Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Why this BoJo confidence wager is a good bet – politicalbetting.com

24

Comments

  • StockyStocky Posts: 8,610

    Off-topic FPT:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Farooq said:

    Killing bulls for fun in Spain and parts of France is pretty bizarre, to say the least, and pretty unbannable.

    Catalonia, the Balearics, and the Canaries have all moved against bullfighting in recent decades and I believe killing the bull is banned in all three.
    Whatever you think of La Corrida (I quite like it) it does not warp Spanish society, or cost it billions, the way the NHS costs Britain and gun law ravages America; so it's not a good equivalent
    It is very heavily subsidised, but I take your point. I have very mixed feelings on bullfighting. Objectively, it is profoundly cruel to torture an animal to death for fun. I don’t see how that is defensible. But then when you do see one man alone in a ring with no defence but a cape leading a ferocious and deadly wild animal through a series of perfect passes you can forget the cruelty and admire, even be moved by, the bravery and the skill.

    We agree. I expected to hate bullfighting. My mum took me to see one when I was about eight or nine, at a time when I had the normal childhood sentimentality about animals (I remember crying over a TV report on hare coursing, at roughly the same age). To my intense surprise, I loved it

    I've always loved it. I've actually researched it for the Gazette

    It probably is quite cruel but I find it hard to get that upset because I know the bulls lead fabulous lives up to those fifteen minutes of terror, certainly they lead fabulous lives compared to the billions of animals that die horrible deaths - after horrible lives -in factory farms

    Pigs in tiny boxes and chickens crushed together upset me way more than bullfights. I'm down to eating meat about once a week, I may abandon it entirely, or get really religious about where it comes from
    Despite having been working in the vegetarian / meat-free / plant-based world for a decade or so I have been occasionally flexitarian at best. A few times I have had an "eugh" reaction to what I am eating and have changed my diet but it doesn't stick.

    So as part of my mental health rebuild I need to think much more about what I eat, and drink, and calorie burn as I am too fat. So have opted for an "as much plant-based as possible" diet. Its not exclusive as that's too hard for one leap.

    But it has meant that I have to think about what I am proposing to eat. Which makes for positive choices which allows better control of fats / carbs / meat.
    Good meat (which I believe you have access to and can afford) is healthier than a mostly vegetarian diet. It's more nutrient dense, nutrients are assimilated more easily, it contains more protein and it's more satiating. (Good) fat is also considered a better energy source than carbs (which become glucose and result in less stable blood sugar levels, which in turn result in rises and falls in energy levels and potentially mood).

    If your goals are weight loss and mental wellbeing, you might want to look into a healthy keto diet combined with intermittent fasting. Dyor.
    Keto is the Atkins diet isn't it?
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 10,472
    edited May 25
    TOPPING said:

    Cyclefree said:

    FPT

    Rather more concerning that Gervais's comedy act (I understand he was using actual quotes of things said by TRA activists and if they do not like these being quoted back at them, they might reflect on why that might be) is a statement by a QC yesterday in the Bailey Employment Tribunal case.

    The cross examination was about a seminar about how to overcome the "cotton ceiling" ie how to persuade lesbians that they should have sex with transwomen who still had male bodies. The QC (from the Chambers which is being sued) stated -

    "You can persuade a lesbian that she might want to - that she could want to - have sex with a trans woman in a way that was not coercive."

    Unfortunately, this does not reflect the law - which you'd have thought a QC who does rape cases - would know. The ECHR has ruled that any behaviour which seeks to negate or override a lack of consent to sex may be deemed coercive and that includes "persuasion". In short, sexual autonomy requires consent to be fully and freely given not something you should be persuaded into, even if that persuasion is something less than violence.

    There is something abhorrent in the idea of seeking to persuade lesbians that they should have sex with people they are not sexually attracted to by definition. Indeed, there is something utterly vile in the idea that (a) women should not have boundaries (b) those boundaries should be breached if that is what is necessary to validate someone else's feelings and (c) if you choose to say no you are somehow being phobic or bigoted

    What part of "No means No" is hard to understand. I am old enough to remember when if you didn't want to have sex with a man they would accuse you of being a lesbian and if you were a lesbian men would tell you that all you needed was a good screw from them to sort it out. We are now seeing some revolting old wine in new bottles, sadly.

    Women - whether lesbians or straight - have no obligation to have sex with anyone and don't need to justify this either. Seminars to "persuade" them is the mentality of the rapist.

    Transgender people deserve consideration but the activist movement has got itself into a very dark place when it comes out with this sort of stuff and is doing genuine transgender people no good at all.

    Incidentally, the consultation period on the Scottish government's proposed GRA reforms has ended and the results are that just under 60% of the responses opposed the proposal. Will La Sturgeon listen?

    Yep. Its all very bitter and disappearing down all kinds of outrageous rabbit holes. Surely the arbiter of who anyone wants to have sex with is the person. Lets take this example lesbian woman. If she doesn't want to have sex with a trans woman who has a penis that isn't transphobic. Because she doesn't have to have sex with anyone in possession of a vagina on demand - she has choice. Why is this choice somehow not allowable?

    Cotton ceiling my arse. I am a bisexual man. Being bisexual doesn't mean that I have to have sex with any man or any woman or any transgender person that I don't want to. A sexuality label does not compel sex with anyone, so wtf is this seminar supposed to do? Compel people to have sex with people they aren't attracted to? This isn't a genitals thing, its a desire thing. And some people are more attractive than others. And besides which as a *married* bisexual man I'd have to sew them back on first if I went off shagging other people...
    It is almost impossible to articulate the opposition to such a bonkers concept. I don't even know what the premise is - that people should be persuaded to have sex with someone on the grounds of that person's membership of some group or other. Like you say as though there are formal rules on the issue with penalties issued for violation of required behaviour.

    Absolutely bizarre. I think I am going to have to go back to skipping all posts on trans issues as it is all so crazy.

    Where is @kinabalu? He is usually a sane voice on all of this and can put it into human for the rest of us to understand.
    The core of the idea is that someone's self-identity trumps physical reality. So if someone says there are a woman, then they're a woman.

    If lesbians generally decide that the physical reality of a potential partner's body is at least as important to them than someone's self-declared identity then that is a threat to the whole premise of self-ID.
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 9,864
    edited May 25

    Off-topic FPT:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Farooq said:

    Killing bulls for fun in Spain and parts of France is pretty bizarre, to say the least, and pretty unbannable.

    Catalonia, the Balearics, and the Canaries have all moved against bullfighting in recent decades and I believe killing the bull is banned in all three.
    Whatever you think of La Corrida (I quite like it) it does not warp Spanish society, or cost it billions, the way the NHS costs Britain and gun law ravages America; so it's not a good equivalent
    It is very heavily subsidised, but I take your point. I have very mixed feelings on bullfighting. Objectively, it is profoundly cruel to torture an animal to death for fun. I don’t see how that is defensible. But then when you do see one man alone in a ring with no defence but a cape leading a ferocious and deadly wild animal through a series of perfect passes you can forget the cruelty and admire, even be moved by, the bravery and the skill.

    We agree. I expected to hate bullfighting. My mum took me to see one when I was about eight or nine, at a time when I had the normal childhood sentimentality about animals (I remember crying over a TV report on hare coursing, at roughly the same age). To my intense surprise, I loved it

    I've always loved it. I've actually researched it for the Gazette

    It probably is quite cruel but I find it hard to get that upset because I know the bulls lead fabulous lives up to those fifteen minutes of terror, certainly they lead fabulous lives compared to the billions of animals that die horrible deaths - after horrible lives -in factory farms

    Pigs in tiny boxes and chickens crushed together upset me way more than bullfights. I'm down to eating meat about once a week, I may abandon it entirely, or get really religious about where it comes from
    Despite having been working in the vegetarian / meat-free / plant-based world for a decade or so I have been occasionally flexitarian at best. A few times I have had an "eugh" reaction to what I am eating and have changed my diet but it doesn't stick.

    So as part of my mental health rebuild I need to think much more about what I eat, and drink, and calorie burn as I am too fat. So have opted for an "as much plant-based as possible" diet. Its not exclusive as that's too hard for one leap.

    But it has meant that I have to think about what I am proposing to eat. Which makes for positive choices which allows better control of fats / carbs / meat.
    Good meat (which I believe you have access to and can afford) is healthier than a mostly vegetarian diet. It's more nutrient dense, nutrients are assimilated more easily, it contains more protein and it's more satiating. (Good) fat is also considered a better energy source than carbs (which become glucose and result in less stable blood sugar levels, which in turn result in rises and falls in energy levels and potentially mood).

    If your goals are weight loss and mental wellbeing, you might want to look into a healthy keto diet combined with intermittent fasting. Dyor.
    I have to plus one the advice on trying a healthy keto diet, which if you think the name keto is faddy can be more considered a low processed carb/sugar diet.

    Whenever I have tried the diet it has improved both my health and mood, but I find it difficult (like all diets) to stick to, but if I do, it works very well. As Luckyguy said, it is glucose that is the problem for me, carbs that are high in the glycaemic index (sugars, potatoes, white bread, rice etc) are satisfying for a short while but gets turned to glucose and inconsistent blood sugar levels. Dropping those leads to much more stable blood sugar levels and much less appetite and snacking.

    Keto sometimes gets a bad reputation as being all about the fat or eating as much bacon as you want etc, but that's not necessarily what it needs to be about. A good bit of advice I got if you're interested in looking into macronutrients is to work out the amount of protein you need, that is a minimum you need to have to be healthy. Keep carbs limited to between 20g (strict keto) to 50g (looser) per day, which is lots of healthy vegetables but not much potatoes etc. Fats then make up your 'leftover' calories that aren't protein and aren't carbs, if you want to lose weight then you can cut out some fat [albeit probably more still than a 'normal' diet] but don't cut out protein as your muscles need that.

    In this diet if you want plants, leafy plants (like spinach etc) are better for you than root vegetables in general. Avoid 'low fat' alternatives as they typically replace the fat with sugar which is worse for you.

    A chicken breast with healthy salad, cheese and full fat Caesar dressing but no croutons is a nice and easy, delicious and healthy meal on this diet. I'm sure there are plenty of plant-based options, but I'm not really an expert on plant-based proteins.

    As ever DYOR, but I hope that is useful.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,565
    For any of our more sheltered PB-ers, a quick guide to Pet Play

    "Puppies, kitties, and ponies: What do these things all have in common? If you’re a kinkster, then you probably know the answer. That’s right, they’re all part of pet play."

    https://www.dailydot.com/irl/pet-play/
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 8,250
    Cyclefree said:

    FPT

    Rather more concerning that Gervais's comedy act (I understand he was using actual quotes of things said by TRA activists and if they do not like these being quoted back at them, they might reflect on why that might be) is a statement by a QC yesterday in the Bailey Employment Tribunal case.

    The cross examination was about a seminar about how to overcome the "cotton ceiling" ie how to persuade lesbians that they should have sex with transwomen who still had male bodies. The QC (from the Chambers which is being sued) stated -

    "You can persuade a lesbian that she might want to - that she could want to - have sex with a trans woman in a way that was not coercive."

    Unfortunately, this does not reflect the law - which you'd have thought a QC who does rape cases - would know. The ECHR has ruled that any behaviour which seeks to negate or override a lack of consent to sex may be deemed coercive and that includes "persuasion". In short, sexual autonomy requires consent to be fully and freely given not something you should be persuaded into, even if that persuasion is something less than violence.

    There is something abhorrent in the idea of seeking to persuade lesbians that they should have sex with people they are not sexually attracted to by definition. Indeed, there is something utterly vile in the idea that (a) women should not have boundaries (b) those boundaries should be breached if that is what is necessary to validate someone else's feelings and (c) if you choose to say no you are somehow being phobic or bigoted

    What part of "No means No" is hard to understand. I am old enough to remember when if you didn't want to have sex with a man they would accuse you of being a lesbian and if you were a lesbian men would tell you that all you needed was a good screw from them to sort it out. We are now seeing some revolting old wine in new bottles, sadly.

    Women - whether lesbians or straight - have no obligation to have sex with anyone and don't need to justify this either. Seminars to "persuade" them is the mentality of the rapist.

    Transgender people deserve consideration but the activist movement has got itself into a very dark place when it comes out with this sort of stuff and is doing genuine transgender people no good at all.

    Incidentally, the consultation period on the Scottish government's proposed GRA reforms has ended and the results are that just under 60% of the responses opposed the proposal. Will La Sturgeon listen?

    Out of interest, what's the difference between 'persuasion' in this illegal sense and the general dynamic of 'chatting up'. With the latter aren't you trying to persuade someone to have sex with you who didn't want to have sex with you previously? There's presumably a line in the sand between the two, but where is it?
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 10,318
    Leon said:

    For any of our more sheltered PB-ers, a quick guide to Pet Play

    "Puppies, kitties, and ponies: What do these things all have in common? If you’re a kinkster, then you probably know the answer. That’s right, they’re all part of pet play."

    https://www.dailydot.com/irl/pet-play/

    People are so fucking weird.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 24,297

    Anyone commented on today's Yorkshire Post? Their P1 lead is how the Tories were told about their candidate then MP's actions and did nothing...

    https://twitter.com/LouHaigh/status/1529348786799230976/photo/1

    Thought that was common knowledge?
    It certainly was heavily featured on a Labour leaflet posted here a while back.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 55,032
    Simon Case is in one of the pictures in the report apparently
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 9,864
    Stocky said:

    Off-topic FPT:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Farooq said:

    Killing bulls for fun in Spain and parts of France is pretty bizarre, to say the least, and pretty unbannable.

    Catalonia, the Balearics, and the Canaries have all moved against bullfighting in recent decades and I believe killing the bull is banned in all three.
    Whatever you think of La Corrida (I quite like it) it does not warp Spanish society, or cost it billions, the way the NHS costs Britain and gun law ravages America; so it's not a good equivalent
    It is very heavily subsidised, but I take your point. I have very mixed feelings on bullfighting. Objectively, it is profoundly cruel to torture an animal to death for fun. I don’t see how that is defensible. But then when you do see one man alone in a ring with no defence but a cape leading a ferocious and deadly wild animal through a series of perfect passes you can forget the cruelty and admire, even be moved by, the bravery and the skill.

    We agree. I expected to hate bullfighting. My mum took me to see one when I was about eight or nine, at a time when I had the normal childhood sentimentality about animals (I remember crying over a TV report on hare coursing, at roughly the same age). To my intense surprise, I loved it

    I've always loved it. I've actually researched it for the Gazette

    It probably is quite cruel but I find it hard to get that upset because I know the bulls lead fabulous lives up to those fifteen minutes of terror, certainly they lead fabulous lives compared to the billions of animals that die horrible deaths - after horrible lives -in factory farms

    Pigs in tiny boxes and chickens crushed together upset me way more than bullfights. I'm down to eating meat about once a week, I may abandon it entirely, or get really religious about where it comes from
    Despite having been working in the vegetarian / meat-free / plant-based world for a decade or so I have been occasionally flexitarian at best. A few times I have had an "eugh" reaction to what I am eating and have changed my diet but it doesn't stick.

    So as part of my mental health rebuild I need to think much more about what I eat, and drink, and calorie burn as I am too fat. So have opted for an "as much plant-based as possible" diet. Its not exclusive as that's too hard for one leap.

    But it has meant that I have to think about what I am proposing to eat. Which makes for positive choices which allows better control of fats / carbs / meat.
    Good meat (which I believe you have access to and can afford) is healthier than a mostly vegetarian diet. It's more nutrient dense, nutrients are assimilated more easily, it contains more protein and it's more satiating. (Good) fat is also considered a better energy source than carbs (which become glucose and result in less stable blood sugar levels, which in turn result in rises and falls in energy levels and potentially mood).

    If your goals are weight loss and mental wellbeing, you might want to look into a healthy keto diet combined with intermittent fasting. Dyor.
    Keto is the Atkins diet isn't it?
    Similar to Atkins yes, but there are differences. Heck, depending upon who you ask who uses the term 'Keto' there'll be differences there too, so that shouldn't really be surprising.

