With one expiation that's not my experience, maybe they know my opinion and are being pilite, my friends relatives what to open up ASAP. unless mood has changed over weekend?
I think that formally opening up will change the narrative, especially a week later if there is no rush of hospitalizations.
But ultimately some what to keep wereing a mask, and stay at home while others go to night clubs and dance at weddings, well that's there chose as it all ways was.
The one exemption is a Nurse who worked on a covid ward, and has had 2 relatives die, and had a bad case herself.
I'm no night clubber so that means nothing to me (Vienna). In almost every other respect, my life is now normal apart from the mask wearing - now, that may be more interesting. I suspect the mandatory aspect will end on July 19th but I also think the power will be held in reserve so if we do get a big flu outbreak or similar, the mandatory wearing of masks on public transport could be re-instated.
The night clubs themselves are arguable only an issue to some, but its more than that.
Sadly the big thing is the Furlough scheme, in needs to be wind down and soon, 2.4 million still on it by some estimations, some of theses need to get back to there jobs, others need to start looking for other employment.
There may be lots of company's that have furlough receptionists, cleaners or others, and are going to say, you know what we can manage with out you sorry and thanks for your time but goodbye and good luck, in other cases the company may be functionally bankrupt, but is being kept open on paper because the boss likes his workers and by doing so feels he is helping them.
But 1) we can not afford to keep paying people to do nothing for ever, especially now we have borrowed so much. 2) we need theses people in other parts of the economy to head off a sharp inflationary spick. 3) by this point in most cases it will achaly be good for there mental heath to have productive employment.
SAGE advice needs to now be reviewed by a more balanced team that includes economists. Cabinet needs to get a grip and stop allowing a tiny group of ministers to make all the decisions. imho we can't afford to carry on like this.
But it's what we let ourselves in for when we gave emergency powers to the government to combat somethng that is a chronic problem, not an emergency.
What if I was not involved in the election, but tolled my mate, don't vote for X because.... , that fine, but what if I whet to his house to have a chat and he is not there so I leave a note, and at the bottom, I say P.S. don't vote for X because.... , still fine? or what if the note was only saying don't vote X because.... , still fine? or what if I printed it out.... what if I printed out a few, and put one though my mate door, but got confused and it went to the wrong house?
I mean, if three is an election going on and one side thought they were going to lose, but might win if they had more time, could 'somebody' create a non-imprinted leaflet cruising there own candidate and distribute a few and then say, we must void it now? they would be in trouble if caught, but hard to catch I would have thought.
(Not suggesting that's what has happened here, Big parties are not incline to take risks and get the bad PR)
but how does the law stack up? is it only valid if the election is close?
Very rare, only times in recent memory have election results been voided is Winchester in 1997 and Oldham East & Saddleworth in 2010.
If someone wanted to void a by-election what would prevent them putting out say 30,000 leaflets of this type ?
Doesn’t printing a political leaflet without the correct label it come with a very large fine?
nicole lampert @nicolelampert · 11m I’ve heard from friends campaigning in Batley that Labour activists are being actively intimidated and have even had eggs thrown at them. Our politics has been toxic for a while but this is still beyond awful.
Does feel quite significant. Muslim communities are really turning on Labour.
On topic: so the Sunday Telegraph is joining Gorgeous George Galloway in pushing the idea that SKS might be caused by the loss of B&S to wave goodbye to the Labour leadership. But while SKS is nowhere near as effective a leader as Jeremy Corbyn was, resignation is unlikely if Labour only lose by a four-figure majority. As for Gorgeous, he is nothing like as important at national level as he thinks.
Starmer is disappointing, however, "while SKS is nowhere near as effective a leader as Jeremy Corbyn" is a complete crock.
Corbyn has destroyed the Labour Party, that notwithstanding his acolytes believe they deserve a few more goes at a GE. Corbyn' had two bites of the cherry and fell short by a country mile on both occasions. If Corbynistas want a Conservative government, why don't they just vote for one rather than screw up any viable alternative?
I detest Johnson, however Momentum ******* are even worse.
I think it's time for a law telling businesses that they must accept cash.
Does anyone agree?
Absolutely not!
Its none of the state's business what businesses choose to accept or not accept. That's disgustingly authoritarian.
Would you call for a law telling businesses they must accept cards?
