Once again, whenever women's rights come up as a topic, the misogynists on here find it impossible to talk about it as matter in its own right without either dismissing or insulting the women who raise it or making it about men who claim to be women.
If you cannot be clear about what sex is, you cannot protect sex based rights or fight against sex-based oppression and discrimination. That discrimination and oppression is overwhelmingly endured by women. Here and in virtually every country in the world. Nor can you protect rights based on sexual orientation which is based on sex. That too is felt by many gay men and women around the world and, increasingly, by lesbians here who are often targeted by a very unpleasant category of men.
The Lib Dems and the Greens have made it clear in their manifestos that they will remove sex-based rights from the Equality Act. Labour have cobbled together some sort of fudge but Starmer has been all over the place on this and his arrogantly sexist response this week - where he needed a man to say something women had been saying for ages before he could agree to it - did him no favours at all.
As for girls with dysphoria they need proper treatment and help not as Khan has done the glorification of self-mutilation. If a bikini-ready body is not fit to be displayed, why is a self-harmed one? The fact that dysphoria in women tends to happen in teenage girls (rather than in middle-aged women, unlike the case with men) raises issues about how we treat girls, our expectations of them, the stereotypes imposed and the pressures they are under. The answer to those is not mutilation and drugs.
Treat what the GLP says with care. They have made unevidenced assertions in order to raise money. They have not always been accurate in their statements. They brought a legal action claiming the NHS discriminated against trans people. They lost and the evidence was that the NHS had increased its funding but could not find sufficient doctors and nurses to work in this area of medicine. Given the abuse doctors like Dr Cass have faced, is this any surprise? As for the legal issues, the Supreme Court will be ruling on the FWS appeal and this will determine what sex in the Equality Act means and its interaction with what the GRA says. Though it may make the position even more complicated and confused. That's the trouble with creating legal fictions at odds with reality.
The Tories should have learnt that lesson over Rwanda and indeed Brexit.
Conservatives still with nothing to say about Farage, did their social media team all go for a long lunch yesterday and get pissed?
They are still trying to find a small enough picture of Farage to fit in Putin's top pocket....
How they haven’t gone with a Mr Toad meme yet I don’t know.
The Tories seem to be meekly sitting back and letting Reform steal all their voters, for fear that if they say ‘boo’ it might upset their own members?
It really is bizarre to behold. Supine, weak, and lacking moral strength of character.
They should be drawing a clear line in the sand and calling out Farage for the far right Putin apologist he is.
Putin is a signed up Communist which puts him on the far left.
No, the economy and government he runs is of the right. Aside from his past there’s nothing socialist about it or him.
There was nothing socualist about the regime he grew up in.
Apart from everything being state owned, and private property of any significance being almost illegal. The oligarchic economy he runs nowadays has little in common with how the USSR’s economy used to be run.
It' still as it always has been a handful of people sitting at the top taking all the spoils. Same shit different toilet
You could say that about a lot of western states.
As observed above, it’s well known that there are similarities between dictatorships of right and left. Nevertheless there are significant differences, particularly in the way that the economy is managed. Putin’s reliance on his billionaire oligarchs managing major privately owned enterprises mirrors Hitler and his oligarchic capitalists, not Stalin’s state controlled state planned economy.
If you are looking at financial systems you would argue Putinism would not go to war as its bad for business.. They still did - in Russia power trumps money and always has.
Conservatives still with nothing to say about Farage, did their social media team all go for a long lunch yesterday and get pissed?
The Trumpian wing of the Conservative party - Braverman, Patel, Rees Mogg, Berry, Jenrick etc - want a merger with Reform and Farage in a senior leadership position in what results. Attack Farage and the Tories very publicly split as the Trumpists come out in support of him. This is a battle for after the election.
I would love the economic policies of Liz Truss - perhaps that cretin would prefer us to do the same things we've been doing for the past 30 years and hope that works.
As for the pro-Putin policies of Corbyn, I'll settle for being neutral, making a huge amount of money off any war, then only actually joining when our fleet gets Pearl Harboured - that strategy doesn't seem to have done America's long term reputation or its bank balance any harm.
You can't be neutral against evil.
America stayed out of the war until the end of 1941, with the British Empire liquidated to pay for their help in the war. They joined only when attacked directly, yet still their record in World War II is a pillar of their nation's story. So clearly you can be pretty neutral against it.
Yes, and that proves my point. Their staying neutral made things much worse for them when they joined, than if they had joined in back in 1939.
It's interesting to consider what would have happened if the USA had joined in back in 1939. Would France have fallen? would Japan have decided to attack Pearl Harbour given how an America at war would have increased their military output?
(The last question seems particularly interesting, given the somewhat insane decision to attack Pearl Harbour in the first place.)
Of course, the earlier they joined, the better it would have gone, and the easier on the other allies. But that isn't the point. They profited massively be remaining out of the fighting until they eventually joined - I don’t know any serious account of the economic history of the period that says they didn't. War is a ghastly, costly, mincing machine of life and treasure for the combatants. But it's very profitable for peaceful countries who stay out of it. See also Switzerland.
So... you say accept profit over morality, even if it means it costs more (in blood and money) when your morality eventually wins?
It's an idea, I suppose. Not a good one, though.
I think the morality of the situation is far more nuanced than you seem capable of seeing, but in any case, it worked out very well for America. Over two wars where they delayed entering, only doing so when they had accumulated plentiful resources and were able to deal the decisive blow, they became the richest and most powerful country in the world. Who condemns them for that - do you? Yet we, in what is now a hugely declined and weakened state, are still expected to lead the charge. If Nigel Farage is saying that we shouldn't, I'm afraid I completely agree.
"I think the morality of the situation is far more nuanced than you seem capable of seeing"
No. Simply no.
Where is the 'nuance' in the morality of what Putin is doing? How can you claim it is *not* bad, reprehensible, evil. etc?
The only nuance is if you read - and agree - with the pitiful 'excuses' he made for this war. Which, I remind you, you have track record of with flight MH17, to your shame.
There is no moral nuance in what Putin has done, but there is nuance in the decision on the extent to which the UK Government should put UK citizens in jeopardy in order to combat him. It is a difficult lesson to learn that we cannot be the world's policeman, and sometimes our interventions don't make things better.
Where is your red line? What would Putin have to do, where would he have to invade, for you to change your mind and say: "Okay, he needs combatting?"
And need I remind you of the attack he made in Salisbury? Or Litvinenko in London? He had already placed UK citizens in jeopardy. And you will not count MH17, which had ten UK citizens on board, because you blame anyone but Putin for that...
Putin's evil has already attacked us, and there are no indication he would not do so again.
So where are your red lines?
I think we can do far more harm to the long term interests of Putin's Russia by becoming self sufficient in oil and gas, and then net exporters of oil and gas.
Then build up our armed forces, especially Navy and missile defence, to ensure that we are invasion proof, both against the vanishingly slim prospect of a Putin invasion, and the more realistic prospect of a Chinese one. I would never have got rid of our capacity to make virgin steel - that was a pro-Russian decision if ever there was one.
I think your red lines question is a very similar question to 'how bad would the climate crisis have to get in order for you to grudgingly agree that it was worth destroying the economy to fight' - and the answer is that I don't know - I would respond case by case. If I said to you that I would send British troops to war against Russia if there was a terrorist attack on London with a 'From Russia xxx' calling card left in the rubble, I would see myself as inviting that atrocity.
If I was making decisions, I would always consider the security of the British people first, and the security and safety of the rest of the world second but still of importance. I think that's all anyone should do.
I'm pretty sure that there isn't enough oil and gas easily exploitable to be self-sufficient in oil and gas, especially at reasonable cost. I might be wrong - Richard would know more.
There was a Russian terrorist attack on London. There was one on Salisbury.
The problem is, you'd see the 'From Russia xxx' calling card and claim it's all a false flag, and that Russia is innocent. That's what you've done before, perhaps because your brain has rotted from reading too many 'alternative' news sites...
I would love the economic policies of Liz Truss - perhaps that cretin would prefer us to do the same things we've been doing for the past 30 years and hope that works.
As for the pro-Putin policies of Corbyn, I'll settle for being neutral, making a huge amount of money off any war, then only actually joining when our fleet gets Pearl Harboured - that strategy doesn't seem to have done America's long term reputation or its bank balance any harm.
You can't be neutral against evil.
America stayed out of the war until the end of 1941, with the British Empire liquidated to pay for their help in the war. They joined only when attacked directly, yet still their record in World War II is a pillar of their nation's story. So clearly you can be pretty neutral against it.
Yes, and that proves my point. Their staying neutral made things much worse for them when they joined, than if they had joined in back in 1939.
It's interesting to consider what would have happened if the USA had joined in back in 1939. Would France have fallen? would Japan have decided to attack Pearl Harbour given how an America at war would have increased their military output?
(The last question seems particularly interesting, given the somewhat insane decision to attack Pearl Harbour in the first place.)
Of course, the earlier they joined, the better it would have gone, and the easier on the other allies. But that isn't the point. They profited massively be remaining out of the fighting until they eventually joined - I don’t know any serious account of the economic history of the period that says they didn't. War is a ghastly, costly, mincing machine of life and treasure for the combatants. But it's very profitable for peaceful countries who stay out of it. See also Switzerland.
So... you say accept profit over morality, even if it means it costs more (in blood and money) when your morality eventually wins?
It's an idea, I suppose. Not a good one, though.
I think the morality of the situation is far more nuanced than you seem capable of seeing, but in any case, it worked out very well for America. Over two wars where they delayed entering, only doing so when they had accumulated plentiful resources and were able to deal the decisive blow, they became the richest and most powerful country in the world. Who condemns them for that - do you? Yet we, in what is now a hugely declined and weakened state, are still expected to lead the charge. If Nigel Farage is saying that we shouldn't, I'm afraid I completely agree.
"I think the morality of the situation is far more nuanced than you seem capable of seeing"
No. Simply no.
Where is the 'nuance' in the morality of what Putin is doing? How can you claim it is *not* bad, reprehensible, evil. etc?
The only nuance is if you read - and agree - with the pitiful 'excuses' he made for this war. Which, I remind you, you have track record of with flight MH17, to your shame.
There is no moral nuance in what Putin has done, but there is nuance in the decision on the extent to which the UK Government should put UK citizens in jeopardy in order to combat him. It is a difficult lesson to learn that we cannot be the world's policeman, and sometimes our interventions don't make things better.
This isn't about being a policeman. This is about survival. Putin is a direct threat to this country in just the same way Hitler was in the 1930s. Either we stop him now or we have to try and stop him later. At the moment, terrible as it sounds, we have a chance to stop him whilst somebody else is doing the dying for us. All they ask is we support them with the tools they need to fight.
That seems like a bloody good bargain to me.
It does sound terrible, because it is. It's the American strategy to try to bleed a geopolitical rival dry over the long term, and Ukraine is sacrifice. I don't subscribe to that strategy for many reasons, both moral and practical.
Is Sunak going to pay that £1000 he owes Piers Morgan on the bet that flights would take off to Rwanda before the election, or is he actually counting that test flight with the man they bribed to go there? Perhaps that's why that flight happened.
Unless it's been overtaken by events. (Was it really a test flight, though? Flying people to a different country isn't a concept that needs testing- even Wizz! manage that. The bit that needed testing was forcing people onto one way flights.)
I'm sure a disreputable troublemaker would be able to link this to the more recent gambling fiasco.
Once again, whenever women's rights come up as a topic, the misogynists on here find it impossible to talk about it as matter in its own right without either dismissing or insulting the women who raise it or making it about men who claim to be women.
If you cannot be clear about what sex is, you cannot protect sex based rights or fight against sex-based oppression and discrimination. That discrimination and oppression is overwhelmingly endured by women. Here and in virtually every country in the world. Nor can you protect rights based on sexual orientation which is based on sex. That too is felt by many gay men and women around the world and, increasingly, by lesbians here who are often targeted by a very unpleasant category of men.
The Lib Dems and the Greens have made it clear in their manifestos that they will remove sex-based rights from the Equality Act. Labour have cobbled together some sort of fudge but Starmer has been all over the place on this and his arrogantly sexist response this week - where he needed a man to say something women had been saying for ages before he could agree to it - did him no favours at all.
As for girls with dysphoria they need proper treatment and help not as Khan has done the glorification of self-mutilation. If a bikini-ready body is not fit to be displayed, why is a self-harmed one? The fact that dysphoria in women tends to happen in teenage girls (rather than in middle-aged women, unlike the case with men) raises issues about how we treat girls, our expectations of them, the stereotypes imposed and the pressures they are under. The answer to those is not mutilation and drugs.
Treat what the GLP says with care. They have made unevidenced assertions in order to raise money. They have not always been accurate in their statements. They brought a legal action claiming the NHS discriminated against trans people. They lost and the evidence was that the NHS had increased its funding but could not find sufficient doctors and nurses to work in this area of medicine. Given the abuse doctors like Dr Cass have faced, is this any surprise? As for the legal issues, the Supreme Court will be ruling on the FWS appeal and this will determine what sex in the Equality Act means and its interaction with what the GRA says. Though it may make the position even more complicated and confused. That's the trouble with creating legal fictions at odds with reality.
The Tories should have learnt that lesson over Rwanda and indeed Brexit.
I take it that you're of the view that trans people don't exist?
I would love the economic policies of Liz Truss - perhaps that cretin would prefer us to do the same things we've been doing for the past 30 years and hope that works.
As for the pro-Putin policies of Corbyn, I'll settle for being neutral, making a huge amount of money off any war, then only actually joining when our fleet gets Pearl Harboured - that strategy doesn't seem to have done America's long term reputation or its bank balance any harm.
You can't be neutral against evil.
America stayed out of the war until the end of 1941, with the British Empire liquidated to pay for their help in the war. They joined only when attacked directly, yet still their record in World War II is a pillar of their nation's story. So clearly you can be pretty neutral against it.
Yes, and that proves my point. Their staying neutral made things much worse for them when they joined, than if they had joined in back in 1939.
