PB has become tragically dim. Too many smart people have left. It’s like Britain driving away milllionaires
I personally am keeping the average IQ over 90 with my IQ of 237. When I go this place will be like a fucking kindergarten of tardigrades
I guess on the plus side we tardigrades will survive any impending nuclear holocaust. 😉
Oh dear leon has gone full on "I did 18 holes in ones on my first game of golf" Kim il jong style....if he scored 237 on the iq scale its merely suggesting the iq scale is a worthless measure
In my network on social media and amongst my friends it is notable that it is 99% women who are the most outspoken against the Supreme Court decision. It is not men who are angry about it. However the likes of @CarlottaVance are happy to erase them too.
Is saying you think someone is wrong 'erasing them' now?
'Get a life' as someone wisely once said.
She isn’t saying people are wrong. That’s the problem. It isn’t a debate, it’s just “these people aren’t women so what is the problem” not even acknowledging that some women do consider them women. There is no nuance.
Perhaps these women should consider who they are encompassing within this broad category. If you are a physically intact and sexually active male rapist but you've chucked on a wig, most people, including Nicola Sturgeon, will think that you're not actually a woman; you're at it. And if that is the case, clearly we need a more robust system than self-id as a measure of who is allowed to be in single sex spaces?
Personally, as I've said, I think that surgical transition at the end of a long medical process, should be the test. But given what has happened, I can empathise with those who take a harder line.
Not really. I am a man and I don’t want a rapist in the men’s toilet either. That isn’t the gotcha you think it is.
I suspect there are more rapists in male toilets than female, you merely dont realise it because they prefer to rape women
Probably. However if a rapist wants to go into a women’s toilet to rape a woman the law isn’t going to stop them. Rape and sexual assault is already illegal.
In my network on social media and amongst my friends it is notable that it is 99% women who are the most outspoken against the Supreme Court decision. It is not men who are angry about it. However the likes of @CarlottaVance are happy to erase them too.
Is saying you think someone is wrong 'erasing them' now?
'Get a life' as someone wisely once said.
She isn’t saying people are wrong. That’s the problem. It isn’t a debate, it’s just “these people aren’t women so what is the problem” not even acknowledging that some women do consider them women. There is no nuance.
Perhaps these women should consider who they are encompassing within this broad category. If you are a physically intact and sexually active male rapist but you've chucked on a wig, most people, including Nicola Sturgeon, will think that you're not actually a woman; you're at it. And if that is the case, clearly we need a more robust system than self-id as a measure of who is allowed to be in single sex spaces?
Personally, as I've said, I think that surgical transition at the end of a long medical process, should be the test. But given what has happened, I can empathise with those who take a harder line.
Not really. I am a man and I don’t want a rapist in the men’s toilet either. That isn’t the gotcha you think it is.
Men can fight off other men easier than women can, that's the whole point of this debate
https://www.slowboring.com/p/mailbag-the-gender-politics-of-trumponomics ...Were people actually richer in 1965 than in 2025? No, of course not. And no amount of torturing the economic data will make that true. It is also not true that men were richer in 1965 than in 2025. Nor is it true that blue collar men were richer in 1965 than in 2025. But what is true is that the majority of the economic gains over the past 60 years have accrued to women rather than to men. This purely relative loss in status turns out to have some implications for men’s absolute well-being. Women are, as a result of economic empowerment, less desperate to date, marry, or stay married to the average man. Now, of course, nobody is going to come out and say, “I favor policies that would make men somewhat poorer and also make women a lot poorer because I think in this poorer society, girls will be desperate to go out with me.” Because if you said that, you’d sound like an evil moron. So it feels better to convince yourself that people were actually richer 60 years ago and that’s why you’re nostalgic for the good old days. But it’s not true!..
In my network on social media and amongst my friends it is notable that it is 99% women who are the most outspoken against the Supreme Court decision. It is not men who are angry about it. However the likes of @CarlottaVance are happy to erase them too.
Is saying you think someone is wrong 'erasing them' now?
'Get a life' as someone wisely once said.
She isn’t saying people are wrong. That’s the problem. It isn’t a debate, it’s just “these people aren’t women so what is the problem” not even acknowledging that some women do consider them women. There is no nuance.
Perhaps these women should consider who they are encompassing within this broad category. If you are a physically intact and sexually active male rapist but you've chucked on a wig, most people, including Nicola Sturgeon, will think that you're not actually a woman; you're at it. And if that is the case, clearly we need a more robust system than self-id as a measure of who is allowed to be in single sex spaces?
Personally, as I've said, I think that surgical transition at the end of a long medical process, should be the test. But given what has happened, I can empathise with those who take a harder line.
Not really. I am a man and I don’t want a rapist in the men’s toilet either. That isn’t the gotcha you think it is.
Men can fight off other men easier than women can, that's the whole point of this debate
No it isn’t. Strong men can rape ordinary men as easily as an ordinary man can rape a woman. And regardless, a rapist already doesn’t concern themselves with the law.
In my network on social media and amongst my friends it is notable that it is 99% women who are the most outspoken against the Supreme Court decision. It is not men who are angry about it. However the likes of @CarlottaVance are happy to erase them too.
Is saying you think someone is wrong 'erasing them' now?
'Get a life' as someone wisely once said.
She isn’t saying people are wrong. That’s the problem. It isn’t a debate, it’s just “these people aren’t women so what is the problem” not even acknowledging that some women do consider them women. There is no nuance.
Perhaps these women should consider who they are encompassing within this broad category. If you are a physically intact and sexually active male rapist but you've chucked on a wig, most people, including Nicola Sturgeon, will think that you're not actually a woman; you're at it. And if that is the case, clearly we need a more robust system than self-id as a measure of who is allowed to be in single sex spaces?
Personally, as I've said, I think that surgical transition at the end of a long medical process, should be the test. But given what has happened, I can empathise with those who take a harder line.
Not really. I am a man and I don’t want a rapist in the men’s toilet either. That isn’t the gotcha you think it is.
Men can fight off other men easier than women can, that's the whole point of this debate
No it isn’t. Strong men can rape ordinary men as easily as an ordinary man can rape a woman.
Why would the rapist in the male toilet be stronger, other than to suit your argument?
In my network on social media and amongst my friends it is notable that it is 99% women who are the most outspoken against the Supreme Court decision. It is not men who are angry about it. However the likes of @CarlottaVance are happy to erase them too.
Is saying you think someone is wrong 'erasing them' now?
'Get a life' as someone wisely once said.
She isn’t saying people are wrong. That’s the problem. It isn’t a debate, it’s just “these people aren’t women so what is the problem” not even acknowledging that some women do consider them women. There is no nuance.
Perhaps these women should consider who they are encompassing within this broad category. If you are a physically intact and sexually active male rapist but you've chucked on a wig, most people, including Nicola Sturgeon, will think that you're not actually a woman; you're at it. And if that is the case, clearly we need a more robust system than self-id as a measure of who is allowed to be in single sex spaces?
Personally, as I've said, I think that surgical transition at the end of a long medical process, should be the test. But given what has happened, I can empathise with those who take a harder line.
Not really. I am a man and I don’t want a rapist in the men’s toilet either. That isn’t the gotcha you think it is.
Men can fight off other men easier than women can, that's the whole point of this debate
No it isn’t. Strong men can rape ordinary men as easily as an ordinary man can rape a woman.
Why would the rapist in the male toilet be stronger, other than to suit your argument?
What argument? You think rabidly enforced single sex bathrooms is going stop rapists?
In my network on social media and amongst my friends it is notable that it is 99% women who are the most outspoken against the Supreme Court decision. It is not men who are angry about it. However the likes of @CarlottaVance are happy to erase them too.
Is saying you think someone is wrong 'erasing them' now?
'Get a life' as someone wisely once said.
She isn’t saying people are wrong. That’s the problem. It isn’t a debate, it’s just “these people aren’t women so what is the problem” not even acknowledging that some women do consider them women. There is no nuance.
Perhaps these women should consider who they are encompassing within this broad category. If you are a physically intact and sexually active male rapist but you've chucked on a wig, most people, including Nicola Sturgeon, will think that you're not actually a woman; you're at it. And if that is the case, clearly we need a more robust system than self-id as a measure of who is allowed to be in single sex spaces?
Personally, as I've said, I think that surgical transition at the end of a long medical process, should be the test. But given what has happened, I can empathise with those who take a harder line.
Not really. I am a man and I don’t want a rapist in the men’s toilet either. That isn’t the gotcha you think it is.
I suspect there are more rapists in male toilets than female, you merely dont realise it because they prefer to rape women
Probably. However if a rapist wants to go into a women’s toilet to rape a woman the law isn’t going to stop them. Rape and sexual assault is already illegal.
Which is why I said not bothered about toilets and also admitted having been in female loos on multiple occasions despite being exuberantly bearded for drug reasons
In my network on social media and amongst my friends it is notable that it is 99% women who are the most outspoken against the Supreme Court decision. It is not men who are angry about it. However the likes of @CarlottaVance are happy to erase them too.
Is saying you think someone is wrong 'erasing them' now?
'Get a life' as someone wisely once said.
She isn’t saying people are wrong. That’s the problem. It isn’t a debate, it’s just “these people aren’t women so what is the problem” not even acknowledging that some women do consider them women. There is no nuance.
Perhaps these women should consider who they are encompassing within this broad category. If you are a physically intact and sexually active male rapist but you've chucked on a wig, most people, including Nicola Sturgeon, will think that you're not actually a woman; you're at it. And if that is the case, clearly we need a more robust system than self-id as a measure of who is allowed to be in single sex spaces?
Personally, as I've said, I think that surgical transition at the end of a long medical process, should be the test. But given what has happened, I can empathise with those who take a harder line.
Not really. I am a man and I don’t want a rapist in the men’s toilet either. That isn’t the gotcha you think it is.
Men can fight off other men easier than women can, that's the whole point of this debate
No it isn’t. Strong men can rape ordinary men as easily as an ordinary man can rape a woman. And regardless, a rapist already doesn’t concern themselves with the law.
What’s the relevant data of the number of male on male rapes versus male on female? I’m guessing a man is statistically less likely to encounter another man who would consider raping men than a woman is likely to meet a man who would consider raping a woman.
In my network on social media and amongst my friends it is notable that it is 99% women who are the most outspoken against the Supreme Court decision. It is not men who are angry about it. However the likes of @CarlottaVance are happy to erase them too.
Is saying you think someone is wrong 'erasing them' now?
'Get a life' as someone wisely once said.
She isn’t saying people are wrong. That’s the problem. It isn’t a debate, it’s just “these people aren’t women so what is the problem” not even acknowledging that some women do consider them women. There is no nuance.
Perhaps these women should consider who they are encompassing within this broad category. If you are a physically intact and sexually active male rapist but you've chucked on a wig, most people, including Nicola Sturgeon, will think that you're not actually a woman; you're at it. And if that is the case, clearly we need a more robust system than self-id as a measure of who is allowed to be in single sex spaces?
Personally, as I've said, I think that surgical transition at the end of a long medical process, should be the test. But given what has happened, I can empathise with those who take a harder line.
Not really. I am a man and I don’t want a rapist in the men’s toilet either. That isn’t the gotcha you think it is.
Men can fight off other men easier than women can, that's the whole point of this debate
No it isn’t. Strong men can rape ordinary men as easily as an ordinary man can rape a woman. And regardless, a rapist already doesn’t concern themselves with the law.
