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
Votes for women. Don't forget votes for women. Put it into the world gone mad pot.
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…
What about the imagery of English footballers kneeling in front of Scottish ones?
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.
Re: BERU = Electoral Bloc "Renato Usatii" (who is Moldovan businessman); ideology is Russophilia, Moldovenism, Economic nationalism, Social conservatism, Euroscepticism
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.
No it really really really isn't just one woman
This is not a small example
That woman you mention is pushing it, but there will always be notable spokespeople who get associated with a cause - Marcus Rashford and foodbanks? - but that doesn't mean "only Marcus Rashford cares about foodbanks" - this argument against Anglo-Saxon as a term is long term, serious, widespread - and growing. You've just failed to educate yourself YET AGAIN
FFS. For the last time:
Published this year:
"The University of Cambridge must renounce the use of the term ‘ASNAC’ Jack Durand explains why continuing to use the term ‘Anglo-Saxon’ is racist, and urges the University to rename the ASNAC department".
"REPUBLICANS ARE BASICALLY STARTING A WHITE SUPREMACIST CAUCUS They want to preserve “uniquely Anglo-Saxon political traditions,” like discrimination against non-white people. "
It's all part of Critical Race Theory: a desire to deconstruct whiteness, and to delegitimise the self esteem of white cultures, to enshrine them as intrinsically racist, and to deny them their own history. This is what is happening.
It's not some vast conspiracy, there aren't hordes of hairy-legged Woke women plotting all this, it has organically arisen out of the ashes of communism as the Left has sought a new cause - and wow they found it, with identity politics, born in obscure corners of academe in the 90s
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
The formal US protest to the UK (démarche) is very rare,especially among allies. It marks the UK’s new & unwanted reputation as a nation whose word cannot be trusted,signing a treaty it broke almost immediately & refusing to recognise the impact on law in Europe. Hard to recover. https://twitter.com/BillNeelyReport/status/1402963773741219840
Have we all agreed now that this claim of a formal demarche was BS?
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.....
When did Biden say we should fold?
I heard him call for a negotiated solution, to implement the agreement, and to do something that would preserve an acceptable peace in NI.
Current EU demands are for the detailed implementation of the agreement *as Brussels sees it*, some of it based on concepts that EU admitted years ago could not be accepted by Unionists, and they don't seem to be doing much negotiation. And are currently lining up all the talking heads to make blood-curdling threats about "unilateral" moves, which sounds as of they are a touch rattled; they haven't got a numbered procedure to follow in steps 1 to 28.
Sounds like a need to make some moves, which the EU would may call "unilateral", but which are clearly permitted by the agreement under Article 16, do some education on Joe Biden as to the realities of NI, and continue vigorously asking the EC to start negotiating properly rather than squatting in an ivory tower in Brussels howling at the moon.
Perhaps we need to give the EC notice to start fulfilling obligations they are neglecting, then be ready do the appropriate under Article 16. I would put a Trusted Trader Scheme under this procedure, if applicable - as it will help solve real problems.
There are also some things that we should be doing to comply with stuff that hasn't happened yet, perhaps. Customs database access?
I've just discovered that there is a political party in Greece called the 'European Realistic Disobedience Front' - that's hilarious, better than the blandly named centrist or moderate parties out there. Just something about promising disobedience, but that you are realistic about it, that tickles me.
Are they basically cuddly anarchists?
Depends if you consider Yanis Varoufakis cuddly or not.
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
Criminal not to have it with a Sauternes of course.
I'm more interested in Nick's achievements wrt rabbits. What was happening and what can no longer happen with the blighters?
Out on the ground animal rights peeps seem to have a weird obsession with rabbits. I imagine it would be an issue in middle-agricultural areas - Leicestershire?
Nick was talking about size of cages, and probably putting rabbits in group-homes.
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.
No it really really really isn't just one woman
This is not a small example
That woman you mention is pushing it, but there will always be notable spokespeople who get associated with a cause - Marcus Rashford and foodbanks? - but that doesn't mean "only Marcus Rashford cares about foodbanks" - this argument against Anglo-Saxon as a term is long term, serious, widespread - and growing. You've just failed to educate yourself YET AGAIN
FFS. For the last time:
Published this year:
"The University of Cambridge must renounce the use of the term ‘ASNAC’ Jack Durand explains why continuing to use the term ‘Anglo-Saxon’ is racist, and urges the University to rename the ASNAC department".
"REPUBLICANS ARE BASICALLY STARTING A WHITE SUPREMACIST CAUCUS They want to preserve “uniquely Anglo-Saxon political traditions,” like discrimination against non-white people. "
It's all part of Critical Race Theory: a desire to deconstruct whiteness, and to delegitimise the self esteem of white cultures, to enshrine them as intrinsically racist, and to deny them their own history. This is what is happening.
It's not some vast conspiracy, there aren't hordes of hairy-legged Woke women plotting all this, it has organically arisen out of the ashes of communism as the Left has sought a new cause - and wow they found it, with identity politics, born in obscure corners of academe in the 90s
On the American aspect of "Anglo-Saxon"
Politico.com (April 18,2021) - America First Caucus a crazy idea, John Boehner says "I can tell you that this so-called America First Caucus is one of the nuttiest things I've ever seen," he said.
Former House Speaker John Boehner on Sunday called the plan of some House Republicans to form an America First Caucus crazy.
Speaking on NBC's "Meet the Press," Boehner said, "I can tell you that this so-called America First Caucus is one of the nuttiest things I've ever seen."
Reports surfaced last week that Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) and Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.) were leading an effort to form a Republican caucus built around "Anglo-Saxon political traditions" that was designed, among other things, to combat immigration to maintain those traditions. Greene on Saturday distanced herself from the proposal, while offering support for the rationale behind it. “America First policies will save this country for all of us, our children, and ultimately the world,” she said.
"I have no idea how this even showed up," said Boehner, who served as speaker from 2011 to 2015.