It's interesting to consider what would have happened if the USA had joined in back in 1939. Would France have fallen? would Japan have decided to attack Pearl Harbour given how an America at war would have increased their military output?
(The last question seems particularly interesting, given the somewhat insane decision to attack Pearl Harbour in the first place.)
Of course, the earlier they joined, the better it would have gone, and the easier on the other allies. But that isn't the point. They profited massively be remaining out of the fighting until they eventually joined - I don’t know any serious account of the economic history of the period that says they didn't. War is a ghastly, costly, mincing machine of life and treasure for the combatants. But it's very profitable for peaceful countries who stay out of it. See also Switzerland.
So... you say accept profit over morality, even if it means it costs more (in blood and money) when your morality eventually wins?
It's an idea, I suppose. Not a good one, though.
I think the morality of the situation is far more nuanced than you seem capable of seeing, but in any case, it worked out very well for America. Over two wars where they delayed entering, only doing so when they had accumulated plentiful resources and were able to deal the decisive blow, they became the richest and most powerful country in the world. Who condemns them for that - do you? Yet we, in what is now a hugely declined and weakened state, are still expected to lead the charge. If Nigel Farage is saying that we shouldn't, I'm afraid I completely agree.
"I think the morality of the situation is far more nuanced than you seem capable of seeing"
No. Simply no.
Where is the 'nuance' in the morality of what Putin is doing? How can you claim it is *not* bad, reprehensible, evil. etc?
The only nuance is if you read - and agree - with the pitiful 'excuses' he made for this war. Which, I remind you, you have track record of with flight MH17, to your shame.
There is no moral nuance in what Putin has done, but there is nuance in the decision on the extent to which the UK Government should put UK citizens in jeopardy in order to combat him. It is a difficult lesson to learn that we cannot be the world's policeman, and sometimes our interventions don't make things better.
This isn't about being a policeman. This is about survival. Putin is a direct threat to this country in just the same way Hitler was in the 1930s. Either we stop him now or we have to try and stop him later. At the moment, terrible as it sounds, we have a chance to stop him whilst somebody else is doing the dying for us. All they ask is we support them with the tools they need to fight.
That seems like a bloody good bargain to me.
Quite
Frankly we should be pushing western values against a kleptocrat regime just to make the point.
Ukraine doing so was what, of course, prompted his invasion.
An economically backward, equally corrupt state as an independent neighbour didn’t bother him. The prospect of Ukraine becoming a prosperous democracy was unacceptable. You won’t hear Farage acknowledging that.
Conservatives still with nothing to say about Farage, did their social media team all go for a long lunch yesterday and get pissed?
They are still trying to find a small enough picture of Farage to fit in Putin's top pocket....
How they haven’t gone with a Mr Toad meme yet I don’t know.
The Tories seem to be meekly sitting back and letting Reform steal all their voters, for fear that if they say ‘boo’ it might upset their own members?
It really is bizarre to behold. Supine, weak, and lacking moral strength of character.
They should be drawing a clear line in the sand and calling out Farage for the far right Putin apologist he is.
Putin is a signed up Communist which puts him on the far left.
No, the economy and government he runs is of the right. Aside from his past there’s nothing socialist about it or him.
There was nothing socualist about the regime he grew up in.
So let me get this right. Putin is a Communist despite growing up in a non-socialist regime. Presumably he will be rolling out collectivisation and the communes some time soon?
Is Sunak going to pay that £1000 he owes Piers Morgan on the bet that flights would take off to Rwanda before the election, or is he actually counting that test flight with the man they bribed to go there? Perhaps that's why that flight happened.
Unless it's been overtaken by events. (Was it really a test flight, though? Flying people to a different country isn't a concept that needs testing- even Wizz! manage that. The bit that needed testing was forcing people onto one way flights.)
I'm sure a disreputable troublemaker would be able to link this to the more recent gambling fiasco.
When the fun stops and all that.
What? Why would 'Downing Street' honour the bet? Rishi Sunak expects US to pay for his stupidity? HE should pay up!
Conservatives still with nothing to say about Farage, did their social media team all go for a long lunch yesterday and get pissed?
They are still trying to find a small enough picture of Farage to fit in Putin's top pocket....
How they haven’t gone with a Mr Toad meme yet I don’t know.
The Tories seem to be meekly sitting back and letting Reform steal all their voters, for fear that if they say ‘boo’ it might upset their own members?
It really is bizarre to behold. Supine, weak, and lacking moral strength of character.
They should be drawing a clear line in the sand and calling out Farage for the far right Putin apologist he is.
Putin is a signed up Communist which puts him on the far left.
In his autobiography Obama referred to him as an old-fashioned Russian Nationalist. I think that sums him up succinctly.
Personally I'd add that he's a little thug from the back streets of St Petersburg. Left and right doesn't really come into it. He's a blot on the political landscape, one way or another.
Stalin was a land grabbing russian nationalist too despte being Georgian. As was Lenin. Just because they wave fancy titles about doesnt mean to say the ethos of the russian state has changed. It has always been about a handful of people running the place to make themselves richer and expand the state they control. In the C2o they swapped aristocrats for middle class psychopaths with red flags.
While that’s true of Stalin, they continued paying lip service to communism - and backing revolutionary communist abroad - until the dissolution of the USSR. Russian imperialism has pretty well entirely replaced that as a governing ideology.
Mr b I am saying however it is packaged Russian Imperialism is a constant. That they hit on communism as a way of deluding idiots in the West was simply playing a blinder. The West only got its act together in the 80s.
Looking forward however I do wonder how Russia will play its cards. With a collapsing population it can no longer push others around so easily. Our problem will be how to deal with a nuclear armed mafia state . A change of government would be a logical start.
What is on show from Farage, ahead of whatever admiration for Putin is a blind hatred for Europeanism in all its forms. Blaming NATO is blaming the EU, and my enemy's enemy....
One day, sir, maybe not that soon, Moscow WILL be the eastern pole of Western European integrationism and you will have to stick that in your pipe and smoke it.
What Farage is either unwilling, or just too ignorant to admit, is that what ‘provoked’ Putin was Ukraine’s desire to join the EU.
I am one of the few figures that have been consistent & honest about the war in Russia.
Putin was wrong to invade a sovereign nation, and the EU was wrong to expand eastward.
The sooner we realise this, the closer we will be to ending the war and delivering peace.
What a twat. The arrogance of the guy thinking he gets to say what a sovereign country can or can’t do.
A country can’t unilaterally join the EU. It’s legitimate to comment on the foreign policy of its members (which included us at the time).
Don’t be absurd. It’s fuck all to do with Farage what either Ukraine or the EU want.
The point is just that it's not as simple as the right of a sovereign country to decide for itself.
Our membership was initially vetoed by France, for example. Was that an infringement of our sovergeign right to decide?
It was fine for France to veto our application because they were a member (and our membership of their club would have an impact on them). The fact that you even seem to be trying to make the comparison is absurd. What you are suggesting is that it would have been fine for the USA to oppose us being in the EU simply because they did not like it? Now why would anyone think they should have that right?
If you think it’s not legitimate to seek to influence the decisions of other countries then should foreign policy in general be seen as an anachronism and we should close the foreign office?
I notice that you have employed the normal tactic of the politician in seeking to avoid answering my question, by demanding more answers to irrelevant questions to try and cover the avoidance. Now I invite you again to answer the question as asked, are you suggesting the USA should be able to stop the U.K. rejoining the EU just because they don’t like it? It’s a simple question. As for your pointless question to suggest that invading your neighbour and murdering thousands of civilians is seeking to ‘influence’ the decisions of other countries through a legitimate foreign policy is deluded and absurd.
That wasn't your question. Your question was whether it would have been fine for them to oppose it, and the answer to that is clearly yes. Whether they could succeed in stopping it and how far they would be willing to go to do so is another matter.
Try changing the hypothetical to something where the goal strikes you obviously correct. For example, should the USA have a policy of preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons?
It was precisely the question I asked. So now you are comparing joining the EU with acquiring nuclear weapons? Wow the delusion levels seem to be reaching new heights. The apologists for Putin and his poodle Farage seem to be on some kind of parallel planet.
But I will not stoop to their level and will answer the question. It is fine to have a policy of opposing the proliferation of nuclear weapons and attempt to stop any country building more. But it is not fine to kill innocent civilians in pursuit of that policy. The problem with your absolutely absurd comparison is that the EU has no army, no military aspirations and no history of any military activity. To use countries joining a peaceful trade arrangement as a justification for war is the act of a political appeaser. So the question remains why should the countries of Eastern Europe not be allowed to join the EU to appease a dictator and his poodle Farage?,
Out of interest, if it's not fine to kill innocent civilians to stop nuclear proliferation, does that mean you're cool with the Iranians getting the bomb, even if we had the option of destroying their production facilities, as we might well kill some unfortunate civilians (say the cleaning team) in the process?
Rowling is one of those younger lefties who eventually end up as fascists in old age. She's nearly there. Not quite, but give it four years.
It is sad that you label anyone you disagree with as a fascist. Rowling has a perfect valid position with regard to women's rights - one that only a few years ago would have been considered solidly left wing. The fact that Labour are losing the support of people like her says everything you need to know about how extreme they have become on some of the more fanatical social issues. You like to think of gthem as a centre left party but when it comes to these sorts of debates they are far out on the extremes
When I said she's nearly there, I think you misinterpreted that as meaning her opinions are close to fascism. That's not what I meant. What I meant was that she's reaching an angle of repose that will result in an avalanche into utter madness. Think of Spiked. The cracks are there. She's on the brink of madness. It's the sort of thing you see every so often. Hippies that wake up one day wanting to exterminate Gypsies. She's mixing in the right crowds. In a few years time it'll be leather boots and barbed-wire fantasies.
Good morning everyone. I missed the post about the leaders cars. So here is my list. Farage. A V12 XJS. It does not work and is riddled with electrical faults. He also has a BMW M5 in black with tinted windows as he needs to get to meetings with the Supe Rich billonaires fast who are about to place a short on oil and gas or a long on copper as there is no more left in the world. Private Jet is also used if our road network is gridlocked. He did have fun working at the London metal exchange. I still think he is there. Starmer. Nissan Leaf for todays driving. Nostagia car. Austin Allegro Vaden Plas Automatic for driving around the lanes in Oxted and Reigate,his old stomping ground. The restoration work is yet to be carried out and it is fully costed. Sunak. G Wagon Brabus. Great for a quick get away. Ed Davey. Kia EV6. It is a wolf in sheeps clothing. However his prefered method of travel is the Helter Skelter.Looking forward how all of you will bet on this election, seats per party etc. I am still not convinced Labour will get 442 seats etc. I would say 380 for them.
Quite wrong, Farage is one of those Morgan things with leather straps on the bonnet. Hand crafted in Britain the way they used to be. String back gloves. Twatty cap. Barbour.
Incidentally, and in the spirit of Rogerdamus de Villefranche-sur-Mer, I just took my older daughter home via Uber - after a WONDERFUL picnic in the Chilterns, then drinks with friends in Primrose Hill
The driver was a Somalian Muslim with Swedish citizenship. We had an impassioned debate (it was a long 57 minute journey) about everything from Gareth Southgate's failings to his own upbringing in war-torn Mogadishu to the likely UK election outcome to the problem of gangs in Malmo to his son's ambitions to be a journalist (I gave the best advice I could) to a really nuanced debate on Israel/Palestine
He was fiercely intelligent and put most PB-ers to shame with his knowledge of the history of Israel/Palestine and the intractable nature of the conflict. I felt quite humbled by the end, that a recent immigrant to the UK with English as his likely third language was so well informed on so many things. He was certainly not knee-jerk pro-Hamas
Really quite something, Reminded me why I love London. The driver also kept repeating this (and I don't believe he did it for effect) - how much he loved Britain and London ("and my son loves it even more")
A lot of food for thought. You can learn a lot in an hour of intense debate
And yet you tell us that Muslim immigrants don't want to integrate.
Too many don't, I fear. But this guy absolutely did, and it was deeply refreshing to hear - he was certainly not a "devout" Muslim, and he admitted that
My views are never fixed forever, and I aim to learn all the time. Do you not?
Also, how often do any of us get to talk INTENSELY and deeply about serious politics with a recent Somalian immigrant? I suggest that is quite unusual, and I am glad I took the opportunity. I also think I gave good advice to his son on getting into journalism!
And now I must abed, after a weirdly brilliant day
"with Swedish citizenship"
Why the fuck is he living here then?
Quite frankly if all our immigrants were like him, hard working, smart, cerebral, really well informed, law abiding and keen to integrate and get his kids into good jobs and DEEPLY appreciative of tolerant British culture and our traditions of free speech and worship - then I would have no problems with immigration at all
The problem is: far too many are not
You've spoken to all of them have you?
Oh. I see. No you haven't. So you base your fuckwitted stupidity on occasional journeys in a taxi.
"British culture" means what, exactly? That we all become like you? Nasty little shits who spend their lives off their tits on heroin and other illegal substances and brag about shagging around, including of girls the age of your daughter.
You're too stupid to have learned about the history of these islands and the cultural matrix interwoven into our DNA. There is NO white supremacist version of "British Culture" and "worship" but an ever-changing melting pot.
You really are an utter moron FAKE @Leon . As stupid as your hero Trump.
Once again, whenever women's rights come up as a topic, the misogynists on here find it impossible to talk about it as matter in its own right without either dismissing or insulting the women who raise it or making it about men who claim to be women.
If you cannot be clear about what sex is, you cannot protect sex based rights or fight against sex-based oppression and discrimination. That discrimination and oppression is overwhelmingly endured by women. Here and in virtually every country in the world. Nor can you protect rights based on sexual orientation which is based on sex. That too is felt by many gay men and women around the world and, increasingly, by lesbians here who are often targeted by a very unpleasant category of men.
The Lib Dems and the Greens have made it clear in their manifestos that they will remove sex-based rights from the Equality Act. Labour have cobbled together some sort of fudge but Starmer has been all over the place on this and his arrogantly sexist response this week - where he needed a man to say something women had been saying for ages before he could agree to it - did him no favours at all.