    But yes like Atkins, it boils down to a belief that the problem is mainly carbs more than fats, but from what I've read Keto is a lot more concentrated on the impact on blood sugar levels, which makes it very useful for diabetics/prediabetics especially.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    What do we want?

    The Gray Report.

    When do we want it?
  • boulayboulay Posts: 1,819
    Leon said:

    For any of our more sheltered PB-ers, a quick guide to Pet Play

    "Puppies, kitties, and ponies: What do these things all have in common? If you’re a kinkster, then you probably know the answer. That’s right, they’re all part of pet play."

    https://www.dailydot.com/irl/pet-play/

    Imagine if some politician demonstrated pet play to a national tv audience. Nobody would take them seriously ever again.


  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 12,136
    Leon said:

    For any of our more sheltered PB-ers, a quick guide to Pet Play

    "Puppies, kitties, and ponies: What do these things all have in common? If you’re a kinkster, then you probably know the answer. That’s right, they’re all part of pet play."

    https://www.dailydot.com/irl/pet-play/

    Recommend the "incognito" option if you are going to look that up, or you might end up with some embarrassing "remarketing"
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 12,136
    boulay said:

    Leon said:

    For any of our more sheltered PB-ers, a quick guide to Pet Play

    "Puppies, kitties, and ponies: What do these things all have in common? If you’re a kinkster, then you probably know the answer. That’s right, they’re all part of pet play."

    https://www.dailydot.com/irl/pet-play/

    Imagine if some politician demonstrated pet play to a national tv audience. Nobody would take them seriously ever again.


    Did anyone take that twat seriously at any time before then?
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 27,575
    edited May 25

    Off-topic FPT:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Farooq said:

    Killing bulls for fun in Spain and parts of France is pretty bizarre, to say the least, and pretty unbannable.

    Catalonia, the Balearics, and the Canaries have all moved against bullfighting in recent decades and I believe killing the bull is banned in all three.
    Whatever you think of La Corrida (I quite like it) it does not warp Spanish society, or cost it billions, the way the NHS costs Britain and gun law ravages America; so it's not a good equivalent
    It is very heavily subsidised, but I take your point. I have very mixed feelings on bullfighting. Objectively, it is profoundly cruel to torture an animal to death for fun. I don’t see how that is defensible. But then when you do see one man alone in a ring with no defence but a cape leading a ferocious and deadly wild animal through a series of perfect passes you can forget the cruelty and admire, even be moved by, the bravery and the skill.

    We agree. I expected to hate bullfighting. My mum took me to see one when I was about eight or nine, at a time when I had the normal childhood sentimentality about animals (I remember crying over a TV report on hare coursing, at roughly the same age). To my intense surprise, I loved it

    I've always loved it. I've actually researched it for the Gazette

    It probably is quite cruel but I find it hard to get that upset because I know the bulls lead fabulous lives up to those fifteen minutes of terror, certainly they lead fabulous lives compared to the billions of animals that die horrible deaths - after horrible lives -in factory farms

    Pigs in tiny boxes and chickens crushed together upset me way more than bullfights. I'm down to eating meat about once a week, I may abandon it entirely, or get really religious about where it comes from
    Despite having been working in the vegetarian / meat-free / plant-based world for a decade or so I have been occasionally flexitarian at best. A few times I have had an "eugh" reaction to what I am eating and have changed my diet but it doesn't stick.

    So as part of my mental health rebuild I need to think much more about what I eat, and drink, and calorie burn as I am too fat. So have opted for an "as much plant-based as possible" diet. Its not exclusive as that's too hard for one leap.

    But it has meant that I have to think about what I am proposing to eat. Which makes for positive choices which allows better control of fats / carbs / meat.
    Good meat (which I believe you have access to and can afford) is healthier than a mostly vegetarian diet. It's more nutrient dense, nutrients are assimilated more easily, it contains more protein and it's more satiating. (Good) fat is also considered a better energy source than carbs (which become glucose and result in less stable blood sugar levels, which in turn result in rises and falls in energy levels and potentially mood).

    If your goals are weight loss and mental wellbeing, you might want to look into a healthy keto diet combined with intermittent fasting. Dyor.
    I have to plus one the advice on trying a healthy keto diet, which if you think the name keto is faddy can be more considered a low processed carb/sugar diet.

    Whenever I have tried the diet it has improved both my health and mood, but I find it difficult (like all diets) to stick to, but if I do, it works very well. As Luckyguy said, it is glucose that is the problem for me, carbs that are high in the glycaemic index (sugars, potatoes, white bread, rice etc) are satisfying for a short while but gets turned to glucose and inconsistent blood sugar levels. Dropping those leads to much more stable blood sugar levels and much less appetite and snacking.

    Keto sometimes gets a bad reputation as being all about the fat or eating as much bacon as you want etc, but that's not necessarily what it needs to be about. A good bit of advice I got if you're interested in looking into macronutrients is to work out the amount of protein you need, that is a minimum you need to have to be healthy. Keep carbs limited to between 20g (strict keto) to 50g (looser) per day, which is lots of healthy vegetables but not much potatoes etc. Fats then make up your 'leftover' calories that aren't protein and aren't carbs, if you want to lose weight then you can cut out some fat [albeit probably more still than a 'normal' diet] but don't cut out protein as your muscles need that.

    In this diet if you want plants, leafy plants (like spinach etc) are better for you than root vegetables in general. Avoid 'low fat' alternatives as they typically replace the fat with sugar which is worse for you.

    A chicken breast with healthy salad, cheese and full fat Caesar dressing but no croutons is a nice and easy, delicious and healthy meal on this diet. I'm sure there are plenty of plant-based options, but I'm not really an expert on plant-based proteins.

    As ever DYOR, but I hope that is useful.
    I have now lost 5 stone over the last 15 months as a result of a limited carb diet plus other healthy stuff. Not Keto but no more than 130g of carbs a day. Plus 5 miles walking every day. I have occasional times off for things like Christmas but whatever weight I put on then soon disappears when I get back on the low carb diet and I continue to lose at a steady pound a week.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,565

    Leon said:

    For any of our more sheltered PB-ers, a quick guide to Pet Play

    "Puppies, kitties, and ponies: What do these things all have in common? If you’re a kinkster, then you probably know the answer. That’s right, they’re all part of pet play."

    https://www.dailydot.com/irl/pet-play/

    People are so fucking weird.
    They are indeed. I have a theory that almost everyone is massively kinky, but only a minority admit it and/or explore it

    Pet play is seriously popular. I've met a couple of girls properly into it. And I understand why it can appeal (tho it's not my scene). It's another way of abandoning the self, and any self consciousness, which makes sex more enjoyable as you also jettison shame and embarrassment
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 81,243
    edited May 25
    TOPPING said:

    kle4 said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Leon said:

    THIS fpt should not get lost in the end-of-thread tailoff..

    @CarlottaVance

    "Words fail......

    Scholz insists to journalists that he’s “not as stupid as Kaiser Wilhelm II” to let Germany fall into a big war. He does not view Ukrainian victory as the goal and prefers a strategy of “active waiting” – cautiously participating until Putin says he has accomplished his war goals

    https://twitter.com/apmassaro3/status/1529372589382041605"

    The thread below is interesting. Germans are also outraged at Scholz. WTF is he on?

    WTF is he on?

    The German establishment is hooked on Russian bribes.
    The only difference between him and the rest of the west is that he admits the what the strategy is.

    The US, UK, etc. aren't giving Ukraine enough help to win. They could and would be doing a lot more if that were the goal. They are doing just enough to let Ukraine lose slowly and inflict maximum pain on Russia.
    You're an idiot on this subject, or pretending to be because you're in love with being edgy. You profess to believe (by implication) there is no difference between losing quickly and cheaply (for the winner) versus slowly and more costly. You pretend there's no difference between types of loss, such as if they had lost at the start and Kyiv had fallen versus if they lose all the Donbas. You seem to believe a loss is for all time, as if an aggressor might not win a battle but lose a war, or take a castle but take so many losses doing so it scuppers hopes of a wider campaign.

    We are not doing all Ukraine wants. We are holding back and that might mean Ukraine loses more territory. We have to be honest that we in the West are choosing not to do more and that Ukraine will suffer as a result. There no escaping that is true.

    Thst is not the same thing as the Scholz's of the world presenting as realists when their and your analysis is that of a 5 year old - being if you cannot win outright why even try. (Though in his case he clearly goes further as hes a Russian shill, which you are not)

    Your military knowledge is great. But your pretending to some 'realistic' seer of geopolitics is unpersuasive. Your disparagement of the 'Disney prince' as you've called Zekensky rather gives the game away that you're not being realistic, you're showing off.

    I think Ukraine probably will be unable to regain all the territory its lost since February. I think they may face no choice despite heroic effort and western support. Thats realistic/pessimistic. I'm no more a seer than you, but I'm also not some optimistic Ukrainian hype man.

    You just keep insisting all losses are equal. Why even fight if thats true?
    You need to take the emotion out of your posts on the subject. People will think it is either admirable (much like bull fighting) or virtue signalling.

    There is no pre-ordained end to this with the baddies losing and the goodies (us and whoever we determine, natch) winning. There is cold, hard, horrible war on the one hand, and realpolitik and pragmatism on the other.

    Many on PB berate Germany for not condemning their population to severe economic hardship. Fair enough, people are allowed to berate them thus but also need to understand the calculus of the German decision.

    Likewise the horror (to the PB warriors sitting tight in the UK) of contemplating a "negotiated settlement". People go off on one on PB about it but the debate is increasingly moving (on R4 this morning, interviewing Ukrainians, for example; in plenty of other thought pieces also) towards a "land for peace" scenario.

    Not for me to say yes or no or which line is drawn where but it is a wholly legitimate discussion to have.

    I continue to be bemused by the virulence that many on PB employ to condemn rational discussion of the situation in Ukraine if it doesn't involve stating that Ukraine is unequivocally winning and Russia similarly losing.
    On your last para I've made clear I dobt think either is the case. I've made clear land for peace is something that might end up happening.

    My emotion on this particular post is atypical because I find the pretence that pushing a pessimistic view is automatically realistic to be nonsense. He is just the worst offender by pretending, as an example, that most people uncritically accept Ukrainian estimates or that there are no scales of loss and that one is better than another (or Ukraine might think that). Unemotional takes are not always correct. There are cold logical arguments to make, but not all

    I'd like the optimistic for Ukraine situation to be true but I don't think it necessarily is. I think they might end up with a grubby deal and that may even disappoint gung ho allies.

    So I'm relatively confident I am attempting a balanced view. Not always, and balanced can still be wrong, but certainly not displaying the two extreme end positions you suggest.
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 12,136
    dixiedean said:

    Anyone commented on today's Yorkshire Post? Their P1 lead is how the Tories were told about their candidate then MP's actions and did nothing...

    https://twitter.com/LouHaigh/status/1529348786799230976/photo/1

    Thought that was common knowledge?
    It certainly was heavily featured on a Labour leaflet posted here a while back.
    Just clicked on that Yorkshire post link and saw the picture of Johnson. Can someone please tell me, looking at that picture, why anyone thought it appropriate to put such a complete twat into a position where he could hold the most important office of state in our land. Bozo apologists please inform us.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 30,018
    kle4 said:

    TOPPING said:

    kle4 said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Leon said:

    THIS fpt should not get lost in the end-of-thread tailoff..

    @CarlottaVance

    "Words fail......

    Scholz insists to journalists that he’s “not as stupid as Kaiser Wilhelm II” to let Germany fall into a big war. He does not view Ukrainian victory as the goal and prefers a strategy of “active waiting” – cautiously participating until Putin says he has accomplished his war goals

    https://twitter.com/apmassaro3/status/1529372589382041605"

    The thread below is interesting. Germans are also outraged at Scholz. WTF is he on?

    WTF is he on?

    The German establishment is hooked on Russian bribes.
    The only difference between him and the rest of the west is that he admits the what the strategy is.

    The US, UK, etc. aren't giving Ukraine enough help to win. They could and would be doing a lot more if that were the goal. They are doing just enough to let Ukraine lose slowly and inflict maximum pain on Russia.
    You're an idiot on this subject, or pretending to be because you're in love with being edgy. You profess to believe (by implication) there is no difference between losing quickly and cheaply (for the winner) versus slowly and more costly. You pretend there's no difference between types of loss, such as if they had lost at the start and Kyiv had fallen versus if they lose all the Donbas. You seem to believe a loss is for all time, as if an aggressor might not win a battle but lose a war, or take a castle but take so many losses doing so it scuppers hopes of a wider campaign.

    We are not doing all Ukraine wants. We are holding back and that might mean Ukraine loses more territory. We have to be honest that we in the West are choosing not to do more and that Ukraine will suffer as a result. There no escaping that is true.

    Thst is not the same thing as the Scholz's of the world presenting as realists when their and your analysis is that of a 5 year old - being if you cannot win outright why even try. (Though in his case he clearly goes further as hes a Russian shill, which you are not)

    Your military knowledge is great. But your pretending to some 'realistic' seer of geopolitics is unpersuasive. Your disparagement of the 'Disney prince' as you've called Zekensky rather gives the game away that you're not being realistic, you're showing off.

    I think Ukraine probably will be unable to regain all the territory its lost since February. I think they may face no choice despite heroic effort and western support. Thats realistic/pessimistic. I'm no more a seer than you, but I'm also not some optimistic Ukrainian hype man.

    You just keep insisting all losses are equal. Why even fight if thats true?
    You need to take the emotion out of your posts on the subject. People will think it is either admirable (much like bull fighting) or virtue signalling.

    There is no pre-ordained end to this with the baddies losing and the goodies (us and whoever we determine, natch) winning. There is cold, hard, horrible war on the one hand, and realpolitik and pragmatism on the other.

    Many on PB berate Germany for not condemning their population to severe economic hardship. Fair enough, people are allowed to berate them thus but also need to understand the calculus of the German decision.

    Likewise the horror (to the PB warriors sitting tight in the UK) of contemplating a "negotiated settlement". People go off on one on PB about it but the debate is increasingly moving (on R4 this morning, interviewing Ukrainians, for example; in plenty of other thought pieces also) towards a "land for peace" scenario.

    Not for me to say yes or no or which line is drawn where but it is a wholly legitimate discussion to have.

    I continue to be bemused by the virulence that many on PB employ to condemn rational discussion of the situation in Ukraine if it doesn't involve stating that Ukraine is unequivocally winning and Russia similarly losing.
    On your last para I've made clear I dobt think either is the case. I've made clear land for peace is something that might end up happening.

    My emotion on this particular post is because I find the pretence that pushing a pessimistic view is automatically realistic to be nonsense. He is just the worst offender by pretending, as an example, that most people uncritically accept Ukrainian estimates.

    I'd like the optimistic for Ukraine situation to be true but I don't think it necessarily is. I think they might end up with a grubby deal and that may even disappoint gung ho allies.

    So I'm relatively confident I am attempting a balanced view. Not always, and balanced can still be wrong, but certainly not displaying the two extreme end positions you suggest.
    Oh, they are going to end up with a grubby deal. No parade through Moscow....

    The question is how much of Ukraine they can pull back from the Russians.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 45,006

    TOPPING said:

    Cyclefree said:

    FPT

    Rather more concerning that Gervais's comedy act (I understand he was using actual quotes of things said by TRA activists and if they do not like these being quoted back at them, they might reflect on why that might be) is a statement by a QC yesterday in the Bailey Employment Tribunal case.

    The cross examination was about a seminar about how to overcome the "cotton ceiling" ie how to persuade lesbians that they should have sex with transwomen who still had male bodies. The QC (from the Chambers which is being sued) stated -

    "You can persuade a lesbian that she might want to - that she could want to - have sex with a trans woman in a way that was not coercive."

    Unfortunately, this does not reflect the law - which you'd have thought a QC who does rape cases - would know. The ECHR has ruled that any behaviour which seeks to negate or override a lack of consent to sex may be deemed coercive and that includes "persuasion". In short, sexual autonomy requires consent to be fully and freely given not something you should be persuaded into, even if that persuasion is something less than violence.

