also free not to believe in it in the same way that some people believe in "souls" and others do not. But no-one is obliged to use the language of a belief system they do not share. And seeking to enforce this or abuse those who do not comply is the sort of behaviour the Inquisition used to indulge in. It is no more acceptable now.
Night all.
It's basic human courtesy to address people in the manner they wish to be addressed.
Just as if one of my children wanted me to call them Moonunit, then I would accede to their request, even if a thought it was stupid.
It is, generally, yes, but also forms of address have often been used as an expression of power. Hence, "your Majesty," and all of that.
So there can be circumstances where a person wants to insist on you using a specific form of address as an expression of power, and I think that is particularly relevant to an issue that touches on male/female power imbalances.
Generally, of course, most trans people aren't doing it to be arseholes, and general politeness applies, but I don't find it hard to envisage exceptions.
What's the back story to the i spelling? Even the most right on BBC and Guardian who struggle to call terrorists, terrorists, spell it with an e. Although I notice the FT use the i spelling.
I doubt it's got anything to do with being right on or otherwise. The two spellings are likely just different conventions for transposing the Arabic into English. I don't know Arabic, but you get similar issues with other languages.
That was my point. I hadn't seen anybody in UK media / politicians spell it with an i before even.
The BBC has discontinued its market data feeds on both the website and red button (UK only) services. We have previously provided delayed updates on major stock prices, currencies, and commodities.
This change is part of our broader initiative to make savings, streamline operations and improve other essential aspects of the BBC’s digital journalism.
This forms part of the BBC’s strategy to deliver value for all of its audiences. We will continue to deliver comprehensive coverage of significant business and economic stories through our TV and radio broadcasts, as well as our news website and other digital platforms.
Although we will no longer supply market data in this format, you can continue to access this information through various alternative sources. BBC News will continue to provide market data headlines on the News Channel and on BBC Radio 4.
"This forms part of the BBC’s strategy to deliver value for all of its audiences."
How? How the fuck is that "ending delivery" meaning the BBC is deliering value for its audiences that wanted data supplied in this format? Do you really believe that, BBC? No you don't. So stop insulting our intelligence.
That's like if a business removes/changes something 'for your convenience' when it is anything but.
I think we can all agree that it's time we got rid of a pointless anachronistic element in our upper chamber whereby irrelevant figures from an ignored institution keep popping up with annoying sermons.
Yes, let's abolish the Cameronite hasbeens from the Lords.
Well played.
I maintain of all my suggestions for reform of the Lords, without getting rid of it entirely, the easiest to do anda best would be to simply prevent anyone who has been an MP from serving in the Lords for at least 10 years or two terms (whichever is longer).
Why extend the parliamentary careers of retiring or defeated MPs as a matter of course in many cases? Have the delay and one they have to earn their place with non-parliamentary works, and two the gap will give them perspective rather than retaining their MP attitudes and intensity which is not well suited for the Lords.
And it would eliminate bribing past it old duffers to retire by kicking them upstairs when they have nothing more to contribute. Force parties to deselect those who are past it.
It isn't old MPs who have been infesting the Lords recently but ex Spads who did a few years in the PM's office and get given a free ride for the next 50 years.
Bob Iger, CEO of Disney, reportedly considers cutting ties with Star Wars after Gina Carano’s legal win exposed Kathleen Kennedy’s troubled leadership at Lucasfilm:
Does anybody care about Star Wars now that Disney have trashed it?
George Lucas does...
He will just have to console himself with always being the person behind the original 3 movies, that are timeless classics, and the $5bn he made out of them....
People are even giving the prequels more of a shot than they used to. They were never as bad as people claimed (which is not to say they are outright good - I'd say there's at least a good movie's worth across the three films, and can rewatch them with sincere enjoyment).
Only because they are less crap than the last three…
Bob Iger, CEO of Disney, reportedly considers cutting ties with Star Wars after Gina Carano’s legal win exposed Kathleen Kennedy’s troubled leadership at Lucasfilm:
Does anybody care about Star Wars now that Disney have trashed it?
George Lucas does...
He will just have to console himself with always being the person behind the original 3 movies, that are timeless classics, and the $5bn he made out of them....
People are even giving the prequels more of a shot than they used to. They were never as bad as people claimed (which is not to say they are outright good - I'd say there's at least a good movie's worth across the three films, and can rewatch them with sincere enjoyment).
Only because they are less crap than the last three…
Star War the Third Gathers: Backstroke of the West!
For @algarkirk (fpt) - the U.K. government is not a party to the FWS case.
@TOPPING: you answer your own question - if a person is of the male sex they should not be in a female space - their feminine appearance is irrelevant.
As for the lovely @kyf_100 - I could not care less if you call me a man. When I first joined this forum someone (I will not embarrass them) could not believe it when I revealed I was female because I "argued like a man". Lots of assumptions to unpack there. IRL my confusing name has often led to people thinking I'm a man and calling me one over my life or, sometimes, the imagined male's secretary, when they saw me. Says a lot about them and nothing about me. Where I work now someone keeps using my middle male name. So what. As for misgendering - my position is perfectly clear. People are free to believe in gender if they want. They are also free not to believe in it in the same way that some people believe in "souls" and others do not. But no-one is obliged to use the language of a belief system they do not share. And seeking to enforce this or abuse those who do not comply is the sort of behaviour the Inquisition used to indulge in. It is no more acceptable now.
Night all.
It's basic human courtesy to address people in the manner they wish to be addressed.
Just as if one of my children wanted me to call them Moonunit, then I would accede to their request, even if a thought it was stupid.
It is, generally, yes, but also forms of address have often been used as an expression of power. Hence, "your Majesty," and all of that.
So there can be circumstances where a person wants to insist on you using a specific form of address as an expression of power, and I think that is particularly relevant to an issue that touches on male/female power imbalances.
Generally, of course, most trans people aren't doing it to be arseholes, and general politeness applies, but I don't find it hard to envisage exceptions.
If someone asked you to address them as a cat, would you agree?
The only growth at the moment seems to be in civil liberty restrictions..🥴🧐
If cigarettes are so evil young people should not be able to buy them in future then they should be banned for everyone now. Just feels like a weird half measure when I'd assume older people who are still smoking are more at risk from their continued ability to smoke.
I think we can all agree that it's time we got rid of a pointless anachronistic element in our upper chamber whereby irrelevant figures from an ignored institution keep popping up with annoying sermons.
Yes, let's abolish the Cameronite hasbeens from the Lords.
Well played.
I maintain of all my suggestions for reform of the Lords, without getting rid of it entirely, the easiest to do anda best would be to simply prevent anyone who has been an MP from serving in the Lords for at least 10 years or two terms (whichever is longer).
Why extend the parliamentary careers of retiring or defeated MPs as a matter of course in many cases? Have the delay and one they have to earn their place with non-parliamentary works, and two the gap will give them perspective rather than retaining their MP attitudes and intensity which is not well suited for the Lords.
And it would eliminate bribing past it old duffers to retire by kicking them upstairs when they have nothing more to contribute. Force parties to deselect those who are past it.
It isn't old MPs who have been infesting the Lords recently but ex Spads who did a few years in the PM's office and get given a free ride for the next 50 years.
Those types would be covered by other reforms, it is a bit ridiculous.
It's an odd approach to take to put them in, you're banking a lot on them being good party footsoldiers across many decades when they've had rather limited experience.
I would also prevent donors from getting peerages.
Bob Iger, CEO of Disney, reportedly considers cutting ties with Star Wars after Gina Carano’s legal win exposed Kathleen Kennedy’s troubled leadership at Lucasfilm:
I think there was plenty else showing trouble with the property and the leadership of it.
I'm not even one of those people who goes nuts about the sequels (the biggest issue of which I think was lack of joined up thinking, which caused most of the other problems), but even ignoring the whinier of the fanboys things have not been looking good for a number of years.
I enjoyed the sequels, but there's not a huge amount of depth to the Star Wars universe. It was always a fairly simple story told in primary colours and with strong contrasts.
That makes it hard to use as the basis of a continuing franchise, and they've done amazingly well to mine it as much as they have.
Indeed (and RedLetterMedia have funny videos on this). But it's bloody difficult and I don't know how long they can do it. Mandalorean was good but petered out, Acolyte was misconceived, Kenobi nerfed its hero, the only success is Andor but it appeals to middle aged legacy fans and they can't expand outside that.
Star Trek has horrendous problems. It eventually worked out that what the fans want and what people will watch are remixes of the old shows, but the TOS crew are mostly dead, TNG cast are now very old, and the general public have forgotten DS9 and VOY. Disco never gelled, and although SNW and Lower Decks are really good, they're not pop icons. The Kelvinverse Films are moribund.
And as for Doctor Who...oy, what a mess. I still like it, and it's better than the Chibnall years, but low bar.
Bob Iger, CEO of Disney, reportedly considers cutting ties with Star Wars after Gina Carano’s legal win exposed Kathleen Kennedy’s troubled leadership at Lucasfilm:
Does anybody care about Star Wars now that Disney have trashed it?
George Lucas does...
He will just have to console himself with always being the person behind the original 3 movies, that are timeless classics, and the $5bn he made out of them....
People are even giving the prequels more of a shot than they used to. They were never as bad as people claimed (which is not to say they are outright good - I'd say there's at least a good movie's worth across the three films, and can rewatch them with sincere enjoyment).
Only because they are less crap than the last three…
I don't mind them, but they suffer a lot from lack of cohesion or vision. The last one was the weakest (even though Palpatine is a hero of mine).
Bob Iger, CEO of Disney, reportedly considers cutting ties with Star Wars after Gina Carano’s legal win exposed Kathleen Kennedy’s troubled leadership at Lucasfilm:
For @algarkirk (fpt) - the U.K. government is not a party to the FWS case.
@TOPPING: you answer your own question - if a person is of the male sex they should not be in a female space - their feminine appearance is irrelevant.
As for the lovely @kyf_100 - I could not care less if you call me a man. When I first joined this forum someone (I will not embarrass them) could not believe it when I revealed I was female because I "argued like a man". Lots of assumptions to unpack there. IRL my confusing name has often led to people thinking I'm a man and calling me one over my life or, sometimes, the imagined male's secretary, when they saw me. Says a lot about them and nothing about me. Where I work now someone keeps using my middle male name. So what. As for misgendering - my position is perfectly clear. People are free to believe in gender if they want. They are also free not to believe in it in the same way that some people believe in "souls" and others do not. But no-one is obliged to use the language of a belief system they do not share. And seeking to enforce this or abuse those who do not comply is the sort of behaviour the Inquisition used to indulge in. It is no more acceptable now.
Night all.
It's basic human courtesy to address people in the manner they wish to be addressed.
Just as if one of my children wanted me to call them Moonunit, then I would accede to their request, even if a thought it was stupid.
It is, generally, yes, but also forms of address have often been used as an expression of power. Hence, "your Majesty," and all of that.
So there can be circumstances where a person wants to insist on you using a specific form of address as an expression of power, and I think that is particularly relevant to an issue that touches on male/female power imbalances.
Generally, of course, most trans people aren't doing it to be arseholes, and general politeness applies, but I don't find it hard to envisage exceptions.