As for girls with dysphoria they need proper treatment and help not as Khan has done the glorification of self-mutilation. If a bikini-ready body is not fit to be displayed, why is a self-harmed one? The fact that dysphoria in women tends to happen in teenage girls (rather than in middle-aged women, unlike the case with men) raises issues about how we treat girls, our expectations of them, the stereotypes imposed and the pressures they are under. The answer to those is not mutilation and drugs.
Treat what the GLP says with care. They have made unevidenced assertions in order to raise money. They have not always been accurate in their statements. They brought a legal action claiming the NHS discriminated against trans people. They lost and the evidence was that the NHS had increased its funding but could not find sufficient doctors and nurses to work in this area of medicine. Given the abuse doctors like Dr Cass have faced, is this any surprise? As for the legal issues, the Supreme Court will be ruling on the FWS appeal and this will determine what sex in the Equality Act means and its interaction with what the GRA says. Though it may make the position even more complicated and confused. That's the trouble with creating legal fictions at odds with reality.
The Tories should have learnt that lesson over Rwanda and indeed Brexit.
It would be helpful if you quoted at lease one of the posts you are referring to with 'the misogynists on here find it impossible to talk about it as matter in its own right without either dismissing or insulting the women who raise it'.
Conservatives still with nothing to say about Farage, did their social media team all go for a long lunch yesterday and get pissed?
They are still trying to find a small enough picture of Farage to fit in Putin's top pocket....
How they haven’t gone with a Mr Toad meme yet I don’t know.
The Tories seem to be meekly sitting back and letting Reform steal all their voters, for fear that if they say ‘boo’ it might upset their own members?
It really is bizarre to behold. Supine, weak, and lacking moral strength of character.
They should be drawing a clear line in the sand and calling out Farage for the far right Putin apologist he is.
Putin is a signed up Communist which puts him on the far left.
No, the economy and government he runs is of the right. Aside from his past there’s nothing socialist about it or him.
There was nothing socualist about the regime he grew up in.
So let me get this right. Putin is a Communist despite growing up in a non-socialist regime. Presumably he will be rolling out collectivisation and the communes any time soon.
Next you'll be suggesting that Hitler was far-left because he led the National Socialist German Workers' Party.
Putin was born in 1952. He was 37 when Communism collapsed by which time he was an officer in the KGB. So he grew up and was committed to Communism
And as you rightly point out the only difference between communism and Nazism is one was international socialism and the other was national socialism. Pretend socialists hiding authoritarian regimes.
I would love the economic policies of Liz Truss - perhaps that cretin would prefer us to do the same things we've been doing for the past 30 years and hope that works.
As for the pro-Putin policies of Corbyn, I'll settle for being neutral, making a huge amount of money off any war, then only actually joining when our fleet gets Pearl Harboured - that strategy doesn't seem to have done America's long term reputation or its bank balance any harm.
You can't be neutral against evil.
America stayed out of the war until the end of 1941, with the British Empire liquidated to pay for their help in the war. They joined only when attacked directly, yet still their record in World War II is a pillar of their nation's story. So clearly you can be pretty neutral against it.
Yes, and that proves my point. Their staying neutral made things much worse for them when they joined, than if they had joined in back in 1939.
It's interesting to consider what would have happened if the USA had joined in back in 1939. Would France have fallen? would Japan have decided to attack Pearl Harbour given how an America at war would have increased their military output?
(The last question seems particularly interesting, given the somewhat insane decision to attack Pearl Harbour in the first place.)
Of course, the earlier they joined, the better it would have gone, and the easier on the other allies. But that isn't the point. They profited massively be remaining out of the fighting until they eventually joined - I don’t know any serious account of the economic history of the period that says they didn't. War is a ghastly, costly, mincing machine of life and treasure for the combatants. But it's very profitable for peaceful countries who stay out of it. See also Switzerland.
So... you say accept profit over morality, even if it means it costs more (in blood and money) when your morality eventually wins?
It's an idea, I suppose. Not a good one, though.
I think the morality of the situation is far more nuanced than you seem capable of seeing, but in any case, it worked out very well for America. Over two wars where they delayed entering, only doing so when they had accumulated plentiful resources and were able to deal the decisive blow, they became the richest and most powerful country in the world. Who condemns them for that - do you? Yet we, in what is now a hugely declined and weakened state, are still expected to lead the charge. If Nigel Farage is saying that we shouldn't, I'm afraid I completely agree.
"I think the morality of the situation is far more nuanced than you seem capable of seeing"
No. Simply no.
Where is the 'nuance' in the morality of what Putin is doing? How can you claim it is *not* bad, reprehensible, evil. etc?
The only nuance is if you read - and agree - with the pitiful 'excuses' he made for this war. Which, I remind you, you have track record of with flight MH17, to your shame.
There is no moral nuance in what Putin has done, but there is nuance in the decision on the extent to which the UK Government should put UK citizens in jeopardy in order to combat him. It is a difficult lesson to learn that we cannot be the world's policeman, and sometimes our interventions don't make things better.
Where is your red line? What would Putin have to do, where would he have to invade, for you to change your mind and say: "Okay, he needs combatting?"
And need I remind you of the attack he made in Salisbury? Or Litvinenko in London? He had already placed UK citizens in jeopardy. And you will not count MH17, which had ten UK citizens on board, because you blame anyone but Putin for that...
Putin's evil has already attacked us, and there are no indication he would not do so again.
So where are your red lines?
I think we can do far more harm to the long term interests of Putin's Russia by becoming self sufficient in oil and gas, and then net exporters of oil and gas.
Then build up our armed forces, especially Navy and missile defence, to ensure that we are invasion proof, both against the vanishingly slim prospect of a Putin invasion, and the more realistic prospect of a Chinese one. I would never have got rid of our capacity to make virgin steel - that was a pro-Russian decision if ever there was one.
I think your red lines question is a very similar question to 'how bad would the climate crisis have to get in order for you to grudgingly agree that it was worth destroying the economy to fight' - and the answer is that I don't know - I would respond case by case. If I said to you that I would send British troops to war against Russia if there was a terrorist attack on London with a 'From Russia xxx' calling card left in the rubble, I would see myself as inviting that atrocity.
If I was making decisions, I would always consider the security of the British people first, and the security and safety of the rest of the world second but still of importance. I think that's all anyone should do.
I'm pretty sure that there isn't enough oil and gas easily exploitable to be self-sufficient in oil and gas, especially at reasonable cost. I might be wrong - Richard would know more.
There was a Russian terrorist attack on London. There was one on Salisbury.
The problem is, you'd see the 'From Russia xxx' calling card and claim it's all a false flag, and that Russia is innocent. That's what you've done before, perhaps because your brain has rotted from reading too many 'alternative' news sites...
I don't view any alternative news sites at the moment actually. This *is* my alternative news site. But yes, I do have the view that atrocities can sometimes be brought about in order to manufacture public consent for wars or other unpalatable policy changes. I would not want there to be a 'red line' for fear that a bad actor would attempt to cross it.
I would also look to introduce more tariffs on Chinese products - China is bankrolling Russia and we are bankrolling China. That's daft.
I am sorry to have to contradict a fellow weather geek, but it is my regrettable duty to have to inform people that there is an awful lot of low pressure in today's ECMWF forecast, and the hoped-for transition to warm and sunny weather as the election approaches now looks a lot less likely.
Incidentally, and in the spirit of Rogerdamus de Villefranche-sur-Mer, I just took my older daughter home via Uber - after a WONDERFUL picnic in the Chilterns, then drinks with friends in Primrose Hill
The driver was a Somalian Muslim with Swedish citizenship. We had an impassioned debate (it was a long 57 minute journey) about everything from Gareth Southgate's failings to his own upbringing in war-torn Mogadishu to the likely UK election outcome to the problem of gangs in Malmo to his son's ambitions to be a journalist (I gave the best advice I could) to a really nuanced debate on Israel/Palestine
He was fiercely intelligent and put most PB-ers to shame with his knowledge of the history of Israel/Palestine and the intractable nature of the conflict. I felt quite humbled by the end, that a recent immigrant to the UK with English as his likely third language was so well informed on so many things. He was certainly not knee-jerk pro-Hamas
Really quite something, Reminded me why I love London. The driver also kept repeating this (and I don't believe he did it for effect) - how much he loved Britain and London ("and my son loves it even more")
A lot of food for thought. You can learn a lot in an hour of intense debate
And yet you tell us that Muslim immigrants don't want to integrate.
Too many don't, I fear. But this guy absolutely did, and it was deeply refreshing to hear - he was certainly not a "devout" Muslim, and he admitted that
My views are never fixed forever, and I aim to learn all the time. Do you not?
Also, how often do any of us get to talk INTENSELY and deeply about serious politics with a recent Somalian immigrant? I suggest that is quite unusual, and I am glad I took the opportunity. I also think I gave good advice to his son on getting into journalism!
And now I must abed, after a weirdly brilliant day
"with Swedish citizenship"
Why the fuck is he living here then?
Quite frankly if all our immigrants were like him, hard working, smart, cerebral, really well informed, law abiding and keen to integrate and get his kids into good jobs and DEEPLY appreciative of tolerant British culture and our traditions of free speech and worship - then I would have no problems with immigration at all
The problem is: far too many are not
You've spoken to all of them have you?
Oh. I see. No you haven't. So you base your fuckwitted stupidity on occasional journeys in a taxi.
"British culture" means what, exactly? That we all become like you? Nasty little shits who spend their lives off their tits on heroin and other illegal substances and brag about shagging around, including of girls the age of your daughter.
You're too stupid to have learned about the history of these islands and the cultural matrix interwoven into our DNA. There is NO white supremacist version of "British Culture" and "worship" but an ever-changing melting pot.
You really are an utter moron FAKE @Leon . As stupid as your hero Trump.
Conservatives still with nothing to say about Farage, did their social media team all go for a long lunch yesterday and get pissed?
They are still trying to find a small enough picture of Farage to fit in Putin's top pocket....
How they haven’t gone with a Mr Toad meme yet I don’t know.
The Tories seem to be meekly sitting back and letting Reform steal all their voters, for fear that if they say ‘boo’ it might upset their own members?
It really is bizarre to behold. Supine, weak, and lacking moral strength of character.
They should be drawing a clear line in the sand and calling out Farage for the far right Putin apologist he is.
Putin is a signed up Communist which puts him on the far left.
No, the economy and government he runs is of the right. Aside from his past there’s nothing socialist about it or him.
There was nothing socualist about the regime he grew up in.
So let me get this right. Putin is a Communist despite growing up in a non-socialist regime. Presumably he will be rolling out collectivisation and the communes any time soon.
Next you'll be suggesting that Hitler was far-left because he led the National Socialist German Workers' Party.
Putin was born in 1952. He was 37 when Communism collapsed by which time he was an officer in the KGB. So he grew up and was committed to Communism
And as you rightly point out the only difference between communism and Nazism is one was international socialism and the other was national socialism. Pretend socialists hiding authoritarian regimes.
Good morning everyone. I missed the post about the leaders cars. So here is my list. Farage. A V12 XJS. It does not work and is riddled with electrical faults. He also has a BMW M5 in black with tinted windows as he needs to get to meetings with the Supe Rich billonaires fast who are about to place a short on oil and gas or a long on copper as there is no more left in the world. Private Jet is also used if our road network is gridlocked. He did have fun working at the London metal exchange. I still think he is there. Starmer. Nissan Leaf for todays driving. Nostagia car. Austin Allegro Vaden Plas Automatic for driving around the lanes in Oxted and Reigate,his old stomping ground. The restoration work is yet to be carried out and it is fully costed. Sunak. G Wagon Brabus. Great for a quick get away. Ed Davey. Kia EV6. It is a wolf in sheeps clothing. However his prefered method of travel is the Helter Skelter.Looking forward how all of you will bet on this election, seats per party etc. I am still not convinced Labour will get 442 seats etc. I would say 380 for them.
Quite wrong, Farage is one of those Morgan things with leather straps on the bonnet. Hand crafted in Britain the way they used to be. String back gloves. Twatty cap. Barbour.
Conservatives still with nothing to say about Farage, did their social media team all go for a long lunch yesterday and get pissed?
The Trumpian wing of the Conservative party - Braverman, Patel, Rees Mogg, Berry, Jenrick etc - want a merger with Reform and Farage in a senior leadership position in what results. Attack Farage and the Tories very publicly split as the Trumpists come out in support of him. This is a battle for after the election.
Sunak has no battle to fight after the election. He's gone.
If he wants to leave a positive legacy for the Conservative Party, he will do it now - by standing up to the Reform-appeaser wing. And by going full Tonto on Farage.
I would love the economic policies of Liz Truss - perhaps that cretin would prefer us to do the same things we've been doing for the past 30 years and hope that works.
As for the pro-Putin policies of Corbyn, I'll settle for being neutral, making a huge amount of money off any war, then only actually joining when our fleet gets Pearl Harboured - that strategy doesn't seem to have done America's long term reputation or its bank balance any harm.
You can't be neutral against evil.
America stayed out of the war until the end of 1941, with the British Empire liquidated to pay for their help in the war. They joined only when attacked directly, yet still their record in World War II is a pillar of their nation's story. So clearly you can be pretty neutral against it.
Conservatives still with nothing to say about Farage, did their social media team all go for a long lunch yesterday and get pissed?
They are still trying to find a small enough picture of Farage to fit in Putin's top pocket....
How they haven’t gone with a Mr Toad meme yet I don’t know.
The Tories seem to be meekly sitting back and letting Reform steal all their voters, for fear that if they say ‘boo’ it might upset their own members?
It really is bizarre to behold. Supine, weak, and lacking moral strength of character.
They should be drawing a clear line in the sand and calling out Farage for the far right Putin apologist he is.
Putin is a signed up Communist which puts him on the far left.
No, the economy and government he runs is of the right. Aside from his past there’s nothing socialist about it or him.
