Still, truly fascinating to seem them so candidly. They have huge affection for one another, even when they are disagreeing.
The riders on are also interesting.
Michael Lindsay-Hogg is a posh idiot. Mal Evans takes massive, dumb-faced joy from banging the anvil during “Maxwell’s Silver Hammer”. George Martin looks rather fed up with the whole circus at this stage.
From the Washington Post. "Yes, kink belongs at Pride. And I want my kids to see it. Children need to know that they can make their own ways in the world"
"When our children grew tired of marching, we plopped onto a nearby curb. Just as we got settled, our elementary-schooler pointed in the direction of oncoming floats, raising an eyebrow at a bare-chested man in dark sunglasses whose black suspenders clipped into a leather thong. The man paused to be spanked playfully by a partner with a flog. “What are they doing?” my curious kid asked as our toddler cheered them on. The pair was the first of a few dozen kinksters who danced down the street, laughing together as they twirled their whips and batons, some leading companions by leashes. At the time, my children were too young to understand the nuance of the situation, but I told them the truth: That these folks were members of our community celebrating who they are and what they like to do."
Hopefully Porton Down will be doing tests (I'm sure they will be) with blood from all possible vax/infection combos {Az, Pfi, Mod, Az*2, Pfi *2, Mod *2, Az*2+Pfi, Az*2+Mod, Pfi*3, Pfi*2+Mod, Mod*2+Pfi, Mod*3} & No prior viral infection {Az, Pfi, Mod, Az*2, Pfi *2, Mod *2, Az*2+Pfi, Az*2+Mod, Pfi*3, Pfi*2+Mod, Mod*2+Pfi, Mod*3} & prior infection. & naive.
Japan, Germany, Italy, France, and Singapore join the UK and Israel in banning all flights from Southern Africa
Hmm
I’ve got bad vibes about this. I know we must wait for Porton Down and WHO to formally announce how everything is fucked - or not - but the frantic, urgent action by major governments tell me that something is up. They already suspect the worst. And yes Javid’s eyes were set to maximum terror-boggle mode last night on Sky
Brace
Aren't South African Hospitals the place to watch, if this variant is more severe then they will fill up pretty quickly.
Yes. We may have to wait weeks for Porton Down but we should know more in a few days by looking at South Africa
One of the things that might be freaking world governments is this: although SA has low vax rates (which is due to misrule and vax hesitation btw, not mean western governments) they were presumed to have high levels of prior immunity due to enormous beta and delta waves
Yet the nunu explodes nonetheless. This suggests it can reinfect previous victims and probably evade vaccines, at least in part?
Javid specifically said “this may well evade our present vaccines”. How can he say such a scary thing unless some science has already been done?
Strangely South Africa is not talking about a lockdown and are criticising the travel ban as too harsh.
This variant is likely to have been there for 4-6 weeks so some effect on serious illness/hospitalisations should have come through by now
“A woman accused of indecent exposure, masturbating in public and using a sex toy in a public place, will stand trial early next year.
Chloe Thompson, of Borough Road, Middlesbrough, appeared at Teesside Magistrates' Court on Wednesday after denying the offences.
She is charged with committing a public nuisance by indecently exposing her penis to other members of the public, whilst masturbating from a property window.”
Is she really a woman? Should she be sent to an all female prison?
No, of course not.
Let me repost what I posted last night when this was first posted.
There is more to this story.
This man was convicted of sexual offences against children and was ordered to be put on the sexual offenders' register. He was also made subject to various notification requirements. In breach of these he set up a Tik Tok account aimed at children in the female name he is now using. But failed to notify the police. This was brought to the attention of the court.
The formal name change only occurred after all these offences. It is not even clear if this man is claiming to be trans. There has been no medical diagnosis or treatment. This man is a sex offender who is using the trans label or, rather, the gullibility and stupidity of the authorities to try and gain access to children and women.
And, sadly, there are politicians and others who think this is ok, who think that men like him - male sex offenders - should be allowed easy access to women and children, to their spaces, should be allowed to be housed in a womens' prison, should be called a woman in statistics etc.
This is not just stupid. It is wrong. It is evil because it allows evil men to get away with harm to others, to some of the most vulnerable in our society.
No. Just no.
It is a method that a sex offender uses to offend. It seems in this case to have been using a female identity. And then the sex offender claimed that he is a woman. That she is a woman as we now say.
She is a criminal and criminals will be criminals. You are shooting the messenger or seeking to ban the sale of matches for fear that a pyromaniac might buy them.
Your analogy does not work. We do not sell dangerous goods to those under-age precisely because of the harm that might ensue
She is not a woman. This is a man.
This man - regardless of the fact that they call themselves Chloe - should not be put in a woman's prison. The crime they have committed should not be recorded as a crime committed by a woman. They should not be allowed to enter women's spaces. We do not have self-ID in this country (nor should we). If this man genuinely suffers from dysphoria - and I am sceptical given that the name change so conveniently happened after a load of sex offences and just before this offender sought to evade legal restrictions on him - then he can seek medical help.
Biology is real. Womanhood is not a feeling, changing a name and wearing lipstick. It is nonsense on stilts to say so.
The next development will be as follows: adults celebrating their weird sexual peversions in public, and liberal woke parents exposing their children to it, so as to deter them from kink shaming. You heard it here first.
That's not next, that's been going on for years. The point is the definition of weird sexual perversion keeps getting advanced so that no one notices.
This is where the anti-woke reaction is as ugly as the more extreme wokeism. Brain scans of genuine trans people show it aligns to their identified sex rather than their biological sex. That is not a "feeling" or a "sexual perversion".
“A woman accused of indecent exposure, masturbating in public and using a sex toy in a public place, will stand trial early next year.
Chloe Thompson, of Borough Road, Middlesbrough, appeared at Teesside Magistrates' Court on Wednesday after denying the offences.
She is charged with committing a public nuisance by indecently exposing her penis to other members of the public, whilst masturbating from a property window.”
I am guessing the boringly statistical one that there are many orders of magnitude more devious predatory heterosexual male shits in the world than there are women trapped in mens' bodies, and that anyone defending this arse's utterly ludicrous claim to be a woman with a penis is enabling predatory heterosexual male shittery under cover of particularly ill thought out wokery.
And severely damaging the cause of genuine trans women btw.
Well I'm certainly not defending that claim. There will be men who change gender for nefarious reasons. But would this group not be a tiny minority compared to those who are genuine? I'd think so.
But what I'm trying to understand is, what does this story make people want to do -
Make it even harder than now to change gender? Have a blanket ban on male born people using female spaces? Other stuff?
Otherwise it just reads as "oh yuck, pervert in a dress".
My answers:
1. The existing GRA requirements are sufficient. There should be no change to them. 2. Unless a person has received a medical diagnosis of dysphoria they should not be treated as anything other than their sex. 3. Male sex offenders - to be clear all sex offenders with a male body - should not be housed in womens' prisons. Have a special wing for them in a male prison. 4. Existing practices - in prisons and elsewhere - which effectively are permitting self-ID even though this is not legal and even though those with a GRC have exactly the same legal rights as everyone else under the 2010 Equality Act should be stopped. 5. Data in censuses / in courts / collected by the police should be based on sex so that it is accurate. 6. The practice of forcing rape victims in court to call their attacker "she" if the latter insist or of punishing female prisoners for calling a man a man should be stopped.
Whether these are genuinely dysphoric people or those simply taking advantage of soft-headed officialdom, is hard to say. The fact that so many are sex offenders makes me sceptical that this is a genuine increase in a medical condition.
I think you can go further than that. It's a numbers game: there are, let's say, as many seriously devious heterosexual males as genuine trans women in the world. (Actually I think there are probably at least thousands as many). It is overwhelmingly probable that a male prisoner in for heterosexual offences is faking it, and it does a serious disservice to the genuinely trans to be mealy mouthed about saying so. The trans people I know in real life are QUIETLY getting on with their lives; the ostensibly trans people I come across in the media are in the main vile men taking the mickey and getting away with it.
Arieh Kovler @ariehkovler Israel has identified four cases of the B.1.1.529 variant, all recent travellers. One case, a 32-year-old woman returning from South Africa, was triple vaccinated with Pfizer and had her 3rd dose just two months ago.
Still, truly fascinating to seem them so candidly. They have huge affection for one another, even when they are disagreeing.
The riders on are also interesting.
Michael Lindsay-Hogg is a posh idiot. Mal Evans takes massive, dumb-faced joy from banging the anvil during “Maxwell’s Silver Hammer”. George Martin looks rather fed up with the whole circus at this stage.
Or what used to be called paedophiles. Kiddy fiddlers. Jimmy Saviles.
Jimmy Saville was a Tory, of course.
Cyril Smith was a Liberal so what is your point
My point is that if people are going to start accusing "liberal woke" people of embracing paedophilia, it's ironic to name-check the UK's most infamous paedo given that he was a prominent supporter of the Tory party.
Arieh Kovler @ariehkovler Israel has identified four cases of the B.1.1.529 variant, all recent travellers. One case, a 32-year-old woman returning from South Africa, was triple vaccinated with Pfizer and had her 3rd dose just two months ago.
Is she sick, or just testing positive ? My vaxxed colleagues experience of Covid is that they could barely tell they had it.
On immigration the relevant factors to me seem to be:
(1) that the proposition that a refugee who reaches a safe country A has no right to seek asylum in a further country B but is obliged to make their application in A is simply wrong in fact and law. It is incompatible with the UN Convention on refugees.
(2) The Dublin Convention sought, despite that, to require the receiving Member States to process the application. The logic of this, such as it was, was that once a refugee was given asylum within the EU freedom of movement entitled them to go anywhere within it. The right of the refugee given by the UN Convention was accordingly not prejudiced.
(3) The EU refused to continue the Dublin Convention with the UK on Brexit. That was their right because the scenario had changed. Determination of the right to asylum in, say, Greece, no longer gave that person freedom of movement to the UK.
(4) The proposition that France has any obligation to process these refugees and, if appropriate, to grant them asylum in the EU is therefore wrong. Similarly, if they do make the UK or make an application to our authorities we have duties under the UN Convention to determine their application to us.
(5) The UK government is therefore being deliberately misleading in at least two respects. Firstly, their argument that the French are somehow failing in their duty has no basis. They have no duty to determine the right of these refugees if no application is made to them. Secondly, even if they did, this would not abrogate our duty to make our determination on the merits of the refugee's case should an application be made to us.
There are much broader questions as to whether the UN Convention is fit for purpose in circumstances where very large number of people have become much more mobile; where countries may have legitimate concerns about whether these refugees carry dangerous illnesses or have malicious intent and whether the right to asylum needs to be curtailed. These are very difficult questions to answer. But the way the story of these refugees in boats is being portrayed by both our government and our media is simply misleading.
Your last paragraph nails it and echoes something I wrote yesterday. There is no numerical limit on the number of refugees a country has to accept. If they qualify they get asylum. That is simply untenable because it removes all democratic control away from the receiving country. If the Convention is not changed then pretty soon countries will start ignoring it, formally as well as in practice.
If some of the people arriving are immigrants that a country would want - as some claim - and the difference between economic migrant and refugee is becoming increasingly hard to identify - then maybe - and I'm thinking the unthinkable here - it is time to fold asylum into normal immigration applications i.e. let them apply in the normal way. Fleeing a failed state no longer comes with an automatic right of entry - but only one of the factors which a country can take into account when determining who is allowed to migrate here.
I don't think it's unthinkable, I think given the general easy of movement (across Europe) and the sheer number of potential asylum seekers, the existing rules are unfit for the modern day and over the next few years the pressure is going to be unbearable as migrant numbers increase.
It would involve withdrawing from various refugee conventions which is I think unthinkable for our political class and others. But it will have to be done I suspect.