    There is something abhorrent in the idea of seeking to persuade lesbians that they should have sex with people they are not sexually attracted to by definition. Indeed, there is something utterly vile in the idea that (a) women should not have boundaries (b) those boundaries should be breached if that is what is necessary to validate someone else's feelings and (c) if you choose to say no you are somehow being phobic or bigoted

    What part of "No means No" is hard to understand. I am old enough to remember when if you didn't want to have sex with a man they would accuse you of being a lesbian and if you were a lesbian men would tell you that all you needed was a good screw from them to sort it out. We are now seeing some revolting old wine in new bottles, sadly.

    Women - whether lesbians or straight - have no obligation to have sex with anyone and don't need to justify this either. Seminars to "persuade" them is the mentality of the rapist.

    Transgender people deserve consideration but the activist movement has got itself into a very dark place when it comes out with this sort of stuff and is doing genuine transgender people no good at all.

    Incidentally, the consultation period on the Scottish government's proposed GRA reforms has ended and the results are that just under 60% of the responses opposed the proposal. Will La Sturgeon listen?

    Yep. Its all very bitter and disappearing down all kinds of outrageous rabbit holes. Surely the arbiter of who anyone wants to have sex with is the person. Lets take this example lesbian woman. If she doesn't want to have sex with a trans woman who has a penis that isn't transphobic. Because she doesn't have to have sex with anyone in possession of a vagina on demand - she has choice. Why is this choice somehow not allowable?

    Cotton ceiling my arse. I am a bisexual man. Being bisexual doesn't mean that I have to have sex with any man or any woman or any transgender person that I don't want to. A sexuality label does not compel sex with anyone, so wtf is this seminar supposed to do? Compel people to have sex with people they aren't attracted to? This isn't a genitals thing, its a desire thing. And some people are more attractive than others. And besides which as a *married* bisexual man I'd have to sew them back on first if I went off shagging other people...
    It is almost impossible to articulate the opposition to such a bonkers concept. I don't even know what the premise is - that people should be persuaded to have sex with someone on the grounds of that person's membership of some group or other. Like you say as though there are formal rules on the issue with penalties issued for violation of required behaviour.

    Absolutely bizarre. I think I am going to have to go back to skipping all posts on trans issues as it is all so crazy.

    Where is @kinabalu? He is usually a sane voice on all of this and can put it into human for the rest of us to understand.
    The core of the idea is that someone's self-identity trumps physical reality. So if someone says there are a woman, then they're a woman.

    If lesbians generally decide that the physical reality of a potential partner's body is at least as important to them than someone's self-declared identity then that is a threat to the whole premise of self-ID.
    That’s a non sequitur.
    Even if you believe in self-ID, why would that trump another individual’s right to do what they want with their own body ? It’s not a threat to the premise at all.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 23,700
    TOPPING said:

    kle4 said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Leon said:

    THIS fpt should not get lost in the end-of-thread tailoff..

    @CarlottaVance

    "Words fail......

    Scholz insists to journalists that he’s “not as stupid as Kaiser Wilhelm II” to let Germany fall into a big war. He does not view Ukrainian victory as the goal and prefers a strategy of “active waiting” – cautiously participating until Putin says he has accomplished his war goals

    https://twitter.com/apmassaro3/status/1529372589382041605"

    The thread below is interesting. Germans are also outraged at Scholz. WTF is he on?

    WTF is he on?

    The German establishment is hooked on Russian bribes.
    The only difference between him and the rest of the west is that he admits the what the strategy is.

    The US, UK, etc. aren't giving Ukraine enough help to win. They could and would be doing a lot more if that were the goal. They are doing just enough to let Ukraine lose slowly and inflict maximum pain on Russia.
    You're an idiot on this subject, or pretending to be because you're in love with being edgy. You profess to believe (by implication) there is no difference between losing quickly and cheaply (for the winner) versus slowly and more costly. You pretend there's no difference between types of loss, such as if they had lost at the start and Kyiv had fallen versus if they lose all the Donbas. You seem to believe a loss is for all time, as if an aggressor might not win a battle but lose a war, or take a castle but take so many losses doing so it scuppers hopes of a wider campaign.

    We are not doing all Ukraine wants. We are holding back and that might mean Ukraine loses more territory. We have to be honest that we in the West are choosing not to do more and that Ukraine will suffer as a result. There no escaping that is true.

    Thst is not the same thing as the Scholz's of the world presenting as realists when their and your analysis is that of a 5 year old - being if you cannot win outright why even try. (Though in his case he clearly goes further as hes a Russian shill, which you are not)

    Your military knowledge is great. But your pretending to some 'realistic' seer of geopolitics is unpersuasive. Your disparagement of the 'Disney prince' as you've called Zekensky rather gives the game away that you're not being realistic, you're showing off.

    I think Ukraine probably will be unable to regain all the territory its lost since February. I think they may face no choice despite heroic effort and western support. Thats realistic/pessimistic. I'm no more a seer than you, but I'm also not some optimistic Ukrainian hype man.

    You just keep insisting all losses are equal. Why even fight if thats true?
    You need to take the emotion out of your posts on the subject. People will think it is either admirable (much like bull fighting) or virtue signalling.

    There is no pre-ordained end to this with the baddies losing and the goodies (us and whoever we determine, natch) winning. There is cold, hard, horrible war on the one hand, and realpolitik and pragmatism on the other.

    Many on PB berate Germany for not condemning their population to severe economic hardship. Fair enough, people are allowed to berate them thus but also need to understand the calculus of the German decision.

    Likewise the horror (to the PB warriors sitting tight in the UK) of contemplating a "negotiated settlement". People go off on one on PB about it but the debate is increasingly moving (on R4 this morning, interviewing Ukrainians, for example; in plenty of other thought pieces also) towards a "land for peace" scenario.

    Not for me to say yes or no or which line is drawn where but it is a wholly legitimate discussion to have.

    I continue to be bemused by the virulence that many on PB employ to condemn rational discussion of the situation in Ukraine if it doesn't involve stating that Ukraine is unequivocally winning and Russia similarly losing.
    BiB - I certainly wouldn't criticise the Germans for not doing more sooner, but I will criticise their political elites who - and this, I admit, is just a hunch - were (are?) secretly hoping for a quick Russian victory, after which everything goes back to the way it was.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 41,870
    kle4 said:

    TOPPING said:

    kle4 said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Leon said:

    THIS fpt should not get lost in the end-of-thread tailoff..

    @CarlottaVance

    "Words fail......

    Scholz insists to journalists that he’s “not as stupid as Kaiser Wilhelm II” to let Germany fall into a big war. He does not view Ukrainian victory as the goal and prefers a strategy of “active waiting” – cautiously participating until Putin says he has accomplished his war goals

    https://twitter.com/apmassaro3/status/1529372589382041605"

    The thread below is interesting. Germans are also outraged at Scholz. WTF is he on?

    WTF is he on?

    The German establishment is hooked on Russian bribes.
    The only difference between him and the rest of the west is that he admits the what the strategy is.

    The US, UK, etc. aren't giving Ukraine enough help to win. They could and would be doing a lot more if that were the goal. They are doing just enough to let Ukraine lose slowly and inflict maximum pain on Russia.
    You're an idiot on this subject, or pretending to be because you're in love with being edgy. You profess to believe (by implication) there is no difference between losing quickly and cheaply (for the winner) versus slowly and more costly. You pretend there's no difference between types of loss, such as if they had lost at the start and Kyiv had fallen versus if they lose all the Donbas. You seem to believe a loss is for all time, as if an aggressor might not win a battle but lose a war, or take a castle but take so many losses doing so it scuppers hopes of a wider campaign.

    We are not doing all Ukraine wants. We are holding back and that might mean Ukraine loses more territory. We have to be honest that we in the West are choosing not to do more and that Ukraine will suffer as a result. There no escaping that is true.

    Thst is not the same thing as the Scholz's of the world presenting as realists when their and your analysis is that of a 5 year old - being if you cannot win outright why even try. (Though in his case he clearly goes further as hes a Russian shill, which you are not)

    Your military knowledge is great. But your pretending to some 'realistic' seer of geopolitics is unpersuasive. Your disparagement of the 'Disney prince' as you've called Zekensky rather gives the game away that you're not being realistic, you're showing off.

    I think Ukraine probably will be unable to regain all the territory its lost since February. I think they may face no choice despite heroic effort and western support. Thats realistic/pessimistic. I'm no more a seer than you, but I'm also not some optimistic Ukrainian hype man.

    You just keep insisting all losses are equal. Why even fight if thats true?
    You need to take the emotion out of your posts on the subject. People will think it is either admirable (much like bull fighting) or virtue signalling.

    There is no pre-ordained end to this with the baddies losing and the goodies (us and whoever we determine, natch) winning. There is cold, hard, horrible war on the one hand, and realpolitik and pragmatism on the other.

    Many on PB berate Germany for not condemning their population to severe economic hardship. Fair enough, people are allowed to berate them thus but also need to understand the calculus of the German decision.

    Likewise the horror (to the PB warriors sitting tight in the UK) of contemplating a "negotiated settlement". People go off on one on PB about it but the debate is increasingly moving (on R4 this morning, interviewing Ukrainians, for example; in plenty of other thought pieces also) towards a "land for peace" scenario.

    Not for me to say yes or no or which line is drawn where but it is a wholly legitimate discussion to have.

    I continue to be bemused by the virulence that many on PB employ to condemn rational discussion of the situation in Ukraine if it doesn't involve stating that Ukraine is unequivocally winning and Russia similarly losing.
    On your last para I've made clear I dobt think either is the case. I've made clear land for peace is something that might end up happening.

    My emotion on this particular post is because I find the pretence that pushing a pessimistic view is automatically realistic to be nonsense. He is just the worst offender by pretending, as an example, that most people uncritically accept Ukrainian estimates or that there are no scales of loss and that one is better than another (or Ukraine might think that)

    I'd like the optimistic for Ukraine situation to be true but I don't think it necessarily is. I think they might end up with a grubby deal and that may even disappoint gung ho allies.

    So I'm relatively confident I am attempting a balanced view. Not always, and balanced can still be wrong, but certainly not displaying the two extreme end positions you suggest.
    Ask anyone Ukranian, about the idea that they might accept peace in exchange for land. Stand well back when you do.
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 9,864

    dixiedean said:

    Anyone commented on today's Yorkshire Post? Their P1 lead is how the Tories were told about their candidate then MP's actions and did nothing...

    https://twitter.com/LouHaigh/status/1529348786799230976/photo/1

    Thought that was common knowledge?
    It certainly was heavily featured on a Labour leaflet posted here a while back.
    Just clicked on that Yorkshire post link and saw the picture of Johnson. Can someone please tell me, looking at that picture, why anyone thought it appropriate to put such a complete twat into a position where he could hold the most important office of state in our land. Bozo apologists please inform us.
    Because a complete twat could get stuff done and even a complete twat was better than his predecessor or opposite number. Because the only person running against the complete twat in the leadership race had no solution to get us out of the Article 50 quagmire, but the complete twat did.

    Sometimes, times call for a complete twat. For a limited time.

    That's not a reason to keep the complete twat now, but it was a good reason to get him there in the first place over all alternatives on offer.

    Perhaps we should be asking ourselves how we ended up in a position where even a complete twat stood head and shoulders above all alternatives?
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 27,917

    Leon said:

    For any of our more sheltered PB-ers, a quick guide to Pet Play

    "Puppies, kitties, and ponies: What do these things all have in common? If you’re a kinkster, then you probably know the answer. That’s right, they’re all part of pet play."

    https://www.dailydot.com/irl/pet-play/

    Recommend the "incognito" option if you are going to look that up, or you might end up with some embarrassing "remarketing"
    You have been getting special offers for Whiskas, PAL and Winalot?
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 24,297

    dixiedean said:

    Anyone commented on today's Yorkshire Post? Their P1 lead is how the Tories were told about their candidate then MP's actions and did nothing...

    https://twitter.com/LouHaigh/status/1529348786799230976/photo/1

    Thought that was common knowledge?
    It certainly was heavily featured on a Labour leaflet posted here a while back.
    Just clicked on that Yorkshire post link and saw the picture of Johnson. Can someone please tell me, looking at that picture, why anyone thought it appropriate to put such a complete twat into a position where he could hold the most important office of state in our land. Bozo apologists please inform us.
    I certainly is an evocative picture.
    Portrait photography capturing a side not often seen in public.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 72,709
    edited May 25
    Andy_JS said:

    25% of votes still to be counted in Australia.

    https://pollbludger.net/fed2022/Results/

    Unclear as to whether Labor has a majority.

    They need 1 of Brisbane (Very tight with Greens as to who gets to TPP and wins) (Greens 60% maybe ?)
    Deakin (40.7% chance)
    Gilmore (27.8%)
    Lyons (56.2% chance)

    1-(.722*.438*.593*.4)

    So their chance of a majority is about 92%.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 30,018
    Sandpit said:

    kle4 said:

    TOPPING said:

    kle4 said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Leon said:

    THIS fpt should not get lost in the end-of-thread tailoff..

    @CarlottaVance

    "Words fail......

    Scholz insists to journalists that he’s “not as stupid as Kaiser Wilhelm II” to let Germany fall into a big war. He does not view Ukrainian victory as the goal and prefers a strategy of “active waiting” – cautiously participating until Putin says he has accomplished his war goals

    https://twitter.com/apmassaro3/status/1529372589382041605"

    The thread below is interesting. Germans are also outraged at Scholz. WTF is he on?

    WTF is he on?

    The German establishment is hooked on Russian bribes.
    The only difference between him and the rest of the west is that he admits the what the strategy is.

    The US, UK, etc. aren't giving Ukraine enough help to win. They could and would be doing a lot more if that were the goal. They are doing just enough to let Ukraine lose slowly and inflict maximum pain on Russia.
    You're an idiot on this subject, or pretending to be because you're in love with being edgy. You profess to believe (by implication) there is no difference between losing quickly and cheaply (for the winner) versus slowly and more costly. You pretend there's no difference between types of loss, such as if they had lost at the start and Kyiv had fallen versus if they lose all the Donbas. You seem to believe a loss is for all time, as if an aggressor might not win a battle but lose a war, or take a castle but take so many losses doing so it scuppers hopes of a wider campaign.

    We are not doing all Ukraine wants. We are holding back and that might mean Ukraine loses more territory. We have to be honest that we in the West are choosing not to do more and that Ukraine will suffer as a result. There no escaping that is true.

    Thst is not the same thing as the Scholz's of the world presenting as realists when their and your analysis is that of a 5 year old - being if you cannot win outright why even try. (Though in his case he clearly goes further as hes a Russian shill, which you are not)

    Your military knowledge is great. But your pretending to some 'realistic' seer of geopolitics is unpersuasive. Your disparagement of the 'Disney prince' as you've called Zekensky rather gives the game away that you're not being realistic, you're showing off.

    I think Ukraine probably will be unable to regain all the territory its lost since February. I think they may face no choice despite heroic effort and western support. Thats realistic/pessimistic. I'm no more a seer than you, but I'm also not some optimistic Ukrainian hype man.

    You just keep insisting all losses are equal. Why even fight if thats true?
    You need to take the emotion out of your posts on the subject. People will think it is either admirable (much like bull fighting) or virtue signalling.

    There is no pre-ordained end to this with the baddies losing and the goodies (us and whoever we determine, natch) winning. There is cold, hard, horrible war on the one hand, and realpolitik and pragmatism on the other.

    Many on PB berate Germany for not condemning their population to severe economic hardship. Fair enough, people are allowed to berate them thus but also need to understand the calculus of the German decision.

    Likewise the horror (to the PB warriors sitting tight in the UK) of contemplating a "negotiated settlement". People go off on one on PB about it but the debate is increasingly moving (on R4 this morning, interviewing Ukrainians, for example; in plenty of other thought pieces also) towards a "land for peace" scenario.

    Not for me to say yes or no or which line is drawn where but it is a wholly legitimate discussion to have.

    I continue to be bemused by the virulence that many on PB employ to condemn rational discussion of the situation in Ukraine if it doesn't involve stating that Ukraine is unequivocally winning and Russia similarly losing.
    On your last para I've made clear I dobt think either is the case. I've made clear land for peace is something that might end up happening.