There was nothing socualist about the regime he grew up in.
Apart from everything being state owned, and private property of any significance being almost illegal. The oligarchic economy he runs nowadays has little in common with how the USSR’s economy used to be run.
It' still as it always has been a handful of people sitting at the top taking all the spoils. Same shit different toilet
You could say that about a lot of western states.
As observed above, it’s well known that there are similarities between dictatorships of right and left. Nevertheless there are significant differences, particularly in the way that the economy is managed. Putin’s reliance on his billionaire oligarchs managing major privately owned enterprises mirrors Hitler and his oligarchic capitalists, not Stalin’s state controlled state planned economy.
It's an understandable blind spot mainstream politicians have- to deny that an extreme version of their ideology exists and is bad.
See Thatcher's odd intonation on talking about the evils of National Socialism.
(Whereas the first fight to win and keep winning is democracy vs. undemocracy. Only once that is in the bag do battles between different shades of democracy make sense )
Quite wrong, Farage is one of those Morgan things with leather straps on the bonnet. Hand crafted in Britain the way they used to be. String back gloves. Twatty cap. Barbour.
TVR
Incredibly loud and brash. Spectacularly unreliable.
Imagine the Far right won the parliamentary elections in France and then govern really well......eek!
Like Putin in Russia maybe?
Putin's rule in Russia is best characterised as a serious of catastrophic economic decisions which has left the Russian economy disastrously under invested and undervthe control of brutal mafia cliques. This then followed by the deaths of half a million men at a time when Russian demographics were already close to collapse. Putin has launched a serious of wars against peaceful neighbours- Georgia in 2008 and Ukraine since 2014. He has also used bribery, blackmail, propaganda and cyber war directly against the West. He has openly paid money to disruptive parties, such as the RN in France and the AfD. In the UK Farage and Salmond were both employed by Russia Today. I note the strong Russian links of Aaron Banks, Dominic Cummings and Jacob Rees Mogg amongst others.
Putin is the enemy of freedom and democracy. His supporters likewise.
Incidentally, and in the spirit of Rogerdamus de Villefranche-sur-Mer, I just took my older daughter home via Uber - after a WONDERFUL picnic in the Chilterns, then drinks with friends in Primrose Hill
The driver was a Somalian Muslim with Swedish citizenship. We had an impassioned debate (it was a long 57 minute journey) about everything from Gareth Southgate's failings to his own upbringing in war-torn Mogadishu to the likely UK election outcome to the problem of gangs in Malmo to his son's ambitions to be a journalist (I gave the best advice I could) to a really nuanced debate on Israel/Palestine
He was fiercely intelligent and put most PB-ers to shame with his knowledge of the history of Israel/Palestine and the intractable nature of the conflict. I felt quite humbled by the end, that a recent immigrant to the UK with English as his likely third language was so well informed on so many things. He was certainly not knee-jerk pro-Hamas
Really quite something, Reminded me why I love London. The driver also kept repeating this (and I don't believe he did it for effect) - how much he loved Britain and London ("and my son loves it even more")
A lot of food for thought. You can learn a lot in an hour of intense debate
And yet you tell us that Muslim immigrants don't want to integrate.
Too many don't, I fear. But this guy absolutely did, and it was deeply refreshing to hear - he was certainly not a "devout" Muslim, and he admitted that
My views are never fixed forever, and I aim to learn all the time. Do you not?
Also, how often do any of us get to talk INTENSELY and deeply about serious politics with a recent Somalian immigrant? I suggest that is quite unusual, and I am glad I took the opportunity. I also think I gave good advice to his son on getting into journalism!
And now I must abed, after a weirdly brilliant day
"with Swedish citizenship"
Why the fuck is he living here then?
Quite frankly if all our immigrants were like him, hard working, smart, cerebral, really well informed, law abiding and keen to integrate and get his kids into good jobs and DEEPLY appreciative of tolerant British culture and our traditions of free speech and worship - then I would have no problems with immigration at all
The problem is: far too many are not
You've spoken to all of them have you?
Oh. I see. No you haven't. So you base your fuckwitted stupidity on occasional journeys in a taxi.
"British culture" means what, exactly? That we all become like you? Nasty little shits who spend their lives off their tits on heroin and other illegal substances and brag about shagging around, including of girls the age of your daughter.
You're too stupid to have learned about the history of these islands and the cultural matrix interwoven into our DNA. There is NO white supremacist version of "British Culture" and "worship" but an ever-changing melting pot.
You really are an utter moron FAKE @Leon . As stupid as your hero Trump.
Sunak has no battle to fight after the election. He's gone.
If he wants to leave a positive legacy for the Conservative Party, he will do it now - by standing up to the Reform-appeaser wing. And by going full Tonto on Farage.
Incidentally, and in the spirit of Rogerdamus de Villefranche-sur-Mer, I just took my older daughter home via Uber - after a WONDERFUL picnic in the Chilterns, then drinks with friends in Primrose Hill
The driver was a Somalian Muslim with Swedish citizenship. We had an impassioned debate (it was a long 57 minute journey) about everything from Gareth Southgate's failings to his own upbringing in war-torn Mogadishu to the likely UK election outcome to the problem of gangs in Malmo to his son's ambitions to be a journalist (I gave the best advice I could) to a really nuanced debate on Israel/Palestine
He was fiercely intelligent and put most PB-ers to shame with his knowledge of the history of Israel/Palestine and the intractable nature of the conflict. I felt quite humbled by the end, that a recent immigrant to the UK with English as his likely third language was so well informed on so many things. He was certainly not knee-jerk pro-Hamas
Really quite something, Reminded me why I love London. The driver also kept repeating this (and I don't believe he did it for effect) - how much he loved Britain and London ("and my son loves it even more")
A lot of food for thought. You can learn a lot in an hour of intense debate
Conservatives still with nothing to say about Farage, did their social media team all go for a long lunch yesterday and get pissed?
The Trumpian wing of the Conservative party - Braverman, Patel, Rees Mogg, Berry, Jenrick etc - want a merger with Reform and Farage in a senior leadership position in what results. Attack Farage and the Tories very publicly split as the Trumpists come out in support of him. This is a battle for after the election.
Sunak has no battle to fight after the election. He's gone.
If he wants to leave a positive legacy for the Conservative Party, he will do it now - by standing up to the Reform-appeaser wing. And by going full Tonto on Farage.
Considering how cackhanded his campaign has been at every stage so far , that strategy isn't likely to go well for him.
Good morning everyone. I missed the post about the leaders cars. So here is my list. Farage. A V12 XJS. It does not work and is riddled with electrical faults. He also has a BMW M5 in black with tinted windows as he needs to get to meetings with the Supe Rich billonaires fast who are about to place a short on oil and gas or a long on copper as there is no more left in the world. Private Jet is also used if our road network is gridlocked. He did have fun working at the London metal exchange. I still think he is there. Starmer. Nissan Leaf for todays driving. Nostagia car. Austin Allegro Vaden Plas Automatic for driving around the lanes in Oxted and Reigate,his old stomping ground. The restoration work is yet to be carried out and it is fully costed. Sunak. G Wagon Brabus. Great for a quick get away. Ed Davey. Kia EV6. It is a wolf in sheeps clothing. However his prefered method of travel is the Helter Skelter.Looking forward how all of you will bet on this election, seats per party etc. I am still not convinced Labour will get 442 seats etc. I would say 380 for them.
Quite wrong, Farage is one of those Morgan things with leather straps on the bonnet. Hand crafted in Britain the way they used to be. String back gloves. Twatty cap. Barbour.
And a fucking uncomfortable ride.
It is a key plot point in the novel The Odessa File that English sports cars have stiffer suspension than wallowy foreign sedans
Conservatives still with nothing to say about Farage, did their social media team all go for a long lunch yesterday and get pissed?
They are still trying to find a small enough picture of Farage to fit in Putin's top pocket....
How they haven’t gone with a Mr Toad meme yet I don’t know.
The Tories seem to be meekly sitting back and letting Reform steal all their voters, for fear that if they say ‘boo’ it might upset their own members?
It really is bizarre to behold. Supine, weak, and lacking moral strength of character.
They should be drawing a clear line in the sand and calling out Farage for the far right Putin apologist he is.
Putin is a signed up Communist which puts him on the far left.
In his autobiography Obama referred to him as an old-fashioned Russian Nationalist. I think that sums him up succinctly.
Personally I'd add that he's a little thug from the back streets of St Petersburg. Left and right doesn't really come into it. He's a blot on the political landscape, one way or another.
Stalin was a land grabbing russian nationalist too despte being Georgian. As was Lenin. Just because they wave fancy titles about doesnt mean to say the ethos of the russian state has changed. It has always been about a handful of people running the place to make themselves richer and expand the state they control. In the C2o they swapped aristocrats for middle class psychopaths with red flags.
While that’s true of Stalin, they continued paying lip service to communism - and backing revolutionary communist abroad - until the dissolution of the USSR. Russian imperialism has pretty well entirely replaced that as a governing ideology.
Mr b I am saying however it is packaged Russian Imperialism is a constant. That they hit on communism as a way of deluding idiots in the West was simply playing a blinder. The West only got its act together in the 80s.
Looking forward however I do wonder how Russia will play its cards. With a collapsing population it can no longer push others around so easily. Our problem will be how to deal with a nuclear armed mafia state . A change of government would be a logical start.
I agree with you - though until Stalin, there was something else going on too.
Conservatives still with nothing to say about Farage, did their social media team all go for a long lunch yesterday and get pissed?
They are still trying to find a small enough picture of Farage to fit in Putin's top pocket....
How they haven’t gone with a Mr Toad meme yet I don’t know.
The Tories seem to be meekly sitting back and letting Reform steal all their voters, for fear that if they say ‘boo’ it might upset their own members?
It really is bizarre to behold. Supine, weak, and lacking moral strength of character.
They should be drawing a clear line in the sand and calling out Farage for the far right Putin apologist he is.
Putin is a signed up Communist which puts him on the far left.
In his autobiography Obama referred to him as an old-fashioned Russian Nationalist. I think that sums him up succinctly.
Personally I'd add that he's a little thug from the back streets of St Petersburg. Left and right doesn't really come into it. He's a blot on the political landscape, one way or another.
Stalin was a land grabbing russian nationalist too despte being Georgian. As was Lenin. Just because they wave fancy titles about doesnt mean to say the ethos of the russian state has changed. It has always been about a handful of people running the place to make themselves richer and expand the state they control. In the C2o they swapped aristocrats for middle class psychopaths with red flags.
This is why I'm bemused by people such as Kim Philby stating that he was spying for Russia for anti-imperialist reasons. You could, at a stretch, argue that before WW2 (though I'd argue you were wrong); after WW2 it was very clear that Russia itself was far more imperialist than Britain. Philby spied *for* imperialism, not against.
Philby was just doing it for fun. He was a posh kid,enjoying himself at the expense of others.
It's the penultimate election weekend and a really strange atmosphere politically.
The Tories seem to have given up and thrown in the towel. It's just weird.
Given that every cunning plan they have tried has blown up in their faces, doing nothing at all for the next 2 weeks is probably their best hope of salvaging something from the wreckage
Imagine the Far right won the parliamentary elections in France and then govern really well......eek!
Like Putin in Russia maybe?
Putin's rule in Russia is best characterised as a serious of catastrophic economic decisions which has left the Russian economy disastrously under invested and undervthe control of brutal mafia cliques. This then followed by the deaths of half a million men at a time when Russian demographics were already close to collapse. Putin has launched a serious of wars against peaceful neighbours- Georgia in 2008 and Ukraine since 2014. He has also used bribery, blackmail, propaganda and cyber war directly against the West. He has openly paid money to disruptive parties, such as the RN in France and the AfD. In the UK Farage and Salmond were both employed by Russia Today. I note the strong Russian links of Aaron Banks, Dominic Cummings and Jacob Rees Mogg amongst others.
Putin is the enemy of freedom and democracy. His supporters likewise.
Dominic Cummings lived in Russia for four years, and you maybrecall was denied full security clearance. Aaron Banks has close links with the Russian Embassy and was a regular guest of the Ambassador, where Brexit was a major discussion topic. Jacob Rees Mogg invested many millions in Russia, and it is strongly suggested, these investments were made on behalf of ultimately Russian beneficiaries.
Conservatives still with nothing to say about Farage, did their social media team all go for a long lunch yesterday and get pissed?
They are still trying to find a small enough picture of Farage to fit in Putin's top pocket....
How they haven’t gone with a Mr Toad meme yet I don’t know.
The Tories seem to be meekly sitting back and letting Reform steal all their voters, for fear that if they say ‘boo’ it might upset their own members?
It really is bizarre to behold. Supine, weak, and lacking moral strength of character.
They should be drawing a clear line in the sand and calling out Farage for the far right Putin apologist he is.
Putin is a signed up Communist which puts him on the far left.
The only people you hear describing Putin as a communist are old. I’m guessing you grew up through the 1950’s and 1960’s and don’t understand the realpolitik of post-Cold War Russia.
You really are an arsehole of the first order, no redeeming features.
Rowling is one of those younger lefties who eventually end up as fascists in old age. She's nearly there. Not quite, but give it four years.
It is sad that you label anyone you disagree with as a fascist. Rowling has a perfect valid position with regard to women's rights - one that only a few years ago would have been considered solidly left wing. The fact that Labour are losing the support of people like her says everything you need to know about how extreme they have become on some of the more fanatical social issues. You like to think of gthem as a centre left party but when it comes to these sorts of debates they are far out on the extremes
When I said she's nearly there, I think you misinterpreted that as meaning her opinions are close to fascism. That's not what I meant. What I meant was that she's reaching an angle of repose that will result in an avalanche into utter madness. Think of Spiked. The cracks are there. She's on the brink of madness. It's the sort of thing you see every so often. Hippies that wake up one day wanting to exterminate Gypsies. She's mixing in the right crowds. In a few years time it'll be leather boots and barbed-wire fantasies.
Come back in 2028 and tell me I was wrong.
Platonic..
