Trump Just Told Us His Master Plan If he gets in next time, he won’t be dislodged by any means.
"Trump sketched out a vision that a new Republican Congress could enact sweeping new emergency powers for the next Republican president. The president would be empowered to disregard state jurisdiction over criminal law. The president would be allowed to push aside a “weak, foolish, and stupid governor,” and to fire “radical and racist prosecutors”—racist here meaning “anti-white.” The president could federalize state National Guards for law-enforcement duties, stop and frisk suspects for illegal weapons, and impose death sentences on drug dealers after expedited trials."
I imagine that summary executions of drug dealers might actually be quite popular in communities devastated by narcotics, especially in Democrat run cities.
And of course it makes Trump's opponents go into bat for the drug dealer in defending due process.
As ever with Trump, there is method with the madness and narcissism. That is what makes him a tough opponent.
Given the toxic nature of the campaign will Mourdaunt serve under Truss?
She might be wise to keep her distance in case things do go horribly wrong.
Tugs and Wallace have nailed their colours to the mast, they look to be playing the Starmer game.
If a clean break from the past is needed next time maybe better for Mordaunt to stay above the fray. Although history suggests it didn't work for Hunt.
You would hope that Mordaunt would spend the time working out how to spot and then dismantle elephant traps. Especially those set by the Daily Mail. It was really surprising to see how badly she fared against the one issue that sank her - being painted as "woke".
She needs far better people around her prepping her if there is to be a next time.
One has to admit that the last leg of Truss's ascent of the greasy pole has been more than impressive. Both Mordaunt and Sunak have been thoroughly dismantled by her team.
Truss remains a comprehensive air head, nonetheless she appears to have some seriously clever and ruthless people behind the scenes. Are the Aussies involved? From what we have seen so far, they will make light work of the Labour Party.
Continuity Johnson without the parties could see a swift polling lead for the Conservatives.
Short term yes - but "the Economy, Stupid" will come back and bite the current Government.
The economy has been my go to for a Conservative defeat for a couple of years. However, if Truss and the Mail can propagate the lie that it was Johnson and Sunak's socialism that caused all the problems Labour are in the cart!
Perhaps.
But one thing the Conservatives would really need to crack down on is any impression of greed, sleaze and 'one rule for us, another rule for them'.
And it would also be popular if confiscations of profits made from PPE contracts and/or Russian dealings were made.
Trump Just Told Us His Master Plan If he gets in next time, he won’t be dislodged by any means.
"Trump sketched out a vision that a new Republican Congress could enact sweeping new emergency powers for the next Republican president. The president would be empowered to disregard state jurisdiction over criminal law. The president would be allowed to push aside a “weak, foolish, and stupid governor,” and to fire “radical and racist prosecutors”—racist here meaning “anti-white.” The president could federalize state National Guards for law-enforcement duties, stop and frisk suspects for illegal weapons, and impose death sentences on drug dealers after expedited trials."
I imagine that summary executions of drug dealers might actually be quite popular in communities devastated by narcotics, especially in Democrat run cities.
And of course it makes Trump's opponents go into bat for the drug dealer in defending due process.
As ever with Trump, there is method with the madness and narcissism. That is what makes him a tough opponent.
Is he going to overturn the ban on the president standing for two consecutive terms? That surely would require a constitutional amendment, as would the president be enabled being able to remove a governor.
One thing I noticed about Trump's plan is the schedule F stuff that would strip senior administrative staff of their employment protections. Workers in politically sensitive influential jobs could be summarily dismissed and replaced if deemed to be resisting the program.
Whatever you think of that proposal, its something to watch because there is a strand of Daily Mail opinion that maintains the civil service/judges/police etc are against the people here. Somebody could pick it up and run with it, with some effect.
I watched it last night. It’s absolutely grim. I advise against
But it is only going to strengthen Ukrainian resolve against the Russians. Why would you ever surrender if this is your likely fate?
The war can only worsen
And God help any Russian soldiers captured by Ukranian resistance fighters or villagers now
Yes. They will be burned to death or skinned alive, and who can blame the Ukrainians?
That poor Ukrainian soldier was somebody's son, brother, uncle, father
If it was my son or my brother I could not go to my grave without taking equal revenge on a Russian. In front of me. Personally. The video is that bad
Amazingly the guy who did the castration has allowed himself to be identified, via that video (distinctive hat, etc). His days are numbered, and the number is small. As, indeed, are the days of his close family in Chechnya, I suspect
It's not amazing. It's psychological warfare. You won't deepen your understanding of it if you stay amazed.
I have not watched the video and I will not watch it either.
But the use of the hat and the use of colour in the form of the gloves suggests that someone has learnt from the recent use of PW by Daesh in the conflict in Iraq and Syria. This wasn't a guy "allowing" himself to be filmed, as in "Oh, go on then, if you want."
I watched it last night. It’s absolutely grim. I advise against
But it is only going to strengthen Ukrainian resolve against the Russians. Why would you ever surrender if this is your likely fate?
The war can only worsen
And God help any Russian soldiers captured by Ukranian resistance fighters or villagers now
Yes. They will be burned to death or skinned alive, and who can blame the Ukrainians?
That poor Ukrainian soldier was somebody's son, brother, uncle, father
If it was my son or my brother I could not go to my grave without taking equal revenge on a Russian. In front of me. Personally. The video is that bad
Amazingly the guy who did the castration has allowed himself to be identified, via that video (distinctive hat, etc). His days are numbered, and the number is small. As, indeed, are the days of his close family in Chechnya, I suspect
This kind of thing was a deliberate strategy by the Japanese in WWII. The idea was, if we're brutal to prisoners, they'll be brutal to us, and our men won't surrender because they'll expect the same in return. Almost, if not, impossible not to play the game. If I recall correctly (not far enough into World at War ATM) the allies knew of the strategy but still retaliated brutally.
I've been reading around this and you might be right. Apparently (IIRC @TOPPING told us this yesterday) the Wagner Group (hardcore Russian special ops) are known for this disgusting cruelty - to instil terror, and make Russians fight harder (to avoid capture, as you say)
Crucially, however, the normal playbook is to make sure no one is identifiable and the vids generally leak out a year or two after the atrocity: the rumours are enough to begin with. Here something seems to have gone wrong. The vid has leaked immediately and the evildoers are readily identifiable. So it feels like a massive propaganda own goal for Russia
This is terrible Nazi shit, blatantly done on living Ukrainians, visible on any phone or tablet or laptop worldwide. It stokes furious hatred for Russia
"Leak out" - please be serious. Timing is everything in warfare.
Have a look at how the Mongols used psychological warfare. They were extremely skilled at it. If your guys are seen as subhuman weaklings that's one thing, but being seen as vicious inhuman monsters is another. Sure, the two things can braid together. Psychological warfare isn't easy.
I don't know how you conclude this is definitely bad for the Russian war effort.
The Russian embassy in London won't have put that tweet out calling for neo-Nazis to suffer "humiliating deaths" without serious consideration.
My guess is there will be a response or at least a "side" reference by Lavrov or possibly even Putin.
To get a handle on which audiences are being aimed at by what parties, consider what may actually be done by parties and populations in response, not only in response to the publicity this act has received but its timing. ("Why now?") I would say for starters that those in the Ukraine, in Russia, and in the disputed regions who are somewhat sceptical about the genuineness of what may soon be a formal announcement of an intention to hold a referendum in the Kherson region are more likely to become more sceptical than less, given the publicity that this horrible act has received. On the other side of the paper, those who hold the opposite view will become more entrenched too. Those on both sides who are coining it from the war will be pleased at the development...
As for "worldwide revulsion", so what? How many divisions has worldwide revulsion?
If you only read one book on PW, make it Paul Linebarger's.
There will be Russian soldiers who have heard material about actions carried out by neo-Nazis in the Donbas and their response will be similar to yours after you heard this material: if it was your family member you wouldn't rest until you'd had revenge, etc. - against "a Russian", "a Ukrainian", "a Chechen", or whoever. That's the dynamic and it's as ugly as f***.
I appreciate you're not a native English speaker but we would usually say "other side of the coin", not "other side of the paper".
Enjoy the sprat, Doug :-) The sarcasm in your usage of "but" is so impressive. Given that I was going to use "coin" as a verb in the next sentence, I plumped for variety. I guess you feel safest reading metaphors that you're already familiar with. See George Orwell's first rule.
Should I take it that you're not interested in the matters under discussion and that you prefer to post one-liners to the internet scoffing at people whose horizons you find scarily wide for (in your wrong opinion) being forriners?
One thing I noticed about Trump's plan is the schedule F stuff that would strip senior administrative staff of their employment protections. Workers in politically sensitive influential jobs could be summarily dismissed and replaced if deemed to be resisting the program.