    My emotion on this particular post is because I find the pretence that pushing a pessimistic view is automatically realistic to be nonsense. He is just the worst offender by pretending, as an example, that most people uncritically accept Ukrainian estimates or that there are no scales of loss and that one is better than another (or Ukraine might think that)

    I'd like the optimistic for Ukraine situation to be true but I don't think it necessarily is. I think they might end up with a grubby deal and that may even disappoint gung ho allies.

    So I'm relatively confident I am attempting a balanced view. Not always, and balanced can still be wrong, but certainly not displaying the two extreme end positions you suggest.
    Ask anyone Ukranian, about the idea that they might accept peace in exchange for land. Stand well back when you do.
    Ukraine is a Second World nation - they don't have moral agency of their own, and need to be told what to do by Proper People.
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 3,859
    edited May 25

    dixiedean said:

    Anyone commented on today's Yorkshire Post? Their P1 lead is how the Tories were told about their candidate then MP's actions and did nothing...

    https://twitter.com/LouHaigh/status/1529348786799230976/photo/1

    Thought that was common knowledge?
    It certainly was heavily featured on a Labour leaflet posted here a while back.
    Just clicked on that Yorkshire post link and saw the picture of Johnson. Can someone please tell me, looking at that picture, why anyone thought it appropriate to put such a complete twat into a position where he could hold the most important office of state in our land. Bozo apologists please inform us.
    Because a complete twat could get stuff done ?
    Actually we had a perfectly workable Brexit deal which would have kept us in a trading zone with the EU and would have protected the United Kingdom, something you don't care about. It was what is called a working compromise, and it worked.

    It's only because of complete twats like you that it wasn't passed.

    You have helped ruin this nation and you have no right to be called 'British'.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 10,421
    dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    Anyone commented on today's Yorkshire Post? Their P1 lead is how the Tories were told about their candidate then MP's actions and did nothing...

    https://twitter.com/LouHaigh/status/1529348786799230976/photo/1

    Thought that was common knowledge?
    It certainly was heavily featured on a Labour leaflet posted here a while back.
    Just clicked on that Yorkshire post link and saw the picture of Johnson. Can someone please tell me, looking at that picture, why anyone thought it appropriate to put such a complete twat into a position where he could hold the most important office of state in our land. Bozo apologists please inform us.
    I certainly is an evocative picture.
    Portrait photography capturing a side not often seen in public.
    He looks like one of those fat blokes who think they are nails but will gas out about 60 seconds into a scrap.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 27,917
    Meanwhile in the real world, Martin Lewis's postbag has changed, marketly for the worse. Some very interesting stuff in this interview:

    https://www.theguardian.com/money/2022/may/25/im-begging-the-government-to-listen-martin-lewis-on-getting-political-mental-health-and-the-cost-of-living-crisis

    'He rattles off all these grotesquely complicated modern bureaucracies – how the form for universal credit is too complicated for some people to fill out, yet the paperwork you have to do to assign someone else to do it for you is more complicated still. And he’s in no doubt about the gravity of the situation: “These stats are a couple of years out of date, but debt is an absolute monster. It’s debilitating. Four hundred thousand people consider taking their own lives each year because of financial issues, and 100,000 attempt it.”'
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 81,243
    edited May 25
    kle4 said:

    TOPPING said:

    kle4 said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Leon said:

    THIS fpt should not get lost in the end-of-thread tailoff..

    @CarlottaVance

    "Words fail......

    Scholz insists to journalists that he’s “not as stupid as Kaiser Wilhelm II” to let Germany fall into a big war. He does not view Ukrainian victory as the goal and prefers a strategy of “active waiting” – cautiously participating until Putin says he has accomplished his war goals

    https://twitter.com/apmassaro3/status/1529372589382041605"

    The thread below is interesting. Germans are also outraged at Scholz. WTF is he on?

    WTF is he on?

    The German establishment is hooked on Russian bribes.
    The only difference between him and the rest of the west is that he admits the what the strategy is.

    The US, UK, etc. aren't giving Ukraine enough help to win. They could and would be doing a lot more if that were the goal. They are doing just enough to let Ukraine lose slowly and inflict maximum pain on Russia.
    You're an idiot on this subject, or pretending to be because you're in love with being edgy. You profess to believe (by implication) there is no difference between losing quickly and cheaply (for the winner) versus slowly and more costly. You pretend there's no difference between types of loss, such as if they had lost at the start and Kyiv had fallen versus if they lose all the Donbas. You seem to believe a loss is for all time, as if an aggressor might not win a battle but lose a war, or take a castle but take so many losses doing so it scuppers hopes of a wider campaign.

    We are not doing all Ukraine wants. We are holding back and that might mean Ukraine loses more territory. We have to be honest that we in the West are choosing not to do more and that Ukraine will suffer as a result. There no escaping that is true.

    Thst is not the same thing as the Scholz's of the world presenting as realists when their and your analysis is that of a 5 year old - being if you cannot win outright why even try. (Though in his case he clearly goes further as hes a Russian shill, which you are not)

    Your military knowledge is great. But your pretending to some 'realistic' seer of geopolitics is unpersuasive. Your disparagement of the 'Disney prince' as you've called Zekensky rather gives the game away that you're not being realistic, you're showing off.

    I think Ukraine probably will be unable to regain all the territory its lost since February. I think they may face no choice despite heroic effort and western support. Thats realistic/pessimistic. I'm no more a seer than you, but I'm also not some optimistic Ukrainian hype man.

    You just keep insisting all losses are equal. Why even fight if thats true?
    You need to take the emotion out of your posts on the subject. People will think it is either admirable (much like bull fighting) or virtue signalling.

    There is no pre-ordained end to this with the baddies losing and the goodies (us and whoever we determine, natch) winning. There is cold, hard, horrible war on the one hand, and realpolitik and pragmatism on the other.

    Many on PB berate Germany for not condemning their population to severe economic hardship. Fair enough, people are allowed to berate them thus but also need to understand the calculus of the German decision.

    Likewise the horror (to the PB warriors sitting tight in the UK) of contemplating a "negotiated settlement". People go off on one on PB about it but the debate is increasingly moving (on R4 this morning, interviewing Ukrainians, for example; in plenty of other thought pieces also) towards a "land for peace" scenario.

    Not for me to say yes or no or which line is drawn where but it is a wholly legitimate discussion to have.

    I continue to be bemused by the virulence that many on PB employ to condemn rational discussion of the situation in Ukraine if it doesn't involve stating that Ukraine is unequivocally winning and Russia similarly losing.
    On your last para I've made clear I dobt think either is the case. I've made clear land for peace is something that might end up happening.

    My emotion on this particular post is atypical because I find the pretence that pushing a pessimistic view is automatically realistic to be nonsense. He is just the worst offender by pretending, as an example, that most people uncritically accept Ukrainian estimates or that there are no scales of loss and that one is better than another (or Ukraine might think that). Unemotional takes are not always correct. There are cold logical arguments to make, but not all

    I'd like the optimistic for Ukraine situation to be true but I don't think it necessarily is. I think they might end up with a grubby deal and that may even disappoint gung ho allies.

    So I'm relatively confident I am attempting a balanced view. Not always, and balanced can still be wrong, but certainly not displaying the two extreme end positions you suggest.
    Theres also the case that some people like to be provocative, which is fair enough, and provocative styles lead to more emotive responses by design. The style, be it emotional or not, doesnt speak to the point of course.
  • novanova Posts: 468
    Leon said:

    TOPPING said:

    Cyclefree said:

    FPT

    Rather more concerning that Gervais's comedy act (I understand he was using actual quotes of things said by TRA activists and if they do not like these being quoted back at them, they might reflect on why that might be) is a statement by a QC yesterday in the Bailey Employment Tribunal case.

    The cross examination was about a seminar about how to overcome the "cotton ceiling" ie how to persuade lesbians that they should have sex with transwomen who still had male bodies. The QC (from the Chambers which is being sued) stated -

    "You can persuade a lesbian that she might want to - that she could want to - have sex with a trans woman in a way that was not coercive."

    Unfortunately, this does not reflect the law - which you'd have thought a QC who does rape cases - would know. The ECHR has ruled that any behaviour which seeks to negate or override a lack of consent to sex may be deemed coercive and that includes "persuasion". In short, sexual autonomy requires consent to be fully and freely given not something you should be persuaded into, even if that persuasion is something less than violence.

    There is something abhorrent in the idea of seeking to persuade lesbians that they should have sex with people they are not sexually attracted to by definition. Indeed, there is something utterly vile in the idea that (a) women should not have boundaries (b) those boundaries should be breached if that is what is necessary to validate someone else's feelings and (c) if you choose to say no you are somehow being phobic or bigoted

    What part of "No means No" is hard to understand. I am old enough to remember when if you didn't want to have sex with a man they would accuse you of being a lesbian and if you were a lesbian men would tell you that all you needed was a good screw from them to sort it out. We are now seeing some revolting old wine in new bottles, sadly.

    Women - whether lesbians or straight - have no obligation to have sex with anyone and don't need to justify this either. Seminars to "persuade" them is the mentality of the rapist.

    Transgender people deserve consideration but the activist movement has got itself into a very dark place when it comes out with this sort of stuff and is doing genuine transgender people no good at all.

    Incidentally, the consultation period on the Scottish government's proposed GRA reforms has ended and the results are that just under 60% of the responses opposed the proposal. Will La Sturgeon listen?

    Yep. Its all very bitter and disappearing down all kinds of outrageous rabbit holes. Surely the arbiter of who anyone wants to have sex with is the person. Lets take this example lesbian woman. If she doesn't want to have sex with a trans woman who has a penis that isn't transphobic. Because she doesn't have to have sex with anyone in possession of a vagina on demand - she has choice. Why is this choice somehow not allowable?

    Cotton ceiling my arse. I am a bisexual man. Being bisexual doesn't mean that I have to have sex with any man or any woman or any transgender person that I don't want to. A sexuality label does not compel sex with anyone, so wtf is this seminar supposed to do? Compel people to have sex with people they aren't attracted to? This isn't a genitals thing, its a desire thing. And some people are more attractive than others. And besides which as a *married* bisexual man I'd have to sew them back on first if I went off shagging other people...
    It is almost impossible to articulate the opposition to such a bonkers concept. I don't even know what the premise is - that people should be persuaded to have sex with someone on the grounds of that person's membership of some group or other. Like you say as though there are formal rules on the issue with penalties issued for violation of required behaviour.

    Absolutely bizarre. I think I am going to have to go back to skipping all posts on trans issues as it is all so crazy.

    Where is @kinabalu? He is usually a sane voice on all of this and can put it into human for the rest of us to understand.
    There's a similar move to get people to drop their sexual preferences in skin colour. ie white men MUST date black women to show they are non-racist, and if you - a white, or Japanese or Jewish woman (ie not oppressed) - exclusively date white men then you too are racist

    What a ridiculous mess
    One major problem with all this debate is that the extreme position gets portrayed as the norm.

    To take your example - asking people to consider why they wouldn't consider dating people of a particular race is not exactly controversial. The vast majority of even the most woke individuals would be happy with an answer based on personal preference, and as with any prejudice, considering our own motivations is vital to being a mature member of society. Many of us will see how attitudes towards sexuality have changed dramatically over our life times, and in most cases how positive that has been.

    Pressurising someone to date/have sex with specific people and calling them racist if they don't is extreme. Now we have social media, if you want to find people who believe that, you can very easily. You could even bang out a long article for the Daily Mail, with dozens of quotes, and you might even find the odd "organisation" that can be used to back up your story.

    However, it's still very much a fringe view, just as it is with trans rights. Most trans people will want society to be more accepting of them, and to at least consider whether their views are based on prejudice, but beyond that would find the idea of pressure abhorrent. For me, Ricky Gervais, and many on here are guilty of focusing on the extreme views, and tarring all trans people with the same brush.
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 12,136

    dixiedean said:

    Anyone commented on today's Yorkshire Post? Their P1 lead is how the Tories were told about their candidate then MP's actions and did nothing...

    https://twitter.com/LouHaigh/status/1529348786799230976/photo/1

    Thought that was common knowledge?
    It certainly was heavily featured on a Labour leaflet posted here a while back.
    Just clicked on that Yorkshire post link and saw the picture of Johnson. Can someone please tell me, looking at that picture, why anyone thought it appropriate to put such a complete twat into a position where he could hold the most important office of state in our land. Bozo apologists please inform us.
    Because a complete twat could get stuff done and even a complete twat was better than his predecessor or opposite number. Because the only person running against the complete twat in the leadership race had no solution to get us out of the Article 50 quagmire, but the complete twat did.

    Sometimes, times call for a complete twat. For a limited time.

    That's not a reason to keep the complete twat now, but it was a good reason to get him there in the first place over all alternatives on offer.

    Perhaps we should be asking ourselves how we ended up in a position where even a complete twat stood head and shoulders above all alternatives?
    Ah, the apologist in chief. The reality was that he got something done that you are obsessed with. A thing that was totally divisive and pointless and has been a car crash from beginning to end.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 6,547
    Leon said:

    This poll showing NO on 55 and YES on 45 must be quite intensely disappointing for Nats


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/nicola-sturgeon-fails-to-boost-independence-support-during-record-reign-g38lr3l6g


    It is now eight years since indyref. In that time we have had endless political turmoil, the epochal shift of Brexit, a global plague, and now a European war, you couldn't ask for more game-changing events which might shift voters. Also, eight years have elapsed, time for all those ancient NO voters to die off, and young YES voters to accede to their inevitable majority, as we were constantly promised

    Hasn't happened. If anything NO is rising. And the figures for Who actually wants a referendum are even worse. Only 28% want one in 2023, as Sturgeon is promising her hardcore, and 59% oppose this, and the stats on "in the next five years" show equally divided opinion, which is moving towards "Let's not have one"

    The only conclusion is that nothing - black swans aside - is going to shift Scottish public opinion fundamentally towards YES in the short-to-medium term, and therefore that there isn't going to be a vote in that time (no way any SNP leader will call a referendum they are likely to lose, as that kills the party for 30 years)

    This has quite serious implications for Scottish politics, and thus UK politics. It is now likely that Sturgeon will retire without ever having called her 2nd vote. That might be the moment when Scottish Labour finally make a revival (yes yes, this has been often predicted without ever happening). At that point, the balance of power down in London shifts, dramatically

    Yes. It's perfectly possible that Scotland becomes an unattractive place for business of many sorts because if you are EU oriented Scotland is not in it, and if you are England and Wales oriented (biggest market in Scotland) there is an outside chance that Ref2 will make the border at Berwick and Gretna nearly as exciting as that between Poland and Belarus.

    But the only way for unionists to get anywhere in Scotland is: destroy the SNP (won't happen); unite the unionist vote under a single banner (won't happen); or something else I can't think of.

    As it suits the SNP and the voters to have tons of politics jobs for the boys and girls both in Edinburgh and London, tons of subsidy from English money, and power without much responsibility I can't see this hijacking ending soon.

  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 27,917
    edited May 25

    The irony of Beth Rigby just saying on Sky, we followed the rules and the PM didn't

    Did she really say that or did she mean we as in the sence of the general public?
    [edit: memory at fault, apologies: she got suspended by her employer]
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 9,864
    edited May 25
    Heathener said:

    dixiedean said:

    Anyone commented on today's Yorkshire Post? Their P1 lead is how the Tories were told about their candidate then MP's actions and did nothing...

    https://twitter.com/LouHaigh/status/1529348786799230976/photo/1

    Thought that was common knowledge?
    It certainly was heavily featured on a Labour leaflet posted here a while back.
    Just clicked on that Yorkshire post link and saw the picture of Johnson. Can someone please tell me, looking at that picture, why anyone thought it appropriate to put such a complete twat into a position where he could hold the most important office of state in our land. Bozo apologists please inform us.
    Because a complete twat could get stuff done ?
    Actually we had a perfectly workable Brexit deal which would have kept us in a trading zone with the EU and would have protected the United Kingdom, something you don't care about. It was what is called a working compromise, and it worked.