I suspect, given JKR's background, much of her leftiness was informed by feminism. If she finds the party has moved away from feminism, it's no surprise she no longer feels she can support it.
Once again, whenever women's rights come up as a topic, the misogynists on here find it impossible to talk about it as matter in its own right without either dismissing or insulting the women who raise it or making it about men who claim to be women.
If you cannot be clear about what sex is, you cannot protect sex based rights or fight against sex-based oppression and discrimination. That discrimination and oppression is overwhelmingly endured by women. Here and in virtually every country in the world. Nor can you protect rights based on sexual orientation which is based on sex. That too is felt by many gay men and women around the world and, increasingly, by lesbians here who are often targeted by a very unpleasant category of men.
The Lib Dems and the Greens have made it clear in their manifestos that they will remove sex-based rights from the Equality Act. Labour have cobbled together some sort of fudge but Starmer has been all over the place on this and his arrogantly sexist response this week - where he needed a man to say something women had been saying for ages before he could agree to it - did him no favours at all.
As for girls with dysphoria they need proper treatment and help not as Khan has done the glorification of self-mutilation. If a bikini-ready body is not fit to be displayed, why is a self-harmed one? The fact that dysphoria in women tends to happen in teenage girls (rather than in middle-aged women, unlike the case with men) raises issues about how we treat girls, our expectations of them, the stereotypes imposed and the pressures they are under. The answer to those is not mutilation and drugs.
Treat what the GLP says with care. They have made unevidenced assertions in order to raise money. They have not always been accurate in their statements. They brought a legal action claiming the NHS discriminated against trans people. They lost and the evidence was that the NHS had increased its funding but could not find sufficient doctors and nurses to work in this area of medicine. Given the abuse doctors like Dr Cass have faced, is this any surprise? As for the legal issues, the Supreme Court will be ruling on the FWS appeal and this will determine what sex in the Equality Act means and its interaction with what the GRA says. Though it may make the position even more complicated and confused. That's the trouble with creating legal fictions at odds with reality.
The Tories should have learnt that lesson over Rwanda and indeed Brexit.
I take it that you're of the view that trans people don't exist?
you obviously did not read it, just applied your well documented bias that women have penises
Sorry if this has been discussed before, but Farage on Ukraine etc raises more than one question.
Let's assume Farage acts and speaks for reasons. And accept this: although he utters some criticisms of Russia/Putin/Trump etc, he notably never does so in an unqualified way, and always utters some amelioration of the criticism. Hence yesterday on Ukraine etc
In election time there can only be two reasons for this. It could be this is because his supporters base are with him on all this and it is all said to get votes.
The only other possibility is that he is under obligations within a network of international relationships to maintain a particular line - just like Labour can't full frontally attack unions, or the Tories can't go heavy on wealthy oligarchs.
My one image of the day and worth every single other lost opportunity
Pretty stupid from Verhofstadt, the correct thing to do is let Farage float adrift in a mess of his own making not to give him easy distractions to get out of it.
I wish Vertwatstadht would keep his mouth shut.
It's the one thing that might generate sympathy for Farage.
Imagine the Far right won the parliamentary elections in France and then govern really well......eek!
Like Putin in Russia maybe?
Putin's rule in Russia is best characterised as a serious of catastrophic economic decisions which has left the Russian economy disastrously under invested and undervthe control of brutal mafia cliques. This then followed by the deaths of half a million men at a time when Russian demographics were already close to collapse. Putin has launched a serious of wars against peaceful neighbours- Georgia in 2008 and Ukraine since 2014. He has also used bribery, blackmail, propaganda and cyber war directly against the West. He has openly paid money to disruptive parties, such as the RN in France and the AfD. In the UK Farage and Salmond were both employed by Russia Today. I note the strong Russian links of Aaron Banks, Dominic Cummings and Jacob Rees Mogg amongst others.
Putin is the enemy of freedom and democracy. His supporters likewise.
Dominic Cummings lived in Russia for four years, and you maybrecall was denied full security clearance. Aaron Banks has close links with the Russian Embassy and was a regular guest of the Ambassador, where Brexit was a major discussion topic. Jacob Rees Mogg invested many millions in Russia, and it is strongly suggested, these investments were made on behalf of ultimately Russian beneficiaries.
...and Boris Johnson attended Lebedev parties whilst Foreign Secretary sans his security detail.
How so little has been made of that breach by the authorities and the media is beyond me. Boris will be Boris.
Imagine the Far right won the parliamentary elections in France and then govern really well......eek!
Like Putin in Russia maybe?
Putin's rule in Russia is best characterised as a serious of catastrophic economic decisions which has left the Russian economy disastrously under invested and undervthe control of brutal mafia cliques. This then followed by the deaths of half a million men at a time when Russian demographics were already close to collapse. Putin has launched a serious of wars against peaceful neighbours- Georgia in 2008 and Ukraine since 2014. He has also used bribery, blackmail, propaganda and cyber war directly against the West. He has openly paid money to disruptive parties, such as the RN in France and the AfD. In the UK Farage and Salmond were both employed by Russia Today. I note the strong Russian links of Aaron Banks, Dominic Cummings and Jacob Rees Mogg amongst others.
Putin is the enemy of freedom and democracy. His supporters likewise.
Dominic Cummings lived in Russia for four years, and you maybrecall was denied full security clearance. Aaron Banks has close links with the Russian Embassy and was a regular guest of the Ambassador, where Brexit was a major discussion topic. Jacob Rees Mogg invested many millions in Russia, and it is strongly suggested, these investments were made on behalf of ultimately Russian beneficiaries.
This is conspiracy theory on a par with the rubbish about Remain postal votes a few days ago. Brexit Derangement Syndrome writ large.
Sunak has no battle to fight after the election. He's gone.
If he wants to leave a positive legacy for the Conservative Party, he will do it now - by standing up to the Reform-appeaser wing. And by going full Tonto on Farage.
Hard to imagine what that would look like
"I disagree. Strongly!"
He's working on his spreadsheet right now.
Expect a really uncutting line to be delivered very badly at 20dB about lunchtime Monday.
Conservatives still with nothing to say about Farage, did their social media team all go for a long lunch yesterday and get pissed?
The Trumpian wing of the Conservative party - Braverman, Patel, Rees Mogg, Berry, Jenrick etc - want a merger with Reform and Farage in a senior leadership position in what results. Attack Farage and the Tories very publicly split as the Trumpists come out in support of him. This is a battle for after the election.
Sunak has no battle to fight after the election. He's gone.
If he wants to leave a positive legacy for the Conservative Party, he will do it now - by standing up to the Reform-appeaser wing. And by going full Tonto on Farage.
He should have done it a long time ago. But he didn’t, so I can’t see him doing it now. It would nice to be wrong, though.
Conservatives still with nothing to say about Farage, did their social media team all go for a long lunch yesterday and get pissed?
The Trumpian wing of the Conservative party - Braverman, Patel, Rees Mogg, Berry, Jenrick etc - want a merger with Reform and Farage in a senior leadership position in what results. Attack Farage and the Tories very publicly split as the Trumpists come out in support of him. This is a battle for after the election.
Sunak has no battle to fight after the election.
He's not got battle to fight before the election either, tbf.
Imagine the Far right won the parliamentary elections in France and then govern really well......eek!
Like Putin in Russia maybe?
Putin's rule in Russia is best characterised as a serious of catastrophic economic decisions which has left the Russian economy disastrously under invested and undervthe control of brutal mafia cliques. This then followed by the deaths of half a million men at a time when Russian demographics were already close to collapse. Putin has launched a serious of wars against peaceful neighbours- Georgia in 2008 and Ukraine since 2014. He has also used bribery, blackmail, propaganda and cyber war directly against the West. He has openly paid money to disruptive parties, such as the RN in France and the AfD. In the UK Farage and Salmond were both employed by Russia Today. I note the strong Russian links of Aaron Banks, Dominic Cummings and Jacob Rees Mogg amongst others.
Putin is the enemy of freedom and democracy. His supporters likewise.
I note you do not mention any of the Tories in Putin's pockets , Johnson's giving out baubles , tennis matches for huge sums and many others, you need to curb that bias.
Once again, whenever women's rights come up as a topic, the misogynists on here find it impossible to talk about it as matter in its own right without either dismissing or insulting the women who raise it or making it about men who claim to be women.
If you cannot be clear about what sex is, you cannot protect sex based rights or fight against sex-based oppression and discrimination. That discrimination and oppression is overwhelmingly endured by women. Here and in virtually every country in the world. Nor can you protect rights based on sexual orientation which is based on sex. That too is felt by many gay men and women around the world and, increasingly, by lesbians here who are often targeted by a very unpleasant category of men.
The Lib Dems and the Greens have made it clear in their manifestos that they will remove sex-based rights from the Equality Act. Labour have cobbled together some sort of fudge but Starmer has been all over the place on this and his arrogantly sexist response this week - where he needed a man to say something women had been saying for ages before he could agree to it - did him no favours at all.
As for girls with dysphoria they need proper treatment and help not as Khan has done the glorification of self-mutilation. If a bikini-ready body is not fit to be displayed, why is a self-harmed one? The fact that dysphoria in women tends to happen in teenage girls (rather than in middle-aged women, unlike the case with men) raises issues about how we treat girls, our expectations of them, the stereotypes imposed and the pressures they are under. The answer to those is not mutilation and drugs.
Treat what the GLP says with care. They have made unevidenced assertions in order to raise money. They have not always been accurate in their statements. They brought a legal action claiming the NHS discriminated against trans people. They lost and the evidence was that the NHS had increased its funding but could not find sufficient doctors and nurses to work in this area of medicine. Given the abuse doctors like Dr Cass have faced, is this any surprise? As for the legal issues, the Supreme Court will be ruling on the FWS appeal and this will determine what sex in the Equality Act means and its interaction with what the GRA says. Though it may make the position even more complicated and confused. That's the trouble with creating legal fictions at odds with reality.
The Tories should have learnt that lesson over Rwanda and indeed Brexit.
I take it that you're of the view that trans people don't exist?
you obviously did not read it, just applied your well documented bias that women have penises
I did read it. And I suggest you read my comments on this; it is far more complex than stupid comments like 'women have penises'.
The complexity is why this is such a difficult issue. The stupid thing is to assume that sex is utterly binary. It isn't, either physically or mentally.
I would love the economic policies of Liz Truss - perhaps that cretin would prefer us to do the same things we've been doing for the past 30 years and hope that works.
As for the pro-Putin policies of Corbyn, I'll settle for being neutral, making a huge amount of money off any war, then only actually joining when our fleet gets Pearl Harboured - that strategy doesn't seem to have done America's long term reputation or its bank balance any harm.
You can't be neutral against evil.
America stayed out of the war until the end of 1941, with the British Empire liquidated to pay for their help in the war. They joined only when attacked directly, yet still their record in World War II is a pillar of their nation's story. So clearly you can be pretty neutral against it.
Yes, and that proves my point. Their staying neutral made things much worse for them when they joined, than if they had joined in back in 1939.
It's interesting to consider what would have happened if the USA had joined in back in 1939. Would France have fallen? would Japan have decided to attack Pearl Harbour given how an America at war would have increased their military output?
(The last question seems particularly interesting, given the somewhat insane decision to attack Pearl Harbour in the first place.)
Of course, the earlier they joined, the better it would have gone, and the easier on the other allies. But that isn't the point. They profited massively be remaining out of the fighting until they eventually joined - I don’t know any serious account of the economic history of the period that says they didn't. War is a ghastly, costly, mincing machine of life and treasure for the combatants. But it's very profitable for peaceful countries who stay out of it. See also Switzerland.
So... you say accept profit over morality, even if it means it costs more (in blood and money) when your morality eventually wins?
It's an idea, I suppose. Not a good one, though.
I think the morality of the situation is far more nuanced than you seem capable of seeing, but in any case, it worked out very well for America. Over two wars where they delayed entering, only doing so when they had accumulated plentiful resources and were able to deal the decisive blow, they became the richest and most powerful country in the world. Who condemns them for that - do you? Yet we, in what is now a hugely declined and weakened state, are still expected to lead the charge. If Nigel Farage is saying that we shouldn't, I'm afraid I completely agree.
"I think the morality of the situation is far more nuanced than you seem capable of seeing"
No. Simply no.
Where is the 'nuance' in the morality of what Putin is doing? How can you claim it is *not* bad, reprehensible, evil. etc?
The only nuance is if you read - and agree - with the pitiful 'excuses' he made for this war. Which, I remind you, you have track record of with flight MH17, to your shame.
There is no moral nuance in what Putin has done, but there is nuance in the decision on the extent to which the UK Government should put UK citizens in jeopardy in order to combat him. It is a difficult lesson to learn that we cannot be the world's policeman, and sometimes our interventions don't make things better.
This isn't about being a policeman. This is about survival. Putin is a direct threat to this country in just the same way Hitler was in the 1930s. Either we stop him now or we have to try and stop him later. At the moment, terrible as it sounds, we have a chance to stop him whilst somebody else is doing the dying for us. All they ask is we support them with the tools they need to fight.
That seems like a bloody good bargain to me.
It does sound terrible, because it is. It's the American strategy to try to bleed a geopolitical rival dry over the long term, and Ukraine is sacrifice. I don't subscribe to that strategy for many reasons, both moral and practical.
Because you either don't believe or don't understand the threat Putin poses. That is why you are wrong. Everything else stems from that.
It could be very complacent of Labour to take its own safe seats for granted, and leave them vulnerable to a hodgepodge of other parties. Or it could turn into an extinction event with no Tory seat untargetred.
Conservatives still with nothing to say about Farage, did their social media team all go for a long lunch yesterday and get pissed?
The Trumpian wing of the Conservative party - Braverman, Patel, Rees Mogg, Berry, Jenrick etc - want a merger with Reform and Farage in a senior leadership position in what results. Attack Farage and the Tories very publicly split as the Trumpists come out in support of him. This is a battle for after the election.
Sunak has no battle to fight after the election. He's gone.