But most rapists are male and are not interested in guys
In my network on social media and amongst my friends it is notable that it is 99% women who are the most outspoken against the Supreme Court decision. It is not men who are angry about it. However the likes of @CarlottaVance are happy to erase them too.
Is saying you think someone is wrong 'erasing them' now?
'Get a life' as someone wisely once said.
She isn’t saying people are wrong. That’s the problem. It isn’t a debate, it’s just “these people aren’t women so what is the problem” not even acknowledging that some women do consider them women. There is no nuance.
Perhaps these women should consider who they are encompassing within this broad category. If you are a physically intact and sexually active male rapist but you've chucked on a wig, most people, including Nicola Sturgeon, will think that you're not actually a woman; you're at it. And if that is the case, clearly we need a more robust system than self-id as a measure of who is allowed to be in single sex spaces?
Personally, as I've said, I think that surgical transition at the end of a long medical process, should be the test. But given what has happened, I can empathise with those who take a harder line.
Not really. I am a man and I don’t want a rapist in the men’s toilet either. That isn’t the gotcha you think it is.
Men can fight off other men easier than women can, that's the whole point of this debate
No it isn’t. Strong men can rape ordinary men as easily as an ordinary man can rape a woman. And regardless, a rapist already doesn’t concern themselves with the law.
What’s the relevant data of the number of male on male rapes versus male on female? I’m guessing a man is statistically less likely to encounter another man who would consider raping men than a woman is likely to meet a man who would consider raping a woman.
I don’t know. I am not sure it’s particularly relevant to the debate though.
In my network on social media and amongst my friends it is notable that it is 99% women who are the most outspoken against the Supreme Court decision. It is not men who are angry about it. However the likes of @CarlottaVance are happy to erase them too.
Is saying you think someone is wrong 'erasing them' now?
'Get a life' as someone wisely once said.
She isn’t saying people are wrong. That’s the problem. It isn’t a debate, it’s just “these people aren’t women so what is the problem” not even acknowledging that some women do consider them women. There is no nuance.
Perhaps these women should consider who they are encompassing within this broad category. If you are a physically intact and sexually active male rapist but you've chucked on a wig, most people, including Nicola Sturgeon, will think that you're not actually a woman; you're at it. And if that is the case, clearly we need a more robust system than self-id as a measure of who is allowed to be in single sex spaces?
Personally, as I've said, I think that surgical transition at the end of a long medical process, should be the test. But given what has happened, I can empathise with those who take a harder line.
Not really. I am a man and I don’t want a rapist in the men’s toilet either. That isn’t the gotcha you think it is.
Men can fight off other men easier than women can, that's the whole point of this debate
No it isn’t. Strong men can rape ordinary men as easily as an ordinary man can rape a woman.
Why would the rapist in the male toilet be stronger, other than to suit your argument?
What argument? You think rabidly enforced single sex bathrooms is going stop rapists?
Let's all leave our car doors wide open with the keys in the ignition on our driveways at night then; an experienced thief will find a way of starting them anyway
A better phrasing: men who have been trying for years to erase women as a sex class and appropriate their rights have finally been told "no" and, being men, they're angry. And one day, the "left" will come to see that trans ideology was a great gift to the right.
Lunch with a lifelong Democrat who campaigned for Kamala, Biden, Obama.
Furious with the Democrats for gifting the election to Trump. “Trump is for you. Kamala is for they/them” - won it for them he reckoned. And they’re “the problem”.
In my network on social media and amongst my friends it is notable that it is 99% women who are the most outspoken against the Supreme Court decision. It is not men who are angry about it. However the likes of @CarlottaVance are happy to erase them too.
Is saying you think someone is wrong 'erasing them' now?
'Get a life' as someone wisely once said.
She isn’t saying people are wrong. That’s the problem. It isn’t a debate, it’s just “these people aren’t women so what is the problem” not even acknowledging that some women do consider them women. There is no nuance.
Perhaps these women should consider who they are encompassing within this broad category. If you are a physically intact and sexually active male rapist but you've chucked on a wig, most people, including Nicola Sturgeon, will think that you're not actually a woman; you're at it. And if that is the case, clearly we need a more robust system than self-id as a measure of who is allowed to be in single sex spaces?
Personally, as I've said, I think that surgical transition at the end of a long medical process, should be the test. But given what has happened, I can empathise with those who take a harder line.
Not really. I am a man and I don’t want a rapist in the men’s toilet either. That isn’t the gotcha you think it is.
Men can fight off other men easier than women can, that's the whole point of this debate
No it isn’t. Strong men can rape ordinary men as easily as an ordinary man can rape a woman.
Why would the rapist in the male toilet be stronger, other than to suit your argument?
What argument? You think rabidly enforced single sex bathrooms is going stop rapists?
Let's all leave our car doors wide open with the keys in the ignition on our driveways at night then; an experienced thief will find a way of starting them anyway
That’s the same argument people use for suggesting women cover their bodies. It’s ridiculous
A better phrasing: men who have been trying for years to erase women as a sex class and appropriate their rights have finally been told "no" and, being men, they're angry. And one day, the "left" will come to see that trans ideology was a great gift to the right.
Lunch with a lifelong Democrat who campaigned for Kamala, Biden, Obama.
Furious with the Democrats for gifting the election to Trump. “Trump is for you. Kamala is for they/them” - won it for them he reckoned. And they’re “the problem”.
Here you go - yet again with the “this is men telling women how to think” when it objectively isn’t
In my network on social media and amongst my friends it is notable that it is 99% women who are the most outspoken against the Supreme Court decision. It is not men who are angry about it. However the likes of @CarlottaVance are happy to erase them too.
Sounds like quite a twatto-media network you've got there. I've never heard a single woman say she wants five rapists wearing frocks and lipstick to enter the women's toilet she's gone into. But then I don't use twatto-media.
Anyway how do you know these "women" on twatto-media aren't men?
Edit: OK I get it - it's their pronouns.
A plane crashes on the Ukraine/Republic of China border. Which side and in which toilet should we bury the survivors?
A better phrasing: men who have been trying for years to erase women as a sex class and appropriate their rights have finally been told "no" and, being men, they're angry. And one day, the "left" will come to see that trans ideology was a great gift to the right.
Lunch with a lifelong Democrat who campaigned for Kamala, Biden, Obama.
Furious with the Democrats for gifting the election to Trump. “Trump is for you. Kamala is for they/them” - won it for them he reckoned. And they’re “the problem”.
https://www.slowboring.com/p/mailbag-the-gender-politics-of-trumponomics ...Were people actually richer in 1965 than in 2025? No, of course not. And no amount of torturing the economic data will make that true. It is also not true that men were richer in 1965 than in 2025. Nor is it true that blue collar men were richer in 1965 than in 2025. But what is true is that the majority of the economic gains over the past 60 years have accrued to women rather than to men. This purely relative loss in status turns out to have some implications for men’s absolute well-being. Women are, as a result of economic empowerment, less desperate to date, marry, or stay married to the average man. Now, of course, nobody is going to come out and say, “I favor policies that would make men somewhat poorer and also make women a lot poorer because I think in this poorer society, girls will be desperate to go out with me.” Because if you said that, you’d sound like an evil moron. So it feels better to convince yourself that people were actually richer 60 years ago and that’s why you’re nostalgic for the good old days. But it’s not true!..
Young men won it for Trump - what did the Democrats offer them? Lectures on pronouns.
In my network on social media and amongst my friends it is notable that it is 99% women who are the most outspoken against the Supreme Court decision. It is not men who are angry about it. However the likes of @CarlottaVance are happy to erase them too.
Is saying you think someone is wrong 'erasing them' now?
'Get a life' as someone wisely once said.
She isn’t saying people are wrong. That’s the problem. It isn’t a debate, it’s just “these people aren’t women so what is the problem” not even acknowledging that some women do consider them women. There is no nuance.
Perhaps these women should consider who they are encompassing within this broad category. If you are a physically intact and sexually active male rapist but you've chucked on a wig, most people, including Nicola Sturgeon, will think that you're not actually a woman; you're at it. And if that is the case, clearly we need a more robust system than self-id as a measure of who is allowed to be in single sex spaces?
Personally, as I've said, I think that surgical transition at the end of a long medical process, should be the test. But given what has happened, I can empathise with those who take a harder line.
Not really. I am a man and I don’t want a rapist in the men’s toilet either. That isn’t the gotcha you think it is.
Men can fight off other men easier than women can, that's the whole point of this debate
No it isn’t. Strong men can rape ordinary men as easily as an ordinary man can rape a woman.
Why would the rapist in the male toilet be stronger, other than to suit your argument?
What argument? You think rabidly enforced single sex bathrooms is going stop rapists?
Let's all leave our car doors wide open with the keys in the ignition on our driveways at night then; an experienced thief will find a way of starting them anyway
That’s the same argument people use for suggesting women cover their bodies. It’s ridiculous
No it isn't, it's a riposte to the argument that men should be allowed in female changing rooms because rapists would get in and have their way if they want to anyway
Thursday - from some on here (you know who you are):
"How dare Cyclefree think that there's a risk from men who identify as a woman? The silly woman has had her head turned by PR."
Saturday: London - "Men who identify as women turn up in a London square for a mass protest in which they indecently expose themselves (a criminal offence) and commit a public order offence by pissing in the street."
Thursday - from some on here (you know who you are):
"How dare Cyclefree think that there's a risk from men who identify as a woman? The silly woman has had her head turned by PR."
Saturday: London - "Men who identify as women turn up in a London square for a mass protest in which they indecently expose themselves (a criminal offence) and commit a public order offence by pissing in the street."
PB has become tragically dim. Too many smart people have left. It’s like Britain driving away milllionaires
I personally am keeping the average IQ over 90 with my IQ of 237. When I go this place will be like a fucking kindergarten of tardigrades
I guess on the plus side we tardigrades will survive any impending nuclear holocaust. 😉
Oh dear leon has gone full on "I did 18 holes in ones on my first game of golf" Kim il jong style....if he scored 237 on the iq scale its merely suggesting the iq scale is a worthless measure
In my network on social media and amongst my friends it is notable that it is 99% women who are the most outspoken against the Supreme Court decision. It is not men who are angry about it. However the likes of @CarlottaVance are happy to erase them too.
Sounds like quite a twatto-media network you've got there. I've never heard a single woman say she wants five rapists wearing frocks and lipstick to enter the women's toilet she's gone into. But then I don't use twatto-media.
Anyway how do you know these "women" on twatto-media aren't men?
Edit: OK I get it - it's their pronouns.
A plane crashes on the Ukraine/Republic of China border. Which side and in which toilet should we bury the survivors?
In my network on social media and amongst my friends it is notable that it is 99% women who are the most outspoken against the Supreme Court decision. It is not men who are angry about it. However the likes of @CarlottaVance are happy to erase them too.
Is saying you think someone is wrong 'erasing them' now?
'Get a life' as someone wisely once said.
She isn’t saying people are wrong. That’s the problem. It isn’t a debate, it’s just “these people aren’t women so what is the problem” not even acknowledging that some women do consider them women. There is no nuance.
Perhaps these women should consider who they are encompassing within this broad category. If you are a physically intact and sexually active male rapist but you've chucked on a wig, most people, including Nicola Sturgeon, will think that you're not actually a woman; you're at it. And if that is the case, clearly we need a more robust system than self-id as a measure of who is allowed to be in single sex spaces?