Whatever you think of that proposal, its something to watch because there is a strand of Daily Mail opinion that maintains the civil service/judges/police etc are against the people here. Somebody could pick it up and run with it, with some effect.
Kemi Badenoch mentioned it during her campaign. Why shouldn’t the head of the Passport Agency have his head on the block, if his department are utterly failing at their primary task of getting passports to people in a timely manner?
Thing is: it's not credible him saying it, and it comes across as reactionary because there's no intelligent critique or dissection of it; it's just reflexive because he's massively behind in the polls and he's pandering to what he thinks are core Tory prejudices to claw back some lost ground.
And I saw that as someone who's massively anti-Woke. And it's on top of his VAT tax cut farts. On top of members of his campaign team briefing that he's behind because Tory members are still 'a bit racist' and I'm afraid it's made me lose my respect for him. He's got no political judgement.
I wonder if in Russia there is a discussion forum pouring over the political significance of comments on Loose Women and weird maps posted by random people on the net.
The difference is that openly fascistic propaganda is widespread in Russian mainstream media.
Thing is: it's not credible him saying it, and it comes across as reactionary because there's no intelligent critique or dissection of it; it's just reflexive because he's massively behind in the polls and he's pandering to what he thinks are core Tory prejudices to claw back some lost ground.
And I saw that as someone who's massively anti-Woke. And it's on top of his VAT tax cut farts. On top of members of his campaign team briefing that he's behind because Tory members are still 'a bit racist' and I'm afraid it's made me lose my respect for him. He's got no political judgement.
I will no longer be voting Rishi.
Good for you. He has abandoned all the things which made his a credible and creditable, if doomed, campaign. He could have pivoted to Cost of Living.
Thing is: it's not credible him saying it, and it comes across as reactionary because there's no intelligent critique or dissection of it; it's just reflexive because he's massively behind in the polls and he's pandering to what he thinks are core Tory prejudices to claw back some lost ground.
And I saw that as someone who's massively anti-Woke. And it's on top of his VAT tax cut farts. On top of members of his campaign team briefing that he's behind because Tory members are still 'a bit racist' and I'm afraid it's made me lose my respect for him. He's got no political judgement.
I will no longer be voting Rishi.
Farts or farce? Either is appropriate.
He may not have had anything to do with that campaign member’s silly comments to a foreign newspaper.
Oh for goodness sake! Could the Tory leadership race get any dumber? It’s not the Equality Act that’s the problem! 🤦♀️ It acknowledges the biological reality of sex as Scotland’s Supreme Court held recently thanx to @ForWomenScot
Let's choose. He is either - a) an idiot b) badly informed c) well-informed but pandering to the gallery d) panicking e) using this issue to attack equalities law more generally.
The possibility of (e) worries me, especially given the nonsense Suella Braverman has been coming out with. Yet even now the Labour Party cannot be relied on to protect womens' rights or the rights of troubled children to have the best possible medical care.
Is it beyond them to get advice from well-informed equalities lawyers?
Please define well informed. We have numerous examples of QCs who are mad as a box of frogs and seem to know less about the law than I do*.
*in a recent matter I have knowledge of a QC advised his client to break a binding arbitration agreement in a contract, without even trying it. The result in court was a complete fail for his client. In minutes….
Oh I agree - there are some really stupid lawyers around. Ms Braverman for one.
Sunak has a team. It took me all of 5 minutes to find the Act and this case. It would not be hard for him or a member of his team to do some proper research before wading in.
The issues - of people trying to redefine woman or seeking to treat gender or gender identity as a protected characteristic (they are not) or teaching a particular gender ideology in schools or the role of lobby groups and their influence (see the Forstater, Bailey or Tavistock cases) do not arise from the Equality Act at all. And are not going to be resolved in any sort of sensible fashion by attacking the Act.
One thing I noticed about Trump's plan is the schedule F stuff that would strip senior administrative staff of their employment protections. Workers in politically sensitive influential jobs could be summarily dismissed and replaced if deemed to be resisting the program.
Whatever you think of that proposal, its something to watch because there is a strand of Daily Mail opinion that maintains the civil service/judges/police etc are against the people here. Somebody could pick it up and run with it, with some effect.
Kemi Badenoch mentioned it during her campaign. Why shouldn’t the head of the Passport Agency have his head on the block, if his department are utterly failing at their primary task of getting passports to people in a timely manner?
Interesting response. I think its more the head of the Royal Navy/Border Force with their head on the block for refusing to push back boats in the channel and fly illegals to Rwanda kind of thing. Something that is perceived as refusal to carry out government policy for political reasons rather than incompetence.
Oh for goodness sake! Could the Tory leadership race get any dumber? It’s not the Equality Act that’s the problem! 🤦♀️ It acknowledges the biological reality of sex as Scotland’s Supreme Court held recently thanx to @ForWomenScot
Let's choose. He is either - a) an idiot b) badly informed c) well-informed but pandering to the gallery d) panicking e) using this issue to attack equalities law more generally.
The possibility of (e) worries me, especially given the nonsense Suella Braverman has been coming out with. Yet even now the Labour Party cannot be relied on to protect womens' rights or the rights of troubled children to have the best possible medical care.
Is it beyond them to get advice from well-informed equalities lawyers?
I did tell you that your anti-trans activism would rebound on you Cyclefree in exactly this way, with a rolling back of all the advances made for women and other minorities in the C20th but you wouldn’t have it.
Thing is: it's not credible him saying it, and it comes across as reactionary because there's no intelligent critique or dissection of it; it's just reflexive because he's massively behind in the polls and he's pandering to what he thinks are core Tory prejudices to claw back some lost ground.
And I saw that as someone who's massively anti-Woke. And it's on top of his VAT tax cut farts. On top of members of his campaign team briefing that he's behind because Tory members are still 'a bit racist' and I'm afraid it's made me lose my respect for him. He's got no political judgement.
I will no longer be voting Rishi.
Good for you. He has abandoned all the things which made his a credible and creditable, if doomed, campaign. He could have pivoted to Cost of Living.
It turned out he was a total nitwit, as I’ve been warning people on here for years.
That’s not fair, he’s not a nitwit. He has terrible judgment though.
Oh for goodness sake! Could the Tory leadership race get any dumber? It’s not the Equality Act that’s the problem! 🤦♀️ It acknowledges the biological reality of sex as Scotland’s Supreme Court held recently thanx to @ForWomenScot
Let's choose. He is either - a) an idiot b) badly informed c) well-informed but pandering to the gallery d) panicking e) using this issue to attack equalities law more generally.
The possibility of (e) worries me, especially given the nonsense Suella Braverman has been coming out with. Yet even now the Labour Party cannot be relied on to protect womens' rights or the rights of troubled children to have the best possible medical care.
Is it beyond them to get advice from well-informed equalities lawyers?
I did tell you that your anti-trans activism would rebound on you Cyclefree in exactly this way, with a rolling back of all the advances made for women and other minorities in the C20th but you wouldn’t have it.
Oh for goodness sake! Could the Tory leadership race get any dumber? It’s not the Equality Act that’s the problem! 🤦♀️ It acknowledges the biological reality of sex as Scotland’s Supreme Court held recently thanx to @ForWomenScot
Let's choose. He is either - a) an idiot b) badly informed c) well-informed but pandering to the gallery d) panicking e) using this issue to attack equalities law more generally.
The possibility of (e) worries me, especially given the nonsense Suella Braverman has been coming out with. Yet even now the Labour Party cannot be relied on to protect womens' rights or the rights of troubled children to have the best possible medical care.
Is it beyond them to get advice from well-informed equalities lawyers?
Please define well informed. We have numerous examples of QCs who are mad as a box of frogs and seem to know less about the law than I do*.
*in a recent matter I have knowledge of a QC advised his client to break a binding arbitration agreement in a contract, without even trying it. The result in court was a complete fail for his client. In minutes….
Oh I agree - there are some really stupid lawyers around. Ms Braverman for one.
Sunak has a team. It took me all of 5 minutes to find the Act and this case. It would not be hard for him or a member of his team to do some proper research before wading in.
The issues - of people trying to redefine woman or seeking to treat gender or gender identity as a protected characteristic (they are not) or teaching a particular gender ideology in schools or the role of lobby groups and their influence (see the Forstater, Bailey or Tavistock cases) do not arise from the Equality Act at all. And are not going to be resolved in any sort of sensible fashion by attacking the Act.
It's dog whistle code. People like you are struggling. Because of people not like you. It's not easy to counter with rational argument.
The fact Truss now leads slightly with all voters, not just Conservative voters, will certainly boost her campaign
Many non-Conservatives are hoping that Truss becomes leader of the Conservative Party !!
