NB. I’m not a lawyer, but the judgement in AEA vs EHRC seems to be in direct opposition to that given by Akua Reindorf in their U.of.Essex report. Their assertion that the Equalities Act doesn’t say what Stonewall said it does relies on the wording of the Equalities Act only applying to “gender reassignment” whereas the judgement in AEA vs EHRC appears to be clear that this definition has been expanded more widely by subsequent case law.
Happy to be corrected on this, but it seems to me that the cherry-picked quote that is being used to bash Stonewall is based on a misunderstanding of the law as currently applied.
NB. Having now read the relevant bits of Reindorf, it’s clear that they understand the the Equalities Act applied equally to trans people with & without a GRC.
It’s GC social media who are busily spreading carefully ambiguous mis-readings of Reindorf as part of the wider attempt to smear Stonewall.
Does anyone else find this entire issue incomprehensible beyond the obvious?: Live and Let Live, Whatever You Are in Private Is Your Business and please don't let people with very obviously male sexual attributes into female changing rooms etc on the basis of their private judgement that they are in fact women? I am sure there is more but maybe I am too old to work it out.
You should join me in my pledge never to comment on trans issues on PB. It is by far the more sane option if you don't have a dog in the fight. Oh and aren't worried about the collapse of Western civilisation.
If you’re a woman, you have a dog in this fight. Indeed, a pussy
I am sure that womankind will sleep easy, knowing that such a stalwart ally is fighting their corner.
Well that's the great thing about the Trans debate.
It's put so many reactionary men in touch with their inner feminist.
Just how much of a feminist does one need to be to think that sticking a man in a women's prison is wrong?
So where would you "stick" a transgender woman who requires prison time then?
Does the offender have a penis? Yes- men's prison No - women's prison
Both?
How can you both have and not have a penis? Is it shroedinger s knob?
Pres. Biden says "the U.S. will purchase half a billion doses of Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine to donate to nearly 100 nations that are in dire need in the fight against this pandemic."
It's clear from reading some of the comments on here that many will simply dismiss any Woke insanity until such time as it actually impinges on their own lives. Which, unchecked, it will eventually.
The article about Anglo-Saxons is instructive because it's the history that is being rewritten to fit the Wokeness, not the other way round, and that way madness lies.
Agree - however, there is also a lot of naivety revealed in these exchanges, people interpreting the woke as a espousing a slightly more radical version of their own liberal worldview and thus being essentially harmless and youthfully eccentric. This is quite a comfortable position that can be held for a long time until reality intervenes.
Either that or a lot of PB-ers are way less intelligent than we thought
The stupidity on this subject is astounding
No, they see it's you and me posting it and then instantly dismiss it.
They need to hear it from someone they know and trust who's on their own side.
If there's one thing I've learned from recent years it's that people decide on their beliefs first and then filter out the evidence that supports them. Not the other way round.
The fact that anti-woke opinions are now literally illegal may also be a problem here.
And what about the fact that this statement of yours is literally complete horseshit?
She may have a point but she is really very bitter.
Sad really
I don't think she is bitter (see her question at PMQs about Public Enquiry evidence) - what she has got is a lot of constituents that work in and around Heathrow and she's been consistent in her criticism of the government's approach to travel.
The normally sensible @Big_G_NorthWales 's tendency to go ad hom (or fem) on Boris' critics is regrettable.
It’s also odd as he spends half the time pretending he would be “content to see Boris go”.
With the occasional GBNews endorsement thrown in.
I would be happy to see Rishi takeover, and your comment re GBNews, without it even having been aired, seems a case of blind prejudice
I have held various senior offices in organisations and charities, (all non political), and whenever I left Office I made a point of never attacking my successor, as I accepted they would most likely do things differently and I did not want to be accused of 'sour grapes'
I say the same about Theresa
Are you comparing your roles to the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?
L O L
I do think Theresa May is making a mistake.
Interventions by an ex PM can be very powerful and effective. But I think she liked the applause that she got the first time she criticised Boris and has mistakenly believed it is rehabilitating her reputation.
It isn't.
She's looking at the long picture.
She knows Boris Johnson is causing all sorts of terrible long precedents for the party and the country.
It seems to me more likely that instead of all the 'terrible precedents' and David Allen Green (great though he is) chuntering being true, the reality is that in 2019 we had got ourselves into a complete mess, in which neither whole truth nor pure democracy was going to help us, but a certain style of leadership and political genius might just do it. Cometh the hour and all that. Like 1979. Normally the last thing you need is someone like Mrs T running the outfit, but we did then. The great British public had no intention of letting WSC run the country except in 1940. 2019 was not a 1940 (thank God) but it was another 1979.
Question: Which UK politician has the skills necessary to get us out of the NI protocols disaster before it turns to serious violence?
A pedant rites:- Mrs Thatcher was very unpopular and in danger of being defenestrated till the Falklands. The public was not consulted about Mr Churchill becoming Prime Minister in 1940.
NB. I’m not a lawyer, but the judgement in AEA vs EHRC seems to be in direct opposition to that given by Akua Reindorf in their U.of.Essex report. Their assertion that the Equalities Act doesn’t say what Stonewall said it does relies on the wording of the Equalities Act only applying to “gender reassignment” whereas the judgement in AEA vs EHRC appears to be clear that this definition has been expanded more widely by subsequent case law.
Happy to be corrected on this, but it seems to me that the cherry-picked quote that is being used to bash Stonewall is based on a misunderstanding of the law as currently applied.
NB. Having now read the relevant bits of Reindorf, it’s clear that they understand the the Equalities Act applied equally to trans people with & without a GRC.
It’s GC social media who are busily spreading carefully ambiguous mis-readings of Reindorf as part of the wider attempt to smear Stonewall.
Does anyone else find this entire issue incomprehensible beyond the obvious?: Live and Let Live, Whatever You Are in Private Is Your Business and please don't let people with very obviously male sexual attributes into female changing rooms etc on the basis of their private judgement that they are in fact women? I am sure there is more but maybe I am too old to work it out.
There is more to it, yes. And it's actually a very interesting issue. The complexities are intellectually stimulating, legally and philosophically. Although it's niche it has potentially wide implications. That's one of the reasons it generates so much heat on both sides. It's also a great one for flushing out mindless dogma on the one hand and innate bigotry (sometimes crass, sometimes urbanely expressed) on the other. For me, you have to take a dive into this topic (but not necessarily take a clear position on it) if you want to keep abreast of the culture war element of our politics. And that element, like it or not, is important and influential. So I think you're selling yourself short here.
Thanks. Interesting. The issue of culture war itself is problematic. Like almost all the UK public I am a centrist. This means that on more or less all contestable subjects there is a variety of respected positions. Intelligent discussion about them is the stuff of our lives. Politics, media, religion, a liberal society, philosophy, academia (and PB) exist because of all this and to enhance it.
More and more people act as if there is only one true position on matters about which this is obvious untrue. The Brexit debate was perhaps a tipping point in such things, where obvious moderates, by the many million, were cast as extremists.
Too many nutters nowadays unable or don't want to understand that other people may hold differing views to them.
Pres. Biden says "the U.S. will purchase half a billion doses of Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine to donate to nearly 100 nations that are in dire need in the fight against this pandemic."
NB. I’m not a lawyer, but the judgement in AEA vs EHRC seems to be in direct opposition to that given by Akua Reindorf in their U.of.Essex report. Their assertion that the Equalities Act doesn’t say what Stonewall said it does relies on the wording of the Equalities Act only applying to “gender reassignment” whereas the judgement in AEA vs EHRC appears to be clear that this definition has been expanded more widely by subsequent case law.
Happy to be corrected on this, but it seems to me that the cherry-picked quote that is being used to bash Stonewall is based on a misunderstanding of the law as currently applied.
NB. Having now read the relevant bits of Reindorf, it’s clear that they understand the the Equalities Act applied equally to trans people with & without a GRC.
It’s GC social media who are busily spreading carefully ambiguous mis-readings of Reindorf as part of the wider attempt to smear Stonewall.
don't let people with very obviously male sexual attributes into female changing rooms etc on the basis of their private judgement that they are in fact women?
That could have you labeled a "TERF" "Trans-exclusive-radical-feminist".
The issue is some people think some spaces should be natal-sex exclusive - eg Women's refuges, women's prisons - only for people who were born women.
Others see that as discriminatory against trans-sexual people. The issue has gained added controversy with the Gender Recognition act - where people can "self declare" their gender, and argue that a natal-male should have access to natal-female only spaces, however far (or not) they have gone down the transition road.
Given the horrendously long waiting lists for people seeking to transition, I have some sympathy with their plight - what reduces that sympathy is the vitriol of some of their supporters.
The vitriol of their opponents is a wonder to behold too.
Have they tried to get people sacked too?
Yes. And needing police protection, too.
I was very pro trans until I read the cotton ceiling and that tempered it somewhat.
I just wish the trans brigade could try to come to some sort of accommodation with feminists instead of just steamrollering them.
It’s a toxic debate and that’s all I have to say.
each side brings up the absolute worst / most extreme positions.
I have may have missed a reply to my previous post (not to you) - but perhaps you know - how many on the Trans-inclusive side have been sacked or had attempts to hound them from their jobs?
In today's Telegraph, the NI Protocol was forced on the UK by "the imperialist bullies" of the EU & "signed under duress" to stave off the "economic damage" of "a No Deal Brexit". Very odd. I thought "we held all the cards" & would "prosper mightily" with No Deal
Yes, I thought it was us not them who got a result through playing hardball. I thought it was 'No Deal here we come' unless they 'caved in'. Some of the numptier Leavers still think that happened, would you believe. I know!
NB. I’m not a lawyer, but the judgement in AEA vs EHRC seems to be in direct opposition to that given by Akua Reindorf in their U.of.Essex report. Their assertion that the Equalities Act doesn’t say what Stonewall said it does relies on the wording of the Equalities Act only applying to “gender reassignment” whereas the judgement in AEA vs EHRC appears to be clear that this definition has been expanded more widely by subsequent case law.
Happy to be corrected on this, but it seems to me that the cherry-picked quote that is being used to bash Stonewall is based on a misunderstanding of the law as currently applied.
NB. Having now read the relevant bits of Reindorf, it’s clear that they understand the the Equalities Act applied equally to trans people with & without a GRC.
It’s GC social media who are busily spreading carefully ambiguous mis-readings of Reindorf as part of the wider attempt to smear Stonewall.
Does anyone else find this entire issue incomprehensible beyond the obvious?: Live and Let Live, Whatever You Are in Private Is Your Business and please don't let people with very obviously male sexual attributes into female changing rooms etc on the basis of their private judgement that they are in fact women? I am sure there is more but maybe I am too old to work it out.
There is more to it, yes. And it's actually a very interesting issue. The complexities are intellectually stimulating, legally and philosophically. Although it's niche it has potentially wide implications. That's one of the reasons it generates so much heat on both sides. It's also a great one for flushing out mindless dogma on the one hand and innate bigotry (sometimes crass, sometimes urbanely expressed) on the other. For me, you have to take a dive into this topic (but not necessarily take a clear position on it) if you want to keep abreast of the culture war element of our politics. And that element, like it or not, is important and influential. So I think you're selling yourself short here.
Thanks. Interesting. The issue of culture war itself is problematic. Like almost all the UK public I am a centrist. This means that on more or less all contestable subjects there is a variety of respected positions. Intelligent discussion about them is the stuff of our lives. Politics, media, religion, a liberal society, philosophy, academia (and PB) exist because of all this and to enhance it.
More and more people act as if there is only one true position on matters about which this is obvious untrue. The Brexit debate was perhaps a tipping point in such things, where obvious moderates, by the many million, were cast as extremists.
It is an easy and obvious scapegoat but pretty sure social media is the root cause. It leads to very aggressive arguments which in turn lead to name calling and people finding "sides" for safety, which then re-enforce their sides beliefs as the only right one.
Pres. Biden says "the U.S. will purchase half a billion doses of Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine to donate to nearly 100 nations that are in dire need in the fight against this pandemic."
NB. I’m not a lawyer, but the judgement in AEA vs EHRC seems to be in direct opposition to that given by Akua Reindorf in their U.of.Essex report. Their assertion that the Equalities Act doesn’t say what Stonewall said it does relies on the wording of the Equalities Act only applying to “gender reassignment” whereas the judgement in AEA vs EHRC appears to be clear that this definition has been expanded more widely by subsequent case law.
Happy to be corrected on this, but it seems to me that the cherry-picked quote that is being used to bash Stonewall is based on a misunderstanding of the law as currently applied.
NB. Having now read the relevant bits of Reindorf, it’s clear that they understand the the Equalities Act applied equally to trans people with & without a GRC.
It’s GC social media who are busily spreading carefully ambiguous mis-readings of Reindorf as part of the wider attempt to smear Stonewall.
Does anyone else find this entire issue incomprehensible beyond the obvious?: Live and Let Live, Whatever You Are in Private Is Your Business and please don't let people with very obviously male sexual attributes into female changing rooms etc on the basis of their private judgement that they are in fact women? I am sure there is more but maybe I am too old to work it out.
You should join me in my pledge never to comment on trans issues on PB. It is by far the more sane option if you don't have a dog in the fight. Oh and aren't worried about the collapse of Western civilisation.
If you’re a woman, you have a dog in this fight. Indeed, a pussy
I am sure that womankind will sleep easy, knowing that such a stalwart ally is fighting their corner.
Well that's the great thing about the Trans debate.
It's put so many reactionary men in touch with their inner feminist.
Just how much of a feminist does one need to be to think that sticking a man in a women's prison is wrong?
So where would you "stick" a transgender woman who requires prison time then?
Does the offender have a penis? Yes- men's prison No - women's prison
Brutal analysis for the woke brigade. But probably an illegal opinion. Neee Naw Neee Naw
If they still have bollox they should be in men's prison , no ifs or buts.
It's almost as if teenagers have a variety of views, and not always consistent ones 🤔
There is no threat from "Woke" agenda, not least because there is widespread debate over how these issues should be tackled rather than a particular agenda. Mostly though it is because there is nothing is going to change unless a mainstream majority supports it, and if a majority supports it (such as gay marriage) then that is how social progress happens.
NB. I’m not a lawyer, but the judgement in AEA vs EHRC seems to be in direct opposition to that given by Akua Reindorf in their U.of.Essex report. Their assertion that the Equalities Act doesn’t say what Stonewall said it does relies on the wording of the Equalities Act only applying to “gender reassignment” whereas the judgement in AEA vs EHRC appears to be clear that this definition has been expanded more widely by subsequent case law.
Happy to be corrected on this, but it seems to me that the cherry-picked quote that is being used to bash Stonewall is based on a misunderstanding of the law as currently applied.
NB. Having now read the relevant bits of Reindorf, it’s clear that they understand the the Equalities Act applied equally to trans people with & without a GRC.
It’s GC social media who are busily spreading carefully ambiguous mis-readings of Reindorf as part of the wider attempt to smear Stonewall.
Does anyone else find this entire issue incomprehensible beyond the obvious?: Live and Let Live, Whatever You Are in Private Is Your Business and please don't let people with very obviously male sexual attributes into female changing rooms etc on the basis of their private judgement that they are in fact women? I am sure there is more but maybe I am too old to work it out.
There is more to it, yes. And it's actually a very interesting issue. The complexities are intellectually stimulating, legally and philosophically. Although it's niche it has potentially wide implications. That's one of the reasons it generates so much heat on both sides. It's also a great one for flushing out mindless dogma on the one hand and innate bigotry (sometimes crass, sometimes urbanely expressed) on the other. For me, you have to take a dive into this topic (but not necessarily take a clear position on it) if you want to keep abreast of the culture war element of our politics. And that element, like it or not, is important and influential. So I think you're selling yourself short here.
Thanks. Interesting. The issue of culture war itself is problematic. Like almost all the UK public I am a centrist. This means that on more or less all contestable subjects there is a variety of respected positions. Intelligent discussion about them is the stuff of our lives. Politics, media, religion, a liberal society, philosophy, academia (and PB) exist because of all this and to enhance it.
More and more people act as if there is only one true position on matters about which this is obvious untrue. The Brexit debate was perhaps a tipping point in such things, where obvious moderates, by the many million, were cast as extremists.
Too many nutters nowadays unable or don't want to understand that other people may hold differing views to them.
Scotland should stay in the Union and Sturgeon is no better than Boris but just has a supportive press
In today's Telegraph, the NI Protocol was forced on the UK by "the imperialist bullies" of the EU & "signed under duress" to stave off the "economic damage" of "a No Deal Brexit". Very odd. I thought "we held all the cards" & would "prosper mightily" with No Deal
Yes, I thought it was us not them who got a result through playing hardball. I thought it was 'No Deal here we come' unless they 'caved in'. Some of the numptier Leavers still think that happened, would you believe. I know!
Wheres Phil when you need him!!
We discussed this earlier in the day.
Yes we did hold the cards and we got a great deal by playing hard ball extricating Great Britain from the EU's grasp, even if we needed to concede the Protocol because May had already screwed the pooch so much in the negotiations.
Now having got what we want from playing hardball for Great Britain, we're now playing hardball to get what we want with Northern Ireland - and its going to work there too. Because again, we hold the cards.
Barnier spent years negotiating to entrap us within the EU's regulatory orbit and all he got to show for it is the Protocol and the Protocol is dying before us. Good riddance, rest in peace, no flowers.
Biden says we should fold.
Who holds the cards in your opinion on the US / UK trade deal?
Not quite sure how the U.K. can “fold” if the issue is preserving peace in NI, and the current threat to peace is from implementation of the protocol to the letter and unworkable trade barriers in the Irish Sea?