Personally, as I've said, I think that surgical transition at the end of a long medical process, should be the test. But given what has happened, I can empathise with those who take a harder line.
Not really. I am a man and I don’t want a rapist in the men’s toilet either. That isn’t the gotcha you think it is.
Men can fight off other men easier than women can, that's the whole point of this debate
No it isn’t. Strong men can rape ordinary men as easily as an ordinary man can rape a woman.
Why would the rapist in the male toilet be stronger, other than to suit your argument?
What argument? You think rabidly enforced single sex bathrooms is going stop rapists?
Let's all leave our car doors wide open with the keys in the ignition on our driveways at night then; an experienced thief will find a way of starting them anyway
That’s the same argument people use for suggesting women cover their bodies. It’s ridiculous
No it isn't, it's a riposte to the argument that men should be allowed in female changing rooms because rapist's would get in and have their way if they want to anyway
It is the same argument though.
I am not suggesting that we normalise men going into women’s changing rooms or toilets willy nilly (lol). I am simply stating a fact that a lot of women are happy for trans women to use women’s changing rooms.
Matching the Conservative lead over the Liberals at the last Canadian election, though then the Liberals won most seats. Liaison has the Liberals ahead by 5% though
Thursday - from some on here (you know who you are):
"How dare Cyclefree think that there's a risk from men who identify as a woman? The silly woman has had her head turned by PR."
Saturday: London - "Men who identify as women turn up in a London square for a mass protest in which they indecently expose themselves (a criminal offence) and commit a public order offence by pissing in the street."
Well done, lads. Well done. Keep it up.
Cyclefree, you know as well as I do that plenty of women support the rights of trans women and pretending otherwise doesn’t reflect well on you.
Thursday - from some on here (you know who you are):
"How dare Cyclefree think that there's a risk from men who identify as a woman? The silly woman has had her head turned by PR."
Saturday: London - "Men who identify as women turn up in a London square for a mass protest in which they indecently expose themselves (a criminal offence) and commit a public order offence by pissing in the street."
Well done, lads. Well done. Keep it up.
Cyclefree, you know as well as I do that plenty of women support the rights of trans women and pretending otherwise doesn’t reflect well on you.
A question...how many of those women actually are affected by that support. You for example have a sports centre where you have individual cubibicles for changing no effect when you take your 8 year old daughter swimming...goto a swimming pool with open changing rooms and your 8 year old daughter gets to see swinging dicks of trans pre ops....well suspect a different answer might come out
Nearly 10% of all London properties are worth at least £1 million. I am a London millionaire. So "30,000 millionaires fleeing the capital in ten years" is not a lot. And were they all fleeing? It seems a small number to me.
This doesn’t sound like it’s just millionaire homeowners.
According to research by the Adam Smith Institute, each of the millionaires who left the capital over the last decade would have paid at least £393,957 in income tax per year.
So not millionaires but people earning over a million each year.
So have the number of London jobs paying over a million each year increased or decreased in that time period ?
If its increased then those 'fleeing' are being replaced by others.
I have tried to post about this many times on PB but usually just get abuse. I deal with a good number of these people leaving the UK and solving certain issues for them.
When I point out how many are leaving it’s not out of joy and counting my money that I make as a result - I genuinely love the UK and want it to be a success but the country is full of people who wilfully refuse to understand that these people are not just people working in a bank on a fat salary but entrepreneurs who employ many people, contribute to the tax base in many ways through personal taxation, spending and corporate taxes, on top of employment taxes and the subsequent income tax those employees make.
In the last couple of weeks I have met three people leaving the uk and their combined wealth is well over £4 billion.
This is wealth that will no longer be taxed in the UK. These are people who are moving businesses out and will not be employing in the UK anymore.
Just think about it - if you gave them some special tax rates you would get what is still a large tax take and benefit from the businesses they would continue to operate in the UK.
I know I will get the usual attack on parasites, the “don’t let the door hit their arses on the way out” ignorant bullshit but I don’t care now - I write about it because it’s happening on a large scale - tax money leaving that you will never get back until the UK makes not only the tax regime attractive but drops the envy about wealth.
It’s truly frustrating that I am unable to tell you more about these people because it would highlight what you are losing - not just tax but their businesses and all the future spin offs from them.
Maybe we should introduce the US tax system whereby you have to file a UK tax return to report your worldwide income regardless of where you live and work. The only way to avoid submitting a UK tax return would be to renounce your UK citizenship and take up some other citizenship.
I find it odd that some wealthy people are so sensitive to reducing their very large incomes by paying extra tax that they are willing to give up all that London offers them, including their friends. But that's just me. I wouldn't do it. I don't value huge amounts of income that much. I'm happy as I am.
It’s rarely income tax that these people have an issue with. It’s CGT and Inheritance tax they want to minimise.
And a lot of the super wealthy leaving the UK aren’t UK nationals so stripping their citizenship isn’t the threat that it might seem on first glance.
Ultimately these people will be paying nothing in tax in the UK in the future whereas under the old non-doms regime they were paying tax.
If it was inheritance tax they were paying, they won't be leaving!
If they are in London, very wealthy and still have estates bigly liable to IHT there is a very large number of lawyers and accountants who will jump into a taxi to come and see them right now at special low rates starting at around £1,500 per hour to see them right. It is the world's most avoidable tax.
Since I work in private banking and actually know some of the people in question....
A lot of people seem to be assuming that they are UK citizens. Many aren't. They are immigrants. Just with added money.
And it's not just the clients - many of those working in the banks are not UK citizens.
Sure, we have a Chinese guy and an Indian guy in the team, working on their UK citizenships. But born here? Not so much. And they are considering transfers to other countries (within the bank) - the team already has international working, so they would simply dial into the calls from where ever.
So just like the clients, they see where they are as transactional. A Japanese lady of my acquaintance is moving back there, because housing is cheap and she wants to start a family - and in Tokyo childcare and other kids stuff is free. Is she a Citizen of Nowhere dodging tax?
A common theme is value - when the council announces a tax increase, combined with a "consultation" on reducing the bin collection to once everything *3* weeks, why shouldn't they consider Switzerland. More expensive, but works.
The clients talk about potholes, crime and lack of anything like a plan in government - combined with an attitude that business is a problem. Try building a factory in the UK.
If they simply wanted low tax, they could move to the US. We are talking about people who would never need medical insurance - that's what a credit card is for, right?
Yes, it’s a holistic choice. It’s not just the tax - it’s a whole bunch of things, of which tax is one important part but far from the whole
Britain - especially London - used to sell itself as a rainy grey city BUT it was a land of laws, ethnically British, a city of pubs and churches, high trust, low crime, stable and enduring, Wimbledon and Wembley, the Old Red Lion down the road, and on top of that it had a nice mix of diversity, good Asian restaurants, interesting Chinatowns etc - there is a perfect blend and we had it for a while
I’d argue we have gone way over that and London is now, sadly, increasingly, nowheresville. And it’s still rainy and grey as someone steals your Rolex with a machete - and now you must pay a fuckload of tax. So, these people leave
I think I'd feel more comfortable wandering around the Tube network these days than I would in the 1970s. 'Whispers in the shadows - gruff blazing voices, Hating, waiting' etc.
The smell of pubs And Wormwood Scrubs And too many right wing meetings
In my network on social media and amongst my friends it is notable that it is 99% women who are the most outspoken against the Supreme Court decision. It is not men who are angry about it. However the likes of @CarlottaVance are happy to erase them too.
Is saying you think someone is wrong 'erasing them' now?
'Get a life' as someone wisely once said.
She isn’t saying people are wrong. That’s the problem. It isn’t a debate, it’s just “these people aren’t women so what is the problem” not even acknowledging that some women do consider them women. There is no nuance.
Perhaps these women should consider who they are encompassing within this broad category. If you are a physically intact and sexually active male rapist but you've chucked on a wig, most people, including Nicola Sturgeon, will think that you're not actually a woman; you're at it. And if that is the case, clearly we need a more robust system than self-id as a measure of who is allowed to be in single sex spaces?
Personally, as I've said, I think that surgical transition at the end of a long medical process, should be the test. But given what has happened, I can empathise with those who take a harder line.
Not really. I am a man and I don’t want a rapist in the men’s toilet either. That isn’t the gotcha you think it is.
Men can fight off other men easier than women can, that's the whole point of this debate
No it isn’t. Strong men can rape ordinary men as easily as an ordinary man can rape a woman.
Why would the rapist in the male toilet be stronger, other than to suit your argument?
What argument? You think rabidly enforced single sex bathrooms is going stop rapists?
Let's all leave our car doors wide open with the keys in the ignition on our driveways at night then; an experienced thief will find a way of starting them anyway
That’s the same argument people use for suggesting women cover their bodies. It’s ridiculous
No it isn't, it's a riposte to the argument that men should be allowed in female changing rooms because rapist's would get in and have their way if they want to anyway
It is the same argument though.
I am not suggesting that we normalise men going into women’s changing rooms or toilets willy nilly (lol). I am simply stating a fact that a lot of women are happy for trans women to use women’s changing rooms.
Actually, I had a kind of awkward moment last week. I wanted to try on a shirt in H&M in Chelmsford, and the queue for the changing rooms was full of what seemed to be school girls. I asked the member of staff if this was where I was supposed to go and she said yes. So I tried the shirt on, in the cubicle, with giggling girls all around me in the surrounding cubicles asking each others opinion on how the clothes they were trying on looked. Must say I felt a bit uncomfortable, and that I shouldn't really be there as I sheepishly walked back to the dressing room entrance
Anyway, I was replying to "You think rabidly enforced single sex bathrooms is going stop rapists?", which I don't think was you. But I do think it would help limit opportunities to rapists/perverts if single sex bathrooms/changing rooms were rabidly enforced
Nearly 10% of all London properties are worth at least £1 million. I am a London millionaire. So "30,000 millionaires fleeing the capital in ten years" is not a lot. And were they all fleeing? It seems a small number to me.
This doesn’t sound like it’s just millionaire homeowners.
According to research by the Adam Smith Institute, each of the millionaires who left the capital over the last decade would have paid at least £393,957 in income tax per year.
So not millionaires but people earning over a million each year.
So have the number of London jobs paying over a million each year increased or decreased in that time period ?
If its increased then those 'fleeing' are being replaced by others.
I have tried to post about this many times on PB but usually just get abuse. I deal with a good number of these people leaving the UK and solving certain issues for them.
When I point out how many are leaving it’s not out of joy and counting my money that I make as a result - I genuinely love the UK and want it to be a success but the country is full of people who wilfully refuse to understand that these people are not just people working in a bank on a fat salary but entrepreneurs who employ many people, contribute to the tax base in many ways through personal taxation, spending and corporate taxes, on top of employment taxes and the subsequent income tax those employees make.
In the last couple of weeks I have met three people leaving the uk and their combined wealth is well over £4 billion.
This is wealth that will no longer be taxed in the UK. These are people who are moving businesses out and will not be employing in the UK anymore.
Just think about it - if you gave them some special tax rates you would get what is still a large tax take and benefit from the businesses they would continue to operate in the UK.
I know I will get the usual attack on parasites, the “don’t let the door hit their arses on the way out” ignorant bullshit but I don’t care now - I write about it because it’s happening on a large scale - tax money leaving that you will never get back until the UK makes not only the tax regime attractive but drops the envy about wealth.
It’s truly frustrating that I am unable to tell you more about these people because it would highlight what you are losing - not just tax but their businesses and all the future spin offs from them.