"Authoritarian" is a word. What have you got against this measure? Telling us we mustn't visit our parents or go within 2 metres of each other is quite authoritarian too. Why's it absolutely wrong in all circumstances for the public authorities to limit the choices open to businesses on what payment methods they accept, who they sell to, how much they pay their employees, what hours they open, what they are allowed to sell, and so on? Allowing businesses to refuse to accept cash could lead to some kind of "-tarianism" that's even worse than "authori-".
I've run into quite a few people who are reluctant to distinguish between authoritarian/non-authoritarian and justified/unjustified, saying things like the lockdown can't be authoritarian because (emphasising every syllable) there's a pandemic.
Of course telling people they can't see their family is authoritarian.
Some might want to argue that its right to be authoritarian because there's a pandemic, but to deny that it is a fundamental breach of our civil liberties is just not true.
I think his point is that saying something is “authoritarian” is just a description not an argument.
"A woman confronted the staff at the Wi Spa in Los Angeles after a man walked into the women's section with his genitals hanging out in front of girls. He identified as a "woman." The employees said he had a right to do that. The employees say that it's the law."
Get with the program gender critical women. This is the future. Bearded men explaining what it is to be a woman and what a woman is.
As if we haven't had men telling us that for centuries. And exposing themselves to us as well. And behaving like perverts etc.
Only now we're utterly fed up with it. So we say no to all this bullshit.
Yes, it is awful and if women dare to dissent against this bullshit they get attacked, no platformed, sacked and reviled by a tiny minority. Men who think they know what being a woman is.
I was fully on board with the trans lobby until I read of the cotton ceiling and lesbians being guilt shamed for not welcoming ‘girldick’.
Sorry… have I understood that correctly…
If a man self-identities as a woman, lesbians are supported to sleep with her?
Hmmm… 🤔
People sleep with who they want to if the desire is reciprocal. The biggest single exception is men forcing themselves on women in one way or another. The trans aspect to this is really lost in the margins. It's just that it has a certain prurient fascination.
Guilt shaming lesbians who don’t want to sleep with women who still have their male parts is not acceptable
And yet it is the logical consequence of self-id gender ideology.
No it isn't. Because they never have to sleep with anyone they don't want to. For whatever reason.
They don't. But they are being accused of transphobia and attacked. It is one reason why some lesbian groups have set up away from Stonewall and in opposition to it, precisely because they are worried about the consequences of self-id for lesbians.
This is a real issue for lesbians who feel that the demands of men wishing to transition are taking precedence over the rights of women and lesbians in particular.
I suspect we are largely in agreement here.
If a man wants to dress as a woman that is no problem. If a man want to live as a woman that is no problem. If a man wants to take part in women's sporting events that are restricted to women that is a problem. However he/she wishes to self identify, he/she does not qualify. The weight lifting thing in the Olympics is absurd. If a man wants to make use of "safe spaces" for women such as toilets, prisons, changing rooms there is a conflict of rights but in my view that conflict should be resolved in favour of those born with the sex of a women if they are at risk. That is why those spaces exist.
But no one, ever, is obliged to have sex with anyone else. That is all I was saying.
It is not quite that simple though is it. You meet someone in the bar you are attracted, you wine her and dine her over a couple of weeks then you find out she isn't a women/man depending on your gender.
At what point does it become incumbent on someone to mention it before it becomes deception? You whether he or she may be spending money on someone that you wouldn't have done if you had known up front. This sort of thing is going to crop up and I fully expect lawsuits about it.
Isn't the simplest way to simply employ the Croc Dundee greeting whenever you meet someone new?
Also legally is it even deception?
If a transwoman (biological man) identifies as and is legally a woman, even if they have a penis, then why would they need to say that they have a penis or are biologically a man?
Which is kind of messed up, but legally is there any grounds for it to be considered a deception?
That the girl you've picked up has a penis may be a bit more of a shock than that she has a third nipple or false leg, but is there any law that says it needs to be declared?
What's the ratio of free kick shots on goal to goals from them in this tournament ?
In general it is actually very very low. Off the top of my head, I seemed to remember there was an analysis done a couple of seasons ago and Eriksen was the best performer with ~25% of free kick on target and he was well ahead of everybody else.
Best free kick team would be Ward-Prowse on the left, Dybala on the right.
I did say on target not scored...but cool graphic. Does emphasize how infrequent people score. Makes you wonder if it is even worth it, rather than just to manipulate the ball.
But if no one tried to shoot for goal then the defense would setup differently making it harder to manipulate the ball.