    It's only because of complete twats like you that it wasn't passed.

    You have helped ruin this nation and you have no right to be called 'British'.
    May's deal would have kept us in a trading zone that I voted to Leave! I didn't want to stay in the trading zone, and I got what I wanted.

    The fact May's atrocious deal was rejected is not only because of twats like me who got what we wanted. Only a tiny minority of MPs shared my view that May's deal was unacceptable and that a cleaner Brexit would be far better.

    Even fewer MPs shared my view that Remain would have been better than May's Brexit deal, since at least if we Remained we'd have MEPs elected to have a say over the laws that would affect us if we were trapped in the Single Market and Trading Zone that we had voted to Leave.

    The reason May's deal was comprehensively rejected three times was because it was unacceptable across the House as it was roundly a terrible deal, not because it was a good one but spiked by hardline Leavers alone. Clean Brexiteers didn't have the numbers to get the Clean Brexit we got alone, we only managed to get what we wanted thanks to being aided and abetted by useful idiots across Parliament.

    PS I don't call myself British. Is that a Union Flag in my avatar?
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 30,018
    nova said:

    Leon said:

    TOPPING said:

    Cyclefree said:

    FPT

    Rather more concerning that Gervais's comedy act (I understand he was using actual quotes of things said by TRA activists and if they do not like these being quoted back at them, they might reflect on why that might be) is a statement by a QC yesterday in the Bailey Employment Tribunal case.

    The cross examination was about a seminar about how to overcome the "cotton ceiling" ie how to persuade lesbians that they should have sex with transwomen who still had male bodies. The QC (from the Chambers which is being sued) stated -

    "You can persuade a lesbian that she might want to - that she could want to - have sex with a trans woman in a way that was not coercive."

    Unfortunately, this does not reflect the law - which you'd have thought a QC who does rape cases - would know. The ECHR has ruled that any behaviour which seeks to negate or override a lack of consent to sex may be deemed coercive and that includes "persuasion". In short, sexual autonomy requires consent to be fully and freely given not something you should be persuaded into, even if that persuasion is something less than violence.

    There is something abhorrent in the idea of seeking to persuade lesbians that they should have sex with people they are not sexually attracted to by definition. Indeed, there is something utterly vile in the idea that (a) women should not have boundaries (b) those boundaries should be breached if that is what is necessary to validate someone else's feelings and (c) if you choose to say no you are somehow being phobic or bigoted

    What part of "No means No" is hard to understand. I am old enough to remember when if you didn't want to have sex with a man they would accuse you of being a lesbian and if you were a lesbian men would tell you that all you needed was a good screw from them to sort it out. We are now seeing some revolting old wine in new bottles, sadly.

    Women - whether lesbians or straight - have no obligation to have sex with anyone and don't need to justify this either. Seminars to "persuade" them is the mentality of the rapist.

    Transgender people deserve consideration but the activist movement has got itself into a very dark place when it comes out with this sort of stuff and is doing genuine transgender people no good at all.

    Incidentally, the consultation period on the Scottish government's proposed GRA reforms has ended and the results are that just under 60% of the responses opposed the proposal. Will La Sturgeon listen?

    Yep. Its all very bitter and disappearing down all kinds of outrageous rabbit holes. Surely the arbiter of who anyone wants to have sex with is the person. Lets take this example lesbian woman. If she doesn't want to have sex with a trans woman who has a penis that isn't transphobic. Because she doesn't have to have sex with anyone in possession of a vagina on demand - she has choice. Why is this choice somehow not allowable?

    Cotton ceiling my arse. I am a bisexual man. Being bisexual doesn't mean that I have to have sex with any man or any woman or any transgender person that I don't want to. A sexuality label does not compel sex with anyone, so wtf is this seminar supposed to do? Compel people to have sex with people they aren't attracted to? This isn't a genitals thing, its a desire thing. And some people are more attractive than others. And besides which as a *married* bisexual man I'd have to sew them back on first if I went off shagging other people...
    It is almost impossible to articulate the opposition to such a bonkers concept. I don't even know what the premise is - that people should be persuaded to have sex with someone on the grounds of that person's membership of some group or other. Like you say as though there are formal rules on the issue with penalties issued for violation of required behaviour.

    Absolutely bizarre. I think I am going to have to go back to skipping all posts on trans issues as it is all so crazy.

    Where is @kinabalu? He is usually a sane voice on all of this and can put it into human for the rest of us to understand.
    There's a similar move to get people to drop their sexual preferences in skin colour. ie white men MUST date black women to show they are non-racist, and if you - a white, or Japanese or Jewish woman (ie not oppressed) - exclusively date white men then you too are racist

    What a ridiculous mess
    One major problem with all this debate is that the extreme position gets portrayed as the norm.

    To take your example - asking people to consider why they wouldn't consider dating people of a particular race is not exactly controversial. The vast majority of even the most woke individuals would be happy with an answer based on personal preference, and as with any prejudice, considering our own motivations is vital to being a mature member of society. Many of us will see how attitudes towards sexuality have changed dramatically over our life times, and in most cases how positive that has been.

    Pressurising someone to date/have sex with specific people and calling them racist if they don't is extreme. Now we have social media, if you want to find people who believe that, you can very easily. You could even bang out a long article for the Daily Mail, with dozens of quotes, and you might even find the odd "organisation" that can be used to back up your story.

    However, it's still very much a fringe view, just as it is with trans rights. Most trans people will want society to be more accepting of them, and to at least consider whether their views are based on prejudice, but beyond that would find the idea of pressure abhorrent. For me, Ricky Gervais, and many on here are guilty of focusing on the extreme views, and tarring all trans people with the same brush.
    We are discussing a situation where a *Barrister* was sacked at the behest of Stonewall - a major charity in this area.

    This is a pretty mainstream issue, and one that isn't being just talked about in some fringe.
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 9,864

    dixiedean said:

    Anyone commented on today's Yorkshire Post? Their P1 lead is how the Tories were told about their candidate then MP's actions and did nothing...

    https://twitter.com/LouHaigh/status/1529348786799230976/photo/1

    Thought that was common knowledge?
    It certainly was heavily featured on a Labour leaflet posted here a while back.
    Just clicked on that Yorkshire post link and saw the picture of Johnson. Can someone please tell me, looking at that picture, why anyone thought it appropriate to put such a complete twat into a position where he could hold the most important office of state in our land. Bozo apologists please inform us.
    Because a complete twat could get stuff done and even a complete twat was better than his predecessor or opposite number. Because the only person running against the complete twat in the leadership race had no solution to get us out of the Article 50 quagmire, but the complete twat did.

    Sometimes, times call for a complete twat. For a limited time.

    That's not a reason to keep the complete twat now, but it was a good reason to get him there in the first place over all alternatives on offer.

    Perhaps we should be asking ourselves how we ended up in a position where even a complete twat stood head and shoulders above all alternatives?
    Ah, the apologist in chief. The reality was that he got something done that you are obsessed with. A thing that was totally divisive and pointless and has been a car crash from beginning to end.
    BiB: And that is why he was made PM.

    Job done.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 41,870
    edited May 25

    Sandpit said:

    kle4 said:

    TOPPING said:

    kle4 said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Leon said:

    THIS fpt should not get lost in the end-of-thread tailoff..

    @CarlottaVance

    "Words fail......

    Scholz insists to journalists that he’s “not as stupid as Kaiser Wilhelm II” to let Germany fall into a big war. He does not view Ukrainian victory as the goal and prefers a strategy of “active waiting” – cautiously participating until Putin says he has accomplished his war goals

    https://twitter.com/apmassaro3/status/1529372589382041605"

    The thread below is interesting. Germans are also outraged at Scholz. WTF is he on?

    WTF is he on?

    The German establishment is hooked on Russian bribes.
    The only difference between him and the rest of the west is that he admits the what the strategy is.

    The US, UK, etc. aren't giving Ukraine enough help to win. They could and would be doing a lot more if that were the goal. They are doing just enough to let Ukraine lose slowly and inflict maximum pain on Russia.
    You're an idiot on this subject, or pretending to be because you're in love with being edgy. You profess to believe (by implication) there is no difference between losing quickly and cheaply (for the winner) versus slowly and more costly. You pretend there's no difference between types of loss, such as if they had lost at the start and Kyiv had fallen versus if they lose all the Donbas. You seem to believe a loss is for all time, as if an aggressor might not win a battle but lose a war, or take a castle but take so many losses doing so it scuppers hopes of a wider campaign.

    We are not doing all Ukraine wants. We are holding back and that might mean Ukraine loses more territory. We have to be honest that we in the West are choosing not to do more and that Ukraine will suffer as a result. There no escaping that is true.

    Thst is not the same thing as the Scholz's of the world presenting as realists when their and your analysis is that of a 5 year old - being if you cannot win outright why even try. (Though in his case he clearly goes further as hes a Russian shill, which you are not)

    Your military knowledge is great. But your pretending to some 'realistic' seer of geopolitics is unpersuasive. Your disparagement of the 'Disney prince' as you've called Zekensky rather gives the game away that you're not being realistic, you're showing off.

    I think Ukraine probably will be unable to regain all the territory its lost since February. I think they may face no choice despite heroic effort and western support. Thats realistic/pessimistic. I'm no more a seer than you, but I'm also not some optimistic Ukrainian hype man.

    You just keep insisting all losses are equal. Why even fight if thats true?
    You need to take the emotion out of your posts on the subject. People will think it is either admirable (much like bull fighting) or virtue signalling.

    There is no pre-ordained end to this with the baddies losing and the goodies (us and whoever we determine, natch) winning. There is cold, hard, horrible war on the one hand, and realpolitik and pragmatism on the other.

    Many on PB berate Germany for not condemning their population to severe economic hardship. Fair enough, people are allowed to berate them thus but also need to understand the calculus of the German decision.

    Likewise the horror (to the PB warriors sitting tight in the UK) of contemplating a "negotiated settlement". People go off on one on PB about it but the debate is increasingly moving (on R4 this morning, interviewing Ukrainians, for example; in plenty of other thought pieces also) towards a "land for peace" scenario.

    Not for me to say yes or no or which line is drawn where but it is a wholly legitimate discussion to have.

    I continue to be bemused by the virulence that many on PB employ to condemn rational discussion of the situation in Ukraine if it doesn't involve stating that Ukraine is unequivocally winning and Russia similarly losing.
    On your last para I've made clear I dobt think either is the case. I've made clear land for peace is something that might end up happening.

    My emotion on this particular post is because I find the pretence that pushing a pessimistic view is automatically realistic to be nonsense. He is just the worst offender by pretending, as an example, that most people uncritically accept Ukrainian estimates or that there are no scales of loss and that one is better than another (or Ukraine might think that)

    I'd like the optimistic for Ukraine situation to be true but I don't think it necessarily is. I think they might end up with a grubby deal and that may even disappoint gung ho allies.

    So I'm relatively confident I am attempting a balanced view. Not always, and balanced can still be wrong, but certainly not displaying the two extreme end positions you suggest.
    Ask anyone Ukranian, about the idea that they might accept peace in exchange for land. Stand well back when you do.
    Ukraine is a Second World nation - they don't have moral agency of their own, and need to be told what to do by Proper People.
    It’s interesting to note that the ‘sphere of influence’ comments about Ukraine and Russia, are remarkably similar to those used about the UK and EU relationship a couple of years ago. How a country can’t possibly be allowed to *really* be independent, because that would be bad for everyone.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 41,870

    nova said:

    Leon said:

    TOPPING said:

    Cyclefree said:

    FPT

    Rather more concerning that Gervais's comedy act (I understand he was using actual quotes of things said by TRA activists and if they do not like these being quoted back at them, they might reflect on why that might be) is a statement by a QC yesterday in the Bailey Employment Tribunal case.

    The cross examination was about a seminar about how to overcome the "cotton ceiling" ie how to persuade lesbians that they should have sex with transwomen who still had male bodies. The QC (from the Chambers which is being sued) stated -

    "You can persuade a lesbian that she might want to - that she could want to - have sex with a trans woman in a way that was not coercive."

    Unfortunately, this does not reflect the law - which you'd have thought a QC who does rape cases - would know. The ECHR has ruled that any behaviour which seeks to negate or override a lack of consent to sex may be deemed coercive and that includes "persuasion". In short, sexual autonomy requires consent to be fully and freely given not something you should be persuaded into, even if that persuasion is something less than violence.

    There is something abhorrent in the idea of seeking to persuade lesbians that they should have sex with people they are not sexually attracted to by definition. Indeed, there is something utterly vile in the idea that (a) women should not have boundaries (b) those boundaries should be breached if that is what is necessary to validate someone else's feelings and (c) if you choose to say no you are somehow being phobic or bigoted

    What part of "No means No" is hard to understand. I am old enough to remember when if you didn't want to have sex with a man they would accuse you of being a lesbian and if you were a lesbian men would tell you that all you needed was a good screw from them to sort it out. We are now seeing some revolting old wine in new bottles, sadly.

    Women - whether lesbians or straight - have no obligation to have sex with anyone and don't need to justify this either. Seminars to "persuade" them is the mentality of the rapist.

    Transgender people deserve consideration but the activist movement has got itself into a very dark place when it comes out with this sort of stuff and is doing genuine transgender people no good at all.

    Incidentally, the consultation period on the Scottish government's proposed GRA reforms has ended and the results are that just under 60% of the responses opposed the proposal. Will La Sturgeon listen?

    Yep. Its all very bitter and disappearing down all kinds of outrageous rabbit holes. Surely the arbiter of who anyone wants to have sex with is the person. Lets take this example lesbian woman. If she doesn't want to have sex with a trans woman who has a penis that isn't transphobic. Because she doesn't have to have sex with anyone in possession of a vagina on demand - she has choice. Why is this choice somehow not allowable?

    Cotton ceiling my arse. I am a bisexual man. Being bisexual doesn't mean that I have to have sex with any man or any woman or any transgender person that I don't want to. A sexuality label does not compel sex with anyone, so wtf is this seminar supposed to do? Compel people to have sex with people they aren't attracted to? This isn't a genitals thing, its a desire thing. And some people are more attractive than others. And besides which as a *married* bisexual man I'd have to sew them back on first if I went off shagging other people...
    It is almost impossible to articulate the opposition to such a bonkers concept. I don't even know what the premise is - that people should be persuaded to have sex with someone on the grounds of that person's membership of some group or other. Like you say as though there are formal rules on the issue with penalties issued for violation of required behaviour.

    Absolutely bizarre. I think I am going to have to go back to skipping all posts on trans issues as it is all so crazy.

    Where is @kinabalu? He is usually a sane voice on all of this and can put it into human for the rest of us to understand.
    There's a similar move to get people to drop their sexual preferences in skin colour. ie white men MUST date black women to show they are non-racist, and if you - a white, or Japanese or Jewish woman (ie not oppressed) - exclusively date white men then you too are racist

    What a ridiculous mess
    One major problem with all this debate is that the extreme position gets portrayed as the norm.

    To take your example - asking people to consider why they wouldn't consider dating people of a particular race is not exactly controversial. The vast majority of even the most woke individuals would be happy with an answer based on personal preference, and as with any prejudice, considering our own motivations is vital to being a mature member of society. Many of us will see how attitudes towards sexuality have changed dramatically over our life times, and in most cases how positive that has been.

    Pressurising someone to date/have sex with specific people and calling them racist if they don't is extreme. Now we have social media, if you want to find people who believe that, you can very easily. You could even bang out a long article for the Daily Mail, with dozens of quotes, and you might even find the odd "organisation" that can be used to back up your story.

    However, it's still very much a fringe view, just as it is with trans rights. Most trans people will want society to be more accepting of them, and to at least consider whether their views are based on prejudice, but beyond that would find the idea of pressure abhorrent. For me, Ricky Gervais, and many on here are guilty of focusing on the extreme views, and tarring all trans people with the same brush.
    We are discussing a situation where a *Barrister* was sacked at the behest of Stonewall - a major charity in this area.