Maybe we should introduce the US tax system whereby you have to file a UK tax return to report your worldwide income regardless of where you live and work. The only way to avoid submitting a UK tax return would be to renounce your UK citizenship and take up some other citizenship.
I find it odd that some wealthy people are so sensitive to reducing their very large incomes by paying extra tax that they are willing to give up all that London offers them, including their friends. But that's just me. I wouldn't do it. I don't value huge amounts of income that much. I'm happy as I am.
It’s rarely income tax that these people have an issue with. It’s CGT and Inheritance tax they want to minimise.
And a lot of the super wealthy leaving the UK aren’t UK nationals so stripping their citizenship isn’t the threat that it might seem on first glance.
Ultimately these people will be paying nothing in tax in the UK in the future whereas under the old non-doms regime they were paying tax.
If it was inheritance tax they were paying, they won't be leaving!
If they are in London, very wealthy and still have estates bigly liable to IHT there is a very large number of lawyers and accountants who will jump into a taxi to come and see them right now at special low rates starting at around £1,500 per hour to see them right. It is the world's most avoidable tax.
Since I work in private banking and actually know some of the people in question....
A lot of people seem to be assuming that they are UK citizens. Many aren't. They are immigrants. Just with added money.
And it's not just the clients - many of those working in the banks are not UK citizens.
Sure, we have a Chinese guy and an Indian guy in the team, working on their UK citizenships. But born here? Not so much. And they are considering transfers to other countries (within the bank) - the team already has international working, so they would simply dial into the calls from where ever.
So just like the clients, they see where they are as transactional. A Japanese lady of my acquaintance is moving back there, because housing is cheap and she wants to start a family - and in Tokyo childcare and other kids stuff is free. Is she a Citizen of Nowhere dodging tax?
A common theme is value - when the council announces a tax increase, combined with a "consultation" on reducing the bin collection to once everything *3* weeks, why shouldn't they consider Switzerland. More expensive, but works.
The clients talk about potholes, crime and lack of anything like a plan in government - combined with an attitude that business is a problem. Try building a factory in the UK.
If they simply wanted low tax, they could move to the US. We are talking about people who would never need medical insurance - that's what a credit card is for, right?
Yes, it’s a holistic choice. It’s not just the tax - it’s a whole bunch of things, of which tax is one important part but far from the whole
Britain - especially London - used to sell itself as a rainy grey city BUT it was a land of laws, ethnically British, a city of pubs and churches, high trust, low crime, stable and enduring, Wimbledon and Wembley, the Old Red Lion down the road, and on top of that it had a nice mix of diversity, good Asian restaurants, interesting Chinatowns etc - there is a perfect blend and we had it for a while
I’d argue we have gone way over that and London is now, sadly, increasingly, nowheresville. And it’s still rainy and grey as someone steals your Rolex with a machete - and now you must pay a fuckload of tax. So, these people leave
I think I'd feel more comfortable wandering around the Tube network these days than I would in the 1970s. 'Whispers in the shadows - gruff blazing voices, Hating, waiting' etc.
The smell of pubs And Wormwood Scrubs And too many right wing meetings
Nearly 10% of all London properties are worth at least £1 million. I am a London millionaire. So "30,000 millionaires fleeing the capital in ten years" is not a lot. And were they all fleeing? It seems a small number to me.
This doesn’t sound like it’s just millionaire homeowners.
According to research by the Adam Smith Institute, each of the millionaires who left the capital over the last decade would have paid at least £393,957 in income tax per year.
So not millionaires but people earning over a million each year.
So have the number of London jobs paying over a million each year increased or decreased in that time period ?
If its increased then those 'fleeing' are being replaced by others.
I have tried to post about this many times on PB but usually just get abuse. I deal with a good number of these people leaving the UK and solving certain issues for them.
When I point out how many are leaving it’s not out of joy and counting my money that I make as a result - I genuinely love the UK and want it to be a success but the country is full of people who wilfully refuse to understand that these people are not just people working in a bank on a fat salary but entrepreneurs who employ many people, contribute to the tax base in many ways through personal taxation, spending and corporate taxes, on top of employment taxes and the subsequent income tax those employees make.
In the last couple of weeks I have met three people leaving the uk and their combined wealth is well over £4 billion.
This is wealth that will no longer be taxed in the UK. These are people who are moving businesses out and will not be employing in the UK anymore.
Just think about it - if you gave them some special tax rates you would get what is still a large tax take and benefit from the businesses they would continue to operate in the UK.
I know I will get the usual attack on parasites, the “don’t let the door hit their arses on the way out” ignorant bullshit but I don’t care now - I write about it because it’s happening on a large scale - tax money leaving that you will never get back until the UK makes not only the tax regime attractive but drops the envy about wealth.
It’s truly frustrating that I am unable to tell you more about these people because it would highlight what you are losing - not just tax but their businesses and all the future spin offs from them.
Maybe we should introduce the US tax system whereby you have to file a UK tax return to report your worldwide income regardless of where you live and work. The only way to avoid submitting a UK tax return would be to renounce your UK citizenship and take up some other citizenship.
I find it odd that some wealthy people are so sensitive to reducing their very large incomes by paying extra tax that they are willing to give up all that London offers them, including their friends. But that's just me. I wouldn't do it. I don't value huge amounts of income that much. I'm happy as I am.
It’s rarely income tax that these people have an issue with. It’s CGT and Inheritance tax they want to minimise.
And a lot of the super wealthy leaving the UK aren’t UK nationals so stripping their citizenship isn’t the threat that it might seem on first glance.
Ultimately these people will be paying nothing in tax in the UK in the future whereas under the old non-doms regime they were paying tax.
If it was inheritance tax they were paying, they won't be leaving!
If they are in London, very wealthy and still have estates bigly liable to IHT there is a very large number of lawyers and accountants who will jump into a taxi to come and see them right now at special low rates starting at around £1,500 per hour to see them right. It is the world's most avoidable tax.
Since I work in private banking and actually know some of the people in question....
A lot of people seem to be assuming that they are UK citizens. Many aren't. They are immigrants. Just with added money.
And it's not just the clients - many of those working in the banks are not UK citizens.
Sure, we have a Chinese guy and an Indian guy in the team, working on their UK citizenships. But born here? Not so much. And they are considering transfers to other countries (within the bank) - the team already has international working, so they would simply dial into the calls from where ever.
So just like the clients, they see where they are as transactional. A Japanese lady of my acquaintance is moving back there, because housing is cheap and she wants to start a family - and in Tokyo childcare and other kids stuff is free. Is she a Citizen of Nowhere dodging tax?
A common theme is value - when the council announces a tax increase, combined with a "consultation" on reducing the bin collection to once everything *3* weeks, why shouldn't they consider Switzerland. More expensive, but works.
The clients talk about potholes, crime and lack of anything like a plan in government - combined with an attitude that business is a problem. Try building a factory in the UK.
If they simply wanted low tax, they could move to the US. We are talking about people who would never need medical insurance - that's what a credit card is for, right?
Yes, it’s a holistic choice. It’s not just the tax - it’s a whole bunch of things, of which tax is one important part but far from the whole
Britain - especially London - used to sell itself as a rainy grey city BUT it was a land of laws, ethnically British, a city of pubs and churches, high trust, low crime, stable and enduring, Wimbledon and Wembley, the Old Red Lion down the road, and on top of that it had a nice mix of diversity, good Asian restaurants, interesting Chinatowns etc - there is a perfect blend and we had it for a while
I’d argue we have gone way over that and London is now, sadly, increasingly, nowheresville. And it’s still rainy and grey as someone steals your Rolex with a machete - and now you must pay a fuckload of tax. So, these people leave
I think I'd feel more comfortable wandering around the Tube network these days than I would in the 1970s. 'Whispers in the shadows - gruff blazing voices, Hating, waiting' etc.
The smell of pubs And Wormwood Scrubs And too many right wing meetings
If PB had an aftershave..
Interesting choice of wine from the man who was mugged in that song... and how would the muggers know where he lived (keys having been stolen and wife thinking it was her husband returning) ?
Thursday - from some on here (you know who you are):
"How dare Cyclefree think that there's a risk from men who identify as a woman? The silly woman has had her head turned by PR."
Saturday: London - "Men who identify as women turn up in a London square for a mass protest in which they indecently expose themselves (a criminal offence) and commit a public order offence by pissing in the street."
Well done, lads. Well done. Keep it up.
Cyclefree, you know as well as I do that plenty of women support the rights of trans women and pretending otherwise doesn’t reflect well on you.
So what makes someone a transwoman, entitled (in your opinion) to the same rights as biological women?
A better phrasing: men who have been trying for years to erase women as a sex class and appropriate their rights have finally been told "no" and, being men, they're angry. And one day, the "left" will come to see that trans ideology was a great gift to the right.
Lunch with a lifelong Democrat who campaigned for Kamala, Biden, Obama.
Furious with the Democrats for gifting the election to Trump. “Trump is for you. Kamala is for they/them” - won it for them he reckoned. And they’re “the problem”.
Remind us, who was in power in Britain at the time? Those bloody Tory lefties, I'll be bound.
Nearly 10% of all London properties are worth at least £1 million. I am a London millionaire. So "30,000 millionaires fleeing the capital in ten years" is not a lot. And were they all fleeing? It seems a small number to me.
This doesn’t sound like it’s just millionaire homeowners.
According to research by the Adam Smith Institute, each of the millionaires who left the capital over the last decade would have paid at least £393,957 in income tax per year.
So not millionaires but people earning over a million each year.
So have the number of London jobs paying over a million each year increased or decreased in that time period ?
If its increased then those 'fleeing' are being replaced by others.
I have tried to post about this many times on PB but usually just get abuse. I deal with a good number of these people leaving the UK and solving certain issues for them.
When I point out how many are leaving it’s not out of joy and counting my money that I make as a result - I genuinely love the UK and want it to be a success but the country is full of people who wilfully refuse to understand that these people are not just people working in a bank on a fat salary but entrepreneurs who employ many people, contribute to the tax base in many ways through personal taxation, spending and corporate taxes, on top of employment taxes and the subsequent income tax those employees make.
In the last couple of weeks I have met three people leaving the uk and their combined wealth is well over £4 billion.
This is wealth that will no longer be taxed in the UK. These are people who are moving businesses out and will not be employing in the UK anymore.
Just think about it - if you gave them some special tax rates you would get what is still a large tax take and benefit from the businesses they would continue to operate in the UK.
I know I will get the usual attack on parasites, the “don’t let the door hit their arses on the way out” ignorant bullshit but I don’t care now - I write about it because it’s happening on a large scale - tax money leaving that you will never get back until the UK makes not only the tax regime attractive but drops the envy about wealth.
It’s truly frustrating that I am unable to tell you more about these people because it would highlight what you are losing - not just tax but their businesses and all the future spin offs from them.
Maybe we should introduce the US tax system whereby you have to file a UK tax return to report your worldwide income regardless of where you live and work. The only way to avoid submitting a UK tax return would be to renounce your UK citizenship and take up some other citizenship.
I find it odd that some wealthy people are so sensitive to reducing their very large incomes by paying extra tax that they are willing to give up all that London offers them, including their friends. But that's just me. I wouldn't do it. I don't value huge amounts of income that much. I'm happy as I am.
It’s rarely income tax that these people have an issue with. It’s CGT and Inheritance tax they want to minimise.