"A woman confronted the staff at the Wi Spa in Los Angeles after a man walked into the women's section with his genitals hanging out in front of girls. He identified as a "woman." The employees said he had a right to do that. The employees say that it's the law."
Get with the program gender critical women. This is the future. Bearded men explaining what it is to be a woman and what a woman is.
As if we haven't had men telling us that for centuries. And exposing themselves to us as well. And behaving like perverts etc.
Only now we're utterly fed up with it. So we say no to all this bullshit.
Yes, it is awful and if women dare to dissent against this bullshit they get attacked, no platformed, sacked and reviled by a tiny minority. Men who think they know what being a woman is.
I was fully on board with the trans lobby until I read of the cotton ceiling and lesbians being guilt shamed for not welcoming ‘girldick’.
Sorry… have I understood that correctly…
If a man self-identities as a woman, lesbians are supported to sleep with her?
Hmmm… 🤔
People sleep with who they want to if the desire is reciprocal. The biggest single exception is men forcing themselves on women in one way or another. The trans aspect to this is really lost in the margins. It's just that it has a certain prurient fascination.
Guilt shaming lesbians who don’t want to sleep with women who still have their male parts is not acceptable
I'll probably set off a Kinabalu alert, but I don't believe that lesbians can have penises.
Everyone seemed to have missed the point of my original comment… it wasn’t meant to be taken seriously… merely an opportunity opening up…
Nor mine.
But look, seriously, all this nonsense about trans people being talked. C'mon.
Not so much you @Cyclefree - we'll do this one properly some time. I agree and disagree with you.
The only one talking bollocks about trans women is you. Everyone else has pretty much said no problem except they cant impinge on womens safe spaces till they have been cut. It is only you arguing any different
"till they have been cut" - right.
Yes till then they still have male genitalia and I have every sympathy for women not wanting it waved in front of them....why do you think women don't get to choose not to see it and that makes them bad? Oh right yes because transgender now is higher on the totem pole in the lefty world that women so women just have to lump it correct?
Not at all. That's really not where I'm coming from. Neither extreme should be allowed to define this debate.
My view is the vast vast majority of people who wish to change gender are doing it for the serious and genuine reason that they feel they ARE the target gender and need to have this validated in order to have a shot at a decent life.
There will be men who decide to become women in order to access female spaces and "wave their tackle around" (or worse) but we're talking about a tiny minority. When I hear the conversation being conducted as if this were the expected norm I know I'm hearing stuff based on paranoia and ignorance and prejudice. Which btw I don't mind that much. It's understandable because it's quite a bizarre area and very few of the people (usually men) who have so much to say on the anti-trans side of the debate either know any trans people or have made any effort to listen to them on youtube or whatever.
What does bug me more is when I hear people (again men) who can usually be found on the reactionary dinosaur side of the gender equality debate suddenly discover their burning inner feminist and now can't sleep for worrying about female empowerment and women's sport and all the rest of it. They are often the very same units who have also just discovered their 'gay rights warrior' true inner self when it comes to talking about Muslims. That's annoying.
But anyway, it's the football, which I'm into like a proper cis bloke, so I mustn't bang on.
Executive Summary: There are issues and a need for limits and controls, but in general I think transitioning is a good thing for those who need to - crucial in fact - and it does others no harm. So the process should be made a hell of a lot easier than it is today.
1. No to self-id. Absolutely not. Being a woman is not a feeling or something you become or turn into or say you are just by uttering some magic words. An absolute red line for me this.
2. Get a medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria. Then you can start the process of transitioning. Once someone is on that path I am relatively relaxed about the rest of it.
3. Make it easier and quicker to access the medical and other advice needed for such a diagnosis to be given. Currently the delays are very long. This is unkind and causes unnecessary distress.
4. Special provision needs to be made for spouses and children before the final certificate is given so that they are not left in some limbo. Their rights are affected and so their needs have to be taken into account.
5. Gender neutral spaces and toilets etc to be made available where possible. But if not available people use the loos / spaces appropriate for their genitalia.
6. No change whatsoever to the single sex-based requirements and exemptions for women.
7. Data should continue being collected based on sex. Sex should continue being relevant to medical care and other relevant areas. There should be no let up in efforts to eliminate / reduce sex-based discrimination.
8. Gender recognition certificates are given once final transition has been completed. Original birth certificates are not altered. Historical factual accuracy is essential.