"Meet the Press" host Chuck Todd referred to the idea of the America First Caucus as the latest example of white supremacy surfacing in the Republican Party.
"America is a land of immigration," Boehner said. "We've been the world's giant melting pot for 250 years. And we ought to celebrate the fact that we are this giant melting pot. And to see some members of Congress go off and start this America First Caucus is — it's the silliest thing I've ever seen. And Republicans need to denounce it."
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.
If women still retired at 60 there would be a fair amount of men realising at age 59 they were trapped in a male body
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?
I certainly think fat is an issue worth of study, including sociological analyses of it.
Been in C and A all day ( and no I have not bought a coat or a 'at). There are remarkably few posters around but almost all are Lib Dem. Even the fields are not voting Conservative. The only Green poster I saw was at one of the largest houses in Amersham. The chat from local LD activists is that they have never seen anything like it.Make of that what you will.
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.
So for you it's balls then?
What's it about for you, @kinabalu ? You seem to be going reductionist on male anatomy this evening.
Hideous bullying of a young man produces obvious reaction, shocker
"England fast bowler Ollie Robinson will not play in Sussex’s first two Vitality Blast fixtures, on Friday and Saturday, after electing to take a short break from professional cricket to spend time with his family.
"Robinson’s decision follows his suspension - pending an England & Wales Cricket Board investigation - from international duty after he was discovered to have posted racist and sexist tweets in 2012 and 2013, for which he apologised."
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.
If women still retired at 60 there would be a fair amount of men realising at age 59 they were trapped in a male body
Was this an issue when there were unequal retirement ages?
Though, now you mention it, when I did run an outpatients in the same space as the gender reassignment clinic 20 years ago. Observing their patients, many were formerly middle aged men.
Been in C and A all day ( and no I have not bought a coat or a 'at). There are remarkably few posters around but almost all are Lib Dem. Even the fields are not voting Conservative. The only Green poster I saw was at one of the largest houses in Amersham. The chat from local LD activists is that they have never seen anything like it.Make of that what you will.
"Never seen anything like it" is a flashcard borrowed from every Lib / Lib Dem campaign since the Duke of Newcastle was seen howling it on top of Old Sarum in 1833.
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.
So for you it's balls then?
What's it about for you, @kinabalu ? You seem to be going reductionist on male anatomy this evening.
Name your criteria.
One of the area's of dispute is trans people in womans sport. If you agree that someone who has been male for the first 18 years of their life and therefore has testosterone fuelled muscle development that then transitions to female should be able to compete what you are basically saying is if you were born female you should no longer bother trying to compete in most sports.
Personally I would go for the third option, transgender sports, transgender changing rooms, transgender jails. Everyone then should be happy
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.
If women still retired at 60 there would be a fair amount of men realising at age 59 they were trapped in a male body
Was this an issue when there were unequal retirement ages?
Though, now you mention it, when I did run an outpatients in the same space as the gender reassignment clinic 20 years ago. Observing their patients, many were formerly middle aged men.
When women retired at 60 we didnt have self id etc. I suspect if we did we would have had a lot of men claiming to be women to retire earlier
Has there been any analysis published mapping recent cases, hospitalisations and deaths against vaccinated, first vaccine, fully vaccinated individuals?
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.
So for you it's balls then?
What's it about for you, @kinabalu ? You seem to be going reductionist on male anatomy this evening.
Name your criteria.
One of the area's of dispute is trans people in womans sport. If you agree that someone who has been male for the first 18 years of their life and therefore has testosterone fuelled muscle development that then transitions to female should be able to compete what you are basically saying is if you were born female you should no longer bother trying to compete in most sports.
Personally I would go for the third option, transgender sports, transgender changing rooms, transgender jails. Everyone then should be happy
East Germany was a world leader in turning men into women for the pursuit of medals. Do their records still stand?
Poltico.com - Biden, Johnson talk ‘global vision’ for U.S.-U.K. relationship The 90-minute session with the prime minister was the first meeting of the president’s first foreign trip.
President Joe Biden and British Prime Minister Boris Johnson promoted their efforts to strengthen the U.S.-U.K. alliance in a joint statement released after their bilateral meeting on Thursday — Biden’s first overseas summit with a foreign leader since assuming office.
According to the statement, the 90-minute session focused on democracy, human rights and multilateralism; defense and security; science and technology; trade and prosperity; climate and nature; health; and the shared commitment to Northern Ireland.
Biden and Johnson laid out their “global vision” in an updated version of the Atlantic Charter of 1941, the agreement authorized by Franklin D. Roosevelt and Winston Churchill that established a set of post-war objectives for the two countries’ relationship. . . .
“We commit to working closely with all partners who share our democratic values and to countering the efforts of those who seek to undermine our alliances and institutions,” they added. . . .
Biden and Johnson “agreed that the U.K.-U.S. partnership was more important than ever as we tackle shared challenges like climate change and building back better from the coronavirus pandemic,” Downing Street said.
The two leaders also discussed foreign policy toward Afghanistan, China, Iran and Russia; a potential free trade agreement; reopening travel between their two countries; and their commitment to the Good Friday Agreement of 1998, which brought an end to political conflict in Northern Ireland. . . .
Biden [said] that he was “thrilled to be here” and “thrilled to meet your wife,” nodding to the prime minister’s covert wedding last month to Carrie Johnson (née Symonds). “I told the prime minister we have something in common: We both married way above our station,” Biden joked.
“I’m not going to dissent from that one,” Johnson replied. “I’m not going to disagree with the president on that or indeed on anything else, I think, either, likely.”
After the press corps dispersed, the two leaders proceeded to their meeting. Top administration officials representing the American delegation alongside Biden included Secretary of State Antony Blinken, National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan , Chargé d’Affaires at the U.S. Embassy in London Yael Lempert and White House Covid-19 Response Coordinator Jeff Zients.
Among the U.K. officials joining Johnson in the British delegation were Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs Dominic Raab, British Ambassador to the U.S. Karen Pierce, Minister of State David Frost and National Security Adviser Stephen Lovegrove. . . .