If someone asked you to address them as a cat, would you agree?
It would depend on the context, but, for example, I did once tell my daughter that she couldn't be a zebra when she grew up. So, probably not.
Bob Iger, CEO of Disney, reportedly considers cutting ties with Star Wars after Gina Carano’s legal win exposed Kathleen Kennedy’s troubled leadership at Lucasfilm:
I think there was plenty else showing trouble with the property and the leadership of it.
I'm not even one of those people who goes nuts about the sequels (the biggest issue of which I think was lack of joined up thinking, which caused most of the other problems), but even ignoring the whinier of the fanboys things have not been looking good for a number of years.
I enjoyed the sequels, but there's not a huge amount of depth to the Star Wars universe. It was always a fairly simple story told in primary colours and with strong contrasts.
That makes it hard to use as the basis of a continuing franchise, and they've done amazingly well to mine it as much as they have.
Indeed (and RedLetterMedia have funny videos on this). But it's bloody difficult and I don't know how long they can do it. Mandalorean was good but petered out, Acolyte was misconceived, Kenobi nerfed its hero, the only success is Andor but it appeals to middle aged legacy fans and they can't expand outside that.
Star Trek has horrendous problems. It eventually worked out that what the fans want and what people will watch are remixes of the old shows, but the TOS crew are mostly dead, TNG cast are now very old, and the general public have forgotten DS9 and VOY. Disco never gelled, and although SNW and Lower Decks are really good, they're not pop icons. The Kelvinverse Films are moribund.
And as for Doctor Who...oy, what a mess. I still like it, and it's better than the Chibnall years, but low bar.
Star Trek is weird as it seems to have remained a niche property despite being around for generations and having some really big moments along the way (The LDs of franchies perhaps?). Even the older movies never made that much money.
They apparently realised they were annoying people with Picard and corrected with nostalgia focus, but that's not sustainable moving forward. As you note DS9 and VOY seem to only be remembered by hardcore fans, Enterprise is ignored even by most of those, Lower Decks started out badly but is actually good but is still just for super fans, and the others have done reasonably but aren't breakout hits to extend the franchise.
And apparently one idea they are trying for is a show based around Starfleet Academy which just seems fundamentally misplaced - people probably don't want to watch Star Trek the College Years.
Bob Iger, CEO of Disney, reportedly considers cutting ties with Star Wars after Gina Carano’s legal win exposed Kathleen Kennedy’s troubled leadership at Lucasfilm:
I think there was plenty else showing trouble with the property and the leadership of it.
I'm not even one of those people who goes nuts about the sequels (the biggest issue of which I think was lack of joined up thinking, which caused most of the other problems), but even ignoring the whinier of the fanboys things have not been looking good for a number of years.
I enjoyed the sequels, but there's not a huge amount of depth to the Star Wars universe. It was always a fairly simple story told in primary colours and with strong contrasts.
That makes it hard to use as the basis of a continuing franchise, and they've done amazingly well to mine it as much as they have.
Indeed (and RedLetterMedia have funny videos on this). But it's bloody difficult and I don't know how long they can do it. Mandalorean was good but petered out, Acolyte was misconceived, Kenobi nerfed its hero, the only success is Andor but it appeals to middle aged legacy fans and they can't expand outside that.
Star Trek has horrendous problems. It eventually worked out that what the fans want and what people will watch are remixes of the old shows, but the TOS crew are mostly dead, TNG cast are now very old, and the general public have forgotten DS9 and VOY. Disco never gelled, and although SNW and Lower Decks are really good, they're not pop icons. The Kelvinverse Films are moribund.
And as for Doctor Who...oy, what a mess. I still like it, and it's better than the Chibnall years, but low bar.
40K might be coming to Amazon soon, but I fear that it takes itself too seriously these days, and it's lost the humour that makes it work.
The Department for Culture, Media and Sport confirmed the plans on Wednesday and said it was also pressing ahead with a limit on what online casino customers can stake on slot machines. Stakes, which are currently unlimited, will be set at £5 per spin for those aged over 25 and £2 for 18 to 24-year-olds.
For @algarkirk (fpt) - the U.K. government is not a party to the FWS case.
@TOPPING: you answer your own question - if a person is of the male sex they should not be in a female space - their feminine appearance is irrelevant.
As for the lovely @kyf_100 - I could not care less if you call me a man. When I first joined this forum someone (I will not embarrass them) could not believe it when I revealed I was female because I "argued like a man". Lots of assumptions to unpack there. IRL my confusing name has often led to people thinking I'm a man and calling me one over my life or, sometimes, the imagined male's secretary, when they saw me. Says a lot about them and nothing about me. Where I work now someone keeps using my middle male name. So what. As for misgendering - my position is perfectly clear. People are free to believe in gender if they want. They are also free not to believe in it in the same way that some people believe in "souls" and others do not. But no-one is obliged to use the language of a belief system they do not share. And seeking to enforce this or abuse those who do not comply is the sort of behaviour the Inquisition used to indulge in. It is no more acceptable now.
Night all.
It's basic human courtesy to address people in the manner they wish to be addressed.
Just as if one of my children wanted me to call them Moonunit, then I would accede to their request, even if a thought it was stupid.
It is, generally, yes, but also forms of address have often been used as an expression of power. Hence, "your Majesty," and all of that.
So there can be circumstances where a person wants to insist on you using a specific form of address as an expression of power, and I think that is particularly relevant to an issue that touches on male/female power imbalances.
Generally, of course, most trans people aren't doing it to be arseholes, and general politeness applies, but I don't find it hard to envisage exceptions.
If someone asked you to address them as a cat, would you agree?
It would depend on the context, but, for example, I did once tell my daughter that she couldn't be a zebra when she grew up. So, probably not.
Someone I knew at school unilaterally declared his nickname to be "Boss Man". No one acceded to his request to be addressed this way.
Bob Iger, CEO of Disney, reportedly considers cutting ties with Star Wars after Gina Carano’s legal win exposed Kathleen Kennedy’s troubled leadership at Lucasfilm:
I think there was plenty else showing trouble with the property and the leadership of it.
I'm not even one of those people who goes nuts about the sequels (the biggest issue of which I think was lack of joined up thinking, which caused most of the other problems), but even ignoring the whinier of the fanboys things have not been looking good for a number of years.
I enjoyed the sequels, but there's not a huge amount of depth to the Star Wars universe. It was always a fairly simple story told in primary colours and with strong contrasts.
That makes it hard to use as the basis of a continuing franchise, and they've done amazingly well to mine it as much as they have.
Indeed (and RedLetterMedia have funny videos on this). But it's bloody difficult and I don't know how long they can do it. Mandalorean was good but petered out, Acolyte was misconceived, Kenobi nerfed its hero, the only success is Andor but it appeals to middle aged legacy fans and they can't expand outside that.
Star Trek has horrendous problems. It eventually worked out that what the fans want and what people will watch are remixes of the old shows, but the TOS crew are mostly dead, TNG cast are now very old, and the general public have forgotten DS9 and VOY. Disco never gelled, and although SNW and Lower Decks are really good, they're not pop icons. The Kelvinverse Films are moribund.
And as for Doctor Who...oy, what a mess. I still like it, and it's better than the Chibnall years, but low bar.
40K might be coming to Amazon soon, but I fear that it takes itself too seriously these days, and it's lost the humour that makes it work.
For @algarkirk (fpt) - the U.K. government is not a party to the FWS case.
@TOPPING: you answer your own question - if a person is of the male sex they should not be in a female space - their feminine appearance is irrelevant.
As for the lovely @kyf_100 - I could not care less if you call me a man. When I first joined this forum someone (I will not embarrass them) could not believe it when I revealed I was female because I "argued like a man". Lots of assumptions to unpack there. IRL my confusing name has often led to people thinking I'm a man and calling me one over my life or, sometimes, the imagined male's secretary, when they saw me. Says a lot about them and nothing about me. Where I work now someone keeps using my middle male name. So what. As for misgendering - my position is perfectly clear. People are free to believe in gender if they want. They are also free not to believe in it in the same way that some people believe in "souls" and others do not. But no-one is obliged to use the language of a belief system they do not share. And seeking to enforce this or abuse those who do not comply is the sort of behaviour the Inquisition used to indulge in. It is no more acceptable now.
Night all.
It's basic human courtesy to address people in the manner they wish to be addressed.
Just as if one of my children wanted me to call them Moonunit, then I would accede to their request, even if a thought it was stupid.
It is, generally, yes, but also forms of address have often been used as an expression of power. Hence, "your Majesty," and all of that.
So there can be circumstances where a person wants to insist on you using a specific form of address as an expression of power, and I think that is particularly relevant to an issue that touches on male/female power imbalances.
Generally, of course, most trans people aren't doing it to be arseholes, and general politeness applies, but I don't find it hard to envisage exceptions.
If someone asked you to address them as a cat, would you agree?
For @algarkirk (fpt) - the U.K. government is not a party to the FWS case.
@TOPPING: you answer your own question - if a person is of the male sex they should not be in a female space - their feminine appearance is irrelevant.
As for the lovely @kyf_100 - I could not care less if you call me a man. When I first joined this forum someone (I will not embarrass them) could not believe it when I revealed I was female because I "argued like a man". Lots of assumptions to unpack there. IRL my confusing name has often led to people thinking I'm a man and calling me one over my life or, sometimes, the imagined male's secretary, when they saw me. Says a lot about them and nothing about me. Where I work now someone keeps using my middle male name. So what. As for misgendering - my position is perfectly clear. People are free to believe in gender if they want. They are also free not to believe in it in the same way that some people believe in "souls" and others do not. But no-one is obliged to use the language of a belief system they do not share. And seeking to enforce this or abuse those who do not comply is the sort of behaviour the Inquisition used to indulge in. It is no more acceptable now.
Night all.
It's basic human courtesy to address people in the manner they wish to be addressed.
Just as if one of my children wanted me to call them Moonunit, then I would accede to their request, even if a thought it was stupid.
It is, generally, yes, but also forms of address have often been used as an expression of power. Hence, "your Majesty," and all of that.
So there can be circumstances where a person wants to insist on you using a specific form of address as an expression of power, and I think that is particularly relevant to an issue that touches on male/female power imbalances.
Generally, of course, most trans people aren't doing it to be arseholes, and general politeness applies, but I don't find it hard to envisage exceptions.
If someone asked you to address them as a cat, would you agree?
It would depend on the context, but, for example, I did once tell my daughter that she couldn't be a zebra when she grew up. So, probably not.
I used to have a colleague called Sunbeam (hippy parents). It wouldn't have made any difference to me if she wanted to be called Mrs Tiddles or something else feline.
For @algarkirk (fpt) - the U.K. government is not a party to the FWS case.
@TOPPING: you answer your own question - if a person is of the male sex they should not be in a female space - their feminine appearance is irrelevant.