    This is a pretty mainstream issue, and one that isn't being just talked about in some fringe.
    The issue is that the fringe on one side of the debate, are quickly running through the Institutions, bringing their fringe ideas and presenting them as mainstream.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 24,297
    Pulpstar said:

    Andy_JS said:

    25% of votes still to be counted in Australia.

    https://pollbludger.net/fed2022/Results/

    Unclear as to whether Labor has a majority.

    They need 1 of Brisbane (Very tight with Greens as to who gets to TPP and wins) (Greens 60% maybe ?)
    Deakin (40.7% chance)
    Gilmore (27.8%)
    Lyons (56.2% chance)

    1-(.722*.438*.593*.4)

    So their chance of a majority is about 92%.



    ALP are pulling ahead in Brisbane now (528 votes) and Lyons (703). Falling behind in Deakin (890). Catching up in Gilmore (114).
    So a majority is still very much super favourite since they need one of these.
    MacNamara is also in doubt, being a 3 way. ALP leads by over a thousand, and will win provided they don't fall into third. If they do, Greens win and they will need two of the above.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 55,093
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    For any of our more sheltered PB-ers, a quick guide to Pet Play

    "Puppies, kitties, and ponies: What do these things all have in common? If you’re a kinkster, then you probably know the answer. That’s right, they’re all part of pet play."

    https://www.dailydot.com/irl/pet-play/

    People are so fucking weird.
    They are indeed. I have a theory that almost everyone is massively kinky, but only a minority admit it and/or explore it

    Pet play is seriously popular. I've met a couple of girls properly into it. And I understand why it can appeal (tho it's not my scene). It's another way of abandoning the self, and any self consciousness, which makes sex more enjoyable as you also jettison shame and embarrassment
    I'm sticking to tractors.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 55,032
    There is only one conclusion from this report and that is Boris has to go

    Time for his mps to act
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 10,472
    Nigelb said:

    TOPPING said:

    Cyclefree said:

    FPT

    Rather more concerning that Gervais's comedy act (I understand he was using actual quotes of things said by TRA activists and if they do not like these being quoted back at them, they might reflect on why that might be) is a statement by a QC yesterday in the Bailey Employment Tribunal case.

    The cross examination was about a seminar about how to overcome the "cotton ceiling" ie how to persuade lesbians that they should have sex with transwomen who still had male bodies. The QC (from the Chambers which is being sued) stated -

    "You can persuade a lesbian that she might want to - that she could want to - have sex with a trans woman in a way that was not coercive."

    Unfortunately, this does not reflect the law - which you'd have thought a QC who does rape cases - would know. The ECHR has ruled that any behaviour which seeks to negate or override a lack of consent to sex may be deemed coercive and that includes "persuasion". In short, sexual autonomy requires consent to be fully and freely given not something you should be persuaded into, even if that persuasion is something less than violence.

    There is something abhorrent in the idea of seeking to persuade lesbians that they should have sex with people they are not sexually attracted to by definition. Indeed, there is something utterly vile in the idea that (a) women should not have boundaries (b) those boundaries should be breached if that is what is necessary to validate someone else's feelings and (c) if you choose to say no you are somehow being phobic or bigoted

    What part of "No means No" is hard to understand. I am old enough to remember when if you didn't want to have sex with a man they would accuse you of being a lesbian and if you were a lesbian men would tell you that all you needed was a good screw from them to sort it out. We are now seeing some revolting old wine in new bottles, sadly.

    Women - whether lesbians or straight - have no obligation to have sex with anyone and don't need to justify this either. Seminars to "persuade" them is the mentality of the rapist.

    Transgender people deserve consideration but the activist movement has got itself into a very dark place when it comes out with this sort of stuff and is doing genuine transgender people no good at all.

    Incidentally, the consultation period on the Scottish government's proposed GRA reforms has ended and the results are that just under 60% of the responses opposed the proposal. Will La Sturgeon listen?

    Yep. Its all very bitter and disappearing down all kinds of outrageous rabbit holes. Surely the arbiter of who anyone wants to have sex with is the person. Lets take this example lesbian woman. If she doesn't want to have sex with a trans woman who has a penis that isn't transphobic. Because she doesn't have to have sex with anyone in possession of a vagina on demand - she has choice. Why is this choice somehow not allowable?

    Cotton ceiling my arse. I am a bisexual man. Being bisexual doesn't mean that I have to have sex with any man or any woman or any transgender person that I don't want to. A sexuality label does not compel sex with anyone, so wtf is this seminar supposed to do? Compel people to have sex with people they aren't attracted to? This isn't a genitals thing, its a desire thing. And some people are more attractive than others. And besides which as a *married* bisexual man I'd have to sew them back on first if I went off shagging other people...
    It is almost impossible to articulate the opposition to such a bonkers concept. I don't even know what the premise is - that people should be persuaded to have sex with someone on the grounds of that person's membership of some group or other. Like you say as though there are formal rules on the issue with penalties issued for violation of required behaviour.

    Absolutely bizarre. I think I am going to have to go back to skipping all posts on trans issues as it is all so crazy.

    Where is @kinabalu? He is usually a sane voice on all of this and can put it into human for the rest of us to understand.
    The core of the idea is that someone's self-identity trumps physical reality. So if someone says there are a woman, then they're a woman.

    If lesbians generally decide that the physical reality of a potential partner's body is at least as important to them than someone's self-declared identity then that is a threat to the whole premise of self-ID.
    That’s a non sequitur.
    Even if you believe in self-ID, why would that trump another individual’s right to do what they want with their own body ? It’s not a threat to the premise at all.
    Think about the demand for dropping the offence of rape by deception.

    If a lesbian meets a transwoman in a bar, and is initially attracted to them before finding out they still have a penis, then as far as the self-ID ideology has it, "nothing has changed". But the lesbian who changes their mind on sex in that situation is implicitly making the judgement that the transwoman is not a real woman.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 30,018
    Carnyx said:

    The irony of Beth Rigby just saying on Sky, we followed the rules and the PM didn't

    Did she really say that or did she mean we as in the sence of the general public?
    [edit: memory at fault, apologies: she got suspended by her employer]
    There is a story that a presneter on UK TV was gong to accuse a politician of doing drugs in an interview.

    So the story goes, just before the interview, the politician pointed out that the presenter had done a line of coke at a dinner party, in front of everyone, they had both been at a few days before.

    Allegedly, the presenter tried to defend themselves on the "I'm not the story" basis, and accused the politician of blackmail.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 36,643
    edited May 25
    nova said:

    Leon said:

    TOPPING said:

    Cyclefree said:

    FPT

    Rather more concerning that Gervais's comedy act (I understand he was using actual quotes of things said by TRA activists and if they do not like these being quoted back at them, they might reflect on why that might be) is a statement by a QC yesterday in the Bailey Employment Tribunal case.

    The cross examination was about a seminar about how to overcome the "cotton ceiling" ie how to persuade lesbians that they should have sex with transwomen who still had male bodies. The QC (from the Chambers which is being sued) stated -

    "You can persuade a lesbian that she might want to - that she could want to - have sex with a trans woman in a way that was not coercive."

    Unfortunately, this does not reflect the law - which you'd have thought a QC who does rape cases - would know. The ECHR has ruled that any behaviour which seeks to negate or override a lack of consent to sex may be deemed coercive and that includes "persuasion". In short, sexual autonomy requires consent to be fully and freely given not something you should be persuaded into, even if that persuasion is something less than violence.

    There is something abhorrent in the idea of seeking to persuade lesbians that they should have sex with people they are not sexually attracted to by definition. Indeed, there is something utterly vile in the idea that (a) women should not have boundaries (b) those boundaries should be breached if that is what is necessary to validate someone else's feelings and (c) if you choose to say no you are somehow being phobic or bigoted

    What part of "No means No" is hard to understand. I am old enough to remember when if you didn't want to have sex with a man they would accuse you of being a lesbian and if you were a lesbian men would tell you that all you needed was a good screw from them to sort it out. We are now seeing some revolting old wine in new bottles, sadly.

    Women - whether lesbians or straight - have no obligation to have sex with anyone and don't need to justify this either. Seminars to "persuade" them is the mentality of the rapist.

    Transgender people deserve consideration but the activist movement has got itself into a very dark place when it comes out with this sort of stuff and is doing genuine transgender people no good at all.

    Incidentally, the consultation period on the Scottish government's proposed GRA reforms has ended and the results are that just under 60% of the responses opposed the proposal. Will La Sturgeon listen?

    Yep. Its all very bitter and disappearing down all kinds of outrageous rabbit holes. Surely the arbiter of who anyone wants to have sex with is the person. Lets take this example lesbian woman. If she doesn't want to have sex with a trans woman who has a penis that isn't transphobic. Because she doesn't have to have sex with anyone in possession of a vagina on demand - she has choice. Why is this choice somehow not allowable?

    Cotton ceiling my arse. I am a bisexual man. Being bisexual doesn't mean that I have to have sex with any man or any woman or any transgender person that I don't want to. A sexuality label does not compel sex with anyone, so wtf is this seminar supposed to do? Compel people to have sex with people they aren't attracted to? This isn't a genitals thing, its a desire thing. And some people are more attractive than others. And besides which as a *married* bisexual man I'd have to sew them back on first if I went off shagging other people...
    It is almost impossible to articulate the opposition to such a bonkers concept. I don't even know what the premise is - that people should be persuaded to have sex with someone on the grounds of that person's membership of some group or other. Like you say as though there are formal rules on the issue with penalties issued for violation of required behaviour.

    Absolutely bizarre. I think I am going to have to go back to skipping all posts on trans issues as it is all so crazy.

    Where is @kinabalu? He is usually a sane voice on all of this and can put it into human for the rest of us to understand.
    There's a similar move to get people to drop their sexual preferences in skin colour. ie white men MUST date black women to show they are non-racist, and if you - a white, or Japanese or Jewish woman (ie not oppressed) - exclusively date white men then you too are racist

    What a ridiculous mess
    One major problem with all this debate is that the extreme position gets portrayed as the norm.

    To take your example - asking people to consider why they wouldn't consider dating people of a particular race is not exactly controversial. The vast majority of even the most woke individuals would be happy with an answer based on personal preference, and as with any prejudice, considering our own motivations is vital to being a mature member of society. Many of us will see how attitudes towards sexuality have changed dramatically over our life times, and in most cases how positive that has been.

    Pressurising someone to date/have sex with specific people and calling them racist if they don't is extreme. Now we have social media, if you want to find people who believe that, you can very easily. You could even bang out a long article for the Daily Mail, with dozens of quotes, and you might even find the odd "organisation" that can be used to back up your story.

    However, it's still very much a fringe view, just as it is with trans rights. Most trans people will want society to be more accepting of them, and to at least consider whether their views are based on prejudice, but beyond that would find the idea of pressure abhorrent. For me, Ricky Gervais, and many on here are guilty of focusing on the extreme views, and tarring all trans people with the same brush.
    Don't disagree with anything you write save for "asking people to consider why they wouldn't consider dating people of a particular race is not exactly controversial"

    Oh yes it is. imo.
  • RazedabodeRazedabode Posts: 2,654
    The whole of number 10 was a total shit show.

    Isn’t that the second picture of Johnson at a party raising a drink of some kind? Presumably not at a party
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 19,944
    Interesting fact about the Elizabeth Line: the escalators at Canary Wharf have yellow lighting.
  • eekeek Posts: 21,770

    There is only one conclusion from this report and that is Boris has to go

    Time for his mps to act

    Not going to happen..
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 72,709
    dixiedean said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Andy_JS said:

    25% of votes still to be counted in Australia.

    https://pollbludger.net/fed2022/Results/

    Unclear as to whether Labor has a majority.

    They need 1 of Brisbane (Very tight with Greens as to who gets to TPP and wins) (Greens 60% maybe ?)
    Deakin (40.7% chance)
    Gilmore (27.8%)
    Lyons (56.2% chance)

    1-(.722*.438*.593*.4)

    So their chance of a majority is about 92%.



    ALP are pulling ahead in Brisbane now (528 votes) and Lyons (703). Falling behind in Deakin (890). Catching up in Gilmore (114).
    So a majority is still very much super favourite since they need one of these.
    MacNamara is also in doubt, being a 3 way. ALP leads by over a thousand, and will win provided they don't fall into third. If they do, Greens win and they will need two of the above.
    OK Was wondering why Macnamara was in doubt seeing as ALP were miles ahead on TPP with Liberals. Like Brisbane it'll need all the preferences to shake out to be sure.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 59,660
    F1: wondering if Bottas is worth a tiny bet this weekend. Alfa Romeo looks good in slow stuff, and that's all Monaco is.

    With boost, he's 81 on Ladbrokes for the race or qualifying, and 36 to 'win' FP1 (although that's only for top 2).
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 41,870

    F1: wondering if Bottas is worth a tiny bet this weekend. Alfa Romeo looks good in slow stuff, and that's all Monaco is.

    With boost, he's 81 on Ladbrokes for the race or qualifying, and 36 to 'win' FP1 (although that's only for top 2).

    Can you get anything above evens on a top 6 finish? He’ll likely qualify 6th or 7th.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 19,944
    Pulpstar said:

    Andy_JS said:

    25% of votes still to be counted in Australia.

    https://pollbludger.net/fed2022/Results/

    Unclear as to whether Labor has a majority.

    They need 1 of Brisbane (Very tight with Greens as to who gets to TPP and wins) (Greens 60% maybe ?)
    Deakin (40.7% chance)
    Gilmore (27.8%)
    Lyons (56.2% chance)

    1-(.722*.438*.593*.4)

    So their chance of a majority is about 92%.
    It looks to me like it will come down to Lyons in Tasmania where Labor was defending a 10% majority.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 72,826
    edited May 25
    Boris birthday party photos are going to be problematic. That looks least like any sort of party conpared to the rest, yet that is the one that Boris and Sunak got fines for.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 16,452

    Nigelb said:

    TOPPING said:

    Cyclefree said:

    FPT

    Rather more concerning that Gervais's comedy act (I understand he was using actual quotes of things said by TRA activists and if they do not like these being quoted back at them, they might reflect on why that might be) is a statement by a QC yesterday in the Bailey Employment Tribunal case.

    The cross examination was about a seminar about how to overcome the "cotton ceiling" ie how to persuade lesbians that they should have sex with transwomen who still had male bodies. The QC (from the Chambers which is being sued) stated -

    "You can persuade a lesbian that she might want to - that she could want to - have sex with a trans woman in a way that was not coercive."

    Unfortunately, this does not reflect the law - which you'd have thought a QC who does rape cases - would know. The ECHR has ruled that any behaviour which seeks to negate or override a lack of consent to sex may be deemed coercive and that includes "persuasion". In short, sexual autonomy requires consent to be fully and freely given not something you should be persuaded into, even if that persuasion is something less than violence.

    There is something abhorrent in the idea of seeking to persuade lesbians that they should have sex with people they are not sexually attracted to by definition. Indeed, there is something utterly vile in the idea that (a) women should not have boundaries (b) those boundaries should be breached if that is what is necessary to validate someone else's feelings and (c) if you choose to say no you are somehow being phobic or bigoted

    What part of "No means No" is hard to understand. I am old enough to remember when if you didn't want to have sex with a man they would accuse you of being a lesbian and if you were a lesbian men would tell you that all you needed was a good screw from them to sort it out. We are now seeing some revolting old wine in new bottles, sadly.

    Women - whether lesbians or straight - have no obligation to have sex with anyone and don't need to justify this either. Seminars to "persuade" them is the mentality of the rapist.

    Transgender people deserve consideration but the activist movement has got itself into a very dark place when it comes out with this sort of stuff and is doing genuine transgender people no good at all.

    Incidentally, the consultation period on the Scottish government's proposed GRA reforms has ended and the results are that just under 60% of the responses opposed the proposal. Will La Sturgeon listen?

    Yep. Its all very bitter and disappearing down all kinds of outrageous rabbit holes. Surely the arbiter of who anyone wants to have sex with is the person. Lets take this example lesbian woman. If she doesn't want to have sex with a trans woman who has a penis that isn't transphobic. Because she doesn't have to have sex with anyone in possession of a vagina on demand - she has choice. Why is this choice somehow not allowable?