Its worth watching the Unherd interview with Maya Forstater. As so often over past year or so, the interviewer conducts a sensible interview and I am more informed about the ladies position.
Unherd is an excellent, innovative website, with some of the best contributors around. It is nearly always fresh and interesting. A fine addition to the news landscape
NB. I’m not a lawyer, but the judgement in AEA vs EHRC seems to be in direct opposition to that given by Akua Reindorf in their U.of.Essex report. Their assertion that the Equalities Act doesn’t say what Stonewall said it does relies on the wording of the Equalities Act only applying to “gender reassignment” whereas the judgement in AEA vs EHRC appears to be clear that this definition has been expanded more widely by subsequent case law.
Happy to be corrected on this, but it seems to me that the cherry-picked quote that is being used to bash Stonewall is based on a misunderstanding of the law as currently applied.
NB. Having now read the relevant bits of Reindorf, it’s clear that they understand the the Equalities Act applied equally to trans people with & without a GRC.
It’s GC social media who are busily spreading carefully ambiguous mis-readings of Reindorf as part of the wider attempt to smear Stonewall.
Does anyone else find this entire issue incomprehensible beyond the obvious?: Live and Let Live, Whatever You Are in Private Is Your Business and please don't let people with very obviously male sexual attributes into female changing rooms etc on the basis of their private judgement that they are in fact women? I am sure there is more but maybe I am too old to work it out.
There is more to it, yes. And it's actually a very interesting issue. The complexities are intellectually stimulating, legally and philosophically. Although it's niche it has potentially wide implications. That's one of the reasons it generates so much heat on both sides. It's also a great one for flushing out mindless dogma on the one hand and innate bigotry (sometimes crass, sometimes urbanely expressed) on the other. For me, you have to take a dive into this topic (but not necessarily take a clear position on it) if you want to keep abreast of the culture war element of our politics. And that element, like it or not, is important and influential. So I think you're selling yourself short here.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong".
It's about conflicting rights and where society wants to draw the line.
You can't prove it one way or the other.
I'd say there's plenty of obvious wrong in the mix - but, yes, I agree in general.
NB. I’m not a lawyer, but the judgement in AEA vs EHRC seems to be in direct opposition to that given by Akua Reindorf in their U.of.Essex report. Their assertion that the Equalities Act doesn’t say what Stonewall said it does relies on the wording of the Equalities Act only applying to “gender reassignment” whereas the judgement in AEA vs EHRC appears to be clear that this definition has been expanded more widely by subsequent case law.
Happy to be corrected on this, but it seems to me that the cherry-picked quote that is being used to bash Stonewall is based on a misunderstanding of the law as currently applied.
NB. Having now read the relevant bits of Reindorf, it’s clear that they understand the the Equalities Act applied equally to trans people with & without a GRC.
It’s GC social media who are busily spreading carefully ambiguous mis-readings of Reindorf as part of the wider attempt to smear Stonewall.
Does anyone else find this entire issue incomprehensible beyond the obvious?: Live and Let Live, Whatever You Are in Private Is Your Business and please don't let people with very obviously male sexual attributes into female changing rooms etc on the basis of their private judgement that they are in fact women? I am sure there is more but maybe I am too old to work it out.
You should join me in my pledge never to comment on trans issues on PB. It is by far the more sane option if you don't have a dog in the fight. Oh and aren't worried about the collapse of Western civilisation.
If you’re a woman, you have a dog in this fight. Indeed, a pussy
I am sure that womankind will sleep easy, knowing that such a stalwart ally is fighting their corner.
Well that's the great thing about the Trans debate.
It's put so many reactionary men in touch with their inner feminist.
Just how much of a feminist does one need to be to think that sticking a man in a women's prison is wrong?
So where would you "stick" a transgender woman who requires prison time then?
Does the offender have a penis? Yes- men's prison No - women's prison
Brutal analysis for the woke brigade. But probably an illegal opinion. Neee Naw Neee Naw
If they still have bollox they should be in men's prison , no ifs or buts.
I think Trans prisoners probably need to be on separate wings whatever gender they are, not least for their own safety.
In today's Telegraph, the NI Protocol was forced on the UK by "the imperialist bullies" of the EU & "signed under duress" to stave off the "economic damage" of "a No Deal Brexit". Very odd. I thought "we held all the cards" & would "prosper mightily" with No Deal
Yes, I thought it was us not them who got a result through playing hardball. I thought it was 'No Deal here we come' unless they 'caved in'. Some of the numptier Leavers still think that happened, would you believe. I know!
Wheres Phil when you need him!!
We discussed this earlier in the day.
Yes we did hold the cards and we got a great deal by playing hard ball extricating Great Britain from the EU's grasp, even if we needed to concede the Protocol because May had already screwed the pooch so much in the negotiations.
Now having got what we want from playing hardball for Great Britain, we're now playing hardball to get what we want with Northern Ireland - and its going to work there too. Because again, we hold the cards.
Barnier spent years negotiating to entrap us within the EU's regulatory orbit and all he got to show for it is the Protocol and the Protocol is dying before us. Good riddance, rest in peace, no flowers.
Biden says we should fold.
Who holds the cards in your opinion on the US / UK trade deal?
Its worth watching the Unherd interview with Maya Forstater. As so often over past year or so, the interviewer conducts a sensible interview and I am more informed about the ladies position.
Unherd is an excellent, innovative website, with some of the best contributors around. It is nearly always fresh and interesting. A fine addition to the news landscape
It's almost as if teenagers have a variety of views, and not always consistent ones 🤔
There is no threat from "Woke" agenda, not least because there is widespread debate over how these issues should be tackled rather than a particular agenda. Mostly though it is because there is nothing is going to change unless a mainstream majority supports it, and if a majority supports it (such as gay marriage) then that is how social progress happens.
If the anti-woke brigade are citing websites like Occidental Dissent, they've already lost.
The one thing you won't find there is anything approaching objective analysis - it's another site of American conservative sour grapes types who think Trump won last November.
NB. I’m not a lawyer, but the judgement in AEA vs EHRC seems to be in direct opposition to that given by Akua Reindorf in their U.of.Essex report. Their assertion that the Equalities Act doesn’t say what Stonewall said it does relies on the wording of the Equalities Act only applying to “gender reassignment” whereas the judgement in AEA vs EHRC appears to be clear that this definition has been expanded more widely by subsequent case law.
Happy to be corrected on this, but it seems to me that the cherry-picked quote that is being used to bash Stonewall is based on a misunderstanding of the law as currently applied.
NB. Having now read the relevant bits of Reindorf, it’s clear that they understand the the Equalities Act applied equally to trans people with & without a GRC.
It’s GC social media who are busily spreading carefully ambiguous mis-readings of Reindorf as part of the wider attempt to smear Stonewall.
Does anyone else find this entire issue incomprehensible beyond the obvious?: Live and Let Live, Whatever You Are in Private Is Your Business and please don't let people with very obviously male sexual attributes into female changing rooms etc on the basis of their private judgement that they are in fact women? I am sure there is more but maybe I am too old to work it out.
There is more to it, yes. And it's actually a very interesting issue. The complexities are intellectually stimulating, legally and philosophically. Although it's niche it has potentially wide implications. That's one of the reasons it generates so much heat on both sides. It's also a great one for flushing out mindless dogma on the one hand and innate bigotry (sometimes crass, sometimes urbanely expressed) on the other. For me, you have to take a dive into this topic (but not necessarily take a clear position on it) if you want to keep abreast of the culture war element of our politics. And that element, like it or not, is important and influential. So I think you're selling yourself short here.
Thanks. Interesting. The issue of culture war itself is problematic. Like almost all the UK public I am a centrist. This means that on more or less all contestable subjects there is a variety of respected positions. Intelligent discussion about them is the stuff of our lives. Politics, media, religion, a liberal society, philosophy, academia (and PB) exist because of all this and to enhance it.
More and more people act as if there is only one true position on matters about which this is obvious untrue. The Brexit debate was perhaps a tipping point in such things, where obvious moderates, by the many million, were cast as extremists.
Too many nutters nowadays unable or don't want to understand that other people may hold differing views to them.
Scotland should stay in the Union and Sturgeon is no better than Boris but just has a supportive press
Naughty. But I’m not totally sure that Malc disagrees on Sturgeon...
Its worth watching the Unherd interview with Maya Forstater. As so often over past year or so, the interviewer conducts a sensible interview and I am more informed about the ladies position.
Unherd is an excellent, innovative website, with some of the best contributors around. It is nearly always fresh and interesting. A fine addition to the news landscape
Except for the odd writer it lets through who writes a whole pack of lies.
It's clear from reading some of the comments on here that many will simply dismiss any Woke insanity until such time as it actually impinges on their own lives. Which, unchecked, it will eventually.
The article about Anglo-Saxons is instructive because it's the history that is being rewritten to fit the Wokeness, not the other way round, and that way madness lies.
Agree - however, there is also a lot of naivety revealed in these exchanges, people interpreting the woke as a espousing a slightly more radical version of their own liberal worldview and thus being essentially harmless and youthfully eccentric. This is quite a comfortable position that can be held for a long time until reality intervenes.
Either that or a lot of PB-ers are way less intelligent than we thought
The stupidity on this subject is astounding
No, they see it's you and me posting it and then instantly dismiss it.
They need to hear it from someone they know and trust who's on their own side.
If there's one thing I've learned from recent years it's that people decide on their beliefs first and then filter out the evidence that supports them. Not the other way round.
The fact that anti-woke opinions are now literally illegal may also be a problem here.
This is so true. The people who are identifiable and cancellable and have a lot to lose know that they need to keep quiet. The woke have won: we are basically living in a totalitarian regime, but people haven't completely realised it yet.
NB. I’m not a lawyer, but the judgement in AEA vs EHRC seems to be in direct opposition to that given by Akua Reindorf in their U.of.Essex report. Their assertion that the Equalities Act doesn’t say what Stonewall said it does relies on the wording of the Equalities Act only applying to “gender reassignment” whereas the judgement in AEA vs EHRC appears to be clear that this definition has been expanded more widely by subsequent case law.
Happy to be corrected on this, but it seems to me that the cherry-picked quote that is being used to bash Stonewall is based on a misunderstanding of the law as currently applied.
NB. Having now read the relevant bits of Reindorf, it’s clear that they understand the the Equalities Act applied equally to trans people with & without a GRC.
It’s GC social media who are busily spreading carefully ambiguous mis-readings of Reindorf as part of the wider attempt to smear Stonewall.
don't let people with very obviously male sexual attributes into female changing rooms etc on the basis of their private judgement that they are in fact women?
That could have you labeled a "TERF" "Trans-exclusive-radical-feminist".
The issue is some people think some spaces should be natal-sex exclusive - eg Women's refuges, women's prisons - only for people who were born women.
Others see that as discriminatory against trans-sexual people. The issue has gained added controversy with the Gender Recognition act - where people can "self declare" their gender, and argue that a natal-male should have access to natal-female only spaces, however far (or not) they have gone down the transition road.
Given the horrendously long waiting lists for people seeking to transition, I have some sympathy with their plight - what reduces that sympathy is the vitriol of some of their supporters.
The vitriol of their opponents is a wonder to behold too.
Have they tried to get people sacked too?
Yes. And needing police protection, too.
I was very pro trans until I read the cotton ceiling and that tempered it somewhat.
I just wish the trans brigade could try to come to some sort of accommodation with feminists instead of just steamrollering them.
It’s a toxic debate and that’s all I have to say.
each side brings up the absolute worst / most extreme positions.
I have may have missed a reply to my previous post (not to you) - but perhaps you know - how many on the Trans-inclusive side have been sacked or had attempts to hound them from their jobs?
The job prospects for trans people are not exactly great. You don’t need to hound them from their jobs if they already find getting & keeping them hard.
A big swing back to the Union yet the irony is the victorious CDU leader in Saxony-Anhalt election is a fierce critic of the CDU Spitzenkandidat Laschet having backed Soder and the Saxony result was indicative of what the polls were suggesting would happen if the CDU had chosen Soder.
We'll have to see if this is a clear change or a temporary blip in the coming weeks.
Its worth watching the Unherd interview with Maya Forstater. As so often over past year or so, the interviewer conducts a sensible interview and I am more informed about the ladies position.
Unherd is an excellent, innovative website, with some of the best contributors around. It is nearly always fresh and interesting. A fine addition to the news landscape
NB. I’m not a lawyer, but the judgement in AEA vs EHRC seems to be in direct opposition to that given by Akua Reindorf in their U.of.Essex report. Their assertion that the Equalities Act doesn’t say what Stonewall said it does relies on the wording of the Equalities Act only applying to “gender reassignment” whereas the judgement in AEA vs EHRC appears to be clear that this definition has been expanded more widely by subsequent case law.
Happy to be corrected on this, but it seems to me that the cherry-picked quote that is being used to bash Stonewall is based on a misunderstanding of the law as currently applied.
NB. Having now read the relevant bits of Reindorf, it’s clear that they understand the the Equalities Act applied equally to trans people with & without a GRC.
It’s GC social media who are busily spreading carefully ambiguous mis-readings of Reindorf as part of the wider attempt to smear Stonewall.
Does anyone else find this entire issue incomprehensible beyond the obvious?: Live and Let Live, Whatever You Are in Private Is Your Business and please don't let people with very obviously male sexual attributes into female changing rooms etc on the basis of their private judgement that they are in fact women? I am sure there is more but maybe I am too old to work it out.
You should join me in my pledge never to comment on trans issues on PB. It is by far the more sane option if you don't have a dog in the fight. Oh and aren't worried about the collapse of Western civilisation.
If you’re a woman, you have a dog in this fight. Indeed, a pussy
I am sure that womankind will sleep easy, knowing that such a stalwart ally is fighting their corner.
Well that's the great thing about the Trans debate.
It's put so many reactionary men in touch with their inner feminist.
Just how much of a feminist does one need to be to think that sticking a man in a women's prison is wrong?
So where would you "stick" a transgender woman who requires prison time then?
Does the offender have a penis? Yes- men's prison No - women's prison
One thing that a decadent society will never fail to master is to take something so simple that a child could understand it and instead wrap it up in a maze of counter-intuitive, irrational pseudo-intellectualization, its members priding themselves on the brilliance of their ingenuity the further from essential reason they depart...
"a decadent society"? lol. You really would not be out of place in N Korea would you? The great leader can never be wrong. We must avoid becoming decadent. Get up every morning and salute a picture of the Great Leader and have a cold shower to stave off decadent thoughts.
NB. I’m not a lawyer, but the judgement in AEA vs EHRC seems to be in direct opposition to that given by Akua Reindorf in their U.of.Essex report. Their assertion that the Equalities Act doesn’t say what Stonewall said it does relies on the wording of the Equalities Act only applying to “gender reassignment” whereas the judgement in AEA vs EHRC appears to be clear that this definition has been expanded more widely by subsequent case law.
Happy to be corrected on this, but it seems to me that the cherry-picked quote that is being used to bash Stonewall is based on a misunderstanding of the law as currently applied.
NB. Having now read the relevant bits of Reindorf, it’s clear that they understand the the Equalities Act applied equally to trans people with & without a GRC.
It’s GC social media who are busily spreading carefully ambiguous mis-readings of Reindorf as part of the wider attempt to smear Stonewall.
Does anyone else find this entire issue incomprehensible beyond the obvious?: Live and Let Live, Whatever You Are in Private Is Your Business and please don't let people with very obviously male sexual attributes into female changing rooms etc on the basis of their private judgement that they are in fact women? I am sure there is more but maybe I am too old to work it out.
You should join me in my pledge never to comment on trans issues on PB. It is by far the more sane option if you don't have a dog in the fight. Oh and aren't worried about the collapse of Western civilisation.
If you’re a woman, you have a dog in this fight. Indeed, a pussy
I am sure that womankind will sleep easy, knowing that such a stalwart ally is fighting their corner.
Well that's the great thing about the Trans debate.
It's put so many reactionary men in touch with their inner feminist.
Just how much of a feminist does one need to be to think that sticking a man in a women's prison is wrong?
So where would you "stick" a transgender woman who requires prison time then?
Does the offender have a penis? Yes- men's prison No - women's prison
Brutal analysis for the woke brigade. But probably an illegal opinion. Neee Naw Neee Naw
If they still have bollox they should be in men's prison , no ifs or buts.
I think Trans prisoners probably need to be on separate wings whatever gender they are, not least for their own safety.
I have a very Woke very pro-Trans female friend who is also hardcore 2nd wave feminist.
Her anguished contortions on this issue are a sight to behold, it's like watching Hal go into meltdown in Kubrick's 2001
Here is Bill Clinton casually talking on a chat show about UFOs, confirming there are things we can’t identity / don’t understand and calmly pointing out how big the universe is.
Like Obama, he still gets the Presidential Daily Bulletin remember.
In today's Telegraph, the NI Protocol was forced on the UK by "the imperialist bullies" of the EU & "signed under duress" to stave off the "economic damage" of "a No Deal Brexit". Very odd. I thought "we held all the cards" & would "prosper mightily" with No Deal
Yes, I thought it was us not them who got a result through playing hardball. I thought it was 'No Deal here we come' unless they 'caved in'. Some of the numptier Leavers still think that happened, would you believe. I know!
Wheres Phil when you need him!!
We discussed this earlier in the day.
Yes we did hold the cards and we got a great deal by playing hard ball extricating Great Britain from the EU's grasp, even if we needed to concede the Protocol because May had already screwed the pooch so much in the negotiations.
Now having got what we want from playing hardball for Great Britain, we're now playing hardball to get what we want with Northern Ireland - and its going to work there too. Because again, we hold the cards.