As for the lovely @kyf_100 - I could not care less if you call me a man. When I first joined this forum someone (I will not embarrass them) could not believe it when I revealed I was female because I "argued like a man". Lots of assumptions to unpack there. IRL my confusing name has often led to people thinking I'm a man and calling me one over my life or, sometimes, the imagined male's secretary, when they saw me. Says a lot about them and nothing about me. Where I work now someone keeps using my middle male name. So what. As for misgendering - my position is perfectly clear. People are free to believe in gender if they want. They are also free not to believe in it in the same way that some people believe in "souls" and others do not. But no-one is obliged to use the language of a belief system they do not share. And seeking to enforce this or abuse those who do not comply is the sort of behaviour the Inquisition used to indulge in. It is no more acceptable now.
Night all.
It's basic human courtesy to address people in the manner they wish to be addressed.
Just as if one of my children wanted me to call them Moonunit, then I would accede to their request, even if a thought it was stupid.
It is, generally, yes, but also forms of address have often been used as an expression of power. Hence, "your Majesty," and all of that.
So there can be circumstances where a person wants to insist on you using a specific form of address as an expression of power, and I think that is particularly relevant to an issue that touches on male/female power imbalances.
Generally, of course, most trans people aren't doing it to be arseholes, and general politeness applies, but I don't find it hard to envisage exceptions.
Which is why politeness remains the means of enforcement, rather than any kind of right to be called what we want, so exceptions can cut out those taking the piss.
For @algarkirk (fpt) - the U.K. government is not a party to the FWS case.
@TOPPING: you answer your own question - if a person is of the male sex they should not be in a female space - their feminine appearance is irrelevant.
As for the lovely @kyf_100 - I could not care less if you call me a man. When I first joined this forum someone (I will not embarrass them) could not believe it when I revealed I was female because I "argued like a man". Lots of assumptions to unpack there. IRL my confusing name has often led to people thinking I'm a man and calling me one over my life or, sometimes, the imagined male's secretary, when they saw me. Says a lot about them and nothing about me. Where I work now someone keeps using my middle male name. So what. As for misgendering - my position is perfectly clear. People are free to believe in gender if they want. They are also free not to believe in it in the same way that some people believe in "souls" and others do not. But no-one is obliged to use the language of a belief system they do not share. And seeking to enforce this or abuse those who do not comply is the sort of behaviour the Inquisition used to indulge in. It is no more acceptable now.
Night all.
It's basic human courtesy to address people in the manner they wish to be addressed.
Just as if one of my children wanted me to call them Moonunit, then I would accede to their request, even if a thought it was stupid.
Likewise, I wouldn't go around calling someone's God as a "stupid made up sky fairy" even though I'm an atheist, fit exactly the same reason: basic courtesy.
Indeed, though if someone wanted to be a dick and do that, it shouldn't be a public concern so long as no threats are involved. People are (or should be) allowed to be rude, and face only social judgement for it.
This is absolutely correct too.
It should certainly not be a crime to misgender someone, just as it should not be a crime to go around insulting someone's god or prophet.
At the same time, if I observe you being gratuitously rude, I am going to form my own judgement. And - Ms @Cyclefree who I believe is a Catholic - would do well to remember that we all make allowances for other peoples' belief systems all the time. And we're all better off when we remain polite and civil, and yes (most of the time, and not withstanding the excellent objections posted here) that means we should address people as they wish to be addressed, irrespective of our beliefs.
Did anyone see Matthew Syed's latest Sunday Times article? I can think of at least one person on PB who might not necessarily approve wholeheartedly of it.
Covid inquiry still going, with no end in sight, such that the lawyers earn fortunes and politicians are long gone when the findings are published, making a mockery of accountability too. This isn’t a leaning exercise; it’s an establishment stitchup"
"Preening lawyers have ensured we learn nothing from inquiries Seeing KCs run rings round public servants who battled Covid is a costly, overrated form of entertainment"
Same as almost every inquiry in history.
As Sir Humphrey famously said,"A basic rule of government is never look into anything you don't have to, and never set up an inquiry unless you know in advance what its findings will be."
I do think the Post Office inquiry is a possible exception. I've enjoyed watching it, and it is making some pretty astounding discoveries about how the organisation has been run over the years. They've been getting through witnesses as quickly as possible, with Sir Wyn Williams frequently telling the lawyers to speed up their questioning, but it's still been going on for 3 years. On the other hand, the Covid inquiry does seem like a waste of time, with nothing significant being learnt that we didn't already know.
It maybe interesting with astounding discoveries, how do you rate the chances of it stopping something similar happening again? Personally I suspect the answer is it will make 0% difference to that chance
For @algarkirk (fpt) - the U.K. government is not a party to the FWS case.
@TOPPING: you answer your own question - if a person is of the male sex they should not be in a female space - their feminine appearance is irrelevant.
As for the lovely @kyf_100 - I could not care less if you call me a man. When I first joined this forum someone (I will not embarrass them) could not believe it when I revealed I was female because I "argued like a man". Lots of assumptions to unpack there. IRL my confusing name has often led to people thinking I'm a man and calling me one over my life or, sometimes, the imagined male's secretary, when they saw me. Says a lot about them and nothing about me. Where I work now someone keeps using my middle male name. So what. As for misgendering - my position is perfectly clear. People are free to believe in gender if they want. They are also free not to believe in it in the same way that some people believe in "souls" and others do not. But no-one is obliged to use the language of a belief system they do not share. And seeking to enforce this or abuse those who do not comply is the sort of behaviour the Inquisition used to indulge in. It is no more acceptable now.
Night all.
It's basic human courtesy to address people in the manner they wish to be addressed.
Just as if one of my children wanted me to call them Moonunit, then I would accede to their request, even if a thought it was stupid.
It is, generally, yes, but also forms of address have often been used as an expression of power. Hence, "your Majesty," and all of that.
So there can be circumstances where a person wants to insist on you using a specific form of address as an expression of power, and I think that is particularly relevant to an issue that touches on male/female power imbalances.
Generally, of course, most trans people aren't doing it to be arseholes, and general politeness applies, but I don't find it hard to envisage exceptions.
If someone asked you to address them as a cat, would you agree?
It would depend on the context, but, for example, I did once tell my daughter that she couldn't be a zebra when she grew up. So, probably not.
Someone I knew at school unilaterally declared his nickname to be "Boss Man". No one acceded to his request to be addressed this way.
Read Christopher Brookmyre's A Big Boy Did It and Ran Away. (One of my top three books, and I've read it at least a dozen times.)
Bob Iger, CEO of Disney, reportedly considers cutting ties with Star Wars after Gina Carano’s legal win exposed Kathleen Kennedy’s troubled leadership at Lucasfilm:
Does anybody care about Star Wars now that Disney have trashed it?
George Lucas does...
He will just have to console himself with always being the person behind the original 3 movies, that are timeless classics, and the $5bn he made out of them....
People are even giving the prequels more of a shot than they used to. They were never as bad as people claimed (which is not to say they are outright good - I'd say there's at least a good movie's worth across the three films, and can rewatch them with sincere enjoyment).
Only because they are less crap than the last three…
I don't mind them, but they suffer a lot from lack of cohesion or vision. The last one was the weakest (even though Palpatine is a hero of mine).
They compressed the timeline too much. If the Empire began when Luke was born and ended when he was around 20 then it suddenly becomes much less impressive.
Bob Iger, CEO of Disney, reportedly considers cutting ties with Star Wars after Gina Carano’s legal win exposed Kathleen Kennedy’s troubled leadership at Lucasfilm:
I think there was plenty else showing trouble with the property and the leadership of it.
I'm not even one of those people who goes nuts about the sequels (the biggest issue of which I think was lack of joined up thinking, which caused most of the other problems), but even ignoring the whinier of the fanboys things have not been looking good for a number of years.
I enjoyed the sequels, but there's not a huge amount of depth to the Star Wars universe. It was always a fairly simple story told in primary colours and with strong contrasts.
That makes it hard to use as the basis of a continuing franchise, and they've done amazingly well to mine it as much as they have.
Indeed (and RedLetterMedia have funny videos on this). But it's bloody difficult and I don't know how long they can do it. Mandalorean was good but petered out, Acolyte was misconceived, Kenobi nerfed its hero, the only success is Andor but it appeals to middle aged legacy fans and they can't expand outside that.
Star Trek has horrendous problems. It eventually worked out that what the fans want and what people will watch are remixes of the old shows, but the TOS crew are mostly dead, TNG cast are now very old, and the general public have forgotten DS9 and VOY. Disco never gelled, and although SNW and Lower Decks are really good, they're not pop icons. The Kelvinverse Films are moribund.
And as for Doctor Who...oy, what a mess. I still like it, and it's better than the Chibnall years, but low bar.
40K might be coming to Amazon soon, but I fear that it takes itself too seriously these days, and it's lost the humour that makes it work.
For @algarkirk (fpt) - the U.K. government is not a party to the FWS case.
@TOPPING: you answer your own question - if a person is of the male sex they should not be in a female space - their feminine appearance is irrelevant.
As for the lovely @kyf_100 - I could not care less if you call me a man. When I first joined this forum someone (I will not embarrass them) could not believe it when I revealed I was female because I "argued like a man". Lots of assumptions to unpack there. IRL my confusing name has often led to people thinking I'm a man and calling me one over my life or, sometimes, the imagined male's secretary, when they saw me. Says a lot about them and nothing about me. Where I work now someone keeps using my middle male name. So what. As for misgendering - my position is perfectly clear. People are free to believe in gender if they want. They are also free not to believe in it in the same way that some people believe in "souls" and others do not. But no-one is obliged to use the language of a belief system they do not share. And seeking to enforce this or abuse those who do not comply is the sort of behaviour the Inquisition used to indulge in. It is no more acceptable now.
Night all.
It's basic human courtesy to address people in the manner they wish to be addressed.
Just as if one of my children wanted me to call them Moonunit, then I would accede to their request, even if a thought it was stupid.
It is, generally, yes, but also forms of address have often been used as an expression of power. Hence, "your Majesty," and all of that.
So there can be circumstances where a person wants to insist on you using a specific form of address as an expression of power, and I think that is particularly relevant to an issue that touches on male/female power imbalances.
Generally, of course, most trans people aren't doing it to be arseholes, and general politeness applies, but I don't find it hard to envisage exceptions.
If someone asked you to address them as a cat, would you agree?
It would depend on the context, but, for example, I did once tell my daughter that she couldn't be a zebra when she grew up. So, probably not.
I used to have a colleague called Sunbeam (hippy parents). It wouldn't have made any difference to me if she wanted to be called Mrs Tiddles or something else feline.
Pity the people with unusual or silly names in 'serious' professions which people might judge unfairly though. Professor Tibbles McWhiskers is probably an excellent lawyer, but people might still plump for Rick Justice instead.
For @algarkirk (fpt) - the U.K. government is not a party to the FWS case.
@TOPPING: you answer your own question - if a person is of the male sex they should not be in a female space - their feminine appearance is irrelevant.
As for the lovely @kyf_100 - I could not care less if you call me a man. When I first joined this forum someone (I will not embarrass them) could not believe it when I revealed I was female because I "argued like a man". Lots of assumptions to unpack there. IRL my confusing name has often led to people thinking I'm a man and calling me one over my life or, sometimes, the imagined male's secretary, when they saw me. Says a lot about them and nothing about me. Where I work now someone keeps using my middle male name. So what. As for misgendering - my position is perfectly clear. People are free to believe in gender if they want. They are also free not to believe in it in the same way that some people believe in "souls" and others do not. But no-one is obliged to use the language of a belief system they do not share. And seeking to enforce this or abuse those who do not comply is the sort of behaviour the Inquisition used to indulge in. It is no more acceptable now.