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.
So for you it's balls then?
What's it about for you, @kinabalu ? You seem to be going reductionist on male anatomy this evening.
Name your criteria.
One of the area's of dispute is trans people in womans sport. If you agree that someone who has been male for the first 18 years of their life and therefore has testosterone fuelled muscle development that then transitions to female should be able to compete what you are basically saying is if you were born female you should no longer bother trying to compete in most sports.
Personally I would go for the third option, transgender sports, transgender changing rooms, transgender jails. Everyone then should be happy
East Germany was a world leader in turning men into women for the pursuit of medals. Do their records still stand?
I would as I pointed out argue for a third category Male, female, trans
Been in C and A all day ( and no I have not bought a coat or a 'at). There are remarkably few posters around but almost all are Lib Dem. Even the fields are not voting Conservative. The only Green poster I saw was at one of the largest houses in Amersham. The chat from local LD activists is that they have never seen anything like it.Make of that what you will.
"Never seen anything like it" is a flashcard borrowed from every Lib / Lib Dem campaign since the Duke of Newcastle was seen howling it on top of Old Sarum in 1833.
Been in C and A all day ( and no I have not bought a coat or a 'at). There are remarkably few posters around but almost all are Lib Dem. Even the fields are not voting Conservative. The only Green poster I saw was at one of the largest houses in Amersham. The chat from local LD activists is that they have never seen anything like it.Make of that what you will.
"Never seen anything like it" is a flashcard borrowed from every Lib / Lib Dem campaign since the Duke of Newcastle was seen howling it on top of Old Sarum in 1833.
In at least 8one sense it is true. Many voters have never been canvassed before and have never experienced a leaflet bombardment.
Hideous bullying of a young man produces obvious reaction, shocker
"England fast bowler Ollie Robinson will not play in Sussex’s first two Vitality Blast fixtures, on Friday and Saturday, after electing to take a short break from professional cricket to spend time with his family.
"Robinson’s decision follows his suspension - pending an England & Wales Cricket Board investigation - from international duty after he was discovered to have posted racist and sexist tweets in 2012 and 2013, for which he apologised."
He should have been allowed to apologize, take his punishment and move on. Instead he's been turned into an unwitting mascot for other people's culture war.
Hideous bullying of a young man produces obvious reaction, shocker
"England fast bowler Ollie Robinson will not play in Sussex’s first two Vitality Blast fixtures, on Friday and Saturday, after electing to take a short break from professional cricket to spend time with his family.
"Robinson’s decision follows his suspension - pending an England & Wales Cricket Board investigation - from international duty after he was discovered to have posted racist and sexist tweets in 2012 and 2013, for which he apologised."
He should have been allowed to apologize, take his punishment and move on. Instead he's been turned into an unwitting mascot for other people's culture war.
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.
No - he was quite aggressively anti-EEC then, just like his er.... fellow travellers.
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.
So for you it's balls then?
What's it about for you, @kinabalu ? You seem to be going reductionist on male anatomy this evening.
Name your criteria.
One of the area's of dispute is trans people in womans sport. If you agree that someone who has been male for the first 18 years of their life and therefore has testosterone fuelled muscle development that then transitions to female should be able to compete what you are basically saying is if you were born female you should no longer bother trying to compete in most sports.
Personally I would go for the third option, transgender sports, transgender changing rooms, transgender jails. Everyone then should be happy
East Germany was a world leader in turning men into women for the pursuit of medals. Do their records still stand?
Covid has given a new shield for pharmaceutical wheezes in sport, lots of world records being re-written this year despite athletes having less opportunity to sharpen up from quality competition. (Technology a factor here as well).
Lib dems getting very upbeat about Chesham and Amersham. If Labour lose their deposit and the Tories pour into Batley and Spen it could get very tricky for SKS. But so far he's OK, with no credible candidates in the PLP. Could we see someone fall on their sword to let Andy in? Frankly, there aren't many seats safe enough to take the risk.
Lib dems getting very upbeat about Chesham and Amersham. If Labour lose their deposit and the Tories pour into Batley and Spen it could get very tricky for SKS. But so far he's OK, with no credible candidates in the PLP. Could we see someone fall on their sword to let Andy in? Frankly, there aren't many seats safe enough to take the risk.
They will fall on their swords to bring pidcock back more likely
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.
So for you it's balls then?
What's it about for you, @kinabalu ? You seem to be going reductionist on male anatomy this evening.
Name your criteria.
One of the area's of dispute is trans people in womans sport. If you agree that someone who has been male for the first 18 years of their life and therefore has testosterone fuelled muscle development that then transitions to female should be able to compete what you are basically saying is if you were born female you should no longer bother trying to compete in most sports.
Personally I would go for the third option, transgender sports, transgender changing rooms, transgender jails. Everyone then should be happy
East Germany was a world leader in turning men into women for the pursuit of medals. Do their records still stand?
@TOPPING@Leon@MattW Rabbits: meat is popular in some countries (and there's a push to introduce it in Britain on a larger scale). Many rabbit farms are basically just cramped hutches in which the rabbit can't sit up or extend its ears. The proposal would end that. Foie gras: we hadn't expected this amendment to get through and I wonder if it'll survive the final stage, but as phrased it only stops the force feeding, so maybe it will. Derogations: none, but a 6-year transition and support for farmers with the cost of change.
Of course, an effect will be that meat becomes slightly more expensive (since it's more efficient to stuff all the animals into cages). But that's not expected to be substantial.
The politics were interesting and I had a fair amount to do with it, especially in the early stages. Getting 1 million signatures was intimidating, so we in Compassion took the decision to launch it as an "unselfish" NGO action with software designed to enable any NGO or party to adopt it as their own without enabling us to get their supporter details. This is unusual in NGOland and it got a harvest of 180 NGOs backing it across Europe. We felt we'd get credit for initiating it anyway, and we didn't need to be greedy.