Barnier spent years negotiating to entrap us within the EU's regulatory orbit and all he got to show for it is the Protocol and the Protocol is dying before us. Good riddance, rest in peace, no flowers.
Biden says we should fold.
Who holds the cards in your opinion on the US / UK trade deal?
Not quite sure how the U.K. can “fold” if the issue is preserving peace in NI, and the current threat to peace is from implementation of the protocol to the letter and unworkable trade barriers in the Irish Sea?
Why did Johnson insist on such a crap deal then, and force it through?
We should stick to the word of what we agreed. That is true British values.
In today's Telegraph, the NI Protocol was forced on the UK by "the imperialist bullies" of the EU & "signed under duress" to stave off the "economic damage" of "a No Deal Brexit". Very odd. I thought "we held all the cards" & would "prosper mightily" with No Deal
Yes, I thought it was us not them who got a result through playing hardball. I thought it was 'No Deal here we come' unless they 'caved in'. Some of the numptier Leavers still think that happened, would you believe. I know!
Wheres Phil when you need him!!
We discussed this earlier in the day.
Yes we did hold the cards and we got a great deal by playing hard ball extricating Great Britain from the EU's grasp, even if we needed to concede the Protocol because May had already screwed the pooch so much in the negotiations.
Now having got what we want from playing hardball for Great Britain, we're now playing hardball to get what we want with Northern Ireland - and its going to work there too. Because again, we hold the cards.
Barnier spent years negotiating to entrap us within the EU's regulatory orbit and all he got to show for it is the Protocol and the Protocol is dying before us. Good riddance, rest in peace, no flowers.
Biden says we should fold.
Who holds the cards in your opinion on the US / UK trade deal?
Do you have a video of Biden saying we should fold, this week? I highly doubt it.
As for a US / UK trade I'm rather sceptical that one will ever come about any time soon. We have a much greater chance of getting one than we did in the EU, but the ideal would be we then the USA both join the CPTPP.
NB. I’m not a lawyer, but the judgement in AEA vs EHRC seems to be in direct opposition to that given by Akua Reindorf in their U.of.Essex report. Their assertion that the Equalities Act doesn’t say what Stonewall said it does relies on the wording of the Equalities Act only applying to “gender reassignment” whereas the judgement in AEA vs EHRC appears to be clear that this definition has been expanded more widely by subsequent case law.
Happy to be corrected on this, but it seems to me that the cherry-picked quote that is being used to bash Stonewall is based on a misunderstanding of the law as currently applied.
NB. Having now read the relevant bits of Reindorf, it’s clear that they understand the the Equalities Act applied equally to trans people with & without a GRC.
It’s GC social media who are busily spreading carefully ambiguous mis-readings of Reindorf as part of the wider attempt to smear Stonewall.
Does anyone else find this entire issue incomprehensible beyond the obvious?: Live and Let Live, Whatever You Are in Private Is Your Business and please don't let people with very obviously male sexual attributes into female changing rooms etc on the basis of their private judgement that they are in fact women? I am sure there is more but maybe I am too old to work it out.
There is more to it, yes. And it's actually a very interesting issue. The complexities are intellectually stimulating, legally and philosophically. Although it's niche it has potentially wide implications. That's one of the reasons it generates so much heat on both sides. It's also a great one for flushing out mindless dogma on the one hand and innate bigotry (sometimes crass, sometimes urbanely expressed) on the other. For me, you have to take a dive into this topic (but not necessarily take a clear position on it) if you want to keep abreast of the culture war element of our politics. And that element, like it or not, is important and influential. So I think you're selling yourself short here.
Thanks. Interesting. The issue of culture war itself is problematic. Like almost all the UK public I am a centrist. This means that on more or less all contestable subjects there is a variety of respected positions. Intelligent discussion about them is the stuff of our lives. Politics, media, religion, a liberal society, philosophy, academia (and PB) exist because of all this and to enhance it.
More and more people act as if there is only one true position on matters about which this is obvious untrue. The Brexit debate was perhaps a tipping point in such things, where obvious moderates, by the many million, were cast as extremists.
Too many nutters nowadays unable or don't want to understand that other people may hold differing views to them.
Scotland should stay in the Union and Sturgeon is no better than Boris but just has a supportive press
First point I totally disagree , second point wrong Sturgeon is worse than Boris and has same supportive press
It's clear from reading some of the comments on here that many will simply dismiss any Woke insanity until such time as it actually impinges on their own lives. Which, unchecked, it will eventually.
The article about Anglo-Saxons is instructive because it's the history that is being rewritten to fit the Wokeness, not the other way round, and that way madness lies.
Agree - however, there is also a lot of naivety revealed in these exchanges, people interpreting the woke as a espousing a slightly more radical version of their own liberal worldview and thus being essentially harmless and youthfully eccentric. This is quite a comfortable position that can be held for a long time until reality intervenes.
Either that or a lot of PB-ers are way less intelligent than we thought
The stupidity on this subject is astounding
No, they see it's you and me posting it and then instantly dismiss it.
They need to hear it from someone they know and trust who's on their own side.
If there's one thing I've learned from recent years it's that people decide on their beliefs first and then filter out the evidence that supports them. Not the other way round.
Perhaps you would be less likely to be instantly dismissed if you (and one or two of those who agree with you on these matters) were slightly less patronising to those who have different views and would prefer a more discursive discussion, rather than being told they are wrong?
Its worth watching the Unherd interview with Maya Forstater. As so often over past year or so, the interviewer conducts a sensible interview and I am more informed about the ladies position.
Unherd is an excellent, innovative website, with some of the best contributors around. It is nearly always fresh and interesting. A fine addition to the news landscape
Freddie Sayers? Excellent interviewer.
Its really good, one of the sane outposts of the internet.
It's almost as if teenagers have a variety of views, and not always consistent ones 🤔
There is no threat from "Woke" agenda, not least because there is widespread debate over how these issues should be tackled rather than a particular agenda. Mostly though it is because there is nothing is going to change unless a mainstream majority supports it, and if a majority supports it (such as gay marriage) then that is how social progress happens.
Here's what will happen: I will be criticised or dismissed all the way for challenging the lunacy of statue-pulling, intersectionality, CRT, ultra-Trans and year-zero history and then, when it doesn't happen eventually (hopefully) because of that you'll simply say that was natural and would have happened anyway.
At no point will the argument be conceded as a valid one, and nor will anyone be thanked for it when they are proved right.
In today's Telegraph, the NI Protocol was forced on the UK by "the imperialist bullies" of the EU & "signed under duress" to stave off the "economic damage" of "a No Deal Brexit". Very odd. I thought "we held all the cards" & would "prosper mightily" with No Deal
Yes, I thought it was us not them who got a result through playing hardball. I thought it was 'No Deal here we come' unless they 'caved in'. Some of the numptier Leavers still think that happened, would you believe. I know!
Wheres Phil when you need him!!
We discussed this earlier in the day.
Yes we did hold the cards and we got a great deal by playing hard ball extricating Great Britain from the EU's grasp, even if we needed to concede the Protocol because May had already screwed the pooch so much in the negotiations.
Now having got what we want from playing hardball for Great Britain, we're now playing hardball to get what we want with Northern Ireland - and its going to work there too. Because again, we hold the cards.
Barnier spent years negotiating to entrap us within the EU's regulatory orbit and all he got to show for it is the Protocol and the Protocol is dying before us. Good riddance, rest in peace, no flowers.
You really are very funny. "We hold the cards". You are beyond parody.
With the news that Scotland won’t be taking a knee during Euro 2020 I wonder what will happen if England fans boo their stance before kick off next Friday…
Its worth watching the Unherd interview with Maya Forstater. As so often over past year or so, the interviewer conducts a sensible interview and I am more informed about the ladies position.
Unherd is an excellent, innovative website, with some of the best contributors around. It is nearly always fresh and interesting. A fine addition to the news landscape
Freddie Sayers? Excellent interviewer.
He is always seems to be very clued up on the subject of the interview and has a good way of asking a question that challenges the interviewee without resorting to interrupt-athon / screeching tactics.
He really put Swedish epidemiologist feet to the fire the other week in an incredibly polite and thoughtful way, basically bringing up lots of his claims from early 2020, to which he basically ran out of excuses. But not once was there a raised voice.
NB. I’m not a lawyer, but the judgement in AEA vs EHRC seems to be in direct opposition to that given by Akua Reindorf in their U.of.Essex report. Their assertion that the Equalities Act doesn’t say what Stonewall said it does relies on the wording of the Equalities Act only applying to “gender reassignment” whereas the judgement in AEA vs EHRC appears to be clear that this definition has been expanded more widely by subsequent case law.
Happy to be corrected on this, but it seems to me that the cherry-picked quote that is being used to bash Stonewall is based on a misunderstanding of the law as currently applied.
NB. Having now read the relevant bits of Reindorf, it’s clear that they understand the the Equalities Act applied equally to trans people with & without a GRC.
It’s GC social media who are busily spreading carefully ambiguous mis-readings of Reindorf as part of the wider attempt to smear Stonewall.
Does anyone else find this entire issue incomprehensible beyond the obvious?: Live and Let Live, Whatever You Are in Private Is Your Business and please don't let people with very obviously male sexual attributes into female changing rooms etc on the basis of their private judgement that they are in fact women? I am sure there is more but maybe I am too old to work it out.
You should join me in my pledge never to comment on trans issues on PB. It is by far the more sane option if you don't have a dog in the fight. Oh and aren't worried about the collapse of Western civilisation.
If you’re a woman, you have a dog in this fight. Indeed, a pussy
I am sure that womankind will sleep easy, knowing that such a stalwart ally is fighting their corner.
Well that's the great thing about the Trans debate.
It's put so many reactionary men in touch with their inner feminist.
Just how much of a feminist does one need to be to think that sticking a man in a women's prison is wrong?
So where would you "stick" a transgender woman who requires prison time then?
Does the offender have a penis? Yes- men's prison No - women's prison
Brutal analysis for the woke brigade. But probably an illegal opinion. Neee Naw Neee Naw
If they still have bollox they should be in men's prison , no ifs or buts.
I think Trans prisoners probably need to be on separate wings whatever gender they are, not least for their own safety.
Unfortunately I believe lots if not most are using it as an easy way out and nice access to women. World has gone crazy. What has happened in recent years to make so many men suddenly want to be women, is there something in the water.
In today's Telegraph, the NI Protocol was forced on the UK by "the imperialist bullies" of the EU & "signed under duress" to stave off the "economic damage" of "a No Deal Brexit". Very odd. I thought "we held all the cards" & would "prosper mightily" with No Deal
Yes, I thought it was us not them who got a result through playing hardball. I thought it was 'No Deal here we come' unless they 'caved in'. Some of the numptier Leavers still think that happened, would you believe. I know!
Wheres Phil when you need him!!
We discussed this earlier in the day.
Yes we did hold the cards and we got a great deal by playing hard ball extricating Great Britain from the EU's grasp, even if we needed to concede the Protocol because May had already screwed the pooch so much in the negotiations.
Now having got what we want from playing hardball for Great Britain, we're now playing hardball to get what we want with Northern Ireland - and its going to work there too. Because again, we hold the cards.
Barnier spent years negotiating to entrap us within the EU's regulatory orbit and all he got to show for it is the Protocol and the Protocol is dying before us. Good riddance, rest in peace, no flowers.
Biden says we should fold.
Who holds the cards in your opinion on the US / UK trade deal?
Not quite sure how the U.K. can “fold” if the issue is preserving peace in NI, and the current threat to peace is from implementation of the protocol to the letter and unworkable trade barriers in the Irish Sea?
Why did Johnson insist on such a crap deal then, and force it through?
We should stick to the word of what we agreed. That is true British values.
While I agree with the general thrust in him saying it was good and pushing it through, people do change agreements all the time if they are not working. The lead up may make him personally demanding a change more unreasonable but the inherent point of seeking to change things is not unreasonable in itself.
In today's Telegraph, the NI Protocol was forced on the UK by "the imperialist bullies" of the EU & "signed under duress" to stave off the "economic damage" of "a No Deal Brexit". Very odd. I thought "we held all the cards" & would "prosper mightily" with No Deal
Yes, I thought it was us not them who got a result through playing hardball. I thought it was 'No Deal here we come' unless they 'caved in'. Some of the numptier Leavers still think that happened, would you believe. I know!
Wheres Phil when you need him!!
We discussed this earlier in the day.
Yes we did hold the cards and we got a great deal by playing hard ball extricating Great Britain from the EU's grasp, even if we needed to concede the Protocol because May had already screwed the pooch so much in the negotiations.
Now having got what we want from playing hardball for Great Britain, we're now playing hardball to get what we want with Northern Ireland - and its going to work there too. Because again, we hold the cards.
Barnier spent years negotiating to entrap us within the EU's regulatory orbit and all he got to show for it is the Protocol and the Protocol is dying before us. Good riddance, rest in peace, no flowers.
Biden says we should fold.
Who holds the cards in your opinion on the US / UK trade deal?
Not quite sure how the U.K. can “fold” if the issue is preserving peace in NI, and the current threat to peace is from implementation of the protocol to the letter and unworkable trade barriers in the Irish Sea?
Boris has put his testicles in the vice and asked the EU to turn the handle, they are likely to oblige. His lies are catching up with him. PS:He must be wishing Trump had won.
NB. I’m not a lawyer, but the judgement in AEA vs EHRC seems to be in direct opposition to that given by Akua Reindorf in their U.of.Essex report. Their assertion that the Equalities Act doesn’t say what Stonewall said it does relies on the wording of the Equalities Act only applying to “gender reassignment” whereas the judgement in AEA vs EHRC appears to be clear that this definition has been expanded more widely by subsequent case law.
Happy to be corrected on this, but it seems to me that the cherry-picked quote that is being used to bash Stonewall is based on a misunderstanding of the law as currently applied.
NB. Having now read the relevant bits of Reindorf, it’s clear that they understand the the Equalities Act applied equally to trans people with & without a GRC.
It’s GC social media who are busily spreading carefully ambiguous mis-readings of Reindorf as part of the wider attempt to smear Stonewall.
Does anyone else find this entire issue incomprehensible beyond the obvious?: Live and Let Live, Whatever You Are in Private Is Your Business and please don't let people with very obviously male sexual attributes into female changing rooms etc on the basis of their private judgement that they are in fact women? I am sure there is more but maybe I am too old to work it out.
There is more to it, yes. And it's actually a very interesting issue. The complexities are intellectually stimulating, legally and philosophically. Although it's niche it has potentially wide implications. That's one of the reasons it generates so much heat on both sides. It's also a great one for flushing out mindless dogma on the one hand and innate bigotry (sometimes crass, sometimes urbanely expressed) on the other. For me, you have to take a dive into this topic (but not necessarily take a clear position on it) if you want to keep abreast of the culture war element of our politics. And that element, like it or not, is important and influential. So I think you're selling yourself short here.
Thanks. Interesting. The issue of culture war itself is problematic. Like almost all the UK public I am a centrist. This means that on more or less all contestable subjects there is a variety of respected positions. Intelligent discussion about them is the stuff of our lives. Politics, media, religion, a liberal society, philosophy, academia (and PB) exist because of all this and to enhance it.
More and more people act as if there is only one true position on matters about which this is obvious untrue. The Brexit debate was perhaps a tipping point in such things, where obvious moderates, by the many million, were cast as extremists.
Too many nutters nowadays unable or don't want to understand that other people may hold differing views to them.
Scotland should stay in the Union and Sturgeon is no better than Boris but just has a supportive press
First point I totally disagree , second point wrong Sturgeon is worse than Boris and has same supportive press
Blimey, I knew you were not a fan but worse than Boris?
NB. I’m not a lawyer, but the judgement in AEA vs EHRC seems to be in direct opposition to that given by Akua Reindorf in their U.of.Essex report. Their assertion that the Equalities Act doesn’t say what Stonewall said it does relies on the wording of the Equalities Act only applying to “gender reassignment” whereas the judgement in AEA vs EHRC appears to be clear that this definition has been expanded more widely by subsequent case law.
Happy to be corrected on this, but it seems to me that the cherry-picked quote that is being used to bash Stonewall is based on a misunderstanding of the law as currently applied.
NB. Having now read the relevant bits of Reindorf, it’s clear that they understand the the Equalities Act applied equally to trans people with & without a GRC.
It’s GC social media who are busily spreading carefully ambiguous mis-readings of Reindorf as part of the wider attempt to smear Stonewall.
Does anyone else find this entire issue incomprehensible beyond the obvious?: Live and Let Live, Whatever You Are in Private Is Your Business and please don't let people with very obviously male sexual attributes into female changing rooms etc on the basis of their private judgement that they are in fact women? I am sure there is more but maybe I am too old to work it out.
You should join me in my pledge never to comment on trans issues on PB. It is by far the more sane option if you don't have a dog in the fight. Oh and aren't worried about the collapse of Western civilisation.
If you’re a woman, you have a dog in this fight. Indeed, a pussy
I am sure that womankind will sleep easy, knowing that such a stalwart ally is fighting their corner.
Well that's the great thing about the Trans debate.
It's put so many reactionary men in touch with their inner feminist.
Just how much of a feminist does one need to be to think that sticking a man in a women's prison is wrong?
So where would you "stick" a transgender woman who requires prison time then?
Does the offender have a penis? Yes- men's prison No - women's prison
Brutal analysis for the woke brigade. But probably an illegal opinion. Neee Naw Neee Naw
If they still have bollox they should be in men's prison , no ifs or buts.