Starmer led Truss 34% to 33% as preferred PM with Redfield last week, much closer than when she started her campaign. Although she likely still loses, she has made progress
I can’t believe Truss wants to get Redwood back. The man is certifiable.
If tax cuts are the equivalent of taking a firm grip of the tory party's shaft, talking about appointing John Redwood is shoving the other hand down the party's undercrackers and cupping its nuts.
Somebody knows the the conservative erogenous zones.
Oh for goodness sake! Could the Tory leadership race get any dumber? It’s not the Equality Act that’s the problem! 🤦♀️ It acknowledges the biological reality of sex as Scotland’s Supreme Court held recently thanx to @ForWomenScot
Let's choose. He is either - a) an idiot b) badly informed c) well-informed but pandering to the gallery d) panicking e) using this issue to attack equalities law more generally.
The possibility of (e) worries me, especially given the nonsense Suella Braverman has been coming out with. Yet even now the Labour Party cannot be relied on to protect womens' rights or the rights of troubled children to have the best possible medical care.
Is it beyond them to get advice from well-informed equalities lawyers?
Please define well informed. We have numerous examples of QCs who are mad as a box of frogs and seem to know less about the law than I do*.
*in a recent matter I have knowledge of a QC advised his client to break a binding arbitration agreement in a contract, without even trying it. The result in court was a complete fail for his client. In minutes….
Oh I agree - there are some really stupid lawyers around. Ms Braverman for one.
Sunak has a team. It took me all of 5 minutes to find the Act and this case. It would not be hard for him or a member of his team to do some proper research before wading in.
The issues - of people trying to redefine woman or seeking to treat gender or gender identity as a protected characteristic (they are not) or teaching a particular gender ideology in schools or the role of lobby groups and their influence (see the Forstater, Bailey or Tavistock cases) do not arise from the Equality Act at all. And are not going to be resolved in any sort of sensible fashion by attacking the Act.
It can be the case that the equalities act is actually satisfactory for addressing ge trans issue and yet is still, more widely, woke nonsense. I don't know if this is the case, but what Sunak says doesn't seem to necessarily be wrong.
Russia’s plans for post-war Europe. Great for Serbia and Ireland. Bad for Finland
Hubris on a level with Hitler if it's not just a piss take.
I don't suppose there's a similar map for the decolonisation of the Muscovite empire ?
It’s a Russian joke - and it’s in response to earlier maps slicing up Russia following their ‘total defeat in Ukraine’
That said, I’m increasingly convinced Putin would not stop with Ukraine if he won. Why should he? He would take Moldova, possibly Georgia and the Baltics
Oh for goodness sake! Could the Tory leadership race get any dumber? It’s not the Equality Act that’s the problem! 🤦♀️ It acknowledges the biological reality of sex as Scotland’s Supreme Court held recently thanx to @ForWomenScot
Let's choose. He is either - a) an idiot b) badly informed c) well-informed but pandering to the gallery d) panicking e) using this issue to attack equalities law more generally.
The possibility of (e) worries me, especially given the nonsense Suella Braverman has been coming out with. Yet even now the Labour Party cannot be relied on to protect womens' rights or the rights of troubled children to have the best possible medical care.
Is it beyond them to get advice from well-informed equalities lawyers?
I'm gob-smacked at the suggestion that politicians could be whipping up trans bigotry in order to roll back our legal rights.
I can’t believe Truss wants to get Redwood back. The man is certifiable.
If tax cuts are the equivalent of taking a firm grip of the tory party's shaft, talking about appointing John Redwood is shoving the other hand down the party's undercrackers and cupping its nuts.
Somebody knows the the conservative erogenous zones.
A colourful analogy. The rest of us better apply generous lube before touching our toes.
Trump Just Told Us His Master Plan If he gets in next time, he won’t be dislodged by any means.
"Trump sketched out a vision that a new Republican Congress could enact sweeping new emergency powers for the next Republican president. The president would be empowered to disregard state jurisdiction over criminal law. The president would be allowed to push aside a “weak, foolish, and stupid governor,” and to fire “radical and racist prosecutors”—racist here meaning “anti-white.” The president could federalize state National Guards for law-enforcement duties, stop and frisk suspects for illegal weapons, and impose death sentences on drug dealers after expedited trials."
I imagine that summary executions of drug dealers might actually be quite popular in communities devastated by narcotics, especially in Democrat run cities.
And of course it makes Trump's opponents go into bat for the drug dealer in defending due process.
As ever with Trump, there is method with the madness and narcissism. That is what makes him a tough opponent.
Is he going to overturn the ban on the president standing for two consecutive terms? That surely would require a constitutional amendment, as would the president be enabled being able to remove a governor.
Well there are at least two Supreme Court justices who would be more at home on Iran's Guardian Council, so who knows ?
Oh for goodness sake! Could the Tory leadership race get any dumber? It’s not the Equality Act that’s the problem! 🤦♀️ It acknowledges the biological reality of sex as Scotland’s Supreme Court held recently thanx to @ForWomenScot
Let's choose. He is either - a) an idiot b) badly informed c) well-informed but pandering to the gallery d) panicking e) using this issue to attack equalities law more generally.
The possibility of (e) worries me, especially given the nonsense Suella Braverman has been coming out with. Yet even now the Labour Party cannot be relied on to protect womens' rights or the rights of troubled children to have the best possible medical care.
Is it beyond them to get advice from well-informed equalities lawyers?
I did tell you that your anti-trans activism would rebound on you Cyclefree in exactly this way, with a rolling back of all the advances made for women and other minorities in the C20th but you wouldn’t have it.
One thing I noticed about Trump's plan is the schedule F stuff that would strip senior administrative staff of their employment protections. Workers in politically sensitive influential jobs could be summarily dismissed and replaced if deemed to be resisting the program.
Whatever you think of that proposal, its something to watch because there is a strand of Daily Mail opinion that maintains the civil service/judges/police etc are against the people here. Somebody could pick it up and run with it, with some effect.
Kemi Badenoch mentioned it during her campaign. Why shouldn’t the head of the Passport Agency have his head on the block, if his department are utterly failing at their primary task of getting passports to people in a timely manner?
Interesting response. I think its more the head of the Royal Navy/Border Force with their head on the block for refusing to push back boats in the channel and fly illegals to Rwanda kind of thing. Something that is perceived as refusal to carry out government policy for political reasons rather than incompetence.
Well, in a more normal employment environment, refusing to do what the boss is asking, for political reasons, would be called insubordination and get you fired in short order.
The fact Truss now leads slightly with all voters, not just Conservative voters, will certainly boost her campaign
Many non-Conservatives are hoping that Truss becomes leader of the Conservative Party !!
Starmer led Truss 34% to 33% as preferred PM with Redfield last week, much closer than when she started her campaign. Although she likely still loses, she has made progress
She has had quite a lot of publicity lately, though! I must admit, that like Dr F earlier this morning, I struggle to find a really good reason for voting Labour apart from the fact that they are not the Conservatives! If the Lib Dems or the Greens had a decent chance here I might will be tempted. However I think it's more important to get rid of Ms Patel! Although, to be fair, she's not a bad constituency MP. It's her general policies that I object to!
One thing I noticed about Trump's plan is the schedule F stuff that would strip senior administrative staff of their employment protections. Workers in politically sensitive influential jobs could be summarily dismissed and replaced if deemed to be resisting the program.
Whatever you think of that proposal, its something to watch because there is a strand of Daily Mail opinion that maintains the civil service/judges/police etc are against the people here. Somebody could pick it up and run with it, with some effect.
Kemi Badenoch mentioned it during her campaign. Why shouldn’t the head of the Passport Agency have his head on the block, if his department are utterly failing at their primary task of getting passports to people in a timely manner?
Interesting response. I think its more the head of the Royal Navy/Border Force with their head on the block for refusing to push back boats in the channel and fly illegals to Rwanda kind of thing. Something that is perceived as refusal to carry out government policy for political reasons rather than incompetence.
Well, in a more normal employment environment, refusing to do what the boss is asking, for political reasons, would be called insubordination and get you fired in short order.
Oh for goodness sake! Could the Tory leadership race get any dumber? It’s not the Equality Act that’s the problem! 🤦♀️ It acknowledges the biological reality of sex as Scotland’s Supreme Court held recently thanx to @ForWomenScot
Let's choose. He is either - a) an idiot b) badly informed c) well-informed but pandering to the gallery d) panicking e) using this issue to attack equalities law more generally.
The possibility of (e) worries me, especially given the nonsense Suella Braverman has been coming out with. Yet even now the Labour Party cannot be relied on to protect womens' rights or the rights of troubled children to have the best possible medical care.
Is it beyond them to get advice from well-informed equalities lawyers?