If he wants to leave a positive legacy for the Conservative Party, he will do it now - by standing up to the Reform-appeaser wing. And by going full Tonto on Farage.
Though that's been true for pretty much his entire premiership. He could have spent eighteen months acting out the "I've only got a few months to live so you can't kill me" hero trope. He couldn't have ended up more unpopular than he has.
But he hasn't. When you look at where he has expended the little time and political capital he had- Rwanda, maths, cigarettes, anything else?- it's pitiful.
But responding to last night's interview isn't difficult. Childish glove puppet of Farage. Putin's hand right up its jacksie. No need for words. No party logo. Just make sure it gets onto social media.
Good morning everyone. I missed the post about the leaders cars. So here is my list. Farage. A V12 XJS. It does not work and is riddled with electrical faults. He also has a BMW M5 in black with tinted windows as he needs to get to meetings with the Supe Rich billonaires fast who are about to place a short on oil and gas or a long on copper as there is no more left in the world. Private Jet is also used if our road network is gridlocked. He did have fun working at the London metal exchange. I still think he is there. Starmer. Nissan Leaf for todays driving. Nostagia car. Austin Allegro Vaden Plas Automatic for driving around the lanes in Oxted and Reigate,his old stomping ground. The restoration work is yet to be carried out and it is fully costed. Sunak. G Wagon Brabus. Great for a quick get away. Ed Davey. Kia EV6. It is a wolf in sheeps clothing. However his prefered method of travel is the Helter Skelter.Looking forward how all of you will bet on this election, seats per party etc. I am still not convinced Labour will get 442 seats etc. I would say 380 for them.
Quite wrong, Farage is one of those Morgan things with leather straps on the bonnet. Hand crafted in Britain the way they used to be. String back gloves. Twatty cap. Barbour.
Imagine the Far right won the parliamentary elections in France and then govern really well......eek!
Like Putin in Russia maybe?
Putin's rule in Russia is best characterised as a serious of catastrophic economic decisions which has left the Russian economy disastrously under invested and undervthe control of brutal mafia cliques. This then followed by the deaths of half a million men at a time when Russian demographics were already close to collapse. Putin has launched a serious of wars against peaceful neighbours- Georgia in 2008 and Ukraine since 2014. He has also used bribery, blackmail, propaganda and cyber war directly against the West. He has openly paid money to disruptive parties, such as the RN in France and the AfD. In the UK Farage and Salmond were both employed by Russia Today. I note the strong Russian links of Aaron Banks, Dominic Cummings and Jacob Rees Mogg amongst others.
Putin is the enemy of freedom and democracy. His supporters likewise.
Dominic Cummings lived in Russia for four years, and you maybrecall was denied full security clearance. Aaron Banks has close links with the Russian Embassy and was a regular guest of the Ambassador, where Brexit was a major discussion topic. Jacob Rees Mogg invested many millions in Russia, and it is strongly suggested, these investments were made on behalf of ultimately Russian beneficiaries.
...and Boris Johnson attended Lebedev parties whilst Foreign Secretary sans his security detail.
How so little has been made of that breach by the authorities and the media is beyond me. Boris will be Boris.
ISTR OGH attended a party at the Russian embassy a few years back. Does that mean that OGH, and by extension this site, is a Russian mouthpiece?
And I'm also amused by the way Mandelson is not mentioned whenever Russia and British politicians are mentioned...
Once again, whenever women's rights come up as a topic, the misogynists on here find it impossible to talk about it as matter in its own right without either dismissing or insulting the women who raise it or making it about men who claim to be women.
If you cannot be clear about what sex is, you cannot protect sex based rights or fight against sex-based oppression and discrimination. That discrimination and oppression is overwhelmingly endured by women. Here and in virtually every country in the world. Nor can you protect rights based on sexual orientation which is based on sex. That too is felt by many gay men and women around the world and, increasingly, by lesbians here who are often targeted by a very unpleasant category of men.
The Lib Dems and the Greens have made it clear in their manifestos that they will remove sex-based rights from the Equality Act. Labour have cobbled together some sort of fudge but Starmer has been all over the place on this and his arrogantly sexist response this week - where he needed a man to say something women had been saying for ages before he could agree to it - did him no favours at all.
As for girls with dysphoria they need proper treatment and help not as Khan has done the glorification of self-mutilation. If a bikini-ready body is not fit to be displayed, why is a self-harmed one? The fact that dysphoria in women tends to happen in teenage girls (rather than in middle-aged women, unlike the case with men) raises issues about how we treat girls, our expectations of them, the stereotypes imposed and the pressures they are under. The answer to those is not mutilation and drugs.
Treat what the GLP says with care. They have made unevidenced assertions in order to raise money. They have not always been accurate in their statements. They brought a legal action claiming the NHS discriminated against trans people. They lost and the evidence was that the NHS had increased its funding but could not find sufficient doctors and nurses to work in this area of medicine. Given the abuse doctors like Dr Cass have faced, is this any surprise? As for the legal issues, the Supreme Court will be ruling on the FWS appeal and this will determine what sex in the Equality Act means and its interaction with what the GRA says. Though it may make the position even more complicated and confused. That's the trouble with creating legal fictions at odds with reality.
The Tories should have learnt that lesson over Rwanda and indeed Brexit.
I take it that you're of the view that trans people don't exist?
you obviously did not read it, just applied your well documented bias that women have penises
I did read it. And I suggest you read my comments on this; it is far more complex than stupid comments like 'women have penises'.
The complexity is why this is such a difficult issue. The stupid thing is to assume that sex is utterly binary. It isn't, either physically or mentally.
Sorry if this has been discussed before, but Farage on Ukraine etc raises more than one question.
Let's assume Farage acts and speaks for reasons. And accept this: although he utters some criticisms of Russia/Putin/Trump etc, he notably never does so in an unqualified way, and always utters some amelioration of the criticism. Hence yesterday on Ukraine etc
In election time there can only be two reasons for this. It could be this is because his supporters base are with him on all this and it is all said to get votes.
The only other possibility is that he is under obligations within a network of international relationships to maintain a particular line - just like Labour can't full frontally attack unions, or the Tories can't go heavy on wealthy oligarchs.
Is this about right?
I don't understand your second point. But there is also the possibility he is trying to steer a line between what he believes and what hia supporters want him to believe (cf Corbyn on EU membership). This is what I think most likely, and is reason #1 I will not be voting Reform. There is also the possibility his views on Putin have changed over time. Ifind it quite conceivable he vaguely saw Putin as an antiwoke hero, right up until the invasion of Ukraine, and he is now going through the mental gymnastics of convincing himself and others that he was more ambivalent than he appeared. He wouldn't be the first person to do this on this or any other subject.
Conservatives still with nothing to say about Farage, did their social media team all go for a long lunch yesterday and get pissed?
They are still trying to find a small enough picture of Farage to fit in Putin's top pocket....
How they haven’t gone with a Mr Toad meme yet I don’t know.
The Tories seem to be meekly sitting back and letting Reform steal all their voters, for fear that if they say ‘boo’ it might upset their own members?
It really is bizarre to behold. Supine, weak, and lacking moral strength of character.
They should be drawing a clear line in the sand and calling out Farage for the far right Putin apologist he is.
Putin is a signed up Communist which puts him on the far left.
No, the economy and government he runs is of the right. Aside from his past there’s nothing socialist about it or him.
There was nothing socualist about the regime he grew up in.
So let me get this right. Putin is a Communist despite growing up in a non-socialist regime. Presumably he will be rolling out collectivisation and the communes any time soon.
Next you'll be suggesting that Hitler was far-left because he led the National Socialist German Workers' Party.
Putin was born in 1952. He was 37 when Communism collapsed by which time he was an officer in the KGB. So he grew up and was committed to Communism
And as you rightly point out the only difference between communism and Nazism is one was international socialism and the other was national socialism. Pretend socialists hiding authoritarian regimes.
He grew up serving the regime, but more than that serving Russia. He is a nationalist imperialist.
Once again, whenever women's rights come up as a topic, the misogynists on here find it impossible to talk about it as matter in its own right without either dismissing or insulting the women who raise it or making it about men who claim to be women.
If you cannot be clear about what sex is, you cannot protect sex based rights or fight against sex-based oppression and discrimination. That discrimination and oppression is overwhelmingly endured by women. Here and in virtually every country in the world. Nor can you protect rights based on sexual orientation which is based on sex. That too is felt by many gay men and women around the world and, increasingly, by lesbians here who are often targeted by a very unpleasant category of men.
The Lib Dems and the Greens have made it clear in their manifestos that they will remove sex-based rights from the Equality Act. Labour have cobbled together some sort of fudge but Starmer has been all over the place on this and his arrogantly sexist response this week - where he needed a man to say something women had been saying for ages before he could agree to it - did him no favours at all.
As for girls with dysphoria they need proper treatment and help not as Khan has done the glorification of self-mutilation. If a bikini-ready body is not fit to be displayed, why is a self-harmed one? The fact that dysphoria in women tends to happen in teenage girls (rather than in middle-aged women, unlike the case with men) raises issues about how we treat girls, our expectations of them, the stereotypes imposed and the pressures they are under. The answer to those is not mutilation and drugs.
Treat what the GLP says with care. They have made unevidenced assertions in order to raise money. They have not always been accurate in their statements. They brought a legal action claiming the NHS discriminated against trans people. They lost and the evidence was that the NHS had increased its funding but could not find sufficient doctors and nurses to work in this area of medicine. Given the abuse doctors like Dr Cass have faced, is this any surprise? As for the legal issues, the Supreme Court will be ruling on the FWS appeal and this will determine what sex in the Equality Act means and its interaction with what the GRA says. Though it may make the position even more complicated and confused. That's the trouble with creating legal fictions at odds with reality.
The Tories should have learnt that lesson over Rwanda and indeed Brexit.
I take it that you're of the view that trans people don't exist?
you obviously did not read it, just applied your well documented bias that women have penises
I did read it. And I suggest you read my comments on this; it is far more complex than stupid comments like 'women have penises'.
The complexity is why this is such a difficult issue. The stupid thing is to assume that sex is utterly binary. It isn't, either physically or mentally.
99.99% of the time it is, though.
@JosiasJessop As I said you are one of these headcases who deny biology and try to promote that there are anything other than TWO sexes.Being Mental does not trump biology.
Imagine the Far right won the parliamentary elections in France and then govern really well......eek!
Like Putin in Russia maybe?
Putin's rule in Russia is best characterised as a serious of catastrophic economic decisions which has left the Russian economy disastrously under invested and undervthe control of brutal mafia cliques. This then followed by the deaths of half a million men at a time when Russian demographics were already close to collapse. Putin has launched a serious of wars against peaceful neighbours- Georgia in 2008 and Ukraine since 2014. He has also used bribery, blackmail, propaganda and cyber war directly against the West. He has openly paid money to disruptive parties, such as the RN in France and the AfD. In the UK Farage and Salmond were both employed by Russia Today. I note the strong Russian links of Aaron Banks, Dominic Cummings and Jacob Rees Mogg amongst others.
Putin is the enemy of freedom and democracy. His supporters likewise.
I note you do not mention any of the Tories in Putin's pockets , Johnson's giving out baubles , tennis matches for huge sums and many others, you need to curb that bias.
Not enough space... and I'm hardly biased in favour of the Tories am I, Malc?
It's the penultimate election weekend and a really strange atmosphere politically.
The Tories seem to have given up and thrown in the towel. It's just weird.
We've discussed on here how the difference between 50 or a 100 seats could be vital for the Tories. A lot more consequential than the difference between 150 and 200.
If things are as bad as the polls suggest then these are the most important two weeks in the history of the Conservative party.
There's a football chant that's appropriate, I think. "You only sing when you're winning."
Once again, whenever women's rights come up as a topic, the misogynists on here find it impossible to talk about it as matter in its own right without either dismissing or insulting the women who raise it or making it about men who claim to be women.
If you cannot be clear about what sex is, you cannot protect sex based rights or fight against sex-based oppression and discrimination. That discrimination and oppression is overwhelmingly endured by women. Here and in virtually every country in the world. Nor can you protect rights based on sexual orientation which is based on sex. That too is felt by many gay men and women around the world and, increasingly, by lesbians here who are often targeted by a very unpleasant category of men.
The Lib Dems and the Greens have made it clear in their manifestos that they will remove sex-based rights from the Equality Act. Labour have cobbled together some sort of fudge but Starmer has been all over the place on this and his arrogantly sexist response this week - where he needed a man to say something women had been saying for ages before he could agree to it - did him no favours at all.
As for girls with dysphoria they need proper treatment and help not as Khan has done the glorification of self-mutilation. If a bikini-ready body is not fit to be displayed, why is a self-harmed one? The fact that dysphoria in women tends to happen in teenage girls (rather than in middle-aged women, unlike the case with men) raises issues about how we treat girls, our expectations of them, the stereotypes imposed and the pressures they are under. The answer to those is not mutilation and drugs.
Treat what the GLP says with care. They have made unevidenced assertions in order to raise money. They have not always been accurate in their statements. They brought a legal action claiming the NHS discriminated against trans people. They lost and the evidence was that the NHS had increased its funding but could not find sufficient doctors and nurses to work in this area of medicine. Given the abuse doctors like Dr Cass have faced, is this any surprise? As for the legal issues, the Supreme Court will be ruling on the FWS appeal and this will determine what sex in the Equality Act means and its interaction with what the GRA says. Though it may make the position even more complicated and confused. That's the trouble with creating legal fictions at odds with reality.
The Tories should have learnt that lesson over Rwanda and indeed Brexit.
I take it that you're of the view that trans people don't exist?
you obviously did not read it, just applied your well documented bias that women have penises
I did read it. And I suggest you read my comments on this; it is far more complex than stupid comments like 'women have penises'.
The complexity is why this is such a difficult issue. The stupid thing is to assume that sex is utterly binary. It isn't, either physically or mentally.
99.99% of the time it is, though.
Exact figures are hard to come by and vary wildly, especially according to definition, but I think you're an order of magnitude or two out on that.