In today's Telegraph, the NI Protocol was forced on the UK by "the imperialist bullies" of the EU & "signed under duress" to stave off the "economic damage" of "a No Deal Brexit". Very odd. I thought "we held all the cards" & would "prosper mightily" with No Deal
Yes, I thought it was us not them who got a result through playing hardball. I thought it was 'No Deal here we come' unless they 'caved in'. Some of the numptier Leavers still think that happened, would you believe. I know!
Wheres Phil when you need him!!
We discussed this earlier in the day.
Yes we did hold the cards and we got a great deal by playing hard ball extricating Great Britain from the EU's grasp, even if we needed to concede the Protocol because May had already screwed the pooch so much in the negotiations.
Now having got what we want from playing hardball for Great Britain, we're now playing hardball to get what we want with Northern Ireland - and its going to work there too. Because again, we hold the cards.
Barnier spent years negotiating to entrap us within the EU's regulatory orbit and all he got to show for it is the Protocol and the Protocol is dying before us. Good riddance, rest in peace, no flowers.
Biden says we should fold.
Who holds the cards in your opinion on the US / UK trade deal?
Not quite sure how the U.K. can “fold” if the issue is preserving peace in NI, and the current threat to peace is from implementation of the protocol to the letter and unworkable trade barriers in the Irish Sea?
Why did Johnson insist on such a crap deal then, and force it through?
We should stick to the word of what we agreed. That is true British values.
That misses the point though.
The purpose of the protocol is to protect the GFA/maintain peace in NI. That is also Biden’s priority. If it is clear that full implementation of the protocol with no flexibility/“fudging” does not do that, then it is difficult to see why Biden should then not ultimately come to align with the U.K. Govt position. I doubt he really cares about the integrity of the single market.
NB. I’m not a lawyer, but the judgement in AEA vs EHRC seems to be in direct opposition to that given by Akua Reindorf in their U.of.Essex report. Their assertion that the Equalities Act doesn’t say what Stonewall said it does relies on the wording of the Equalities Act only applying to “gender reassignment” whereas the judgement in AEA vs EHRC appears to be clear that this definition has been expanded more widely by subsequent case law.
Happy to be corrected on this, but it seems to me that the cherry-picked quote that is being used to bash Stonewall is based on a misunderstanding of the law as currently applied.
NB. Having now read the relevant bits of Reindorf, it’s clear that they understand the the Equalities Act applied equally to trans people with & without a GRC.
It’s GC social media who are busily spreading carefully ambiguous mis-readings of Reindorf as part of the wider attempt to smear Stonewall.
Does anyone else find this entire issue incomprehensible beyond the obvious?: Live and Let Live, Whatever You Are in Private Is Your Business and please don't let people with very obviously male sexual attributes into female changing rooms etc on the basis of their private judgement that they are in fact women? I am sure there is more but maybe I am too old to work it out.
You should join me in my pledge never to comment on trans issues on PB. It is by far the more sane option if you don't have a dog in the fight. Oh and aren't worried about the collapse of Western civilisation.
If you’re a woman, you have a dog in this fight. Indeed, a pussy
I am sure that womankind will sleep easy, knowing that such a stalwart ally is fighting their corner.
Well that's the great thing about the Trans debate.
It's put so many reactionary men in touch with their inner feminist.
Just how much of a feminist does one need to be to think that sticking a man in a women's prison is wrong?
So where would you "stick" a transgender woman who requires prison time then?
Does the offender have a penis? Yes- men's prison No - women's prison
One thing that a decadent society will never fail to master is to take something so simple that a child could understand it and instead wrap it up in a maze of counter-intuitive, irrational pseudo-intellectualization, its members priding themselves on the brilliance of their ingenuity the further from essential reason they depart...
"a decadent society"? lol. You really would not be out of place in N Korea would you? The great leader can never be wrong. We must avoid becoming decadent. Get up every morning and salute a picture of the Great Leader and have a cold shower to stave off decadent thoughts.
That really was a masterpiece of non sequitur even by your standards, Nigel. Didn't you decry the silly notion of 'chest-feeding' yourself a little while ago?
A big swing back to the Union yet the irony is the victorious CDU leader in Saxony-Anhalt election is a fierce critic of the CDU Spitzenkandidat Laschet having backed Soder and the Saxony result was indicative of what the polls were suggesting would happen if the CDU had chosen Soder.
We'll have to see if this is a clear change or a temporary blip in the coming weeks.
In today's Telegraph, the NI Protocol was forced on the UK by "the imperialist bullies" of the EU & "signed under duress" to stave off the "economic damage" of "a No Deal Brexit". Very odd. I thought "we held all the cards" & would "prosper mightily" with No Deal
Yes, I thought it was us not them who got a result through playing hardball. I thought it was 'No Deal here we come' unless they 'caved in'. Some of the numptier Leavers still think that happened, would you believe. I know!
Wheres Phil when you need him!!
We discussed this earlier in the day.
Yes we did hold the cards and we got a great deal by playing hard ball extricating Great Britain from the EU's grasp, even if we needed to concede the Protocol because May had already screwed the pooch so much in the negotiations.
Now having got what we want from playing hardball for Great Britain, we're now playing hardball to get what we want with Northern Ireland - and its going to work there too. Because again, we hold the cards.
Barnier spent years negotiating to entrap us within the EU's regulatory orbit and all he got to show for it is the Protocol and the Protocol is dying before us. Good riddance, rest in peace, no flowers.
Biden says we should fold.
Who holds the cards in your opinion on the US / UK trade deal?
It's almost as if teenagers have a variety of views, and not always consistent ones 🤔
There is no threat from "Woke" agenda, not least because there is widespread debate over how these issues should be tackled rather than a particular agenda. Mostly though it is because there is nothing is going to change unless a mainstream majority supports it, and if a majority supports it (such as gay marriage) then that is how social progress happens.
Here's what will happen: I will be criticised or dismissed all the way for challenging the lunacy of statue-pulling, intersectionality, CRT, ultra-Trans and year-zero history and then, when it doesn't happen eventually (hopefully) because of that you'll simply say that was natural and would have happened anyway.
At no point will the argument be conceded as a valid one, and nor will anyone be thanked for it when they are proved right.
No, I am just saying that daft ideas won't be adopted, but sensible ones may well be. I have no problem with people speaking out against cultural change, that is how debate happens. Their arguments should be listened to and argued against.
There simply is no "Woke Agenda". It is a figment of the imagination of conspiracy nutjobs.
NB. I’m not a lawyer, but the judgement in AEA vs EHRC seems to be in direct opposition to that given by Akua Reindorf in their U.of.Essex report. Their assertion that the Equalities Act doesn’t say what Stonewall said it does relies on the wording of the Equalities Act only applying to “gender reassignment” whereas the judgement in AEA vs EHRC appears to be clear that this definition has been expanded more widely by subsequent case law.
Happy to be corrected on this, but it seems to me that the cherry-picked quote that is being used to bash Stonewall is based on a misunderstanding of the law as currently applied.
NB. Having now read the relevant bits of Reindorf, it’s clear that they understand the the Equalities Act applied equally to trans people with & without a GRC.
It’s GC social media who are busily spreading carefully ambiguous mis-readings of Reindorf as part of the wider attempt to smear Stonewall.
don't let people with very obviously male sexual attributes into female changing rooms etc on the basis of their private judgement that they are in fact women?
That could have you labeled a "TERF" "Trans-exclusive-radical-feminist".
The issue is some people think some spaces should be natal-sex exclusive - eg Women's refuges, women's prisons - only for people who were born women.
Others see that as discriminatory against trans-sexual people. The issue has gained added controversy with the Gender Recognition act - where people can "self declare" their gender, and argue that a natal-male should have access to natal-female only spaces, however far (or not) they have gone down the transition road.
Given the horrendously long waiting lists for people seeking to transition, I have some sympathy with their plight - what reduces that sympathy is the vitriol of some of their supporters.
The vitriol of their opponents is a wonder to behold too.
Have they tried to get people sacked too?
Yes. And needing police protection, too.
I was very pro trans until I read the cotton ceiling and that tempered it somewhat.
I just wish the trans brigade could try to come to some sort of accommodation with feminists instead of just steamrollering them.
It’s a toxic debate and that’s all I have to say.
each side brings up the absolute worst / most extreme positions.
I have may have missed a reply to my previous post (not to you) - but perhaps you know - how many on the Trans-inclusive side have been sacked or had attempts to hound them from their jobs?
The job prospects for trans people are not exactly great. You don’t need to hound them from their jobs if they already find getting & keeping them hard.
Indeed.
But the question was not about "Trans-people" but "Trans-inclusive".
So, in reply to the question, "none"?
Unlike the case today, or Allison Bailey's case going through the courts now.
It's almost as if teenagers have a variety of views, and not always consistent ones 🤔
There is no threat from "Woke" agenda, not least because there is widespread debate over how these issues should be tackled rather than a particular agenda. Mostly though it is because there is nothing is going to change unless a mainstream majority supports it, and if a majority supports it (such as gay marriage) then that is how social progress happens.
Been following bits of this discussion today. One or two comments:
Everything I have heard/seen has been without reference to the actuality of teenage male sexual nature, both physical and mental, which on the whole is not a pretty sight. It can be summed up in the traditional view, but with broad application: The only force on earth which can prevent teenage boys having sex is teenage girls.
Corollary etc: the only force on earth which can prevent teenage boys wanting to see female nudes is the females concerned.
Of course human nature ought to be different but it isn't and won't be.
The other thing I note: The tern 'Rape Culture' is used to cover a multitude of things. Finally, the image being presented is that girls are innocent victims, boys are guilty predators. There is more to be said.
A big swing back to the Union yet the irony is the victorious CDU leader in Saxony-Anhalt election is a fierce critic of the CDU Spitzenkandidat Laschet having backed Soder and the Saxony result was indicative of what the polls were suggesting would happen if the CDU had chosen Soder.
We'll have to see if this is a clear change or a temporary blip in the coming weeks.
The greens seem to have imploded.
I think that's a huge conclusion from one or two polls - the CDU did very well albeit with a popular regional leader. As I said, Haseloff publicly backed Soder over Laschet and whether this push will be maintained once the federal election campaign starts for real remains to be seen.
The above poll takes us all the way back to April - considering the CDU had a 19-point lead over the Greens at the beginning of 2021, you could argue it's the Union that has been doing the imploding.
Its worth watching the Unherd interview with Maya Forstater. As so often over past year or so, the interviewer conducts a sensible interview and I am more informed about the ladies position.
Unherd is an excellent, innovative website, with some of the best contributors around. It is nearly always fresh and interesting. A fine addition to the news landscape
Except for the odd writer it lets through who writes a whole pack of lies.
You mean SeanT? Yes, I have no idea why they hire him when they have such a stable of talent. OK his articles, are occasionally witty, and clever, and they are generally highly articulate, and written with a vivid flair and a unique style, almost an elan, like a pimpernel escaping the guards by vaulting onto a chandelier, and sometimes I actually find myself sexually aroused by his magical gift for our native English tongue, like he is a kind of USS Nimitz-style UFO of the language: capable of verbal hypersonics and transmedium nouns and faster than light insights and brilliantly extra-dimensional one-liners but really, other than that, he drags. For me, anyway
A non-partisan note which may please some of you on all sides. As some of you know, my day job is head of the UK arm of Compassion in World Farming. I thought people might like to hear the news today: the European Parliament has voted by 558-37 to make cages for farmed animals illegal across the European Union by 2027, adopting a resolution on the ‘End the Cage Age‘ European Citizens’ Initiative which Compassion initiated 3 years ago, which gained 1.4 million signatures, many from Britain when we were still members. The Commission is supportive and it's expected to go through.
At present, in both Britain and the EU, laying hens and rabbits are often confined to spaces about the size of an A4 sheet of paper. Adult female pigs are confined inside crates, in which they cannot even turn around. Calves, geese and quail are also caged, preventing them from performing basic natural behaviours.
The Parliament also highlighted the need to ensure that all products placed on the EU market – including imported ones – comply with future cage-free standards. They stressed the need to provide adequate incentives and financial programmes to support farmers through the transition.
Finally, the EU Parliament called on the Commission to put forward proposals to ban the cruel and unnecessary force-feeding of ducks and geese for the production of foie gras.
This isn't a Brexit issue! - I hope that people on all sides of that argument will welcome the news. It's a great breakthrough for animal welfare - and we hope to see something similar in Britain too - the Government has promised a review of cages later this year as part of its animal welfare plan. The danger in Britain is that the measures will be undermined by trade deals allowing low-welfare imports at zero tariffs - but that's not yet a done deal.
NB. I’m not a lawyer, but the judgement in AEA vs EHRC seems to be in direct opposition to that given by Akua Reindorf in their U.of.Essex report. Their assertion that the Equalities Act doesn’t say what Stonewall said it does relies on the wording of the Equalities Act only applying to “gender reassignment” whereas the judgement in AEA vs EHRC appears to be clear that this definition has been expanded more widely by subsequent case law.
Happy to be corrected on this, but it seems to me that the cherry-picked quote that is being used to bash Stonewall is based on a misunderstanding of the law as currently applied.
NB. Having now read the relevant bits of Reindorf, it’s clear that they understand the the Equalities Act applied equally to trans people with & without a GRC.
It’s GC social media who are busily spreading carefully ambiguous mis-readings of Reindorf as part of the wider attempt to smear Stonewall.
Does anyone else find this entire issue incomprehensible beyond the obvious?: Live and Let Live, Whatever You Are in Private Is Your Business and please don't let people with very obviously male sexual attributes into female changing rooms etc on the basis of their private judgement that they are in fact women? I am sure there is more but maybe I am too old to work it out.
There is more to it, yes. And it's actually a very interesting issue. The complexities are intellectually stimulating, legally and philosophically. Although it's niche it has potentially wide implications. That's one of the reasons it generates so much heat on both sides. It's also a great one for flushing out mindless dogma on the one hand and innate bigotry (sometimes crass, sometimes urbanely expressed) on the other. For me, you have to take a dive into this topic (but not necessarily take a clear position on it) if you want to keep abreast of the culture war element of our politics. And that element, like it or not, is important and influential. So I think you're selling yourself short here.
Thanks. Interesting. The issue of culture war itself is problematic. Like almost all the UK public I am a centrist. This means that on more or less all contestable subjects there is a variety of respected positions. Intelligent discussion about them is the stuff of our lives. Politics, media, religion, a liberal society, philosophy, academia (and PB) exist because of all this and to enhance it.
More and more people act as if there is only one true position on matters about which this is obvious untrue. The Brexit debate was perhaps a tipping point in such things, where obvious moderates, by the many million, were cast as extremists.
Yes. You don't have to take a big position on Trans but it's a rewarding topic to look into and think about. Far more interesting imo than (say) will nightclubs open in June or July. That's just me - but from the tenor of many of your postings I sense the same would apply.
In today's Telegraph, the NI Protocol was forced on the UK by "the imperialist bullies" of the EU & "signed under duress" to stave off the "economic damage" of "a No Deal Brexit". Very odd. I thought "we held all the cards" & would "prosper mightily" with No Deal
Yes, I thought it was us not them who got a result through playing hardball. I thought it was 'No Deal here we come' unless they 'caved in'. Some of the numptier Leavers still think that happened, would you believe. I know!
Wheres Phil when you need him!!
We discussed this earlier in the day.
Yes we did hold the cards and we got a great deal by playing hard ball extricating Great Britain from the EU's grasp, even if we needed to concede the Protocol because May had already screwed the pooch so much in the negotiations.
Now having got what we want from playing hardball for Great Britain, we're now playing hardball to get what we want with Northern Ireland - and its going to work there too. Because again, we hold the cards.
Barnier spent years negotiating to entrap us within the EU's regulatory orbit and all he got to show for it is the Protocol and the Protocol is dying before us. Good riddance, rest in peace, no flowers.
Biden says we should fold.
Who holds the cards in your opinion on the US / UK trade deal?
Biden has 5 aces
Cheating bugger.....
I recall an analogy about the concept of informal empire, where the key was you got others to play your game, and as you supplied the board, dice and pieces it gave you inherent advantage without needing to cheat.
On reflection sounds a bit revolutionary an analysis.
In today's Telegraph, the NI Protocol was forced on the UK by "the imperialist bullies" of the EU & "signed under duress" to stave off the "economic damage" of "a No Deal Brexit". Very odd. I thought "we held all the cards" & would "prosper mightily" with No Deal
Yes, I thought it was us not them who got a result through playing hardball. I thought it was 'No Deal here we come' unless they 'caved in'. Some of the numptier Leavers still think that happened, would you believe. I know!
Wheres Phil when you need him!!
We discussed this earlier in the day.
Yes we did hold the cards and we got a great deal by playing hard ball extricating Great Britain from the EU's grasp, even if we needed to concede the Protocol because May had already screwed the pooch so much in the negotiations.
Now having got what we want from playing hardball for Great Britain, we're now playing hardball to get what we want with Northern Ireland - and its going to work there too. Because again, we hold the cards.
Barnier spent years negotiating to entrap us within the EU's regulatory orbit and all he got to show for it is the Protocol and the Protocol is dying before us. Good riddance, rest in peace, no flowers.
Biden says we should fold.
Who holds the cards in your opinion on the US / UK trade deal?
Not quite sure how the U.K. can “fold” if the issue is preserving peace in NI, and the current threat to peace is from implementation of the protocol to the letter and unworkable trade barriers in the Irish Sea?
Why did Johnson insist on such a crap deal then, and force it through?
We should stick to the word of what we agreed. That is true British values.
While I agree with the general thrust in him saying it was good and pushing it through, people do change agreements all the time if they are not working. The lead up may make him personally demanding a change more unreasonable but the inherent point of seeking to change things is not unreasonable in itself.
It is when no serious attempt has been made to implement what was agreed merely a few months ago, by the same people.