What is needed is something along the following lines:
1.Good quality immigrants are an asset and Britain welcomes them. 2. What qualifies as "good quality" is a range of factors: skills, willingness and ability to integrate etc 3. But there has to be a numerical limit to the number welcomed in every year. 4. The number of asylum seekers is potentially unlimited and conflicts with point 3 above and also point 2. 5. The difference between being a refugee and an economic migrant is now so often so blurred as to be meaningless and leads to people trying to shoehorn themselves into particular categories and/or entrusting themselves to people smugglers. This perpetuates an evil trade and is unfair to others who may be better immigrants from Britain's perspective but are not able or willing to use the people-smuggling route. 6. So a claim to refugee status will no longer be deemed to lead to automatic entry to Britain. Other factors will be needed. In some limited cases Britain may choose to have exemptions to this rule eg Afghani interpreters. 7. All applications for a visa for Britain will be processed at British embassies and consulates. Not in Britain. There will be a number every year and all those who are successful will be flown safely into Britain. 8. Any appeals against a refusal will have to happen outside Britain. There will only be one appeal at the potential migrant's expense. 9. Patrolling of the British coastline and territorial waters will be massively increased and anyone caught will be deported or detained. If the latter, their attempt to evade migration controls will count massively against them should they later seek to apply legally.
Points 7, 8 and 9 will require oodles of money to be spent but should save money in the long run.
None of this will happen of course and it is not a short-term solution.
If Keir wants to win the election, he (or maybe his invisible shadow Home Secretary) just needs to say a cut down version of above.
The problem is that the a significant chunk of the Labor party would lose their shit over such a policy.
A mirror image of the "zero immigrants" types on the Right.
Fuck ‘em. Clause 4 moment.
A free thinking friend of mine, who often makes uncannily accurate predictions, texted me this just now:
“my prediction: Farage MP within 12 months. PM within 3 years.”
A risk if the Tories depose Boris. Much as many despise Boris on here he does reach the same type of voters Farage reached, particularly working class and lower middle class Leave voters. Sunak, Truss and Starmer do not have the same appeal as Boris does to those voters
But Boris is in power - so when Farage says more needs to be done to stop migrants - Boris can't just say yes as Farage will say you've had 4 years WTF have you spent that time not doing anything about it.
Boris can say he was the PM who ended EU free movement however
You average EU migrant isn't coloured and attempting to catch a dinghy from France.
Boris would be fighting last years battle.
He would still be able to keep Farage at bay though as that move gave him cred with immigration sceptic Leavers.
Sunak, Truss and Starmer however would be less likely to be able to contain Farage, Truss and Starmer were both Remainers and Sunak voted for May's deal 3 times and all 3 are social liberals
Do you think your average anti immigrant voter is going to care about what the Tories did x years ago?
That was last years issue, now deal with this years...
Which would be a problem if Boris went, as Sunak or Truss and Starmer would not have stopped EU free movement as Boris did nor proved themselves able to stop the boats either.
So while Boris is seeing some leakage over boats to RefUK, that could become a flood to RefUK if Farage became its leader and Sunak or Truss replaced Boris as PM
You seem to inhabit your own surreal world of political certainty and detached from reality
Remember in the final Opinium poll before May resigned as Tory leader the Brexit Party were polling 25% with Labour on 26% and the Tories on just 22%.
Arieh Kovler @ariehkovler Israel has identified four cases of the B.1.1.529 variant, all recent travellers. One case, a 32-year-old woman returning from South Africa, was triple vaccinated with Pfizer and had her 3rd dose just two months ago.
Yes, but was she seriously ill or asymptomatic or something in-between?
Arieh Kovler @ariehkovler Israel has identified four cases of the B.1.1.529 variant, all recent travellers. One case, a 32-year-old woman returning from South Africa, was triple vaccinated with Pfizer and had her 3rd dose just two months ago.
Is she sick, or just testing positive ? My vaxxed colleagues experience of Covid is that they could barely tell they had it.
Arieh Kovler @ariehkovler · 1h No reports yet if these people are suffering from any symptoms at all; all travelers are screened with PCR tests on arrival, which is how they were identified.
Or what used to be called paedophiles. Kiddy fiddlers. Jimmy Saviles.
Jimmy Saville was a Tory, of course.
Cyril Smith was a Liberal so what is your point
My point is that if people are going to start accusing "liberal woke" people of embracing paedophilia, it's ironic to name-check the UK's most infamous paedo given that he was a prominent supporter of the Tory party.
To be honest I do not agree with that accusation but neither do I agree in using paedophilia for point scoring
“A woman accused of indecent exposure, masturbating in public and using a sex toy in a public place, will stand trial early next year.
Chloe Thompson, of Borough Road, Middlesbrough, appeared at Teesside Magistrates' Court on Wednesday after denying the offences.
She is charged with committing a public nuisance by indecently exposing her penis to other members of the public, whilst masturbating from a property window.”
I am guessing the boringly statistical one that there are many orders of magnitude more devious predatory heterosexual male shits in the world than there are women trapped in mens' bodies, and that anyone defending this arse's utterly ludicrous claim to be a woman with a penis is enabling predatory heterosexual male shittery under cover of particularly ill thought out wokery.
And severely damaging the cause of genuine trans women btw.
Well I'm certainly not defending that claim. There will be men who change gender for nefarious reasons. But would this group not be a tiny minority compared to those who are genuine? I'd think so.
But what I'm trying to understand is, what does this story make people want to do -
Make it even harder than now to change gender? Have a blanket ban on male born people using female spaces? Other stuff?
Otherwise it just reads as "oh yuck, pervert in a dress".
My answers:
1. The existing GRA requirements are sufficient. There should be no change to them. 2. Unless a person has received a medical diagnosis of dysphoria they should not be treated as anything other than their sex. 3. Male sex offenders - to be clear all sex offenders with a male body - should not be housed in womens' prisons. Have a special wing for them in a male prison. 4. Existing practices - in prisons and elsewhere - which effectively are permitting self-ID even though this is not legal and even though those with a GRC have exactly the same legal rights as everyone else under the 2010 Equality Act should be stopped. 5. Data in censuses / in courts / collected by the police should be based on sex so that it is accurate. 6. The practice of forcing rape victims in court to call their attacker "she" if the latter insist or of punishing female prisoners for calling a man a man should be stopped.
Whether these are genuinely dysphoric people or those simply taking advantage of soft-headed officialdom, is hard to say. The fact that so many are sex offenders makes me sceptical that this is a genuine increase in a medical condition.
Expect death threats from SNP loyalists, Ms. Cyclefree. Avoid twitter.
I've said pretty much all this already on Twitter.
I am not going to be silenced by idiots. I am heartened by the fact that a friend of mine, who is actually a man transitioning to be a woman, and their wife - both of them lovely people and very happy together - agree with me. Or, to put it more accurately, they have taught me a lot about the reality of dysphoria. I have learnt from them.
They despair at the boneheaded stupidity of trans activists who are doing the cause of those who are genuinely trans no good at all.
“A woman accused of indecent exposure, masturbating in public and using a sex toy in a public place, will stand trial early next year.
Chloe Thompson, of Borough Road, Middlesbrough, appeared at Teesside Magistrates' Court on Wednesday after denying the offences.
She is charged with committing a public nuisance by indecently exposing her penis to other members of the public, whilst masturbating from a property window.”
I am guessing the boringly statistical one that there are many orders of magnitude more devious predatory heterosexual male shits in the world than there are women trapped in mens' bodies, and that anyone defending this arse's utterly ludicrous claim to be a woman with a penis is enabling predatory heterosexual male shittery under cover of particularly ill thought out wokery.
And severely damaging the cause of genuine trans women btw.
Well I'm certainly not defending that claim. There will be men who change gender for nefarious reasons. But would this group not be a tiny minority compared to those who are genuine? I'd think so.
But what I'm trying to understand is, what does this story make people want to do -
Make it even harder than now to change gender? Have a blanket ban on male born people using female spaces? Other stuff?
Otherwise it just reads as "oh yuck, pervert in a dress".
You couldn't have this more back to front if you tried with both hands for a week. Does it do the cause of the genuinely trans more good if we say This is an example of trans woman, or This is indeed a pervert in a dress? Which it is, unless you dispute the charges/convictions, or contend that the guy only wore skirts?
look at it in gambling terms. There are 12 trans women among the 500 women in Scotland's prisons. have a think about what spread bets you'd be comfortable with on the genuine vs taking the piss ratio among them.
How have I got it back to front? I said 3 things. (1) I can't diagnose whether this person is genuinely trans or not. (2) There will be men who change gender for dubious reasons. (3) Such cases will imo be a tiny minority cf those who are genuine.
Then I asked what this case is making people want to change about how transgender people are treated.
But, ok, to develop your prison point. You are saying that all trans women convicted of a crime should go to a male prison because the odds are that a fair proportion of them are fakes, men masquerading as women in order to prey on women - Is that right?
I am just pointing out what the probabilities are, especially among prisoners who start transitioning after they end up in the nick.
Imagine you set up a stall with a big banner over it saying "£1,000 free money for everybody whose middle name is Cedric. Self-certification accepted." How many applications would you expect to come from people whose middle name really is Cedric?
Or what used to be called paedophiles. Kiddy fiddlers. Jimmy Saviles.
Jimmy Saville was a Tory, of course.
Cyril Smith was a Liberal so what is your point
My point is that if people are going to start accusing "liberal woke" people of embracing paedophilia, it's ironic to name-check the UK's most infamous paedo given that he was a prominent supporter of the Tory party.
To be honest I do not agree with that accusation but neither do I agree in using paedophilia for point scoring
On immigration the relevant factors to me seem to be:
(1) that the proposition that a refugee who reaches a safe country A has no right to seek asylum in a further country B but is obliged to make their application in A is simply wrong in fact and law. It is incompatible with the UN Convention on refugees.
(2) The Dublin Convention sought, despite that, to require the receiving Member States to process the application. The logic of this, such as it was, was that once a refugee was given asylum within the EU freedom of movement entitled them to go anywhere within it. The right of the refugee given by the UN Convention was accordingly not prejudiced.
(3) The EU refused to continue the Dublin Convention with the UK on Brexit. That was their right because the scenario had changed. Determination of the right to asylum in, say, Greece, no longer gave that person freedom of movement to the UK.
(4) The proposition that France has any obligation to process these refugees and, if appropriate, to grant them asylum in the EU is therefore wrong. Similarly, if they do make the UK or make an application to our authorities we have duties under the UN Convention to determine their application to us.
(5) The UK government is therefore being deliberately misleading in at least two respects. Firstly, their argument that the French are somehow failing in their duty has no basis. They have no duty to determine the right of these refugees if no application is made to them. Secondly, even if they did, this would not abrogate our duty to make our determination on the merits of the refugee's case should an application be made to us.
There are much broader questions as to whether the UN Convention is fit for purpose in circumstances where very large number of people have become much more mobile; where countries may have legitimate concerns about whether these refugees carry dangerous illnesses or have malicious intent and whether the right to asylum needs to be curtailed. These are very difficult questions to answer. But the way the story of these refugees in boats is being portrayed by both our government and our media is simply misleading.
Your last paragraph nails it and echoes something I wrote yesterday. There is no numerical limit on the number of refugees a country has to accept. If they qualify they get asylum. That is simply untenable because it removes all democratic control away from the receiving country. If the Convention is not changed then pretty soon countries will start ignoring it, formally as well as in practice.
If some of the people arriving are immigrants that a country would want - as some claim - and the difference between economic migrant and refugee is becoming increasingly hard to identify - then maybe - and I'm thinking the unthinkable here - it is time to fold asylum into normal immigration applications i.e. let them apply in the normal way. Fleeing a failed state no longer comes with an automatic right of entry - but only one of the factors which a country can take into account when determining who is allowed to migrate here.
I don't think it's unthinkable, I think given the general easy of movement (across Europe) and the sheer number of potential asylum seekers, the existing rules are unfit for the modern day and over the next few years the pressure is going to be unbearable as migrant numbers increase.
It would involve withdrawing from various refugee conventions which is I think unthinkable for our political class and others. But it will have to be done I suspect.
What is needed is something along the following lines:
1.Good quality immigrants are an asset and Britain welcomes them. 2. What qualifies as "good quality" is a range of factors: skills, willingness and ability to integrate etc 3. But there has to be a numerical limit to the number welcomed in every year. 4. The number of asylum seekers is potentially unlimited and conflicts with point 3 above and also point 2. 5. The difference between being a refugee and an economic migrant is now so often so blurred as to be meaningless and leads to people trying to shoehorn themselves into particular categories and/or entrusting themselves to people smugglers. This perpetuates an evil trade and is unfair to others who may be better immigrants from Britain's perspective but are not able or willing to use the people-smuggling route. 6. So a claim to refugee status will no longer be deemed to lead to automatic entry to Britain. Other factors will be needed. In some limited cases Britain may choose to have exemptions to this rule eg Afghani interpreters. 7. All applications for a visa for Britain will be processed at British embassies and consulates. Not in Britain. There will be a number every year and all those who are successful will be flown safely into Britain. 8. Any appeals against a refusal will have to happen outside Britain. There will only be one appeal at the potential migrant's expense. 9. Patrolling of the British coastline and territorial waters will be massively increased and anyone caught will be deported or detained. If the latter, their attempt to evade migration controls will count massively against them should they later seek to apply legally.