The farmers were strongly against at first, but we were able to win in the Czech Parliament, and Czech farmers then argued that it wasn't fair that they should be forced to have higher standards, so they demanded that others follow suit. That produced a domino effect in other countries and the pro-farmer Christian Democrats switched sides to join the centre-left parties. We then lobbied the Commission and struck lucky with the key Commissioners, notably a very conservative Pole who simply likes animals. Finally, we argued that the EU needed to show that the 1-million signature option could actually work, which won over some of the Commission who had no view on the issue but wanted to show a success for European democracy.
As in Britain, where the Defra team are notably pro-welfare, you have to be lucky in the individuals in the key jobs (and engage with them regardless of their party labels), and if you do get lucky you need to move swiftly to strike the deal before they move on. it's been a fun operation and it's not quite in the bag yet - but looks likely to be, as Commission+Parliament is a powerful combination.
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.
So for you it's balls then?
What's it about for you, @kinabalu ? You seem to be going reductionist on male anatomy this evening.
Name your criteria.
One of the area's of dispute is trans people in womans sport. If you agree that someone who has been male for the first 18 years of their life and therefore has testosterone fuelled muscle development that then transitions to female should be able to compete what you are basically saying is if you were born female you should no longer bother trying to compete in most sports.
Personally I would go for the third option, transgender sports, transgender changing rooms, transgender jails. Everyone then should be happy
East Germany was a world leader in turning men into women for the pursuit of medals. Do their records still stand?
Rather the opposite wasn't it? Women into men.
Why would they do that, biologically in most sports men have an advantage
Lib dems getting very upbeat about Chesham and Amersham. If Labour lose their deposit and the Tories pour into Batley and Spen it could get very tricky for SKS. But so far he's OK, with no credible candidates in the PLP. Could we see someone fall on their sword to let Andy in? Frankly, there aren't many seats safe enough to take the risk.
They will fall on their swords to bring pidcock back more likely
You really have no idea do you?
King Of The North is former Corbynites hope now.
Although TBF anyone but Starmer would be an improvement (unless it was Jess Phillips)
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.
The twitter feed on this topic is (I think) in error when it says that England boundary commission has put a bit of Wales into Bristol Northwest constituency.
Wiki article on Bristol says "The city council boundary is the narrowest definition of the city itself. However, it unusually includes a large, roughly rectangular section of the western Severn Estuary ending at (but not including) the islands of Steep Holm and Flat Holm.[121] This "seaward extension" can be traced back to the original boundary of the County of Bristol laid out in the charter granted to the city by Edward III in 1373."
IF you look closely at the map on the Twitter focusing in on Flat Holm, it appears that the Bristol Northwest Boundary does NOT include any of the island itself (as per above) but rather goes to the high-water mark (think that's what it is).
Lib dems getting very upbeat about Chesham and Amersham. If Labour lose their deposit and the Tories pour into Batley and Spen it could get very tricky for SKS. But so far he's OK, with no credible candidates in the PLP. Could we see someone fall on their sword to let Andy in? Frankly, there aren't many seats safe enough to take the risk.
They will fall on their swords to bring pidcock back more likely
You really have no idea do you?
King Of The North is former Corbynites hope now.
Although TBF anyone but Starmer would be an improvement (unless it was Jess Phillips)
Wasnt she the annointed follow jeremy? The labour party is still riddled by the ultra left
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.
So for you it's balls then?
What's it about for you, @kinabalu ? You seem to be going reductionist on male anatomy this evening.
Name your criteria.
One of the area's of dispute is trans people in womans sport. If you agree that someone who has been male for the first 18 years of their life and therefore has testosterone fuelled muscle development that then transitions to female should be able to compete what you are basically saying is if you were born female you should no longer bother trying to compete in most sports.
Personally I would go for the third option, transgender sports, transgender changing rooms, transgender jails. Everyone then should be happy
East Germany was a world leader in turning men into women for the pursuit of medals. Do their records still stand?
Rather the opposite wasn't it? Women into men.
Why would they do that, biologically in most sports men have an advantage
They gave drugs to women to make them more like men....
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.
So for you it's balls then?
What's it about for you, @kinabalu ? You seem to be going reductionist on male anatomy this evening.
Name your criteria.
One of the area's of dispute is trans people in womans sport. If you agree that someone who has been male for the first 18 years of their life and therefore has testosterone fuelled muscle development that then transitions to female should be able to compete what you are basically saying is if you were born female you should no longer bother trying to compete in most sports.
Personally I would go for the third option, transgender sports, transgender changing rooms, transgender jails. Everyone then should be happy
East Germany was a world leader in turning men into women for the pursuit of medals. Do their records still stand?
Wasn't that turning women into men?
These two from the state drug programme age both 1983-1985::
The weekly hotspot hospital data is very encouraging:
Bolton 39 down from 42 (peak 162) East Lancs (Blackburn, Burnley, Hyndburn, Pendle, Rossendale) 30 up from 27 (peak 311) Peninne Acute (Bury, Rochdale, Oldham) 21 up from 21 (peak 424) Mid Yorks (Dewsbury, Batley, Wakefield) 15 down from 16 (peak 332) Bedfordshire 28 up from 12 (peak 329) - I suspect part of this increase is a blip, hospitalisations in the Eastern region have fallen by 13 subsequently
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.
So for you it's balls then?
What's it about for you, @kinabalu ? You seem to be going reductionist on male anatomy this evening.
Name your criteria.
One of the area's of dispute is trans people in womans sport. If you agree that someone who has been male for the first 18 years of their life and therefore has testosterone fuelled muscle development that then transitions to female should be able to compete what you are basically saying is if you were born female you should no longer bother trying to compete in most sports.
Personally I would go for the third option, transgender sports, transgender changing rooms, transgender jails. Everyone then should be happy
East Germany was a world leader in turning men into women for the pursuit of medals. Do their records still stand?
Rather the opposite wasn't it? Women into men.
Why would they do that, biologically in most sports men have an advantage
They gave drugs to women to make them more like men....