It is like placing a losing bet then refusing to payout.
In today's Telegraph, the NI Protocol was forced on the UK by "the imperialist bullies" of the EU & "signed under duress" to stave off the "economic damage" of "a No Deal Brexit". Very odd. I thought "we held all the cards" & would "prosper mightily" with No Deal
Yes, I thought it was us not them who got a result through playing hardball. I thought it was 'No Deal here we come' unless they 'caved in'. Some of the numptier Leavers still think that happened, would you believe. I know!
Wheres Phil when you need him!!
We discussed this earlier in the day.
Yes we did hold the cards and we got a great deal by playing hard ball extricating Great Britain from the EU's grasp, even if we needed to concede the Protocol because May had already screwed the pooch so much in the negotiations.
Now having got what we want from playing hardball for Great Britain, we're now playing hardball to get what we want with Northern Ireland - and its going to work there too. Because again, we hold the cards.
Barnier spent years negotiating to entrap us within the EU's regulatory orbit and all he got to show for it is the Protocol and the Protocol is dying before us. Good riddance, rest in peace, no flowers.
Biden says we should fold.
Who holds the cards in your opinion on the US / UK trade deal?
Not quite sure how the U.K. can “fold” if the issue is preserving peace in NI, and the current threat to peace is from implementation of the protocol to the letter and unworkable trade barriers in the Irish Sea?
Why did Johnson insist on such a crap deal then, and force it through?
We should stick to the word of what we agreed. That is true British values.
That misses the point though.
The purpose of the protocol is to protect the GFA/maintain peace in NI. That is also Biden’s priority. If it is clear that full implementation of the protocol with no flexibility/“fudging” does not do that, then it is difficult to see why Biden should then not ultimately come to align with the U.K. Govt position. I doubt he really cares about the integrity of the single market.
NB. I’m not a lawyer, but the judgement in AEA vs EHRC seems to be in direct opposition to that given by Akua Reindorf in their U.of.Essex report. Their assertion that the Equalities Act doesn’t say what Stonewall said it does relies on the wording of the Equalities Act only applying to “gender reassignment” whereas the judgement in AEA vs EHRC appears to be clear that this definition has been expanded more widely by subsequent case law.
Happy to be corrected on this, but it seems to me that the cherry-picked quote that is being used to bash Stonewall is based on a misunderstanding of the law as currently applied.
NB. Having now read the relevant bits of Reindorf, it’s clear that they understand the the Equalities Act applied equally to trans people with & without a GRC.
It’s GC social media who are busily spreading carefully ambiguous mis-readings of Reindorf as part of the wider attempt to smear Stonewall.
Does anyone else find this entire issue incomprehensible beyond the obvious?: Live and Let Live, Whatever You Are in Private Is Your Business and please don't let people with very obviously male sexual attributes into female changing rooms etc on the basis of their private judgement that they are in fact women? I am sure there is more but maybe I am too old to work it out.
You should join me in my pledge never to comment on trans issues on PB. It is by far the more sane option if you don't have a dog in the fight. Oh and aren't worried about the collapse of Western civilisation.
If you’re a woman, you have a dog in this fight. Indeed, a pussy
I am sure that womankind will sleep easy, knowing that such a stalwart ally is fighting their corner.
Well that's the great thing about the Trans debate.
It's put so many reactionary men in touch with their inner feminist.
Just how much of a feminist does one need to be to think that sticking a man in a women's prison is wrong?
So where would you "stick" a transgender woman who requires prison time then?
Does the offender have a penis? Yes- men's prison No - women's prison
One thing that a decadent society will never fail to master is to take something so simple that a child could understand it and instead wrap it up in a maze of counter-intuitive, irrational pseudo-intellectualization, its members priding themselves on the brilliance of their ingenuity the further from essential reason they depart...
"a decadent society"? lol. You really would not be out of place in N Korea would you? The great leader can never be wrong. We must avoid becoming decadent. Get up every morning and salute a picture of the Great Leader and have a cold shower to stave off decadent thoughts.
That really was a masterpiece of non sequitur even by your standards, Nigel. Didn't you decry the silly notion of 'chest-feeding' yourself a little while ago?
I did indeed, but unlike yourself who oft gives the impression that he thinks every time something ludicrous happens it means "Britain and the West is going to hell in a handcart". A type of Colonel Blimpishness that I can't resist taking the piss out of.
That said, I think I might apologise for being mean, because I sort of sense that if I actually knew you, I'd probably quite like you. Whether it would be reciprocated or unrequited will never be known
With the Trans debate I think the big issue when it all comes to a head is participation in Sports. Because at some point the question has to be forcefully put of “why do we have separate women’s events”? At the moment it’s still being skirted around a bit. But we haven’t quite got to the stage of it affecting elite competition (with possible exception of weightlifting). Just related issues like Caster Semenya.
I lower level sport people can compete just at a higher level than the otherwise would. But it doesn’t fundamentally affect anything.
When we start getting Olympic medalists in mainstream sports there will be a reckoning.
In today's Telegraph, the NI Protocol was forced on the UK by "the imperialist bullies" of the EU & "signed under duress" to stave off the "economic damage" of "a No Deal Brexit". Very odd. I thought "we held all the cards" & would "prosper mightily" with No Deal
Yes, I thought it was us not them who got a result through playing hardball. I thought it was 'No Deal here we come' unless they 'caved in'. Some of the numptier Leavers still think that happened, would you believe. I know!
Wheres Phil when you need him!!
We discussed this earlier in the day.
Yes we did hold the cards and we got a great deal by playing hard ball extricating Great Britain from the EU's grasp, even if we needed to concede the Protocol because May had already screwed the pooch so much in the negotiations.
Now having got what we want from playing hardball for Great Britain, we're now playing hardball to get what we want with Northern Ireland - and its going to work there too. Because again, we hold the cards.
Barnier spent years negotiating to entrap us within the EU's regulatory orbit and all he got to show for it is the Protocol and the Protocol is dying before us. Good riddance, rest in peace, no flowers.
Biden says we should fold.
Who holds the cards in your opinion on the US / UK trade deal?
Not quite sure how the U.K. can “fold” if the issue is preserving peace in NI, and the current threat to peace is from implementation of the protocol to the letter and unworkable trade barriers in the Irish Sea?
Why did Johnson insist on such a crap deal then, and force it through?
We should stick to the word of what we agreed. That is true British values.
While I agree with the general thrust in him saying it was good and pushing it through, people do change agreements all the time if they are not working. The lead up may make him personally demanding a change more unreasonable but the inherent point of seeking to change things is not unreasonable in itself.
It is when no serious attempt has been made to implement what was agreed merely a few months ago, by the same people.
It is like placing a losing bet then refusing to payout.
You've missed my point entirely. I agree Boris seeking to change it given the backstory is pretty unreasonable. What I'm saying is your suggestion sticking to what was agreed is a true British value is not a universal point, as there will be times seeking a change is reasonable.
"Joe Biden should keep his sneering anti-British, anti-Brexit views to himself Before insulting the Prime Minister, the president should remember that people in the UK voted to leave the EU and take back control"
It's almost as if teenagers have a variety of views, and not always consistent ones 🤔
There is no threat from "Woke" agenda, not least because there is widespread debate over how these issues should be tackled rather than a particular agenda. Mostly though it is because there is nothing is going to change unless a mainstream majority supports it, and if a majority supports it (such as gay marriage) then that is how social progress happens.
Here's what will happen: I will be criticised or dismissed all the way for challenging the lunacy of statue-pulling, intersectionality, CRT, ultra-Trans and year-zero history and then, when it doesn't happen eventually (hopefully) because of that you'll simply say that was natural and would have happened anyway.
At no point will the argument be conceded as a valid one, and nor will anyone be thanked for it when they are proved right.
No, I am just saying that daft ideas won't be adopted, but sensible ones may well be. I have no problem with people speaking out against cultural change, that is how debate happens. Their arguments should be listened to and argued against.
There simply is no "Woke Agenda". It is a figment of the imagination of conspiracy nutjobs.
No, you're just fricking DUMB. This is why Casino and me and a few others lose it, when dealing with the likes of you
The idea that "daft ideas won't be adopted" is PREPOSTEROUS. They have ALREADY been adopted in the USA and UK and beyond, in their hundreds, and they are only growing in power. But you absolutely refuse to accept this, because you are basically not very clever. In the end that can be the only explanation.
You are learned and scholarly - a doctor - but so narrow minded and obstinate, and fixed in your thinking, it amounts to stupidity.
A non-partisan note which may please some of you on all sides. As some of you know, my day job is head of the UK arm of Compassion in World Farming. I thought people might like to hear the news today: the European Parliament has voted by 558-37 to make cages for farmed animals illegal across the European Union by 2027, adopting a resolution on the ‘End the Cage Age‘ European Citizens’ Initiative which Compassion initiated 3 years ago, which gained 1.4 million signatures, many from Britain when we were still members. The Commission is supportive and it's expected to go through.
At present, in both Britain and the EU, laying hens and rabbits are often confined to spaces about the size of an A4 sheet of paper. Adult female pigs are confined inside crates, in which they cannot even turn around. Calves, geese and quail are also caged, preventing them from performing basic natural behaviours.
The Parliament also highlighted the need to ensure that all products placed on the EU market – including imported ones – comply with future cage-free standards. They stressed the need to provide adequate incentives and financial programmes to support farmers through the transition.
Finally, the EU Parliament called on the Commission to put forward proposals to ban the cruel and unnecessary force-feeding of ducks and geese for the production of foie gras.
This isn't a Brexit issue! - I hope that people on all sides of that argument will welcome the news. It's a great breakthrough for animal welfare - and we hope to see something similar in Britain too - the Government has promised a review of cages later this year as part of its animal welfare plan. The danger in Britain is that the measures will be undermined by trade deals allowing low-welfare imports at zero tariffs - but that's not yet a done deal.
Great news, and shows the importance of dynamic alignment in any EU trade deal for our exporters. The EU should be able to ban low welfare products.
A non-partisan note which may please some of you on all sides. As some of you know, my day job is head of the UK arm of Compassion in World Farming. I thought people might like to hear the news today: the European Parliament has voted by 558-37 to make cages for farmed animals illegal across the European Union by 2027, adopting a resolution on the ‘End the Cage Age‘ European Citizens’ Initiative which Compassion initiated 3 years ago, which gained 1.4 million signatures, many from Britain when we were still members. The Commission is supportive and it's expected to go through.
At present, in both Britain and the EU, laying hens and rabbits are often confined to spaces about the size of an A4 sheet of paper. Adult female pigs are confined inside crates, in which they cannot even turn around. Calves, geese and quail are also caged, preventing them from performing basic natural behaviours.
The Parliament also highlighted the need to ensure that all products placed on the EU market – including imported ones – comply with future cage-free standards. They stressed the need to provide adequate incentives and financial programmes to support farmers through the transition.
Finally, the EU Parliament called on the Commission to put forward proposals to ban the cruel and unnecessary force-feeding of ducks and geese for the production of foie gras.
This isn't a Brexit issue! - I hope that people on all sides of that argument will welcome the news. It's a great breakthrough for animal welfare - and we hope to see something similar in Britain too - the Government has promised a review of cages later this year as part of its animal welfare plan. The danger in Britain is that the measures will be undermined by trade deals allowing low-welfare imports at zero tariffs - but that's not yet a done deal.
I heartily approve. But I doubt the French will allow a ban on foie gras? (and I have to confess a guilty secret: I like foie gras, even tho I know it is made with some cruelty)
With the Trans debate I think the big issue when it all comes to a head is participation in Sports. Because at some point the question has to be forcefully put of “why do we have separate women’s events”? At the moment it’s still being skirted around a bit. But we haven’t quite got to the stage of it affecting elite competition (with possible exception of weightlifting). Just related issues like Caster Semenya. When we start getting Olympic medalists in mainstream sports their will be a reckoning.
Surely there have always been trans issues in sport? All that has changed is the publicity, knowledge and codification of the rules. There was a big case in US tennis as far back as 1975 that led to boycotts and court cases. The head of the US Olympic committee in 1936 said women needed to be examined to check they were actually women.
Its worth watching the Unherd interview with Maya Forstater. As so often over past year or so, the interviewer conducts a sensible interview and I am more informed about the ladies position.
Unherd is an excellent, innovative website, with some of the best contributors around. It is nearly always fresh and interesting. A fine addition to the news landscape
Except for the odd writer it lets through who writes a whole pack of lies.
You mean SeanT? Yes, I have no idea why they hire him when they have such a stable of talent. OK his articles, are occasionally witty, and clever, and they are generally highly articulate, and written with a vivid flair and a unique style, almost an elan, like a pimpernel escaping the guards by vaulting onto a chandelier, and sometimes I actually find myself sexually aroused by his magical gift for our native English tongue, like he is a kind of USS Nimitz-style UFO of the language: capable of verbal hypersonics and transmedium nouns and faster than light insights and brilliantly extra-dimensional one-liners but really, other than that, he drags. For me, anyway
The book I got of his wasn't as described. The prose was somewhat reminiscent of an early Jeffrey Archer and the plot line made Dan Brown look like a master of believability.
It's almost as if teenagers have a variety of views, and not always consistent ones 🤔
There is no threat from "Woke" agenda, not least because there is widespread debate over how these issues should be tackled rather than a particular agenda. Mostly though it is because there is nothing is going to change unless a mainstream majority supports it, and if a majority supports it (such as gay marriage) then that is how social progress happens.
Here's what will happen: I will be criticised or dismissed all the way for challenging the lunacy of statue-pulling, intersectionality, CRT, ultra-Trans and year-zero history and then, when it doesn't happen eventually (hopefully) because of that you'll simply say that was natural and would have happened anyway.
At no point will the argument be conceded as a valid one, and nor will anyone be thanked for it when they are proved right.
If it doesn't end up happening, then that is more than enough for me.
No one is ever going to thank you for being right about something like this - it isn't really human nature.
What I would say is that the counter arguments are not very impressive given generally high standard of debate on this website. They largely consist of brief assertions of belief, or ad hominem attacks, like someone saying that you are a dinosaur because you think something. For what its worth, I respect the belief that the woke are saviours of western civilisation, it is a valid position to have but one that I definetly dont hold myself. I just think it should be tested against events and things that actually happen in the real world.
NB. I’m not a lawyer, but the judgement in AEA vs EHRC seems to be in direct opposition to that given by Akua Reindorf in their U.of.Essex report. Their assertion that the Equalities Act doesn’t say what Stonewall said it does relies on the wording of the Equalities Act only applying to “gender reassignment” whereas the judgement in AEA vs EHRC appears to be clear that this definition has been expanded more widely by subsequent case law.
Happy to be corrected on this, but it seems to me that the cherry-picked quote that is being used to bash Stonewall is based on a misunderstanding of the law as currently applied.
NB. Having now read the relevant bits of Reindorf, it’s clear that they understand the the Equalities Act applied equally to trans people with & without a GRC.
It’s GC social media who are busily spreading carefully ambiguous mis-readings of Reindorf as part of the wider attempt to smear Stonewall.
Does anyone else find this entire issue incomprehensible beyond the obvious?: Live and Let Live, Whatever You Are in Private Is Your Business and please don't let people with very obviously male sexual attributes into female changing rooms etc on the basis of their private judgement that they are in fact women? I am sure there is more but maybe I am too old to work it out.
You should join me in my pledge never to comment on trans issues on PB. It is by far the more sane option if you don't have a dog in the fight. Oh and aren't worried about the collapse of Western civilisation.
If you’re a woman, you have a dog in this fight. Indeed, a pussy
I am sure that womankind will sleep easy, knowing that such a stalwart ally is fighting their corner.
Well that's the great thing about the Trans debate.
It's put so many reactionary men in touch with their inner feminist.
Just how much of a feminist does one need to be to think that sticking a man in a women's prison is wrong?
So where would you "stick" a transgender woman who requires prison time then?
Does the offender have a penis? Yes- men's prison No - women's prison
One thing that a decadent society will never fail to master is to take something so simple that a child could understand it and instead wrap it up in a maze of counter-intuitive, irrational pseudo-intellectualization, its members priding themselves on the brilliance of their ingenuity the further from essential reason they depart...
"a decadent society"? lol. You really would not be out of place in N Korea would you? The great leader can never be wrong. We must avoid becoming decadent. Get up every morning and salute a picture of the Great Leader and have a cold shower to stave off decadent thoughts.
That really was a masterpiece of non sequitur even by your standards, Nigel. Didn't you decry the silly notion of 'chest-feeding' yourself a little while ago?
I did indeed, but unlike yourself who oft gives the impression that he thinks every time something ludicrous happens it means "Britain and the West is going to hell in a handcart". A type of Colonel Blimpishness that I can't resist taking the piss out of.
That said, I think I might apologise for being mean, because I sort of sense that if I actually knew you, I'd probably quite like you. Whether it would be reciprocated or unrequited will never be known
Well, you're probably a bit of a knob, but then so am I, so we shouldn't have any problems...
In today's Telegraph, the NI Protocol was forced on the UK by "the imperialist bullies" of the EU & "signed under duress" to stave off the "economic damage" of "a No Deal Brexit". Very odd. I thought "we held all the cards" & would "prosper mightily" with No Deal
Yes, I thought it was us not them who got a result through playing hardball. I thought it was 'No Deal here we come' unless they 'caved in'. Some of the numptier Leavers still think that happened, would you believe. I know!
Wheres Phil when you need him!!
We discussed this earlier in the day.
Yes we did hold the cards and we got a great deal by playing hard ball extricating Great Britain from the EU's grasp, even if we needed to concede the Protocol because May had already screwed the pooch so much in the negotiations.
