It's obviously and trivially true that some men will go to strange lengths to do nasty things to women, and it's obviously true that one of the things available to them is to self-identify as a woman to get access to women's spaces.
Yes. But it's far from the top 20 scenarios in which nasty things are done to women. Focus on violence against women in far more common situations is meanwhile crowded out.
Where is it "crowded out"?
Beautiful example of the drunk driver's fallacy ("Why aren't you out catching rapists, officer?")
In the media. In society. On this very board. There is a trans discussion on here virtually daily. How often do we discuss, in depth, the women assaulted or murdered by their partners, the children abused by relatives? And what is to be done about it? Very rarely.
There have been very occasional discussions. The last one I recall ended on a 'but women assault and murder men too' note, the all lives matter viewpoint if you like.
On many occasions, I've mentioned the hideous levels of violence in the UK: often to people claiming it's not as bad as the figures suggest.
Just taking last years figures (1), nearly 2% of adults have faced attempted or actual sexual assault. That means most of us will no-one someone who has faced that type of abuse in the last year.
When it comes to domestic abuse (2), 2.3 million adults faced domestic abuse last year. You will certainly know one or two of them. Of these, about a third of the victims are male, two-thirds female.
I happen to think it's pretty much irrelevant whether the victim is male or female: they need help and support.
I got another conviction on Friday for rape, an ex army man who had interfered with his 2 step daughters, one in Scotland and one in Northern Ireland (where he had been acquitted). There are some pretty repulsive people out there.
The French can cope with being humiliated and screwed over by America. Because the USA is much bigger. A superpower. Like China. That’s life. Withdraw the ambassador. It’s a mere gesture but it might sting them
The French can cope with the Australian betrayal (tho it hurts more). The Australians are inferior. A small country with too many kangaroos. Pff! Withdraw the ambassador and try and destabilize their tiny politics
Britain? Brexit Britain? Perfidious Albion? This is their exact rival, and equal. The country next door that constantly infuriates them even as it intrigues them. This stupid foggy island has totally beaten us?? It’s the pain of Sunderland losing to Newcastle. It is a bitter local rivalry. Withdrawing the French ambassador in London would be acknowledging England’s triumph. It is too painful, so instead they resort to cooking metaphors
I think there's another layer which is that the French elite are collectively afraid of contemplating the possibility that Boris Johnson was right about the EU. They can't take him seriously, because their own worldview depends on seeing him as a clown.
The same applies to a great number of posters on this site.
The PB elite?
It has been even more noticeable in the post-Brexit years that a section of the liberal left elite have utter contempt for those less educated among sections of the lower w/c especially from the north. Of course it all began with the unfortunate microphone incident with Gordon Brown. It is this above all which has riven the Labour party asunder and it's unclear that they are even on the road to recognising let alone mending this problem. The current treatment of some of their women MPs referred to above is simply the latest example of this problem.
Putting thoughts and motivations in other people's minds has also become common, no?
Have you ever read Roger's comments? Do you think the GB microphone comment was fake?
How would you feel if I attributed the views of (say) @HYUFD to broadly right wing people?
Fine - but be more specific - I referred to, quote, 'a section of the liberal left' which, without wishing to be condescending, is I think rather narrower than 'broadly right wing people', no?
I apologise if I've gotten a bit shirty. One of the things that has really annoyed me about the... shall I call it Trump era? although it's clearly a bigger issue...is this creating caricatures of our political opponents.
I see it when politicians of the Left accuse those on the Right of being racist for not signing up to the whole BLM thing.
Anyway: you're usually a pretty thoughtful and nuanced poster, but "a section of the liberal left elite have utter contempt for those less educated among sections of the lower w/c especially from the north" triggered me.
The reality is that the vast, vast majority of our political opponents only want the best for the British people. They may have a slightly different view of what exactly best constitutes or the correct path to get there.
But their views, by and large, and every bit as morally valid as ours. (Albeit often not as practical, well thought out, properly costed, or recognising of the foibles of human nature.)
Yet the lack of pleasure about rising wages among the low paid from those who claim to be concerned about them is noticeable.
Instead the mentality of 'we need more low skilled immigrants to keep the wages down' appears widespread.
This meme has become holy writ among the more retarded (ie all of them) Brexiters.
Can’t we have one day off from it? It’s a Sunday after all.
Funny how you want a day off when you're on the back foot.
Red Letter day for the Raj, is it?
Please outline the principal provisions of the AUKUS deal. Just bullet points is fine.
a) It created a fantastic domestic headline in both Australia and the UK.
On a serious note listening to Marr interview with Ed Davey on trans issues, which I admit I do not normally comment on, it does seem this issue is going to cause considerable controversy for them and also Labour with Rosie Duffield scared of attending their conference.
It's also very dangerous for the Lib Dems. They might be able to cause an upset in the shires in a protest vote by-election, but if they end up looking like Yellow Labour come the next GE then how far are they actually going to get in flipping Tory seats into their column? Not very, one would imagine.
It is indeed. I have been passionately pro gay rights ever since I was old enough to understand the issue, I am exactly as pro trans rights as I am pro gay rights, but I would not in a million years vote for a party which buys the present pro trans activist nonsense. And I am a floating ex tory voter who has voted LD in the past (and for a successful LD candidate, so not just a protest vote). Davey has scuppered himself just when I was beginning to like him.
The problem is the loudmouth idiots on either side. The so-called 'pro-trans' people who seem more interested in arguing more than helping the interests of trans people; the anti-pro-trans people who seem just to want a good barney with the other side and make out that trans people are a threat to women.
And in the middle the trans people suffer, and their interests get forgotten.
Some (few) trans people are a very serious threat to women, and they are the edge cases that the pro trans tend to focus on. This really isn't a symmetrical situation, because there is exactly one right answer, which coincides as usual with my own views, and that is: trans is fine, we just need some boring but necessary regs to cover the special cases of sport, loos, hospitals and prisons, and some law about children making irreversible decisions they later regret. There may be nutters who regard all trans people as the spawn of the devil, but I haven't heard of them.
I'm unsure if you meant 'pro trans' in your first sentence, or 'anti trans'? But the issue there is that some people are a very serious threat to women, and I haven't seen much evidence that trans people contain a higher proportion. And even if they did, that's not enough reason to castigate all trans people. I certainly don't think any of the ones I've known have been a threat to women.
Indeed, there is a tendency to talk of the threat some trans people are to women, e.g. in jail, and then ignore the much greater threats trans people suffer. I posted figures the other day for the number of assaults on trans people in prison, and it's far greater than the other way.
Take a statement like: "trans people should not use women's spaces." That probably gets nods of agreement from many. Yet to fully transition and have the op, you need to live as a woman for a period - a year or two. This means a pre-op trans person has to use the facilities of their new gender. There are obvious very real issues in them not doing this.
"There may be nutters who regard all trans people as the spawn of the devil, but I haven't heard of them." You don't read the right (wrong) places, obviously. And the sad thing is some of the pro-trans people can seem just as nasty.
Neither, I meant men who identify as women - i.e. people who do it rather than have a pro or anti view on it. Your "only a tiny minority" argument is like the NRA on guns: sometimes the edge cases are so bad you have to legislate for them no matter how numerically insignificant they are. If it makes the argument more palatable I am probably talking in the main about 100% cis men who pretend to be trans for nefarious ends. Like dear old Karen
'Women commit assault too' *is* a valid argument (see child abuse numbers, for example), but I agree not in this context.
It is the other way. One is the threat others face from trans people. The other way is the threat trans people face from others. And it appears from the figures that the latter is much higher than the former, in prisons at least.
On a serious note listening to Marr interview with Ed Davey on trans issues, which I admit I do not normally comment on, it does seem this issue is going to cause considerable controversy for them and also Labour with Rosie Duffield scared of attending their conference.
It's also very dangerous for the Lib Dems. They might be able to cause an upset in the shires in a protest vote by-election, but if they end up looking like Yellow Labour come the next GE then how far are they actually going to get in flipping Tory seats into their column? Not very, one would imagine.
It is indeed. I have been passionately pro gay rights ever since I was old enough to understand the issue, I am exactly as pro trans rights as I am pro gay rights, but I would not in a million years vote for a party which buys the present pro trans activist nonsense. And I am a floating ex tory voter who has voted LD in the past (and for a successful LD candidate, so not just a protest vote). Davey has scuppered himself just when I was beginning to like him.
The problem is the loudmouth idiots on either side. The so-called 'pro-trans' people who seem more interested in arguing more than helping the interests of trans people; the anti-pro-trans people who seem just to want a good barney with the other side and make out that trans people are a threat to women.
And in the middle the trans people suffer, and their interests get forgotten.
Some (few) trans people are a very serious threat to women, and they are the edge cases that the pro trans tend to focus on. This really isn't a symmetrical situation, because there is exactly one right answer, which coincides as usual with my own views, and that is: trans is fine, we just need some boring but necessary regs to cover the special cases of sport, loos, hospitals and prisons, and some law about children making irreversible decisions they later regret. There may be nutters who regard all trans people as the spawn of the devil, but I haven't heard of them.
I'm unsure if you meant 'pro trans' in your first sentence, or 'anti trans'? But the issue there is that some people are a very serious threat to women, and I haven't seen much evidence that trans people contain a higher proportion. And even if they did, that's not enough reason to castigate all trans people. I certainly don't think any of the ones I've known have been a threat to women.
Indeed, there is a tendency to talk of the threat some trans people are to women, e.g. in jail, and then ignore the much greater threats trans people suffer. I posted figures the other day for the number of assaults on trans people in prison, and it's far greater than the other way.
Take a statement like: "trans people should not use women's spaces." That probably gets nods of agreement from many. Yet to fully transition and have the op, you need to live as a woman for a period - a year or two. This means a pre-op trans person has to use the facilities of their new gender. There are obvious very real issues in them not doing this.
"There may be nutters who regard all trans people as the spawn of the devil, but I haven't heard of them." You don't read the right (wrong) places, obviously. And the sad thing is some of the pro-trans people can seem just as nasty.
Neither, I meant men who identify as women - i.e. people who do it rather than have a pro or anti view on it. Your "only a tiny minority" argument is like the NRA on guns: sometimes the edge cases are so bad you have to legislate for them no matter how numerically insignificant they are. If it makes the argument more palatable I am probably talking in the main about 100% cis men who pretend to be trans for nefarious ends. Like dear old Karen
'Women commit assault too' *is* a valid argument (see child abuse numbers, for example), but I agree not in this context.
It is the other way. One is the threat others face from trans people. The other way is the threat trans people face from others. And it appears from the figures that the latter is much higher than the former, in prisons at least.
That's a category error.
I don't think you can conflate men and women in this context.
It's obviously and trivially true that some men will go to strange lengths to do nasty things to women, and it's obviously true that one of the things available to them is to self-identify as a woman to get access to women's spaces.
Yes. But it's far from the top 20 scenarios in which nasty things are done to women. Focus on violence against women in far more common situations is meanwhile crowded out.
Where is it "crowded out"?
Beautiful example of the drunk driver's fallacy ("Why aren't you out catching rapists, officer?")