Yes but now outdated as you can give drugs to men to make them more like women
note in sport its purely a male to female transgenderism thats the issue
I would give atheletes the following options
Male to female transgender you can chose to compete in male sports or transgender Female to male you can chose to compete in female sports or transgender
Lib dems getting very upbeat about Chesham and Amersham. If Labour lose their deposit and the Tories pour into Batley and Spen it could get very tricky for SKS. But so far he's OK, with no credible candidates in the PLP. Could we see someone fall on their sword to let Andy in? Frankly, there aren't many seats safe enough to take the risk.
They will fall on their swords to bring pidcock back more likely
You really have no idea do you?
King Of The North is former Corbynites hope now.
Although TBF anyone but Starmer would be an improvement (unless it was Jess Phillips)
Wasnt she the annointed follow jeremy? The labour party is still riddled by the ultra left
You mean the Democratic Socialist Labour Party is "riddled" with Democratic Socialists
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.
So for you it's balls then?
What's it about for you, @kinabalu ? You seem to be going reductionist on male anatomy this evening.
Name your criteria.
One of the area's of dispute is trans people in womans sport. If you agree that someone who has been male for the first 18 years of their life and therefore has testosterone fuelled muscle development that then transitions to female should be able to compete what you are basically saying is if you were born female you should no longer bother trying to compete in most sports.
Personally I would go for the third option, transgender sports, transgender changing rooms, transgender jails. Everyone then should be happy
East Germany was a world leader in turning men into women for the pursuit of medals. Do their records still stand?
Rather the opposite wasn't it? Women into men.
Why would they do that, biologically in most sports men have an advantage
They gave drugs to women to make them more like men....
Yes but now outdated as you can give drugs to men to make them more like women
Pretty sure that is not what East Germany did - at least predominantly it was done to women.
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.
So for you it's balls then?
What's it about for you, @kinabalu ? You seem to be going reductionist on male anatomy this evening.
Name your criteria.
One of the area's of dispute is trans people in womans sport. If you agree that someone who has been male for the first 18 years of their life and therefore has testosterone fuelled muscle development that then transitions to female should be able to compete what you are basically saying is if you were born female you should no longer bother trying to compete in most sports.
Personally I would go for the third option, transgender sports, transgender changing rooms, transgender jails. Everyone then should be happy
East Germany was a world leader in turning men into women for the pursuit of medals. Do their records still stand?
Rather the opposite wasn't it? Women into men.
Why would they do that, biologically in most sports men have an advantage
They gave drugs to women to make them more like men....
Yes but now outdated as you can give drugs to men to make them more like women
Pretty sure that is not what East Germany did - at least predominantly it was done to women.
Yes because in those days they had to be biologically women
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.
Yes but there's no overarching Woke agenda being pursued by a cabal of post modern crazies designed to undermine scientific and historical truth and sap the moral fibre of the West. That's no more true than stuff like Jews pull all the strings. It IS conspiracist loony tunes talk. And imo the shrewder of them know it is. They push this line because they wish to defend the privileges they have grown so used to.
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.
Yes but there's no overarching Woke agenda being pursued by a cabal of post modern crazies designed to undermine scientific and historical truth and sap the moral fibre of the West. That's no more true than stuff like Jews pull all the strings. It IS conspiracist loony tunes talk. And imo the shrewder of them know it is. They push this line because they wish to defend the privileges they have grown so used to.
Its not a cabal that implies a secret its the labour party
Been in C and A all day ( and no I have not bought a coat or a 'at). There are remarkably few posters around but almost all are Lib Dem. Even the fields are not voting Conservative. The only Green poster I saw was at one of the largest houses in Amersham. The chat from local LD activists is that they have never seen anything like it.Make of that what you will.
I make very little of it.
If there are remarkably few posters around but almost all are Lib Dem then that simply means a small Lib Dem minority are motivated but everyone else isn't bothered.
@TOPPING@Leon@MattW Rabbits: meat is popular in some countries (and there's a push to introduce it in Britain on a larger scale). Many rabbit farms are basically just cramped hutches in which the rabbit can't sit up or extend its ears. The proposal would end that. Foie gras: we hadn't expected this amendment to get through and I wonder if it'll survive the final stage, but as phrased it only stops the force feeding, so maybe it will. Derogations: none, but a 6-year transition and support for farmers with the cost of change.
Of course, an effect will be that meat becomes slightly more expensive (since it's more efficient to stuff all the animals into cages). But that's not expected to be substantial.
The politics were interesting and I had a fair amount to do with it, especially in the early stages. Getting 1 million signatures was intimidating, so we in Compassion took the decision to launch it as an "unselfish" NGO action with software designed to enable any NGO or party to adopt it as their own without enabling us to get their supporter details. This is unusual in NGOland and it got a harvest of 180 NGOs backing it across Europe. We felt we'd get credit for initiating it anyway, and we didn't need to be greedy.
The farmers were strongly against at first, but we were able to win in the Czech Parliament, and Czech farmers then argued that it wasn't fair that they should be forced to have higher standards, so they demanded that others follow suit. That produced a domino effect in other countries and the pro-farmer Christian Democrats switched sides to join the centre-left parties. We then lobbied the Commission and struck lucky with the key Commissioners, notably a very conservative Pole who simply likes animals. Finally, we argued that the EU needed to show that the 1-million signature option could actually work, which won over some of the Commission who had no view on the issue but wanted to show a success for European democracy.
As in Britain, where the Defra team are notably pro-welfare, you have to be lucky in the individuals in the key jobs (and engage with them regardless of their party labels), and if you do get lucky you need to move swiftly to strike the deal before they move on. it's been a fun operation and it's not quite in the bag yet - but looks likely to be, as Commission+Parliament is a powerful combination.
Rabbits are very low value and therefore low margin in the UK, so it will need some very creative farmers. I think a breed of large New Zealand rabbit is an exception.
Already very difficult, and it would need a huge spread to pay for even one full time worker.
Potentially rabbits would be suitable for back garden farming. As pigs used to be.