Night all.
It's basic human courtesy to address people in the manner they wish to be addressed.
Just as if one of my children wanted me to call them Moonunit, then I would accede to their request, even if a thought it was stupid.
It is, generally, yes, but also forms of address have often been used as an expression of power. Hence, "your Majesty," and all of that.
So there can be circumstances where a person wants to insist on you using a specific form of address as an expression of power, and I think that is particularly relevant to an issue that touches on male/female power imbalances.
Generally, of course, most trans people aren't doing it to be arseholes, and general politeness applies, but I don't find it hard to envisage exceptions.
If someone asked you to address them as a cat, would you agree?
It would depend on the context, but, for example, I did once tell my daughter that she couldn't be a zebra when she grew up. So, probably not.
I used to have a colleague called Sunbeam (hippy parents). It wouldn't have made any difference to me if she wanted to be called Mrs Tiddles or something else feline.
Bob Iger, CEO of Disney, reportedly considers cutting ties with Star Wars after Gina Carano’s legal win exposed Kathleen Kennedy’s troubled leadership at Lucasfilm:
I think there was plenty else showing trouble with the property and the leadership of it.
I'm not even one of those people who goes nuts about the sequels (the biggest issue of which I think was lack of joined up thinking, which caused most of the other problems), but even ignoring the whinier of the fanboys things have not been looking good for a number of years.
I enjoyed the sequels, but there's not a huge amount of depth to the Star Wars universe. It was always a fairly simple story told in primary colours and with strong contrasts.
That makes it hard to use as the basis of a continuing franchise, and they've done amazingly well to mine it as much as they have.
Indeed (and RedLetterMedia have funny videos on this). But it's bloody difficult and I don't know how long they can do it. Mandalorean was good but petered out, Acolyte was misconceived, Kenobi nerfed its hero, the only success is Andor but it appeals to middle aged legacy fans and they can't expand outside that.
Star Trek has horrendous problems. It eventually worked out that what the fans want and what people will watch are remixes of the old shows, but the TOS crew are mostly dead, TNG cast are now very old, and the general public have forgotten DS9 and VOY. Disco never gelled, and although SNW and Lower Decks are really good, they're not pop icons. The Kelvinverse Films are moribund.
And as for Doctor Who...oy, what a mess. I still like it, and it's better than the Chibnall years, but low bar.
40K might be coming to Amazon soon, but I fear that it takes itself too seriously these days, and it's lost the humour that makes it work.
How on earth does one take 40K seriously?
I don't think one is supposed to take it seriously. It's tongue is so far in its cheek, it has burst through and is making a run for the kitchen.
Going to ask "proper" financial advisors about this in a wee bit, but it's an unusual enough question that I suspect they won't be much help - and someone here might know - there's no way I can legally gamble on behalf of children, is there? At least when said gambles are political markets. Context is setting up funds for babysauruses (there's only one *yet* but hoping this to change shortly).
Yeah obviously most of it in index funds and boring crap but I can outperform them...
The Department for Culture, Media and Sport confirmed the plans on Wednesday and said it was also pressing ahead with a limit on what online casino customers can stake on slot machines. Stakes, which are currently unlimited, will be set at £5 per spin for those aged over 25 and £2 for 18 to 24-year-olds.
I once played in a cricket team with an Ellis Ellis Jnr....and his dad Ellis Ellis Snr.....always fun hearing the visiting scorer saying batter, Ellis, second name, Ellis, I said second name, Ellis, are you taking the piss...and the other end, Ellis, come on, what are their real names...
The Department for Culture, Media and Sport confirmed the plans on Wednesday and said it was also pressing ahead with a limit on what online casino customers can stake on slot machines. Stakes, which are currently unlimited, will be set at £5 per spin for those aged over 25 and £2 for 18 to 24-year-olds.
Seems very strange to be age related stake restrictions.
Babysitting adults. 👿
It is disgraceful (as is the tobacco ban) but otoh (like the tobacco ban) at least it's not going to hit anyone sensible, and I'd rather this than restricting gambling where you can actually have an edge.
Bob Iger, CEO of Disney, reportedly considers cutting ties with Star Wars after Gina Carano’s legal win exposed Kathleen Kennedy’s troubled leadership at Lucasfilm:
I think there was plenty else showing trouble with the property and the leadership of it.
I'm not even one of those people who goes nuts about the sequels (the biggest issue of which I think was lack of joined up thinking, which caused most of the other problems), but even ignoring the whinier of the fanboys things have not been looking good for a number of years.
I enjoyed the sequels, but there's not a huge amount of depth to the Star Wars universe. It was always a fairly simple story told in primary colours and with strong contrasts.
That makes it hard to use as the basis of a continuing franchise, and they've done amazingly well to mine it as much as they have.
Indeed (and RedLetterMedia have funny videos on this). But it's bloody difficult and I don't know how long they can do it. Mandalorean was good but petered out, Acolyte was misconceived, Kenobi nerfed its hero, the only success is Andor but it appeals to middle aged legacy fans and they can't expand outside that.
Star Trek has horrendous problems. It eventually worked out that what the fans want and what people will watch are remixes of the old shows, but the TOS crew are mostly dead, TNG cast are now very old, and the general public have forgotten DS9 and VOY. Disco never gelled, and although SNW and Lower Decks are really good, they're not pop icons. The Kelvinverse Films are moribund.
And as for Doctor Who...oy, what a mess. I still like it, and it's better than the Chibnall years, but low bar.
Star Trek is weird as it seems to have remained a niche property despite being around for generations and having some really big moments along the way (The LDs of franchies perhaps?). Even the older movies never made that much money.
They apparently realised they were annoying people with Picard and corrected with nostalgia focus, but that's not sustainable moving forward. As you note DS9 and VOY seem to only be remembered by hardcore fans, Enterprise is ignored even by most of those, Lower Decks started out badly but is actually good but is still just for super fans, and the others have done reasonably but aren't breakout hits to extend the franchise.
And apparently one idea they are trying for is a show based around Starfleet Academy which just seems fundamentally misplaced - people probably don't want to watch Star Trek the College Years.
(Damn, I forgot Enterprise! Still it's been a long road, getting from there to here...)
Isn't Star Trek:Academy set in the thirtywotsit century, with detached nacelles and such? Good cast: might be worth giving it a try?
How much training would an employee need to be considered safe to operate a chainsaw to clear a fallen tree?
If it's only one tree, pay a pro or a suitably experienced / insured handyman. If you talk to a treeman and let them set the schedule they will have something like a Friday afternoon or a Saturday morning.
If you want them to have the training to operate one with enough skill to protect your liability, then it is several days of training.
How much training would an employee need to be considered safe to operate a chainsaw to clear a fallen tree?
A fair bit. I use chainsaws all the time and it takes time and repetition to get used to the basic rules.
For one, don't move your feet until the brake is on. Even a small step.
Keep two hands on the chainsaw at all times. The hand on the upper grip is there to ensure that if the chainsaw bucks your knuckles will push the brake on so it doesn't hit you in the face.
The rules are relatively simple and obvious but they are not instinctive. Getting people into the habit of always following them so it becomes instinctive takes time.
I'm trying to imagine the scenarios where there is a need for chainsaw use 'all the time' with their legitimate purpose.
Likely more like once or twice a month.
IIRC Richard has a large place with a large garden. Another scenario is if he has a couple of acres of his own firewood plantation.
I grew up in a small manor house with a 2 acre garden planted up by the late Victorians. We used to lose at least one tree a year.
Here's a video of arboriculturalists taking down a 80ft tree of mine that overhung right across the old A38.
It’s interesting to see the Canadian debates about joining NAFTA reappearing following Trump’s tariff threats. John Turner argued against precisely because it would leave Canada too exposed to economic pressure from the US.
Bob Iger, CEO of Disney, reportedly considers cutting ties with Star Wars after Gina Carano’s legal win exposed Kathleen Kennedy’s troubled leadership at Lucasfilm:
I see Boris Johnson has blamed the Church of England for the obesity crisis, blaming them for failing to give people a sense of spiritual sustenance, allowing them to instead gorge themselves. In yesterday's Times.
For @algarkirk (fpt) - the U.K. government is not a party to the FWS case.
@TOPPING: you answer your own question - if a person is of the male sex they should not be in a female space - their feminine appearance is irrelevant.
As for the lovely @kyf_100 - I could not care less if you call me a man. When I first joined this forum someone (I will not embarrass them) could not believe it when I revealed I was female because I "argued like a man". Lots of assumptions to unpack there. IRL my confusing name has often led to people thinking I'm a man and calling me one over my life or, sometimes, the imagined male's secretary, when they saw me. Says a lot about them and nothing about me. Where I work now someone keeps using my middle male name. So what. As for misgendering - my position is perfectly clear. People are free to believe in gender if they want. They are also free not to believe in it in the same way that some people believe in "souls" and others do not. But no-one is obliged to use the language of a belief system they do not share. And seeking to enforce this or abuse those who do not comply is the sort of behaviour the Inquisition used to indulge in. It is no more acceptable now.
Night all.
It's basic human courtesy to address people in the manner they wish to be addressed.
Just as if one of my children wanted me to call them Moonunit, then I would accede to their request, even if a thought it was stupid.
It is, generally, yes, but also forms of address have often been used as an expression of power. Hence, "your Majesty," and all of that.
So there can be circumstances where a person wants to insist on you using a specific form of address as an expression of power, and I think that is particularly relevant to an issue that touches on male/female power imbalances.
Generally, of course, most trans people aren't doing it to be arseholes, and general politeness applies, but I don't find it hard to envisage exceptions.
If someone asked you to address them as a cat, would you agree?
Yes.
It's a slightly odd question, because I have never had anyone ask me to address them as a cat. I have known people who have had a sex change, which I think is a much more likely scenario.
It is simple politeness.
As another example: if a woman married, took her husband's surname, and wished to be known by it: how would you feel about someone who refused and called her by her old surname out of spite and malice?
(This is not to rule out mistakes. When you have known someone for years, it is hard just to suddenly change to calling them something else and it is easy to blurt out their old name. In which case you say "Sorry" and try to do better. But what we're talking about here is deliberate, not mistakes.)
Just when farmers were starting to get public sympathy over IHT, that guy loses it for them.
Really? I don't hear much sympathy for them, apart from confirmed Tories.
58% to 13% in favour of the Farmers on the IHT issue in the latest polling. And that includes 49% of Labour voters.
Whatever you might personally think about the policy it is clear it is not popular with the public in general. Not that a Government with 4 years to go to an election will be concerned about polling right now. But I find it amusing that you are so concerned as to try and create a false narrative over the popularity (or otherwise) of the measure.
I'm not trying to create a false narrative, I simply hadn't heard anyone mention it in my 'lefty-liberal' bubble (as HYUFD put it), here in rural Dorset. None of the people I saw at Citizens Advice last week mentioned it, funnily enough.
But I stand corrected by the poll you and HY have shared. Surprised, as I said, but corrected.