In the media. In society. On this very board. There is a trans discussion on here virtually daily. How often do we discuss, in depth, the women assaulted or murdered by their partners, the children abused by relatives? And what is to be done about it? Very rarely.
There have been very occasional discussions. The last one I recall ended on a 'but women assault and murder men too' note, the all lives matter viewpoint if you like.
Trans men assault women: but so do cis men - doubleplusvalid argument.
Men assault women: but women assault men too - doubleplusfallacious argument.
Clear distinction.
As far as I can tell people from every group assault people from every other group.
In fact, the prison thing has become an issue, because some people from one group, who had assaulted people in another group, were sent to prison, moved from one group to another, got moved to a prison for the their new group and then assaulted some more people.
It's obviously and trivially true that some men will go to strange lengths to do nasty things to women, and it's obviously true that one of the things available to them is to self-identify as a woman to get access to women's spaces.
Yes. But it's far from the top 20 scenarios in which nasty things are done to women. Focus on violence against women in far more common situations is meanwhile crowded out.
Where is it "crowded out"?
Beautiful example of the drunk driver's fallacy ("Why aren't you out catching rapists, officer?")
In the media. In society. On this very board. There is a trans discussion on here virtually daily. How often do we discuss, in depth, the women assaulted or murdered by their partners, the children abused by relatives? And what is to be done about it? Very rarely.
There have been very occasional discussions. The last one I recall ended on a 'but women assault and murder men too' note, the all lives matter viewpoint if you like.
Trans men assault women: but so do cis men - doubleplusvalid argument.
Men assault women: but women assault men too - doubleplusfallacious argument.
Clear distinction.
As far as I can tell people from every group assault people from every other group.
In fact, the prison thing has become an issue, because some people from one group, who had assaulted people in another group, were sent to prison, moved from one group to another, got moved to a prison for the their new group and then assaulted some more people.
And the terrible thing is, if you mention group A vs B violence because that is what the conversation is about without also mentioning A vs A, B vs A, B vs B and all the way down to Z vs Θ, you are an obsessive bigot who deserves to burn in hell. It would be like discussing whether Mao's purges were the worst crime committed in the 20th century, without also mentioning the plastic radiator grille on the Series III.
It's obviously and trivially true that some men will go to strange lengths to do nasty things to women, and it's obviously true that one of the things available to them is to self-identify as a woman to get access to women's spaces.
Seems a lot of trouble to go to when those types can just pop down to the nearest meatmarket, go online or indeed start a conventional relationship. Statistically speaking I imagine those are the areas where the vast majority of these nasty things take place.
For me, moving people with a M->F GRC who still have male equipment to a female prison is not acceptable.
Unless conclusive evidence is provided both biologically and sociologically that there is not higher risk of assault etc.
I believe it works broadly as follows: If you have a GRC - ie have legally changed to F - you go to a women's prison unless you're considered a risk to the other inmates for a clear and specific reason (ie not purely because you're trans). If you haven't got a GRC you go to a men's prison. You can, however, request a case conference and present a case for being switched if you feel strongly enough. These conferences are sought and granted mainly in the case of longer sentences and it's the job of the professionals there to assess the risk (in both directions, to the applicant and to other inmates) and say yay or nay. Similar rules apply with transmen. In practice most transgender prisoners M and F are in a prison pertaining to their biological sex.
Notable that, since Thursday, the SNP Government seems to have rejected all media requests for ministers/officials to discuss the NHS and ambulance crisis.
Ed Davey accusing Boris of toxifying trans right debate.
Are lib dems going to get themselves so wrapped up in this issue again that they lose focus on anything else?
I'm curious as to *how* Boris has been toxifying the trans rights debates.
Politically the government seems to have taken the softly, softly approach, handling various issues through extension of existing law and medical practise - e.g. Gilick Rule on teenagers and transition.
Or is it a case that the Prime Minister, when seeing his opponents being attacked by piranhas, is duty bound to go swimming? Or something?
I can't think of Boris getting involved in the trans debate at all, on either side of it.
Which seems about the right thing to do to be honest. Not sure how that's toxifying?
He's appointed Badenoch, who said something anti-trans a few years ago (called trans-women men, I think) as Equalities Minister
LONDON — As relations between France and the United States sink to their lowest depths in decades, Britain has emerged as the unlikely winner in a maritime security alliance that has sowed anger and recrimination across three continents.
The British government played an early role in brokering the three-way alliance with the United States and Australia to deploy nuclear-powered submarines in the Pacific, according to officials in London and Washington. The landmark agreement was announced hours after Australia canceled a $66 billion deal for diesel-electric submarines with France, provoking fury in Paris and quiet satisfaction in London.
For Prime Minister Boris Johnson, who will meet this coming week with President Biden at the White House and speak at the United Nations, it is his first tangible victory in a campaign to make post-Brexit Britain a player on the global stage.
On a serious note listening to Marr interview with Ed Davey on trans issues, which I admit I do not normally comment on, it does seem this issue is going to cause considerable controversy for them and also Labour with Rosie Duffield scared of attending their conference.
It's also very dangerous for the Lib Dems. They might be able to cause an upset in the shires in a protest vote by-election, but if they end up looking like Yellow Labour come the next GE then how far are they actually going to get in flipping Tory seats into their column? Not very, one would imagine.
It is indeed. I have been passionately pro gay rights ever since I was old enough to understand the issue, I am exactly as pro trans rights as I am pro gay rights, but I would not in a million years vote for a party which buys the present pro trans activist nonsense. And I am a floating ex tory voter who has voted LD in the past (and for a successful LD candidate, so not just a protest vote). Davey has scuppered himself just when I was beginning to like him.
The problem is the loudmouth idiots on either side. The so-called 'pro-trans' people who seem more interested in arguing more than helping the interests of trans people; the anti-pro-trans people who seem just to want a good barney with the other side and make out that trans people are a threat to women.
And in the middle the trans people suffer, and their interests get forgotten.
Some (few) trans people are a very serious threat to women, and they are the edge cases that the pro trans tend to focus on. This really isn't a symmetrical situation, because there is exactly one right answer, which coincides as usual with my own views, and that is: trans is fine, we just need some boring but necessary regs to cover the special cases of sport, loos, hospitals and prisons, and some law about children making irreversible decisions they later regret. There may be nutters who regard all trans people as the spawn of the devil, but I haven't heard of them.
I'm unsure if you meant 'pro trans' in your first sentence, or 'anti trans'? But the issue there is that some people are a very serious threat to women, and I haven't seen much evidence that trans people contain a higher proportion. And even if they did, that's not enough reason to castigate all trans people. I certainly don't think any of the ones I've known have been a threat to women.
Indeed, there is a tendency to talk of the threat some trans people are to women, e.g. in jail, and then ignore the much greater threats trans people suffer. I posted figures the other day for the number of assaults on trans people in prison, and it's far greater than the other way.
Take a statement like: "trans people should not use women's spaces." That probably gets nods of agreement from many. Yet to fully transition and have the op, you need to live as a woman for a period - a year or two. This means a pre-op trans person has to use the facilities of their new gender. There are obvious very real issues in them not doing this.
"There may be nutters who regard all trans people as the spawn of the devil, but I haven't heard of them." You don't read the right (wrong) places, obviously. And the sad thing is some of the pro-trans people can seem just as nasty.
Neither, I meant men who identify as women - i.e. people who do it rather than have a pro or anti view on it. Your "only a tiny minority" argument is like the NRA on guns: sometimes the edge cases are so bad you have to legislate for them no matter how numerically insignificant they are. If it makes the argument more palatable I am probably talking in the main about 100% cis men who pretend to be trans for nefarious ends. Like dear old Karen
'Women commit assault too' *is* a valid argument (see child abuse numbers, for example), but I agree not in this context.
It is the other way. One is the threat others face from trans people. The other way is the threat trans people face from others. And it appears from the figures that the latter is much higher than the former, in prisons at least.
No its not the other way since you're conflating three separate groups. One is the threat women face from trans people, the other is the threat trans people face from men.
In prisons the latter is higher, but then in prisons the threat from men is considerably higher by default. That's why women are separated from men, that's not a reason to mix trans in with women.
It's obviously and trivially true that some men will go to strange lengths to do nasty things to women, and it's obviously true that one of the things available to them is to self-identify as a woman to get access to women's spaces.
Yes. But it's far from the top 20 scenarios in which nasty things are done to women. Focus on violence against women in far more common situations is meanwhile crowded out.
Where is it "crowded out"?
Beautiful example of the drunk driver's fallacy ("Why aren't you out catching rapists, officer?")
In the media. In society. On this very board. There is a trans discussion on here virtually daily. How often do we discuss, in depth, the women assaulted or murdered by their partners, the children abused by relatives? And what is to be done about it? Very rarely.
There have been very occasional discussions. The last one I recall ended on a 'but women assault and murder men too' note, the all lives matter viewpoint if you like.
Trans men assault women: but so do cis men - doubleplusvalid argument.
Men assault women: but women assault men too - doubleplusfallacious argument.
Clear distinction.
As far as I can tell people from every group assault people from every other group.
In fact, the prison thing has become an issue, because some people from one group, who had assaulted people in another group, were sent to prison, moved from one group to another, got moved to a prison for the their new group and then assaulted some more people.
And the terrible thing is, if you mention group A vs B violence because that is what the conversation is about without also mentioning A vs A, B vs A, B vs B and all the way down to Z vs Θ, you are an obsessive bigot who deserves to burn in hell. It would be like discussing whether Mao's purges were the worst crime committed in the 20th century, without also mentioning the plastic radiator grille on the Series III.
Are you seriously suggesting that Mao was worse than the plastic radiator grill? Monster! Heretic!
It's obviously and trivially true that some men will go to strange lengths to do nasty things to women, and it's obviously true that one of the things available to them is to self-identify as a woman to get access to women's spaces.
Yes. But it's far from the top 20 scenarios in which nasty things are done to women. Focus on violence against women in far more common situations is meanwhile crowded out.
Where is it "crowded out"?
Beautiful example of the drunk driver's fallacy ("Why aren't you out catching rapists, officer?")
In the media. In society. On this very board. There is a trans discussion on here virtually daily. How often do we discuss, in depth, the women assaulted or murdered by their partners, the children abused by relatives? And what is to be done about it? Very rarely.
There have been very occasional discussions. The last one I recall ended on a 'but women assault and murder men too' note, the all lives matter viewpoint if you like.
On many occasions, I've mentioned the hideous levels of violence in the UK: often to people claiming it's not as bad as the figures suggest.
Just taking last years figures (1), nearly 2% of adults have faced attempted or actual sexual assault. That means most of us will no-one someone who has faced that type of abuse in the last year.
When it comes to domestic abuse (2), 2.3 million adults faced domestic abuse last year. You will certainly know one or two of them. Of these, about a third of the victims are male, two-thirds female.
I happen to think it's pretty much irrelevant whether the victim is male or female: they need help and support.
I got another conviction on Friday for rape, an ex army man who had interfered with his 2 step daughters, one in Scotland and one in Northern Ireland (where he had been acquitted). There are some pretty repulsive people out there.