9. No-one with male genitalia should be able to access or demand access to single sex spaces such as women's refuges.
10. Those who are born male and have gone through puberty cannot compete in female sports. (There may be some limited exceptions eg for equestrian events where the competitor's strength is utterly irrelevant.)
11. Special provision should be made for children. Safeguarding concerns override all other rights. The Keira Bell vs Tavistock appeal will determine what can be done. But experimental medical intervention should not, as a general rule, be given to children.
12.Nonsense about calling mothers "birthing parents" etc to be strangled at birth.
13. Advice on the law to be provided by lawyers who understand what the law says and not by charities or pressure groups wishing to change it. The role of 3rd sector agencies with an agenda should be reviewed very carefully. There are too many conflicts of interest leading to bad advice and potentially unlawful action.
14. Attacks on transpeople or discrimination against the, should be firmly dealt with.
"A woman confronted the staff at the Wi Spa in Los Angeles after a man walked into the women's section with his genitals hanging out in front of girls. He identified as a "woman." The employees said he had a right to do that. The employees say that it's the law."
Get with the program gender critical women. This is the future. Bearded men explaining what it is to be a woman and what a woman is.
As if we haven't had men telling us that for centuries. And exposing themselves to us as well. And behaving like perverts etc.
Only now we're utterly fed up with it. So we say no to all this bullshit.
Yes, it is awful and if women dare to dissent against this bullshit they get attacked, no platformed, sacked and reviled by a tiny minority. Men who think they know what being a woman is.
I was fully on board with the trans lobby until I read of the cotton ceiling and lesbians being guilt shamed for not welcoming ‘girldick’.
Sorry… have I understood that correctly…
If a man self-identities as a woman, lesbians are supported to sleep with her?
Hmmm… 🤔
People sleep with who they want to if the desire is reciprocal. The biggest single exception is men forcing themselves on women in one way or another. The trans aspect to this is really lost in the margins. It's just that it has a certain prurient fascination.
Guilt shaming lesbians who don’t want to sleep with women who still have their male parts is not acceptable
I'll probably set off a Kinabalu alert, but I don't believe that lesbians can have penises.
Everyone seemed to have missed the point of my original comment… it wasn’t meant to be taken seriously… merely an opportunity opening up…
Nor mine.
But look, seriously, all this nonsense about trans people being talked. C'mon.
Not so much you @Cyclefree - we'll do this one properly some time. I agree and disagree with you.
The only one talking bollocks about trans women is you. Everyone else has pretty much said no problem except they cant impinge on womens safe spaces till they have been cut. It is only you arguing any different
"till they have been cut" - right.
Yes till then they still have male genitalia and I have every sympathy for women not wanting it waved in front of them....why do you think women don't get to choose not to see it and that makes them bad? Oh right yes because transgender now is higher on the totem pole in the lefty world that women so women just have to lump it correct?
Not at all. That's really not where I'm coming from. Neither extreme should be allowed to define this debate.
My view is the vast vast majority of people who wish to change gender are doing it for the serious and genuine reason that they feel they ARE the target gender and need to have this validated in order to have a shot at a decent life.
There will be men who decide to become women in order to access female spaces and "wave their tackle around" (or worse) but we're talking about a tiny minority. When I hear the conversation being conducted as if this were the expected norm I know I'm hearing stuff based on paranoia and ignorance and prejudice. Which btw I don't mind that much. It's understandable because it's quite a bizarre area and very few of the people (usually men) who have so much to say on the anti-trans side of the debate either know any trans people or have made any effort to listen to them on youtube or whatever.
What does bug me more is when I hear people (again men) who can usually be found on the reactionary dinosaur side of the gender equality debate suddenly discover their burning inner feminist and now can't sleep for worrying about female empowerment and women's sport and all the rest of it. They are often the very same units who have also just discovered their 'gay rights warrior' true inner self when it comes to talking about Muslims. That's annoying.
But anyway, it's the football, which I'm into like a proper cis bloke, so I mustn't bang on.
Executive Summary: There are issues and a need for limits and controls, but in general I think transitioning is a good thing for those who need to - crucial in fact - and it does others no harm. So the process should be made a hell of a lot easier than it is today.
1. No to self-id. Absolutely not. Being a woman is not a feeling or something you become or turn into or say you are just by uttering some magic words. An absolute red line for me this.
2. Get a medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria. Then you can start the process of transitioning. Once someone is on that path I am relatively relaxed about the rest of it.