And a lot of the super wealthy leaving the UK aren’t UK nationals so stripping their citizenship isn’t the threat that it might seem on first glance.
Ultimately these people will be paying nothing in tax in the UK in the future whereas under the old non-doms regime they were paying tax.
If it was inheritance tax they were paying, they won't be leaving!
If they are in London, very wealthy and still have estates bigly liable to IHT there is a very large number of lawyers and accountants who will jump into a taxi to come and see them right now at special low rates starting at around £1,500 per hour to see them right. It is the world's most avoidable tax.
Since I work in private banking and actually know some of the people in question....
A lot of people seem to be assuming that they are UK citizens. Many aren't. They are immigrants. Just with added money.
And it's not just the clients - many of those working in the banks are not UK citizens.
Sure, we have a Chinese guy and an Indian guy in the team, working on their UK citizenships. But born here? Not so much. And they are considering transfers to other countries (within the bank) - the team already has international working, so they would simply dial into the calls from where ever.
So just like the clients, they see where they are as transactional. A Japanese lady of my acquaintance is moving back there, because housing is cheap and she wants to start a family - and in Tokyo childcare and other kids stuff is free. Is she a Citizen of Nowhere dodging tax?
A common theme is value - when the council announces a tax increase, combined with a "consultation" on reducing the bin collection to once everything *3* weeks, why shouldn't they consider Switzerland. More expensive, but works.
The clients talk about potholes, crime and lack of anything like a plan in government - combined with an attitude that business is a problem. Try building a factory in the UK.
If they simply wanted low tax, they could move to the US. We are talking about people who would never need medical insurance - that's what a credit card is for, right?
Yes, it’s a holistic choice. It’s not just the tax - it’s a whole bunch of things, of which tax is one important part but far from the whole
Britain - especially London - used to sell itself as a rainy grey city BUT it was a land of laws, ethnically British, a city of pubs and churches, high trust, low crime, stable and enduring, Wimbledon and Wembley, the Old Red Lion down the road, and on top of that it had a nice mix of diversity, good Asian restaurants, interesting Chinatowns etc - there is a perfect blend and we had it for a while
I’d argue we have gone way over that and London is now, sadly, increasingly, nowheresville. And it’s still rainy and grey as someone steals your Rolex with a machete - and now you must pay a fuckload of tax. So, these people leave
I think I'd feel more comfortable wandering around the Tube network these days than I would in the 1970s. 'Whispers in the shadows - gruff blazing voices, Hating, waiting' etc.
The smell of pubs And Wormwood Scrubs And too many right wing meetings
If PB had an aftershave..
If it had an aftershave it would be old spice
Better than Con Home’s penchant for Lynx Africa at least.
Thursday - from some on here (you know who you are):
"How dare Cyclefree think that there's a risk from men who identify as a woman? The silly woman has had her head turned by PR."
Saturday: London - "Men who identify as women turn up in a London square for a mass protest in which they indecently expose themselves (a criminal offence) and commit a public order offence by pissing in the street."
Well done, lads. Well done. Keep it up.
Cyclefree, you know as well as I do that plenty of women support the rights of trans women and pretending otherwise doesn’t reflect well on you.
So what makes someone a transwoman, entitled (in your opinion) to the same rights as biological women?
It’s not for me to say. It’s a debate for women to have among themselves in my opinion. However, it is clear that plenty of women think that trans women should have a lot of, if not all of, the same rights as biological women.
I, as a man, feel obligated to call out transphobia (which is not the same as disagreeing that trans women should have the same rights as biological women) where I see it.
@IshmaelZ 's usefulness was very dependent on the time of day. However @isam has returned, though @Sandpit is still absent.
Yes, Ishmael certainly enjoyed a drop or two. He usually had something interesting to say while sober. He had numerous aliases after his last Ishmael one was banned but he’s not been back since. Travelling apparently. I hope he has some sort of peace and wish him well. In spite of the fact he was rather a shit to me and others.
Sandpit, who had a personal stake in the Ukraine conflict was simply not pure enough for the Ukraine ultras here and was hounded off. Shame. Nice guy.
Nearly 10% of all London properties are worth at least £1 million. I am a London millionaire. So "30,000 millionaires fleeing the capital in ten years" is not a lot. And were they all fleeing? It seems a small number to me.
This doesn’t sound like it’s just millionaire homeowners.
According to research by the Adam Smith Institute, each of the millionaires who left the capital over the last decade would have paid at least £393,957 in income tax per year.
So not millionaires but people earning over a million each year.
So have the number of London jobs paying over a million each year increased or decreased in that time period ?
If its increased then those 'fleeing' are being replaced by others.
I have tried to post about this many times on PB but usually just get abuse. I deal with a good number of these people leaving the UK and solving certain issues for them.
When I point out how many are leaving it’s not out of joy and counting my money that I make as a result - I genuinely love the UK and want it to be a success but the country is full of people who wilfully refuse to understand that these people are not just people working in a bank on a fat salary but entrepreneurs who employ many people, contribute to the tax base in many ways through personal taxation, spending and corporate taxes, on top of employment taxes and the subsequent income tax those employees make.
In the last couple of weeks I have met three people leaving the uk and their combined wealth is well over £4 billion.
This is wealth that will no longer be taxed in the UK. These are people who are moving businesses out and will not be employing in the UK anymore.
Just think about it - if you gave them some special tax rates you would get what is still a large tax take and benefit from the businesses they would continue to operate in the UK.
I know I will get the usual attack on parasites, the “don’t let the door hit their arses on the way out” ignorant bullshit but I don’t care now - I write about it because it’s happening on a large scale - tax money leaving that you will never get back until the UK makes not only the tax regime attractive but drops the envy about wealth.
It’s truly frustrating that I am unable to tell you more about these people because it would highlight what you are losing - not just tax but their businesses and all the future spin offs from them.
Maybe we should introduce the US tax system whereby you have to file a UK tax return to report your worldwide income regardless of where you live and work. The only way to avoid submitting a UK tax return would be to renounce your UK citizenship and take up some other citizenship.
I find it odd that some wealthy people are so sensitive to reducing their very large incomes by paying extra tax that they are willing to give up all that London offers them, including their friends. But that's just me. I wouldn't do it. I don't value huge amounts of income that much. I'm happy as I am.
It’s rarely income tax that these people have an issue with. It’s CGT and Inheritance tax they want to minimise.
And a lot of the super wealthy leaving the UK aren’t UK nationals so stripping their citizenship isn’t the threat that it might seem on first glance.
Ultimately these people will be paying nothing in tax in the UK in the future whereas under the old non-doms regime they were paying tax.
If it was inheritance tax they were paying, they won't be leaving!
If they are in London, very wealthy and still have estates bigly liable to IHT there is a very large number of lawyers and accountants who will jump into a taxi to come and see them right now at special low rates starting at around £1,500 per hour to see them right. It is the world's most avoidable tax.
Since I work in private banking and actually know some of the people in question....
A lot of people seem to be assuming that they are UK citizens. Many aren't. They are immigrants. Just with added money.
And it's not just the clients - many of those working in the banks are not UK citizens.
Sure, we have a Chinese guy and an Indian guy in the team, working on their UK citizenships. But born here? Not so much. And they are considering transfers to other countries (within the bank) - the team already has international working, so they would simply dial into the calls from where ever.
So just like the clients, they see where they are as transactional. A Japanese lady of my acquaintance is moving back there, because housing is cheap and she wants to start a family - and in Tokyo childcare and other kids stuff is free. Is she a Citizen of Nowhere dodging tax?
A common theme is value - when the council announces a tax increase, combined with a "consultation" on reducing the bin collection to once everything *3* weeks, why shouldn't they consider Switzerland. More expensive, but works.
The clients talk about potholes, crime and lack of anything like a plan in government - combined with an attitude that business is a problem. Try building a factory in the UK.
If they simply wanted low tax, they could move to the US. We are talking about people who would never need medical insurance - that's what a credit card is for, right?
Yes, it’s a holistic choice. It’s not just the tax - it’s a whole bunch of things, of which tax is one important part but far from the whole
Britain - especially London - used to sell itself as a rainy grey city BUT it was a land of laws, ethnically British, a city of pubs and churches, high trust, low crime, stable and enduring, Wimbledon and Wembley, the Old Red Lion down the road, and on top of that it had a nice mix of diversity, good Asian restaurants, interesting Chinatowns etc - there is a perfect blend and we had it for a while
I’d argue we have gone way over that and London is now, sadly, increasingly, nowheresville. And it’s still rainy and grey as someone steals your Rolex with a machete - and now you must pay a fuckload of tax. So, these people leave
I think I'd feel more comfortable wandering around the Tube network these days than I would in the 1970s. 'Whispers in the shadows - gruff blazing voices, Hating, waiting' etc.
The smell of pubs And Wormwood Scrubs And too many right wing meetings
If PB had an aftershave..
Interesting choice of wine from the man who was mugged in that song... and how would the muggers know where he lived (keys having been stolen and wife thinking it was her husband returning) ?
The wine would have been Blue Nun presumably. And perhaps the man had put his address on his key fob. (I once shared a flat with someone who, to my horror, actually did that.)
Nearly 10% of all London properties are worth at least £1 million. I am a London millionaire. So "30,000 millionaires fleeing the capital in ten years" is not a lot. And were they all fleeing? It seems a small number to me.
This doesn’t sound like it’s just millionaire homeowners.
According to research by the Adam Smith Institute, each of the millionaires who left the capital over the last decade would have paid at least £393,957 in income tax per year.
So not millionaires but people earning over a million each year.
So have the number of London jobs paying over a million each year increased or decreased in that time period ?
If its increased then those 'fleeing' are being replaced by others.
I have tried to post about this many times on PB but usually just get abuse. I deal with a good number of these people leaving the UK and solving certain issues for them.
When I point out how many are leaving it’s not out of joy and counting my money that I make as a result - I genuinely love the UK and want it to be a success but the country is full of people who wilfully refuse to understand that these people are not just people working in a bank on a fat salary but entrepreneurs who employ many people, contribute to the tax base in many ways through personal taxation, spending and corporate taxes, on top of employment taxes and the subsequent income tax those employees make.
In the last couple of weeks I have met three people leaving the uk and their combined wealth is well over £4 billion.
This is wealth that will no longer be taxed in the UK. These are people who are moving businesses out and will not be employing in the UK anymore.
Just think about it - if you gave them some special tax rates you would get what is still a large tax take and benefit from the businesses they would continue to operate in the UK.
I know I will get the usual attack on parasites, the “don’t let the door hit their arses on the way out” ignorant bullshit but I don’t care now - I write about it because it’s happening on a large scale - tax money leaving that you will never get back until the UK makes not only the tax regime attractive but drops the envy about wealth.
It’s truly frustrating that I am unable to tell you more about these people because it would highlight what you are losing - not just tax but their businesses and all the future spin offs from them.
Maybe we should introduce the US tax system whereby you have to file a UK tax return to report your worldwide income regardless of where you live and work. The only way to avoid submitting a UK tax return would be to renounce your UK citizenship and take up some other citizenship.
I find it odd that some wealthy people are so sensitive to reducing their very large incomes by paying extra tax that they are willing to give up all that London offers them, including their friends. But that's just me. I wouldn't do it. I don't value huge amounts of income that much. I'm happy as I am.
It’s rarely income tax that these people have an issue with. It’s CGT and Inheritance tax they want to minimise.