I do however hope the government hold their nerve on this one. In the medium term it will make farms more affordable to those who really want to farm, rather than use a farm as a tax avoidance scheme.
Rather forgetting the whole reason the APR was brought in - which was because all the family farms were being eaten up by big commercial interests due to the need to break them up or sell them to pay IHT. The number of farms fell from around 400,000 in 1950 to around 200,000 in 1980. Apart from anything else this has been a disaster for the environment as it was one of the factors leading to the grubbing up of hedges to make much larger fields.
Presumably, the supporters of the changes think it is for the best that farmers (and other business owners), should sell up to the bigger outfits, and retire.
Honestly, I think they have so little understanding or interest in small businesses and farmers that it doesn't mean anything to them.
Right now, I'd say this existing Labour government are following policies that will nigh-on guarantee rural seats return to the Tories at the next election, whilst Red Wall seats go Reform.
I see Boris Johnson has blamed the Church of England for the obesity crisis, blaming them for failing to give people a sense of spiritual sustenance, allowing them to instead gorge themselves. In yesterday's Times.
Talking nonsense again. Still, he hasn't lost a sense of humour - kids nowadays are ‘all fatsos’, he notes.
For @algarkirk (fpt) - the U.K. government is not a party to the FWS case.
@TOPPING: you answer your own question - if a person is of the male sex they should not be in a female space - their feminine appearance is irrelevant.
As for the lovely @kyf_100 - I could not care less if you call me a man. When I first joined this forum someone (I will not embarrass them) could not believe it when I revealed I was female because I "argued like a man". Lots of assumptions to unpack there. IRL my confusing name has often led to people thinking I'm a man and calling me one over my life or, sometimes, the imagined male's secretary, when they saw me. Says a lot about them and nothing about me. Where I work now someone keeps using my middle male name. So what. As for misgendering - my position is perfectly clear. People are free to believe in gender if they want. They are also free not to believe in it in the same way that some people believe in "souls" and others do not. But no-one is obliged to use the language of a belief system they do not share. And seeking to enforce this or abuse those who do not comply is the sort of behaviour the Inquisition used to indulge in. It is no more acceptable now.
Night all.
It's basic human courtesy to address people in the manner they wish to be addressed.
Just as if one of my children wanted me to call them Moonunit, then I would accede to their request, even if a thought it was stupid.
It is, generally, yes, but also forms of address have often been used as an expression of power. Hence, "your Majesty," and all of that.
So there can be circumstances where a person wants to insist on you using a specific form of address as an expression of power, and I think that is particularly relevant to an issue that touches on male/female power imbalances.
Generally, of course, most trans people aren't doing it to be arseholes, and general politeness applies, but I don't find it hard to envisage exceptions.
If someone asked you to address them as a cat, would you agree?
Yes.
It's a slightly odd question, because I have never had anyone ask me to address them as a cat. I have known people who have had a sex change, which I think is a much more likely scenario.
It is simple politeness.
As another example: if a woman married, took her husband's surname, and wished to be known by it: how would you feel about someone who refused and called her by her old surname out of spite and malice?
(This is not to rule out mistakes. When you have known someone for years, it is hard just to suddenly change to calling them something else and it is easy to blurt out their old name. In which case you say "Sorry" and try to do better. But what we're talking about here is deliberate, not mistakes.)
There seems to be not a few folk who aren't satisfied with the right to be rude, but want our approval for their being so.
Overcaution regarding Ukraine was a massive mistake on Biden's part. As an aside, a lot of people had been blaming Blinken's advice for this. It seems that was not the case.
WaPo: "In a [late 2022] meeting in the Oval Office, Blinken and Sullivan suggested warning Russia that if it did not stop shooting missiles and drones at civilian targets, the US would provide Ukraine ATACMS."
The Department for Culture, Media and Sport confirmed the plans on Wednesday and said it was also pressing ahead with a limit on what online casino customers can stake on slot machines. Stakes, which are currently unlimited, will be set at £5 per spin for those aged over 25 and £2 for 18 to 24-year-olds.
Seems very strange to be age related stake restrictions.
Would that not fall foul of equalities legislation, bringing in explicit age discrimination in the provision of services?
Not that companies in Gibraltar, IoM, Malta etc are going to care much about what the British government regulates, all it’s likely to do is push more British-registered companies offshore.
I see Boris Johnson has blamed the Church of England for the obesity crisis, blaming them for failing to give people a sense of spiritual sustenance, allowing them to instead gorge themselves. In yesterday's Times.
From that link: Walmart has said it will no longer consider race and gender policies when granting supplier contracts after facing pressure from a conservative activist.
From that link: Walmart has said it will no longer consider race and gender policies when granting supplier contracts after facing pressure from a conservative activist.
A film-maker called Robby Starbuck, who has been behind a lot of the mind-changing regarding woke stuff in large companies through old-fashioned investigative journalism.
I see Boris Johnson has blamed the Church of England for the obesity crisis, blaming them for failing to give people a sense of spiritual sustenance, allowing them to instead gorge themselves. In yesterday's Times.
So now we know why Boris is carrying a few extra pounds.
New job started today. Therapeutic interventions in a primary school. Small groups of 4-7. Years 3, 4, 5 and 6. Absolutely loved it. Can't wait for tomorrow.
How the f*** has that school found the money.
Not that I'm complaining because intervention started early is way cheaper than when children are older and it's a real problem - but I'm surprised the school has the budget..
Ours is not to question why. Ours is but to play games, colour in, talk about friendships and co operatively build Lego...
That and I'm f***ing cheap. Need one of me in every Primary.
"Preening lawyers have ensured we learn nothing from inquiries Seeing KCs run rings round public servants who battled Covid is a costly, overrated form of entertainment"
After the way the Civil Service and ministers treated actual public servants that sounds pretty good to me, actually.
I think we can all agree that it's time we got rid of a pointless anachronistic element in our upper chamber whereby irrelevant figures from an ignored institution keep popping up with annoying sermons.
Yes, let's abolish the Cameronite hasbeens from the Lords.
Well played.
I maintain of all my suggestions for reform of the Lords, without getting rid of it entirely, the easiest to do anda best would be to simply prevent anyone who has been an MP from serving in the Lords for at least 10 years or two terms (whichever is longer).
Why extend the parliamentary careers of retiring or defeated MPs as a matter of course in many cases? Have the delay and one they have to earn their place with non-parliamentary works, and two the gap will give them perspective rather than retaining their MP attitudes and intensity which is not well suited for the Lords.
And it would eliminate bribing past it old duffers to retire by kicking them upstairs when they have nothing more to contribute. Force parties to deselect those who are past it.
It isn't old MPs who have been infesting the Lords recently but ex Spads who did a few years in the PM's office and get given a free ride for the next 50 years.
Mr. Sandpit, the UK, alongside Gibraltar and Malta, is the gold standard of international betting regulators. So while it won't cause huge damage, persuading firms to base themselves elsewhere will not do much for the economy.
It may still be right to reduce stakes. But there will be consequences. And with this government, it seems the consequence is always bad for the economy. It'd be nice if they could break that combo.
Just when farmers were starting to get public sympathy over IHT, that guy loses it for them.
Really? I don't hear much sympathy for them, apart from confirmed Tories.
58% to 13% in favour of the Farmers on the IHT issue in the latest polling. And that includes 49% of Labour voters.
Whatever you might personally think about the policy it is clear it is not popular with the public in general. Not that a Government with 4 years to go to an election will be concerned about polling right now. But I find it amusing that you are so concerned as to try and create a false narrative over the popularity (or otherwise) of the measure.
I'm not trying to create a false narrative, I simply hadn't heard anyone mention it in my 'lefty-liberal' bubble (as HYUFD put it), here in rural Dorset. None of the people I saw at Citizens Advice last week mentioned it, funnily enough.
But I stand corrected by the poll you and HY have shared. Surprised, as I said, but corrected.
I do however hope the government hold their nerve on this one. In the medium term it will make farms more affordable to those who really want to farm, rather than use a farm as a tax avoidance scheme.
I am always a bit suspicious on polling on taxes and spending cuts. Without alternatives to the same sum it is just like polling on whether people want free money.
For example I would to see a question like: Would you oppose the budget removing relief for farmers and adding 2% to Employers NI if it meant 3p on income tax or freezing state pensions for the next X years?
Clever bit of adding a completely unrelated policy to try and justify your numbers.
The money has to come from someone, up to the public whether they want to vote for tax avoidance schemes for the very wealthy allied to reduced services and higher taxes for themselves (like in the USA) or eliminating tax avoidance for the wealthy and higher employers NI allied to maintaining services. To govern is to choose and we elected a government on the basis that they would choose to sort out public services. I can't see Clarkson waving away the ambulance to A&E when he has some stupid TV stunt-related farming accident.
In fact Clarkson's career path, BBC presenter, driving cars on UK roads was underwritten by the UK taxpayer.
This argument holds no water at all as long as the Government refuse to properly tax multinationals. There is no 'fairness' in the tax system when Amazon and Google can sit down over lunch with HMRC to 'discuss' how much tax they should pay.
That feels a bit too much like whataboutery to me. I agree we have a problem with taxing multinationals (within a wider problem of democratic governance of multinationals, or rather lack of). But that doesn't invalidate Dopermean's point - where we do have control over taxation we should use that agency to make political decisions, and our elected government is deciding to tax those with unusually high asset values at the point when those assets change hands. The fact that they can't get Amazon to pay tax seems a bit irrelevant to this.
I does indeed invalidate his point. It has been obvious for years that we needed to sort out the taxation of multinationals and to their shame the last Government did nothing about it. It is an obvious way toraise significant amounts of money and yet the current government would rather attack inheritence - which will damage many and raise little. So Doperman asks where else the money can come from and I gave him an answer - or at least one of several.
But the attack on farmers and family businesses is driven by ideology and ignorance so I don't expect the supporters of this government to even try to understand or to accept any alternative.
Ah okay I see the link now, thanks @Richard_Tyndall. I agree getting multinationals on a level playing field with other businesses would be a good move. I'm less certain whether it is either/or or both/and in this case - I haven't followed the farmers case closely. From a distance it looks like a classic case of 'tax more, but not me', but I realise I may just be uninformed.
Just when farmers were starting to get public sympathy over IHT, that guy loses it for them.
Really? I don't hear much sympathy for them, apart from confirmed Tories.
58% to 13% in favour of the Farmers on the IHT issue in the latest polling. And that includes 49% of Labour voters.
Whatever you might personally think about the policy it is clear it is not popular with the public in general. Not that a Government with 4 years to go to an election will be concerned about polling right now. But I find it amusing that you are so concerned as to try and create a false narrative over the popularity (or otherwise) of the measure.
I'm not trying to create a false narrative, I simply hadn't heard anyone mention it in my 'lefty-liberal' bubble (as HYUFD put it), here in rural Dorset. None of the people I saw at Citizens Advice last week mentioned it, funnily enough.
But I stand corrected by the poll you and HY have shared. Surprised, as I said, but corrected.
I do however hope the government hold their nerve on this one. In the medium term it will make farms more affordable to those who really want to farm, rather than use a farm as a tax avoidance scheme.