It's obviously and trivially true that some men will go to strange lengths to do nasty things to women, and it's obviously true that one of the things available to them is to self-identify as a woman to get access to women's spaces.
Yes. But it's far from the top 20 scenarios in which nasty things are done to women. Focus on violence against women in far more common situations is meanwhile crowded out.
Where is it "crowded out"?
Beautiful example of the drunk driver's fallacy ("Why aren't you out catching rapists, officer?")
In the media. In society. On this very board. There is a trans discussion on here virtually daily. How often do we discuss, in depth, the women assaulted or murdered by their partners, the children abused by relatives? And what is to be done about it? Very rarely.
There have been very occasional discussions. The last one I recall ended on a 'but women assault and murder men too' note, the all lives matter viewpoint if you like.
On many occasions, I've mentioned the hideous levels of violence in the UK: often to people claiming it's not as bad as the figures suggest.
Just taking last years figures (1), nearly 2% of adults have faced attempted or actual sexual assault. That means most of us will no-one someone who has faced that type of abuse in the last year.
When it comes to domestic abuse (2), 2.3 million adults faced domestic abuse last year. You will certainly know one or two of them. Of these, about a third of the victims are male, two-thirds female.
I happen to think it's pretty much irrelevant whether the victim is male or female: they need help and support.
I got another conviction on Friday for rape, an ex army man who had interfered with his 2 step daughters, one in Scotland and one in Northern Ireland (where he had been acquitted). There are some pretty repulsive people out there.
It's obviously and trivially true that some men will go to strange lengths to do nasty things to women, and it's obviously true that one of the things available to them is to self-identify as a woman to get access to women's spaces.
Yes. But it's far from the top 20 scenarios in which nasty things are done to women. Focus on violence against women in far more common situations is meanwhile crowded out.
Where is it "crowded out"?
Beautiful example of the drunk driver's fallacy ("Why aren't you out catching rapists, officer?")
In the media. In society. On this very board. There is a trans discussion on here virtually daily. How often do we discuss, in depth, the women assaulted or murdered by their partners, the children abused by relatives? And what is to be done about it? Very rarely.
There have been very occasional discussions. The last one I recall ended on a 'but women assault and murder men too' note, the all lives matter viewpoint if you like.
On many occasions, I've mentioned the hideous levels of violence in the UK: often to people claiming it's not as bad as the figures suggest.
Just taking last years figures (1), nearly 2% of adults have faced attempted or actual sexual assault. That means most of us will no-one someone who has faced that type of abuse in the last year.
When it comes to domestic abuse (2), 2.3 million adults faced domestic abuse last year. You will certainly know one or two of them. Of these, about a third of the victims are male, two-thirds female.
I happen to think it's pretty much irrelevant whether the victim is male or female: they need help and support.
I got another conviction on Friday for rape, an ex army man who had interfered with his 2 step daughters, one in Scotland and one in Northern Ireland (where he had been acquitted). There are some pretty repulsive people out there.
Ed Davey accusing Boris of toxifying trans right debate.
Are lib dems going to get themselves so wrapped up in this issue again that they lose focus on anything else?
I'm curious as to *how* Boris has been toxifying the trans rights debates.
Politically the government seems to have taken the softly, softly approach, handling various issues through extension of existing law and medical practise - e.g. Gilick Rule on teenagers and transition.
Or is it a case that the Prime Minister, when seeing his opponents being attacked by piranhas, is duty bound to go swimming? Or something?
I can't think of Boris getting involved in the trans debate at all, on either side of it.
Which seems about the right thing to do to be honest. Not sure how that's toxifying?
He's appointed Badenoch, who said something anti-trans a few years ago (called trans-women men, I think) as Equalities Minister
It's obviously and trivially true that some men will go to strange lengths to do nasty things to women, and it's obviously true that one of the things available to them is to self-identify as a woman to get access to women's spaces.
Yes. But it's far from the top 20 scenarios in which nasty things are done to women. Focus on violence against women in far more common situations is meanwhile crowded out.
Where is it "crowded out"?
Beautiful example of the drunk driver's fallacy ("Why aren't you out catching rapists, officer?")
In the media. In society. On this very board. There is a trans discussion on here virtually daily. How often do we discuss, in depth, the women assaulted or murdered by their partners, the children abused by relatives? And what is to be done about it? Very rarely.
There have been very occasional discussions. The last one I recall ended on a 'but women assault and murder men too' note, the all lives matter viewpoint if you like.
On many occasions, I've mentioned the hideous levels of violence in the UK: often to people claiming it's not as bad as the figures suggest.
Just taking last years figures (1), nearly 2% of adults have faced attempted or actual sexual assault. That means most of us will no-one someone who has faced that type of abuse in the last year.
When it comes to domestic abuse (2), 2.3 million adults faced domestic abuse last year. You will certainly know one or two of them. Of these, about a third of the victims are male, two-thirds female.
I happen to think it's pretty much irrelevant whether the victim is male or female: they need help and support.
I got another conviction on Friday for rape, an ex army man who had interfered with his 2 step daughters, one in Scotland and one in Northern Ireland (where he had been acquitted). There are some pretty repulsive people out there.
The French can cope with being humiliated and screwed over by America. Because the USA is much bigger. A superpower. Like China. That’s life. Withdraw the ambassador. It’s a mere gesture but it might sting them
The French can cope with the Australian betrayal (tho it hurts more). The Australians are inferior. A small country with too many kangaroos. Pff! Withdraw the ambassador and try and destabilize their tiny politics
Britain? Brexit Britain? Perfidious Albion? This is their exact rival, and equal. The country next door that constantly infuriates them even as it intrigues them. This stupid foggy island has totally beaten us?? It’s the pain of Sunderland losing to Newcastle. It is a bitter local rivalry. Withdrawing the French ambassador in London would be acknowledging England’s triumph. It is too painful, so instead they resort to cooking metaphors
I think there's another layer which is that the French elite are collectively afraid of contemplating the possibility that Boris Johnson was right about the EU. They can't take him seriously, because their own worldview depends on seeing him as a clown.
The same applies to a great number of posters on this site.
The PB elite?
It has been even more noticeable in the post-Brexit years that a section of the liberal left elite have utter contempt for those less educated among sections of the lower w/c especially from the north. Of course it all began with the unfortunate microphone incident with Gordon Brown. It is this above all which has riven the Labour party asunder and it's unclear that they are even on the road to recognising let alone mending this problem. The current treatment of some of their women MPs referred to above is simply the latest example of this problem.
Putting thoughts and motivations in other people's minds has also become common, no?
Have you ever read Roger's comments? Do you think the GB microphone comment was fake?
How would you feel if I attributed the views of (say) @HYUFD to broadly right wing people?
Fine - but be more specific - I referred to, quote, 'a section of the liberal left' which, without wishing to be condescending, is I think rather narrower than 'broadly right wing people', no?
I apologise if I've gotten a bit shirty. One of the things that has really annoyed me about the... shall I call it Trump era? although it's clearly a bigger issue...is this creating caricatures of our political opponents.
I see it when politicians of the Left accuse those on the Right of being racist for not signing up to the whole BLM thing.
Anyway: you're usually a pretty thoughtful and nuanced poster, but "a section of the liberal left elite have utter contempt for those less educated among sections of the lower w/c especially from the north" triggered me.
The reality is that the vast, vast majority of our political opponents only want the best for the British people. They may have a slightly different view of what exactly best constitutes or the correct path to get there.
But their views, by and large, and every bit as morally valid as ours. (Albeit often not as practical, well thought out, properly costed, or recognising of the foibles of human nature.)
But "a section of the liberal left elite" who keep proposing the same remedy to the nation's ills - namely, piling unsustainable levels of tax and borrowing onto the shoulders of the private sector to the benefit of the public sector - is wilfully NOT wanting the best for the British people. It is looking out for a narrow section of its own self-interest, whilst ignoring that every time they implement it, the economy goes tits up. And the poorest inevitably suffer the most.
At what point is it safe to heap moral opprobrium on them for that?
This is confusing. Are people who work in the public sector the "elite"? How are you "liberal" and "left" at the same time? Is the huge borrowing undertaken by the Conservative government part of this left-liberal ruination of the economy, and if not, why not?
Those who work in the public sector have been the elite during the Covid crisis for sure. They have kept their pay (often having massive overtime too), kept their pensions, kept their career progression. It was very largely the private sector that got done over.
This Conservative government took the hard decision to support the workers in the private sector until they were better able to weather the economic storm. That storm has taken longer to abate than might have been expected, but the government stood by that pledge. It has borrowed vast amounts of money in order to do so. The difference is that if had elected a Corbyn government in 2017 or 2019, then by the time Covid hit, the headroom to borrow for furlough would have already gone - to the public sector.
So it is still quite easy to square the circle. This Government - absent a once in a century public health disaster - would prefer to have a smaller state - and consequently, lower taxation. But part of the fall-out of that health disaster has been the now impossible-to-defer need to confront the provision of social care. That has required a rise in taxation. Nobody has come up with an alternative route. Certainly not HM Opposition.
But when it comes to the next set of manifestos, the Labour Party will again propose more taxation and borrowing than can ever be endured by the private sector. And the Conservative Party will oppose that.
Ed Davey accusing Boris of toxifying trans right debate.
Are lib dems going to get themselves so wrapped up in this issue again that they lose focus on anything else?
I'm curious as to *how* Boris has been toxifying the trans rights debates.
Politically the government seems to have taken the softly, softly approach, handling various issues through extension of existing law and medical practise - e.g. Gilick Rule on teenagers and transition.
Or is it a case that the Prime Minister, when seeing his opponents being attacked by piranhas, is duty bound to go swimming? Or something?
I can't think of Boris getting involved in the trans debate at all, on either side of it.
Which seems about the right thing to do to be honest. Not sure how that's toxifying?
He's appointed Badenoch, who said something anti-trans a few years ago (called trans-women men, I think) as Equalities Minister
Has Vice News found the recording yet?
Don't think so; I certainly haven't heard it yet
So they have made a bunch of unsubstantiated allegations which are being cited as fact. Surprised the editor (or lawyers) let that one through.
LONDON — As relations between France and the United States sink to their lowest depths in decades, Britain has emerged as the unlikely winner in a maritime security alliance that has sowed anger and recrimination across three continents.
The British government played an early role in brokering the three-way alliance with the United States and Australia to deploy nuclear-powered submarines in the Pacific, according to officials in London and Washington. The landmark agreement was announced hours after Australia canceled a $66 billion deal for diesel-electric submarines with France, provoking fury in Paris and quiet satisfaction in London.
For Prime Minister Boris Johnson, who will meet this coming week with President Biden at the White House and speak at the United Nations, it is his first tangible victory in a campaign to make post-Brexit Britain a player on the global stage.
LONDON — As relations between France and the United States sink to their lowest depths in decades, Britain has emerged as the unlikely winner in a maritime security alliance that has sowed anger and recrimination across three continents.
The British government played an early role in brokering the three-way alliance with the United States and Australia to deploy nuclear-powered submarines in the Pacific, according to officials in London and Washington. The landmark agreement was announced hours after Australia canceled a $66 billion deal for diesel-electric submarines with France, provoking fury in Paris and quiet satisfaction in London.