And a lot of the super wealthy leaving the UK aren’t UK nationals so stripping their citizenship isn’t the threat that it might seem on first glance.
Ultimately these people will be paying nothing in tax in the UK in the future whereas under the old non-doms regime they were paying tax.
If it was inheritance tax they were paying, they won't be leaving!
If they are in London, very wealthy and still have estates bigly liable to IHT there is a very large number of lawyers and accountants who will jump into a taxi to come and see them right now at special low rates starting at around £1,500 per hour to see them right. It is the world's most avoidable tax.
Since I work in private banking and actually know some of the people in question....
A lot of people seem to be assuming that they are UK citizens. Many aren't. They are immigrants. Just with added money.
And it's not just the clients - many of those working in the banks are not UK citizens.
Sure, we have a Chinese guy and an Indian guy in the team, working on their UK citizenships. But born here? Not so much. And they are considering transfers to other countries (within the bank) - the team already has international working, so they would simply dial into the calls from where ever.
So just like the clients, they see where they are as transactional. A Japanese lady of my acquaintance is moving back there, because housing is cheap and she wants to start a family - and in Tokyo childcare and other kids stuff is free. Is she a Citizen of Nowhere dodging tax?
A common theme is value - when the council announces a tax increase, combined with a "consultation" on reducing the bin collection to once everything *3* weeks, why shouldn't they consider Switzerland. More expensive, but works.
The clients talk about potholes, crime and lack of anything like a plan in government - combined with an attitude that business is a problem. Try building a factory in the UK.
If they simply wanted low tax, they could move to the US. We are talking about people who would never need medical insurance - that's what a credit card is for, right?
Yes, it’s a holistic choice. It’s not just the tax - it’s a whole bunch of things, of which tax is one important part but far from the whole
Britain - especially London - used to sell itself as a rainy grey city BUT it was a land of laws, ethnically British, a city of pubs and churches, high trust, low crime, stable and enduring, Wimbledon and Wembley, the Old Red Lion down the road, and on top of that it had a nice mix of diversity, good Asian restaurants, interesting Chinatowns etc - there is a perfect blend and we had it for a while
I’d argue we have gone way over that and London is now, sadly, increasingly, nowheresville. And it’s still rainy and grey as someone steals your Rolex with a machete - and now you must pay a fuckload of tax. So, these people leave
I think I'd feel more comfortable wandering around the Tube network these days than I would in the 1970s. 'Whispers in the shadows - gruff blazing voices, Hating, waiting' etc.
The smell of pubs And Wormwood Scrubs And too many right wing meetings
If PB had an aftershave..
If it had an aftershave it would be old spice
Better than Con Home’s penchant for Lynx Africa at least.
Thursday - from some on here (you know who you are):
"How dare Cyclefree think that there's a risk from men who identify as a woman? The silly woman has had her head turned by PR."
Saturday: London - "Men who identify as women turn up in a London square for a mass protest in which they indecently expose themselves (a criminal offence) and commit a public order offence by pissing in the street."
Well done, lads. Well done. Keep it up.
To go back to my previous analogy, do you think that homosexuals teaching in boy's schools is a risk sufficient to ban them from doing so? Or do gay officers pose too much of a risk to make soldiers? I remember many people saying both of those things and indeed some homosexual teachers are also paedophiles. Now I think it's widely accepted that it's unfair to tar all gay people with that brush.
Thursday - from some on here (you know who you are):
"How dare Cyclefree think that there's a risk from men who identify as a woman? The silly woman has had her head turned by PR."
Saturday: London - "Men who identify as women turn up in a London square for a mass protest in which they indecently expose themselves (a criminal offence) and commit a public order offence by pissing in the street."
Well done, lads. Well done. Keep it up.
Cyclefree, you know as well as I do that plenty of women support the rights of trans women and pretending otherwise doesn’t reflect well on you.
A question...how many of those women actually are affected by that support. You for example have a sports centre where you have individual cubibicles for changing no effect when you take your 8 year old daughter swimming...goto a swimming pool with open changing rooms and your 8 year old daughter gets to see swinging dicks of trans pre ops....well suspect a different answer might come out
From the protest today, they look like you’d expect them to. Quite what Palestine has to do with it god only knows.
A better phrasing: men who have been trying for years to erase women as a sex class and appropriate their rights have finally been told "no" and, being men, they're angry. And one day, the "left" will come to see that trans ideology was a great gift to the right.
Lunch with a lifelong Democrat who campaigned for Kamala, Biden, Obama.
Furious with the Democrats for gifting the election to Trump. “Trump is for you. Kamala is for they/them” - won it for them he reckoned. And they’re “the problem”.
Remind us, who was in power in Britain at the time? Those bloody Tory lefties, I'll be bound.
I think Carlotta's mate's election take is pretty poor, FWIW. But irrespective of the truth or otherwise of that, it's undeniable that transphobia goes hand in hand with misogyny in US politics.
I doubt if there is any sport where men's physiology does not give them an advantage.
And if there is such a sport then there is no need to have women's and men's categories at all. Just one competition where all participate. So the question of excluding groups would not arise.
But - forgive the cynicism - what we have instead is second or third rate sportsmen who can't win in the male category declare themselves women and proceed to cheat women out of places, prizes, opportunities and money/sponsorship opportunities.
Equestrianism is not split by men’s events and women’s events as neither are stronger than the horse so won’t make any difference - it’s all down to skill and training.
And anyone who thinks something like eventing or jumping isn’t a sport has clearly done neither.
In my network on social media and amongst my friends it is notable that it is 99% women who are the most outspoken against the Supreme Court decision. It is not men who are angry about it. However the likes of @CarlottaVance are happy to erase them too.
Is saying you think someone is wrong 'erasing them' now?
'Get a life' as someone wisely once said.
She isn’t saying people are wrong. That’s the problem. It isn’t a debate, it’s just “these people aren’t women so what is the problem” not even acknowledging that some women do consider them women. There is no nuance.
Perhaps these women should consider who they are encompassing within this broad category. If you are a physically intact and sexually active male rapist but you've chucked on a wig, most people, including Nicola Sturgeon, will think that you're not actually a woman; you're at it. And if that is the case, clearly we need a more robust system than self-id as a measure of who is allowed to be in single sex spaces?
Personally, as I've said, I think that surgical transition at the end of a long medical process, should be the test. But given what has happened, I can empathise with those who take a harder line.
Not really. I am a man and I don’t want a rapist in the men’s toilet either. That isn’t the gotcha you think it is.
Men can fight off other men easier than women can, that's the whole point of this debate
No it isn’t. Strong men can rape ordinary men as easily as an ordinary man can rape a woman. And regardless, a rapist already doesn’t concern themselves with the law.
But most rapists are male and are not interested in guys
PB has become tragically dim. Too many smart people have left. It’s like Britain driving away milllionaires
I personally am keeping the average IQ over 90 with my IQ of 237. When I go this place will be like a fucking kindergarten of tardigrades
I guess on the plus side we tardigrades will survive any impending nuclear holocaust. 😉
Oh dear leon has gone full on "I did 18 holes in ones on my first game of golf" Kim il jong style....if he scored 237 on the iq scale its merely suggesting the iq scale is a worthless measure
Thursday - from some on here (you know who you are):
"How dare Cyclefree think that there's a risk from men who identify as a woman? The silly woman has had her head turned by PR."
Saturday: London - "Men who identify as women turn up in a London square for a mass protest in which they indecently expose themselves (a criminal offence) and commit a public order offence by pissing in the street."
Well done, lads. Well done. Keep it up.
Cyclefree, you know as well as I do that plenty of women support the rights of trans women and pretending otherwise doesn’t reflect well on you.
A question...how many of those women actually are affected by that support. You for example have a sports centre where you have individual cubibicles for changing no effect when you take your 8 year old daughter swimming...goto a swimming pool with open changing rooms and your 8 year old daughter gets to see swinging dicks of trans pre ops....well suspect a different answer might come out
From the protest today, they look like you’d expect them to. Quite what Palestine has to do with it god only knows.
Yeah but that's people who go on protests isn't it? I know quite a few trans women (all of whom transitioned more than 20 years ago) and they're all very respectable late middle aged ladies who would look more at home on the local WI Committee than at that protest.
I doubt if there is any sport where men's physiology does not give them an advantage.
And if there is such a sport then there is no need to have women's and men's categories at all. Just one competition where all participate. So the question of excluding groups would not arise.
But - forgive the cynicism - what we have instead is second or third rate sportsmen who can't win in the male category declare themselves women and proceed to cheat women out of places, prizes, opportunities and money/sponsorship opportunities.
Equestrianism is not split by men’s events and women’s events as neither are stronger than the horse so won’t make any difference - it’s all down to skill and training.
And anyone who thinks something like eventing or jumping isn’t a sport has clearly done neither.
Of course. And racing too.
In the PDC men and women have a chance to earn a tour card to play on the main tour. Some women have won tour cards previously.
I doubt if there is any sport where men's physiology does not give them an advantage.
And if there is such a sport then there is no need to have women's and men's categories at all. Just one competition where all participate. So the question of excluding groups would not arise.
But - forgive the cynicism - what we have instead is second or third rate sportsmen who can't win in the male category declare themselves women and proceed to cheat women out of places, prizes, opportunities and money/sponsorship opportunities.
This was my problem with your otherwise excellent previous thread. I agree that trans women shouldn't be allowed to compete with biological women in most sports but what evidence do you have other than prejudice that people are deliberately declaring themselves a trans women to gain an advantage in professional sport?
Let's see: Lia Thomas, swimmer. As a man, got nowhere in competitions. As a woman won loads, upset female competitors by wandering round the changing rooms naked with an erect penis (according to reports) and is now in a heterosexual relationship with a woman planning to start a family.
It's not prejudice. It's scepticism about the motives of men who appear to want to have their cake and eat it and have been enabled by sporting authorities with little regard for fairness in sport or the interests of female athletes.
Trump is preparing to make JD Vance the “tariff czar” to deal with the rising prices and other problems that are about to arise because of their tariffs on China. https://x.com/NoLieWithBTC/status/1913357401509573042
In my network on social media and amongst my friends it is notable that it is 99% women who are the most outspoken against the Supreme Court decision. It is not men who are angry about it. However the likes of @CarlottaVance are happy to erase them too.
Is saying you think someone is wrong 'erasing them' now?
'Get a life' as someone wisely once said.
She isn’t saying people are wrong. That’s the problem. It isn’t a debate, it’s just “these people aren’t women so what is the problem” not even acknowledging that some women do consider them women. There is no nuance.
Perhaps these women should consider who they are encompassing within this broad category. If you are a physically intact and sexually active male rapist but you've chucked on a wig, most people, including Nicola Sturgeon, will think that you're not actually a woman; you're at it. And if that is the case, clearly we need a more robust system than self-id as a measure of who is allowed to be in single sex spaces?
Personally, as I've said, I think that surgical transition at the end of a long medical process, should be the test. But given what has happened, I can empathise with those who take a harder line.
Not really. I am a man and I don’t want a rapist in the men’s toilet either. That isn’t the gotcha you think it is.
Men can fight off other men easier than women can, that's the whole point of this debate
No it isn’t. Strong men can rape ordinary men as easily as an ordinary man can rape a woman. And regardless, a rapist already doesn’t concern themselves with the law.