3. Make it easier and quicker to access the medical and other advice needed for such a diagnosis to be given. Currently the delays are very long. This is unkind and causes unnecessary distress.
4. Special provision needs to be made for spouses and children before the final certificate is given so that they are not left in some limbo. Their rights are affected and so their needs have to be taken into account.
5. Gender neutral spaces and toilets etc to be made available where possible. But if not available people use the loos / spaces appropriate for their genitalia.
6. No change whatsoever to the single sex-based requirements and exemptions for women.
7. Data should continue being collected based on sex. Sex should continue being relevant to medical care and other relevant areas. There should be no let up in efforts to eliminate / reduce sex-based discrimination.
8. Gender recognition certificates are given once final transition has been completed. Original birth certificates are not altered. Historical factual accuracy is essential.
9. No-one with male genitalia should be able to access or demand access to single sex spaces such as women's refuges.
10. Those who are born male and have gone through puberty cannot compete in female sports. (There may be some limited exceptions eg for equestrian events where the competitor's strength is utterly irrelevant.)
11. Special provision should be made for children. Safeguarding concerns override all other rights. The Keira Bell vs Tavistock appeal will determine what can be done. But experimental medical intervention should not, as a general rule, be given to children.
12.Nonsense about calling mothers "birthing parents" etc to be strangled at birth.
13. Advice on the law to be provided by lawyers who understand what the law says and not by charities or pressure groups wishing to change it. The role of 3rd sector agencies with an agenda should be reviewed very carefully. There are too many conflicts of interest leading to bad advice and potentially unlawful action.
14. Attacks on transpeople or discrimination against the, should be firmly dealt with.
I think as somebody else pointed out a big thing that could come out of this is a review of appointments of “non-exec directors” to Govt departments. Even if she was genuinely doing a job, as well as jobs, it isn’t obvious that it bore any relation to the traditional role of a NED and seems to have been more of a personal aide/asst to the minister. Which in itself should have raised questions...
Totally agree. She looks very much like his full time comms SPAD aide and not an non-exec for the department.
Another disgrace to add the massive list for this shower of a government.
If she was doing a full time comma SPAD role for the NED fee of £15k that’s a bargain not a disgrace
A man flew into a violent rage during a sexual encounter with a transgender woman.
Suhel Sood repeatedly punched the victim, slammed her head onto a washing machine, and ordered the victim to clean up her own blood after discovering she had male genitals.
Now Sood, 34, who was fuelled by booze and cocaine, has been jailed for 16 months.
Reading Crown Court heard the victim had arrived at a party with her boyfriend before ending up in a room alone with Sood.
She performed a sex act on him, before Sood switched on the light and shouted 'you're a man' before attacking her and calling her a 'dog', the Mirror reports.
"This assault arose entirely from Mr Sood discovering that she was transgender and thereafter assaulting her," Oliver Weetch, prosecuting, said.
Though this would sound like sexual assault by deception. See case 2 in the Wikipedia link.
If you deceive someone over a sexual matter and get a kicking for so doing, I can't say I have much sympathy. The law takes a different view...
How many guys would not react violently when they had been so deceived..?
Nonetheless assaulting a person is wrong.
It may well be but its a natural reaction for a bloke who has been deceived i don't know a mate who would not react violently. .
If you go to a party and get your willy sucked in a dark room by a total stranger, it's on you if that stranger turns out to be someone or something you don't like. If you are passed out drunk and they assault you, sure. Otherwise, it's not a "natural reaction" to hospitalise them.
GB News trounced in viewing figures by Pobol y Cwm – and gets five times fewer than Welsh language Paw Patrol
GB News’s viewing figures have slumped below those of Welsh language S4C shows such as Pobol y Cwm, the latest figures reveal.
The right-wing news channel debuted to ratings of 336,000 on June 13, higher even than established rivals Sky News and BBC News.
But the latest figures showed a significant slump, with only a maximum of 32,000 tuning in on Thursday. Chairman Andrew Neil’s own flagship show only attracted 31,000.
It means that the channel has slumped below viewing figures for Welsh language S4C shows such as Pobol y Cwm, which attracts 44,000 viewers according to the latest S4C stats.
Welsh language Paw Patrol, Patrol Pawennau, pulled in over five times as many viewers at 161,000.
BBC News at Ten on Thursday meanwhile pulled in 3.6 million viewers.