I did tell you that your anti-trans activism would rebound on you Cyclefree in exactly this way, with a rolling back of all the advances made for women and other minorities in the C20th but you wouldn’t have it.
What a pile of fat hairy bollocks
The truth is often unpalatable, I agree.
You’re literally claiming that the right to vote will be taken away from women. Get a grip
One thing I noticed about Trump's plan is the schedule F stuff that would strip senior administrative staff of their employment protections. Workers in politically sensitive influential jobs could be summarily dismissed and replaced if deemed to be resisting the program.
Whatever you think of that proposal, its something to watch because there is a strand of Daily Mail opinion that maintains the civil service/judges/police etc are against the people here. Somebody could pick it up and run with it, with some effect.
Kemi Badenoch mentioned it during her campaign. Why shouldn’t the head of the Passport Agency have his head on the block, if his department are utterly failing at their primary task of getting passports to people in a timely manner?
Interesting response. I think its more the head of the Royal Navy/Border Force with their head on the block for refusing to push back boats in the channel and fly illegals to Rwanda kind of thing. Something that is perceived as refusal to carry out government policy for political reasons rather than incompetence.
Well, in a more normal employment environment, refusing to do what the boss is asking, for political reasons, would be called insubordination and get you fired in short order.
The clue should be in the name: civil servant.
If a politician promises mining cheese on the moon, they shouldn't be able to sack the civil servant who is unable to achieve it.
Thing is: it's not credible him saying it, and it comes across as reactionary because there's no intelligent critique or dissection of it; it's just reflexive because he's massively behind in the polls and he's pandering to what he thinks are core Tory prejudices to claw back some lost ground.
And I saw that as someone who's massively anti-Woke. And it's on top of his VAT tax cut farts. On top of members of his campaign team briefing that he's behind because Tory members are still 'a bit racist' and I'm afraid it's made me lose my respect for him. He's got no political judgement.
I will no longer be voting Rishi.
Yep. There’s not much wrong with the Equality Act 2010 - it acknowledges there will be competing demands and offers ways through them. The problem has come from the “Stonewall Equalities (sic)” version peddled by a charity with a broken business model and politicians too cowardly, craven or thick to challenge it.
Oh for goodness sake! Could the Tory leadership race get any dumber? It’s not the Equality Act that’s the problem! 🤦♀️ It acknowledges the biological reality of sex as Scotland’s Supreme Court held recently thanx to @ForWomenScot
Let's choose. He is either - a) an idiot b) badly informed c) well-informed but pandering to the gallery d) panicking e) using this issue to attack equalities law more generally.
The possibility of (e) worries me, especially given the nonsense Suella Braverman has been coming out with. Yet even now the Labour Party cannot be relied on to protect womens' rights or the rights of troubled children to have the best possible medical care.
Is it beyond them to get advice from well-informed equalities lawyers?
I did tell you that your anti-trans activism would rebound on you Cyclefree in exactly this way, with a rolling back of all the advances made for women and other minorities in the C20th but you wouldn’t have it.
Nonsense. Nothing cyclefree has ever said has been anti-trans activism. Intelligent, gay, left wing twitter is delighted with the destruction of the Tavistock precisely because the Stonewall agenda is anti-gay, anti woman sexual fascism.
We badly need to enact a new s.28 to deal with people like you, the difference being the new version will outlaw the promotion of sheer, mouth breathing, wannabe woke stupidity.
Russia’s plans for post-war Europe. Great for Serbia and Ireland. Bad for Finland
Hubris on a level with Hitler if it's not just a piss take.
I don't suppose there's a similar map for the decolonisation of the Muscovite empire ?
It’s a Russian joke - and it’s in response to earlier maps slicing up Russia following their ‘total defeat in Ukraine’
That said, I’m increasingly convinced Putin would not stop with Ukraine if he won. Why should he? He would take Moldova, possibly Georgia and the Baltics
Why would he take the Ukraine? Why would he aim to take Moldova and the other four? Those are the questions, not why should he refrain.
Did you see that the EU (or perhaps the "EUSSR" in Brexiteerspeak?) backed down this month over Kaliningrad?
Oh for goodness sake! Could the Tory leadership race get any dumber? It’s not the Equality Act that’s the problem! 🤦♀️ It acknowledges the biological reality of sex as Scotland’s Supreme Court held recently thanx to @ForWomenScot
Let's choose. He is either - a) an idiot b) badly informed c) well-informed but pandering to the gallery d) panicking e) using this issue to attack equalities law more generally.
The possibility of (e) worries me, especially given the nonsense Suella Braverman has been coming out with. Yet even now the Labour Party cannot be relied on to protect womens' rights or the rights of troubled children to have the best possible medical care.
Is it beyond them to get advice from well-informed equalities lawyers?
Please define well informed. We have numerous examples of QCs who are mad as a box of frogs and seem to know less about the law than I do*.
*in a recent matter I have knowledge of a QC advised his client to break a binding arbitration agreement in a contract, without even trying it. The result in court was a complete fail for his client. In minutes….
Oh I agree - there are some really stupid lawyers around. Ms Braverman for one.
Sunak has a team. It took me all of 5 minutes to find the Act and this case. It would not be hard for him or a member of his team to do some proper research before wading in.
The issues - of people trying to redefine woman or seeking to treat gender or gender identity as a protected characteristic (they are not) or teaching a particular gender ideology in schools or the role of lobby groups and their influence (see the Forstater, Bailey or Tavistock cases) do not arise from the Equality Act at all. And are not going to be resolved in any sort of sensible fashion by attacking the Act.
It's just a desperate attempt to salvage his foundering campaign. It has nothing to do with logic - other than that of appealing to blind prejudice. It won't do his campaign any good, and has diminished him as a serious politician.
But he's probably right in thinking Tory members might cheer attacks on the Equality Act, illogical or otherwise.
Oh for goodness sake! Could the Tory leadership race get any dumber? It’s not the Equality Act that’s the problem! 🤦♀️ It acknowledges the biological reality of sex as Scotland’s Supreme Court held recently thanx to @ForWomenScot
Let's choose. He is either - a) an idiot b) badly informed c) well-informed but pandering to the gallery d) panicking e) using this issue to attack equalities law more generally.
The possibility of (e) worries me, especially given the nonsense Suella Braverman has been coming out with. Yet even now the Labour Party cannot be relied on to protect womens' rights or the rights of troubled children to have the best possible medical care.
Is it beyond them to get advice from well-informed equalities lawyers?
I did tell you that your anti-trans activism would rebound on you Cyclefree in exactly this way, with a rolling back of all the advances made for women and other minorities in the C20th but you wouldn’t have it.
Rishi’s campaign is over. He is just demeaning himself now. Astonishing bad calls for a man who had a near who’s who of senior Tories lined up behind him, and the very best operatives behind the scenes.
One thing I noticed about Trump's plan is the schedule F stuff that would strip senior administrative staff of their employment protections. Workers in politically sensitive influential jobs could be summarily dismissed and replaced if deemed to be resisting the program.
Whatever you think of that proposal, its something to watch because there is a strand of Daily Mail opinion that maintains the civil service/judges/police etc are against the people here. Somebody could pick it up and run with it, with some effect.
Kemi Badenoch mentioned it during her campaign. Why shouldn’t the head of the Passport Agency have his head on the block, if his department are utterly failing at their primary task of getting passports to people in a timely manner?
Is the failing because of his actions in his role, or because the politicians have chosen a stupid policy or simply not provided the required funding?
Russia’s plans for post-war Europe. Great for Serbia and Ireland. Bad for Finland
Hubris on a level with Hitler if it's not just a piss take.
I don't suppose there's a similar map for the decolonisation of the Muscovite empire ?
It’s a Russian joke - and it’s in response to earlier maps slicing up Russia following their ‘total defeat in Ukraine’
That said, I’m increasingly convinced Putin would not stop with Ukraine if he won. Why should he? He would take Moldova, possibly Georgia and the Baltics
Why would he take the Ukraine? Why would he aim to take Moldova and the other four? Those are the questions, not why should he refrain.
Did you see that the EU (or perhaps the "EUSSR" in Brexiteerspeak?) backed down this month over Kaliningrad?
One thing I noticed about Trump's plan is the schedule F stuff that would strip senior administrative staff of their employment protections. Workers in politically sensitive influential jobs could be summarily dismissed and replaced if deemed to be resisting the program.
Whatever you think of that proposal, its something to watch because there is a strand of Daily Mail opinion that maintains the civil service/judges/police etc are against the people here. Somebody could pick it up and run with it, with some effect.
Kemi Badenoch mentioned it during her campaign. Why shouldn’t the head of the Passport Agency have his head on the block, if his department are utterly failing at their primary task of getting passports to people in a timely manner?