But most rapists are male and are not interested in guys
Don't get your point because you don't have one. Never said men don't rape men. Merely said the majority of male rapists prefer women victims....not sure why you think posting a link to a prolific male rapist disproves that
I doubt if there is any sport where men's physiology does not give them an advantage.
And if there is such a sport then there is no need to have women's and men's categories at all. Just one competition where all participate. So the question of excluding groups would not arise.
But - forgive the cynicism - what we have instead is second or third rate sportsmen who can't win in the male category declare themselves women and proceed to cheat women out of places, prizes, opportunities and money/sponsorship opportunities.
Equestrianism is not split by men’s events and women’s events as neither are stronger than the horse so won’t make any difference - it’s all down to skill and training.
And anyone who thinks something like eventing or jumping isn’t a sport has clearly done neither.
Of course. And racing too.
Yes, I do wonder if with horses that because it’s deemed very “acceptable” for girls to get into competitive equestrianism from a young age there isn’t the block and so added to the fact that physiology makes little difference when up against the horse’s strength it’s one of the few areas where men and women can compete against each other.
My ex would absolutely crush me in all areas of eventing as she was just much more of a skilful rider and my competitive strength and aggression were actually handicaps.
In my network on social media and amongst my friends it is notable that it is 99% women who are the most outspoken against the Supreme Court decision. It is not men who are angry about it. However the likes of @CarlottaVance are happy to erase them too.
Is saying you think someone is wrong 'erasing them' now?
'Get a life' as someone wisely once said.
She isn’t saying people are wrong. That’s the problem. It isn’t a debate, it’s just “these people aren’t women so what is the problem” not even acknowledging that some women do consider them women. There is no nuance.
Perhaps these women should consider who they are encompassing within this broad category. If you are a physically intact and sexually active male rapist but you've chucked on a wig, most people, including Nicola Sturgeon, will think that you're not actually a woman; you're at it. And if that is the case, clearly we need a more robust system than self-id as a measure of who is allowed to be in single sex spaces?
Personally, as I've said, I think that surgical transition at the end of a long medical process, should be the test. But given what has happened, I can empathise with those who take a harder line.
Not really. I am a man and I don’t want a rapist in the men’s toilet either. That isn’t the gotcha you think it is.
Men can fight off other men easier than women can, that's the whole point of this debate
No it isn’t. Strong men can rape ordinary men as easily as an ordinary man can rape a woman. And regardless, a rapist already doesn’t concern themselves with the law.
What’s the relevant data of the number of male on male rapes versus male on female? I’m guessing a man is statistically less likely to encounter another man who would consider raping men than a woman is likely to meet a man who would consider raping a woman.
That is true. It’s also true that men are more often victims of male violence generally than women are, IIRC.
Nearly 10% of all London properties are worth at least £1 million. I am a London millionaire. So "30,000 millionaires fleeing the capital in ten years" is not a lot. And were they all fleeing? It seems a small number to me.
This doesn’t sound like it’s just millionaire homeowners.
According to research by the Adam Smith Institute, each of the millionaires who left the capital over the last decade would have paid at least £393,957 in income tax per year.
So not millionaires but people earning over a million each year.
So have the number of London jobs paying over a million each year increased or decreased in that time period ?
If its increased then those 'fleeing' are being replaced by others.
I have tried to post about this many times on PB but usually just get abuse. I deal with a good number of these people leaving the UK and solving certain issues for them.
When I point out how many are leaving it’s not out of joy and counting my money that I make as a result - I genuinely love the UK and want it to be a success but the country is full of people who wilfully refuse to understand that these people are not just people working in a bank on a fat salary but entrepreneurs who employ many people, contribute to the tax base in many ways through personal taxation, spending and corporate taxes, on top of employment taxes and the subsequent income tax those employees make.
In the last couple of weeks I have met three people leaving the uk and their combined wealth is well over £4 billion.
This is wealth that will no longer be taxed in the UK. These are people who are moving businesses out and will not be employing in the UK anymore.
Just think about it - if you gave them some special tax rates you would get what is still a large tax take and benefit from the businesses they would continue to operate in the UK.
I know I will get the usual attack on parasites, the “don’t let the door hit their arses on the way out” ignorant bullshit but I don’t care now - I write about it because it’s happening on a large scale - tax money leaving that you will never get back until the UK makes not only the tax regime attractive but drops the envy about wealth.
It’s truly frustrating that I am unable to tell you more about these people because it would highlight what you are losing - not just tax but their businesses and all the future spin offs from them.
Maybe we should introduce the US tax system whereby you have to file a UK tax return to report your worldwide income regardless of where you live and work. The only way to avoid submitting a UK tax return would be to renounce your UK citizenship and take up some other citizenship.
I find it odd that some wealthy people are so sensitive to reducing their very large incomes by paying extra tax that they are willing to give up all that London offers them, including their friends. But that's just me. I wouldn't do it. I don't value huge amounts of income that much. I'm happy as I am.
It’s rarely income tax that these people have an issue with. It’s CGT and Inheritance tax they want to minimise.
And a lot of the super wealthy leaving the UK aren’t UK nationals so stripping their citizenship isn’t the threat that it might seem on first glance.
Ultimately these people will be paying nothing in tax in the UK in the future whereas under the old non-doms regime they were paying tax.
If it was inheritance tax they were paying, they won't be leaving!
If they are in London, very wealthy and still have estates bigly liable to IHT there is a very large number of lawyers and accountants who will jump into a taxi to come and see them right now at special low rates starting at around £1,500 per hour to see them right. It is the world's most avoidable tax.
Since I work in private banking and actually know some of the people in question....
A lot of people seem to be assuming that they are UK citizens. Many aren't. They are immigrants. Just with added money.
And it's not just the clients - many of those working in the banks are not UK citizens.
Sure, we have a Chinese guy and an Indian guy in the team, working on their UK citizenships. But born here? Not so much. And they are considering transfers to other countries (within the bank) - the team already has international working, so they would simply dial into the calls from where ever.
So just like the clients, they see where they are as transactional. A Japanese lady of my acquaintance is moving back there, because housing is cheap and she wants to start a family - and in Tokyo childcare and other kids stuff is free. Is she a Citizen of Nowhere dodging tax?
A common theme is value - when the council announces a tax increase, combined with a "consultation" on reducing the bin collection to once everything *3* weeks, why shouldn't they consider Switzerland. More expensive, but works.
The clients talk about potholes, crime and lack of anything like a plan in government - combined with an attitude that business is a problem. Try building a factory in the UK.
If they simply wanted low tax, they could move to the US. We are talking about people who would never need medical insurance - that's what a credit card is for, right?
Yes, it’s a holistic choice. It’s not just the tax - it’s a whole bunch of things, of which tax is one important part but far from the whole
Britain - especially London - used to sell itself as a rainy grey city BUT it was a land of laws, ethnically British, a city of pubs and churches, high trust, low crime, stable and enduring, Wimbledon and Wembley, the Old Red Lion down the road, and on top of that it had a nice mix of diversity, good Asian restaurants, interesting Chinatowns etc - there is a perfect blend and we had it for a while
I’d argue we have gone way over that and London is now, sadly, increasingly, nowheresville. And it’s still rainy and grey as someone steals your Rolex with a machete - and now you must pay a fuckload of tax. So, these people leave
I think I'd feel more comfortable wandering around the Tube network these days than I would in the 1970s. 'Whispers in the shadows - gruff blazing voices, Hating, waiting' etc.
The smell of pubs And Wormwood Scrubs And too many right wing meetings
If PB had an aftershave..
Interesting choice of wine from the man who was mugged in that song... and how would the muggers know where he lived (keys having been stolen and wife thinking it was her husband returning) ?
The wine would have been Blue Nun presumably. And perhaps the man had put his address on his key fob. (I once shared a flat with someone who, to my horror, actually did that.)
PB has become tragically dim. Too many smart people have left. It’s like Britain driving away milllionaires
I personally am keeping the average IQ over 90 with my IQ of 237. When I go this place will be like a fucking kindergarten of tardigrades
I guess on the plus side we tardigrades will survive any impending nuclear holocaust. 😉
Oh dear leon has gone full on "I did 18 holes in ones on my first game of golf" Kim il jong style....if he scored 237 on the iq scale its merely suggesting the iq scale is a worthless measure
PB has become tragically dim. Too many smart people have left. It’s like Britain driving away milllionaires
I personally am keeping the average IQ over 90 with my IQ of 237. When I go this place will be like a fucking kindergarten of tardigrades
I guess on the plus side we tardigrades will survive any impending nuclear holocaust. 😉
Oh dear leon has gone full on "I did 18 holes in ones on my first game of golf" Kim il jong style....if he scored 237 on the iq scale its merely suggesting the iq scale is a worthless measure
You must remember it has to be divided six ways.
Palpable nonesense
Indeed, rogue apostrophe's are palpable nonsense.
I suspect you give one seant a hang nail and the other thousands will run away shrieking
Thursday - from some on here (you know who you are):
"How dare Cyclefree think that there's a risk from men who identify as a woman? The silly woman has had her head turned by PR."
Saturday: London - "Men who identify as women turn up in a London square for a mass protest in which they indecently expose themselves (a criminal offence) and commit a public order offence by pissing in the street."
Well done, lads. Well done. Keep it up.
To go back to my previous analogy, do you think that homosexuals teaching in boy's schools is a risk sufficient to ban them from doing so? Or do gay officers pose too much of a risk to make soldiers? I remember many people saying both of those things and indeed some homosexual teachers are also paedophiles. Now I think it's widely accepted that it's unfair to tar all gay people with that brush.
I think the difference is that there would be no benefit in a straight man pretending to be gay in order to benefit somehow in the examples you give, whereas plenty of pretend transwomen have been able to game the system. Prisons for one, sport another
A better phrasing: men who have been trying for years to erase women as a sex class and appropriate their rights have finally been told "no" and, being men, they're angry. And one day, the "left" will come to see that trans ideology was a great gift to the right.
Lunch with a lifelong Democrat who campaigned for Kamala, Biden, Obama.
Furious with the Democrats for gifting the election to Trump. “Trump is for you. Kamala is for they/them” - won it for them he reckoned. And they’re “the problem”.
There has been extensive polling on why people voted as they did in the US presidential election. This has found that transgender rights was not a big issue. Here’s a poll from before the election: https://news.gallup.com/poll/651719/economy-important-issue-2024-presidential-vote.aspx They offered 22 topics. The top 3 were the economy, democracy in the US, and terrorism. Transgender rights came 22nd out of 22.
If people were thinking about transgender rights, it helped Harris. Here’s an exit poll of swing voters: https://navigatorresearch.org/2024-post-election-survey-the-reasons-for-voting-for-trump-and-harris/ Over 23 issues, transgender rights had the second highest proportion saying it was not an issue, but for those who felt it was, more (39%) felt it was a reason to support Harris than Trump (27%).
Whatever the rights and wrongs of the issue, it was not a big factor in Trump’s victory. Trump won because inflation was high.
Trump is preparing to make JD Vance the “tariff czar” to deal with the rising prices and other problems that are about to arise because of their tariffs on China. https://x.com/NoLieWithBTC/status/1913357401509573042
A better phrasing: men who have been trying for years to erase women as a sex class and appropriate their rights have finally been told "no" and, being men, they're angry. And one day, the "left" will come to see that trans ideology was a great gift to the right.
Lunch with a lifelong Democrat who campaigned for Kamala, Biden, Obama.