Rowling is one of those younger lefties who eventually end up as fascists in old age. She's nearly there. Not quite, but give it four years.
It is sad that you label anyone you disagree with as a fascist. Rowling has a perfect valid position with regard to women's rights - one that only a few years ago would have been considered solidly left wing. The fact that Labour are losing the support of people like her says everything you need to know about how extreme they have become on some of the more fanatical social issues. You like to think of gthem as a centre left party but when it comes to these sorts of debates they are far out on the extremes
When I said she's nearly there, I think you misinterpreted that as meaning her opinions are close to fascism. That's not what I meant. What I meant was that she's reaching an angle of repose that will result in an avalanche into utter madness. Think of Spiked. The cracks are there. She's on the brink of madness. It's the sort of thing you see every so often. Hippies that wake up one day wanting to exterminate Gypsies. She's mixing in the right crowds. In a few years time it'll be leather boots and barbed-wire fantasies.
Come back in 2028 and tell me I was wrong.
Platonic..
I suspect, given JKR's background, much of her leftiness was informed by feminism. If she finds the party has moved away from feminism, it's no surprise she no longer feels she can support it.
As @viewcode has succinctly recorded, Labour in the days of Blair was pushing a trans sympathetic line that would now turn Rowling (and others) into monomaniacal bores on the subject.
The ‘I haven’t left X, X has left me’ has become a cliché. Sometimes it’s accurate, other times it’s a sign of a huge ego that doesn’t recognise its own radicalisation.
Good morning everyone. I missed the post about the leaders cars. So here is my list. Farage. A V12 XJS. It does not work and is riddled with electrical faults. He also has a BMW M5 in black with tinted windows as he needs to get to meetings with the Supe Rich billonaires fast who are about to place a short on oil and gas or a long on copper as there is no more left in the world. Private Jet is also used if our road network is gridlocked. He did have fun working at the London metal exchange. I still think he is there. Starmer. Nissan Leaf for todays driving. Nostagia car. Austin Allegro Vaden Plas Automatic for driving around the lanes in Oxted and Reigate,his old stomping ground. The restoration work is yet to be carried out and it is fully costed. Sunak. G Wagon Brabus. Great for a quick get away. Ed Davey. Kia EV6. It is a wolf in sheeps clothing. However his prefered method of travel is the Helter Skelter.Looking forward how all of you will bet on this election, seats per party etc. I am still not convinced Labour will get 442 seats etc. I would say 380 for them.
Quite wrong, Farage is one of those Morgan things with leather straps on the bonnet. Hand crafted in Britain the way they used to be. String back gloves. Twatty cap. Barbour.
Too classy for him.
Nigel is obviously a Frog Eyed Sprite
Triumph Stag for Nige. Which coincidentally is a car owned by a noisy right winger in Holyrood.
Once again, whenever women's rights come up as a topic, the misogynists on here find it impossible to talk about it as matter in its own right without either dismissing or insulting the women who raise it or making it about men who claim to be women.
If you cannot be clear about what sex is, you cannot protect sex based rights or fight against sex-based oppression and discrimination. That discrimination and oppression is overwhelmingly endured by women. Here and in virtually every country in the world. Nor can you protect rights based on sexual orientation which is based on sex. That too is felt by many gay men and women around the world and, increasingly, by lesbians here who are often targeted by a very unpleasant category of men.
The Lib Dems and the Greens have made it clear in their manifestos that they will remove sex-based rights from the Equality Act. Labour have cobbled together some sort of fudge but Starmer has been all over the place on this and his arrogantly sexist response this week - where he needed a man to say something women had been saying for ages before he could agree to it - did him no favours at all.
As for girls with dysphoria they need proper treatment and help not as Khan has done the glorification of self-mutilation. If a bikini-ready body is not fit to be displayed, why is a self-harmed one? The fact that dysphoria in women tends to happen in teenage girls (rather than in middle-aged women, unlike the case with men) raises issues about how we treat girls, our expectations of them, the stereotypes imposed and the pressures they are under. The answer to those is not mutilation and drugs.
Treat what the GLP says with care. They have made unevidenced assertions in order to raise money. They have not always been accurate in their statements. They brought a legal action claiming the NHS discriminated against trans people. They lost and the evidence was that the NHS had increased its funding but could not find sufficient doctors and nurses to work in this area of medicine. Given the abuse doctors like Dr Cass have faced, is this any surprise? As for the legal issues, the Supreme Court will be ruling on the FWS appeal and this will determine what sex in the Equality Act means and its interaction with what the GRA says. Though it may make the position even more complicated and confused. That's the trouble with creating legal fictions at odds with reality.
The Tories should have learnt that lesson over Rwanda and indeed Brexit.
I take it that you're of the view that trans people don't exist?
you obviously did not read it, just applied your well documented bias that women have penises
I did read it. And I suggest you read my comments on this; it is far more complex than stupid comments like 'women have penises'.
The complexity is why this is such a difficult issue. The stupid thing is to assume that sex is utterly binary. It isn't, either physically or mentally.
99.99% of the time it is, though.
Yup. We might quibble about how many nines, but in broad terms, yup.
But even 0.01% is thousands of people who currently have a pretty awful life. And that insight ought to feature in our collective thinking of how to balance the rights of cispeople and transpeople. And too often, right now it doesn't.
Once again, whenever women's rights come up as a topic, the misogynists on here find it impossible to talk about it as matter in its own right without either dismissing or insulting the women who raise it or making it about men who claim to be women.
If you cannot be clear about what sex is, you cannot protect sex based rights or fight against sex-based oppression and discrimination. That discrimination and oppression is overwhelmingly endured by women. Here and in virtually every country in the world. Nor can you protect rights based on sexual orientation which is based on sex. That too is felt by many gay men and women around the world and, increasingly, by lesbians here who are often targeted by a very unpleasant category of men.
The Lib Dems and the Greens have made it clear in their manifestos that they will remove sex-based rights from the Equality Act. Labour have cobbled together some sort of fudge but Starmer has been all over the place on this and his arrogantly sexist response this week - where he needed a man to say something women had been saying for ages before he could agree to it - did him no favours at all.
As for girls with dysphoria they need proper treatment and help not as Khan has done the glorification of self-mutilation. If a bikini-ready body is not fit to be displayed, why is a self-harmed one? The fact that dysphoria in women tends to happen in teenage girls (rather than in middle-aged women, unlike the case with men) raises issues about how we treat girls, our expectations of them, the stereotypes imposed and the pressures they are under. The answer to those is not mutilation and drugs.
Treat what the GLP says with care. They have made unevidenced assertions in order to raise money. They have not always been accurate in their statements. They brought a legal action claiming the NHS discriminated against trans people. They lost and the evidence was that the NHS had increased its funding but could not find sufficient doctors and nurses to work in this area of medicine. Given the abuse doctors like Dr Cass have faced, is this any surprise? As for the legal issues, the Supreme Court will be ruling on the FWS appeal and this will determine what sex in the Equality Act means and its interaction with what the GRA says. Though it may make the position even more complicated and confused. That's the trouble with creating legal fictions at odds with reality.
The Tories should have learnt that lesson over Rwanda and indeed Brexit.
I take it that you're of the view that trans people don't exist?
you obviously did not read it, just applied your well documented bias that women have penises
I did read it. And I suggest you read my comments on this; it is far more complex than stupid comments like 'women have penises'.
The complexity is why this is such a difficult issue. The stupid thing is to assume that sex is utterly binary. It isn't, either physically or mentally.
99.99% of the time it is, though.
More common than that, at least according to the Cass report.
Sorry if this has been discussed before, but Farage on Ukraine etc raises more than one question.
Let's assume Farage acts and speaks for reasons. And accept this: although he utters some criticisms of Russia/Putin/Trump etc, he notably never does so in an unqualified way, and always utters some amelioration of the criticism. Hence yesterday on Ukraine etc
In election time there can only be two reasons for this. It could be this is because his supporters base are with him on all this and it is all said to get votes.
The only other possibility is that he is under obligations within a network of international relationships to maintain a particular line - just like Labour can't full frontally attack unions, or the Tories can't go heavy on wealthy oligarchs.
Is this about right?
It could be, or it could be a simpler psychological failing.
PB was discussing Chomsky recently, at the time of his phantom death. He opposed the US war in Vietnam, which you can see as a principled opposition to an imperialist war. But then he began to see US imperialism in everything, and felt that, in order to oppose the US, he had to support the opponents of the US.
Farage could be on a similar journey. He's come to prominence by opposing the British establishment on EU membership. But now he's extending that top opposed the British establishment on everything. So if the establishment supports Ukraine, he must not. If the establishment wants to avoid a debt crisis, he does not.
He's lost his independent judgement and replaced it with a reflex to oppose everything that the British establishment does. And that brings him to a place of echoing the propaganda of the Russian dictator.
The thing is We may believe Farage has connections with Putin, Trump etc. Not anymore. I doubt that. He would love to be their mates. Is he still in Trumps good books?
Rowling is one of those younger lefties who eventually end up as fascists in old age. She's nearly there. Not quite, but give it four years.
It is sad that you label anyone you disagree with as a fascist. Rowling has a perfect valid position with regard to women's rights - one that only a few years ago would have been considered solidly left wing. The fact that Labour are losing the support of people like her says everything you need to know about how extreme they have become on some of the more fanatical social issues. You like to think of gthem as a centre left party but when it comes to these sorts of debates they are far out on the extremes
When I said she's nearly there, I think you misinterpreted that as meaning her opinions are close to fascism. That's not what I meant. What I meant was that she's reaching an angle of repose that will result in an avalanche into utter madness. Think of Spiked. The cracks are there. She's on the brink of madness. It's the sort of thing you see every so often. Hippies that wake up one day wanting to exterminate Gypsies. She's mixing in the right crowds. In a few years time it'll be leather boots and barbed-wire fantasies.
Come back in 2028 and tell me I was wrong.
Nah. She's discovered that on an issue of huge significance to her the people she thought were on her side, actually aren't. The pile-on that resulted in her simply stating some facts - designed to shut her up, and others who hold the same opinions - had the effect of hardening her stance. Many women see this as male entitlement in a dress and they won't "wheesht". It isn't JKR transitioning to fascism, its her expressing solidarity with other women. The "madness" is on the other side.
I remember, in the wake of the fatwa against Salman Rushdie, a similar realisation dawning on some folk. The people you thought would be unambiguous in their support - noisy lefties - proved to be less than reliable.
What about the bit where she mocked someone for pointing out that the Nazis persecuted people involved in transgender care? You know that there are terrible people on both sides of this debate, and flirting with holocaust denial is getting dangerously close to the kind of madness I'm talking about. The reason people end up down that hole is when they are so partisan on an issue that they stop looking for evidence in case it hurts their case. That kind of self-blinkering is what leads to extremism.
Rowling is one of those younger lefties who eventually end up as fascists in old age. She's nearly there. Not quite, but give it four years.
It is sad that you label anyone you disagree with as a fascist. Rowling has a perfect valid position with regard to women's rights - one that only a few years ago would have been considered solidly left wing. The fact that Labour are losing the support of people like her says everything you need to know about how extreme they have become on some of the more fanatical social issues. You like to think of gthem as a centre left party but when it comes to these sorts of debates they are far out on the extremes
When I said she's nearly there, I think you misinterpreted that as meaning her opinions are close to fascism. That's not what I meant. What I meant was that she's reaching an angle of repose that will result in an avalanche into utter madness. Think of Spiked. The cracks are there. She's on the brink of madness. It's the sort of thing you see every so often. Hippies that wake up one day wanting to exterminate Gypsies. She's mixing in the right crowds. In a few years time it'll be leather boots and barbed-wire fantasies.
Come back in 2028 and tell me I was wrong.
I suspect this is just wishful thinking on your part as you could then use it to justfy your opposition to her views on Transgender issues.
I partially support her views on transgender issues
Incidentally, and in the spirit of Rogerdamus de Villefranche-sur-Mer, I just took my older daughter home via Uber - after a WONDERFUL picnic in the Chilterns, then drinks with friends in Primrose Hill
The driver was a Somalian Muslim with Swedish citizenship. We had an impassioned debate (it was a long 57 minute journey) about everything from Gareth Southgate's failings to his own upbringing in war-torn Mogadishu to the likely UK election outcome to the problem of gangs in Malmo to his son's ambitions to be a journalist (I gave the best advice I could) to a really nuanced debate on Israel/Palestine
He was fiercely intelligent and put most PB-ers to shame with his knowledge of the history of Israel/Palestine and the intractable nature of the conflict. I felt quite humbled by the end, that a recent immigrant to the UK with English as his likely third language was so well informed on so many things. He was certainly not knee-jerk pro-Hamas
Really quite something, Reminded me why I love London. The driver also kept repeating this (and I don't believe he did it for effect) - how much he loved Britain and London ("and my son loves it even more")
A lot of food for thought. You can learn a lot in an hour of intense debate
And yet you tell us that Muslim immigrants don't want to integrate.
Too many don't, I fear. But this guy absolutely did, and it was deeply refreshing to hear - he was certainly not a "devout" Muslim, and he admitted that
My views are never fixed forever, and I aim to learn all the time. Do you not?
Also, how often do any of us get to talk INTENSELY and deeply about serious politics with a recent Somalian immigrant? I suggest that is quite unusual, and I am glad I took the opportunity. I also think I gave good advice to his son on getting into journalism!
And now I must abed, after a weirdly brilliant day
"with Swedish citizenship"
Why the fuck is he living here then?
Quite frankly if all our immigrants were like him, hard working, smart, cerebral, really well informed, law abiding and keen to integrate and get his kids into good jobs and DEEPLY appreciative of tolerant British culture and our traditions of free speech and worship - then I would have no problems with immigration at all
The problem is: far too many are not
You've spoken to all of them have you?
Oh. I see. No you haven't. So you base your fuckwitted stupidity on occasional journeys in a taxi.
"British culture" means what, exactly? That we all become like you? Nasty little shits who spend their lives off their tits on heroin and other illegal substances and brag about shagging around, including of girls the age of your daughter.