I am always a bit suspicious on polling on taxes and spending cuts. Without alternatives to the same sum it is just like polling on whether people want free money.
For example I would to see a question like: Would you oppose the budget removing relief for farmers and adding 2% to Employers NI if it meant 3p on income tax or freezing state pensions for the next X years?
Clever bit of adding a completely unrelated policy to try and justify your numbers.
The money has to come from someone, up to the public whether they want to vote for tax avoidance schemes for the very wealthy allied to reduced services and higher taxes for themselves (like in the USA) or eliminating tax avoidance for the wealthy and higher employers NI allied to maintaining services. To govern is to choose and we elected a government on the basis that they would choose to sort out public services. I can't see Clarkson waving away the ambulance to A&E when he has some stupid TV stunt-related farming accident.
In fact Clarkson's career path, BBC presenter, driving cars on UK roads was underwritten by the UK taxpayer.
This argument holds no water at all as long as the Government refuse to properly tax multinationals. There is no 'fairness' in the tax system when Amazon and Google can sit down over lunch with HMRC to 'discuss' how much tax they should pay.
That feels a bit too much like whataboutery to me. I agree we have a problem with taxing multinationals (within a wider problem of democratic governance of multinationals, or rather lack of). But that doesn't invalidate Dopermean's point - where we do have control over taxation we should use that agency to make political decisions, and our elected government is deciding to tax those with unusually high asset values at the point when those assets change hands. The fact that they can't get Amazon to pay tax seems a bit irrelevant to this.
I does indeed invalidate his point. It has been obvious for years that we needed to sort out the taxation of multinationals and to their shame the last Government did nothing about it. It is an obvious way toraise significant amounts of money and yet the current government would rather attack inheritence - which will damage many and raise little. So Doperman asks where else the money can come from and I gave him an answer - or at least one of several.
But the attack on farmers and family businesses is driven by ideology and ignorance so I don't expect the supporters of this government to even try to understand or to accept any alternative.
Ah okay I see the link now, thanks @Richard_Tyndall. I agree getting multinationals on a level playing field with other businesses would be a good move. I'm less certain whether it is either/or or both/and in this case - I haven't followed the farmers case closely. From a distance it looks like a classic case of 'tax more, but not me', but I realise I may just be uninformed.
As I have said I see no problem with taxes at the point of sale and at a fairly high level - say 40% CGT. But any tax system that forces families to sell their business just to.pay the tax seems utterly idiotic to me.
How much training would an employee need to be considered safe to operate a chainsaw to clear a fallen tree?
A fair bit. I use chainsaws all the time and it takes time and repetition to get used to the basic rules.
For one, don't move your feet until the brake is on. Even a small step.
Keep two hands on the chainsaw at all times. The hand on the upper grip is there to ensure that if the chainsaw bucks your knuckles will push the brake on so it doesn't hit you in the face.
The rules are relatively simple and obvious but they are not instinctive. Getting people into the habit of always following them so it becomes instinctive takes time.
I'm trying to imagine the scenarios where there is a need for chainsaw use 'all the time' with their legitimate purpose.
Likely more like once or twice a month.
IIRC Richard has a large place with a large garden. Another scenario is if he has a couple of acres of his own firewood plantation.
I grew up in a small manor house with a 2 acre garden planted up by the late Victorians. We used to lose at least one tree a year.
Here's a video of arboriculturalists taking down a 80ft tree of mine that overhung right across the old A38.
How much training would an employee need to be considered safe to operate a chainsaw to clear a fallen tree?
A fair bit. I use chainsaws all the time and it takes time and repetition to get used to the basic rules.
For one, don't move your feet until the brake is on. Even a small step.
Keep two hands on the chainsaw at all times. The hand on the upper grip is there to ensure that if the chainsaw bucks your knuckles will push the brake on so it doesn't hit you in the face.
The rules are relatively simple and obvious but they are not instinctive. Getting people into the habit of always following them so it becomes instinctive takes time.
Okay, so it sounds like it might not be effective to train people to use them as a contingency, as you'd want them to be using them regularly to keep the safety habits strong.
How much training would an employee need to be considered safe to operate a chainsaw to clear a fallen tree?
A fair bit. I use chainsaws all the time and it takes time and repetition to get used to the basic rules.
For one, don't move your feet until the brake is on. Even a small step.
Keep two hands on the chainsaw at all times. The hand on the upper grip is there to ensure that if the chainsaw bucks your knuckles will push the brake on so it doesn't hit you in the face.
The rules are relatively simple and obvious but they are not instinctive. Getting people into the habit of always following them so it becomes instinctive takes time.
It's a bit how long is a piece of string. Forestry is big business and my school friends who do it wear special trousers that stop you lopping your own leg off. At least put some eye protection on.
Oh yes. Actually a proper hard hat and visor.. If you have a chain break it will whip round and ruin your week before you even know what is happening.
The BBC has discontinued its market data feeds on both the website and red button (UK only) services. We have previously provided delayed updates on major stock prices, currencies, and commodities.
This change is part of our broader initiative to make savings, streamline operations and improve other essential aspects of the BBC’s digital journalism.
This forms part of the BBC’s strategy to deliver value for all of its audiences. We will continue to deliver comprehensive coverage of significant business and economic stories through our TV and radio broadcasts, as well as our news website and other digital platforms.
Although we will no longer supply market data in this format, you can continue to access this information through various alternative sources. BBC News will continue to provide market data headlines on the News Channel and on BBC Radio 4.
That is annoying. I look at that stuff frequently. At the moment it is available from other sources for free but that may be because a free source made it impossible to charge for it. That may well change.
Critics of the BBC attack the licence fee funding model and want the BBC to move to charging for services. If you want free services from the BBC, you need a strong defence of the licence fee or some other model that allows for services free at the lint of use.
For @algarkirk (fpt) - the U.K. government is not a party to the FWS case.
@TOPPING: you answer your own question - if a person is of the male sex they should not be in a female space - their feminine appearance is irrelevant.
As for the lovely @kyf_100 - I could not care less if you call me a man. When I first joined this forum someone (I will not embarrass them) could not believe it when I revealed I was female because I "argued like a man". Lots of assumptions to unpack there. IRL my confusing name has often led to people thinking I'm a man and calling me one over my life or, sometimes, the imagined male's secretary, when they saw me. Says a lot about them and nothing about me. Where I work now someone keeps using my middle male name. So what. As for misgendering - my position is perfectly clear. People are free to believe in gender if they want. They are also free not to believe in it in the same way that some people believe in "souls" and others do not. But no-one is obliged to use the language of a belief system they do not share. And seeking to enforce this or abuse those who do not comply is the sort of behaviour the Inquisition used to indulge in. It is no more acceptable now.
Night all.
It's basic human courtesy to address people in the manner they wish to be addressed.
Just as if one of my children wanted me to call them Moonunit, then I would accede to their request, even if a thought it was stupid.
Moon Unit Zappa, who recently turned 57, was named that by her father Frank. She goes by Moon. Her memoir, “From Earth to Moon”, came out this year.
Bob Iger, CEO of Disney, reportedly considers cutting ties with Star Wars after Gina Carano’s legal win exposed Kathleen Kennedy’s troubled leadership at Lucasfilm:
Bob Iger, CEO of Disney, reportedly considers cutting ties with Star Wars after Gina Carano’s legal win exposed Kathleen Kennedy’s troubled leadership at Lucasfilm:
I think there was plenty else showing trouble with the property and the leadership of it.
I'm not even one of those people who goes nuts about the sequels (the biggest issue of which I think was lack of joined up thinking, which caused most of the other problems), but even ignoring the whinier of the fanboys things have not been looking good for a number of years.
The whole thing is a dumpster fire made out of dumpster fires. With occasional good bits. Rogue One was actually watchable.
The joined up thinking is beyond modern Holyweird. See the intense fights put up by executives over The Expanse - they hated everything that made it worth watching.
IMO Andor was the best of the Disney tv shows* and they kept that in the can for a couple of years because they didn't think it was really good enough and all the other garbage they put out was far better.
* It was a strange series, where half the episodes were very dark and dystopian and interesting with the likes of Andy Serkis, mixed with some episodes of very lightweight nonsense.
Andor was great. But that’s because it was basically Blake’s 7.
For @algarkirk (fpt) - the U.K. government is not a party to the FWS case.
@TOPPING: you answer your own question - if a person is of the male sex they should not be in a female space - their feminine appearance is irrelevant.
As for the lovely @kyf_100 - I could not care less if you call me a man. When I first joined this forum someone (I will not embarrass them) could not believe it when I revealed I was female because I "argued like a man". Lots of assumptions to unpack there. IRL my confusing name has often led to people thinking I'm a man and calling me one over my life or, sometimes, the imagined male's secretary, when they saw me. Says a lot about them and nothing about me. Where I work now someone keeps using my middle male name. So what. As for misgendering - my position is perfectly clear. People are free to believe in gender if they want. They are also free not to believe in it in the same way that some people believe in "souls" and others do not. But no-one is obliged to use the language of a belief system they do not share. And seeking to enforce this or abuse those who do not comply is the sort of behaviour the Inquisition used to indulge in. It is no more acceptable now.
Night all.
It's basic human courtesy to address people in the manner they wish to be addressed.
Just as if one of my children wanted me to call them Moonunit, then I would accede to their request, even if a thought it was stupid.
It is, generally, yes, but also forms of address have often been used as an expression of power. Hence, "your Majesty," and all of that.
So there can be circumstances where a person wants to insist on you using a specific form of address as an expression of power, and I think that is particularly relevant to an issue that touches on male/female power imbalances.
Generally, of course, most trans people aren't doing it to be arseholes, and general politeness applies, but I don't find it hard to envisage exceptions.
If someone asked you to address them as a cat, would you agree?
For @algarkirk (fpt) - the U.K. government is not a party to the FWS case.
@TOPPING: you answer your own question - if a person is of the male sex they should not be in a female space - their feminine appearance is irrelevant.
As for the lovely @kyf_100 - I could not care less if you call me a man. When I first joined this forum someone (I will not embarrass them) could not believe it when I revealed I was female because I "argued like a man". Lots of assumptions to unpack there. IRL my confusing name has often led to people thinking I'm a man and calling me one over my life or, sometimes, the imagined male's secretary, when they saw me. Says a lot about them and nothing about me. Where I work now someone keeps using my middle male name. So what. As for misgendering - my position is perfectly clear. People are free to believe in gender if they want. They are also free not to believe in it in the same way that some people believe in "souls" and others do not. But no-one is obliged to use the language of a belief system they do not share. And seeking to enforce this or abuse those who do not comply is the sort of behaviour the Inquisition used to indulge in. It is no more acceptable now.
Night all.
It's basic human courtesy to address people in the manner they wish to be addressed.
Just as if one of my children wanted me to call them Moonunit, then I would accede to their request, even if a thought it was stupid.
It is, generally, yes, but also forms of address have often been used as an expression of power. Hence, "your Majesty," and all of that.
So there can be circumstances where a person wants to insist on you using a specific form of address as an expression of power, and I think that is particularly relevant to an issue that touches on male/female power imbalances.