Points 7, 8 and 9 will require oodles of money to be spent but should save money in the long run.
None of this will happen of course and it is not a short-term solution.
If Keir wants to win the election, he (or maybe his invisible shadow Home Secretary) just needs to say a cut down version of above.
The problem is that the a significant chunk of the Labor party would lose their shit over such a policy.
A mirror image of the "zero immigrants" types on the Right.
Fuck ‘em. Clause 4 moment.
A free thinking friend of mine, who often makes uncannily accurate predictions, texted me this just now:
“my prediction: Farage MP within 12 months. PM within 3 years.”
A risk if the Tories depose Boris. Much as many despise Boris on here he does reach the same type of voters Farage reached, particularly working class and lower middle class Leave voters. Sunak, Truss and Starmer do not have the same appeal as Boris does to those voters
But Boris is in power - so when Farage says more needs to be done to stop migrants - Boris can't just say yes as Farage will say you've had 4 years WTF have you spent that time not doing anything about it.
Boris can say he was the PM who ended EU free movement however
You average EU migrant isn't coloured and attempting to catch a dinghy from France.
Boris would be fighting last years battle.
He would still be able to keep Farage at bay though as that move gave him cred with immigration sceptic Leavers.
Sunak, Truss and Starmer however would be less likely to be able to contain Farage, Truss and Starmer were both Remainers and Sunak voted for May's deal 3 times and all 3 are social liberals
Do you think your average anti immigrant voter is going to care about what the Tories did x years ago?
That was last years issue, now deal with this years...
Which would be a problem if Boris went, as Sunak or Truss and Starmer would not have stopped EU free movement as Boris did nor proved themselves able to stop the boats either.
So while Boris is seeing some leakage over boats to RefUK, that could become a flood to RefUK if Farage became its leader and Sunak or Truss replaced Boris as PM
You seem to inhabit your own surreal world of political certainty and detached from reality
Remember in the final Opinium poll before May resigned as Tory leader the Brexit Party were polling 25% with Labour on 26% and the Tories on just 22%.
Or what used to be called paedophiles. Kiddy fiddlers. Jimmy Saviles.
Jimmy Saville was a Tory, of course.
Cyril Smith was a Liberal so what is your point
He was actually a Labour councillor during the pertinent time. Indeed it's quite likely his leaving Labour and starting afresh in a new party had other motives than just political.
Or what used to be called paedophiles. Kiddy fiddlers. Jimmy Saviles.
Jimmy Saville was a Tory, of course.
Cyril Smith was a Liberal so what is your point
My point is that if people are going to start accusing "liberal woke" people of embracing paedophilia, it's ironic to name-check the UK's most infamous paedo given that he was a prominent supporter of the Tory party.
To be honest I do not agree with that accusation but neither do I agree in using paedophilia for point scoring
You don’t think Savile was a Tory?
Much like Alan B'stard, Savile was a Tory under Thatcher, New Labour under Blair and now would probably be a Tory under Boris again if he was still alive and not in jail
“A woman accused of indecent exposure, masturbating in public and using a sex toy in a public place, will stand trial early next year.
Chloe Thompson, of Borough Road, Middlesbrough, appeared at Teesside Magistrates' Court on Wednesday after denying the offences.
She is charged with committing a public nuisance by indecently exposing her penis to other members of the public, whilst masturbating from a property window.”
Is she really a woman? Should she be sent to an all female prison?
No, of course not.
Let me repost what I posted last night when this was first posted.
There is more to this story.
This man was convicted of sexual offences against children and was ordered to be put on the sexual offenders' register. He was also made subject to various notification requirements. In breach of these he set up a Tik Tok account aimed at children in the female name he is now using. But failed to notify the police. This was brought to the attention of the court.
The formal name change only occurred after all these offences. It is not even clear if this man is claiming to be trans. There has been no medical diagnosis or treatment. This man is a sex offender who is using the trans label or, rather, the gullibility and stupidity of the authorities to try and gain access to children and women.
And, sadly, there are politicians and others who think this is ok, who think that men like him - male sex offenders - should be allowed easy access to women and children, to their spaces, should be allowed to be housed in a womens' prison, should be called a woman in statistics etc.
This is not just stupid. It is wrong. It is evil because it allows evil men to get away with harm to others, to some of the most vulnerable in our society.
No. Just no.
No to what though? To this person being sent to a female prison? Or are you saying that this case is evidence that all trans people sentenced to prison should always be sent to one of their birth sex rather than their gender?
I was musing on the classic 1942 film Casablanca the other day. There are several plot strands but perhaps the most interesting is the "letters of transit" stolen by the Peter Lorre character and hidden by Bogarts character Rick, who later passes them on. These stolen documents permit the bearer free travel to neutral Portugal, and then onwards to the USA.
Is Rick the most celebrated "People Trafficker" in movie history? And should the Lazlos had to claim asylum in Portugal rather than the USA?
Casablanca (in the film at least) was indeed full of people traffickers. They are not portrayed as noble but as vultures, exploiting the vulnerable. Remember the scene with the Bulgarian couple and the roulette game? Captain Renault was not a nice person.
Certainly Rick was depicted as noble, and the refugees vulnerable.
What do we think happened to those vulnerable would be refugees without the letters of transit?
There were only two letters of transit in the film. The rest of the refugees had to make other arraignments, such as midnight trips on fishing boats with several thousand francs in cash.
The refugees in Casablanca were Jews, not ethnic Germans looking for a better life.
Or what used to be called paedophiles. Kiddy fiddlers. Jimmy Saviles.
Jimmy Saville was a Tory, of course.
Cyril Smith was a Liberal so what is your point
My point is that if people are going to start accusing "liberal woke" people of embracing paedophilia, it's ironic to name-check the UK's most infamous paedo given that he was a prominent supporter of the Tory party.
To be honest I do not agree with that accusation but neither do I agree in using paedophilia for point scoring
You don’t think Savile was a Tory?
Paedophiles are present across all political parties
On immigration the relevant factors to me seem to be:
(1) that the proposition that a refugee who reaches a safe country A has no right to seek asylum in a further country B but is obliged to make their application in A is simply wrong in fact and law. It is incompatible with the UN Convention on refugees.
(2) The Dublin Convention sought, despite that, to require the receiving Member States to process the application. The logic of this, such as it was, was that once a refugee was given asylum within the EU freedom of movement entitled them to go anywhere within it. The right of the refugee given by the UN Convention was accordingly not prejudiced.
(3) The EU refused to continue the Dublin Convention with the UK on Brexit. That was their right because the scenario had changed. Determination of the right to asylum in, say, Greece, no longer gave that person freedom of movement to the UK.
(4) The proposition that France has any obligation to process these refugees and, if appropriate, to grant them asylum in the EU is therefore wrong. Similarly, if they do make the UK or make an application to our authorities we have duties under the UN Convention to determine their application to us.
(5) The UK government is therefore being deliberately misleading in at least two respects. Firstly, their argument that the French are somehow failing in their duty has no basis. They have no duty to determine the right of these refugees if no application is made to them. Secondly, even if they did, this would not abrogate our duty to make our determination on the merits of the refugee's case should an application be made to us.
There are much broader questions as to whether the UN Convention is fit for purpose in circumstances where very large number of people have become much more mobile; where countries may have legitimate concerns about whether these refugees carry dangerous illnesses or have malicious intent and whether the right to asylum needs to be curtailed. These are very difficult questions to answer. But the way the story of these refugees in boats is being portrayed by both our government and our media is simply misleading.
Your last paragraph nails it and echoes something I wrote yesterday. There is no numerical limit on the number of refugees a country has to accept. If they qualify they get asylum. That is simply untenable because it removes all democratic control away from the receiving country. If the Convention is not changed then pretty soon countries will start ignoring it, formally as well as in practice.
If some of the people arriving are immigrants that a country would want - as some claim - and the difference between economic migrant and refugee is becoming increasingly hard to identify - then maybe - and I'm thinking the unthinkable here - it is time to fold asylum into normal immigration applications i.e. let them apply in the normal way. Fleeing a failed state no longer comes with an automatic right of entry - but only one of the factors which a country can take into account when determining who is allowed to migrate here.
I don't think it's unthinkable, I think given the general easy of movement (across Europe) and the sheer number of potential asylum seekers, the existing rules are unfit for the modern day and over the next few years the pressure is going to be unbearable as migrant numbers increase.
It would involve withdrawing from various refugee conventions which is I think unthinkable for our political class and others. But it will have to be done I suspect.
What is needed is something along the following lines:
1.Good quality immigrants are an asset and Britain welcomes them. 2. What qualifies as "good quality" is a range of factors: skills, willingness and ability to integrate etc 3. But there has to be a numerical limit to the number welcomed in every year. 4. The number of asylum seekers is potentially unlimited and conflicts with point 3 above and also point 2. 5. The difference between being a refugee and an economic migrant is now so often so blurred as to be meaningless and leads to people trying to shoehorn themselves into particular categories and/or entrusting themselves to people smugglers. This perpetuates an evil trade and is unfair to others who may be better immigrants from Britain's perspective but are not able or willing to use the people-smuggling route. 6. So a claim to refugee status will no longer be deemed to lead to automatic entry to Britain. Other factors will be needed. In some limited cases Britain may choose to have exemptions to this rule eg Afghani interpreters. 7. All applications for a visa for Britain will be processed at British embassies and consulates. Not in Britain. There will be a number every year and all those who are successful will be flown safely into Britain. 8. Any appeals against a refusal will have to happen outside Britain. There will only be one appeal at the potential migrant's expense. 9. Patrolling of the British coastline and territorial waters will be massively increased and anyone caught will be deported or detained. If the latter, their attempt to evade migration controls will count massively against them should they later seek to apply legally.
Points 7, 8 and 9 will require oodles of money to be spent but should save money in the long run.
None of this will happen of course and it is not a short-term solution.
If Keir wants to win the election, he (or maybe his invisible shadow Home Secretary) just needs to say a cut down version of above.
The problem is that the a significant chunk of the Labor party would lose their shit over such a policy.
A mirror image of the "zero immigrants" types on the Right.
Fuck ‘em. Clause 4 moment.
A free thinking friend of mine, who often makes uncannily accurate predictions, texted me this just now:
“my prediction: Farage MP within 12 months. PM within 3 years.”
A risk if the Tories depose Boris. Much as many despise Boris on here he does reach the same type of voters Farage reached, particularly working class and lower middle class Leave voters. Sunak, Truss and Starmer do not have the same appeal as Boris does to those voters
But Boris is in power - so when Farage says more needs to be done to stop migrants - Boris can't just say yes as Farage will say you've had 4 years WTF have you spent that time not doing anything about it.
Boris can say he was the PM who ended EU free movement however
You average EU migrant isn't coloured and attempting to catch a dinghy from France.
Boris would be fighting last years battle.
He would still be able to keep Farage at bay though as that move gave him cred with immigration sceptic Leavers.
Sunak, Truss and Starmer however would be less likely to be able to contain Farage, Truss and Starmer were both Remainers and Sunak voted for May's deal 3 times and all 3 are social liberals
Do you think your average anti immigrant voter is going to care about what the Tories did x years ago?
That was last years issue, now deal with this years...
Which would be a problem if Boris went, as Sunak or Truss and Starmer would not have stopped EU free movement as Boris did nor proved themselves able to stop the boats either.
So while Boris is seeing some leakage over boats to RefUK, that could become a flood to RefUK if Farage became its leader and Sunak or Truss replaced Boris as PM
You seem to inhabit your own surreal world of political certainty and detached from reality
Remember in the final Opinium poll before May resigned as Tory leader the Brexit Party were polling 25% with Labour on 26% and the Tories on just 22%.
Or what used to be called paedophiles. Kiddy fiddlers. Jimmy Saviles.