The comparison with BBC One news at 10 is ridiculous. A better comparison is sky news which is more the 50k mark. i can't remember BBC news channel off the top of my head but that doesn't pull in mega audiences either, albeit more than Sky
As a load of us pointed out there isn't any real viewership in dedicated news channels in the UK. Especially one that appears to be amateur hour version of Talk Radio. It is nothing unique.
I still think that having constant talk segments is a mistake. They should do a GB news bulletin programme e.g. GB News at 7 as that would give people more reason to tune in regularly.
That would require employing actual journalists rather than bullshit merchants.
That is the problem. They have no reporters, just a few talking heads spouting the same repetitive "anti-woke" diatribes.
It's not so much the technical glitches, or politics that makes it unwatchable, as the tedious repetitiveness.
That's what I found. I was intrigued and up for a challenging, right of centre slant on the news. But it's deathly dull. Anti woke can be interesting but just mirroring back what you can hear from any cab driver isn't that stimulating.
A man flew into a violent rage during a sexual encounter with a transgender woman.
Suhel Sood repeatedly punched the victim, slammed her head onto a washing machine, and ordered the victim to clean up her own blood after discovering she had male genitals.
Now Sood, 34, who was fuelled by booze and cocaine, has been jailed for 16 months.
Reading Crown Court heard the victim had arrived at a party with her boyfriend before ending up in a room alone with Sood.
She performed a sex act on him, before Sood switched on the light and shouted 'you're a man' before attacking her and calling her a 'dog', the Mirror reports.
"This assault arose entirely from Mr Sood discovering that she was transgender and thereafter assaulting her," Oliver Weetch, prosecuting, said.
Though this would sound like sexual assault by deception. See case 2 in the Wikipedia link.
If you deceive someone over a sexual matter and get a kicking for so doing, I can't say I have much sympathy. The law takes a different view...
How many guys would not react violently when they had been so deceived..?
Nonetheless assaulting a person is wrong.
It may well be but its a natural reaction for a bloke who has been deceived i don't know a mate who would not react violently. .
If you go to a party and get your willy sucked in a dark room by a total stranger, it's on you if that stranger turns out to be someone or something you don't like. If you are passed out drunk and they assault you, sure. Otherwise, it's not a "natural reaction" to hospitalise them.
There are two issues:-
1. There is sexual assault by deception. R v Newland would suggest that the victim of battery may well have been guilty of that offence.
2. The battery. The victim of 1. cannot claim self-defence, and provocation is a mitigating factor, not a defence.
On topic: so the Sunday Telegraph is joining Gorgeous George Galloway in pushing the idea that SKS might be caused by the loss of B&S to wave goodbye to the Labour leadership. But while SKS is nowhere near as effective a leader as Jeremy Corbyn was, resignation is unlikely if Labour only lose by a four-figure majority. As for Gorgeous, he is nothing like as important at national level as he thinks.
I can't see him going now. But he might if things aren't looking better by this time next year.
BREAKING: British No 1 Johanna Konta has been forced to withdraw from Wimbledon after going into self-isolation having been identified as a close contact of a person with coronavirus.
Discussing the general situation with my wife and we are in agreement that it is now in a completely ridiculous situation.
Cases are rocketing, the government are in no way taking societal level actions to suppress case numbers but we still have to self isolate after being a "close contact"
It is a worst of all worlds situation. Either cases matter ro they don't. If they matter we must suppress, if they don't then fuck this self isolation nonsense.
With Edinburgh case numbers now dwarfing January what chance my daughters summer holiday activities going ahead uninterrupted/at all? Close to zero.
This is a key point. If it is official Government policy to largely disregard case numbers, then they need to do a lot better job of communicating this to the general public (and even, dare i say it, review their current testing policy which is almost designed to maximise case numbers).
Because i suspect that headline numbers are still what most people look at, and there is much less focus/knowledge of hospitalisation numbers (and perhaps deaths). Because throughout the pandemic people have become trained to the idea that the latter are lagging factors, and will dismiss low numbers for them unless given good reasons not to do so.
There is a big political danger if the Government lifts all restrictions on July 19th with case numbers still sky rocketing (there is the possibility, perhaps even probability by then that they will be on the turn, but that's not guaranteed) and it gets portrayed by sections of the media that this is just abandoning the health of the public to save money, end furlough etc.
But have they got the communicators for that, and are they even trying?