For Prime Minister Boris Johnson, who will meet this coming week with President Biden at the White House and speak at the United Nations, it is his first tangible victory in a campaign to make post-Brexit Britain a player on the global stage.
On a serious note listening to Marr interview with Ed Davey on trans issues, which I admit I do not normally comment on, it does seem this issue is going to cause considerable controversy for them and also Labour with Rosie Duffield scared of attending their conference.
It's also very dangerous for the Lib Dems. They might be able to cause an upset in the shires in a protest vote by-election, but if they end up looking like Yellow Labour come the next GE then how far are they actually going to get in flipping Tory seats into their column? Not very, one would imagine.
It is indeed. I have been passionately pro gay rights ever since I was old enough to understand the issue, I am exactly as pro trans rights as I am pro gay rights, but I would not in a million years vote for a party which buys the present pro trans activist nonsense. And I am a floating ex tory voter who has voted LD in the past (and for a successful LD candidate, so not just a protest vote). Davey has scuppered himself just when I was beginning to like him.
The problem is the loudmouth idiots on either side. The so-called 'pro-trans' people who seem more interested in arguing more than helping the interests of trans people; the anti-pro-trans people who seem just to want a good barney with the other side and make out that trans people are a threat to women.
And in the middle the trans people suffer, and their interests get forgotten.
Some (few) trans people are a very serious threat to women, and they are the edge cases that the pro trans tend to focus on. This really isn't a symmetrical situation, because there is exactly one right answer, which coincides as usual with my own views, and that is: trans is fine, we just need some boring but necessary regs to cover the special cases of sport, loos, hospitals and prisons, and some law about children making irreversible decisions they later regret. There may be nutters who regard all trans people as the spawn of the devil, but I haven't heard of them.
I'm unsure if you meant 'pro trans' in your first sentence, or 'anti trans'? But the issue there is that some people are a very serious threat to women, and I haven't seen much evidence that trans people contain a higher proportion. And even if they did, that's not enough reason to castigate all trans people. I certainly don't think any of the ones I've known have been a threat to women.
Indeed, there is a tendency to talk of the threat some trans people are to women, e.g. in jail, and then ignore the much greater threats trans people suffer. I posted figures the other day for the number of assaults on trans people in prison, and it's far greater than the other way.
Take a statement like: "trans people should not use women's spaces." That probably gets nods of agreement from many. Yet to fully transition and have the op, you need to live as a woman for a period - a year or two. This means a pre-op trans person has to use the facilities of their new gender. There are obvious very real issues in them not doing this.
"There may be nutters who regard all trans people as the spawn of the devil, but I haven't heard of them." You don't read the right (wrong) places, obviously. And the sad thing is some of the pro-trans people can seem just as nasty.
Neither, I meant men who identify as women - i.e. people who do it rather than have a pro or anti view on it. Your "only a tiny minority" argument is like the NRA on guns: sometimes the edge cases are so bad you have to legislate for them no matter how numerically insignificant they are. If it makes the argument more palatable I am probably talking in the main about 100% cis men who pretend to be trans for nefarious ends. Like dear old Karen
As it happens, I think you're wrong about that low piece of scum White: since she has apparently since had surgery, she was probably not 'pretending' to be trans.
As I've said passim, all segments of society have scum. And suffering does not engender nobility: marginalised groups are just as likely to contain saints and sinners.
Going to have to invite you to fuck off there, for accusing me of "obsessing about" anything.
You aren't very good at this. You are like a gammon child who has found a woke costume in the dressing-up box and desperately wants to put it on, but hasn't a clue how the tapes and buttons work.
I did start this conversation by saying "It is indeed. I have been passionately pro gay rights ever since I was old enough to understand the issue, I am exactly as pro trans rights as I am pro gay rights..."
And what in the name of Christ crucified is this batshit stuff about suffering does not engender nobility? wtf has that to do with anything?
Wow. What an unnecessary verbal explosion.
I'll ignore most of your rant as the pointless ill-written screed it is. However, I'd like to clear up one point: I mentioned "suffering does not engender nobility" because there is a tendency amongst some to believe that just because a group is marginalised - ethnic minorities, women, trans people etc - that every member of that group is good. And if a member of that group does a bad thing, either they're not really of that group, or they did it because the marginalisation of society has led them to it.
I mentioned it to point out that there will be wrong 'uns amongst trans people. Something *some* pro-trans people seem rather incapable of seeing.
The French can cope with being humiliated and screwed over by America. Because the USA is much bigger. A superpower. Like China. That’s life. Withdraw the ambassador. It’s a mere gesture but it might sting them
The French can cope with the Australian betrayal (tho it hurts more). The Australians are inferior. A small country with too many kangaroos. Pff! Withdraw the ambassador and try and destabilize their tiny politics
Britain? Brexit Britain? Perfidious Albion? This is their exact rival, and equal. The country next door that constantly infuriates them even as it intrigues them. This stupid foggy island has totally beaten us?? It’s the pain of Sunderland losing to Newcastle. It is a bitter local rivalry. Withdrawing the French ambassador in London would be acknowledging England’s triumph. It is too painful, so instead they resort to cooking metaphors
I think there's another layer which is that the French elite are collectively afraid of contemplating the possibility that Boris Johnson was right about the EU. They can't take him seriously, because their own worldview depends on seeing him as a clown.
The same applies to a great number of posters on this site.
The PB elite?
It has been even more noticeable in the post-Brexit years that a section of the liberal left elite have utter contempt for those less educated among sections of the lower w/c especially from the north. Of course it all began with the unfortunate microphone incident with Gordon Brown. It is this above all which has riven the Labour party asunder and it's unclear that they are even on the road to recognising let alone mending this problem. The current treatment of some of their women MPs referred to above is simply the latest example of this problem.
Putting thoughts and motivations in other people's minds has also become common, no?
Have you ever read Roger's comments? Do you think the GB microphone comment was fake?
How would you feel if I attributed the views of (say) @HYUFD to broadly right wing people?
Fine - but be more specific - I referred to, quote, 'a section of the liberal left' which, without wishing to be condescending, is I think rather narrower than 'broadly right wing people', no?
I apologise if I've gotten a bit shirty. One of the things that has really annoyed me about the... shall I call it Trump era? although it's clearly a bigger issue...is this creating caricatures of our political opponents.
I see it when politicians of the Left accuse those on the Right of being racist for not signing up to the whole BLM thing.
Anyway: you're usually a pretty thoughtful and nuanced poster, but "a section of the liberal left elite have utter contempt for those less educated among sections of the lower w/c especially from the north" triggered me.
The reality is that the vast, vast majority of our political opponents only want the best for the British people. They may have a slightly different view of what exactly best constitutes or the correct path to get there.
But their views, by and large, and every bit as morally valid as ours. (Albeit often not as practical, well thought out, properly costed, or recognising of the foibles of human nature.)
Yet the lack of pleasure about rising wages among the low paid from those who claim to be concerned about them is noticeable.
Instead the mentality of 'we need more low skilled immigrants to keep the wages down' appears widespread.
This meme has become holy writ among the more retarded (ie all of them) Brexiters.
Can’t we have one day off from it? It’s a Sunday after all.
Funny how you want a day off when you're on the back foot.
Red Letter day for the Raj, is it?
Please outline the principal provisions of the AUKUS deal. Just bullet points is fine.
a) It created a fantastic domestic headline in both Australia and the UK.
I've just seen the Marr interview with Ed Davey as I didn't believe the report. It's true. If it wasn't so tragic, it would be funny. 'Nothing to do with me, mate,' isn't much of an excuse.
I used to vote for them. Now I feel silly. Not as silly as Ed. Why couldn't he just say "Banning someone for ten years was clearly an aberration, I will sort it out."
If I were the other parties, I'd use it against them at every opportunity - it's political gold.
I see the Remoaners, having worked out that denying Britain had any part to play in Aukus is a fruitless line of attack, have now decided to try and push the meme that it's meaningless and empty instead.
On a serious note listening to Marr interview with Ed Davey on trans issues, which I admit I do not normally comment on, it does seem this issue is going to cause considerable controversy for them and also Labour with Rosie Duffield scared of attending their conference.
It's also very dangerous for the Lib Dems. They might be able to cause an upset in the shires in a protest vote by-election, but if they end up looking like Yellow Labour come the next GE then how far are they actually going to get in flipping Tory seats into their column? Not very, one would imagine.
It is indeed. I have been passionately pro gay rights ever since I was old enough to understand the issue, I am exactly as pro trans rights as I am pro gay rights, but I would not in a million years vote for a party which buys the present pro trans activist nonsense. And I am a floating ex tory voter who has voted LD in the past (and for a successful LD candidate, so not just a protest vote). Davey has scuppered himself just when I was beginning to like him.
The problem is the loudmouth idiots on either side. The so-called 'pro-trans' people who seem more interested in arguing more than helping the interests of trans people; the anti-pro-trans people who seem just to want a good barney with the other side and make out that trans people are a threat to women.
And in the middle the trans people suffer, and their interests get forgotten.
Some (few) trans people are a very serious threat to women, and they are the edge cases that the pro trans tend to focus on. This really isn't a symmetrical situation, because there is exactly one right answer, which coincides as usual with my own views, and that is: trans is fine, we just need some boring but necessary regs to cover the special cases of sport, loos, hospitals and prisons, and some law about children making irreversible decisions they later regret. There may be nutters who regard all trans people as the spawn of the devil, but I haven't heard of them.
I'm unsure if you meant 'pro trans' in your first sentence, or 'anti trans'? But the issue there is that some people are a very serious threat to women, and I haven't seen much evidence that trans people contain a higher proportion. And even if they did, that's not enough reason to castigate all trans people. I certainly don't think any of the ones I've known have been a threat to women.
Indeed, there is a tendency to talk of the threat some trans people are to women, e.g. in jail, and then ignore the much greater threats trans people suffer. I posted figures the other day for the number of assaults on trans people in prison, and it's far greater than the other way.
Take a statement like: "trans people should not use women's spaces." That probably gets nods of agreement from many. Yet to fully transition and have the op, you need to live as a woman for a period - a year or two. This means a pre-op trans person has to use the facilities of their new gender. There are obvious very real issues in them not doing this.
"There may be nutters who regard all trans people as the spawn of the devil, but I haven't heard of them." You don't read the right (wrong) places, obviously. And the sad thing is some of the pro-trans people can seem just as nasty.
Neither, I meant men who identify as women - i.e. people who do it rather than have a pro or anti view on it. Your "only a tiny minority" argument is like the NRA on guns: sometimes the edge cases are so bad you have to legislate for them no matter how numerically insignificant they are. If it makes the argument more palatable I am probably talking in the main about 100% cis men who pretend to be trans for nefarious ends. Like dear old Karen
'Women commit assault too' *is* a valid argument (see child abuse numbers, for example), but I agree not in this context.
It is the other way. One is the threat others face from trans people. The other way is the threat trans people face from others. And it appears from the figures that the latter is much higher than the former, in prisons at least.
That's a category error.