Interesting response. I think its more the head of the Royal Navy/Border Force with their head on the block for refusing to push back boats in the channel and fly illegals to Rwanda kind of thing. Something that is perceived as refusal to carry out government policy for political reasons rather than incompetence.
Well, in a more normal employment environment, refusing to do what the boss is asking, for political reasons, would be called insubordination and get you fired in short order.
The clue should be in the name: civil servant.
That would depend on the legality of the instruction. In the case of pushing back boats, that's disputable.
Thing is: it's not credible him saying it, and it comes across as reactionary because there's no intelligent critique or dissection of it; it's just reflexive because he's massively behind in the polls and he's pandering to what he thinks are core Tory prejudices to claw back some lost ground.
And I saw that as someone who's massively anti-Woke. And it's on top of his VAT tax cut farts. On top of members of his campaign team briefing that he's behind because Tory members are still 'a bit racist' and I'm afraid it's made me lose my respect for him. He's got no political judgement.
Oh for goodness sake! Could the Tory leadership race get any dumber? It’s not the Equality Act that’s the problem! 🤦♀️ It acknowledges the biological reality of sex as Scotland’s Supreme Court held recently thanx to @ForWomenScot
Let's choose. He is either - a) an idiot b) badly informed c) well-informed but pandering to the gallery d) panicking e) using this issue to attack equalities law more generally.
The possibility of (e) worries me, especially given the nonsense Suella Braverman has been coming out with. Yet even now the Labour Party cannot be relied on to protect womens' rights or the rights of troubled children to have the best possible medical care.
Is it beyond them to get advice from well-informed equalities lawyers?
I did tell you that your anti-trans activism would rebound on you Cyclefree in exactly this way, with a rolling back of all the advances made for women and other minorities in the C20th but you wouldn’t have it.
I am not anti-trans and have never ever advocated for a reduction in their rights. I did point out that trans activists have been advocating for a rolling back of womens rights, contained in the Equalities Act, since 2015, but you wouldn't have it. And when their actions have been tested in the courts - see the Forstater and Bailey cases - they have lost. And when it has been tested by the science - see the Cass Report - action to roll back the damage they have and are doing is, I hope, stopped.
And I did also point out that I was worried about attacks on womens rights from those using the trans issue to do so. Unlike you I can see that womens rights and sexism occur on both the left and right. I do not take a binary view and assume - as you appear to do - that women can expect to be supported by one side only and attacked only by another. Sexism is pretty universal alas.
I note that the Labour Party - Wes Streeting , for instance - has said nothing about the Cass Report and what it recommends for the proper treatment of children with dysphoria. I notice that Dawn Butler had nothing to say when a black lesbian won her sex discrimination case against her chambers who had unwisely bought in to the TRA nonsense.
By the way I did read that article you sent me. Long and quite demanding but very interesting and thoughtful. It merits a second more careful reading. So thank you.
Mr. Divvie, is he calling for the disestablishment of the Church of England?
Of course, if England had a Parliament, then the Commons could become something like what Brown appears to be supporting.
If there was an elected Senate as he proposes then the Lords would cease to exist full stop. However that does not necessarily stop the Church of England remaining the established Church with the monarch as Supreme Governor
Oh for goodness sake! Could the Tory leadership race get any dumber? It’s not the Equality Act that’s the problem! 🤦♀️ It acknowledges the biological reality of sex as Scotland’s Supreme Court held recently thanx to @ForWomenScot
Let's choose. He is either - a) an idiot b) badly informed c) well-informed but pandering to the gallery d) panicking e) using this issue to attack equalities law more generally.
The possibility of (e) worries me, especially given the nonsense Suella Braverman has been coming out with. Yet even now the Labour Party cannot be relied on to protect womens' rights or the rights of troubled children to have the best possible medical care.
Is it beyond them to get advice from well-informed equalities lawyers?
I did tell you that your anti-trans activism would rebound on you Cyclefree in exactly this way, with a rolling back of all the advances made for women and other minorities in the C20th but you wouldn’t have it.
What a pile of fat hairy bollocks
The truth is often unpalatable, I agree.
You’re literally claiming that the right to vote will be taken away from women. Get a grip
Well, I wouldn’t put that past some of the people involved, sure. But the most recent stuff will go first, if they get their way.
My personal belief is that Cyclefree et al have been used by people with a much wider agenda: They don’t give a stuff about trans people particularly, (I mean, they believe them to be degenerate perverts who have rejected God’s mercy, but they hardly limit that attitude to trans people...) they’re really after the unrolling of the liberal project. Gay rights, women’s rights, the whole lot.
Mr. Divvie, is he calling for the disestablishment of the Church of England?
Of course, if England had a Parliament, then the Commons could become something like what Brown appears to be supporting.
If there was an elected Senate as he proposes then the Lords would cease to exist full stop. However that does not necessarily stop the Church of England remaining the established Church with the monarch as Supreme Governor
Rishi’s campaign is over. He is just demeaning himself now. Astonishing bad calls for a man who had a near who’s who of senior Tories lined up behind him, and the very best operatives behind the scenes.
We see now that he was never a man of substance.
His time has been and gone now. Michael Portillo, David Miliband, Jeremy Hunt... And now Rish Sunak is another one to add to the roll-call of no hopers who thought they might be PM but blew it when the chance came.
I can’t believe Truss wants to get Redwood back. The man is certifiable.
If tax cuts are the equivalent of taking a firm grip of the tory party's shaft, talking about appointing John Redwood is shoving the other hand down the party's undercrackers and cupping its nuts.
Somebody knows the the conservative erogenous zones.
A colourful analogy. The rest of us better apply generous lube before touching our toes.
I imagine that a first meeting between Redwood and Rees-Mogg on one side and the treasury officials on the other would be cold enough to chill a decent Burgundy.
Mr. Divvie, is he calling for the disestablishment of the Church of England?
Of course, if England had a Parliament, then the Commons could become something like what Brown appears to be supporting.
If there was an elected Senate as he proposes then the Lords would cease to exist full stop. However that does not necessarily stop the Church of England remaining the established Church with the monarch as Supreme Governor
With a Peggster at the wheel?
A pity the Tower of London is no longer in active use
Oh for goodness sake! Could the Tory leadership race get any dumber? It’s not the Equality Act that’s the problem! 🤦♀️ It acknowledges the biological reality of sex as Scotland’s Supreme Court held recently thanx to @ForWomenScot
Let's choose. He is either - a) an idiot b) badly informed c) well-informed but pandering to the gallery d) panicking e) using this issue to attack equalities law more generally.
The possibility of (e) worries me, especially given the nonsense Suella Braverman has been coming out with. Yet even now the Labour Party cannot be relied on to protect womens' rights or the rights of troubled children to have the best possible medical care.
Is it beyond them to get advice from well-informed equalities lawyers?
I did tell you that your anti-trans activism would rebound on you Cyclefree in exactly this way, with a rolling back of all the advances made for women and other minorities in the C20th but you wouldn’t have it.
Nonsense. Nothing cyclefree has ever said has been anti-trans activism. Intelligent, gay, left wing twitter is delighted with the destruction of the Tavistock precisely because the Stonewall agenda is anti-gay, anti woman sexual fascism
Pink News and Jolyon finding themselves on “the wrong side of history” - which is funny, because that’s what they used to say about people asking for evidence on puberty blockers….
Russia’s plans for post-war Europe. Great for Serbia and Ireland. Bad for Finland
Hubris on a level with Hitler if it's not just a piss take.
I don't suppose there's a similar map for the decolonisation of the Muscovite empire ?
It’s a Russian joke - and it’s in response to earlier maps slicing up Russia following their ‘total defeat in Ukraine
Indeed, and a nasty joke too. It shows the "Emirates" of London and Paris, the "Islamo-Democratic Republic of Sweden", and the "Republic of Wessex". Plus the "German Democratic Republic" for old times' sake. And no Romania but a "Gypsy Empire".
Months too late, but welcome nonetheless. I've never understood the unwillingness to provide Ukraine with decent air defence systems against bombardment aimed 90% at civilian targets.
"I do not have detailed info on contracting process but we are already in process of procuring the system. We announced NASAM’s procurement &move forward with that," senior defense official said
Thing is: it's not credible him saying it, and it comes across as reactionary because there's no intelligent critique or dissection of it; it's just reflexive because he's massively behind in the polls and he's pandering to what he thinks are core Tory prejudices to claw back some lost ground.
And I saw that as someone who's massively anti-Woke. And it's on top of his VAT tax cut farts. On top of members of his campaign team briefing that he's behind because Tory members are still 'a bit racist' and I'm afraid it's made me lose my respect for him. He's got no political judgement.