Now having got what we want from playing hardball for Great Britain, we're now playing hardball to get what we want with Northern Ireland - and its going to work there too. Because again, we hold the cards.
Barnier spent years negotiating to entrap us within the EU's regulatory orbit and all he got to show for it is the Protocol and the Protocol is dying before us. Good riddance, rest in peace, no flowers.
Biden says we should fold.
Who holds the cards in your opinion on the US / UK trade deal?
Not quite sure how the U.K. can “fold” if the issue is preserving peace in NI, and the current threat to peace is from implementation of the protocol to the letter and unworkable trade barriers in the Irish Sea?
Why did Johnson insist on such a crap deal then, and force it through?
We should stick to the word of what we agreed. That is true British values.
While I agree with the general thrust in him saying it was good and pushing it through, people do change agreements all the time if they are not working. The lead up may make him personally demanding a change more unreasonable but the inherent point of seeking to change things is not unreasonable in itself.
It is when no serious attempt has been made to implement what was agreed merely a few months ago, by the same people.
It is like placing a losing bet then refusing to payout.
No serious attempt to implement it has been done by either side.
What was agreed was not a step by step set of instructions. The EU haven't agreed to a Trusted Trader scheme or used the Joint Committee properly so it's not on us alone.
If the EU won't compromise then activating Article 16 is part and parcel with implementation.
A non-partisan note which may please some of you on all sides. As some of you know, my day job is head of the UK arm of Compassion in World Farming. I thought people might like to hear the news today: the European Parliament has voted by 558-37 to make cages for farmed animals illegal across the European Union by 2027, adopting a resolution on the ‘End the Cage Age‘ European Citizens’ Initiative which Compassion initiated 3 years ago, which gained 1.4 million signatures, many from Britain when we were still members. The Commission is supportive and it's expected to go through.
At present, in both Britain and the EU, laying hens and rabbits are often confined to spaces about the size of an A4 sheet of paper. Adult female pigs are confined inside crates, in which they cannot even turn around. Calves, geese and quail are also caged, preventing them from performing basic natural behaviours.
The Parliament also highlighted the need to ensure that all products placed on the EU market – including imported ones – comply with future cage-free standards. They stressed the need to provide adequate incentives and financial programmes to support farmers through the transition.
Finally, the EU Parliament called on the Commission to put forward proposals to ban the cruel and unnecessary force-feeding of ducks and geese for the production of foie gras.
This isn't a Brexit issue! - I hope that people on all sides of that argument will welcome the news. It's a great breakthrough for animal welfare - and we hope to see something similar in Britain too - the Government has promised a review of cages later this year as part of its animal welfare plan. The danger in Britain is that the measures will be undermined by trade deals allowing low-welfare imports at zero tariffs - but that's not yet a done deal.
NB. I’m not a lawyer, but the judgement in AEA vs EHRC seems to be in direct opposition to that given by Akua Reindorf in their U.of.Essex report. Their assertion that the Equalities Act doesn’t say what Stonewall said it does relies on the wording of the Equalities Act only applying to “gender reassignment” whereas the judgement in AEA vs EHRC appears to be clear that this definition has been expanded more widely by subsequent case law.
Happy to be corrected on this, but it seems to me that the cherry-picked quote that is being used to bash Stonewall is based on a misunderstanding of the law as currently applied.
NB. Having now read the relevant bits of Reindorf, it’s clear that they understand the the Equalities Act applied equally to trans people with & without a GRC.
It’s GC social media who are busily spreading carefully ambiguous mis-readings of Reindorf as part of the wider attempt to smear Stonewall.
Does anyone else find this entire issue incomprehensible beyond the obvious?: Live and Let Live, Whatever You Are in Private Is Your Business and please don't let people with very obviously male sexual attributes into female changing rooms etc on the basis of their private judgement that they are in fact women? I am sure there is more but maybe I am too old to work it out.
You should join me in my pledge never to comment on trans issues on PB. It is by far the more sane option if you don't have a dog in the fight. Oh and aren't worried about the collapse of Western civilisation.
If you’re a woman, you have a dog in this fight. Indeed, a pussy
I am sure that womankind will sleep easy, knowing that such a stalwart ally is fighting their corner.
Well that's the great thing about the Trans debate.
It's put so many reactionary men in touch with their inner feminist.
Just how much of a feminist does one need to be to think that sticking a man in a women's prison is wrong?
So where would you "stick" a transgender woman who requires prison time then?
Does the offender have a penis? Yes- men's prison No - women's prison
One thing that a decadent society will never fail to master is to take something so simple that a child could understand it and instead wrap it up in a maze of counter-intuitive, irrational pseudo-intellectualization, its members priding themselves on the brilliance of their ingenuity the further from essential reason they depart...
"a decadent society"? lol. You really would not be out of place in N Korea would you? The great leader can never be wrong. We must avoid becoming decadent. Get up every morning and salute a picture of the Great Leader and have a cold shower to stave off decadent thoughts.
That really was a masterpiece of non sequitur even by your standards, Nigel. Didn't you decry the silly notion of 'chest-feeding' yourself a little while ago?
I did indeed, but unlike yourself who oft gives the impression that he thinks every time something ludicrous happens it means "Britain and the West is going to hell in a handcart". A type of Colonel Blimpishness that I can't resist taking the piss out of.
That said, I think I might apologise for being mean, because I sort of sense that if I actually knew you, I'd probably quite like you. Whether it would be reciprocated or unrequited will never be known
Well, you're probably a bit of a knob, but then so am I, so we shouldn't have any problems...
I am a terrible piss taker and it isn't always a good thing, so probably a knob - guilty as charged.
It's almost as if teenagers have a variety of views, and not always consistent ones 🤔
There is no threat from "Woke" agenda, not least because there is widespread debate over how these issues should be tackled rather than a particular agenda. Mostly though it is because there is nothing is going to change unless a mainstream majority supports it, and if a majority supports it (such as gay marriage) then that is how social progress happens.
Here's what will happen: I will be criticised or dismissed all the way for challenging the lunacy of statue-pulling, intersectionality, CRT, ultra-Trans and year-zero history and then, when it doesn't happen eventually (hopefully) because of that you'll simply say that was natural and would have happened anyway.
At no point will the argument be conceded as a valid one, and nor will anyone be thanked for it when they are proved right.
No, I am just saying that daft ideas won't be adopted, but sensible ones may well be. I have no problem with people speaking out against cultural change, that is how debate happens. Their arguments should be listened to and argued against.
There simply is no "Woke Agenda". It is a figment of the imagination of conspiracy nutjobs.
No, you're just fricking DUMB. This is why Casino and me and a few others lose it, when dealing with the likes of you
The idea that "daft ideas won't be adopted" is PREPOSTEROUS. They have ALREADY been adopted in the USA and UK and beyond, in their hundreds, and they are only growing in power. But you absolutely refuse to accept this, because you are basically not very clever. In the end that can be the only explanation.
You are learned and scholarly - a doctor - but so narrow minded and obstinate, and fixed in your thinking, it amounts to stupidity.
It's a definite type of brain and you have it.
Quite obviously daft ideas can be adopted (Brexit springs to mind) but a daft idea with popular support becomes no longer daft.
Social change happens when "daft" ideas like women's equality, racial equality, gay marriage become mainstream. Go back even within my life time for these to be considered "daft", and they still are in many parts of the world.
I have no particular axe to grind on Trans-rights, but the apoplectic reaction of many does show a rather ugly side.
Its worth watching the Unherd interview with Maya Forstater. As so often over past year or so, the interviewer conducts a sensible interview and I am more informed about the ladies position.
Unherd is an excellent, innovative website, with some of the best contributors around. It is nearly always fresh and interesting. A fine addition to the news landscape
Except for the odd writer it lets through who writes a whole pack of lies.
You mean SeanT? Yes, I have no idea why they hire him when they have such a stable of talent. OK his articles, are occasionally witty, and clever, and they are generally highly articulate, and written with a vivid flair and a unique style, almost an elan, like a pimpernel escaping the guards by vaulting onto a chandelier, and sometimes I actually find myself sexually aroused by his magical gift for our native English tongue, like he is a kind of USS Nimitz-style UFO of the language: capable of verbal hypersonics and transmedium nouns and faster than light insights and brilliantly extra-dimensional one-liners but really, other than that, he drags. For me, anyway
Someone who writes an article for Unherd on “life in lockdown London”, when even moderately attentive PB’ers know that he spent the first lockdown away on holiday in South Wales (while the rest of us were all following instructions and staying at home)....
Or who writes an article claiming to have predicted the pandemic back at a time when same said PB’ers will recall being told by him that Corona would prove to be “ contagious but essentially benign”......
simply draws attention to the appallingly lax journalistic standards that this online shockjock website is willing to tolerate.
It's clear from reading some of the comments on here that many will simply dismiss any Woke insanity until such time as it actually impinges on their own lives. Which, unchecked, it will eventually.
The article about Anglo-Saxons is instructive because it's the history that is being rewritten to fit the Wokeness, not the other way round, and that way madness lies.
Agree - however, there is also a lot of naivety revealed in these exchanges, people interpreting the woke as a espousing a slightly more radical version of their own liberal worldview and thus being essentially harmless and youthfully eccentric. This is quite a comfortable position that can be held for a long time until reality intervenes.
Either that or a lot of PB-ers are way less intelligent than we thought
The stupidity on this subject is astounding
No, they see it's you and me posting it and then instantly dismiss it.
They need to hear it from someone they know and trust who's on their own side.
If there's one thing I've learned from recent years it's that people decide on their beliefs first and then filter out the evidence that supports them. Not the other way round.
Perhaps you would be less likely to be instantly dismissed if you (and one or two of those who agree with you on these matters) were slightly less patronising to those who have different views and would prefer a more discursive discussion, rather than being told they are wrong?
But you guys are endlessly consistently and pointlessly wrong, time and again, in a witless fashion. You don't google, you don't read, you don't understand, you don't get it, and you make no attempt to school yourselves, you just deny everything or evade the question, and then when presented with evidence you just shrug it off, cf the Anglo Saxons thing today - a minor skirmish in an enormous war, but quite telling
A non-partisan note which may please some of you on all sides. As some of you know, my day job is head of the UK arm of Compassion in World Farming. I thought people might like to hear the news today: the European Parliament has voted by 558-37 to make cages for farmed animals illegal across the European Union by 2027, adopting a resolution on the ‘End the Cage Age‘ European Citizens’ Initiative which Compassion initiated 3 years ago, which gained 1.4 million signatures, many from Britain when we were still members. The Commission is supportive and it's expected to go through.
At present, in both Britain and the EU, laying hens and rabbits are often confined to spaces about the size of an A4 sheet of paper. Adult female pigs are confined inside crates, in which they cannot even turn around. Calves, geese and quail are also caged, preventing them from performing basic natural behaviours.
The Parliament also highlighted the need to ensure that all products placed on the EU market – including imported ones – comply with future cage-free standards. They stressed the need to provide adequate incentives and financial programmes to support farmers through the transition.
Finally, the EU Parliament called on the Commission to put forward proposals to ban the cruel and unnecessary force-feeding of ducks and geese for the production of foie gras.
This isn't a Brexit issue! - I hope that people on all sides of that argument will welcome the news. It's a great breakthrough for animal welfare - and we hope to see something similar in Britain too - the Government has promised a review of cages later this year as part of its animal welfare plan. The danger in Britain is that the measures will be undermined by trade deals allowing low-welfare imports at zero tariffs - but that's not yet a done deal.
I heartily approve. But I doubt the French will allow a ban on foie gras? (and I have to confess a guilty secret: I like foie gras, even tho I know it is made with some cruelty)
As the Commission is presumably among the biggest eaters of Fois Gras, I have little doubt they will resist the absurd calls of the Parliament.
NB. I’m not a lawyer, but the judgement in AEA vs EHRC seems to be in direct opposition to that given by Akua Reindorf in their U.of.Essex report. Their assertion that the Equalities Act doesn’t say what Stonewall said it does relies on the wording of the Equalities Act only applying to “gender reassignment” whereas the judgement in AEA vs EHRC appears to be clear that this definition has been expanded more widely by subsequent case law.
Happy to be corrected on this, but it seems to me that the cherry-picked quote that is being used to bash Stonewall is based on a misunderstanding of the law as currently applied.
NB. Having now read the relevant bits of Reindorf, it’s clear that they understand the the Equalities Act applied equally to trans people with & without a GRC.
It’s GC social media who are busily spreading carefully ambiguous mis-readings of Reindorf as part of the wider attempt to smear Stonewall.
Does anyone else find this entire issue incomprehensible beyond the obvious?: Live and Let Live, Whatever You Are in Private Is Your Business and please don't let people with very obviously male sexual attributes into female changing rooms etc on the basis of their private judgement that they are in fact women? I am sure there is more but maybe I am too old to work it out.
You should join me in my pledge never to comment on trans issues on PB. It is by far the more sane option if you don't have a dog in the fight. Oh and aren't worried about the collapse of Western civilisation.
If you’re a woman, you have a dog in this fight. Indeed, a pussy
I am sure that womankind will sleep easy, knowing that such a stalwart ally is fighting their corner.
Well that's the great thing about the Trans debate.
It's put so many reactionary men in touch with their inner feminist.
Just how much of a feminist does one need to be to think that sticking a man in a women's prison is wrong?
So where would you "stick" a transgender woman who requires prison time then?
Does the offender have a penis? Yes- men's prison No - women's prison
One thing that a decadent society will never fail to master is to take something so simple that a child could understand it and instead wrap it up in a maze of counter-intuitive, irrational pseudo-intellectualization, its members priding themselves on the brilliance of their ingenuity the further from essential reason they depart...
"a decadent society"? lol. You really would not be out of place in N Korea would you? The great leader can never be wrong. We must avoid becoming decadent. Get up every morning and salute a picture of the Great Leader and have a cold shower to stave off decadent thoughts.
That really was a masterpiece of non sequitur even by your standards, Nigel. Didn't you decry the silly notion of 'chest-feeding' yourself a little while ago?
I did indeed, but unlike yourself who oft gives the impression that he thinks every time something ludicrous happens it means "Britain and the West is going to hell in a handcart". A type of Colonel Blimpishness that I can't resist taking the piss out of.
That said, I think I might apologise for being mean, because I sort of sense that if I actually knew you, I'd probably quite like you. Whether it would be reciprocated or unrequited will never be known
Well, you're probably a bit of a knob, but then so am I, so we shouldn't have any problems...
It's clear from reading some of the comments on here that many will simply dismiss any Woke insanity until such time as it actually impinges on their own lives. Which, unchecked, it will eventually.
The article about Anglo-Saxons is instructive because it's the history that is being rewritten to fit the Wokeness, not the other way round, and that way madness lies.
Agree - however, there is also a lot of naivety revealed in these exchanges, people interpreting the woke as a espousing a slightly more radical version of their own liberal worldview and thus being essentially harmless and youthfully eccentric. This is quite a comfortable position that can be held for a long time until reality intervenes.
Either that or a lot of PB-ers are way less intelligent than we thought
The stupidity on this subject is astounding
No, they see it's you and me posting it and then instantly dismiss it.
They need to hear it from someone they know and trust who's on their own side.
If there's one thing I've learned from recent years it's that people decide on their beliefs first and then filter out the evidence that supports them. Not the other way round.
But, I'm right about everything! That's nuts
I was right about Covid, I'm right about Lab Leak, I'm right about Woke and I am right to be agitated about "aliens", because something is happening, even if it ain't ET
Tsk
This is an interesting example below. I don't like to pick on Gardenwalker coz he's actually one of the smarter commenters on here, but this is illustrative
I said the Anglo-Saxons were cancelled. His reply:
"It’s not clear what this means, is it supposed to be woke?
Perhaps historians have realised that there were few Angles and no Saxons, so the name is simply inaccurate, rather than being (as you seem to suggest) a label so hideously drenched in whiteness it can no longer be voiced without oral disinfectant."
In the time it took him to write that he could have gone on Google, typed just "Anglo Saxon" plus "word" or "term" or "problematic" and he'd have found a hundred hits saying Yes, it's been cancelled by Woke because *race*. And he'd have had time left over for a sobering coffee
Yet he didn't do this. He made a little sneering joke, and left it at that. If I hadn't nobly taken the time to educate him, he'd still be ignorant. And it's this wilful ignorance, this blinkered refusal to see, which irritates
You posted a link which simply said someone was trying to find another word for “Anglo-Saxon” and you claimed thereby that the word was cancelled.
I followed your subsequent links and they all relate to a single incident in 2019 when what looks to be a professional grievance monger called Mary Rambaran-Olm made a provocative speech and encouraged her medievalist society to change its name.
As so often when you drill down, it’s one or two non-entities and screeds of subsequent, often inaccurate, commentary by journalists on the look out for some fresh outrage.
Two years later, it appears the Ms Rambaran-Olm continues to pursue a career linking mediaevalism to far right thinking.
No actual university has change the name of its Anglo-Saxon studies department as far as I can tell.
“Woke” does not impinge on my life in the slightest, despite (because?) being a 40-something, heterosexual, “cis” male who lives in one of the most left-wing neighbourhoods in the U.K.
A non-partisan note which may please some of you on all sides. As some of you know, my day job is head of the UK arm of Compassion in World Farming. I thought people might like to hear the news today: the European Parliament has voted by 558-37 to make cages for farmed animals illegal across the European Union by 2027, adopting a resolution on the ‘End the Cage Age‘ European Citizens’ Initiative which Compassion initiated 3 years ago, which gained 1.4 million signatures, many from Britain when we were still members. The Commission is supportive and it's expected to go through.