I don't think you can conflate men and women in this context.
I know what you mean but if we look specifically at transwomen (biological males who identify as female) who have been convicted of a crime and must do porridge, there are 2 potential risks that I think can be meaningfully compared. (1) That if sent to a women's prison they will harm other inmates. (2) That if sent to a men's prison they will be harmed BY other inmates.
It's obviously and trivially true that some men will go to strange lengths to do nasty things to women, and it's obviously true that one of the things available to them is to self-identify as a woman to get access to women's spaces.
Yes. But it's far from the top 20 scenarios in which nasty things are done to women. Focus on violence against women in far more common situations is meanwhile crowded out.
Where is it "crowded out"?
Beautiful example of the drunk driver's fallacy ("Why aren't you out catching rapists, officer?")
In the media. In society. On this very board. There is a trans discussion on here virtually daily. How often do we discuss, in depth, the women assaulted or murdered by their partners, the children abused by relatives? And what is to be done about it? Very rarely.
There have been very occasional discussions. The last one I recall ended on a 'but women assault and murder men too' note, the all lives matter viewpoint if you like.
On many occasions, I've mentioned the hideous levels of violence in the UK: often to people claiming it's not as bad as the figures suggest.
Just taking last years figures (1), nearly 2% of adults have faced attempted or actual sexual assault. That means most of us will no-one someone who has faced that type of abuse in the last year.
When it comes to domestic abuse (2), 2.3 million adults faced domestic abuse last year. You will certainly know one or two of them. Of these, about a third of the victims are male, two-thirds female.
I happen to think it's pretty much irrelevant whether the victim is male or female: they need help and support.
I got another conviction on Friday for rape, an ex army man who had interfered with his 2 step daughters, one in Scotland and one in Northern Ireland (where he had been acquitted). There are some pretty repulsive people out there.
You know, David, if I were you I would have put that later in the post. I was very startled and indeed shocked for a moment.
On a serious note listening to Marr interview with Ed Davey on trans issues, which I admit I do not normally comment on, it does seem this issue is going to cause considerable controversy for them and also Labour with Rosie Duffield scared of attending their conference.
It's also very dangerous for the Lib Dems. They might be able to cause an upset in the shires in a protest vote by-election, but if they end up looking like Yellow Labour come the next GE then how far are they actually going to get in flipping Tory seats into their column? Not very, one would imagine.
It is indeed. I have been passionately pro gay rights ever since I was old enough to understand the issue, I am exactly as pro trans rights as I am pro gay rights, but I would not in a million years vote for a party which buys the present pro trans activist nonsense. And I am a floating ex tory voter who has voted LD in the past (and for a successful LD candidate, so not just a protest vote). Davey has scuppered himself just when I was beginning to like him.
The problem is the loudmouth idiots on either side. The so-called 'pro-trans' people who seem more interested in arguing more than helping the interests of trans people; the anti-pro-trans people who seem just to want a good barney with the other side and make out that trans people are a threat to women.
And in the middle the trans people suffer, and their interests get forgotten.
Some (few) trans people are a very serious threat to women, and they are the edge cases that the pro trans tend to focus on. This really isn't a symmetrical situation, because there is exactly one right answer, which coincides as usual with my own views, and that is: trans is fine, we just need some boring but necessary regs to cover the special cases of sport, loos, hospitals and prisons, and some law about children making irreversible decisions they later regret. There may be nutters who regard all trans people as the spawn of the devil, but I haven't heard of them.
I'm unsure if you meant 'pro trans' in your first sentence, or 'anti trans'? But the issue there is that some people are a very serious threat to women, and I haven't seen much evidence that trans people contain a higher proportion. And even if they did, that's not enough reason to castigate all trans people. I certainly don't think any of the ones I've known have been a threat to women.
Indeed, there is a tendency to talk of the threat some trans people are to women, e.g. in jail, and then ignore the much greater threats trans people suffer. I posted figures the other day for the number of assaults on trans people in prison, and it's far greater than the other way.
Take a statement like: "trans people should not use women's spaces." That probably gets nods of agreement from many. Yet to fully transition and have the op, you need to live as a woman for a period - a year or two. This means a pre-op trans person has to use the facilities of their new gender. There are obvious very real issues in them not doing this.
"There may be nutters who regard all trans people as the spawn of the devil, but I haven't heard of them." You don't read the right (wrong) places, obviously. And the sad thing is some of the pro-trans people can seem just as nasty.
Neither, I meant men who identify as women - i.e. people who do it rather than have a pro or anti view on it. Your "only a tiny minority" argument is like the NRA on guns: sometimes the edge cases are so bad you have to legislate for them no matter how numerically insignificant they are. If it makes the argument more palatable I am probably talking in the main about 100% cis men who pretend to be trans for nefarious ends. Like dear old Karen
As it happens, I think you're wrong about that low piece of scum White: since she has apparently since had surgery, she was probably not 'pretending' to be trans.
As I've said passim, all segments of society have scum. And suffering does not engender nobility: marginalised groups are just as likely to contain saints and sinners.
Going to have to invite you to fuck off there, for accusing me of "obsessing about" anything.
You aren't very good at this. You are like a gammon child who has found a woke costume in the dressing-up box and desperately wants to put it on, but hasn't a clue how the tapes and buttons work.
I did start this conversation by saying "It is indeed. I have been passionately pro gay rights ever since I was old enough to understand the issue, I am exactly as pro trans rights as I am pro gay rights..."
And what in the name of Christ crucified is this batshit stuff about suffering does not engender nobility? wtf has that to do with anything?
Wow. What an unnecessary verbal explosion.
I'll ignore most of your rant as the pointless ill-written screed it is. However, I'd like to clear up one point: I mentioned "suffering does not engender nobility" because there is a tendency amongst some to believe that just because a group is marginalised - ethnic minorities, women, trans people etc - that every member of that group is good. And if a member of that group does a bad thing, either they're not really of that group, or they did it because the marginalisation of society has led them to it.
I mentioned it to point out that there will be wrong 'uns amongst trans people. Something *some* pro-trans people seem rather incapable of seeing.
The French can cope with being humiliated and screwed over by America. Because the USA is much bigger. A superpower. Like China. That’s life. Withdraw the ambassador. It’s a mere gesture but it might sting them
The French can cope with the Australian betrayal (tho it hurts more). The Australians are inferior. A small country with too many kangaroos. Pff! Withdraw the ambassador and try and destabilize their tiny politics
Britain? Brexit Britain? Perfidious Albion? This is their exact rival, and equal. The country next door that constantly infuriates them even as it intrigues them. This stupid foggy island has totally beaten us?? It’s the pain of Sunderland losing to Newcastle. It is a bitter local rivalry. Withdrawing the French ambassador in London would be acknowledging England’s triumph. It is too painful, so instead they resort to cooking metaphors
I think there's another layer which is that the French elite are collectively afraid of contemplating the possibility that Boris Johnson was right about the EU. They can't take him seriously, because their own worldview depends on seeing him as a clown.
The same applies to a great number of posters on this site.
The PB elite?
It has been even more noticeable in the post-Brexit years that a section of the liberal left elite have utter contempt for those less educated among sections of the lower w/c especially from the north. Of course it all began with the unfortunate microphone incident with Gordon Brown. It is this above all which has riven the Labour party asunder and it's unclear that they are even on the road to recognising let alone mending this problem. The current treatment of some of their women MPs referred to above is simply the latest example of this problem.
Putting thoughts and motivations in other people's minds has also become common, no?
Have you ever read Roger's comments? Do you think the GB microphone comment was fake?
How would you feel if I attributed the views of (say) @HYUFD to broadly right wing people?
Fine - but be more specific - I referred to, quote, 'a section of the liberal left' which, without wishing to be condescending, is I think rather narrower than 'broadly right wing people', no?
I apologise if I've gotten a bit shirty. One of the things that has really annoyed me about the... shall I call it Trump era? although it's clearly a bigger issue...is this creating caricatures of our political opponents.
I see it when politicians of the Left accuse those on the Right of being racist for not signing up to the whole BLM thing.
Anyway: you're usually a pretty thoughtful and nuanced poster, but "a section of the liberal left elite have utter contempt for those less educated among sections of the lower w/c especially from the north" triggered me.
The reality is that the vast, vast majority of our political opponents only want the best for the British people. They may have a slightly different view of what exactly best constitutes or the correct path to get there.
But their views, by and large, and every bit as morally valid as ours. (Albeit often not as practical, well thought out, properly costed, or recognising of the foibles of human nature.)
But "a section of the liberal left elite" who keep proposing the same remedy to the nation's ills - namely, piling unsustainable levels of tax and borrowing onto the shoulders of the private sector to the benefit of the public sector - is wilfully NOT wanting the best for the British people. It is looking out for a narrow section of its own self-interest, whilst ignoring that every time they implement it, the economy goes tits up. And the poorest inevitably suffer the most.
At what point is it safe to heap moral opprobrium on them for that?
This is confusing. Are people who work in the public sector the "elite"? How are you "liberal" and "left" at the same time? Is the huge borrowing undertaken by the Conservative government part of this left-liberal ruination of the economy, and if not, why not?
Those who work in the public sector have been the elite during the Covid crisis for sure. They have kept their pay (often having massive overtime too), kept their pensions, kept their career progression. It was very largely the private sector that got done over.
This Conservative government took the hard decision to support the workers in the private sector until they were better able to weather the economic storm. That storm has taken longer to abate than might have been expected, but the government stood by that pledge. It has borrowed vast amounts of money in order to do so. The difference is that if had elected a Corbyn government in 2017 or 2019, then by the time Covid hit, the headroom to borrow for furlough would have already gone - to the public sector.
So it is still quite easy to square the circle. This Government - absent a once in a century public health disaster - would prefer to have a smaller state - and consequently, lower taxation. But part of the fall-out of that health disaster has been the now impossible-to-defer need to confront the provision of social care. That has required a rise in taxation. Nobody has come up with an alternative route. Certainly not HM Opposition.
But when it comes to the next set of manifestos, the Labour Party will again propose more taxation and borrowing than can ever be endured by the private sector. And the Conservative Party will oppose that.
I suspect the Labour Party will not be proposing more taxation on anything beyond wealth as there is nothing left to tax
The French can cope with being humiliated and screwed over by America. Because the USA is much bigger. A superpower. Like China. That’s life. Withdraw the ambassador. It’s a mere gesture but it might sting them
The French can cope with the Australian betrayal (tho it hurts more). The Australians are inferior. A small country with too many kangaroos. Pff! Withdraw the ambassador and try and destabilize their tiny politics
Britain? Brexit Britain? Perfidious Albion? This is their exact rival, and equal. The country next door that constantly infuriates them even as it intrigues them. This stupid foggy island has totally beaten us?? It’s the pain of Sunderland losing to Newcastle. It is a bitter local rivalry. Withdrawing the French ambassador in London would be acknowledging England’s triumph. It is too painful, so instead they resort to cooking metaphors
I think there's another layer which is that the French elite are collectively afraid of contemplating the possibility that Boris Johnson was right about the EU. They can't take him seriously, because their own worldview depends on seeing him as a clown.