Oh for goodness sake! Could the Tory leadership race get any dumber? It’s not the Equality Act that’s the problem! 🤦♀️ It acknowledges the biological reality of sex as Scotland’s Supreme Court held recently thanx to @ForWomenScot
Let's choose. He is either - a) an idiot b) badly informed c) well-informed but pandering to the gallery d) panicking e) using this issue to attack equalities law more generally.
The possibility of (e) worries me, especially given the nonsense Suella Braverman has been coming out with. Yet even now the Labour Party cannot be relied on to protect womens' rights or the rights of troubled children to have the best possible medical care.
Is it beyond them to get advice from well-informed equalities lawyers?
I did tell you that your anti-trans activism would rebound on you Cyclefree in exactly this way, with a rolling back of all the advances made for women and other minorities in the C20th but you wouldn’t have it.
I am not anti-trans and have never ever advocated for a reduction in their rights. I did point out that trans activists have been advocating for a rolling back of womens rights, contained in the Equalities Act, since 2015, but you wouldn't have it. And when their actions have been tested in the courts - see the Forstater and Bailey cases - they have lost. And when it has been tested by the science - see the Cass Report - action to roll back the damage they have and are doing is, I hope, stopped.
And I did also point out that I was worried about attacks on womens rights from those using the trans issue to do so. Unlike you I can see that womens rights and sexism occur on both the left and right. I do not take a binary view and assume - as you appear to do - that women can expect to be supported by one side only and attacked only by another. Sexism is pretty universal alas.
I note that the Labour Party - Wes Streeting , for instance - has said nothing about the Cass Report and what it recommends for the proper treatment of children with dysphoria. I notice that Dawn Butler had nothing to say when a black lesbian won her sex discrimination case against her chambers who had unwisely bought in to the TRA nonsense.
By the way I did read that article you sent me. Long and quite demanding but very interesting and thoughtful. It merits a second more careful reading. So thank you.
I‘m glad you enjoyed the article. It is one I come back to occasionally too. It asked questions that I don’t have answers to, that cut across my internal moral compasses.
I don’t think you see yourself as anti-trans, but I would say that you have allied yourself (implicitly or otherwise) with people who absolutely are anti trans & are using well meaning people like you as cover. People like you are then the respectable face of the movement; the people with reasonable concerns, the ones who don’t hate trans people, they just don’t want them to be difficult.
You are part of a movement that has swept up trans people in a culture war not of their own making, that seeks to use them as pawns in a political game. Can you see that from their point of view, whether you think you are anti-trans or not might appear somewhat sophist from their point of view?
Oh for goodness sake! Could the Tory leadership race get any dumber? It’s not the Equality Act that’s the problem! 🤦♀️ It acknowledges the biological reality of sex as Scotland’s Supreme Court held recently thanx to @ForWomenScot
Let's choose. He is either - a) an idiot b) badly informed c) well-informed but pandering to the gallery d) panicking e) using this issue to attack equalities law more generally.
The possibility of (e) worries me, especially given the nonsense Suella Braverman has been coming out with. Yet even now the Labour Party cannot be relied on to protect womens' rights or the rights of troubled children to have the best possible medical care.
Is it beyond them to get advice from well-informed equalities lawyers?
I did tell you that your anti-trans activism would rebound on you Cyclefree in exactly this way, with a rolling back of all the advances made for women and other minorities in the C20th but you wouldn’t have it.
What a pile of fat hairy bollocks
The truth is often unpalatable, I agree.
You’re literally claiming that the right to vote will be taken away from women. Get a grip
Well, I wouldn’t put that past some of the people involved, sure. But the most recent stuff will go first, if they get their way.
My personal belief is that Cyclefree et al have been used by people with a much wider agenda: They don’t give a stuff about trans people particularly, (I mean, they believe them to be degenerate perverts who have rejected God’s mercy, but they hardly limit that attitude to trans people...) they’re really after the unrolling of the liberal project. Gay rights, women’s rights, the whole lot.
Most people have a position on woke: a set of bounds, to the left of which is too woke, to the right of which is not woke enough. I think almost none of these people will be taking their position for religious reasons. I also think almost no-one who thinks a lot of where we are no is 'too woke' is looking for what you're suggesting. What your suggesting is that there are people hankering for a return to the 1880s. I've never met any such people. I've never met anyone hankering for a return to the 1950s, or even the 1980s. For most people, 2012 or thereabouts would be just about fine.
Rishi’s campaign is over. He is just demeaning himself now. Astonishing bad calls for a man who had a near who’s who of senior Tories lined up behind him, and the very best operatives behind the scenes.
We see now that he was never a man of substance.
His time has been and gone now. Michael Portillo, David Miliband, Jeremy Hunt... And now Rish Sunak is another one to add to the roll-call of no hopers who thought they might be PM but blew it when the chance came.
Its about timing and making use of opportunities.
The skilled ones do it well - Thatcher, Blair, Clinton, Obama, Boris, even Trump.
Oh for goodness sake! Could the Tory leadership race get any dumber? It’s not the Equality Act that’s the problem! 🤦♀️ It acknowledges the biological reality of sex as Scotland’s Supreme Court held recently thanx to @ForWomenScot
Oh for goodness sake! Could the Tory leadership race get any dumber? It’s not the Equality Act that’s the problem! 🤦♀️ It acknowledges the biological reality of sex as Scotland’s Supreme Court held recently thanx to @ForWomenScot
Let's choose. He is either - a) an idiot b) badly informed c) well-informed but pandering to the gallery d) panicking e) using this issue to attack equalities law more generally.
The possibility of (e) worries me, especially given the nonsense Suella Braverman has been coming out with. Yet even now the Labour Party cannot be relied on to protect womens' rights or the rights of troubled children to have the best possible medical care.
Is it beyond them to get advice from well-informed equalities lawyers?
I did tell you that your anti-trans activism would rebound on you Cyclefree in exactly this way, with a rolling back of all the advances made for women and other minorities in the C20th but you wouldn’t have it.
What a pile of fat hairy bollocks
The truth is often unpalatable, I agree.
You’re literally claiming that the right to vote will be taken away from women. Get a grip
Well, I wouldn’t put that past some of the people involved, sure. But the most recent stuff will go first, if they get their way.
My personal belief is that Cyclefree et al have been used by people with a much wider agenda: They don’t give a stuff about trans people particularly, (I mean, they believe them to be degenerate perverts who have rejected God’s mercy, but they hardly limit that attitude to trans people...) they’re really after the unrolling of the liberal project. Gay rights, women’s rights, the whole lot.
I am quite certain that there are people with precisely that agenda. Especially in the US. And groups in Europe too.
But the problem we have - and I genuinely wish you would engage with it rather than dismissing it - is this: TRAs also have an agenda and it is very explicitly and openly to replace sex with gender and to limit or remove existing rights for women. Stonewall, for instance, has openly called for the single sex exemptions in the Equality Act to be removed, for the offence of rape by deception to be removed. These proposals and self-ID will diminish the position of women, not simply in relation to single sex spaces but in relation to equal pay (the use of a comparator is rendered meaningless if self-ID is permitted). Abolition of one of the crimes of rape is in no sense a progressive cause.
Your position seems to be that women should not campaign against this but accept it because otherwise they might possibly give succour to some right-wing groups. It assumes that Stonewall and others supporting their stance are progressive because they say they are. I judge them on what they advocate. And there is nothing progressive about what they are advocating.
So why should women not campaign against something that will harm them?That is an absurd and immoral view IMO. And, frankly, sexist because it is saying - whether you mean to or not - that women should never put their interests first.
Mr. Divvie, is he calling for the disestablishment of the Church of England?
Of course, if England had a Parliament, then the Commons could become something like what Brown appears to be supporting.
If there was an elected Senate as he proposes then the Lords would cease to exist full stop. However that does not necessarily stop the Church of England remaining the established Church with the monarch as Supreme Governor
With a Peggster at the wheel?
A pity the Tower of London is no longer in active use
Oh for goodness sake! Could the Tory leadership race get any dumber? It’s not the Equality Act that’s the problem! 🤦♀️ It acknowledges the biological reality of sex as Scotland’s Supreme Court held recently thanx to @ForWomenScot
Let's choose. He is either - a) an idiot b) badly informed c) well-informed but pandering to the gallery d) panicking e) using this issue to attack equalities law more generally.
The possibility of (e) worries me, especially given the nonsense Suella Braverman has been coming out with. Yet even now the Labour Party cannot be relied on to protect womens' rights or the rights of troubled children to have the best possible medical care.
Is it beyond them to get advice from well-informed equalities lawyers?
I did tell you that your anti-trans activism would rebound on you Cyclefree in exactly this way, with a rolling back of all the advances made for women and other minorities in the C20th but you wouldn’t have it.