At present, in both Britain and the EU, laying hens and rabbits are often confined to spaces about the size of an A4 sheet of paper. Adult female pigs are confined inside crates, in which they cannot even turn around. Calves, geese and quail are also caged, preventing them from performing basic natural behaviours.
The Parliament also highlighted the need to ensure that all products placed on the EU market – including imported ones – comply with future cage-free standards. They stressed the need to provide adequate incentives and financial programmes to support farmers through the transition.
Finally, the EU Parliament called on the Commission to put forward proposals to ban the cruel and unnecessary force-feeding of ducks and geese for the production of foie gras.
This isn't a Brexit issue! - I hope that people on all sides of that argument will welcome the news. It's a great breakthrough for animal welfare - and we hope to see something similar in Britain too - the Government has promised a review of cages later this year as part of its animal welfare plan. The danger in Britain is that the measures will be undermined by trade deals allowing low-welfare imports at zero tariffs - but that's not yet a done deal.
I heartily approve. But I doubt the French will allow a ban on foie gras? (and I have to confess a guilty secret: I like foie gras, even tho I know it is made with some cruelty)
As the Commission is presumably among the biggest eaters of Fois Gras, I have little doubt they will resist the absurd calls of the Parliament.
And the restaurateurs of Strasbourg. I bet more foie gras is eaten in Strasbourg when the EP is in town than anywhere else on earth
It's clear from reading some of the comments on here that many will simply dismiss any Woke insanity until such time as it actually impinges on their own lives. Which, unchecked, it will eventually.
The article about Anglo-Saxons is instructive because it's the history that is being rewritten to fit the Wokeness, not the other way round, and that way madness lies.
Agree - however, there is also a lot of naivety revealed in these exchanges, people interpreting the woke as a espousing a slightly more radical version of their own liberal worldview and thus being essentially harmless and youthfully eccentric. This is quite a comfortable position that can be held for a long time until reality intervenes.
Either that or a lot of PB-ers are way less intelligent than we thought
The stupidity on this subject is astounding
No, they see it's you and me posting it and then instantly dismiss it.
They need to hear it from someone they know and trust who's on their own side.
If there's one thing I've learned from recent years it's that people decide on their beliefs first and then filter out the evidence that supports them. Not the other way round.
Perhaps you would be less likely to be instantly dismissed if you (and one or two of those who agree with you on these matters) were slightly less patronising to those who have different views and would prefer a more discursive discussion, rather than being told they are wrong?
But you guys are endlessly consistently and pointlessly wrong, time and again, in a witless fashion. You don't google, you don't read, you don't understand, you don't get it, and you make no attempt to school yourselves, you just deny everything or evade the question, and then when presented with evidence you just shrug it off, cf the Anglo Saxons thing today - a minor skirmish in an enormous war, but quite telling
It's almost as if teenagers have a variety of views, and not always consistent ones 🤔
There is no threat from "Woke" agenda, not least because there is widespread debate over how these issues should be tackled rather than a particular agenda. Mostly though it is because there is nothing is going to change unless a mainstream majority supports it, and if a majority supports it (such as gay marriage) then that is how social progress happens.
Here's what will happen: I will be criticised or dismissed all the way for challenging the lunacy of statue-pulling, intersectionality, CRT, ultra-Trans and year-zero history and then, when it doesn't happen eventually (hopefully) because of that you'll simply say that was natural and would have happened anyway.
At no point will the argument be conceded as a valid one, and nor will anyone be thanked for it when they are proved right.
No, I am just saying that daft ideas won't be adopted, but sensible ones may well be. I have no problem with people speaking out against cultural change, that is how debate happens. Their arguments should be listened to and argued against.
There simply is no "Woke Agenda". It is a figment of the imagination of conspiracy nutjobs.
I find this take odd. Of course there are agendas being pushed. Some have woke agendas to push, others non woke agendas to push. Neither are united masses, but people and groups openly seek to advance their agendas onto society, that basically is society.
Each side of this issue are reacting to people on the other side, neither are imagining things, and while I'm more on one side than another neither is likely as popular as they think they are, nor their opponents as vast as they think, and certainly not as monolithic.
But there is clearly push for change, and what is that if not an agenda? Some agendas need pushing, we all agree there I think.
This happens to be an area where there is very strong disagreement is all. I think neither side is treated fairly by pretending there are not agendas at play, it's like parties in false calls for unity, telling us things are one way when it is not so.
It's almost as if teenagers have a variety of views, and not always consistent ones 🤔
There is no threat from "Woke" agenda, not least because there is widespread debate over how these issues should be tackled rather than a particular agenda. Mostly though it is because there is nothing is going to change unless a mainstream majority supports it, and if a majority supports it (such as gay marriage) then that is how social progress happens.
Here's what will happen: I will be criticised or dismissed all the way for challenging the lunacy of statue-pulling, intersectionality, CRT, ultra-Trans and year-zero history and then, when it doesn't happen eventually (hopefully) because of that you'll simply say that was natural and would have happened anyway.
At no point will the argument be conceded as a valid one, and nor will anyone be thanked for it when they are proved right.
No, I am just saying that daft ideas won't be adopted, but sensible ones may well be. I have no problem with people speaking out against cultural change, that is how debate happens. Their arguments should be listened to and argued against.
There simply is no "Woke Agenda". It is a figment of the imagination of conspiracy nutjobs.
No, you're just fricking DUMB. This is why Casino and me and a few others lose it, when dealing with the likes of you
The idea that "daft ideas won't be adopted" is PREPOSTEROUS. They have ALREADY been adopted in the USA and UK and beyond, in their hundreds, and they are only growing in power. But you absolutely refuse to accept this, because you are basically not very clever. In the end that can be the only explanation.
You are learned and scholarly - a doctor - but so narrow minded and obstinate, and fixed in your thinking, it amounts to stupidity.
It's a definite type of brain and you have it.
Quite obviously daft ideas can be adopted (Brexit springs to mind) but a daft idea with popular support becomes no longer daft.
Social change happens when "daft" ideas like women's equality, racial equality, gay marriage become mainstream. Go back even within my life time for these to be considered "daft", and they still are in many parts of the world.
I have no particular axe to grind on Trans-rights, but the apoplectic reaction of many does show a rather ugly side.
This is not about Trans. It's the whole screed of Wokeness, the entire theology, from Critical Race Theory to the attack on science and maths to Everything Gender Studies Departments Believe to the bizarre and unique tolerance of Islamic misogyny, all of it. The whole ridiculous edifice of modern intersectional leftism
A non-partisan note which may please some of you on all sides. As some of you know, my day job is head of the UK arm of Compassion in World Farming. I thought people might like to hear the news today: the European Parliament has voted by 558-37 to make cages for farmed animals illegal across the European Union by 2027, adopting a resolution on the ‘End the Cage Age‘ European Citizens’ Initiative which Compassion initiated 3 years ago, which gained 1.4 million signatures, many from Britain when we were still members. The Commission is supportive and it's expected to go through.
At present, in both Britain and the EU, laying hens and rabbits are often confined to spaces about the size of an A4 sheet of paper. Adult female pigs are confined inside crates, in which they cannot even turn around. Calves, geese and quail are also caged, preventing them from performing basic natural behaviours.
The Parliament also highlighted the need to ensure that all products placed on the EU market – including imported ones – comply with future cage-free standards. They stressed the need to provide adequate incentives and financial programmes to support farmers through the transition.
Finally, the EU Parliament called on the Commission to put forward proposals to ban the cruel and unnecessary force-feeding of ducks and geese for the production of foie gras.
This isn't a Brexit issue! - I hope that people on all sides of that argument will welcome the news. It's a great breakthrough for animal welfare - and we hope to see something similar in Britain too - the Government has promised a review of cages later this year as part of its animal welfare plan. The danger in Britain is that the measures will be undermined by trade deals allowing low-welfare imports at zero tariffs - but that's not yet a done deal.
I heartily approve. But I doubt the French will allow a ban on foie gras? (and I have to confess a guilty secret: I like foie gras, even tho I know it is made with some cruelty)
As the Commission is presumably among the biggest eaters of Fois Gras, I have little doubt they will resist the absurd calls of the Parliament.
And the restaurateurs of Strasbourg. I bet more foie gras is eaten in Strasbourg when the EP is in town than anywhere else on earth
The only time in my life I have had Fois Gras, was in the European Parliament building in Brussels,
Right, everyone, forget "culture wars", "aliens" and the like, we've not discussed the forthcoming Moldovan General Election on July 11th.
Party of Action and Solidarity: 39% (+12) BECS: 36% (new) PPȘ-ECR: 9% (+1) BERU-*: 4% (new) PPDA-EPP: 4% (N/A) AUR→ECR: 3% (new) PDM-S&D: 2% (-22)
+/- vs. 2019 election results
Clearly, we're all well up on Moldova and its politics but for those as far off the pace as a Ford Focus in an F1 contest:
The Party of Action and Solidarity (PAS) is a centre-right party which is broadly speaking pro-EU an pro-western but seeks a "normal" relationship with Russia.
BECS is the electoral pact between the Communists and Socialists. It has 37 seats in the 101 seat Parliament and is, not surprisingly, pro-Russia and EU-sceptic. It's also considered anti-Romanian by the Romanians.
SOR or PPS is a national conservative but pro-Russian and Eurosceptic party
BERU - no idea.
PPDA is a centre-right anti-corruption party.
AUR is the Alliance for the Union of Romanians and Moldovans and you can probably figure out its primary policy objective.
PDM is the Democratic Party of Moldova which stands for an independent Moldova but which is getting squeezed to oblivion by the BECS block.
It looks as though PAS will be the largest party in the new Parliament but may struggle to find allies to form a Government.
A non-partisan note which may please some of you on all sides. As some of you know, my day job is head of the UK arm of Compassion in World Farming. I thought people might like to hear the news today: the European Parliament has voted by 558-37 to make cages for farmed animals illegal across the European Union by 2027, adopting a resolution on the ‘End the Cage Age‘ European Citizens’ Initiative which Compassion initiated 3 years ago, which gained 1.4 million signatures, many from Britain when we were still members. The Commission is supportive and it's expected to go through.
At present, in both Britain and the EU, laying hens and rabbits are often confined to spaces about the size of an A4 sheet of paper. Adult female pigs are confined inside crates, in which they cannot even turn around. Calves, geese and quail are also caged, preventing them from performing basic natural behaviours.
The Parliament also highlighted the need to ensure that all products placed on the EU market – including imported ones – comply with future cage-free standards. They stressed the need to provide adequate incentives and financial programmes to support farmers through the transition.
Finally, the EU Parliament called on the Commission to put forward proposals to ban the cruel and unnecessary force-feeding of ducks and geese for the production of foie gras.
This isn't a Brexit issue! - I hope that people on all sides of that argument will welcome the news. It's a great breakthrough for animal welfare - and we hope to see something similar in Britain too - the Government has promised a review of cages later this year as part of its animal welfare plan. The danger in Britain is that the measures will be undermined by trade deals allowing low-welfare imports at zero tariffs - but that's not yet a done deal.
I heartily approve. But I doubt the French will allow a ban on foie gras? (and I have to confess a guilty secret: I like foie gras, even tho I know it is made with some cruelty)
As the Commission is presumably among the biggest eaters of Fois Gras, I have little doubt they will resist the absurd calls of the Parliament.
No need for a ban on Foie Gras - only on force feeding.
A non-partisan note which may please some of you on all sides. As some of you know, my day job is head of the UK arm of Compassion in World Farming. I thought people might like to hear the news today: the European Parliament has voted by 558-37 to make cages for farmed animals illegal across the European Union by 2027, adopting a resolution on the ‘End the Cage Age‘ European Citizens’ Initiative which Compassion initiated 3 years ago, which gained 1.4 million signatures, many from Britain when we were still members. The Commission is supportive and it's expected to go through.
At present, in both Britain and the EU, laying hens and rabbits are often confined to spaces about the size of an A4 sheet of paper. Adult female pigs are confined inside crates, in which they cannot even turn around. Calves, geese and quail are also caged, preventing them from performing basic natural behaviours.
The Parliament also highlighted the need to ensure that all products placed on the EU market – including imported ones – comply with future cage-free standards. They stressed the need to provide adequate incentives and financial programmes to support farmers through the transition.
Finally, the EU Parliament called on the Commission to put forward proposals to ban the cruel and unnecessary force-feeding of ducks and geese for the production of foie gras.
This isn't a Brexit issue! - I hope that people on all sides of that argument will welcome the news. It's a great breakthrough for animal welfare - and we hope to see something similar in Britain too - the Government has promised a review of cages later this year as part of its animal welfare plan. The danger in Britain is that the measures will be undermined by trade deals allowing low-welfare imports at zero tariffs - but that's not yet a done deal.
I heartily approve. But I doubt the French will allow a ban on foie gras? (and I have to confess a guilty secret: I like foie gras, even tho I know it is made with some cruelty)
As the Commission is presumably among the biggest eaters of Fois Gras, I have little doubt they will resist the absurd calls of the Parliament.
And the restaurateurs of Strasbourg. I bet more foie gras is eaten in Strasbourg when the EP is in town than anywhere else on earth
The only time in my life I have had Fois Gras, was in the European Parliament building in Brussels, It was nice, but not that amazing.
It's not always exceptional, I agree. Depends how it's served.
It's absolutely brilliant with gingerbread. True story. I first had the combo in a famous oysterhouse in Nantes, once, and the foie gras and gingerbread was even better than the fine oysters
It's clear from reading some of the comments on here that many will simply dismiss any Woke insanity until such time as it actually impinges on their own lives. Which, unchecked, it will eventually.
The article about Anglo-Saxons is instructive because it's the history that is being rewritten to fit the Wokeness, not the other way round, and that way madness lies.
Agree - however, there is also a lot of naivety revealed in these exchanges, people interpreting the woke as a espousing a slightly more radical version of their own liberal worldview and thus being essentially harmless and youthfully eccentric. This is quite a comfortable position that can be held for a long time until reality intervenes.
Either that or a lot of PB-ers are way less intelligent than we thought
The stupidity on this subject is astounding
No, they see it's you and me posting it and then instantly dismiss it.
They need to hear it from someone they know and trust who's on their own side.
If there's one thing I've learned from recent years it's that people decide on their beliefs first and then filter out the evidence that supports them. Not the other way round.
Perhaps you would be less likely to be instantly dismissed if you (and one or two of those who agree with you on these matters) were slightly less patronising to those who have different views and would prefer a more discursive discussion, rather than being told they are wrong?
But you guys are endlessly consistently and pointlessly wrong, time and again, in a witless fashion. You don't google, you don't read, you don't understand, you don't get it, and you make no attempt to school yourselves, you just deny everything or evade the question, and then when presented with evidence you just shrug it off, cf the Anglo Saxons thing today - a minor skirmish in an enormous war, but quite telling
"You guys"? I haven't even said anything.
Not saying anything proves your guilty, woke complicity BEYOND DOUBT!
It's almost as if teenagers have a variety of views, and not always consistent ones 🤔
There is no threat from "Woke" agenda, not least because there is widespread debate over how these issues should be tackled rather than a particular agenda. Mostly though it is because there is nothing is going to change unless a mainstream majority supports it, and if a majority supports it (such as gay marriage) then that is how social progress happens.
Here's what will happen: I will be criticised or dismissed all the way for challenging the lunacy of statue-pulling, intersectionality, CRT, ultra-Trans and year-zero history and then, when it doesn't happen eventually (hopefully) because of that you'll simply say that was natural and would have happened anyway.
At no point will the argument be conceded as a valid one, and nor will anyone be thanked for it when they are proved right.
No, I am just saying that daft ideas won't be adopted, but sensible ones may well be. I have no problem with people speaking out against cultural change, that is how debate happens. Their arguments should be listened to and argued against.
There simply is no "Woke Agenda". It is a figment of the imagination of conspiracy nutjobs.
No, you're just fricking DUMB. This is why Casino and me and a few others lose it, when dealing with the likes of you
The idea that "daft ideas won't be adopted" is PREPOSTEROUS. They have ALREADY been adopted in the USA and UK and beyond, in their hundreds, and they are only growing in power. But you absolutely refuse to accept this, because you are basically not very clever. In the end that can be the only explanation.
You are learned and scholarly - a doctor - but so narrow minded and obstinate, and fixed in your thinking, it amounts to stupidity.
It's a definite type of brain and you have it.
Quite obviously daft ideas can be adopted (Brexit springs to mind) but a daft idea with popular support becomes no longer daft.
Social change happens when "daft" ideas like women's equality, racial equality, gay marriage become mainstream. Go back even within my life time for these to be considered "daft", and they still are in many parts of the world.
I have no particular axe to grind on Trans-rights, but the apoplectic reaction of many does show a rather ugly side.
As a point of interest @Foxy ; Have you come across the academic discipline of fat studies?
A non-partisan note which may please some of you on all sides. As some of you know, my day job is head of the UK arm of Compassion in World Farming. I thought people might like to hear the news today: the European Parliament has voted by 558-37 to make cages for farmed animals illegal across the European Union by 2027, adopting a resolution on the ‘End the Cage Age‘ European Citizens’ Initiative which Compassion initiated 3 years ago, which gained 1.4 million signatures, many from Britain when we were still members. The Commission is supportive and it's expected to go through.
At present, in both Britain and the EU, laying hens and rabbits are often confined to spaces about the size of an A4 sheet of paper. Adult female pigs are confined inside crates, in which they cannot even turn around. Calves, geese and quail are also caged, preventing them from performing basic natural behaviours.
The Parliament also highlighted the need to ensure that all products placed on the EU market – including imported ones – comply with future cage-free standards. They stressed the need to provide adequate incentives and financial programmes to support farmers through the transition.