Jimmy Saville was a Tory, of course.
Cyril Smith was a Liberal so what is your point
He was actually a Labour councillor during the pertinent time. Indeed it's quite likely his leaving Labour and starting afresh in a new party had other motives than just political.
I was genuinely appalled to learn that Lord Devlin raped his own daughter. There are people who you suspect are sex abusers, and others where it comes like a bolt from the blue.
Or what used to be called paedophiles. Kiddy fiddlers. Jimmy Saviles.
Jimmy Saville was a Tory, of course.
Cyril Smith was a Liberal so what is your point
My point is that if people are going to start accusing "liberal woke" people of embracing paedophilia, it's ironic to name-check the UK's most infamous paedo given that he was a prominent supporter of the Tory party.
To be honest I do not agree with that accusation but neither do I agree in using paedophilia for point scoring
You don’t think Savile was a Tory?
Paedophiles are present across all political parties
Sir Cyril Smith was certainly never a Tory yes, though he was a Liberal MP and one time Labour councillor
Or what used to be called paedophiles. Kiddy fiddlers. Jimmy Saviles.
Jimmy Saville was a Tory, of course.
Cyril Smith was a Liberal so what is your point
My point is that if people are going to start accusing "liberal woke" people of embracing paedophilia, it's ironic to name-check the UK's most infamous paedo given that he was a prominent supporter of the Tory party.
To be honest I do not agree with that accusation but neither do I agree in using paedophilia for point scoring
You don’t think Savile was a Tory?
Much like Alan B'stard, Savile was a Tory under Thatcher, New Labour under Blair and now would probably be a Tory under Boris again if he was still alive and not in jail
Not sure the outlier that is Savile the super groomer par excellence is useful to prove any political point. Except that his ability to fool the entirety of the Boomer generation into seeing a Saint where others saw, at best, a deeply creepy character, speaks to the prevailing culture of the late last century.
Arieh Kovler @ariehkovler Israel has identified four cases of the B.1.1.529 variant, all recent travellers. One case, a 32-year-old woman returning from South Africa, was triple vaccinated with Pfizer and had her 3rd dose just two months ago.
Yes, but was she seriously ill or asymptomatic or something in-between?
Yep, it would be REALLY helpful if the Israelis would tell us the medical condition of these people
From the Washington Post. "Yes, kink belongs at Pride. And I want my kids to see it. Children need to know that they can make their own ways in the world"
"When our children grew tired of marching, we plopped onto a nearby curb. Just as we got settled, our elementary-schooler pointed in the direction of oncoming floats, raising an eyebrow at a bare-chested man in dark sunglasses whose black suspenders clipped into a leather thong. The man paused to be spanked playfully by a partner with a flog. “What are they doing?” my curious kid asked as our toddler cheered them on. The pair was the first of a few dozen kinksters who danced down the street, laughing together as they twirled their whips and batons, some leading companions by leashes. At the time, my children were too young to understand the nuance of the situation, but I told them the truth: That these folks were members of our community celebrating who they are and what they like to do."
I've never taken my kids to Pride, mainly because I've never been to Pride myself. My eldest daughter, who is 15, has gone with friends and enjoyed it, and I think it was good that she went. We did take our kids to a child friendly drag show at the Edinburgh fringe once. It was fun and they enjoyed it. I think it's important for them to know that not everyone is a boring heterosexual like their parents. I hope my kids grow up to have healthy sex lives based on consent and love. Beyond that I don't care. In general I think shame is a harmful emotion and isn't something I want to instill in my children. If that makes me woke then fine. I'm always happy to be described as woke anyway, I don't view it as an insult.
Or what used to be called paedophiles. Kiddy fiddlers. Jimmy Saviles.
Jimmy Saville was a Tory, of course.
Cyril Smith was a Liberal so what is your point
My point is that if people are going to start accusing "liberal woke" people of embracing paedophilia, it's ironic to name-check the UK's most infamous paedo given that he was a prominent supporter of the Tory party.
To be honest I do not agree with that accusation but neither do I agree in using paedophilia for point scoring
You don’t think Savile was a Tory?
Paedophiles are present across all political parties
“A woman accused of indecent exposure, masturbating in public and using a sex toy in a public place, will stand trial early next year.
Chloe Thompson, of Borough Road, Middlesbrough, appeared at Teesside Magistrates' Court on Wednesday after denying the offences.
She is charged with committing a public nuisance by indecently exposing her penis to other members of the public, whilst masturbating from a property window.”
Is she really a woman? Should she be sent to an all female prison?
No, of course not.
Let me repost what I posted last night when this was first posted.
There is more to this story.
This man was convicted of sexual offences against children and was ordered to be put on the sexual offenders' register. He was also made subject to various notification requirements. In breach of these he set up a Tik Tok account aimed at children in the female name he is now using. But failed to notify the police. This was brought to the attention of the court.
The formal name change only occurred after all these offences. It is not even clear if this man is claiming to be trans. There has been no medical diagnosis or treatment. This man is a sex offender who is using the trans label or, rather, the gullibility and stupidity of the authorities to try and gain access to children and women.
And, sadly, there are politicians and others who think this is ok, who think that men like him - male sex offenders - should be allowed easy access to women and children, to their spaces, should be allowed to be housed in a womens' prison, should be called a woman in statistics etc.
This is not just stupid. It is wrong. It is evil because it allows evil men to get away with harm to others, to some of the most vulnerable in our society.
No. Just no.
It is a method that a sex offender uses to offend. It seems in this case to have been using a female identity. And then the sex offender claimed that he is a woman. That she is a woman as we now say.
She is a criminal and criminals will be criminals. You are shooting the messenger or seeking to ban the sale of matches for fear that a pyromaniac might buy them.
Your analogy does not work. We do not sell dangerous goods to those under-age precisely because of the harm that might ensue
She is not a woman. This is a man.
This man - regardless of the fact that they call themselves Chloe - should not be put in a woman's prison. The crime they have committed should not be recorded as a crime committed by a woman. They should not be allowed to enter women's spaces. We do not have self-ID in this country (nor should we). If this man genuinely suffers from dysphoria - and I am sceptical given that the name change so conveniently happened after a load of sex offences and just before this offender sought to evade legal restrictions on him - then he can seek medical help.
Biology is real. Womanhood is not a feeling, changing a name and wearing lipstick. It is nonsense on stilts to say so.
The next development will be as follows: adults celebrating their weird sexual peversions in public, and liberal woke parents exposing their children to it, so as to deter them from kink shaming. You heard it here first.
That's not next, that's been going on for years. The point is the definition of weird sexual perversion keeps getting advanced so that no one notices.
This is where the anti-woke reaction is as ugly as the more extreme wokeism. Brain scans of genuine trans people show it aligns to their identified sex rather than their biological sex. That is not a "feeling" or a "sexual perversion".
The key phrase there is "genuinely trans people". No-one has an issue with them.
(Also my understanding is that the scientific studies which showed that were not quite as clear cut as you are making out. In some cases parts of the brain seemed to show an alignment with gender rather than sex. In others not so. It is all quite unclear and needs a whole load more proper scientific study. As does the phenomenon of autogynephilia - which is also relevant.)
But self-ID is entirely based on a feeling - and requires nothing at all: mo medical diagnosis, no living as a woman, no hormones, nothing. A man can simply say that he is a woman and demand the same legal rights as a woman and to enter female only spaces. It is a charter for predators.
Worth also noting that even genuine trans people do not change sex and their natal sex remains relevant to health treatment eg male transwomen still need to be screened for prostate cancer I understand. They are also at higher risk if they catch Covid. That is one reason why accurate data collection is necessary.
Or what used to be called paedophiles. Kiddy fiddlers. Jimmy Saviles.
Jimmy Saville was a Tory, of course.
Cyril Smith was a Liberal so what is your point
My point is that if people are going to start accusing "liberal woke" people of embracing paedophilia, it's ironic to name-check the UK's most infamous paedo given that he was a prominent supporter of the Tory party.
To be honest I do not agree with that accusation but neither do I agree in using paedophilia for point scoring
You don’t think Savile was a Tory?
Much like Alan B'stard, Savile was a Tory under Thatcher, New Labour under Blair and now would probably be a Tory under Boris again if he was still alive and not in jail
Not sure the outlier that is Savile the super groomer par excellence is useful to prove any political point. Except that his ability to fool the entirety of the Boomer generation into seeing a Saint where others saw, at best, a deeply creepy character, speaks to the prevailing culture of the late last century.
He was widely recognised as a creep. Not allowed anywhere near Children In Need frinstance.
Is it possible the Nunu is already rampant in Europe, and causing some of these surges? We also need to know THAT. And it would be quite nice if the answer is Yes, in a way, because if it is No, then that means you have to add Nu to an already toxic European brew of pre-Nunu plaguetime juju
... In general I think shame is a harmful emotion and isn't something I want to instill in my children. If that makes me woke then fine. I'm always happy to be described as woke anyway, I don't view it as an insult.
I'm not sure if it makes you 'woke', but it does make you like Stanley Johnson.
... In general I think shame is a harmful emotion and isn't something I want to instill in my children. If that makes me woke then fine. I'm always happy to be described as woke anyway, I don't view it as an insult.
I'm not sure if it makes you 'woke', but it does make you like Stanley Johnson.
If any of my kids end up like Stanley Johnson's eldest, sexually or otherwise, then I will consider myself to have failed as a father!
Things could really "interesting" for the vax refusers if nu really does have a very high R rate but does not evade the vax too much.
If the early reports are correct the new variant will go through the unvaccinated like a hot knife through butter, and to be fair the vaccinated won't be much better off, but the unvaccinated will almost certainly be at much greater risk of serious illness and death. If people haven't gotten the message about vaccination by now it will be too late for them shortly.
Mr. Boy, there's a world of difference between sexual orientation and kinks, which vary from "gosh, feet" all the way to "I want to literally carve my name into your back with a knife".
People who are into stuff absolutely across the line (paedophilia, necrophilia etc) should be shamed to deter the odds on them grouping up with others and creating a support network for such behaviour, and to encourage them to seek help or just restrain themselves.
Shaming someone for being into S&M is daft (and counterproductive if they're into humiliation), but some things are unacceptable and pretending otherwise is damned silly.
“A woman accused of indecent exposure, masturbating in public and using a sex toy in a public place, will stand trial early next year.
Chloe Thompson, of Borough Road, Middlesbrough, appeared at Teesside Magistrates' Court on Wednesday after denying the offences.
She is charged with committing a public nuisance by indecently exposing her penis to other members of the public, whilst masturbating from a property window.”
Is she really a woman? Should she be sent to an all female prison?
No, of course not.
Let me repost what I posted last night when this was first posted.
There is more to this story.
This man was convicted of sexual offences against children and was ordered to be put on the sexual offenders' register. He was also made subject to various notification requirements. In breach of these he set up a Tik Tok account aimed at children in the female name he is now using. But failed to notify the police. This was brought to the attention of the court.
The formal name change only occurred after all these offences. It is not even clear if this man is claiming to be trans. There has been no medical diagnosis or treatment. This man is a sex offender who is using the trans label or, rather, the gullibility and stupidity of the authorities to try and gain access to children and women.
And, sadly, there are politicians and others who think this is ok, who think that men like him - male sex offenders - should be allowed easy access to women and children, to their spaces, should be allowed to be housed in a womens' prison, should be called a woman in statistics etc.
This is not just stupid. It is wrong. It is evil because it allows evil men to get away with harm to others, to some of the most vulnerable in our society.
No. Just no.
No to what though? To this person being sent to a female prison? Or are you saying that this case is evidence that all trans people sentenced to prison should always be sent to one of their birth sex rather than their gender?
From the Washington Post. "Yes, kink belongs at Pride. And I want my kids to see it. Children need to know that they can make their own ways in the world"
"When our children grew tired of marching, we plopped onto a nearby curb. Just as we got settled, our elementary-schooler pointed in the direction of oncoming floats, raising an eyebrow at a bare-chested man in dark sunglasses whose black suspenders clipped into a leather thong. The man paused to be spanked playfully by a partner with a flog. “What are they doing?” my curious kid asked as our toddler cheered them on. The pair was the first of a few dozen kinksters who danced down the street, laughing together as they twirled their whips and batons, some leading companions by leashes. At the time, my children were too young to understand the nuance of the situation, but I told them the truth: That these folks were members of our community celebrating who they are and what they like to do."