The term "rabbit punch" comes from a punch to the head used to slaughter a rabbit.
The twitter feed on this topic is (I think) in error when it says that England boundary commission has put a bit of Wales into Bristol Northwest constituency.
Wiki article on Bristol says "The city council boundary is the narrowest definition of the city itself. However, it unusually includes a large, roughly rectangular section of the western Severn Estuary ending at (but not including) the islands of Steep Holm and Flat Holm.[121] This "seaward extension" can be traced back to the original boundary of the County of Bristol laid out in the charter granted to the city by Edward III in 1373."
IF you look closely at the map on the Twitter focusing in on Flat Holm, it appears that the Bristol Northwest Boundary does NOT include any of the island itself (as per above) but rather goes to the high-water mark (think that's what it is).
But check it out your yourselves!
I look forward to reading about how the future MP will hold his/her surgeries in that part of the constituency.
@TOPPING@Leon@MattW Rabbits: meat is popular in some countries (and there's a push to introduce it in Britain on a larger scale). Many rabbit farms are basically just cramped hutches in which the rabbit can't sit up or extend its ears. The proposal would end that. Foie gras: we hadn't expected this amendment to get through and I wonder if it'll survive the final stage, but as phrased it only stops the force feeding, so maybe it will. Derogations: none, but a 6-year transition and support for farmers with the cost of change.
Of course, an effect will be that meat becomes slightly more expensive (since it's more efficient to stuff all the animals into cages). But that's not expected to be substantial.
The politics were interesting and I had a fair amount to do with it, especially in the early stages. Getting 1 million signatures was intimidating, so we in Compassion took the decision to launch it as an "unselfish" NGO action with software designed to enable any NGO or party to adopt it as their own without enabling us to get their supporter details. This is unusual in NGOland and it got a harvest of 180 NGOs backing it across Europe. We felt we'd get credit for initiating it anyway, and we didn't need to be greedy.
The farmers were strongly against at first, but we were able to win in the Czech Parliament, and Czech farmers then argued that it wasn't fair that they should be forced to have higher standards, so they demanded that others follow suit. That produced a domino effect in other countries and the pro-farmer Christian Democrats switched sides to join the centre-left parties. We then lobbied the Commission and struck lucky with the key Commissioners, notably a very conservative Pole who simply likes animals. Finally, we argued that the EU needed to show that the 1-million signature option could actually work, which won over some of the Commission who had no view on the issue but wanted to show a success for European democracy.
As in Britain, where the Defra team are notably pro-welfare, you have to be lucky in the individuals in the key jobs (and engage with them regardless of their party labels), and if you do get lucky you need to move swiftly to strike the deal before they move on. it's been a fun operation and it's not quite in the bag yet - but looks likely to be, as Commission+Parliament is a powerful combination.
A further contribution to CWF from me then. Excellent work!
Bristol has had that weird shape for years. I read an article years ago that said it was to prevent a series of small English islands in the Bristol Channel being claimed by Wales.
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.
Not really, unless the imploding has been going on for years. There were several polls with the Greens ahead in the summer of 2019. We're now just back to the situation before coronavirus hit, with CDU/CSU probably slightly ahead of the Greens.
I think people tend to overplay the importance of Laschet vs Söder. Söder polls a lot better, but he is also much better placed as someone outside the CDU to benefit from some of the dissatisfaction with the CDU, would that survive becoming the CDU chancellor candidate? And how much would it help to persuade wavering voters to vote for the CDU if they couldn't find a chancellor candidate from within their own party? I am very sceptical. I remember the Schultz Effect from last time around, when the opinion poll boost the SPD got by choosing a "charismatic" candidate from outside national politics disappeared long before polling day. It wasn't enough to convince lost voters that there was a good reason to vote SPD.
I also doubt the Saxony Anhalt result has had much effect. On the one hand, the Greens have had some bad publicity while the negative fallout from the fight between Laschet and Söder has faded. At the same time people are feeling a lot better: everything is opening up, vaccinations are finally going well, summer has arrived, holidays around the corner and some people are thinking maybe the government didn't handle the Covid crisis that badly after all. But let's see what effect the latest scandals over masks etc have.
note in sport its purely a male to female transgenderism thats the issue
I would give atheletes the following options
Male to female transgender you can chose to compete in male sports or transgender Female to male you can chose to compete in female sports or transgender
I dont think thats unfair
The female to male with steroids etc may well give abnormal-for-female-sport physical power.
East Germany fed its female athletes anabolic steroids.
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.
So for you it's balls then?
What's it about for you, @kinabalu ? You seem to be going reductionist on male anatomy this evening.
Name your criteria.
I was simply exploring the essential anatomy of the debate as others see it.
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.
So for you it's balls then?
What's it about for you, @kinabalu ? You seem to be going reductionist on male anatomy this evening.
Name your criteria.
I was simply exploring the essential anatomy of the debate as others see it.
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.
So for you it's balls then?
What's it about for you, @kinabalu ? You seem to be going reductionist on male anatomy this evening.
Name your criteria.
I was simply exploring the essential anatomy of the debate as others see it.
The anatomy is quite simple sport wise
Would you consider a male competing in female weight lifting fair
If not why then
Would you consider a male competing in female fair on the grounds he claims to be a girl trapped in a mans body
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
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.
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.