    Cotton ceiling my arse. I am a bisexual man. Being bisexual doesn't mean that I have to have sex with any man or any woman or any transgender person that I don't want to. A sexuality label does not compel sex with anyone, so wtf is this seminar supposed to do? Compel people to have sex with people they aren't attracted to? This isn't a genitals thing, its a desire thing. And some people are more attractive than others. And besides which as a *married* bisexual man I'd have to sew them back on first if I went off shagging other people...
    It is almost impossible to articulate the opposition to such a bonkers concept. I don't even know what the premise is - that people should be persuaded to have sex with someone on the grounds of that person's membership of some group or other. Like you say as though there are formal rules on the issue with penalties issued for violation of required behaviour.

    Absolutely bizarre. I think I am going to have to go back to skipping all posts on trans issues as it is all so crazy.

    Where is @kinabalu? He is usually a sane voice on all of this and can put it into human for the rest of us to understand.
    The core of the idea is that someone's self-identity trumps physical reality. So if someone says there are a woman, then they're a woman.

    If lesbians generally decide that the physical reality of a potential partner's body is at least as important to them than someone's self-declared identity then that is a threat to the whole premise of self-ID.
    That’s a non sequitur.
    Even if you believe in self-ID, why would that trump another individual’s right to do what they want with their own body ? It’s not a threat to the premise at all.
    Think about the demand for dropping the offence of rape by deception.

    If a lesbian meets a transwoman in a bar, and is initially attracted to them before finding out they still have a penis, then as far as the self-ID ideology has it, "nothing has changed". But the lesbian who changes their mind on sex in that situation is implicitly making the judgement that the transwoman is not a real woman.
    I don't think they are, they can change their mind about having sex with someone for any reason they want, there are lots of other features that might put a person off.

    Part of what's making the arguments about trans people so bitter and pointless is people trying to solve everything by starting with a dictionary then applying a definition, which hardly ever gets you anywhere.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 37,387
    So, we now know that all the government ministers who said the PM was ambushed by cake and no alcohol was consumed at his birthday party were not telling the truth.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 57,066
    Von der Leyen: “Ukraine must win this war.” Can Scholz and Macron say the same?

    https://twitter.com/apmassaro3/status/1529348801261182976
  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,565
    nova said:

    Leon said:

    TOPPING said:

    Cyclefree said:

    FPT

    Rather more concerning that Gervais's comedy act (I understand he was using actual quotes of things said by TRA activists and if they do not like these being quoted back at them, they might reflect on why that might be) is a statement by a QC yesterday in the Bailey Employment Tribunal case.

    The cross examination was about a seminar about how to overcome the "cotton ceiling" ie how to persuade lesbians that they should have sex with transwomen who still had male bodies. The QC (from the Chambers which is being sued) stated -

    "You can persuade a lesbian that she might want to - that she could want to - have sex with a trans woman in a way that was not coercive."

    Unfortunately, this does not reflect the law - which you'd have thought a QC who does rape cases - would know. The ECHR has ruled that any behaviour which seeks to negate or override a lack of consent to sex may be deemed coercive and that includes "persuasion". In short, sexual autonomy requires consent to be fully and freely given not something you should be persuaded into, even if that persuasion is something less than violence.

    There is something abhorrent in the idea of seeking to persuade lesbians that they should have sex with people they are not sexually attracted to by definition. Indeed, there is something utterly vile in the idea that (a) women should not have boundaries (b) those boundaries should be breached if that is what is necessary to validate someone else's feelings and (c) if you choose to say no you are somehow being phobic or bigoted

    What part of "No means No" is hard to understand. I am old enough to remember when if you didn't want to have sex with a man they would accuse you of being a lesbian and if you were a lesbian men would tell you that all you needed was a good screw from them to sort it out. We are now seeing some revolting old wine in new bottles, sadly.

    Women - whether lesbians or straight - have no obligation to have sex with anyone and don't need to justify this either. Seminars to "persuade" them is the mentality of the rapist.

    Transgender people deserve consideration but the activist movement has got itself into a very dark place when it comes out with this sort of stuff and is doing genuine transgender people no good at all.

    Incidentally, the consultation period on the Scottish government's proposed GRA reforms has ended and the results are that just under 60% of the responses opposed the proposal. Will La Sturgeon listen?

    Yep. Its all very bitter and disappearing down all kinds of outrageous rabbit holes. Surely the arbiter of who anyone wants to have sex with is the person. Lets take this example lesbian woman. If she doesn't want to have sex with a trans woman who has a penis that isn't transphobic. Because she doesn't have to have sex with anyone in possession of a vagina on demand - she has choice. Why is this choice somehow not allowable?

    Cotton ceiling my arse. I am a bisexual man. Being bisexual doesn't mean that I have to have sex with any man or any woman or any transgender person that I don't want to. A sexuality label does not compel sex with anyone, so wtf is this seminar supposed to do? Compel people to have sex with people they aren't attracted to? This isn't a genitals thing, its a desire thing. And some people are more attractive than others. And besides which as a *married* bisexual man I'd have to sew them back on first if I went off shagging other people...
    It is almost impossible to articulate the opposition to such a bonkers concept. I don't even know what the premise is - that people should be persuaded to have sex with someone on the grounds of that person's membership of some group or other. Like you say as though there are formal rules on the issue with penalties issued for violation of required behaviour.

    Absolutely bizarre. I think I am going to have to go back to skipping all posts on trans issues as it is all so crazy.

    Where is @kinabalu? He is usually a sane voice on all of this and can put it into human for the rest of us to understand.
    There's a similar move to get people to drop their sexual preferences in skin colour. ie white men MUST date black women to show they are non-racist, and if you - a white, or Japanese or Jewish woman (ie not oppressed) - exclusively date white men then you too are racist

    What a ridiculous mess
    One major problem with all this debate is that the extreme position gets portrayed as the norm.

    To take your example - asking people to consider why they wouldn't consider dating people of a particular race is not exactly controversial. The vast majority of even the most woke individuals would be happy with an answer based on personal preference, and as with any prejudice, considering our own motivations is vital to being a mature member of society. Many of us will see how attitudes towards sexuality have changed dramatically over our life times, and in most cases how positive that has been.

    Pressurising someone to date/have sex with specific people and calling them racist if they don't is extreme. Now we have social media, if you want to find people who believe that, you can very easily. You could even bang out a long article for the Daily Mail, with dozens of quotes, and you might even find the odd "organisation" that can be used to back up your story.

    However, it's still very much a fringe view, just as it is with trans rights. Most trans people will want society to be more accepting of them, and to at least consider whether their views are based on prejudice, but beyond that would find the idea of pressure abhorrent. For me, Ricky Gervais, and many on here are guilty of focusing on the extreme views, and tarring all trans people with the same brush.
    Thing is, you're completely wrong

    What was once the "extreme" view on trans issued has been successfully forced into the mainstream by actors like Stonewall. So much so you have the obscenity of Scotland's new gender laws, and thousands - hundreds of thousands - of kids now successfully confused into believing they are non-binary and whatever

    It's monstrous
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 18,476
    Sandpit said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    A Bayesian bet: P|Johnson loses given P|MPs think it worth having a vote.

    * Time Value of Money.
    Something that becomes noticeable with inflation at 9%.

    Next Lab leader after Starmer, for example, could be more than a decade away.
    Conversely, it could be just a month away. LauraK. had him banged to rights on Panorama last night. I can't see past an FPN and a resignation.
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,286

    I have a hospital appointment in an hour or so and won't be able to update the site
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 2,697
    Treatment of cleaning staff and security is the really interesting bit.

    Sounds like a bunch of knobs work at no 10. It's also stupid - getting to know cleaners in particular is a smart thing to do in an office. They know everything.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 7,252
    This report is not enough to cause Boris to go.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 45,006
    edited May 25

    Nigelb said:

    TOPPING said:

    Cyclefree said:

    FPT

    Rather more concerning that Gervais's comedy act (I understand he was using actual quotes of things said by TRA activists and if they do not like these being quoted back at them, they might reflect on why that might be) is a statement by a QC yesterday in the Bailey Employment Tribunal case.

    The cross examination was about a seminar about how to overcome the "cotton ceiling" ie how to persuade lesbians that they should have sex with transwomen who still had male bodies. The QC (from the Chambers which is being sued) stated -

    "You can persuade a lesbian that she might want to - that she could want to - have sex with a trans woman in a way that was not coercive."

    Unfortunately, this does not reflect the law - which you'd have thought a QC who does rape cases - would know. The ECHR has ruled that any behaviour which seeks to negate or override a lack of consent to sex may be deemed coercive and that includes "persuasion". In short, sexual autonomy requires consent to be fully and freely given not something you should be persuaded into, even if that persuasion is something less than violence.

    There is something abhorrent in the idea of seeking to persuade lesbians that they should have sex with people they are not sexually attracted to by definition. Indeed, there is something utterly vile in the idea that (a) women should not have boundaries (b) those boundaries should be breached if that is what is necessary to validate someone else's feelings and (c) if you choose to say no you are somehow being phobic or bigoted

    What part of "No means No" is hard to understand. I am old enough to remember when if you didn't want to have sex with a man they would accuse you of being a lesbian and if you were a lesbian men would tell you that all you needed was a good screw from them to sort it out. We are now seeing some revolting old wine in new bottles, sadly.

    Women - whether lesbians or straight - have no obligation to have sex with anyone and don't need to justify this either. Seminars to "persuade" them is the mentality of the rapist.

    Transgender people deserve consideration but the activist movement has got itself into a very dark place when it comes out with this sort of stuff and is doing genuine transgender people no good at all.

    Incidentally, the consultation period on the Scottish government's proposed GRA reforms has ended and the results are that just under 60% of the responses opposed the proposal. Will La Sturgeon listen?

    Yep. Its all very bitter and disappearing down all kinds of outrageous rabbit holes. Surely the arbiter of who anyone wants to have sex with is the person. Lets take this example lesbian woman. If she doesn't want to have sex with a trans woman who has a penis that isn't transphobic. Because she doesn't have to have sex with anyone in possession of a vagina on demand - she has choice. Why is this choice somehow not allowable?

    Cotton ceiling my arse. I am a bisexual man. Being bisexual doesn't mean that I have to have sex with any man or any woman or any transgender person that I don't want to. A sexuality label does not compel sex with anyone, so wtf is this seminar supposed to do? Compel people to have sex with people they aren't attracted to? This isn't a genitals thing, its a desire thing. And some people are more attractive than others. And besides which as a *married* bisexual man I'd have to sew them back on first if I went off shagging other people...
    It is almost impossible to articulate the opposition to such a bonkers concept. I don't even know what the premise is - that people should be persuaded to have sex with someone on the grounds of that person's membership of some group or other. Like you say as though there are formal rules on the issue with penalties issued for violation of required behaviour.

    Absolutely bizarre. I think I am going to have to go back to skipping all posts on trans issues as it is all so crazy.

    Where is @kinabalu? He is usually a sane voice on all of this and can put it into human for the rest of us to understand.
    The core of the idea is that someone's self-identity trumps physical reality. So if someone says there are a woman, then they're a woman.

    If lesbians generally decide that the physical reality of a potential partner's body is at least as important to them than someone's self-declared identity then that is a threat to the whole premise of self-ID.
    That’s a non sequitur.
    Even if you believe in self-ID, why would that trump another individual’s right to do what they want with their own body ? It’s not a threat to the premise at all.
    Think about the demand for dropping the offence of rape by deception.

    If a lesbian meets a transwoman in a bar, and is initially attracted to them before finding out they still have a penis, then as far as the self-ID ideology has it, "nothing has changed". But the lesbian who changes their mind on sex in that situation is implicitly making the judgement that the transwoman is not a real woman.
    My point still stands. If you’re arguing an individual’s autonomy over their own person, which is the point of self-ID, then that cuts both ways.

    The demand to change the law can be rejected in just those terms.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 72,826
    edited May 25

    So, we now know that all the government ministers who said the PM was ambushed by cake and no alcohol was consumed at his birthday party were not telling the truth.

    Are you sure? The ones on BBC website that specifically say birthday just show orange and apple juice and a tray of sandwiches. They actually don't look bad at all. Sunak seems very unlucky to get fined.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 72,709
    edited May 25
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 7,109
    Ukrainians have every right to feel rather aggrieved.

    The US President pleaded with them not to leave the hideous Soviet Union for fear of nuclear proliferation

    They gave up said weapons for security guarantees that didn't materialise

    Fifty years after the Turkish invasion of Cyprus no country recognises the independence of the Turkish territory. And yet people think Ukraine should just give up some of its territory to Russia.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 37,387

    So, we now know that all the government ministers who said the PM was ambushed by cake and no alcohol was consumed at his birthday party were not telling the truth.

    Are you sure? The ones i have seen just show orange and apple juice and a tray of sandwiches.

    You've not seen the one of the PM raising a toast with a can of Estrella then?

  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,565
    algarkirk said:

    Leon said:

    This poll showing NO on 55 and YES on 45 must be quite intensely disappointing for Nats


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/nicola-sturgeon-fails-to-boost-independence-support-during-record-reign-g38lr3l6g


    It is now eight years since indyref. In that time we have had endless political turmoil, the epochal shift of Brexit, a global plague, and now a European war, you couldn't ask for more game-changing events which might shift voters. Also, eight years have elapsed, time for all those ancient NO voters to die off, and young YES voters to accede to their inevitable majority, as we were constantly promised

    Hasn't happened. If anything NO is rising. And the figures for Who actually wants a referendum are even worse. Only 28% want one in 2023, as Sturgeon is promising her hardcore, and 59% oppose this, and the stats on "in the next five years" show equally divided opinion, which is moving towards "Let's not have one"

    The only conclusion is that nothing - black swans aside - is going to shift Scottish public opinion fundamentally towards YES in the short-to-medium term, and therefore that there isn't going to be a vote in that time (no way any SNP leader will call a referendum they are likely to lose, as that kills the party for 30 years)

    This has quite serious implications for Scottish politics, and thus UK politics. It is now likely that Sturgeon will retire without ever having called her 2nd vote. That might be the moment when Scottish Labour finally make a revival (yes yes, this has been often predicted without ever happening). At that point, the balance of power down in London shifts, dramatically

    Yes. It's perfectly possible that Scotland becomes an unattractive place for business of many sorts because if you are EU oriented Scotland is not in it, and if you are England and Wales oriented (biggest market in Scotland) there is an outside chance that Ref2 will make the border at Berwick and Gretna nearly as exciting as that between Poland and Belarus.

    But the only way for unionists to get anywhere in Scotland is: destroy the SNP (won't happen); unite the unionist vote under a single banner (won't happen); or something else I can't think of.

    As it suits the SNP and the voters to have tons of politics jobs for the boys and girls both in Edinburgh and London, tons of subsidy from English money, and power without much responsibility I can't see this hijacking ending soon.

    You're too pessimistic. All parties fail, and all leaders fall (with some very rare exceptions)

    The SNP won't crumble overnight, but I can see them eroding, and it doesn't take much erosion for them to lose power at Holyrood. And then you get a Unionist govt, indyref2 is totally off the agenda, and everything changes

    That's the more hopeful outlook, for Scotland. Because Scotland REALLY needs a new party in power, with new ideas
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 30,018
    From a quick scan of the report - nothing that will fix the toaster.