Finally, the EU Parliament called on the Commission to put forward proposals to ban the cruel and unnecessary force-feeding of ducks and geese for the production of foie gras.
This isn't a Brexit issue! - I hope that people on all sides of that argument will welcome the news. It's a great breakthrough for animal welfare - and we hope to see something similar in Britain too - the Government has promised a review of cages later this year as part of its animal welfare plan. The danger in Britain is that the measures will be undermined by trade deals allowing low-welfare imports at zero tariffs - but that's not yet a done deal.
I heartily approve. But I doubt the French will allow a ban on foie gras? (and I have to confess a guilty secret: I like foie gras, even tho I know it is made with some cruelty)
As the Commission is presumably among the biggest eaters of Fois Gras, I have little doubt they will resist the absurd calls of the Parliament.
No need for a ban on Foie Gras - only on force feeding.
A non-partisan note which may please some of you on all sides. As some of you know, my day job is head of the UK arm of Compassion in World Farming. I thought people might like to hear the news today: the European Parliament has voted by 558-37 to make cages for farmed animals illegal across the European Union by 2027, adopting a resolution on the ‘End the Cage Age‘ European Citizens’ Initiative which Compassion initiated 3 years ago, which gained 1.4 million signatures, many from Britain when we were still members. The Commission is supportive and it's expected to go through.
At present, in both Britain and the EU, laying hens and rabbits are often confined to spaces about the size of an A4 sheet of paper. Adult female pigs are confined inside crates, in which they cannot even turn around. Calves, geese and quail are also caged, preventing them from performing basic natural behaviours.
The Parliament also highlighted the need to ensure that all products placed on the EU market – including imported ones – comply with future cage-free standards. They stressed the need to provide adequate incentives and financial programmes to support farmers through the transition.
Finally, the EU Parliament called on the Commission to put forward proposals to ban the cruel and unnecessary force-feeding of ducks and geese for the production of foie gras.
This isn't a Brexit issue! - I hope that people on all sides of that argument will welcome the news. It's a great breakthrough for animal welfare - and we hope to see something similar in Britain too - the Government has promised a review of cages later this year as part of its animal welfare plan. The danger in Britain is that the measures will be undermined by trade deals allowing low-welfare imports at zero tariffs - but that's not yet a done deal.
I heartily approve. But I doubt the French will allow a ban on foie gras? (and I have to confess a guilty secret: I like foie gras, even tho I know it is made with some cruelty)
As the Commission is presumably among the biggest eaters of Fois Gras, I have little doubt they will resist the absurd calls of the Parliament.
No need for a ban on Foie Gras - only on force feeding.
Rumours that Freedom Day on June 21 could be delayed have raised questions about attendance at sports events at the end of this month and in early July Government will not go back on commitments that each game will have 22,500 fans and Telegraph reports 45,000 may be allowed in for the knock-out games
Theresa May went proper anti-lockdown re international travel while I wasn't watching the Commons...... ....."Last year in 2020 I went to Switzerland in Aug, S Korea in Sep, there was no vaccine, travel was possible; this year there is a vaccine, travel is not possible. I really do not understand the stance the govt is taking"......
"We will not eradicate Covid-19 in the UK; variants will keep on coming – if the govt's position is that we cannot open up travel until there are no new variants elsewhere in the world then we will never be able to travel abroad ever again".....
"The 3rd fact that the govt needs to state much more clearly is that sadly people will die from Covid here in the UK, as 10-20k do every year from flu, and we are falling behind the rest of Europe in our decisions to open up" https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1402992109137784835?s=20
She falls into that rare category of better ex-PM than PM. A sort of British Jimmy Carter.
She appears, like Jeremy Hunt and a few others, to be providing more acute Opposition than the Labour Party.
That's what happens when the opposition is useless.
Blaming Labour for Tory failings now, are we? Nice one.
I think we can. Labour has been a hopeless opposition since the Tories first took power after Brown. It isn't as though there are not decent Labour MPs, it is just that most are languishing on the back benches still. The reason we have Boris Johnson with such a huge majority is Labour ineptitude. The reason we have Boris Johnson is Labour, because if we didn't have Corbyn we would probably not have Johnson. They are two cheeks of the populist arse.
You know I don't buy that narrative, Nigel. I think there was a big POSITIVE vote at GE19 not only for Brexit but for Johnson too. It was the 'BBC' election and in that order. Brexit 1st, "Boris" 2nd, Corbyn 3rd. Although of course these were related. Brexit gave Johnson much of his appeal and cost Corbyn much of his.
Corbyn mismanaged the response of the opposition to Brexit at every level, and pretty much everything else. He was hopeless. The people that supported putting such a dimwit in as LoTO are essentially useful idiots to the supporters of Johnson's populists.
The Con landslide came from the Parliament vs People narrative. That narrative was enabled by Remainer hardcore resistance culminating in the Benn Act. A terrible error, but not primarily Corbyn's.
I think that's right. Corbyn just didn't care that much about our place in the EU. But it is somewhat of a handicap, when you're leader of the opposition, not to care about the dominating issue of the day.
I think he did care. he supported leave, and the UK managed with his strange sort of help to get there. His fans of course, mostly Remainers, were/are so blind and immature that they seemed to have no idea of his actual political record on the subject.
It's basic: it is hard to turn the UK into Venezuela/Cuba/Gaza when constrained by the ECJ, the ECB, FoM and the rules of capitalism.
Tony Benn was always clear on these matters.
Quite - and Leave was part and parcel of the 1980s policies that he (Corbyn) sees as the One True Way. Leaving the EEC and NATO was always a package with those types.
I think he was moderately anti-EU but he really wanted us out of NATO. However, obviously he had to temper both instincts as Labour leader. All politicians have to be hypocrites about some things if they want to win elections, of course.
In today's Telegraph, the NI Protocol was forced on the UK by "the imperialist bullies" of the EU & "signed under duress" to stave off the "economic damage" of "a No Deal Brexit". Very odd. I thought "we held all the cards" & would "prosper mightily" with No Deal
Yes, I thought it was us not them who got a result through playing hardball. I thought it was 'No Deal here we come' unless they 'caved in'. Some of the numptier Leavers still think that happened, would you believe. I know!
Wheres Phil when you need him!!
We discussed this earlier in the day.
Yes we did hold the cards and we got a great deal by playing hard ball extricating Great Britain from the EU's grasp, even if we needed to concede the Protocol because May had already screwed the pooch so much in the negotiations.
Now having got what we want from playing hardball for Great Britain, we're now playing hardball to get what we want with Northern Ireland - and its going to work there too. Because again, we hold the cards.
Barnier spent years negotiating to entrap us within the EU's regulatory orbit and all he got to show for it is the Protocol and the Protocol is dying before us. Good riddance, rest in peace, no flowers.
Biden says we should fold.
Who holds the cards in your opinion on the US / UK trade deal?
Not quite sure how the U.K. can “fold” if the issue is preserving peace in NI, and the current threat to peace is from implementation of the protocol to the letter and unworkable trade barriers in the Irish Sea?
Why did Johnson insist on such a crap deal then, and force it through?
We should stick to the word of what we agreed. That is true British values.
The UK position is very basic we'll implement it when the EU introduces the trusted trader scheme.
Again the EU are banging on about moral authority and other such stupidity because they have no legal recourse to force the UK to enforce the protocol until such time that the trusted trader scheme has been implemented. They know the arbitrator will rule in favour of the UK. It's why there is no concrete action from the EU, it will get reversed and penalties applied on them for pushing tariffs where none are warranted.
Their latest idea was to take it to the ECJ knowing that the ECJ has no jurisdiction over the UK and no ECJ judgement can be enforced on the UK and they have no mechanism to make this spill over into the wider TCA, even if they were to withdraw from it as the ultimate punishment it would result in huge break penalties etc...
The EU has fucked it by refusing the implement the trusted trader scheme and now they're trying to cover it all up with bluster just as they did when they fucked up vaccine procurement.
Comments
Mrs Thatcher was very unpopular and in danger of being defenestrated till the Falklands. The public was not consulted about Mr Churchill becoming Prime Minister in 1940.
https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-brief-fda-authorizes-longer-time-refrigerator-storage-thawed-pfizer-biontech-covid-19-vaccine
There is no threat from "Woke" agenda, not least because there is widespread debate over how these issues should be tackled rather than a particular agenda. Mostly though it is because there is nothing is going to change unless a mainstream majority supports it, and if a majority supports it (such as gay marriage) then that is how social progress happens.
The one thing you won't find there is anything approaching objective analysis - it's another site of American conservative sour grapes types who think Trump won last November.
Her anguished contortions on this issue are a sight to behold, it's like watching Hal go into meltdown in Kubrick's 2001
Here is Bill Clinton casually talking on a chat show about UFOs, confirming there are things we can’t identity / don’t understand and calmly pointing out how big the universe is.
Like Obama, he still gets the Presidential Daily Bulletin remember.
We should stick to the word of what we agreed. That is true British values.
As for a US / UK trade I'm rather sceptical that one will ever come about any time soon. We have a much greater chance of getting one than we did in the EU, but the ideal would be we then the USA both join the CPTPP.
At no point will the argument be conceded as a valid one, and nor will anyone be thanked for it when they are proved right.
He really put Swedish epidemiologist feet to the fire the other week in an incredibly polite and thoughtful way, basically bringing up lots of his claims from early 2020, to which he basically ran out of excuses. But not once was there a raised voice.
PS:He must be wishing Trump had won.
The purpose of the protocol is to protect the GFA/maintain peace in NI. That is also Biden’s priority. If it is clear that full implementation of the protocol with no flexibility/“fudging” does not do that, then it is difficult to see why Biden should then not ultimately come to align with the U.K. Govt position. I doubt he really cares about the integrity of the single market.
There simply is no "Woke Agenda". It is a figment of the imagination of conspiracy nutjobs.
But the question was not about "Trans-people" but "Trans-inclusive".
So, in reply to the question, "none"?
Unlike the case today, or Allison Bailey's case going through the courts now.
Everything I have heard/seen has been without reference to the actuality of teenage male sexual nature, both physical and mental, which on the whole is not a pretty sight. It can be summed up in the traditional view, but with broad application: The only force on earth which can prevent teenage boys having sex is teenage girls.
Corollary etc: the only force on earth which can prevent teenage boys wanting to see female nudes is the females concerned.
Of course human nature ought to be different but it isn't and won't be.
The other thing I note: The tern 'Rape Culture' is used to cover a multitude of things. Finally, the image being presented is that girls are innocent victims, boys are guilty predators. There is more to be said.
The above poll takes us all the way back to April - considering the CDU had a 19-point lead over the Greens at the beginning of 2021, you could argue it's the Union that has been doing the imploding.
At present, in both Britain and the EU, laying hens and rabbits are often confined to spaces about the size of an A4 sheet of paper. Adult female pigs are confined inside crates, in which they cannot even turn around. Calves, geese and quail are also caged, preventing them from performing basic natural behaviours.
The Parliament also highlighted the need to ensure that all products placed on the EU market – including imported ones – comply with future cage-free standards. They stressed the need to provide adequate incentives and financial programmes to support farmers through the transition.
Finally, the EU Parliament called on the Commission to put forward proposals to ban the cruel and unnecessary force-feeding of ducks and geese for the production of foie gras.
This isn't a Brexit issue! - I hope that people on all sides of that argument will welcome the news. It's a great breakthrough for animal welfare - and we hope to see something similar in Britain too - the Government has promised a review of cages later this year as part of its animal welfare plan. The danger in Britain is that the measures will be undermined by trade deals allowing low-welfare imports at zero tariffs - but that's not yet a done deal.
On reflection sounds a bit revolutionary an analysis.
It is like placing a losing bet then refusing to payout.
One agreeing with the UK and one with the EU
Doesnt come over to me as America Johnson
That said, I think I might apologise for being mean, because I sort of sense that if I actually knew you, I'd probably quite like you. Whether it would be reciprocated or unrequited will never be known
I lower level sport people can compete just at a higher level than the otherwise would. But it doesn’t fundamentally affect anything.
When we start getting Olympic medalists in mainstream sports there will be a reckoning.
"Joe Biden should keep his sneering anti-British, anti-Brexit views to himself
Before insulting the Prime Minister, the president should remember that people in the UK voted to leave the EU and take back control"
Sausages excepted of course
The idea that "daft ideas won't be adopted" is PREPOSTEROUS. They have ALREADY been adopted in the USA and UK and beyond, in their hundreds, and they are only growing in power. But you absolutely refuse to accept this, because you are basically not very clever. In the end that can be the only explanation.
You are learned and scholarly - a doctor - but so narrow minded and obstinate, and fixed in your thinking, it amounts to stupidity.
It's a definite type of brain and you have it.
https://twitter.com/JoanMcAlpine/status/1402933434285281281?s=20
No one is ever going to thank you for being right about something like this - it isn't really human nature.
What I would say is that the counter arguments are not very impressive given generally high standard of debate on this website. They largely consist of brief assertions of belief, or ad hominem attacks, like someone saying that you are a dinosaur because you think something. For what its worth, I respect the belief that the woke are saviours of western civilisation, it is a valid position to have but one that I definetly dont hold myself. I just think it should be tested against events and things that actually happen in the real world.
‘How did you deal with Boris’s hair?’
Can’t get away from the ****.
What was agreed was not a step by step set of instructions. The EU haven't agreed to a Trusted Trader scheme or used the Joint Committee properly so it's not on us alone.
If the EU won't compromise then activating Article 16 is part and parcel with implementation.
Will there be derogations?
boring!!
Social change happens when "daft" ideas like women's equality, racial equality, gay marriage become mainstream. Go back even within my life time for these to be considered "daft", and they still are in many parts of the world.
I have no particular axe to grind on Trans-rights, but the apoplectic reaction of many does show a rather ugly side.
Or who writes an article claiming to have predicted the pandemic back at a time when same said PB’ers will recall being told by him that Corona would prove to be “ contagious but essentially benign”......
simply draws attention to the appallingly lax journalistic standards that this online shockjock website is willing to tolerate.
I followed your subsequent links and they all relate to a single incident in 2019 when what looks to be a professional grievance monger called Mary Rambaran-Olm made a provocative speech and encouraged her medievalist society to change its name.
As so often when you drill down, it’s one or two non-entities and screeds of subsequent, often inaccurate, commentary by journalists on the look out for some fresh outrage.
Two years later, it appears the Ms Rambaran-Olm continues to pursue a career linking mediaevalism to far right thinking.
No actual university has change the name of its Anglo-Saxon studies department as far as I can tell.
“Woke” does not impinge on my life in the slightest, despite (because?) being a 40-something, heterosexual, “cis” male who lives in one of the most left-wing neighbourhoods in the U.K.
Each side of this issue are reacting to people on the other side, neither are imagining things, and while I'm more on one side than another neither is likely as popular as they think they are, nor their opponents as vast as they think, and certainly not as monolithic.
But there is clearly push for change, and what is that if not an agenda? Some agendas need pushing, we all agree there I think.
This happens to be an area where there is very strong disagreement is all. I think neither side is treated fairly by pretending there are not agendas at play, it's like parties in false calls for unity, telling us things are one way when it is not so.
It was nice, but not that amazing.
Party of Action and Solidarity: 39% (+12)
BECS: 36% (new)
PPȘ-ECR: 9% (+1)
BERU-*: 4% (new)
PPDA-EPP: 4% (N/A)
AUR→ECR: 3% (new)
PDM-S&D: 2% (-22)
+/- vs. 2019 election results
Clearly, we're all well up on Moldova and its politics but for those as far off the pace as a Ford Focus in an F1 contest:
The Party of Action and Solidarity (PAS) is a centre-right party which is broadly speaking pro-EU an pro-western but seeks a "normal" relationship with Russia.
BECS is the electoral pact between the Communists and Socialists. It has 37 seats in the 101 seat Parliament and is, not surprisingly, pro-Russia and EU-sceptic. It's also considered anti-Romanian by the Romanians.
SOR or PPS is a national conservative but pro-Russian and Eurosceptic party
BERU - no idea.
PPDA is a centre-right anti-corruption party.
AUR is the Alliance for the Union of Romanians and Moldovans and you can probably figure out its primary policy objective.
PDM is the Democratic Party of Moldova which stands for an independent Moldova but which is getting squeezed to oblivion by the BECS block.
It looks as though PAS will be the largest party in the new Parliament but may struggle to find allies to form a Government.
It's absolutely brilliant with gingerbread. True story. I first had the combo in a famous oysterhouse in Nantes, once, and the foie gras and gingerbread was even better than the fine oysters
https://theinstantwhen.taittinger.fr/en/recipe-charles-coulombeau-gingerbread-man/
Rumours that Freedom Day on June 21 could be delayed have raised questions about attendance at sports events at the end of this month and in early July
Government will not go back on commitments that each game will have 22,500 fans and Telegraph reports 45,000 may be allowed in for the knock-out games
How does that make sense?
It's so dumb. No shit, everyone agrees on the need, they just don't agree on how.
Again the EU are banging on about moral authority and other such stupidity because they have no legal recourse to force the UK to enforce the protocol until such time that the trusted trader scheme has been implemented. They know the arbitrator will rule in favour of the UK. It's why there is no concrete action from the EU, it will get reversed and penalties applied on them for pushing tariffs where none are warranted.
Their latest idea was to take it to the ECJ knowing that the ECJ has no jurisdiction over the UK and no ECJ judgement can be enforced on the UK and they have no mechanism to make this spill over into the wider TCA, even if they were to withdraw from it as the ultimate punishment it would result in huge break penalties etc...
The EU has fucked it by refusing the implement the trusted trader scheme and now they're trying to cover it all up with bluster just as they did when they fucked up vaccine procurement.