What a pile of fat hairy bollocks
The truth is often unpalatable, I agree.
You’re literally claiming that the right to vote will be taken away from women. Get a grip
Well, I wouldn’t put that past some of the people involved, sure. But the most recent stuff will go first, if they get their way.
My personal belief is that Cyclefree et al have been used by people with a much wider agenda: They don’t give a stuff about trans people particularly, (I mean, they believe them to be degenerate perverts who have rejected God’s mercy, but they hardly limit that attitude to trans people...) they’re really after the unrolling of the liberal project. Gay rights, women’s rights, the whole lot.
I am quite certain that there are people with precisely that agenda. Especially in the US. And groups in Europe too.
But the problem we have - and I genuinely wish you would engage with it rather than dismissing it - is this: TRAs also have an agenda and it is very explicitly and openly to replace sex with gender and to limit or remove existing rights for women. Stonewall, for instance, has openly called for the single sex exemptions in the Equality Act to be removed, for the offence of rape by deception to be removed. These proposals and self-ID will diminish the position of women, not simply in relation to single sex spaces but in relation to equal pay (the use of a comparator is rendered meaningless if self-ID is permitted). Abolition of one of the crimes of rape is in no sense a progressive cause.
Your position seems to be that women should not campaign against this but accept it because otherwise they might possibly give succour to some right-wing groups. It assumes that Stonewall and others supporting their stance are progressive because they say they are. I judge them on what they advocate. And there is nothing progressive about what they are advocating.
So why should women not campaign against something that will harm them?That is an absurd and immoral view IMO. And, frankly, sexist because it is saying - whether you mean to or not - that women should never put their interests first.
My position is that you & people like you are taking sides in a culture war that will rebound on you in ways that you will find deeply unconfortable if you “win”.
Be careful what you wish for, because you might get it & more besides.
Still not seen any polling that shows Truss Tories ahead of Labour if she took over.
I’m sure we’d had polling of Johnson last time
A lot of people wouldn't have the faintest idea who she is to be honest...
Which is either an incredible opportunity or a very dangerous one.
I still maintain she’s going to come unstuck when CoL doesn’t get resolved
The Conservatives are done (well they've got until up to Jan 25 but you know what I mean) Labour will form the next government after the next general election.
Still not seen any polling that shows Truss Tories ahead of Labour if she took over.
I’m sure we’d had polling of Johnson last time
Yes, Johnson clearly polled ahead of Labour in the last leadership election.
Truss might get a bounce, even pull ahead but the nightmare is she is the Tory Kim Campbell.
Campbell got a bounce to about 35 to 36% in the polls and even led some polls in her first 3 months as PM but by polling day in October her Progressive Conservative party collapsed to just 16%, losing votes to the populist right Reform who got 18% as well as to the Liberals to her left who won a landslide victory with 41%
Russia’s plans for post-war Europe. Great for Serbia and Ireland. Bad for Finland
Hubris on a level with Hitler if it's not just a piss take.
I don't suppose there's a similar map for the decolonisation of the Muscovite empire ?
It’s a Russian joke - and it’s in response to earlier maps slicing up Russia following their ‘total defeat in Ukraine
Indeed, and a nasty joke too. It shows the "Emirates" of London and Paris, the "Islamo-Democratic Republic of Sweden", and the "Republic of Wessex". Plus the "German Democratic Republic" for old times' sake. And no Romania but a "Gypsy Empire".
Gutted about the Kingdom of Mercia. I was hoping they'd make me an Offa.
Oh for goodness sake! Could the Tory leadership race get any dumber? It’s not the Equality Act that’s the problem! 🤦♀️ It acknowledges the biological reality of sex as Scotland’s Supreme Court held recently thanx to @ForWomenScot
Let's choose. He is either - a) an idiot b) badly informed c) well-informed but pandering to the gallery d) panicking e) using this issue to attack equalities law more generally.
The possibility of (e) worries me, especially given the nonsense Suella Braverman has been coming out with. Yet even now the Labour Party cannot be relied on to protect womens' rights or the rights of troubled children to have the best possible medical care.
Is it beyond them to get advice from well-informed equalities lawyers?
I did tell you that your anti-trans activism would rebound on you Cyclefree in exactly this way, with a rolling back of all the advances made for women and other minorities in the C20th but you wouldn’t have it.
What a pile of fat hairy bollocks
The truth is often unpalatable, I agree.
You’re literally claiming that the right to vote will be taken away from women. Get a grip
Well, I wouldn’t put that past some of the people involved, sure. But the most recent stuff will go first, if they get their way.
My personal belief is that Cyclefree et al have been used by people with a much wider agenda: They don’t give a stuff about trans people particularly, (I mean, they believe them to be degenerate perverts who have rejected God’s mercy, but they hardly limit that attitude to trans people...) they’re really after the unrolling of the liberal project. Gay rights, women’s rights, the whole lot.
I am quite certain that there are people with precisely that agenda. Especially in the US. And groups in Europe too.
But the problem we have - and I genuinely wish you would engage with it rather than dismissing it - is this: TRAs also have an agenda and it is very explicitly and openly to replace sex with gender and to limit or remove existing rights for women. Stonewall, for instance, has openly called for the single sex exemptions in the Equality Act to be removed, for the offence of rape by deception to be removed. These proposals and self-ID will diminish the position of women, not simply in relation to single sex spaces but in relation to equal pay (the use of a comparator is rendered meaningless if self-ID is permitted). Abolition of one of the crimes of rape is in no sense a progressive cause.
Your position seems to be that women should not campaign against this but accept it because otherwise they might possibly give succour to some right-wing groups. It assumes that Stonewall and others supporting their stance are progressive because they say they are. I judge them on what they advocate. And there is nothing progressive about what they are advocating.
So why should women not campaign against something that will harm them?That is an absurd and immoral view IMO. And, frankly, sexist because it is saying - whether you mean to or not - that women should never put their interests first.
My position is that you & people like you are taking sides in a culture war that will rebound on you in ways that you will find deeply unconformable if you “win”.
Be careful what you wish for, because you might get it & more besides.
It's a case of deciding issues on their merits. It's a false choice to say that either one must be on the side of trans activists or on the side of the hard right of the US Republican party.
Oh for goodness sake! Could the Tory leadership race get any dumber? It’s not the Equality Act that’s the problem! 🤦♀️ It acknowledges the biological reality of sex as Scotland’s Supreme Court held recently thanx to @ForWomenScot
Let's choose. He is either - a) an idiot b) badly informed c) well-informed but pandering to the gallery d) panicking e) using this issue to attack equalities law more generally.
The possibility of (e) worries me, especially given the nonsense Suella Braverman has been coming out with. Yet even now the Labour Party cannot be relied on to protect womens' rights or the rights of troubled children to have the best possible medical care.
Is it beyond them to get advice from well-informed equalities lawyers?
I did tell you that your anti-trans activism would rebound on you Cyclefree in exactly this way, with a rolling back of all the advances made for women and other minorities in the C20th but you wouldn’t have it.
What a pile of fat hairy bollocks
The truth is often unpalatable, I agree.
You’re literally claiming that the right to vote will be taken away from women. Get a grip
Well, I wouldn’t put that past some of the people involved, sure. But the most recent stuff will go first, if they get their way.
My personal belief is that Cyclefree et al have been used by people with a much wider agenda: They don’t give a stuff about trans people particularly, (I mean, they believe them to be degenerate perverts who have rejected God’s mercy, but they hardly limit that attitude to trans people...) they’re really after the unrolling of the liberal project. Gay rights, women’s rights, the whole lot.
I am quite certain that there are people with precisely that agenda. Especially in the US. And groups in Europe too.
But the problem we have - and I genuinely wish you would engage with it rather than dismissing it - is this: TRAs also have an agenda and it is very explicitly and openly to replace sex with gender and to limit or remove existing rights for women. Stonewall, for instance, has openly called for the single sex exemptions in the Equality Act to be removed, for the offence of rape by deception to be removed. These proposals and self-ID will diminish the position of women, not simply in relation to single sex spaces but in relation to equal pay (the use of a comparator is rendered meaningless if self-ID is permitted). Abolition of one of the crimes of rape is in no sense a progressive cause.
Your position seems to be that women should not campaign against this but accept it because otherwise they might possibly give succour to some right-wing groups. It assumes that Stonewall and others supporting their stance are progressive because they say they are. I judge them on what they advocate. And there is nothing progressive about what they are advocating.
So why should women not campaign against something that will harm them?That is an absurd and immoral view IMO. And, frankly, sexist because it is saying - whether you mean to or not - that women should never put their interests first.