The same applies to a great number of posters on this site.
The PB elite?
It has been even more noticeable in the post-Brexit years that a section of the liberal left elite have utter contempt for those less educated among sections of the lower w/c especially from the north. Of course it all began with the unfortunate microphone incident with Gordon Brown. It is this above all which has riven the Labour party asunder and it's unclear that they are even on the road to recognising let alone mending this problem. The current treatment of some of their women MPs referred to above is simply the latest example of this problem.
Putting thoughts and motivations in other people's minds has also become common, no?
Have you ever read Roger's comments? Do you think the GB microphone comment was fake?
How would you feel if I attributed the views of (say) @HYUFD to broadly right wing people?
Fine - but be more specific - I referred to, quote, 'a section of the liberal left' which, without wishing to be condescending, is I think rather narrower than 'broadly right wing people', no?
I apologise if I've gotten a bit shirty. One of the things that has really annoyed me about the... shall I call it Trump era? although it's clearly a bigger issue...is this creating caricatures of our political opponents.
I see it when politicians of the Left accuse those on the Right of being racist for not signing up to the whole BLM thing.
Anyway: you're usually a pretty thoughtful and nuanced poster, but "a section of the liberal left elite have utter contempt for those less educated among sections of the lower w/c especially from the north" triggered me.
The reality is that the vast, vast majority of our political opponents only want the best for the British people. They may have a slightly different view of what exactly best constitutes or the correct path to get there.
But their views, by and large, and every bit as morally valid as ours. (Albeit often not as practical, well thought out, properly costed, or recognising of the foibles of human nature.)
But "a section of the liberal left elite" who keep proposing the same remedy to the nation's ills - namely, piling unsustainable levels of tax and borrowing onto the shoulders of the private sector to the benefit of the public sector - is wilfully NOT wanting the best for the British people. It is looking out for a narrow section of its own self-interest, whilst ignoring that every time they implement it, the economy goes tits up. And the poorest inevitably suffer the most.
At what point is it safe to heap moral opprobrium on them for that?
This is confusing. Are people who work in the public sector the "elite"? How are you "liberal" and "left" at the same time? Is the huge borrowing undertaken by the Conservative government part of this left-liberal ruination of the economy, and if not, why not?
Those who work in the public sector have been the elite during the Covid crisis for sure. They have kept their pay (often having massive overtime too), kept their pensions, kept their career progression. It was very largely the private sector that got done over.
This Conservative government took the hard decision to support the workers in the private sector until they were better able to weather the economic storm. That storm has taken longer to abate than might have been expected, but the government stood by that pledge. It has borrowed vast amounts of money in order to do so. The difference is that if had elected a Corbyn government in 2017 or 2019, then by the time Covid hit, the headroom to borrow for furlough would have already gone - to the public sector.
So it is still quite easy to square the circle. This Government - absent a once in a century public health disaster - would prefer to have a smaller state - and consequently, lower taxation. But part of the fall-out of that health disaster has been the now impossible-to-defer need to confront the provision of social care. That has required a rise in taxation. Nobody has come up with an alternative route. Certainly not HM Opposition.
But when it comes to the next set of manifestos, the Labour Party will again propose more taxation and borrowing than can ever be endured by the private sector. And the Conservative Party will oppose that.
First, you treat the private sector as homogeneous but surely lorry drivers and others who have seen large pay rises are in the private sector. Furloughed workers who have taken second jobs are also in the private sector. It might also be, though I've not checked, that more deaths occurred in the public sector, with health workers and bus drivers being hit early on.
Then you say this government would prefer a smaller state, yet it was elected explicitly to increase the size of the state: more police; more hospitals; more broadband and so on.
LONDON — As relations between France and the United States sink to their lowest depths in decades, Britain has emerged as the unlikely winner in a maritime security alliance that has sowed anger and recrimination across three continents.
The British government played an early role in brokering the three-way alliance with the United States and Australia to deploy nuclear-powered submarines in the Pacific, according to officials in London and Washington. The landmark agreement was announced hours after Australia canceled a $66 billion deal for diesel-electric submarines with France, provoking fury in Paris and quiet satisfaction in London.
For Prime Minister Boris Johnson, who will meet this coming week with President Biden at the White House and speak at the United Nations, it is his first tangible victory in a campaign to make post-Brexit Britain a player on the global stage.
I see the Remoaners, having worked out that denying Britain had any part to play in Aukus is a fruitless line of attack, have now decided to try and push the meme that it's meaningless and empty instead.
It's all they have left. Reality has been a chastening experience for them over these last few years. The City is still just the same, our old alliances have been strengthened, the EU is being sidelined globally and the UK is under no pressure to agree to any alignment deals as was suggested by remainers.
Expect their derangement to ramp up over the next couple of years as the EU becomes less and less relevant to the world.
LONDON — As relations between France and the United States sink to their lowest depths in decades, Britain has emerged as the unlikely winner in a maritime security alliance that has sowed anger and recrimination across three continents.
The British government played an early role in brokering the three-way alliance with the United States and Australia to deploy nuclear-powered submarines in the Pacific, according to officials in London and Washington. The landmark agreement was announced hours after Australia canceled a $66 billion deal for diesel-electric submarines with France, provoking fury in Paris and quiet satisfaction in London.
For Prime Minister Boris Johnson, who will meet this coming week with President Biden at the White House and speak at the United Nations, it is his first tangible victory in a campaign to make post-Brexit Britain a player on the global stage.
Ronaldo....4 goals in 3 games...do you reckon he has a tally chart of him vs messi hung up in his house as a bit of a motivator?
I have this sneaking suspicion that when he does finally retire he won't become like fat Ronaldo. Rather, like Jimmy Anderson, some poor sods in their 40 and 50s are going to continue to be embarrassed by him whipping their arse in senior matches.
Any news on encouraging the French to staunch the bleeding of refugees/economic migrants into the Channel and thence on to the unsullied coast of the UK (south region). Going well I imagine?
Two LibDems activists including an MP trying desperately to get the audience whipped up into excitement by pratting about with the blue wall model and singing to ABBA.
Indeed. It's summat that is so obvious as to promote only mystification. We are an island. With some of the highest tides in the world. It is a bit like Saudi not being arsed to investigate how to get oil out of the ground.
Any news on encouraging the French to staunch the bleeding of refugees/economic migrants into the Channel and thence on to the unsullied coast of the UK (south region). Going well I imagine?
That 54 million quid was well wasted but at least they to supply some of the toilets for the Aussie subs.
Any news on encouraging the French to staunch the bleeding of refugees/economic migrants into the Channel and thence on to the unsullied coast of the UK (south region). Going well I imagine?
That 54 million quid was well wasted but at least they to supply some of the toilets for the Aussie subs.
Ministers have increased the risk of importing dangerous new Covid variants by 'abandoning' the testing system for global travel, a SAGE (and iSAGE) psychologist advising the Government has claimed.
He said the Government has responded to this 'not by improving the system but by abandoning it entirely', and added that, domestically, there remains 'huge uncertainty' about the effect on virus cases of the return of schools, universities, workplaces and people spending more time indoors in the autumn weather.
LONDON — As relations between France and the United States sink to their lowest depths in decades, Britain has emerged as the unlikely winner in a maritime security alliance that has sowed anger and recrimination across three continents.
The British government played an early role in brokering the three-way alliance with the United States and Australia to deploy nuclear-powered submarines in the Pacific, according to officials in London and Washington. The landmark agreement was announced hours after Australia canceled a $66 billion deal for diesel-electric submarines with France, provoking fury in Paris and quiet satisfaction in London.
For Prime Minister Boris Johnson, who will meet this coming week with President Biden at the White House and speak at the United Nations, it is his first tangible victory in a campaign to make post-Brexit Britain a player on the global stage.
That’s quite the praise from the NYT, given the vast majority of their British output in recent times.
I wonder what the French are going to say when Biden tells the EU to stop being twats over NI....
They are not quite the butt lickers the UK are so he may be told to GTF
I think the French will now simply bide their time and wait for Trump to be re-elected. He will almost certainly cancel AUUKUS simply to spite Boris and Morrison, whom he will regard as Biden lickspittles. A further possibility is that the humiliated Macron loses to Le Pen who then forms and alliance with Trump. That would truly be a nightmare situation for Boris and Britain.
LONDON — As relations between France and the United States sink to their lowest depths in decades, Britain has emerged as the unlikely winner in a maritime security alliance that has sowed anger and recrimination across three continents.
The British government played an early role in brokering the three-way alliance with the United States and Australia to deploy nuclear-powered submarines in the Pacific, according to officials in London and Washington. The landmark agreement was announced hours after Australia canceled a $66 billion deal for diesel-electric submarines with France, provoking fury in Paris and quiet satisfaction in London.
For Prime Minister Boris Johnson, who will meet this coming week with President Biden at the White House and speak at the United Nations, it is his first tangible victory in a campaign to make post-Brexit Britain a player on the global stage.
That’s quite the praise from the NYT, given the vast majority of their British output in recent times.
I wonder what the French are going to say when Biden tells the EU to stop being twats over NI....
They are not quite the butt lickers the UK are so he may be told to GTF
I think the French will now simply bide their time and wait for Trump to be re-elected. He will almost certainly cancel AUUKUS simply to spite Boris and Morrison, whom he will regard as Biden lickspittles. A further possibility is that the humiliated Macron loses to Le Pen who then forms and alliance with Trump. That would truly be a nightmare situation for Boris and Britain.
Any scenario that starts with the words 'Trump re-elected' is a nightmare.
Ministers have increased the risk of importing dangerous new Covid variants by 'abandoning' the testing system for global travel, a SAGE (and iSAGE) psychologist advising the Government has claimed.
He said the Government has responded to this 'not by improving the system but by abandoning it entirely', and added that, domestically, there remains 'huge uncertainty' about the effect on virus cases of the return of schools, universities, workplaces and people spending more time indoors in the autumn weather.
Any news on encouraging the French to staunch the bleeding of refugees/economic migrants into the Channel and thence on to the unsullied coast of the UK (south region). Going well I imagine?
Perhaps Priti could do one of her parallel foreign-policy initiatives and grovel to Macron behind Boris's back.
Ministers have increased the risk of importing dangerous new Covid variants by 'abandoning' the testing system for global travel, a SAGE (and iSAGE) psychologist advising the Government has claimed.
He said the Government has responded to this 'not by improving the system but by abandoning it entirely', and added that, domestically, there remains 'huge uncertainty' about the effect on virus cases of the return of schools, universities, workplaces and people spending more time indoors in the autumn weather.
Ministers have increased the risk of importing dangerous new Covid variants by 'abandoning' the testing system for global travel, a SAGE (and iSAGE) psychologist advising the Government has claimed.
He said the Government has responded to this 'not by improving the system but by abandoning it entirely', and added that, domestically, there remains 'huge uncertainty' about the effect on virus cases of the return of schools, universities, workplaces and people spending more time indoors in the autumn weather.
I see the Remoaners, having worked out that denying Britain had any part to play in Aukus is a fruitless line of attack, have now decided to try and push the meme that it's meaningless and empty instead.