I've never taken my kids to Pride, mainly because I've never been to Pride myself. My eldest daughter, who is 15, has gone with friends and enjoyed it, and I think it was good that she went. We did take our kids to a child friendly drag show at the Edinburgh fringe once. It was fun and they enjoyed it. I think it's important for them to know that not everyone is a boring heterosexual like their parents. I hope my kids grow up to have healthy sex lives based on consent and love. Beyond that I don't care. In general I think shame is a harmful emotion and isn't something I want to instill in my children. If that makes me woke then fine. I'm always happy to be described as woke anyway, I don't view it as an insult.
Mr. Boy, there's a world of difference between sexual orientation and kinks, which vary from "gosh, feet" all the way to "I want to literally carve my name into your back with a knife".
People who are into stuff absolutely across the line (paedophilia, necrophilia etc) should be shamed to deter the odds on them grouping up with others and creating a support network for such behaviour, and to encourage them to seek help or just restrain themselves.
Shaming someone for being into S&M is daft (and counterproductive if they're into humiliation), but some things are unacceptable and pretending otherwise is damned silly.
Or what used to be called paedophiles. Kiddy fiddlers. Jimmy Saviles.
Jimmy Saville was a Tory, of course.
Cyril Smith was a Liberal so what is your point
My point is that if people are going to start accusing "liberal woke" people of embracing paedophilia, it's ironic to name-check the UK's most infamous paedo given that he was a prominent supporter of the Tory party.
To be honest I do not agree with that accusation but neither do I agree in using paedophilia for point scoring
You don’t think Savile was a Tory?
Much like Alan B'stard, Savile was a Tory under Thatcher, New Labour under Blair and now would probably be a Tory under Boris again if he was still alive and not in jail
Not sure the outlier that is Savile the super groomer par excellence is useful to prove any political point. Except that his ability to fool the entirety of the Boomer generation into seeing a Saint where others saw, at best, a deeply creepy character, speaks to the prevailing culture of the late last century.
Jim'll Fix It got 12 million viewers every Saturday night at its peak in the 1980s, it was not just the establishment fooled, I remember watching it every week as a child without having a clue about what he was really like.
... In general I think shame is a harmful emotion and isn't something I want to instill in my children. If that makes me woke then fine. I'm always happy to be described as woke anyway, I don't view it as an insult.
I'm not sure if it makes you 'woke', but it does make you like Stanley Johnson.
If any of my kids end up like Stanley Johnson's eldest, sexually or otherwise, then I will consider myself to have failed as a father!
Well, quite, so I'm not sure trying to make them impervious to shame is a good idea.
Or what used to be called paedophiles. Kiddy fiddlers. Jimmy Saviles.
Jimmy Saville was a Tory, of course.
Cyril Smith was a Liberal so what is your point
My point is that if people are going to start accusing "liberal woke" people of embracing paedophilia, it's ironic to name-check the UK's most infamous paedo given that he was a prominent supporter of the Tory party.
To be honest I do not agree with that accusation but neither do I agree in using paedophilia for point scoring
You don’t think Savile was a Tory?
Much like Alan B'stard, Savile was a Tory under Thatcher, New Labour under Blair and now would probably be a Tory under Boris again if he was still alive and not in jail
Not sure the outlier that is Savile the super groomer par excellence is useful to prove any political point. Except that his ability to fool the entirety of the Boomer generation into seeing a Saint where others saw, at best, a deeply creepy character, speaks to the prevailing culture of the late last century.
Jim'll Fix It got 12 million viewers every Saturday night at its peak in the 1980s, it was not just the establishment fooled, I remember watching it every week as a child without having a clue about what he was really like.
Though clearly some knew
I was still a child towards the end of Jim'll Fix It but I hated watching it because Saville seemed so creepy. It was just an intrinsic instinct. (And not one I got from Rolf Harris oddly). I am amazed others didn't think it.
Or what used to be called paedophiles. Kiddy fiddlers. Jimmy Saviles.
Jimmy Saville was a Tory, of course.
Cyril Smith was a Liberal so what is your point
My point is that if people are going to start accusing "liberal woke" people of embracing paedophilia, it's ironic to name-check the UK's most infamous paedo given that he was a prominent supporter of the Tory party.
To be honest I do not agree with that accusation but neither do I agree in using paedophilia for point scoring
You don’t think Savile was a Tory?
Much like Alan B'stard, Savile was a Tory under Thatcher, New Labour under Blair and now would probably be a Tory under Boris again if he was still alive and not in jail
Not sure the outlier that is Savile the super groomer par excellence is useful to prove any political point. Except that his ability to fool the entirety of the Boomer generation into seeing a Saint where others saw, at best, a deeply creepy character, speaks to the prevailing culture of the late last century.
He was widely recognised as a creep. Not allowed anywhere near Children In Need frinstance.
I remember, years ago, the novelist Anthony Burgess making a reference to Savile's "sinister" camper van. Burgess died in 1993. (Incidentally his reputation is really burgeoning - a really great writer - which is becoming ever more apparent as the years pass).
The point is that Savile's predilections were obviously common knowledge in certain informed circles long before the public revelations following his death.
Mr. Boy, there's a world of difference between sexual orientation and kinks, which vary from "gosh, feet" all the way to "I want to literally carve my name into your back with a knife".
People who are into stuff absolutely across the line (paedophilia, necrophilia etc) should be shamed to deter the odds on them grouping up with others and creating a support network for such behaviour, and to encourage them to seek help or just restrain themselves.
Shaming someone for being into S&M is daft (and counterproductive if they're into humiliation), but some things are unacceptable and pretending otherwise is damned silly.
Why is necrophilia 'absolutely across the line'? If I am willing to let my body (post death) be used for others amusement, why should that be prohibited?
On immigration the relevant factors to me seem to be:
(1) that the proposition that a refugee who reaches a safe country A has no right to seek asylum in a further country B but is obliged to make their application in A is simply wrong in fact and law. It is incompatible with the UN Convention on refugees.
(2) The Dublin Convention sought, despite that, to require the receiving Member States to process the application. The logic of this, such as it was, was that once a refugee was given asylum within the EU freedom of movement entitled them to go anywhere within it. The right of the refugee given by the UN Convention was accordingly not prejudiced.
(3) The EU refused to continue the Dublin Convention with the UK on Brexit. That was their right because the scenario had changed. Determination of the right to asylum in, say, Greece, no longer gave that person freedom of movement to the UK.
(4) The proposition that France has any obligation to process these refugees and, if appropriate, to grant them asylum in the EU is therefore wrong. Similarly, if they do make the UK or make an application to our authorities we have duties under the UN Convention to determine their application to us.
(5) The UK government is therefore being deliberately misleading in at least two respects. Firstly, their argument that the French are somehow failing in their duty has no basis. They have no duty to determine the right of these refugees if no application is made to them. Secondly, even if they did, this would not abrogate our duty to make our determination on the merits of the refugee's case should an application be made to us.
There are much broader questions as to whether the UN Convention is fit for purpose in circumstances where very large number of people have become much more mobile; where countries may have legitimate concerns about whether these refugees carry dangerous illnesses or have malicious intent and whether the right to asylum needs to be curtailed. These are very difficult questions to answer. But the way the story of these refugees in boats is being portrayed by both our government and our media is simply misleading.
Your last paragraph nails it and echoes something I wrote yesterday. There is no numerical limit on the number of refugees a country has to accept. If they qualify they get asylum. That is simply untenable because it removes all democratic control away from the receiving country. If the Convention is not changed then pretty soon countries will start ignoring it, formally as well as in practice.
If some of the people arriving are immigrants that a country would want - as some claim - and the difference between economic migrant and refugee is becoming increasingly hard to identify - then maybe - and I'm thinking the unthinkable here - it is time to fold asylum into normal immigration applications i.e. let them apply in the normal way. Fleeing a failed state no longer comes with an automatic right of entry - but only one of the factors which a country can take into account when determining who is allowed to migrate here.
I don't think it's unthinkable, I think given the general easy of movement (across Europe) and the sheer number of potential asylum seekers, the existing rules are unfit for the modern day and over the next few years the pressure is going to be unbearable as migrant numbers increase.
It would involve withdrawing from various refugee conventions which is I think unthinkable for our political class and others. But it will have to be done I suspect.
What is needed is something along the following lines:
1.Good quality immigrants are an asset and Britain welcomes them. 2. What qualifies as "good quality" is a range of factors: skills, willingness and ability to integrate etc 3. But there has to be a numerical limit to the number welcomed in every year. 4. The number of asylum seekers is potentially unlimited and conflicts with point 3 above and also point 2. 5. The difference between being a refugee and an economic migrant is now so often so blurred as to be meaningless and leads to people trying to shoehorn themselves into particular categories and/or entrusting themselves to people smugglers. This perpetuates an evil trade and is unfair to others who may be better immigrants from Britain's perspective but are not able or willing to use the people-smuggling route. 6. So a claim to refugee status will no longer be deemed to lead to automatic entry to Britain. Other factors will be needed. In some limited cases Britain may choose to have exemptions to this rule eg Afghani interpreters. 7. All applications for a visa for Britain will be processed at British embassies and consulates. Not in Britain. There will be a number every year and all those who are successful will be flown safely into Britain. 8. Any appeals against a refusal will have to happen outside Britain. There will only be one appeal at the potential migrant's expense. 9. Patrolling of the British coastline and territorial waters will be massively increased and anyone caught will be deported or detained. If the latter, their attempt to evade migration controls will count massively against them should they later seek to apply legally.
Points 7, 8 and 9 will require oodles of money to be spent but should save money in the long run.
None of this will happen of course and it is not a short-term solution.
If Keir wants to win the election, he (or maybe his invisible shadow Home Secretary) just needs to say a cut down version of above.
The problem is that the a significant chunk of the Labor party would lose their shit over such a policy.
A mirror image of the "zero immigrants" types on the Right.
Fuck ‘em. Clause 4 moment.
A free thinking friend of mine, who often makes uncannily accurate predictions, texted me this just now:
“my prediction: Farage MP within 12 months. PM within 3 years.”
Or Keir. If he was as Machiavellian as great statesman must be.
(Which he isn’t).
If Farage does return to “Reform”, it could be profound.
So by 2024 we will have President Trump and Prime Minister Farage. Scenes
Happily I emigrated to Scotland...
FM Salmond
That ship has, I think, sailed. Not sure about Farage's, sadly.
I have to say I fear that when I next go abroad I will not be as happy to say I'm British as I have been.
Betting question: Farage as PM or Salmond as FM, most likely?
Farage. No question. Neither are going to happen though.
... In general I think shame is a harmful emotion and isn't something I want to instill in my children. If that makes me woke then fine. I'm always happy to be described as woke anyway, I don't view it as an insult.
I'm not sure if it makes you 'woke', but it does make you like Stanley Johnson.
If any of my kids end up like Stanley Johnson's eldest, sexually or otherwise, then I will consider myself to have failed as a father!
Well, quite, so I'm not sure trying to make them impervious to shame is a good idea.
Boris Johnson's problem isn't that he is impervious to shame. It's that he doesn't know the difference between right and wrong, and he doesn't care about other people. I'm not convinced that shame is an effective means of preventing people from doing bad things, anyway.
Or what used to be called paedophiles. Kiddy fiddlers. Jimmy Saviles.
Jimmy Saville was a Tory, of course.
Cyril Smith was a Liberal so what is your point
My point is that if people are going to start accusing "liberal woke" people of embracing paedophilia, it's ironic to name-check the UK's most infamous paedo given that he was a prominent supporter of the Tory party.
To be honest I do not agree with that accusation but neither do I agree in using paedophilia for point scoring
You don’t think Savile was a Tory?
Much like Alan B'stard, Savile was a Tory under Thatcher, New Labour under Blair and now would probably be a Tory under Boris again if he was still alive and not in jail
Not sure the outlier that is Savile the super groomer par excellence is useful to prove any political point. Except that his ability to fool the entirety of the Boomer generation into seeing a Saint where others saw, at best, a deeply creepy character, speaks to the prevailing culture of the late last century.
Jim'll Fix It got 12 million viewers every Saturday night at its peak in the 1980s, it was not just the establishment fooled, I remember watching it every week as a child without having a clue about what he was really like.