If women still retired at 60 there would be a fair amount of men realising at age 59 they were trapped in a male body
Comments
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_Bloc_"Renato_Usatîi"
This is not a small example
That woman you mention is pushing it, but there will always be notable spokespeople who get associated with a cause - Marcus Rashford and foodbanks? - but that doesn't mean "only Marcus Rashford cares about foodbanks" - this argument against Anglo-Saxon as a term is long term, serious, widespread - and growing. You've just failed to educate yourself YET AGAIN
FFS. For the last time:
Published this year:
"The University of Cambridge must renounce the use of the term ‘ASNAC’
Jack Durand explains why continuing to use the term ‘Anglo-Saxon’ is racist, and urges the University to rename the ASNAC department".
https://www.varsity.co.uk/opinion/18597
See how it grows
Here: spreading into archaeology
https://howardwilliamsblog.wordpress.com/2019/10/16/purging-anglo-saxon-archaeology/
Six weeks ago, Washington Post, and The Atlantic
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/04/26/us-praise-anglo-saxon-heritage-has-always-been-about-white-supremacy/
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/04/anglo-saxon-what-you-say-when-whites-only-too-inclusive/618646/
A very early case here
"Anglo‐Saxon attitudes: In search of the origins of English racism"
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13507489508568093?journalCode=cerh20
Vanity Fair, this spring
"REPUBLICANS ARE BASICALLY STARTING A WHITE SUPREMACIST CAUCUS
They want to preserve “uniquely Anglo-Saxon political traditions,” like discrimination against non-white people. "
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/04/republicans-america-first-caucus
It's all part of Critical Race Theory: a desire to deconstruct whiteness, and to delegitimise the self esteem of white cultures, to enshrine them as intrinsically racist, and to deny them their own history. This is what is happening.
It's not some vast conspiracy, there aren't hordes of hairy-legged Woke women plotting all this, it has organically arisen out of the ashes of communism as the Left has sought a new cause - and wow they found it, with identity politics, born in obscure corners of academe in the 90s
I'm more interested in Nick's achievements wrt rabbits. What was happening and what can no longer happen with the blighters?
I heard him call for a negotiated solution, to implement the agreement, and to do something that would preserve an acceptable peace in NI.
Current EU demands are for the detailed implementation of the agreement *as Brussels sees it*, some of it based on concepts that EU admitted years ago could not be accepted by Unionists, and they don't seem to be doing much negotiation. And are currently lining up all the talking heads to make blood-curdling threats about "unilateral" moves, which sounds as of they are a touch rattled; they haven't got a numbered procedure to follow in steps 1 to 28.
Sounds like a need to make some moves, which the EU would may call "unilateral", but which are clearly permitted by the agreement under Article 16, do some education on Joe Biden as to the realities of NI, and continue vigorously asking the EC to start negotiating properly rather than squatting in an ivory tower in Brussels howling at the moon.
Perhaps we need to give the EC notice to start fulfilling obligations they are neglecting, then be ready do the appropriate under Article 16. I would put a Trusted Trader Scheme under this procedure, if applicable - as it will help solve real problems.
There are also some things that we should be doing to comply with stuff that hasn't happened yet, perhaps. Customs database access?
Nick was talking about size of cages, and probably putting rabbits in group-homes.
Politico.com (April 18,2021) - America First Caucus a crazy idea, John Boehner says
"I can tell you that this so-called America First Caucus is one of the nuttiest things I've ever seen," he said.
Former House Speaker John Boehner on Sunday called the plan of some House Republicans to form an America First Caucus crazy.
Speaking on NBC's "Meet the Press," Boehner said, "I can tell you that this so-called America First Caucus is one of the nuttiest things I've ever seen."
Reports surfaced last week that Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) and Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.) were leading an effort to form a Republican caucus built around "Anglo-Saxon political traditions" that was designed, among other things, to combat immigration to maintain those traditions. Greene on Saturday distanced herself from the proposal, while offering support for the rationale behind it. “America First policies will save this country for all of us, our children, and ultimately the world,” she said.
"I have no idea how this even showed up," said Boehner, who served as speaker from 2011 to 2015.
"Meet the Press" host Chuck Todd referred to the idea of the America First Caucus as the latest example of white supremacy surfacing in the Republican Party.
"America is a land of immigration," Boehner said. "We've been the world's giant melting pot for 250 years. And we ought to celebrate the fact that we are this giant melting pot. And to see some members of Congress go off and start this America First Caucus is — it's the silliest thing I've ever seen. And Republicans need to denounce it."
Name your criteria.
"England fast bowler Ollie Robinson will not play in Sussex’s first two Vitality Blast fixtures, on Friday and Saturday, after electing to take a short break from professional cricket to spend time with his family.
"Robinson’s decision follows his suspension - pending an England & Wales Cricket Board investigation - from international duty after he was discovered to have posted racist and sexist tweets in 2012 and 2013, for which he apologised."
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/cricket/2021/06/10/ollie-robinson-takes-short-break-cricket-england-suspension/
Though, now you mention it, when I did run an outpatients in the same space as the gender reassignment clinic 20 years ago. Observing their patients, many were formerly middle aged men.
Personally I would go for the third option, transgender sports, transgender changing rooms, transgender jails. Everyone then should be happy
https://twitter.com/alexpartridge87/status/1403001506425622528
The 90-minute session with the prime minister was the first meeting of the president’s first foreign trip.
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/06/10/biden-johnson-us-uk-relationship-493162
President Joe Biden and British Prime Minister Boris Johnson promoted their efforts to strengthen the U.S.-U.K. alliance in a joint statement released after their bilateral meeting on Thursday — Biden’s first overseas summit with a foreign leader since assuming office.
According to the statement, the 90-minute session focused on democracy, human rights and multilateralism; defense and security; science and technology; trade and prosperity; climate and nature; health; and the shared commitment to Northern Ireland.
Biden and Johnson laid out their “global vision” in an updated version of the Atlantic Charter of 1941, the agreement authorized by Franklin D. Roosevelt and Winston Churchill that established a set of post-war objectives for the two countries’ relationship. . . .
“We commit to working closely with all partners who share our democratic values and to countering the efforts of those who seek to undermine our alliances and institutions,” they added. . . .
Biden and Johnson “agreed that the U.K.-U.S. partnership was more important than ever as we tackle shared challenges like climate change and building back better from the coronavirus pandemic,” Downing Street said.
The two leaders also discussed foreign policy toward Afghanistan, China, Iran and Russia; a potential free trade agreement; reopening travel between their two countries; and their commitment to the Good Friday Agreement of 1998, which brought an end to political conflict in Northern Ireland. . . .