There's nothing meaningless or empty about Australia ditching France in favour of the US as their counterparty on a massive arms deal. As for the Aukus wrapper Britain WAS needed for that. We add value to the look & feel of the package and we get value back ourselves. It's great optics for the Johnson government, cost-free promo for post-Brexit Global Britain, a genuine political achievement.
Unless this provisional take is wrong and when we know more it turns out the Aukus angle isn't just presentational spin and what we have here is the platform for a new and substantive Anglo alliance against China in the Pacific, in which we'll be a serious player and second only to America. In which case it's even less meaningless and empty. A mistake, imo, but not meaningless and empty.
LONDON — As relations between France and the United States sink to their lowest depths in decades, Britain has emerged as the unlikely winner in a maritime security alliance that has sowed anger and recrimination across three continents.
The British government played an early role in brokering the three-way alliance with the United States and Australia to deploy nuclear-powered submarines in the Pacific, according to officials in London and Washington. The landmark agreement was announced hours after Australia canceled a $66 billion deal for diesel-electric submarines with France, provoking fury in Paris and quiet satisfaction in London.
For Prime Minister Boris Johnson, who will meet this coming week with President Biden at the White House and speak at the United Nations, it is his first tangible victory in a campaign to make post-Brexit Britain a player on the global stage.
That’s quite the praise from the NYT, given the vast majority of their British output in recent times.
I wonder what the French are going to say when Biden tells the EU to stop being twats over NI....
They are not quite the butt lickers the UK are so he may be told to GTF
I think the French will now simply bide their time and wait for Trump to be re-elected. He will almost certainly cancel AUUKUS simply to spite Boris and Morrison, whom he will regard as Biden lickspittles. A further possibility is that the humiliated Macron loses to Le Pen who then forms and alliance with Trump. That would truly be a nightmare situation for Boris and Britain.
That's what you're now left hoping for, Trump to be re-elected. What a sad turn of events.
Ronaldo....4 goals in 3 games...do you reckon he has a tally chart of him vs messi hung up in his house as a bit of a motivator?
There were some amazing statistics when he scored in the CL. Since the age of 30 he has scored 64 goals in 68 games in the CL. That was 35 more than anyone else past the age of 30. Presumably Messi was second but not even half.
I see the Remoaners, having worked out that denying Britain had any part to play in Aukus is a fruitless line of attack, have now decided to try and push the meme that it's meaningless and empty instead.
There's nothing meaningless or empty about Australia ditching France in favour of the US as their counterparty on a massive arms deal. As for the Aukus wrapper Britain WAS needed for that. We add value to the look & feel of the package and we get value back ourselves. It's great optics for the Johnson government, cost-free promo for post-Brexit Global Britain, a genuine political achievement.
Unless this provisional take is wrong and when we know more it turns out the Aukus angle isn't just presentational spin and what we have here is the platform for a new and substantive Anglo alliance against China in the Pacific in which we'll be a serious player, second only to America. In which case it's even less meaningless and empty. It's a mistake, imo, but not meaningless and empty.
At best they will be US lapdog lickspittles as usual. French will ensure the EU put the boot in somewhere and the morons on here will not be so smug.
Ministers have increased the risk of importing dangerous new Covid variants by 'abandoning' the testing system for global travel, a SAGE (and iSAGE) psychologist advising the Government has claimed.
He said the Government has responded to this 'not by improving the system but by abandoning it entirely', and added that, domestically, there remains 'huge uncertainty' about the effect on virus cases of the return of schools, universities, workplaces and people spending more time indoors in the autumn weather.
LONDON — As relations between France and the United States sink to their lowest depths in decades, Britain has emerged as the unlikely winner in a maritime security alliance that has sowed anger and recrimination across three continents.
The British government played an early role in brokering the three-way alliance with the United States and Australia to deploy nuclear-powered submarines in the Pacific, according to officials in London and Washington. The landmark agreement was announced hours after Australia canceled a $66 billion deal for diesel-electric submarines with France, provoking fury in Paris and quiet satisfaction in London.
For Prime Minister Boris Johnson, who will meet this coming week with President Biden at the White House and speak at the United Nations, it is his first tangible victory in a campaign to make post-Brexit Britain a player on the global stage.
That’s quite the praise from the NYT, given the vast majority of their British output in recent times.
I wonder what the French are going to say when Biden tells the EU to stop being twats over NI....
They are not quite the butt lickers the UK are so he may be told to GTF
I think the French will now simply bide their time and wait for Trump to be re-elected. He will almost certainly cancel AUUKUS simply to spite Boris and Morrison, whom he will regard as Biden lickspittles. A further possibility is that the humiliated Macron loses to Le Pen who then forms and alliance with Trump. That would truly be a nightmare situation for Boris and Britain.
That's what you're now left hoping for, Trump to be re-elected. What a sad turn of events.
It is beyond me how anyone could hope total loons like Trump and Le Pen could be put in charge of nuclear weapons (again, in Trump's case).
I suppose it probably would solve all the world's problems in short order, but you don't really solve anything by reducing us to radioactive cinders.
LONDON — As relations between France and the United States sink to their lowest depths in decades, Britain has emerged as the unlikely winner in a maritime security alliance that has sowed anger and recrimination across three continents.
The British government played an early role in brokering the three-way alliance with the United States and Australia to deploy nuclear-powered submarines in the Pacific, according to officials in London and Washington. The landmark agreement was announced hours after Australia canceled a $66 billion deal for diesel-electric submarines with France, provoking fury in Paris and quiet satisfaction in London.
For Prime Minister Boris Johnson, who will meet this coming week with President Biden at the White House and speak at the United Nations, it is his first tangible victory in a campaign to make post-Brexit Britain a player on the global stage.
That’s quite the praise from the NYT, given the vast majority of their British output in recent times.
I wonder what the French are going to say when Biden tells the EU to stop being twats over NI....
They are not quite the butt lickers the UK are so he may be told to GTF
I think the French will now simply bide their time and wait for Trump to be re-elected. He will almost certainly cancel AUUKUS simply to spite Boris and Morrison, whom he will regard as Biden lickspittles. A further possibility is that the humiliated Macron loses to Le Pen who then forms and alliance with Trump. That would truly be a nightmare situation for Boris and Britain.
That's what you're now left hoping for, Trump to be re-elected. What a sad turn of events.
Rather that than admit it might have been a bit of a coup for Johnson.
“I’m tired of being part of an institution that is meant to support the equality and human rights of ethnic minority people, that is meant to acknowledge and accept structural and institutional racism, yet find myself in an institution that is colluding in its denial.”
“I’m tired of being part of an institution that is meant to support the equality and human rights of ethnic minority people, that is meant to acknowledge and accept structural and institutional racism, yet find myself in an institution that is colluding in its denial.”
“I’m tired of being part of an institution that is meant to support the equality and human rights of ethnic minority people, that is meant to acknowledge and accept structural and institutional racism, yet find myself in an institution that is colluding in its denial.”
Isn't it suppose to support the equality and human rights of everybody?
Disgruntled former employee sends letter and its news.
It is to the Guardian...the complaint is a word salad of terminology that is used by those who start from the position that every white person is racist, and to deny that means those denying further proof of racist thinking or if non-white themselves some sort of sell out BAME ala Kemi Badenoch.
I see the Remoaners, having worked out that denying Britain had any part to play in Aukus is a fruitless line of attack, have now decided to try and push the meme that it's meaningless and empty instead.
There's nothing meaningless or empty about Australia ditching France in favour of the US as their counterparty on a massive arms deal. As for the Aukus wrapper Britain WAS needed for that. We add value to the look & feel of the package and we get value back ourselves. It's great optics for the Johnson government, cost-free promo for post-Brexit Global Britain, a genuine political achievement.
Unless this provisional take is wrong and when we know more it turns out the Aukus angle isn't just presentational spin and what we have here is the platform for a new and substantive Anglo alliance against China in the Pacific in which we'll be a serious player, second only to America. In which case it's even less meaningless and empty. It's a mistake, imo, but not meaningless and empty.
At best they will be US lapdog lickspittles as usual. French will ensure the EU put the boot in somewhere and the morons on here will not be so smug.
The "Deep and Special Partnership" isn't off to a fast start, it must be said.
Good morning one and all; cloudy and overcast again this morning, and the rain's possibly back this afternoon.14 degC, which isn't too bad.
Enjoyed the cricket yesterday, although how a perfectly good catch was turned into a six was puzzling.
The catcher collided with somebody who was touching the boundary rope.
Bizarre and freakish but not really puzzling.
Edit - of course in the semis you also had Weatherley reprieved because somebody stepped outside the circle.
The catcher had completed the catch though. I agree; bizarre.
In other sports related news, it appears there may be a treatment, at least of sorts for Motor Neurone Disease, and Rob Burrow is 'giving it a go'. We have family experience of MND, so we welcome anything that will help sufferers.
He hadn't completed the catch. He was still at a stage where he might have dropped it, and hadn't yet "further disposed of it". Ironically, if he'd thrown it up in the air in celebration a fraction of a second earlier it would have been out because that would have counted as having further disposed of the ball.
“I’m tired of being part of an institution that is meant to support the equality and human rights of ethnic minority people, that is meant to acknowledge and accept structural and institutional racism, yet find myself in an institution that is colluding in its denial.”
Isn't it suppose to support the equality and human rights of everybody?
But with a focus on minorities, I think this is generally accepted. It'd be rather anodyne otherwise. Either that or so overarching as to be a quite enormously large and powerful entity. "The Department for protecting the rights and promoting the interests of Everybody" - whoever was running this would need a finger in every pie and would be arguably more important than the PM himself. Wouldn't work, not even with the ablest individual, and imagine if it were Gavin Williamson.
On trans rights, my girlfriend is a northern, non-university educated red waller and she has absolutely zero fears about trans rights eroding feminism or safe spaces for women or whatever. There is definitely a generational divide on this, which is probably down to the younger generation growing up in a culture of much more equality than there was before.
The French can cope with being humiliated and screwed over by America. Because the USA is much bigger. A superpower. Like China. That’s life. Withdraw the ambassador. It’s a mere gesture but it might sting them
The French can cope with the Australian betrayal (tho it hurts more). The Australians are inferior. A small country with too many kangaroos. Pff! Withdraw the ambassador and try and destabilize their tiny politics
Britain? Brexit Britain? Perfidious Albion? This is their exact rival, and equal. The country next door that constantly infuriates them even as it intrigues them. This stupid foggy island has totally beaten us?? It’s the pain of Sunderland losing to Newcastle. It is a bitter local rivalry. Withdrawing the French ambassador in London would be acknowledging England’s triumph. It is too painful, so instead they resort to cooking metaphors
I think there's another layer which is that the French elite are collectively afraid of contemplating the possibility that Boris Johnson was right about the EU. They can't take him seriously, because their own worldview depends on seeing him as a clown.
The same applies to a great number of posters on this site.
The PB elite?
It has been even more noticeable in the post-Brexit years that a section of the liberal left elite have utter contempt for those less educated among sections of the lower w/c especially from the north. Of course it all began with the unfortunate microphone incident with Gordon Brown. It is this above all which has riven the Labour party asunder and it's unclear that they are even on the road to recognising let alone mending this problem. The current treatment of some of their women MPs referred to above is simply the latest example of this problem.