Though clearly some knew
I think it gradually dawned as a new generation came through that he was not the super kind bestower of benevolence that many had thought. Hence no Children in Need. Jim'll Fix It was always a show my parents liked and thought I ought to like.
Arieh Kovler @ariehkovler Israel has identified four cases of the B.1.1.529 variant, all recent travellers. One case, a 32-year-old woman returning from South Africa, was triple vaccinated with Pfizer and had her 3rd dose just two months ago.
Yes, but was she seriously ill or asymptomatic or something in-between?
Yep, it would be REALLY helpful if the Israelis would tell us the medical condition of these people
I remember when the original South African variant was found in a London care home, and had infected four or five double jabbed patients.
And then it turned out that those infections were asymptomatic, and had only been picked up by PCR tests.
In other words, an initial panicked report missed the fact that the vaccines had been completely effective.
... In general I think shame is a harmful emotion and isn't something I want to instill in my children. If that makes me woke then fine. I'm always happy to be described as woke anyway, I don't view it as an insult.
I'm not sure if it makes you 'woke', but it does make you like Stanley Johnson.
If any of my kids end up like Stanley Johnson's eldest, sexually or otherwise, then I will consider myself to have failed as a father!
Or what used to be called paedophiles. Kiddy fiddlers. Jimmy Saviles.
Jimmy Saville was a Tory, of course.
Cyril Smith was a Liberal so what is your point
My point is that if people are going to start accusing "liberal woke" people of embracing paedophilia, it's ironic to name-check the UK's most infamous paedo given that he was a prominent supporter of the Tory party.
To be honest I do not agree with that accusation but neither do I agree in using paedophilia for point scoring
You don’t think Savile was a Tory?
Much like Alan B'stard, Savile was a Tory under Thatcher, New Labour under Blair and now would probably be a Tory under Boris again if he was still alive and not in jail
Not sure the outlier that is Savile the super groomer par excellence is useful to prove any political point. Except that his ability to fool the entirety of the Boomer generation into seeing a Saint where others saw, at best, a deeply creepy character, speaks to the prevailing culture of the late last century.
He was widely recognised as a creep. Not allowed anywhere near Children In Need frinstance.
I remember, years ago, the novelist Anthony Burgess making a reference to Savile's "sinister" camper van. Burgess died in 1993. (Incidentally his reputation is really burgeoning - a really great writer - which is becoming ever more apparent as the years pass).
The point is that Savile's predilections were obviously common knowledge in certain informed circles long before the public revelations following his death.
I was musing on the classic 1942 film Casablanca the other day. There are several plot strands but perhaps the most interesting is the "letters of transit" stolen by the Peter Lorre character and hidden by Bogarts character Rick, who later passes them on. These stolen documents permit the bearer free travel to neutral Portugal, and then onwards to the USA.
Is Rick the most celebrated "People Trafficker" in movie history? And should the Lazlos had to claim asylum in Portugal rather than the USA?
Casablanca (in the film at least) was indeed full of people traffickers. They are not portrayed as noble but as vultures, exploiting the vulnerable. Remember the scene with the Bulgarian couple and the roulette game? Captain Renault was not a nice person.
Certainly Rick was depicted as noble, and the refugees vulnerable.
What do we think happened to those vulnerable would be refugees without the letters of transit?
There were only two letters of transit in the film. The rest of the refugees had to make other arraignments, such as midnight trips on fishing boats with several thousand francs in cash.
The police chief was signing papers of some form to allow travel in return for money and sexual favours*.
Mr. Boy, there's a world of difference between sexual orientation and kinks, which vary from "gosh, feet" all the way to "I want to literally carve my name into your back with a knife".
People who are into stuff absolutely across the line (paedophilia, necrophilia etc) should be shamed to deter the odds on them grouping up with others and creating a support network for such behaviour, and to encourage them to seek help or just restrain themselves.
Shaming someone for being into S&M is daft (and counterproductive if they're into humiliation), but some things are unacceptable and pretending otherwise is damned silly.
From the Washington Post. "Yes, kink belongs at Pride. And I want my kids to see it. Children need to know that they can make their own ways in the world"
"When our children grew tired of marching, we plopped onto a nearby curb. Just as we got settled, our elementary-schooler pointed in the direction of oncoming floats, raising an eyebrow at a bare-chested man in dark sunglasses whose black suspenders clipped into a leather thong. The man paused to be spanked playfully by a partner with a flog. “What are they doing?” my curious kid asked as our toddler cheered them on. The pair was the first of a few dozen kinksters who danced down the street, laughing together as they twirled their whips and batons, some leading companions by leashes. At the time, my children were too young to understand the nuance of the situation, but I told them the truth: That these folks were members of our community celebrating who they are and what they like to do."
I've never taken my kids to Pride, mainly because I've never been to Pride myself. My eldest daughter, who is 15, has gone with friends and enjoyed it, and I think it was good that she went. We did take our kids to a child friendly drag show at the Edinburgh fringe once. It was fun and they enjoyed it. I think it's important for them to know that not everyone is a boring heterosexual like their parents. I hope my kids grow up to have healthy sex lives based on consent and love. Beyond that I don't care. In general I think shame is a harmful emotion and isn't something I want to instill in my children. If that makes me woke then fine. I'm always happy to be described as woke anyway, I don't view it as an insult.
"boring heterosexual"
Why is being homosexual more *interesting*?
No, homosexuals are also boring. It's the pansexuals who are interesting.
“A woman accused of indecent exposure, masturbating in public and using a sex toy in a public place, will stand trial early next year.
Chloe Thompson, of Borough Road, Middlesbrough, appeared at Teesside Magistrates' Court on Wednesday after denying the offences.
She is charged with committing a public nuisance by indecently exposing her penis to other members of the public, whilst masturbating from a property window.”
I am guessing the boringly statistical one that there are many orders of magnitude more devious predatory heterosexual male shits in the world than there are women trapped in mens' bodies, and that anyone defending this arse's utterly ludicrous claim to be a woman with a penis is enabling predatory heterosexual male shittery under cover of particularly ill thought out wokery.
And severely damaging the cause of genuine trans women btw.
Well I'm certainly not defending that claim. There will be men who change gender for nefarious reasons. But would this group not be a tiny minority compared to those who are genuine? I'd think so.
But what I'm trying to understand is, what does this story make people want to do -
Make it even harder than now to change gender? Have a blanket ban on male born people using female spaces? Other stuff?
Otherwise it just reads as "oh yuck, pervert in a dress".
You couldn't have this more back to front if you tried with both hands for a week. Does it do the cause of the genuinely trans more good if we say This is an example of trans woman, or This is indeed a pervert in a dress? Which it is, unless you dispute the charges/convictions, or contend that the guy only wore skirts?
look at it in gambling terms. There are 12 trans women among the 500 women in Scotland's prisons. have a think about what spread bets you'd be comfortable with on the genuine vs taking the piss ratio among them.
How have I got it back to front? I said 3 things. (1) I can't diagnose whether this person is genuinely trans or not. (2) There will be men who change gender for dubious reasons. (3) Such cases will imo be a tiny minority cf those who are genuine.
Then I asked what this case is making people want to change about how transgender people are treated.
But, ok, to develop your prison point. You are saying that all trans women convicted of a crime should go to a male prison because the odds are that a fair proportion of them are fakes, men masquerading as women in order to prey on women - Is that right?
I am just pointing out what the probabilities are, especially among prisoners who start transitioning after they end up in the nick.
Imagine you set up a stall with a big banner over it saying "£1,000 free money for everybody whose middle name is Cedric. Self-certification accepted." How many applications would you expect to come from people whose middle name really is Cedric?
Ok, let's say it can be true (per me) that only a tiny tiny minority of trans women are dangerous fakes but at the same time true (per you) that a non-trivial number of those who are already guilty of (in particular sex) crimes and then claim to be trans women are dangerous fakes. So, we need a system which ensures the latter are not housed in a female prison whilst not basing the whole policy on a general assumption that trans people who commit crimes are not trans or (worse) a general societal assumption that trans women are likely to be male perverts.
From the Washington Post. "Yes, kink belongs at Pride. And I want my kids to see it. Children need to know that they can make their own ways in the world"
"When our children grew tired of marching, we plopped onto a nearby curb. Just as we got settled, our elementary-schooler pointed in the direction of oncoming floats, raising an eyebrow at a bare-chested man in dark sunglasses whose black suspenders clipped into a leather thong. The man paused to be spanked playfully by a partner with a flog. “What are they doing?” my curious kid asked as our toddler cheered them on. The pair was the first of a few dozen kinksters who danced down the street, laughing together as they twirled their whips and batons, some leading companions by leashes. At the time, my children were too young to understand the nuance of the situation, but I told them the truth: That these folks were members of our community celebrating who they are and what they like to do."
I've never taken my kids to Pride, mainly because I've never been to Pride myself. My eldest daughter, who is 15, has gone with friends and enjoyed it, and I think it was good that she went. We did take our kids to a child friendly drag show at the Edinburgh fringe once. It was fun and they enjoyed it. I think it's important for them to know that not everyone is a boring heterosexual like their parents. I hope my kids grow up to have healthy sex lives based on consent and love. Beyond that I don't care. In general I think shame is a harmful emotion and isn't something I want to instill in my children. If that makes me woke then fine. I'm always happy to be described as woke anyway, I don't view it as an insult.
"boring heterosexual"
Why is being homosexual more *interesting*?
No, homosexuals are also boring. It's the pansexuals who are interesting.
On the subject of Savile, etc., I suspect sexual deviancy (aka wrong 'uns) are found in every corner of politics.
The richer and more famous and powerful tend to have more opportunities to be sexually deviant of course, hence careers which offer the chance of money, fame or power tend to attract a disproportionate number
Or what used to be called paedophiles. Kiddy fiddlers. Jimmy Saviles.
Jimmy Saville was a Tory, of course.
Cyril Smith was a Liberal so what is your point
My point is that if people are going to start accusing "liberal woke" people of embracing paedophilia, it's ironic to name-check the UK's most infamous paedo given that he was a prominent supporter of the Tory party.
To be honest I do not agree with that accusation but neither do I agree in using paedophilia for point scoring
You don’t think Savile was a Tory?
Much like Alan B'stard, Savile was a Tory under Thatcher, New Labour under Blair and now would probably be a Tory under Boris again if he was still alive and not in jail
Not sure the outlier that is Savile the super groomer par excellence is useful to prove any political point. Except that his ability to fool the entirety of the Boomer generation into seeing a Saint where others saw, at best, a deeply creepy character, speaks to the prevailing culture of the late last century.
Jim'll Fix It got 12 million viewers every Saturday night at its peak in the 1980s, it was not just the establishment fooled, I remember watching it every week as a child without having a clue about what he was really like.
Though clearly some knew
I was still a child towards the end of Jim'll Fix It but I hated watching it because Saville seemed so creepy. It was just an intrinsic instinct. (And not one I got from Rolf Harris oddly). I am amazed others didn't think it.
There were a lot of creepy middle aged men about in the 70s and 80s. Some of them even got into the charts.
“A woman accused of indecent exposure, masturbating in public and using a sex toy in a public place, will stand trial early next year.
Chloe Thompson, of Borough Road, Middlesbrough, appeared at Teesside Magistrates' Court on Wednesday after denying the offences.
She is charged with committing a public nuisance by indecently exposing her penis to other members of the public, whilst masturbating from a property window.”
I am guessing the boringly statistical one that there are many orders of magnitude more devious predatory heterosexual male shits in the world than there are women trapped in mens' bodies, and that anyone defending this arse's utterly ludicrous claim to be a woman with a penis is enabling predatory heterosexual male shittery under cover of particularly ill thought out wokery.
And severely damaging the cause of genuine trans women btw.
Well I'm certainly not defending that claim. There will be men who change gender for nefarious reasons. But would this group not be a tiny minority compared to those who are genuine? I'd think so.
But what I'm trying to understand is, what does this story make people want to do -
Make it even harder than now to change gender? Have a blanket ban on male born people using female spaces? Other stuff?
Otherwise it just reads as "oh yuck, pervert in a dress".