    The toast is still firmly jammed in place.
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 5,578
    algarkirk said:

    Leon said:

    This poll showing NO on 55 and YES on 45 must be quite intensely disappointing for Nats


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/nicola-sturgeon-fails-to-boost-independence-support-during-record-reign-g38lr3l6g


    It is now eight years since indyref. In that time we have had endless political turmoil, the epochal shift of Brexit, a global plague, and now a European war, you couldn't ask for more game-changing events which might shift voters. Also, eight years have elapsed, time for all those ancient NO voters to die off, and young YES voters to accede to their inevitable majority, as we were constantly promised

    Hasn't happened. If anything NO is rising. And the figures for Who actually wants a referendum are even worse. Only 28% want one in 2023, as Sturgeon is promising her hardcore, and 59% oppose this, and the stats on "in the next five years" show equally divided opinion, which is moving towards "Let's not have one"

    The only conclusion is that nothing - black swans aside - is going to shift Scottish public opinion fundamentally towards YES in the short-to-medium term, and therefore that there isn't going to be a vote in that time (no way any SNP leader will call a referendum they are likely to lose, as that kills the party for 30 years)

    This has quite serious implications for Scottish politics, and thus UK politics. It is now likely that Sturgeon will retire without ever having called her 2nd vote. That might be the moment when Scottish Labour finally make a revival (yes yes, this has been often predicted without ever happening). At that point, the balance of power down in London shifts, dramatically

    Yes. It's perfectly possible that Scotland becomes an unattractive place for business of many sorts because if you are EU oriented Scotland is not in it, and if you are England and Wales oriented (biggest market in Scotland) there is an outside chance that Ref2 will make the border at Berwick and Gretna nearly as exciting as that between Poland and Belarus.

    But the only way for unionists to get anywhere in Scotland is: destroy the SNP (won't happen); unite the unionist vote under a single banner (won't happen); or something else I can't think of.

    As it suits the SNP and the voters to have tons of politics jobs for the boys and girls both in Edinburgh and London, tons of subsidy from English money, and power without much responsibility I can't see this hijacking ending soon.

    The fact the vote hasn't changed also puts the whole argument that "independence is destiny" because Unionist voters will die off under some scrutiny.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 45,006
    Carnyx said:

    The irony of Beth Rigby just saying on Sky, we followed the rules and the PM didn't

    Did she really say that or did she mean we as in the sence of the general public?
    [edit: memory at fault, apologies: she got suspended by her employer]
    Even Sky are not quite this shameless.

    https://twitter.com/mikegalsworthy/status/1529201878910771208
    “And you’re content to back a lawbreaker in office?”

    “I certainly am”
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 9,864

    There is only one conclusion from this report and that is Boris has to go

    Time for his mps to act

    I haven't seen the report yet, have you read it yet, or was that your predetermined opinion already even before it was published?
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 18,476

    Simon Case is in one of the pictures in the report apparently

    It was said that he does not intend to resign and Johnson will not demand his resignation.

    If Tory MPs hold their nerve this will be nowhere near as bad for Johnson as it would have been in January.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    Is it just me, or is the Gray report completely meh?
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 19,944
    Sasnovich 3-6 6-1 1-0 Raducanu

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/live/tennis/59071590
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 72,826
    edited May 25

    So, we now know that all the government ministers who said the PM was ambushed by cake and no alcohol was consumed at his birthday party were not telling the truth.

    Are you sure? The ones i have seen just show orange and apple juice and a tray of sandwiches.

    You've not seen the one of the PM raising a toast with a can of Estrella then?

    I thought that was a can of coke. You are right. However, that really is the least bad of all of the photos, it doesn't look like a "party". As i said down thread, i think it is problematic for other reaons, if that is the bar for a fine, 10 people standing apart while.there are 4 cans of beers and a few sandwiches, all the other events surely should have been fines for Boris.

    Sunak has got very unlucky here.
  • novanova Posts: 468
    edited May 25
    TOPPING said:

    nova said:

    Leon said:

    TOPPING said:

    Cyclefree said:

    FPT

    Rather more concerning that Gervais's comedy act (I understand he was using actual quotes of things said by TRA activists and if they do not like these being quoted back at them, they might reflect on why that might be) is a statement by a QC yesterday in the Bailey Employment Tribunal case.

    The cross examination was about a seminar about how to overcome the "cotton ceiling" ie how to persuade lesbians that they should have sex with transwomen who still had male bodies. The QC (from the Chambers which is being sued) stated -

    "You can persuade a lesbian that she might want to - that she could want to - have sex with a trans woman in a way that was not coercive."

    Unfortunately, this does not reflect the law - which you'd have thought a QC who does rape cases - would know. The ECHR has ruled that any behaviour which seeks to negate or override a lack of consent to sex may be deemed coercive and that includes "persuasion". In short, sexual autonomy requires consent to be fully and freely given not something you should be persuaded into, even if that persuasion is something less than violence.

    There is something abhorrent in the idea of seeking to persuade lesbians that they should have sex with people they are not sexually attracted to by definition. Indeed, there is something utterly vile in the idea that (a) women should not have boundaries (b) those boundaries should be breached if that is what is necessary to validate someone else's feelings and (c) if you choose to say no you are somehow being phobic or bigoted

    What part of "No means No" is hard to understand. I am old enough to remember when if you didn't want to have sex with a man they would accuse you of being a lesbian and if you were a lesbian men would tell you that all you needed was a good screw from them to sort it out. We are now seeing some revolting old wine in new bottles, sadly.

    Women - whether lesbians or straight - have no obligation to have sex with anyone and don't need to justify this either. Seminars to "persuade" them is the mentality of the rapist.

    Transgender people deserve consideration but the activist movement has got itself into a very dark place when it comes out with this sort of stuff and is doing genuine transgender people no good at all.

    Incidentally, the consultation period on the Scottish government's proposed GRA reforms has ended and the results are that just under 60% of the responses opposed the proposal. Will La Sturgeon listen?

    Yep. Its all very bitter and disappearing down all kinds of outrageous rabbit holes. Surely the arbiter of who anyone wants to have sex with is the person. Lets take this example lesbian woman. If she doesn't want to have sex with a trans woman who has a penis that isn't transphobic. Because she doesn't have to have sex with anyone in possession of a vagina on demand - she has choice. Why is this choice somehow not allowable?

    Cotton ceiling my arse. I am a bisexual man. Being bisexual doesn't mean that I have to have sex with any man or any woman or any transgender person that I don't want to. A sexuality label does not compel sex with anyone, so wtf is this seminar supposed to do? Compel people to have sex with people they aren't attracted to? This isn't a genitals thing, its a desire thing. And some people are more attractive than others. And besides which as a *married* bisexual man I'd have to sew them back on first if I went off shagging other people...
    It is almost impossible to articulate the opposition to such a bonkers concept. I don't even know what the premise is - that people should be persuaded to have sex with someone on the grounds of that person's membership of some group or other. Like you say as though there are formal rules on the issue with penalties issued for violation of required behaviour.

    Absolutely bizarre. I think I am going to have to go back to skipping all posts on trans issues as it is all so crazy.

    Where is @kinabalu? He is usually a sane voice on all of this and can put it into human for the rest of us to understand.
    There's a similar move to get people to drop their sexual preferences in skin colour. ie white men MUST date black women to show they are non-racist, and if you - a white, or Japanese or Jewish woman (ie not oppressed) - exclusively date white men then you too are racist

    What a ridiculous mess
    One major problem with all this debate is that the extreme position gets portrayed as the norm.

    To take your example - asking people to consider why they wouldn't consider dating people of a particular race is not exactly controversial. The vast majority of even the most woke individuals would be happy with an answer based on personal preference, and as with any prejudice, considering our own motivations is vital to being a mature member of society. Many of us will see how attitudes towards sexuality have changed dramatically over our life times, and in most cases how positive that has been.

    Pressurising someone to date/have sex with specific people and calling them racist if they don't is extreme. Now we have social media, if you want to find people who believe that, you can very easily. You could even bang out a long article for the Daily Mail, with dozens of quotes, and you might even find the odd "organisation" that can be used to back up your story.

    However, it's still very much a fringe view, just as it is with trans rights. Most trans people will want society to be more accepting of them, and to at least consider whether their views are based on prejudice, but beyond that would find the idea of pressure abhorrent. For me, Ricky Gervais, and many on here are guilty of focusing on the extreme views, and tarring all trans people with the same brush.
    Don't disagree with anything you write save for "asking people to consider why they wouldn't consider dating people of a particular race is not exactly controversial"

    Oh yes it is. imo.
    I'm not suggesting you are put on a stage in front of 100 people and asked to justify your views.

    I'm saying that if you're a white man and you have never considered dating a black woman, then thinking about why that is on your own, or if you want to discuss it with others in an open way, isn't controversial. That's how our views develop over time.

    Someone's reasoning may simply be that their social circles are more white, so the opportunities haven't arisen, or that they really like women with red hair, so anyone else has to stand out above and beyond to be attractive to them. If, when they think about it, they find that without really acknowledging it, they consider black women to have particular characteristics they aren't keen on, then they may want to address whether that prejudice clouds their judgement.

    As far as I'm aware that's the mainstream view even of the cotton ceiling. If you don't want to do something it's up to you, but at least reflect on your reasons.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 36,643
    edited May 25
    IshmaelZ said:

    Is it just me, or is the Gray report completely meh?

    It's not you. Just a description of all the events, and a few observations such as the leaders should have done better and don't take it out on the juniors who thought all was legit because the seniors were there. Oh and be nice to cleaners and security guards. She also says much has been done to address most of these concerns.

    Boris ain't going nowhere on account of the famous "Sue Grey" report.
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 9,864
    IshmaelZ said:

    Is it just me, or is the Gray report completely meh?

    Sometimes things are sexier when you leave something to the imagination.

    After all the hype of the past six months, no report could live up to expectations, unless there was a photo of Boris and Gove snorting crack off a hooker.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 24,297
    edited May 25
    Eabhal said:

    Treatment of cleaning staff and security is the really interesting bit.

    Sounds like a bunch of knobs work at no 10. It's also stupid - getting to know cleaners in particular is a smart thing to do in an office. They know everything.

    Yes. It's speaks to how the place was run. How you are socialised into treating your juniors starts at the very top and filters down.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 72,709
    edited May 25
    IshmaelZ said:

    Is it just me, or is the Gray report completely meh?

    What more can a civil servant write than this ?!

    iii. At times it seems there was too little thought given to what was happening
    across the country in considering the appropriateness of some of these
    gatherings, the risks they presented to public health and how they might appear
    to the public. There were failures of leadership and judgment by different parts
    of No 10 and the Cabinet Office at different times. Some of the events should
    not have been allowed to take place. Other events should not have been
    allowed to develop as they did.

    Translation "It was an absolute shitshow, and Boris is bang to rights."
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 5,578
    Nigelb said:

    Credit to France for actually supplying Ukraine with the means to defend itself, despite their advocating a deal with Russia.

    https://mobile.twitter.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1529399870028763136
    French Caesar howitzers are already at the frontline - 🇺🇦Army Commander Zaluzhnyi

    They can hit targets 42 km away with high accuracy, important for targeting 🇷🇺 command points. Macron announced 12 Caesars would go to Ukraine on 22 Apr


    The German government’s attitude - or at least that of Scholz and his party - seems to be that Ukraine should be forced to capitulate.

    Scholz, at the very least, is an absolute ass. There are also some serious questions to be asked about the links he has with Russia.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 37,387

    So, we now know that all the government ministers who said the PM was ambushed by cake and no alcohol was consumed at his birthday party were not telling the truth.

    Are you sure? The ones i have seen just show orange and apple juice and a tray of sandwiches.

    You've not seen the one of the PM raising a toast with a can of Estrella then?

    I thought that was a can of coke. You are right. However, that really is the least bad of all of the photos, it doesn't look like a "party". As i said down thread, i think it is problematic for other reaons, if that is the bar for a fine, 10 people standing apart while.there are 4 cans of beers and a few sandwiches, all the other events surely should have been fines for Boris.

    Sunak has got very unlucky here.

    As an individual photo it's not a huge gotcha. But it does reveal the lies that have been told about that gathering.

  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 55,032
    edited May 25

    There is only one conclusion from this report and that is Boris has to go

    Time for his mps to act

    I haven't seen the report yet, have you read it yet, or was that your predetermined opinion already even before it was published?
    I have read the summary and listened to line by line analysis by Sam Coates

    The BYOB comments by Sue Gray are damning
  • RH1992RH1992 Posts: 784
    IshmaelZ said:

    Is it just me, or is the Gray report completely meh?

    If it had come out four months ago it'd be explosive and almost certainly would have led to 54 letters.

    Four months, a police investigation and a war later, very meh.
  • BannedinnParisBannedinnParis Posts: 1,884
    edited May 25

    So, we now know that all the government ministers who said the PM was ambushed by cake and no alcohol was consumed at his birthday party were not telling the truth.

    Are you sure? The ones i have seen just show orange and apple juice and a tray of sandwiches.


    You've not seen the one of the PM raising a toast with a can of Estrella then?

    My first thought was "Its a can of coke, no?" but its so blurred it could be a 330 ml Estrella.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 21,493

    So, we now know that all the government ministers who said the PM was ambushed by cake and no alcohol was consumed at his birthday party were not telling the truth.

    Are you sure? The ones on BBC website that specifically say birthday just show orange and apple juice and a tray of sandwiches. They actually don't look bad at all. Sunak seems very unlucky to get fined.
    The birthday photographs don't show a party, they show a gathering of people which failed to meet the exception bar of being "reasonably necessary for work purposes". In May 2020 any non-work gathering of that nature was illegal.

    A tray of sandwiches on a desk for staff? No problem. That you have organised a birthday gathering with alcohol is a problem.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 19,538

    There is only one conclusion from this report and that is Boris has to go

    Time for his mps to act

    And yet you support smokescreens and diversions chucked out by number 10 to save the big dog. It’s really odd.
  • AlistairMAlistairM Posts: 1,519
    I don't think this report will change much. Those who thought he ought to go will still think he should go. Those that don't want him to go will point to the fact there isn't really anything new. As you were, basically.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 72,826

    So, we now know that all the government ministers who said the PM was ambushed by cake and no alcohol was consumed at his birthday party were not telling the truth.

    Are you sure? The ones i have seen just show orange and apple juice and a tray of sandwiches.

    You've not seen the one of the PM raising a toast with a can of Estrella then?

    I thought that was a can of coke. You are right. However, that really is the least bad of all of the photos, it doesn't look like a "party". As i said down thread, i think it is problematic for other reaons, if that is the bar for a fine, 10 people standing apart while.there are 4 cans of beers and a few sandwiches, all the other events surely should have been fines for Boris.

    Sunak has got very unlucky here.

    As an individual photo it's not a huge gotcha. But it does reveal the lies that have been told about that gathering.

    My point has always been from the start arguing about the individual events, how many minutes Boris was here, how many cans of beers, etc are irreverent. He fostered a culture where there was widespread regular breaking of the rules, for that he should go.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 55,032
    Jonathan said:

    There is only one conclusion from this report and that is Boris has to go

    Time for his mps to act

    And yet you support smokescreens and diversions chucked out by number 10 to save the big dog. It’s really odd.
    What are you referring to
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 37,387
    The report will have no serious impact. Johnson will not resign, his MPs will not force him out and no-one in the wider country will change their minds. All of which is very bad news for the Tories.
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 8,508

    There is only one conclusion from this report and that is Boris has to go

    Time for his mps to act

    I haven't seen the report yet, have you read it yet, or was that your predetermined opinion already even before it was published?
    I have read the summary and listened to line by line analysis by Sam Coates
    I don’t think this report changes much to be honest, if the main thing it’s saying is senior leadership need to bear responsibility for the culture of partying in lockdown with their knowledge it is no different than yesterday, we all been saying this on PB all week and months. It’s nothing new. Without something new from this report it’s easily off the news and forgotten. And I say that as someone who wins three digit bet if he goes in 2022 ☹️

    Gale is blowing a storm all on his own.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 45,006
    A fair prediction.

    I remember Rupert Murdoch telling the DCMS select committee on phone hacking “this is the most humble day of my life”. He was lying. I expect the same level of insincerity from a supposedly “humbled” Boris Johnson today.
    https://mobile.twitter.com/RhonddaBryant/status/1529414152963465216
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 30,018

    So, we now know that all the government ministers who said the PM was ambushed by cake and no alcohol was consumed at his birthday party were not telling the truth.

    Are you sure? The ones on BBC website that specifically say birthday just show orange and apple juice and a tray of sandwiches. They actually don't look bad at all. Sunak seems very unlucky to get fined.
    From the report - Page 43

    image

  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 72,709
    If people think there is nothing doing with the report, it speaks that the most marvellous frog boiling operation has been performed by No 10 on the collective minds of the public.
This discussion has been closed.