"A woman confronted the staff at the Wi Spa in Los Angeles after a man walked into the women's section with his genitals hanging out in front of girls. He identified as a "woman." The employees said he had a right to do that. The employees say that it's the law."
Get with the program gender critical women. This is the future. Bearded men explaining what it is to be a woman and what a woman is.
As if we haven't had men telling us that for centuries. And exposing themselves to us as well. And behaving like perverts etc.
Only now we're utterly fed up with it. So we say no to all this bullshit.
Yes, it is awful and if women dare to dissent against this bullshit they get attacked, no platformed, sacked and reviled by a tiny minority. Men who think they know what being a woman is.
I was fully on board with the trans lobby until I read of the cotton ceiling and lesbians being guilt shamed for not welcoming ‘girldick’.
Sorry… have I understood that correctly…
If a man self-identities as a woman, lesbians are supported to sleep with her?
Hmmm… 🤔
People sleep with who they want to if the desire is reciprocal. The biggest single exception is men forcing themselves on women in one way or another. The trans aspect to this is really lost in the margins. It's just that it has a certain prurient fascination.
Guilt shaming lesbians who don’t want to sleep with women who still have their male parts is not acceptable
And yet it is the logical consequence of self-id gender ideology.
No it isn't. Because they never have to sleep with anyone they don't want to. For whatever reason.
They don't. But they are being accused of transphobia and attacked. It is one reason why some lesbian groups have set up away from Stonewall and in opposition to it, precisely because they are worried about the consequences of self-id for lesbians.
This is a real issue for lesbians who feel that the demands of men wishing to transition are taking precedence over the rights of women and lesbians in particular.
I suspect we are largely in agreement here.
If a man wants to dress as a woman that is no problem. If a man want to live as a woman that is no problem. If a man wants to take part in women's sporting events that are restricted to women that is a problem. However he/she wishes to self identify, he/she does not qualify. The weight lifting thing in the Olympics is absurd. If a man wants to make use of "safe spaces" for women such as toilets, prisons, changing rooms there is a conflict of rights but in my view that conflict should be resolved in favour of those born with the sex of a women if they are at risk. That is why those spaces exist.
But no one, ever, is obliged to have sex with anyone else. That is all I was saying.
It is not quite that simple though is it. You meet someone in the bar you are attracted, you wine her and dine her over a couple of weeks then you find out she isn't a women/man depending on your gender.
At what point does it become incumbent on someone to mention it before it becomes deception? You whether he or she may be spending money on someone that you wouldn't have done if you had known up front. This sort of thing is going to crop up and I fully expect lawsuits about it.
Isn't the simplest way to simply employ the Croc Dundee greeting whenever you meet someone new?
Also legally is it even deception?
If a transwoman (biological man) identifies as and is legally a woman, even if they have a penis, then why would they need to say that they have a penis or are biologically a man?
Which is kind of messed up, but legally is there any grounds for it to be considered a deception?
That the girl you've picked up has a penis may be a bit more of a shock than that she has a third nipple or false leg, but is there any law that says it needs to be declared?
Well, you have no entitlement to sex, so if it turns out that the person you go home with doesn't have the sexual parts you want to engage with, then you've lost nothing that you might not have lost in some other way - but it does seem like it could be a great big waste of time for everyone involved if generally a lot of people are not bisexual, and so only interested in sexual activity with a person who has their preferred genitalia.
But you can't expect people to wear a badge displaying what genitals they have, so there's always going to be an awkward question of when to communicate it. Dealing with disappointment, if you are disappointed in such a situation, gracefully can be difficult, but is something we should aspire to.
A man flew into a violent rage during a sexual encounter with a transgender woman.
Suhel Sood repeatedly punched the victim, slammed her head onto a washing machine, and ordered the victim to clean up her own blood after discovering she had male genitals.
Now Sood, 34, who was fuelled by booze and cocaine, has been jailed for 16 months.
Reading Crown Court heard the victim had arrived at a party with her boyfriend before ending up in a room alone with Sood.
She performed a sex act on him, before Sood switched on the light and shouted 'you're a man' before attacking her and calling her a 'dog', the Mirror reports.
"This assault arose entirely from Mr Sood discovering that she was transgender and thereafter assaulting her," Oliver Weetch, prosecuting, said.
Though this would sound like sexual assault by deception. See case 2 in the Wikipedia link.
If you deceive someone over a sexual matter and get a kicking for so doing, I can't say I have much sympathy. The law takes a different view...