You're too stupid to have learned about the history of these islands and the cultural matrix interwoven into our DNA. There is NO white supremacist version of "British Culture" and "worship" but an ever-changing melting pot.
You really are an utter moron FAKE @Leon . As stupid as your hero Trump.
Is this anothet of Seant's sockpuppets?
I believe so.
Probably not then.
You're welcome to have deep and meaningful chats to these posters whilst Leon is having a whale of a time, dropping massive hints that they are his creations, and having a huge laugh at your expense if you wish.
Incidentally, and in the spirit of Rogerdamus de Villefranche-sur-Mer, I just took my older daughter home via Uber - after a WONDERFUL picnic in the Chilterns, then drinks with friends in Primrose Hill
The driver was a Somalian Muslim with Swedish citizenship. We had an impassioned debate (it was a long 57 minute journey) about everything from Gareth Southgate's failings to his own upbringing in war-torn Mogadishu to the likely UK election outcome to the problem of gangs in Malmo to his son's ambitions to be a journalist (I gave the best advice I could) to a really nuanced debate on Israel/Palestine
He was fiercely intelligent and put most PB-ers to shame with his knowledge of the history of Israel/Palestine and the intractable nature of the conflict. I felt quite humbled by the end, that a recent immigrant to the UK with English as his likely third language was so well informed on so many things. He was certainly not knee-jerk pro-Hamas
Really quite something, Reminded me why I love London. The driver also kept repeating this (and I don't believe he did it for effect) - how much he loved Britain and London ("and my son loves it even more")
A lot of food for thought. You can learn a lot in an hour of intense debate
And yet you tell us that Muslim immigrants don't want to integrate.
Too many don't, I fear. But this guy absolutely did, and it was deeply refreshing to hear - he was certainly not a "devout" Muslim, and he admitted that
My views are never fixed forever, and I aim to learn all the time. Do you not?
Also, how often do any of us get to talk INTENSELY and deeply about serious politics with a recent Somalian immigrant? I suggest that is quite unusual, and I am glad I took the opportunity. I also think I gave good advice to his son on getting into journalism!
And now I must abed, after a weirdly brilliant day
"with Swedish citizenship"
Why the fuck is he living here then?
Quite frankly if all our immigrants were like him, hard working, smart, cerebral, really well informed, law abiding and keen to integrate and get his kids into good jobs and DEEPLY appreciative of tolerant British culture and our traditions of free speech and worship - then I would have no problems with immigration at all
The problem is: far too many are not
You've spoken to all of them have you?
Oh. I see. No you haven't. So you base your fuckwitted stupidity on occasional journeys in a taxi.
"British culture" means what, exactly? That we all become like you? Nasty little shits who spend their lives off their tits on heroin and other illegal substances and brag about shagging around, including of girls the age of your daughter.
You're too stupid to have learned about the history of these islands and the cultural matrix interwoven into our DNA. There is NO white supremacist version of "British Culture" and "worship" but an ever-changing melting pot.
You really are an utter moron FAKE @Leon . As stupid as your hero Trump.
Is this anothet of Seant's sockpuppets?
I believe so.
Probably not then.
You're welcome to have deep and meaningful chats to these posters whilst Leon is having a whale of a time, dropping massive hints that they are his creations, and having a huge laugh at your expense if you wish.
Once again, whenever women's rights come up as a topic, the misogynists on here find it impossible to talk about it as matter in its own right without either dismissing or insulting the women who raise it or making it about men who claim to be women.
If you cannot be clear about what sex is, you cannot protect sex based rights or fight against sex-based oppression and discrimination. That discrimination and oppression is overwhelmingly endured by women. Here and in virtually every country in the world. Nor can you protect rights based on sexual orientation which is based on sex. That too is felt by many gay men and women around the world and, increasingly, by lesbians here who are often targeted by a very unpleasant category of men.
The Lib Dems and the Greens have made it clear in their manifestos that they will remove sex-based rights from the Equality Act. Labour have cobbled together some sort of fudge but Starmer has been all over the place on this and his arrogantly sexist response this week - where he needed a man to say something women had been saying for ages before he could agree to it - did him no favours at all.
As for girls with dysphoria they need proper treatment and help not as Khan has done the glorification of self-mutilation. If a bikini-ready body is not fit to be displayed, why is a self-harmed one? The fact that dysphoria in women tends to happen in teenage girls (rather than in middle-aged women, unlike the case with men) raises issues about how we treat girls, our expectations of them, the stereotypes imposed and the pressures they are under. The answer to those is not mutilation and drugs.
Treat what the GLP says with care. They have made unevidenced assertions in order to raise money. They have not always been accurate in their statements. They brought a legal action claiming the NHS discriminated against trans people. They lost and the evidence was that the NHS had increased its funding but could not find sufficient doctors and nurses to work in this area of medicine. Given the abuse doctors like Dr Cass have faced, is this any surprise? As for the legal issues, the Supreme Court will be ruling on the FWS appeal and this will determine what sex in the Equality Act means and its interaction with what the GRA says. Though it may make the position even more complicated and confused. That's the trouble with creating legal fictions at odds with reality.
The Tories should have learnt that lesson over Rwanda and indeed Brexit.
I take it that you're of the view that trans people don't exist?
you obviously did not read it, just applied your well documented bias that women have penises
I did read it. And I suggest you read my comments on this; it is far more complex than stupid comments like 'women have penises'.
The complexity is why this is such a difficult issue. The stupid thing is to assume that sex is utterly binary. It isn't, either physically or mentally.
99.99% of the time it is, though.
@JosiasJessop As I said you are one of these headcases who deny biology and try to promote that there are anything other than TWO sexes.Being Mental does not trump biology.
Coming back to this late: but how do intersex people fit into your worldview?
Comments
If you cannot be clear about what sex is, you cannot protect sex based rights or fight against sex-based oppression and discrimination. That discrimination and oppression is overwhelmingly endured by women. Here and in virtually every country in the world. Nor can you protect rights based on sexual orientation which is based on sex. That too is felt by many gay men and women around the world and, increasingly, by lesbians here who are often targeted by a very unpleasant category of men.
The Lib Dems and the Greens have made it clear in their manifestos that they will remove sex-based rights from the Equality Act. Labour have cobbled together some sort of fudge but Starmer has been all over the place on this and his arrogantly sexist response this week - where he needed a man to say something women had been saying for ages before he could agree to it - did him no favours at all.
As for girls with dysphoria they need proper treatment and help not as Khan has done the glorification of self-mutilation. If a bikini-ready body is not fit to be displayed, why is a self-harmed one? The fact that dysphoria in women tends to happen in teenage girls (rather than in middle-aged women, unlike the case with men) raises issues about how we treat girls, our expectations of them, the stereotypes imposed and the pressures they are under. The answer to those is not mutilation and drugs.
Treat what the GLP says with care. They have made unevidenced assertions in order to raise money. They have not always been accurate in their statements. They brought a legal action claiming the NHS discriminated against trans people. They lost and the evidence was that the NHS had increased its funding but could not find sufficient doctors and nurses to work in this area of medicine. Given the abuse doctors like Dr Cass have faced, is this any surprise? As for the legal issues, the Supreme Court will be ruling on the FWS appeal and this will determine what sex in the Equality Act means and its interaction with what the GRA says. Though it may make the position even more complicated and confused. That's the trouble with creating legal fictions at odds with reality.
The Tories should have learnt that lesson over Rwanda and indeed Brexit.
There was a Russian terrorist attack on London. There was one on Salisbury.
The problem is, you'd see the 'From Russia xxx' calling card and claim it's all a false flag, and that Russia is innocent. That's what you've done before, perhaps because your brain has rotted from reading too many 'alternative' news sites...
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/05/23/rishi-sunaks-1000-rwanda-flights-bet-with-piers-morgan-off/
Unless it's been overtaken by events. (Was it really a test flight, though? Flying people to a different country isn't a concept that needs testing- even Wizz! manage that. The bit that needed testing was forcing people onto one way flights.)
I'm sure a disreputable troublemaker would be able to link this to the more recent gambling fiasco.
When the fun stops and all that.
An economically backward, equally corrupt state as an independent neighbour didn’t bother him. The prospect of Ukraine becoming a prosperous democracy was unacceptable.
You won’t hear Farage acknowledging that.
Looking forward however I do wonder how Russia will play its cards. With a collapsing population it can no longer push others around so easily. Our problem will be how to deal with a nuclear armed mafia state . A change of government would be a logical start.
https://www.politico.eu/article/marine-le-pen-jordan-bardella-national-rally-french-far-right-postpone-costly-measures-markets-tumble/
Though who gets the blame in the chaos of cohabitation is one of the big unknowns. Probably both RN and Macron.
And as you rightly point out the only difference between communism and Nazism is one was international socialism and the other was national socialism. Pretend socialists hiding authoritarian regimes.
I would also look to introduce more tariffs on Chinese products - China is bankrolling Russia and we are bankrolling China. That's daft.
If he wants to leave a positive legacy for the Conservative Party, he will do it now - by standing up to the Reform-appeaser wing. And by going full Tonto on Farage.
See Thatcher's odd intonation on talking about the evils of National Socialism.
(Whereas the first fight to win and keep winning is democracy vs. undemocracy. Only once that is in the bag do battles between different shades of democracy make sense )
Incredibly loud and brash. Spectacularly unreliable.
Putin has launched a serious of wars against peaceful neighbours- Georgia in 2008 and Ukraine since 2014. He has also used bribery, blackmail, propaganda and cyber war directly against the West. He has openly paid money to disruptive parties, such as the RN in France and the AfD. In the UK Farage and Salmond were both employed by Russia Today. I note the strong Russian links of Aaron Banks, Dominic Cummings and Jacob Rees Mogg amongst others.
Putin is the enemy of freedom and democracy. His supporters likewise.
"I disagree. Strongly!"
As usual, you are wrong.
The Tories seem to have given up and thrown in the towel. It's just weird.
Let's assume Farage acts and speaks for reasons. And accept this: although he utters some criticisms of Russia/Putin/Trump etc, he notably never does so in an unqualified way, and always utters some amelioration of the criticism. Hence yesterday on Ukraine etc
In election time there can only be two reasons for this. It could be this is because his supporters base are with him on all this and it is all said to get votes.
The only other possibility is that he is under obligations within a network of international relationships to maintain a particular line - just like Labour can't full frontally attack unions, or the Tories can't go heavy on wealthy oligarchs.
Is this about right?
It's the one thing that might generate sympathy for Farage.
How so little has been made of that breach by the authorities and the media is beyond me. Boris will be Boris.
Expect a really uncutting line to be delivered very badly at 20dB about lunchtime Monday.
The complexity is why this is such a difficult issue. The stupid thing is to assume that sex is utterly binary. It isn't, either physically or mentally.
NEW THREAD
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/jun/21/labour-candidates-penalised-for-not-campaigning-enough-in-battleground-seats
It could be very complacent of Labour to take its own safe seats for granted, and leave them vulnerable to a hodgepodge of other parties. Or it could turn into an extinction event with no Tory seat untargetred.
It certainly shows that Starmer can be bold.
But he hasn't. When you look at where he has expended the little time and political capital he had- Rwanda, maths, cigarettes, anything else?- it's pitiful.
But responding to last night's interview isn't difficult. Childish glove puppet of Farage. Putin's hand right up its jacksie. No need for words. No party logo. Just make sure it gets onto social media.
Nigel is obviously a Frog Eyed Sprite
And I'm also amused by the way Mandelson is not mentioned whenever Russia and British politicians are mentioned...
But there is also the possibility he is trying to steer a line between what he believes and what hia supporters want him to believe (cf Corbyn on EU membership). This is what I think most likely, and is reason #1 I will not be voting Reform.
There is also the possibility his views on Putin have changed over time. Ifind it quite conceivable he vaguely saw Putin as an antiwoke hero, right up until the invasion of Ukraine, and he is now going through the mental gymnastics of convincing himself and others that he was more ambivalent than he appeared. He wouldn't be the first person to do this on this or any other subject.
If things are as bad as the polls suggest then these are the most important two weeks in the history of the Conservative party.
There's a football chant that's appropriate, I think. "You only sing when you're winning."
Intersex alone is much more common, again depending on definition:
" Approximately 1.7% of the global population is intersex, and up to 1.1 million people in the UK alone. Being intersex is as common as being a twin."
https://www.manchester.ac.uk/discover/magazine/features/rights-of-intersex-children
And I think the following is a good basic review:
https://ihra.org.au/16601/intersex-numbers/
I know intersex and trans are not the same; but the above certainly shows that *physical* sex is far from binary.
The ‘I haven’t left X, X has left me’ has become a cliché. Sometimes it’s accurate, other times it’s a sign of a huge ego that doesn’t recognise its own radicalisation.
Which coincidentally is a car owned by a noisy right winger in Holyrood.
But even 0.01% is thousands of people who currently have a pretty awful life. And that insight ought to feature in our collective thinking of how to balance the rights of cispeople and transpeople. And too often, right now it doesn't.
PB was discussing Chomsky recently, at the time of his phantom death. He opposed the US war in Vietnam, which you can see as a principled opposition to an imperialist war. But then he began to see US imperialism in everything, and felt that, in order to oppose the US, he had to support the opponents of the US.
Farage could be on a similar journey. He's come to prominence by opposing the British establishment on EU membership. But now he's extending that top opposed the British establishment on everything. So if the establishment supports Ukraine, he must not. If the establishment wants to avoid a debt crisis, he does not.
He's lost his independent judgement and replaced it with a reflex to oppose everything that the British establishment does. And that brings him to a place of echoing the propaganda of the Russian dictator.
The reason people end up down that hole is when they are so partisan on an issue that they stop looking for evidence in case it hurts their case. That kind of self-blinkering is what leads to extremism.
I’m sure this is a wise move and will simply bring the company to heel.
https://news.sky.com/story/port-talbot-steelworkers-to-hold-all-out-indefinite-strike-13156646