My position is that you & people like you are taking sides in a culture war that will rebound on you in ways that you will find deeply unconfortable if you “win”.
Be careful what you wish for, because you might get it & more besides.
That’s such a cop out. If you are afraid of the direction that a culture war could go, doesn’t it oblige you to take the issues more seriously and avoid blindly escalating it?
Comments
https://twitter.com/TLDRNewsUK/status/1553131264940445696?s=20&t=ln8tDtAbxm0FRa5go_iGkQ
And of course it makes Trump's opponents go into bat for the drug dealer in defending due process.
As ever with Trump, there is method with the madness and narcissism. That is what makes him a tough opponent.
But one thing the Conservatives would really need to crack down on is any impression of greed, sleaze and 'one rule for us, another rule for them'.
And it would also be popular if confiscations of profits made from PPE contracts and/or Russian dealings were made.
Whatever you think of that proposal, its something to watch because there is a strand of Daily Mail opinion that maintains the civil service/judges/police etc are against the people here. Somebody could pick it up and run with it, with some effect.
Should I take it that you're not interested in the matters under discussion and that you prefer to post one-liners to the internet scoffing at people whose horizons you find scarily wide for (in your wrong opinion) being forriners?
I don't suppose there's a similar map for the decolonisation of the Muscovite empire ?
Based on that map Russia wants to divide up every nation in Europe, we need NATO more than ever
And I saw that as someone who's massively anti-Woke. And it's on top of his VAT tax cut farts. On top of members of his campaign team briefing that he's behind because Tory members are still 'a bit racist' and I'm afraid it's made me lose my respect for him. He's got no political judgement.
I will no longer be voting Rishi.
He has abandoned all the things which made his a credible and creditable, if doomed, campaign.
He could have pivoted to Cost of Living.
Either is appropriate.
He may not have had anything to do with that campaign member’s silly comments to a foreign newspaper.
But the Equalities Act can be found here - https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/contents. S.212(1) defines woman. The court case referenced by Joanna Cherry can be found here - https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/docs/default-source/cos-general-docs/pdf-docs-for-opinions/2022csih4.pdf.
Sunak has a team. It took me all of 5 minutes to find the Act and this case. It would not be hard for him or a member of his team to do some proper research before wading in.
The issues - of people trying to redefine woman or seeking to treat gender or gender identity as a protected characteristic (they are not) or teaching a particular gender ideology in schools or the role of lobby groups and their influence (see the Forstater, Bailey or Tavistock cases) do not arise from the Equality Act at all. And are not going to be resolved in any sort of sensible fashion by attacking the Act.
That’s not fair, he’s not a nitwit.
He has terrible judgment though.
People like you are struggling.
Because of people not like you.
It's not easy to counter with rational argument.
https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1552692928644096001?s=20&t=aV21AdDR4r3sRJSNZNnnNg
Somebody knows the the conservative erogenous zones.
That said, I’m increasingly convinced Putin would not stop with Ukraine if he won. Why should he? He would take Moldova, possibly Georgia and the Baltics
He’s Rishi 2.0, without the ability to articulate himself.
Thus carrying off Alba’s only known supporter.
RIP Malcom G.
The rest of us better apply generous lube before touching our toes.
The clue should be in the name: civil servant.
I must admit, that like Dr F earlier this morning, I struggle to find a really good reason for voting Labour apart from the fact that they are not the Conservatives!
If the Lib Dems or the Greens had a decent chance here I might will be tempted. However I think it's more important to get rid of Ms Patel!
Although, to be fair, she's not a bad constituency MP. It's her general policies that I object to!
Here again she is continuity Boris.
Of course, if England had a Parliament, then the Commons could become something like what Brown appears to be supporting.
We badly need to enact a new s.28 to deal with people like you, the difference being the new version will outlaw the promotion of sheer, mouth breathing, wannabe woke stupidity.
Did you see that the EU (or perhaps the "EUSSR" in Brexiteerspeak?) backed down this month over Kaliningrad?
It won't do his campaign any good, and has diminished him as a serious politician.
But he's probably right in thinking Tory members might cheer attacks on the Equality Act, illogical or otherwise.
He is just demeaning himself now.
Astonishing bad calls for a man who had a near who’s who of senior Tories lined up behind him, and the very best operatives behind the scenes.
We see now that he was never a man of substance.
@malcolmg (creating link so I can click it to check his status)
amd @malcolmg22
Close friends get to call me TC...
https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1647491/Liz-Truss-Chancellor-Tory-leadership-Therese-Coffey-Johnson-Redwood-ERG-update
In the case of pushing back boats, that's disputable.
And I did also point out that I was worried about attacks on womens rights from those using the trans issue to do so. Unlike you I can see that womens rights and sexism occur on both the left and right. I do not take a binary view and assume - as you appear to do - that women can expect to be supported by one side only and attacked only by another. Sexism is pretty universal alas.
I note that the Labour Party - Wes Streeting , for instance - has said nothing about the Cass Report and what it recommends for the proper treatment of children with dysphoria. I notice that Dawn Butler had nothing to say when a black lesbian won her sex discrimination case against her chambers who had unwisely bought in to the TRA nonsense.
By the way I did read that article you sent me. Long and quite demanding but very interesting and thoughtful. It merits a second more careful reading. So thank you.
My personal belief is that Cyclefree et al have been used by people with a much wider agenda: They don’t give a stuff about trans people particularly, (I mean, they believe them to be degenerate perverts who have rejected God’s mercy, but they hardly limit that attitude to trans people...) they’re really after the unrolling of the liberal project. Gay rights, women’s rights, the whole lot.
I've never understood the unwillingness to provide Ukraine with decent air defence systems against bombardment aimed 90% at civilian targets.
https://mobile.twitter.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1553312444230995968
US govt is in process of procuring NASAMS systems to Ukraine
"I do not have detailed info on contracting process but we are already in process of procuring the system. We announced NASAM’s procurement &move forward with that," senior defense official said
I don’t think you see yourself as anti-trans, but I would say that you have allied yourself (implicitly or otherwise) with people who absolutely are anti trans & are using well meaning people like you as cover. People like you are then the respectable face of the movement; the people with reasonable concerns, the ones who don’t hate trans people, they just don’t want them to be difficult.
You are part of a movement that has swept up trans people in a culture war not of their own making, that seeks to use them as pawns in a political game. Can you see that from their point of view, whether you think you are anti-trans or not might appear somewhat sophist from their point of view?
I’m sure we’d had polling of Johnson last time
I think almost none of these people will be taking their position for religious reasons.
I also think almost no-one who thinks a lot of where we are no is 'too woke' is looking for what you're suggesting. What your suggesting is that there are people hankering for a return to the 1880s. I've never met any such people. I've never met anyone hankering for a return to the 1950s, or even the 1980s. For most people, 2012 or thereabouts would be just about fine.
The skilled ones do it well - Thatcher, Blair, Clinton, Obama, Boris, even Trump.
I still maintain she’s going to come unstuck when CoL doesn’t get resolved
Many of our ex-cons do.
But the problem we have - and I genuinely wish you would engage with it rather than dismissing it - is this: TRAs also have an agenda and it is very explicitly and openly to replace sex with gender and to limit or remove existing rights for women. Stonewall, for instance, has openly called for the single sex exemptions in the Equality Act to be removed, for the offence of rape by deception to be removed. These proposals and self-ID will diminish the position of women, not simply in relation to single sex spaces but in relation to equal pay (the use of a comparator is rendered meaningless if self-ID is permitted). Abolition of one of the crimes of rape is in no sense a progressive cause.
Your position seems to be that women should not campaign against this but accept it because otherwise they might possibly give succour to some right-wing groups. It assumes that Stonewall and others supporting their stance are progressive because they say they are. I judge them on what they advocate. And there is nothing progressive about what they are advocating.
So why should women not campaign against something that will harm them?That is an absurd and immoral view IMO. And, frankly, sexist because it is saying - whether you mean to or not - that women should never put their interests first.
Be careful what you wish for, because you might get it & more besides.
Truss might get a bounce, even pull ahead but the nightmare is she is the Tory Kim Campbell.
Campbell got a bounce to about 35 to 36% in the polls and even led some polls in her first 3 months as PM but by polling day in October her Progressive Conservative party collapsed to just 16%, losing votes to the populist right Reform who got 18% as well as to the Liberals to her left who won a landslide victory with 41%
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_1993_Canadian_federal_election
Inflation is likely to fall significantly at some point, maybe even go negative, as the price increases eventually drop out of the annual calculation.
Which will lead to claims of the problem being solved.
But the price increases which have already happened will remain and so the people suffering from them will still feel the pain.
Though likewise the people who have had good pay rises will also still be doing nicely.
I do,hope,he comes back. I have a soft spot for him too.