You couldn't have this more back to front if you tried with both hands for a week. Does it do the cause of the genuinely trans more good if we say This is an example of trans woman, or This is indeed a pervert in a dress? Which it is, unless you dispute the charges/convictions, or contend that the guy only wore skirts?
look at it in gambling terms. There are 12 trans women among the 500 women in Scotland's prisons. have a think about what spread bets you'd be comfortable with on the genuine vs taking the piss ratio among them.
How have I got it back to front? I said 3 things. (1) I can't diagnose whether this person is genuinely trans or not. (2) There will be men who change gender for dubious reasons. (3) Such cases will imo be a tiny minority cf those who are genuine.
Then I asked what this case is making people want to change about how transgender people are treated.
But, ok, to develop your prison point. You are saying that all trans women convicted of a crime should go to a male prison because the odds are that a fair proportion of them are fakes, men masquerading as women in order to prey on women - Is that right?
I am just pointing out what the probabilities are, especially among prisoners who start transitioning after they end up in the nick.
Imagine you set up a stall with a big banner over it saying "£1,000 free money for everybody whose middle name is Cedric. Self-certification accepted." How many applications would you expect to come from people whose middle name really is Cedric?
Ok, let's say it can be true (per me) that only a tiny tiny minority of trans women are dangerous fakes but at the same time true (per you) that a non-trivial number of those who are already guilty of (in particular sex) crimes and then claim to be trans women are dangerous fakes. So, we need a system which ensures the latter are not housed in a female prison whilst not basing the whole policy on a general assumption that trans people who commit crimes are not trans or (worse) a general societal assumption that trans women are likely to be male perverts.
The easiest way to ensure that general societal assumption is made, is by failing to condemn nonsensical claims by male perverts to be trans, as the nonsense they are.
Would the U.K. allow French border police onto UK beaches to stop migrants from leaving the U.K. if the situation was reversed .
And people wonder why the French aren’t happy.
The migrant crisis has turned the whole sovereignty issue on its head. I hope people realise (looking at you @Philip_Thompson) that we compromise on sovereignty, while remaining sovereign every day. Unless you are North Korea and even then you probably do.
Or what used to be called paedophiles. Kiddy fiddlers. Jimmy Saviles.
Jimmy Saville was a Tory, of course.
Cyril Smith was a Liberal so what is your point
My point is that if people are going to start accusing "liberal woke" people of embracing paedophilia, it's ironic to name-check the UK's most infamous paedo given that he was a prominent supporter of the Tory party.
To be honest I do not agree with that accusation but neither do I agree in using paedophilia for point scoring
You don’t think Savile was a Tory?
Much like Alan B'stard, Savile was a Tory under Thatcher, New Labour under Blair and now would probably be a Tory under Boris again if he was still alive and not in jail
Not sure the outlier that is Savile the super groomer par excellence is useful to prove any political point. Except that his ability to fool the entirety of the Boomer generation into seeing a Saint where others saw, at best, a deeply creepy character, speaks to the prevailing culture of the late last century.
Jim'll Fix It got 12 million viewers every Saturday night at its peak in the 1980s, it was not just the establishment fooled, I remember watching it every week as a child without having a clue about what he was really like.
Would the UK government allow French border police onto UK beaches to stop migrants from leaving the UK if the situation was reversed .
And people wonder why the French aren’t happy.
I don't see why not. There were French border police at Waterloo International before Brexit, not sure if they are still there, but countries often cooperate policing shared borders
From the Washington Post. "Yes, kink belongs at Pride. And I want my kids to see it. Children need to know that they can make their own ways in the world"
"When our children grew tired of marching, we plopped onto a nearby curb. Just as we got settled, our elementary-schooler pointed in the direction of oncoming floats, raising an eyebrow at a bare-chested man in dark sunglasses whose black suspenders clipped into a leather thong. The man paused to be spanked playfully by a partner with a flog. “What are they doing?” my curious kid asked as our toddler cheered them on. The pair was the first of a few dozen kinksters who danced down the street, laughing together as they twirled their whips and batons, some leading companions by leashes. At the time, my children were too young to understand the nuance of the situation, but I told them the truth: That these folks were members of our community celebrating who they are and what they like to do."
I've never taken my kids to Pride, mainly because I've never been to Pride myself. My eldest daughter, who is 15, has gone with friends and enjoyed it, and I think it was good that she went. We did take our kids to a child friendly drag show at the Edinburgh fringe once. It was fun and they enjoyed it. I think it's important for them to know that not everyone is a boring heterosexual like their parents. I hope my kids grow up to have healthy sex lives based on consent and love. Beyond that I don't care. In general I think shame is a harmful emotion and isn't something I want to instill in my children. If that makes me woke then fine. I'm always happy to be described as woke anyway, I don't view it as an insult.
"boring heterosexual"
Why is being homosexual more *interesting*?
No, homosexuals are also boring. It's the pansexuals who are interesting.
Clearly the reference was implied to mean if you're not into publicly viewing bondage or exhibitionism you are boring and lesser. It is something odd about the evolution of the left wing mind that now values being "tolerant" to its most extreme ends beyond anything else. As someone that campaigned for gay people to be accepted into "boring" institutions like the armed forces and married family life, I find it very odd.
Or what used to be called paedophiles. Kiddy fiddlers. Jimmy Saviles.
Jimmy Saville was a Tory, of course.
Cyril Smith was a Liberal so what is your point
My point is that if people are going to start accusing "liberal woke" people of embracing paedophilia, it's ironic to name-check the UK's most infamous paedo given that he was a prominent supporter of the Tory party.
To be honest I do not agree with that accusation but neither do I agree in using paedophilia for point scoring
You don’t think Savile was a Tory?
Much like Alan B'stard, Savile was a Tory under Thatcher, New Labour under Blair and now would probably be a Tory under Boris again if he was still alive and not in jail
Not sure the outlier that is Savile the super groomer par excellence is useful to prove any political point. Except that his ability to fool the entirety of the Boomer generation into seeing a Saint where others saw, at best, a deeply creepy character, speaks to the prevailing culture of the late last century.
Jim'll Fix It got 12 million viewers every Saturday night at its peak in the 1980s, it was not just the establishment fooled, I remember watching it every week as a child without having a clue about what he was really like.
On the subject of Savile, etc., I suspect sexual deviancy (aka wrong 'uns) are found in every corner of politics.
They might be found more in politics, though, than some other areas of life.
I'll trot out my oft-said belief: 1% of people are evil 9% are wrong 'uns, 9% are good, and 1% are angels. The other 80% of us muddle along in the middle. Telling the 'evil' people in advance can be difficult.
The problem is when that 1% 'evil' are also clever. This means they possibly gravitate to any position of power - whether charities, care homes, politics, religion: anything that gives them power and control over others. If they cannot be in that position of power, then allying yourself with them is the next best thing: that way you get access and a potential protector.
From the Washington Post. "Yes, kink belongs at Pride. And I want my kids to see it. Children need to know that they can make their own ways in the world"
"When our children grew tired of marching, we plopped onto a nearby curb. Just as we got settled, our elementary-schooler pointed in the direction of oncoming floats, raising an eyebrow at a bare-chested man in dark sunglasses whose black suspenders clipped into a leather thong. The man paused to be spanked playfully by a partner with a flog. “What are they doing?” my curious kid asked as our toddler cheered them on. The pair was the first of a few dozen kinksters who danced down the street, laughing together as they twirled their whips and batons, some leading companions by leashes. At the time, my children were too young to understand the nuance of the situation, but I told them the truth: That these folks were members of our community celebrating who they are and what they like to do."
I've never taken my kids to Pride, mainly because I've never been to Pride myself. My eldest daughter, who is 15, has gone with friends and enjoyed it, and I think it was good that she went. We did take our kids to a child friendly drag show at the Edinburgh fringe once. It was fun and they enjoyed it. I think it's important for them to know that not everyone is a boring heterosexual like their parents. I hope my kids grow up to have healthy sex lives based on consent and love. Beyond that I don't care. In general I think shame is a harmful emotion and isn't something I want to instill in my children. If that makes me woke then fine. I'm always happy to be described as woke anyway, I don't view it as an insult.
"boring heterosexual"
Why is being homosexual more *interesting*?
No, homosexuals are also boring. It's the pansexuals who are interesting.
Clearly the reference was implied to mean if you're not into publicly viewing bondage or exhibitionism you are boring and lesser. It is something odd about the evolution of the left wing mind that now values being "tolerant" to its most extreme ends beyond anything else. As someone that campaigned for gay people to be accepted into "boring" institutions like the armed forces and married family life, I find it very odd.
Boring isn't lesser. Boring is good. Why are you so intolerant?
Crikey. Ubereats. Able to deliver excellent sushi and sashimi to my door in ten minutes. Or oysters, if I prefer
Handy to know as we go into a nine year lockdown
That's only because you live in London. UberEats can mostly deliver burgers and kebabs round here (actually I did have a curry and a Thai during lockdown)
R4 WATO first two interviewers “complete over reaction” and “punishing SA” - no wonder only a handful of countries do all the sequencing heavy lifting!
Mr. Boy, there's a world of difference between sexual orientation and kinks, which vary from "gosh, feet" all the way to "I want to literally carve my name into your back with a knife".
People who are into stuff absolutely across the line (paedophilia, necrophilia etc) should be shamed to deter the odds on them grouping up with others and creating a support network for such behaviour, and to encourage them to seek help or just restrain themselves.
Shaming someone for being into S&M is daft (and counterproductive if they're into humiliation), but some things are unacceptable and pretending otherwise is damned silly.
Why is necrophilia 'absolutely across the line'? If I am willing to let my body (post death) be used for others amusement, why should that be prohibited?
One reason is because you don't want to encourage a demand for corpses.
In Edinburgh in the early C19 there was a huge demand for recently demised people for the medical fraternity to dissect. Some chaps called Burke and Hare couldn't be bothered to wait for people to die and then dig them up. They decided to short-circuit the process, murder people, and deliver the nice fresh corpses to the medics.
One lived in the same house as my g-g-grandfather ...
Crikey. Ubereats. Able to deliver excellent sushi and sashimi to my door in ten minutes. Or oysters, if I prefer
Handy to know as we go into a nine year lockdown
That's only because you live in London. UberEats can mostly deliver burgers and kebabs round here (actually I did have a curry and a Thai during lockdown)
Indeed. We have the choice of a ropey Indian or an expensive Lebanese. No Uber Eats. Can be between 40 mins and an hour and a half.
From the Washington Post. "Yes, kink belongs at Pride. And I want my kids to see it. Children need to know that they can make their own ways in the world"
"When our children grew tired of marching, we plopped onto a nearby curb. Just as we got settled, our elementary-schooler pointed in the direction of oncoming floats, raising an eyebrow at a bare-chested man in dark sunglasses whose black suspenders clipped into a leather thong. The man paused to be spanked playfully by a partner with a flog. “What are they doing?” my curious kid asked as our toddler cheered them on. The pair was the first of a few dozen kinksters who danced down the street, laughing together as they twirled their whips and batons, some leading companions by leashes. At the time, my children were too young to understand the nuance of the situation, but I told them the truth: That these folks were members of our community celebrating who they are and what they like to do."
I've never taken my kids to Pride, mainly because I've never been to Pride myself. My eldest daughter, who is 15, has gone with friends and enjoyed it, and I think it was good that she went. We did take our kids to a child friendly drag show at the Edinburgh fringe once. It was fun and they enjoyed it. I think it's important for them to know that not everyone is a boring heterosexual like their parents. I hope my kids grow up to have healthy sex lives based on consent and love. Beyond that I don't care. In general I think shame is a harmful emotion and isn't something I want to instill in my children. If that makes me woke then fine. I'm always happy to be described as woke anyway, I don't view it as an insult.
"boring heterosexual"
Why is being homosexual more *interesting*?
No, homosexuals are also boring. It's the pansexuals who are interesting.
Clearly the reference was implied to mean if you're not into publicly viewing bondage or exhibitionism you are boring and lesser. It is something odd about the evolution of the left wing mind that now values being "tolerant" to its most extreme ends beyond anything else. As someone that campaigned for gay people to be accepted into "boring" institutions like the armed forces and married family life, I find it very odd.
Also, they tolerate intolerance, if it comes from the right people. Cf lefty support for the burqa/niqab - "just a cultural thing", "empowering for women", blah blah
Or what used to be called paedophiles. Kiddy fiddlers. Jimmy Saviles.