Putting thoughts and motivations in other people's minds has also become common, no?
Have you ever read Roger's comments? Do you think the GB microphone comment was fake?
How would you feel if I attributed the views of (say) @HYUFD to broadly right wing people?
Fine - but be more specific - I referred to, quote, 'a section of the liberal left' which, without wishing to be condescending, is I think rather narrower than 'broadly right wing people', no?
I apologise if I've gotten a bit shirty. One of the things that has really annoyed me about the... shall I call it Trump era? although it's clearly a bigger issue...is this creating caricatures of our political opponents.
I see it when politicians of the Left accuse those on the Right of being racist for not signing up to the whole BLM thing.
Anyway: you're usually a pretty thoughtful and nuanced poster, but "a section of the liberal left elite have utter contempt for those less educated among sections of the lower w/c especially from the north" triggered me.
The reality is that the vast, vast majority of our political opponents only want the best for the British people. They may have a slightly different view of what exactly best constitutes or the correct path to get there.
But their views, by and large, and every bit as morally valid as ours. (Albeit often not as practical, well thought out, properly costed, or recognising of the foibles of human nature.)
But "a section of the liberal left elite" who keep proposing the same remedy to the nation's ills - namely, piling unsustainable levels of tax and borrowing onto the shoulders of the private sector to the benefit of the public sector - is wilfully NOT wanting the best for the British people. It is looking out for a narrow section of its own self-interest, whilst ignoring that every time they implement it, the economy goes tits up. And the poorest inevitably suffer the most.
At what point is it safe to heap moral opprobrium on them for that?
This is confusing. Are people who work in the public sector the "elite"? How are you "liberal" and "left" at the same time? Is the huge borrowing undertaken by the Conservative government part of this left-liberal ruination of the economy, and if not, why not?
Those who work in the public sector have been the elite during the Covid crisis for sure. They have kept their pay (often having massive overtime too), kept their pensions, kept their career progression. It was very largely the private sector that got done over.
This Conservative government took the hard decision to support the workers in the private sector until they were better able to weather the economic storm. That storm has taken longer to abate than might have been expected, but the government stood by that pledge. It has borrowed vast amounts of money in order to do so. The difference is that if had elected a Corbyn government in 2017 or 2019, then by the time Covid hit, the headroom to borrow for furlough would have already gone - to the public sector.
So it is still quite easy to square the circle. This Government - absent a once in a century public health disaster - would prefer to have a smaller state - and consequently, lower taxation. But part of the fall-out of that health disaster has been the now impossible-to-defer need to confront the provision of social care. That has required a rise in taxation. Nobody has come up with an alternative route. Certainly not HM Opposition.
But when it comes to the next set of manifestos, the Labour Party will again propose more taxation and borrowing than can ever be endured by the private sector. And the Conservative Party will oppose that.
Cynical to choose NI over Income Tax as a way to raise the funds, though. And it's mainly going to the NHS so social care remains to be tackled.
LONDON — As relations between France and the United States sink to their lowest depths in decades, Britain has emerged as the unlikely winner in a maritime security alliance that has sowed anger and recrimination across three continents.
The British government played an early role in brokering the three-way alliance with the United States and Australia to deploy nuclear-powered submarines in the Pacific, according to officials in London and Washington. The landmark agreement was announced hours after Australia canceled a $66 billion deal for diesel-electric submarines with France, provoking fury in Paris and quiet satisfaction in London.
For Prime Minister Boris Johnson, who will meet this coming week with President Biden at the White House and speak at the United Nations, it is his first tangible victory in a campaign to make post-Brexit Britain a player on the global stage.
That’s quite the praise from the NYT, given the vast majority of their British output in recent times.
I wonder what the French are going to say when Biden tells the EU to stop being twats over NI....
They are not quite the butt lickers the UK are so he may be told to GTF
I think the French will now simply bide their time and wait for Trump to be re-elected. He will almost certainly cancel AUUKUS simply to spite Boris and Morrison, whom he will regard as Biden lickspittles. A further possibility is that the humiliated Macron loses to Le Pen who then forms and alliance with Trump. That would truly be a nightmare situation for Boris and Britain.
Have I read that properly
You are so bitter you want Trump back in US
Really
That is astonishing and I am very surprised that you could even think it
Reduction in cases levelling off. England cases up week on week today.
Is ~25-30k cases a day the background level we will have have to expect for the foreseeable future?
I think so, certainly for the next 2-3 months with an average in excess of 100 a day of deaths within 28 days. It's a long way from where we were at the trough.
Reduction in cases levelling off. England cases up week on week today.
Is ~25-30k cases a day the background level we will have have to expect for the foreseeable future?
I think we must expect any decline in cases (positive tests, for@chris) to be slow and drawn out. There are many factors at play. It’s likely that some of the numbers are uni students going back (pre-testing) etc. Plus there is clearly a lot of virus out there, so infections are going to happen, and more so to the still unvaccinated.
LONDON — As relations between France and the United States sink to their lowest depths in decades, Britain has emerged as the unlikely winner in a maritime security alliance that has sowed anger and recrimination across three continents.
The British government played an early role in brokering the three-way alliance with the United States and Australia to deploy nuclear-powered submarines in the Pacific, according to officials in London and Washington. The landmark agreement was announced hours after Australia canceled a $66 billion deal for diesel-electric submarines with France, provoking fury in Paris and quiet satisfaction in London.
For Prime Minister Boris Johnson, who will meet this coming week with President Biden at the White House and speak at the United Nations, it is his first tangible victory in a campaign to make post-Brexit Britain a player on the global stage.
That’s quite the praise from the NYT, given the vast majority of their British output in recent times.
I wonder what the French are going to say when Biden tells the EU to stop being twats over NI....
They are not quite the butt lickers the UK are so he may be told to GTF
I think the French will now simply bide their time and wait for Trump to be re-elected. He will almost certainly cancel AUUKUS simply to spite Boris and Morrison, whom he will regard as Biden lickspittles. A further possibility is that the humiliated Macron loses to Le Pen who then forms and alliance with Trump. That would truly be a nightmare situation for Boris and Britain.
Have I read that properly
You are so bitter you want Trump back in US
Really
That is astonishing and I am very surprised that you could even think it
No, you haven't read it properly because at no point do I state that I want Trump back. Nevertheless, I doubt the French now see much advantage in having Biden instead of Trump, which is tragic in itself.
Comments
b) It annoyed the French.
c) It annoyed the Chinese.
I don't think you can conflate men and women in this context.
In fact, the prison thing has become an issue, because some people from one group, who had assaulted people in another group, were sent to prison, moved from one group to another, got moved to a prison for the their new group and then assaulted some more people.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/minister-refuses-to-rule-out-removing-price-cap-as-energy-costs-soar-3rw3rsqb7
Probably the least worst option available to the govt. Kwarteng is going to take some heat, though.
It’s a really bad time to cut UC…
https://twitter.com/mike_blackley/status/1439518312015310849?s=21
That would be about the same time they asked the UK government to send the British Army to help….funny that….
In prisons the latter is higher, but then in prisons the threat from men is considerably higher by default. That's why women are separated from men, that's not a reason to mix trans in with women.
With a bit of thought withdrawal of the temporary boost in UC was always going to be controversial
So why call it UC?
Why not call it “COVID supplement support payment” - same amount, same people
With a bit of thought withdrawal of the temporary boost in UC was always going to be controversial
So why call it UC?
Why not call it “COVID supplement support payment” - same amount, same people
This Conservative government took the hard decision to support the workers in the private sector until they were better able to weather the economic storm. That storm has taken longer to abate than might have been expected, but the government stood by that pledge. It has borrowed vast amounts of money in order to do so. The difference is that if had elected a Corbyn government in 2017 or 2019, then by the time Covid hit, the headroom to borrow for furlough would have already gone - to the public sector.
So it is still quite easy to square the circle. This Government - absent a once in a century public health disaster - would prefer to have a smaller state - and consequently, lower taxation. But part of the fall-out of that health disaster has been the now impossible-to-defer need to confront the provision of social care. That has required a rise in taxation. Nobody has come up with an alternative route. Certainly not HM Opposition.
But when it comes to the next set of manifestos, the Labour Party will again propose more taxation and borrowing than can ever be endured by the private sector. And the Conservative Party will oppose that.
Are you convinced of that? It isn't what they say or do.
Nor indeed what they implied in their campaign.
I'll ignore most of your rant as the pointless ill-written screed it is. However, I'd like to clear up one point: I mentioned "suffering does not engender nobility" because there is a tendency amongst some to believe that just because a group is marginalised - ethnic minorities, women, trans people etc - that every member of that group is good. And if a member of that group does a bad thing, either they're not really of that group, or they did it because the marginalisation of society has led them to it.
I mentioned it to point out that there will be wrong 'uns amongst trans people. Something *some* pro-trans people seem rather incapable of seeing.
I used to vote for them. Now I feel silly. Not as silly as Ed. Why couldn't he just say "Banning someone for ten years was clearly an aberration, I will sort it out."
If I were the other parties, I'd use it against them at every opportunity - it's political gold.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-58615356
Then you say this government would prefer a smaller state, yet it was elected explicitly to increase the size of the state: more police; more hospitals; more broadband and so on.
Expect their derangement to ramp up over the next couple of years as the EU becomes less and less relevant to the world.
Now Johnson has met them all he's the Blasted Heath.
(I couldn't get Thresher in there...)
But seem to have got:
Two LibDems activists including an MP trying desperately to get the audience whipped up into excitement by pratting about with the blue wall model and singing to ABBA.
We are an island. With some of the highest tides in the world.
It is a bit like Saudi not being arsed to investigate how to get oil out of the ground.
Not exactly Ed Davey's leaders speech is it?
https://twitter.com/joanesquirt/status/1436614171358023680?s=20
He said the Government has responded to this 'not by improving the system but by abandoning it entirely', and added that, domestically, there remains 'huge uncertainty' about the effect on virus cases of the return of schools, universities, workplaces and people spending more time indoors in the autumn weather.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10006261/Ministers-increased-risk-importing-variants-abandoning-testing-global-travel.html
Unless this provisional take is wrong and when we know more it turns out the Aukus angle isn't just presentational spin and what we have here is the platform for a new and substantive Anglo alliance against China in the Pacific, in which we'll be a serious player and second only to America. In which case it's even less meaningless and empty. A mistake, imo, but not meaningless and empty.
Some of my favourite lines in Shakespeare.
I suppose it probably would solve all the world's problems in short order, but you don't really solve anything by reducing us to radioactive cinders.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/sep/19/britains-equality-watchdog-colluding-in-denial-of-institutional-racism
Isn't it suppose to support the equality and human rights of everybody?
Reduction in cases levelling off. England cases up week on week today.
Is ~25-30k cases a day the background level we will have have to expect for the foreseeable future?
You are so bitter you want Trump back in US
Really
That is astonishing and I am very surprised that you could even think it
And WHU have now missed 4 of their last 5 pens