How many guys would not react violently when they had been so deceived..?
Nonetheless assaulting a person is wrong.
It may well be but its a natural reaction for a bloke who has been deceived i don't know a mate who would not react violently. .
If you go to a party and get your willy sucked in a dark room by a total stranger, it's on you if that stranger turns out to be someone or something you don't like. If you are passed out drunk and they assault you, sure. Otherwise, it's not a "natural reaction" to hospitalise them.
There are two issues:-
1. There is sexual assault by deception. R v Newland would suggest that the victim of battery may well have been guilty of that offence.
2. The battery. The victim of 1. cannot claim self-defence, and provocation is a mitigating factor, not a defence.
There is no evidence of deception. The fat junkie who got his willy sucked made an assumption. Deception has to be much more active than this - e.g. even convincing a woman to sleep with you on the basis you are a lottery winner when you are, in fact, a pauper, doesn't meet the bar.
Comments
As the denominator is zero.
"I’ve heard from friends campaigning in Batley that Labour activists are being actively intimidated and have even had eggs thrown at them."
And how many shots from free kicks have there been ?
Yet so few players try anything different.
Corbyn has destroyed the Labour Party, that notwithstanding his acolytes believe they deserve a few more goes at a GE. Corbyn' had two bites of the cherry and fell short by a country mile on both occasions. If Corbynistas want a Conservative government, why don't they just vote for one rather than screw up any viable alternative?
I detest Johnson, however Momentum ******* are even worse.
BBC News - Woman who posed as man jailed for sex assaults
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-34799692
2. Get a medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria. Then you can start the process of transitioning. Once someone is on that path I am relatively relaxed about the rest of it.
3. Make it easier and quicker to access the medical and other advice needed for such a diagnosis to be given. Currently the delays are very long. This is unkind and causes unnecessary distress.
4. Special provision needs to be made for spouses and children before the final certificate is given so that they are not left in some limbo. Their rights are affected and so their needs have to be taken into account.
5. Gender neutral spaces and toilets etc to be made available where possible. But if not available people use the loos / spaces appropriate for their genitalia.
6. No change whatsoever to the single sex-based requirements and exemptions for women.
7. Data should continue being collected based on sex. Sex should continue being relevant to medical care and other relevant areas. There should be no let up in efforts to eliminate / reduce sex-based discrimination.
8. Gender recognition certificates are given once final transition has been completed. Original birth certificates are not altered. Historical factual accuracy is essential.
9. No-one with male genitalia should be able to access or demand access to single sex spaces such as women's refuges.
10. Those who are born male and have gone through puberty cannot compete in female sports. (There may be some limited exceptions eg for equestrian events where the competitor's strength is utterly irrelevant.)
11. Special provision should be made for children. Safeguarding concerns override all other rights. The Keira Bell vs Tavistock appeal will determine what can be done. But experimental medical intervention should not, as a general rule, be given to children.
12.Nonsense about calling mothers "birthing parents" etc to be strangled at birth.
13. Advice on the law to be provided by lawyers who understand what the law says and not by charities or pressure groups wishing to change it. The role of 3rd sector agencies with an agenda should be reviewed very carefully. There are too many conflicts of interest leading to bad advice and potentially unlawful action.
14. Attacks on transpeople or discrimination against the, should be firmly dealt with.
There.
https://twitter.com/godblesstofu/status/1409228335448793102?s=21
1. There is sexual assault by deception. R v Newland would suggest that the victim of battery may well have been guilty of that offence.
2. The battery. The victim of 1. cannot claim self-defence, and provocation is a mitigating factor, not a defence.
Because i suspect that headline numbers are still what most people look at, and there is much less focus/knowledge of hospitalisation numbers (and perhaps deaths). Because throughout the pandemic people have become trained to the idea that the latter are lagging factors, and will dismiss low numbers for them unless given good reasons not to do so.
There is a big political danger if the Government lifts all restrictions on July 19th with case numbers still sky rocketing (there is the possibility, perhaps even probability by then that they will be on the turn, but that's not guaranteed) and it gets portrayed by sections of the media that this is just abandoning the health of the public to save money, end furlough etc.
But have they got the communicators for that, and are they even trying?
But you can't expect people to wear a badge displaying what genitals they have, so there's always going to be an awkward question of when to communicate it. Dealing with disappointment, if you are disappointed in such a situation, gracefully can be difficult, but is something we should aspire to.