Jimmy Saville was a Tory, of course.
Cyril Smith was a Liberal so what is your point
My point is that if people are going to start accusing "liberal woke" people of embracing paedophilia, it's ironic to name-check the UK's most infamous paedo given that he was a prominent supporter of the Tory party.
To be honest I do not agree with that accusation but neither do I agree in using paedophilia for point scoring
You don’t think Savile was a Tory?
Much like Alan B'stard, Savile was a Tory under Thatcher, New Labour under Blair and now would probably be a Tory under Boris again if he was still alive and not in jail
Not sure the outlier that is Savile the super groomer par excellence is useful to prove any political point. Except that his ability to fool the entirety of the Boomer generation into seeing a Saint where others saw, at best, a deeply creepy character, speaks to the prevailing culture of the late last century.
He was widely recognised as a creep. Not allowed anywhere near Children In Need frinstance.
I remember, years ago, the novelist Anthony Burgess making a reference to Savile's "sinister" camper van. Burgess died in 1993. (Incidentally his reputation is really burgeoning - a really great writer - which is becoming ever more apparent as the years pass).
The point is that Savile's predilections were obviously common knowledge in certain informed circles long before the public revelations following his death.
IIRC a cabinet minister gave Mr Savile a free pass to NHS institutions - or something equivalent: a laissez passer letter? Was that before or after 1993?
R4 WATO first two interviewers “complete over reaction” and “punishing SA” - no wonder only a handful of countries do all the sequencing heavy lifting!
From the Washington Post. "Yes, kink belongs at Pride. And I want my kids to see it. Children need to know that they can make their own ways in the world"
"When our children grew tired of marching, we plopped onto a nearby curb. Just as we got settled, our elementary-schooler pointed in the direction of oncoming floats, raising an eyebrow at a bare-chested man in dark sunglasses whose black suspenders clipped into a leather thong. The man paused to be spanked playfully by a partner with a flog. “What are they doing?” my curious kid asked as our toddler cheered them on. The pair was the first of a few dozen kinksters who danced down the street, laughing together as they twirled their whips and batons, some leading companions by leashes. At the time, my children were too young to understand the nuance of the situation, but I told them the truth: That these folks were members of our community celebrating who they are and what they like to do."
I've never taken my kids to Pride, mainly because I've never been to Pride myself. My eldest daughter, who is 15, has gone with friends and enjoyed it, and I think it was good that she went. We did take our kids to a child friendly drag show at the Edinburgh fringe once. It was fun and they enjoyed it. I think it's important for them to know that not everyone is a boring heterosexual like their parents. I hope my kids grow up to have healthy sex lives based on consent and love. Beyond that I don't care. In general I think shame is a harmful emotion and isn't something I want to instill in my children. If that makes me woke then fine. I'm always happy to be described as woke anyway, I don't view it as an insult.
“Child friendly drag” or “Panto” as it is known in the UK.
Would the UK government allow French border police onto UK beaches to stop migrants from leaving the UK if the situation was reversed .
And people wonder why the French aren’t happy.
I don't see why not. There were French border police at Waterloo International before Brexit, not sure if they are still there, but countries often cooperate policing shared borders
Last time I travelled on the Eurostar (pre pandemic), there were some French cops complete with automatic weapons and the full ninja regalia at Kings Cross. They were chatting with their UK equivalents..... I *think* I saw some conventionally dressed UK cops at Gard Du Nord.
R4 WATO first two interviewers “complete over reaction” and “punishing SA” - no wonder only a handful of countries do all the sequencing heavy lifting!
Are these opinions coming from scientists?
Yes - the first was a Professor from the University of the Witwatersrand in Joburg……
I was musing on the classic 1942 film Casablanca the other day. There are several plot strands but perhaps the most interesting is the "letters of transit" stolen by the Peter Lorre character and hidden by Bogarts character Rick, who later passes them on. These stolen documents permit the bearer free travel to neutral Portugal, and then onwards to the USA.
Is Rick the most celebrated "People Trafficker" in movie history? And should the Lazlos had to claim asylum in Portugal rather than the USA?
Casablanca (in the film at least) was indeed full of people traffickers. They are not portrayed as noble but as vultures, exploiting the vulnerable. Remember the scene with the Bulgarian couple and the roulette game? Captain Renault was not a nice person.
Certainly Rick was depicted as noble, and the refugees vulnerable.
What do we think happened to those vulnerable would be refugees without the letters of transit?
There were only two letters of transit in the film. The rest of the refugees had to make other arraignments, such as midnight trips on fishing boats with several thousand francs in cash.
The police chief was signing papers of some form to allow travel in return for money and sexual favours*.
*aka rape.
Those were exit visas. The “Letters of Transit” were special because they couldn’t be revoked. All nonsense of course: anything signed by General De Gaul wouldn’t have got you very far in Vichy France.
Would the UK government allow French border police onto UK beaches to stop migrants from leaving the UK if the situation was reversed .
And people wonder why the French aren’t happy.
I don't see why not. There were French border police at Waterloo International before Brexit, not sure if they are still there, but countries often cooperate policing shared borders
Last time I travelled on the Eurostar (pre pandemic), there were some French cops complete with automatic weapons and the full ninja regalia at Kings Cross. They were chatting with their UK equivalents..... I *think* I saw some conventionally dressed UK cops at Gard Du Nord.
And of course UK customs officials at the GdN. Neither would seem out of place - French in St.Pancras or UK plod in GdN.
But isn't this to take on responsibility arguably for a domestic policing task so different in a way.
Comments
Still, truly fascinating to seem them so candidly.
They have huge affection for one another, even when they are disagreeing.
The riders on are also interesting.
Michael Lindsay-Hogg is a posh idiot.
Mal Evans takes massive, dumb-faced joy from banging the anvil during “Maxwell’s Silver Hammer”.
George Martin looks rather fed up with the whole circus at this stage.
Children need to know that they can make their own ways in the world"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/06/29/pride-month-kink-consent/
"When our children grew tired of marching, we plopped onto a nearby curb. Just as we got settled, our elementary-schooler pointed in the direction of oncoming floats, raising an eyebrow at a bare-chested man in dark sunglasses whose black suspenders clipped into a leather thong. The man paused to be spanked playfully by a partner with a flog. “What are they doing?” my curious kid asked as our toddler cheered them on. The pair was the first of a few dozen kinksters who danced down the street, laughing together as they twirled their whips and batons, some leading companions by leashes. At the time, my children were too young to understand the nuance of the situation, but I told them the truth: That these folks were members of our community celebrating who they are and what they like to do."
{Az, Pfi, Mod, Az*2, Pfi *2, Mod *2, Az*2+Pfi, Az*2+Mod, Pfi*3, Pfi*2+Mod, Mod*2+Pfi, Mod*3} & No prior viral infection
{Az, Pfi, Mod, Az*2, Pfi *2, Mod *2, Az*2+Pfi, Az*2+Mod, Pfi*3, Pfi*2+Mod, Mod*2+Pfi, Mod*3} & prior infection.
& naive.
@ariehkovler
Israel has identified four cases of the B.1.1.529 variant, all recent travellers. One case, a 32-year-old woman returning from South Africa, was triple vaccinated with Pfizer and had her 3rd dose just two months ago.
Weinstein, I believe, was in favour of a max-fac deal for the Irish border, not sure how that positions him ideologically.
My vaxxed colleagues experience of Covid is that they could barely tell they had it.
The first Opinium poll after Boris was elected Tory leader and PM had the Tories on 30%, Labour on 28% and the Brexit Party back down to 15% even before he had delivered Brexit
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2019_United_Kingdom_general_election
Arieh Kovler
@ariehkovler
·
1h
No reports yet if these people are suffering from any symptoms at all; all travelers are screened with PCR tests on arrival, which is how they were identified.
I am not going to be silenced by idiots. I am heartened by the fact that a friend of mine, who is actually a man transitioning to be a woman, and their wife - both of them lovely people and very happy together - agree with me. Or, to put it more accurately, they have taught me a lot about the reality of dysphoria. I have learnt from them.
They despair at the boneheaded stupidity of trans activists who are doing the cause of those who are genuinely trans no good at all.
https://www.leftfutures.org/2012/10/on-jimmy-savile-tony-blair-and-turning-a-blind-eye-to-serious-crimes/
Imagine you set up a stall with a big banner over it saying "£1,000 free money for everybody whose middle name is Cedric. Self-certification accepted." How many applications would you expect to come from people whose middle name really is Cedric?
JUST IN: Belgium reports 2 suspected cases of new coronavirus variant
https://twitter.com/BNODesk/status/1464195182279245852?s=20
We did take our kids to a child friendly drag show at the Edinburgh fringe once. It was fun and they enjoyed it. I think it's important for them to know that not everyone is a boring heterosexual like their parents.
I hope my kids grow up to have healthy sex lives based on consent and love. Beyond that I don't care. In general I think shame is a harmful emotion and isn't something I want to instill in my children. If that makes me woke then fine. I'm always happy to be described as woke anyway, I don't view it as an insult.
(Also my understanding is that the scientific studies which showed that were not quite as clear cut as you are making out. In some cases parts of the brain seemed to show an alignment with gender rather than sex. In others not so. It is all quite unclear and needs a whole load more proper scientific study. As does the phenomenon of autogynephilia - which is also relevant.)
But self-ID is entirely based on a feeling - and requires nothing at all: mo medical diagnosis, no living as a woman, no hormones, nothing. A man can simply say that he is a woman and demand the same legal rights as a woman and to enter female only spaces. It is a charter for predators.
Worth also noting that even genuine trans people do not change sex and their natal sex remains relevant to health treatment eg male transwomen still need to be screened for prostate cancer I understand. They are also at higher risk if they catch Covid. That is one reason why accurate data collection is necessary.
Is it possible the Nunu is already rampant in Europe, and causing some of these surges? We also need to know THAT. And it would be quite nice if the answer is Yes, in a way, because if it is No, then that means you have to add Nu to an already toxic European brew of pre-Nunu plaguetime juju
People who are into stuff absolutely across the line (paedophilia, necrophilia etc) should be shamed to deter the odds on them grouping up with others and creating a support network for such behaviour, and to encourage them to seek help or just restrain themselves.
Shaming someone for being into S&M is daft (and counterproductive if they're into humiliation), but some things are unacceptable and pretending otherwise is damned silly.
Why is being homosexual more *interesting*?
Though clearly some knew
The point is that Savile's predilections were obviously common knowledge in certain informed circles long before the public revelations following his death.
Neither are going to happen though.
Handy to know as we go into a nine year lockdown
I'm not convinced that shame is an effective means of preventing people from doing bad things, anyway.
Jim'll Fix It was always a show my parents liked and thought I ought to like.
And then it turned out that those infections were asymptomatic, and had only been picked up by PCR tests.
In other words, an initial panicked report missed the fact that the vaccines had been completely effective.
(Now 16kg back down and counting).
*aka rape.
My Ubereats is already on the way. They might actually beat the 10 minute promise
And people wonder why the French aren’t happy.
I don't see why not. There were French border police at Waterloo International before Brexit, not sure if they are still there, but countries often cooperate policing shared borders
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJBNdCncsrE
I'll trot out my oft-said belief: 1% of people are evil 9% are wrong 'uns, 9% are good, and 1% are angels. The other 80% of us muddle along in the middle. Telling the 'evil' people in advance can be difficult.
The problem is when that 1% 'evil' are also clever. This means they possibly gravitate to any position of power - whether charities, care homes, politics, religion: anything that gives them power and control over others. If they cannot be in that position of power, then allying yourself with them is the next best thing: that way you get access and a potential protector.
From ordering my Japanese lunch - miso soup, chicken gyoza, sushi mix - to it arriving in my hand took 8 minutes. 8 minutes!!
In Edinburgh in the early C19 there was a huge demand for recently demised people for the medical fraternity to dissect. Some chaps called Burke and Hare couldn't be bothered to wait for people to die and then dig them up. They decided to short-circuit the process, murder people, and deliver the nice fresh corpses to the medics.
One lived in the same house as my g-g-grandfather ...
Fucking mental
All nonsense of course: anything signed by General De Gaul wouldn’t have got you very far in Vichy France.
But isn't this to take on responsibility arguably for a domestic policing task so different in a way.