Biden [said] that he was “thrilled to be here” and “thrilled to meet your wife,” nodding to the prime minister’s covert wedding last month to Carrie Johnson (née Symonds). “I told the prime minister we have something in common: We both married way above our station,” Biden joked.
“I’m not going to dissent from that one,” Johnson replied. “I’m not going to disagree with the president on that or indeed on anything else, I think, either, likely.”
After the press corps dispersed, the two leaders proceeded to their meeting. Top administration officials representing the American delegation alongside Biden included Secretary of State Antony Blinken, National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan , Chargé d’Affaires at the U.S. Embassy in London Yael Lempert and White House Covid-19 Response Coordinator Jeff Zients.
Among the U.K. officials joining Johnson in the British delegation were Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs Dominic Raab, British Ambassador to the U.S. Karen Pierce, Minister of State David Frost and National Security Adviser Stephen Lovegrove. . . .
Cool.
Let's put a statue of Max Boyce on it.
Rabbits: meat is popular in some countries (and there's a push to introduce it in Britain on a larger scale). Many rabbit farms are basically just cramped hutches in which the rabbit can't sit up or extend its ears. The proposal would end that.
Foie gras: we hadn't expected this amendment to get through and I wonder if it'll survive the final stage, but as phrased it only stops the force feeding, so maybe it will.
Derogations: none, but a 6-year transition and support for farmers with the cost of change.
Of course, an effect will be that meat becomes slightly more expensive (since it's more efficient to stuff all the animals into cages). But that's not expected to be substantial.
The politics were interesting and I had a fair amount to do with it, especially in the early stages. Getting 1 million signatures was intimidating, so we in Compassion took the decision to launch it as an "unselfish" NGO action with software designed to enable any NGO or party to adopt it as their own without enabling us to get their supporter details. This is unusual in NGOland and it got a harvest of 180 NGOs backing it across Europe. We felt we'd get credit for initiating it anyway, and we didn't need to be greedy.
The farmers were strongly against at first, but we were able to win in the Czech Parliament, and Czech farmers then argued that it wasn't fair that they should be forced to have higher standards, so they demanded that others follow suit. That produced a domino effect in other countries and the pro-farmer Christian Democrats switched sides to join the centre-left parties. We then lobbied the Commission and struck lucky with the key Commissioners, notably a very conservative Pole who simply likes animals. Finally, we argued that the EU needed to show that the 1-million signature option could actually work, which won over some of the Commission who had no view on the issue but wanted to show a success for European democracy.
As in Britain, where the Defra team are notably pro-welfare, you have to be lucky in the individuals in the key jobs (and engage with them regardless of their party labels), and if you do get lucky you need to move swiftly to strike the deal before they move on. it's been a fun operation and it's not quite in the bag yet - but looks likely to be, as Commission+Parliament is a powerful combination.
King Of The North is former Corbynites hope now.
Although TBF anyone but Starmer would be an improvement (unless it was Jess Phillips)
Wiki article on Bristol says "The city council boundary is the narrowest definition of the city itself. However, it unusually includes a large, roughly rectangular section of the western Severn Estuary ending at (but not including) the islands of Steep Holm and Flat Holm.[121] This "seaward extension" can be traced back to the original boundary of the County of Bristol laid out in the charter granted to the city by Edward III in 1373."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristol
IF you look closely at the map on the Twitter focusing in on Flat Holm, it appears that the Bristol Northwest Boundary does NOT include any of the island itself (as per above) but rather goes to the high-water mark (think that's what it is).
But check it out your yourselves!
These two from the state drug programme age both 1983-1985::
Marita Koch: 400m (Ger)
Jarmila Kratochvílová: 800m (Czech)
At least one relay, and a whole slew of field events.
Bolton 39 down from 42 (peak 162)
East Lancs (Blackburn, Burnley, Hyndburn, Pendle, Rossendale) 30 up from 27 (peak 311)
Peninne Acute (Bury, Rochdale, Oldham) 21 up from 21 (peak 424)
Mid Yorks (Dewsbury, Batley, Wakefield) 15 down from 16 (peak 332)
Bedfordshire 28 up from 12 (peak 329) - I suspect part of this increase is a blip, hospitalisations in the Eastern region have fallen by 13 subsequently
Male to female transgender you can chose to compete in male sports or transgender
Female to male you can chose to compete in female sports or transgender
I dont think thats unfair
GE 2017 - 40%
GE 2024 - LT 30%
If there are remarkably few posters around but almost all are Lib Dem then that simply means a small Lib Dem minority are motivated but everyone else isn't bothered.
Already very difficult, and it would need a huge spread to pay for even one full time worker.
Potentially rabbits would be suitable for back garden farming. As pigs used to be.
The term "rabbit punch" comes from a punch to the head used to slaughter a rabbit.
I think people tend to overplay the importance of Laschet vs Söder. Söder polls a lot better, but he is also much better placed as someone outside the CDU to benefit from some of the dissatisfaction with the CDU, would that survive becoming the CDU chancellor candidate? And how much would it help to persuade wavering voters to vote for the CDU if they couldn't find a chancellor candidate from within their own party? I am very sceptical. I remember the Schultz Effect from last time around, when the opinion poll boost the SPD got by choosing a "charismatic" candidate from outside national politics disappeared long before polling day. It wasn't enough to convince lost voters that there was a good reason to vote SPD.
I also doubt the Saxony Anhalt result has had much effect. On the one hand, the Greens have had some bad publicity while the negative fallout from the fight between Laschet and Söder has faded. At the same time people are feeling a lot better: everything is opening up, vaccinations are finally going well, summer has arrived, holidays around the corner and some people are thinking maybe the government didn't handle the Covid crisis that badly after all. But let's see what effect the latest scandals over masks etc have.
East Germany fed its female athletes anabolic steroids.
Would you consider a male competing in female weight lifting fair
If not why then
Would you consider a male competing in female fair on the grounds he claims to be a girl trapped in a mans body