Generally, of course, most trans people aren't doing it to be arseholes, and general politeness applies, but I don't find it hard to envisage exceptions.
If someone asked you to address them as a cat, would you agree?
It would depend on the context, but, for example, I did once tell my daughter that she couldn't be a zebra when she grew up. So, probably not.
I used to have a colleague called Sunbeam (hippy parents). It wouldn't have made any difference to me if she wanted to be called Mrs Tiddles or something else feline.
I don't see calling someone "Mrs Tiddles" as acknowledging them as a cat, any more than calling someone Patrick acknowledges them as Irish. It's just a name.
So I'm not sure what, "address them as a cat," entails.
IMO Andor was the best of the Disney tv shows* and they kept that in the can for a couple of years because they didn't think it was really good enough and all the other garbage they put out was far better.
* It was a strange series, where half the episodes were very dark and dystopian and interesting with the likes of Andy Serkis, mixed with some episodes of very lightweight nonsense.
How much training would an employee need to be considered safe to operate a chainsaw to clear a fallen tree?
A fair bit. I use chainsaws all the time and it takes time and repetition to get used to the basic rules.
For one, don't move your feet until the brake is on. Even a small step.
Keep two hands on the chainsaw at all times. The hand on the upper grip is there to ensure that if the chainsaw bucks your knuckles will push the brake on so it doesn't hit you in the face.
The rules are relatively simple and obvious but they are not instinctive. Getting people into the habit of always following them so it becomes instinctive takes time.
I'm trying to imagine the scenarios where there is a need for chainsaw use 'all the time' with their legitimate purpose.
Likely more like once or twice a month.
IIRC Richard has a large place with a large garden. Another scenario is if he has a couple of acres of his own firewood plantation.
I grew up in a small manor house with a 2 acre garden planted up by the late Victorians. We used to lose at least one tree a year.
Here's a video of arboriculturalists taking down a 80ft tree of mine that overhung right across the old A38.
Just when farmers were starting to get public sympathy over IHT, that guy loses it for them.
Really? I don't hear much sympathy for them, apart from confirmed Tories.
58% to 13% in favour of the Farmers on the IHT issue in the latest polling. And that includes 49% of Labour voters.
Whatever you might personally think about the policy it is clear it is not popular with the public in general. Not that a Government with 4 years to go to an election will be concerned about polling right now. But I find it amusing that you are so concerned as to try and create a false narrative over the popularity (or otherwise) of the measure.
I'm not trying to create a false narrative, I simply hadn't heard anyone mention it in my 'lefty-liberal' bubble (as HYUFD put it), here in rural Dorset. None of the people I saw at Citizens Advice last week mentioned it, funnily enough.
But I stand corrected by the poll you and HY have shared. Surprised, as I said, but corrected.
I do however hope the government hold their nerve on this one. In the medium term it will make farms more affordable to those who really want to farm, rather than use a farm as a tax avoidance scheme.
I am always a bit suspicious on polling on taxes and spending cuts. Without alternatives to the same sum it is just like polling on whether people want free money.
For example I would to see a question like: Would you oppose the budget removing relief for farmers and adding 2% to Employers NI if it meant 3p on income tax or freezing state pensions for the next X years?
Clever bit of adding a completely unrelated policy to try and justify your numbers.
The money has to come from someone, up to the public whether they want to vote for tax avoidance schemes for the very wealthy allied to reduced services and higher taxes for themselves (like in the USA) or eliminating tax avoidance for the wealthy and higher employers NI allied to maintaining services. To govern is to choose and we elected a government on the basis that they would choose to sort out public services. I can't see Clarkson waving away the ambulance to A&E when he has some stupid TV stunt-related farming accident.
In fact Clarkson's career path, BBC presenter, driving cars on UK roads was underwritten by the UK taxpayer.
This argument holds no water at all as long as the Government refuse to properly tax multinationals. There is no 'fairness' in the tax system when Amazon and Google can sit down over lunch with HMRC to 'discuss' how much tax they should pay.
That feels a bit too much like whataboutery to me. I agree we have a problem with taxing multinationals (within a wider problem of democratic governance of multinationals, or rather lack of). But that doesn't invalidate Dopermean's point - where we do have control over taxation we should use that agency to make political decisions, and our elected government is deciding to tax those with unusually high asset values at the point when those assets change hands. The fact that they can't get Amazon to pay tax seems a bit irrelevant to this.
I does indeed invalidate his point. It has been obvious for years that we needed to sort out the taxation of multinationals and to their shame the last Government did nothing about it. It is an obvious way toraise significant amounts of money and yet the current government would rather attack inheritence - which will damage many and raise little. So Doperman asks where else the money can come from and I gave him an answer - or at least one of several.
But the attack on farmers and family businesses is driven by ideology and ignorance so I don't expect the supporters of this government to even try to understand or to accept any alternative.
Ah okay I see the link now, thanks @Richard_Tyndall. I agree getting multinationals on a level playing field with other businesses would be a good move. I'm less certain whether it is either/or or both/and in this case - I haven't followed the farmers case closely. From a distance it looks like a classic case of 'tax more, but not me', but I realise I may just be uninformed.
As I have said I see no problem with taxes at the point of sale and at a fairly high level - say 40% CGT. But any tax system that forces families to sell their business just to.pay the tax seems utterly idiotic to me.
I liked that idea when you wrote it but can also see the issue that someone raised - if you are trying the prevent the tax dodge then CGT only works on the capital gains and so doesn't solve the problem.
My real issue is that I haven't bothered looking at the numbers - how many family farms will realistically be impacted as against how many tax dodgers currently benefit. I've seen numbers, but posted by partisans not neutral observers.
How much training would an employee need to be considered safe to operate a chainsaw to clear a fallen tree?
If it's only one tree, pay a pro or a suitably experienced / insured handyman. If you talk to a treeman and let them set the schedule they will have something like a Friday afternoon or a Saturday morning.
If you want them to have the training to operate one with enough skill to protect your liability, then it is several days of training.
It's a random number of trees at times and places not possible to predict with accuracy in advance.
The training overhead seems to be quite high, but relying on contractors entails a long wait because you're calling on them when there's acute demand for their services.
It felt like a situation where swallowing the training overhead is the obvious answer, but I wanted to find out why that might not be the case. Richard's answer gave some good reasons why it could be difficult to keep such training current without regular exercise of them.
For @algarkirk (fpt) - the U.K. government is not a party to the FWS case.
@TOPPING: you answer your own question - if a person is of the male sex they should not be in a female space - their feminine appearance is irrelevant.
As for the lovely @kyf_100 - I could not care less if you call me a man. When I first joined this forum someone (I will not embarrass them) could not believe it when I revealed I was female because I "argued like a man". Lots of assumptions to unpack there. IRL my confusing name has often led to people thinking I'm a man and calling me one over my life or, sometimes, the imagined male's secretary, when they saw me. Says a lot about them and nothing about me. Where I work now someone keeps using my middle male name. So what. As for misgendering - my position is perfectly clear. People are free to believe in gender if they want. They are also free not to believe in it in the same way that some people believe in "souls" and others do not. But no-one is obliged to use the language of a belief system they do not share. And seeking to enforce this or abuse those who do not comply is the sort of behaviour the Inquisition used to indulge in. It is no more acceptable now.
Night all.
It's basic human courtesy to address people in the manner they wish to be addressed.
Just as if one of my children wanted me to call them Moonunit, then I would accede to their request, even if a thought it was stupid.
It is, generally, yes, but also forms of address have often been used as an expression of power. Hence, "your Majesty," and all of that.
So there can be circumstances where a person wants to insist on you using a specific form of address as an expression of power, and I think that is particularly relevant to an issue that touches on male/female power imbalances.
Generally, of course, most trans people aren't doing it to be arseholes, and general politeness applies, but I don't find it hard to envisage exceptions.
If someone asked you to address them as a cat, would you agree?
It would depend on the context, but, for example, I did once tell my daughter that she couldn't be a zebra when she grew up. So, probably not.
I used to have a colleague called Sunbeam (hippy parents). It wouldn't have made any difference to me if she wanted to be called Mrs Tiddles or something else feline.
I don't see calling someone "Mrs Tiddles" as acknowledging them as a cat, any more than calling someone Patrick acknowledges them as Irish. It's just a name.
So I'm not sure what, "address them as a cat," entails.
For @algarkirk (fpt) - the U.K. government is not a party to the FWS case.
@TOPPING: you answer your own question - if a person is of the male sex they should not be in a female space - their feminine appearance is irrelevant.
As for the lovely @kyf_100 - I could not care less if you call me a man. When I first joined this forum someone (I will not embarrass them) could not believe it when I revealed I was female because I "argued like a man". Lots of assumptions to unpack there. IRL my confusing name has often led to people thinking I'm a man and calling me one over my life or, sometimes, the imagined male's secretary, when they saw me. Says a lot about them and nothing about me. Where I work now someone keeps using my middle male name. So what. As for misgendering - my position is perfectly clear. People are free to believe in gender if they want. They are also free not to believe in it in the same way that some people believe in "souls" and others do not. But no-one is obliged to use the language of a belief system they do not share. And seeking to enforce this or abuse those who do not comply is the sort of behaviour the Inquisition used to indulge in. It is no more acceptable now.
Night all.
It's basic human courtesy to address people in the manner they wish to be addressed.
Just as if one of my children wanted me to call them Moonunit, then I would accede to their request, even if a thought it was stupid.
It is, generally, yes, but also forms of address have often been used as an expression of power. Hence, "your Majesty," and all of that.
So there can be circumstances where a person wants to insist on you using a specific form of address as an expression of power, and I think that is particularly relevant to an issue that touches on male/female power imbalances.
Generally, of course, most trans people aren't doing it to be arseholes, and general politeness applies, but I don't find it hard to envisage exceptions.
If someone asked you to address them as a cat, would you agree?
It would depend on the context, but, for example, I did once tell my daughter that she couldn't be a zebra when she grew up. So, probably not.
I used to have a colleague called Sunbeam (hippy parents). It wouldn't have made any difference to me if she wanted to be called Mrs Tiddles or something else feline.
I don't see calling someone "Mrs Tiddles" as acknowledging them as a cat, any more than calling someone Patrick acknowledges them as Irish. It's just a name.
So I'm not sure what, "address them as a cat," entails.
Would you like me.. to be the cat?
Selfish, vain and liable to bugger off if they spot a better opportunity elsewhere, cats are nonetheless a popular pet.
For @algarkirk (fpt) - the U.K. government is not a party to the FWS case.
@TOPPING: you answer your own question - if a person is of the male sex they should not be in a female space - their feminine appearance is irrelevant.
As for the lovely @kyf_100 - I could not care less if you call me a man. When I first joined this forum someone (I will not embarrass them) could not believe it when I revealed I was female because I "argued like a man". Lots of assumptions to unpack there. IRL my confusing name has often led to people thinking I'm a man and calling me one over my life or, sometimes, the imagined male's secretary, when they saw me. Says a lot about them and nothing about me. Where I work now someone keeps using my middle male name. So what. As for misgendering - my position is perfectly clear. People are free to believe in gender if they want. They are also free not to believe in it in the same way that some people believe in "souls" and others do not. But no-one is obliged to use the language of a belief system they do not share. And seeking to enforce this or abuse those who do not comply is the sort of behaviour the Inquisition used to indulge in. It is no more acceptable now.
Night all.
It's basic human courtesy to address people in the manner they wish to be addressed.
Just as if one of my children wanted me to call them Moonunit, then I would accede to their request, even if a thought it was stupid.
Likewise, I wouldn't go around calling someone's God as a "stupid made up sky fairy" even though I'm an atheist, fit exactly the same reason: basic courtesy.
Indeed, though if someone wanted to be a dick and do that, it shouldn't be a public concern so long as no threats are involved. People are (or should be) allowed to be rude, and face only social judgement for it.
This is absolutely correct too.
It should certainly not be a crime to misgender someone, just as it should not be a crime to go around insulting someone's god or prophet.
At the same time, if I observe you being gratuitously rude, I am going to form my own judgement. And - Ms @Cyclefree who I believe is a Catholic - would do well to remember that we all make allowances for other peoples' belief systems all the time. And we're all better off when we remain polite and civil, and yes (most of the time, and not withstanding the excellent objections posted here) that means we should address people as they wish to be addressed, irrespective of our beliefs.
It is @kyf_100 who decided that he'd call me a man, to insult me in some way or make some point. It is not the first time he has gratuitously insulted me, sometimes when I have not been here.
But if you are going to lecture me, remember this: I will use someone's given name. I do not believe I have ever done otherwise on here. That is what basic civility requires.
But telling people that they should lie is not good manners. That is bullying. It is using language to control them. I am not going to lie about what someone is. I am not going to be bullied into lying about what a man is. Nor am I going to be bullied into using the language of a belief system I do not believe in though I understand other's right to believe in what they want. And I would observe that there are many on this forum who are both extremely rude about others on here and pretty rude about others' belief systems, including my own, persistently so. I have not noticed them being told off.
If that causes you a problem then this is no longer the forum for me.
I see Boris Johnson has blamed the Church of England for the obesity crisis, blaming them for failing to give people a sense of spiritual sustenance, allowing them to instead gorge themselves. In yesterday's Times.
That would be Roman Catholic Boris Johnson, though I believe he attends his local rural C of E church as there is no RC church available near him in rural Oxfordshire. He has a point, though the churches growing with young people tend to be very evangelical and often near pop concerts in their worship
For @algarkirk (fpt) - the U.K. government is not a party to the FWS case.
@TOPPING: you answer your own question - if a person is of the male sex they should not be in a female space - their feminine appearance is irrelevant.
As for the lovely @kyf_100 - I could not care less if you call me a man. When I first joined this forum someone (I will not embarrass them) could not believe it when I revealed I was female because I "argued like a man". Lots of assumptions to unpack there. IRL my confusing name has often led to people thinking I'm a man and calling me one over my life or, sometimes, the imagined male's secretary, when they saw me. Says a lot about them and nothing about me. Where I work now someone keeps using my middle male name. So what. As for misgendering - my position is perfectly clear. People are free to believe in gender if they want. They are also free not to believe in it in the same way that some people believe in "souls" and others do not. But no-one is obliged to use the language of a belief system they do not share. And seeking to enforce this or abuse those who do not comply is the sort of behaviour the Inquisition used to indulge in. It is no more acceptable now.
Night all.
It's basic human courtesy to address people in the manner they wish to be addressed.
Just as if one of my children wanted me to call them Moonunit, then I would accede to their request, even if a thought it was stupid.
It is, generally, yes, but also forms of address have often been used as an expression of power. Hence, "your Majesty," and all of that.
So there can be circumstances where a person wants to insist on you using a specific form of address as an expression of power, and I think that is particularly relevant to an issue that touches on male/female power imbalances.
Generally, of course, most trans people aren't doing it to be arseholes, and general politeness applies, but I don't find it hard to envisage exceptions.
If someone asked you to address them as a cat, would you agree?
It would depend on the context, but, for example, I did once tell my daughter that she couldn't be a zebra when she grew up. So, probably not.
I used to have a colleague called Sunbeam (hippy parents). It wouldn't have made any difference to me if she wanted to be called Mrs Tiddles or something else feline.
I don't see calling someone "Mrs Tiddles" as acknowledging them as a cat, any more than calling someone Patrick acknowledges them as Irish. It's just a name.
So I'm not sure what, "address them as a cat," entails.
Oooh. Just been commissioned to go to Uruguay. Anyone been?
I haven't, I hear it is rather plez
I once had a day in Montevideo. Uruguay has a claim to be the best run country in South America. You may not know it but it produces some of the best wines in South America - they keep it mostly to themselves. The most well known is Tannat which was introduced by Basque settlers.
Comments
So there can be circumstances where a person wants to insist on you using a specific form of address as an expression of power, and I think that is particularly relevant to an issue that touches on male/female power imbalances.
Generally, of course, most trans people aren't doing it to be arseholes, and general politeness applies, but I don't find it hard to envisage exceptions.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/proscribed-terror-groups-or-organisations--2/proscribed-terrorist-groups-or-organisations-accessible-version
The government website uses an i, hence why I presume Starmer has, strange how the media don't follow that.
Disgusting habit though.
It's an odd approach to take to put them in, you're banking a lot on them being good party footsoldiers across many decades when they've had rather limited experience.
I would also prevent donors from getting peerages.
Now I just need an MP to put it forth as a PMB.
Star Trek has horrendous problems. It eventually worked out that what the fans want and what people will watch are remixes of the old shows, but the TOS crew are mostly dead, TNG cast are now very old, and the general public have forgotten DS9 and VOY. Disco never gelled, and although SNW and Lower Decks are really good, they're not pop icons. The Kelvinverse Films are moribund.
And as for Doctor Who...oy, what a mess. I still like it, and it's better than the Chibnall years, but low bar.
They apparently realised they were annoying people with Picard and corrected with nostalgia focus, but that's not sustainable moving forward. As you note DS9 and VOY seem to only be remembered by hardcore fans, Enterprise is ignored even by most of those, Lower Decks started out badly but is actually good but is still just for super fans, and the others have done reasonably but aren't breakout hits to extend the franchise.
And apparently one idea they are trying for is a show based around Starfleet Academy which just seems fundamentally misplaced - people probably don't want to watch Star Trek the College Years.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/nov/27/government-confirms-online-slots-cap-and-betting-levy-to-fund-nhs-services
Seems very strange to be age related stake restrictions.
😃😃😃😃
It should certainly not be a crime to misgender someone, just as it should not be a crime to go around insulting someone's god or prophet.
At the same time, if I observe you being gratuitously rude, I am going to form my own judgement. And - Ms @Cyclefree who I believe is a Catholic - would do well to remember that we all make allowances for other peoples' belief systems all the time. And we're all better off when we remain polite and civil, and yes (most of the time, and not withstanding the excellent objections posted here) that means we should address people as they wish to be addressed, irrespective of our beliefs.
Yeah obviously most of it in index funds and boring crap but I can outperform them...
(Don't mistake this for support!)
Isn't Star Trek:Academy set in the thirtywotsit century, with detached nacelles and such? Good cast: might be worth giving it a try?
If you want them to have the training to operate one with enough skill to protect your liability, then it is several days of training.
IIRC Richard has a large place with a large garden. Another scenario is if he has a couple of acres of his own firewood plantation.
I grew up in a small manor house with a 2 acre garden planted up by the late Victorians. We used to lose at least one tree a year.
Here's a video of arboriculturalists taking down a 80ft tree of mine that overhung right across the old A38.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eygMw9JE9tY
https://x.com/coconprairie/status/1861223381921562649
Can I disown my son?
It's a slightly odd question, because I have never had anyone ask me to address them as a cat. I have known people who have had a sex change, which I think is a much more likely scenario.
It is simple politeness.
As another example: if a woman married, took her husband's surname, and wished to be known by it: how would you feel about someone who refused and called her by her old surname out of spite and malice?
(This is not to rule out mistakes. When you have known someone for years, it is hard just to suddenly change to calling them something else and it is easy to blurt out their old name. In which case you say "Sorry" and try to do better. But what we're talking about here is deliberate, not mistakes.)
Still, he hasn't lost a sense of humour - kids nowadays are ‘all fatsos’, he notes.
As an aside, a lot of people had been blaming Blinken's advice for this. It seems that was not the case.
WaPo: "In a [late 2022] meeting in the Oval Office, Blinken and Sullivan suggested warning Russia that if it did not stop shooting missiles and drones at civilian targets, the US would provide Ukraine ATACMS."
"Biden resisted, worried about how Russia would react, and he only relented — partially — nearly a year later,"..
https://x.com/ColbyBadhwar/status/1861469845918765200
Not that companies in Gibraltar, IoM, Malta etc are going to care much about what the British government regulates, all it’s likely to do is push more British-registered companies offshore.
https://www.thetimes.com/business-money/companies/article/walmart-drops-diversity-initiatives-after-pressure-from-activist-b76nq3c38
https://x.com/thedemocrats/status/1861550359161745529
She looks and sounds like she’s two bottles of wine down at 1am.
https://x.com/robbystarbuck/status/1861183474667004141
TBF I've lost touch on who is the 'good' and 'bad' sides in Pakistan atm. Or should that be 'slightly better' and 'slightly worse'.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XW51oZvijKg
Times Wireless How to Win an Election podcast.
Also freebies and assisted dying.
In several of them you need two or three.
Congratulations and best of luck.
Mr. Sandpit, the UK, alongside Gibraltar and Malta, is the gold standard of international betting regulators. So while it won't cause huge damage, persuading firms to base themselves elsewhere will not do much for the economy.
It may still be right to reduce stakes. But there will be consequences. And with this government, it seems the consequence is always bad for the economy. It'd be nice if they could break that combo.
So I'm not sure what, "address them as a cat," entails.
I'm truly amazed that he still has all his limbs.
My real issue is that I haven't bothered looking at the numbers - how many family farms will realistically be impacted as against how many tax dodgers currently benefit. I've seen numbers, but posted by partisans not neutral observers.
NEW THREAD
The training overhead seems to be quite high, but relying on contractors entails a long wait because you're calling on them when there's acute demand for their services.
It felt like a situation where swallowing the training overhead is the obvious answer, but I wanted to find out why that might not be the case. Richard's answer gave some good reasons why it could be difficult to keep such training current without regular exercise of them.
https://x.com/osinttechnical/status/1861403987687231932
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-11-25/uk-sends-kyiv-more-storm-shadows-as-starmer-pledges-support
NB = second best bet
See https://www.oddschecker.com/betting-terms/nb
But if you are going to lecture me, remember this: I will use someone's given name. I do not believe I have ever done otherwise on here. That is what basic civility requires.
But telling people that they should lie is not good manners. That is bullying. It is using language to control them. I am not going to lie about what someone is. I am not going to be bullied into lying about what a man is. Nor am I going to be bullied into using the language of a belief system I do not believe in though I understand other's right to believe in what they want. And I would observe that there are many on this forum who are both extremely rude about others on here and pretty rude about others' belief systems, including my own, persistently so. I have not noticed them being told off.
If that causes you a problem then this is no longer the forum for me.
Good day.