Furious with the Democrats for gifting the election to Trump. “Trump is for you. Kamala is for they/them” - won it for them he reckoned. And they’re “the problem”.
Remind us, who was in power in Britain at the time? Those bloody Tory lefties, I'll be bound.
Trump is preparing to make JD Vance the “tariff czar” to deal with the rising prices and other problems that are about to arise because of their tariffs on China. https://x.com/NoLieWithBTC/status/1913357401509573042
Recalling Yes Minister, the phrase should be "tariff supremo"
A better phrasing: men who have been trying for years to erase women as a sex class and appropriate their rights have finally been told "no" and, being men, they're angry. And one day, the "left" will come to see that trans ideology was a great gift to the right.
Lunch with a lifelong Democrat who campaigned for Kamala, Biden, Obama.
Furious with the Democrats for gifting the election to Trump. “Trump is for you. Kamala is for they/them” - won it for them he reckoned. And they’re “the problem”.
There has been extensive polling on why people voted as they did in the US presidential election. This has found that transgender rights was not a big issue. Here’s a poll from before the election: https://news.gallup.com/poll/651719/economy-important-issue-2024-presidential-vote.aspx They offered 22 topics. The top 3 were the economy, democracy in the US, and terrorism. Transgender rights came 22nd out of 22.
If people were thinking about transgender rights, it helped Harris. Here’s an exit poll of swing voters: https://navigatorresearch.org/2024-post-election-survey-the-reasons-for-voting-for-trump-and-harris/ Over 23 issues, transgender rights had the second highest proportion saying it was not an issue, but for those who felt it was, more (39%) felt it was a reason to support Harris than Trump (27%).
Whatever the rights and wrongs of the issue, it was not a big factor in Trump’s victory. Trump won because inflation was high.
It's a convenient explanation for the inconvenient coincidence between misogyny and transphobia, though.
Thursday - from some on here (you know who you are):
"How dare Cyclefree think that there's a risk from men who identify as a woman? The silly woman has had her head turned by PR."
Saturday: London - "Men who identify as women turn up in a London square for a mass protest in which they indecently expose themselves (a criminal offence) and commit a public order offence by pissing in the street."
Well done, lads. Well done. Keep it up.
To go back to my previous analogy, do you think that homosexuals teaching in boy's schools is a risk sufficient to ban them from doing so? Or do gay officers pose too much of a risk to make soldiers? I remember many people saying both of those things and indeed some homosexual teachers are also paedophiles. Now I think it's widely accepted that it's unfair to tar all gay people with that brush.
I think the difference is that there would be no benefit in a straight man pretending to be gay in order to benefit somehow in the examples you give, whereas plenty of pretend transwomen have been able to game the system. Prisons for one, sport another
What proportion/% of "pretend transwomen" do you think are doing it purely for the purposes of "gaming the system"?
The "Gotcha" question about transmen ie women who identify as men has been dealt with in the judgment - paragraph 221.
In practice, my "butch" looking female friends rarely get challenged because women are well able to distinguish between men and women and, on the rare occasions, they are, it all gets easily sorted in a minute or two. They have never got offended at being challenged because, as women, they understand precisely why it is done.
A better phrasing: men who have been trying for years to erase women as a sex class and appropriate their rights have finally been told "no" and, being men, they're angry. And one day, the "left" will come to see that trans ideology was a great gift to the right.
Lunch with a lifelong Democrat who campaigned for Kamala, Biden, Obama.
Furious with the Democrats for gifting the election to Trump. “Trump is for you. Kamala is for they/them” - won it for them he reckoned. And they’re “the problem”.
Remind us, who was in power in Britain at the time? Those bloody Tory lefties, I'll be bound.
Yep, they got it wrong too.
At least he is acknowledging the current tories as a party of the left
Thursday - from some on here (you know who you are):
"How dare Cyclefree think that there's a risk from men who identify as a woman? The silly woman has had her head turned by PR."
Saturday: London - "Men who identify as women turn up in a London square for a mass protest in which they indecently expose themselves (a criminal offence) and commit a public order offence by pissing in the street."
Well done, lads. Well done. Keep it up.
This is a deliberate misreading of what I said Cyclefree: In fact I accused you of knowingly using those awful people for PR purposes, which is entirely different from your suggestion that I had infantilised you in the way you describe.
I think you know exactly what you’re doing & would never describe you in such terms.
A better phrasing: men who have been trying for years to erase women as a sex class and appropriate their rights have finally been told "no" and, being men, they're angry. And one day, the "left" will come to see that trans ideology was a great gift to the right.
Lunch with a lifelong Democrat who campaigned for Kamala, Biden, Obama.
Furious with the Democrats for gifting the election to Trump. “Trump is for you. Kamala is for they/them” - won it for them he reckoned. And they’re “the problem”.
Remind us, who was in power in Britain at the time? Those bloody Tory lefties, I'll be bound.
I think Carlotta's mate's election take is pretty poor, FWIW. But irrespective of the truth or otherwise of that, it's undeniable that transphobia goes hand in hand with misogyny in US politics.
Did you campaign in the US election on the ground?
I doubt if there is any sport where men's physiology does not give them an advantage.
And if there is such a sport then there is no need to have women's and men's categories at all. Just one competition where all participate. So the question of excluding groups would not arise.
But - forgive the cynicism - what we have instead is second or third rate sportsmen who can't win in the male category declare themselves women and proceed to cheat women out of places, prizes, opportunities and money/sponsorship opportunities.
This was my problem with your otherwise excellent previous thread. I agree that trans women shouldn't be allowed to compete with biological women in most sports but what evidence do you have other than prejudice that people are deliberately declaring themselves a trans women to gain an advantage in professional sport?
Let's see: Lia Thomas, swimmer. As a man, got nowhere in competitions. As a woman won loads, upset female competitors by wandering round the changing rooms naked with an erect penis (according to reports) and is now in a heterosexual relationship with a woman planning to start a family.
It's not prejudice. It's scepticism about the motives of men who appear to want to have their cake and eat it and have been enabled by sporting authorities with little regard for fairness in sport or the interests of female athletes.
Nothing you have just said is anything other than opinion though. The changing room story has no credible source. As I said I don't think that trans women should compete against biological females in many sports but the fact that Lia Thomas got further in competitions as a trans woman than as a man doesn't demonstrate any malign intent on her part. I'm sorry but your scepticism does sound a lot like prejudice to me.
Thursday - from some on here (you know who you are):
"How dare Cyclefree think that there's a risk from men who identify as a woman? The silly woman has had her head turned by PR."
Saturday: London - "Men who identify as women turn up in a London square for a mass protest in which they indecently expose themselves (a criminal offence) and commit a public order offence by pissing in the street."
Well done, lads. Well done. Keep it up.
To go back to my previous analogy, do you think that homosexuals teaching in boy's schools is a risk sufficient to ban them from doing so? Or do gay officers pose too much of a risk to make soldiers? I remember many people saying both of those things and indeed some homosexual teachers are also paedophiles. Now I think it's widely accepted that it's unfair to tar all gay people with that brush.
I think the difference is that there would be no benefit in a straight man pretending to be gay in order to benefit somehow in the examples you give, whereas plenty of pretend transwomen have been able to game the system. Prisons for one, sport another
What proportion/% of "pretend transwomen" do you think are doing it purely for the purposes of "gaming the system"?
100%ish
Why would anyone pretend to be a transwoman if it wasn't to game the system?
Enjoying an uproarious Rocky Horror Picture Show at the Theatre Royal Brighton, odd evening out for a transphobe…..mind you they do use forbidden words like “transvestite” and “transsexual”, so there’s that.
Nearly 10% of all London properties are worth at least £1 million. I am a London millionaire. So "30,000 millionaires fleeing the capital in ten years" is not a lot. And were they all fleeing? It seems a small number to me.
This doesn’t sound like it’s just millionaire homeowners.
According to research by the Adam Smith Institute, each of the millionaires who left the capital over the last decade would have paid at least £393,957 in income tax per year.
So not millionaires but people earning over a million each year.
So have the number of London jobs paying over a million each year increased or decreased in that time period ?
If its increased then those 'fleeing' are being replaced by others.
I have tried to post about this many times on PB but usually just get abuse. I deal with a good number of these people leaving the UK and solving certain issues for them.
When I point out how many are leaving it’s not out of joy and counting my money that I make as a result - I genuinely love the UK and want it to be a success but the country is full of people who wilfully refuse to understand that these people are not just people working in a bank on a fat salary but entrepreneurs who employ many people, contribute to the tax base in many ways through personal taxation, spending and corporate taxes, on top of employment taxes and the subsequent income tax those employees make.
In the last couple of weeks I have met three people leaving the uk and their combined wealth is well over £4 billion.
This is wealth that will no longer be taxed in the UK. These are people who are moving businesses out and will not be employing in the UK anymore.
Just think about it - if you gave them some special tax rates you would get what is still a large tax take and benefit from the businesses they would continue to operate in the UK.
I know I will get the usual attack on parasites, the “don’t let the door hit their arses on the way out” ignorant bullshit but I don’t care now - I write about it because it’s happening on a large scale - tax money leaving that you will never get back until the UK makes not only the tax regime attractive but drops the envy about wealth.
It’s truly frustrating that I am unable to tell you more about these people because it would highlight what you are losing - not just tax but their businesses and all the future spin offs from them.
Maybe we should introduce the US tax system whereby you have to file a UK tax return to report your worldwide income regardless of where you live and work. The only way to avoid submitting a UK tax return would be to renounce your UK citizenship and take up some other citizenship.
I find it odd that some wealthy people are so sensitive to reducing their very large incomes by paying extra tax that they are willing to give up all that London offers them, including their friends. But that's just me. I wouldn't do it. I don't value huge amounts of income that much. I'm happy as I am.
The US worldwide tax system is not only wrong (because people like Boris Johnson who were born in the US but left as a toddler and have never used US public services are liable to US taxes) but also stupid because it's a big incentive on the most talented to renounce their citizenship if they spend a few years out of the country.
It also wouldn't work here, because America can get tax data from foreign banks because it just about has the muscle necessary to bully them into handing it over. We don't. So people would just ignore it.
You may not understand why the wealthy are fleeing London in droves but they like their money and want more of it - that's why they're wealthy in the first place. And they are not only taking their tax revenue, but they are also taking their consumer spending, so the whole country suffers.
We need to be rolling out the red carpet for the world's most successful and talented, not driving them away to other, wiser countries.
I doubt if there is any sport where men's physiology does not give them an advantage.
And if there is such a sport then there is no need to have women's and men's categories at all. Just one competition where all participate. So the question of excluding groups would not arise.
But - forgive the cynicism - what we have instead is second or third rate sportsmen who can't win in the male category declare themselves women and proceed to cheat women out of places, prizes, opportunities and money/sponsorship opportunities.
This was my problem with your otherwise excellent previous thread. I agree that trans women shouldn't be allowed to compete with biological women in most sports but what evidence do you have other than prejudice that people are deliberately declaring themselves a trans women to gain an advantage in professional sport?
Let's see: Lia Thomas, swimmer. As a man, got nowhere in competitions. As a woman won loads, upset female competitors by wandering round the changing rooms naked with an erect penis (according to reports) and is now in a heterosexual relationship with a woman planning to start a family.
It's not prejudice. It's scepticism about the motives of men who appear to want to have their cake and eat it and have been enabled by sporting authorities with little regard for fairness in sport or the interests of female athletes.
Nothing you have just said is anything other than opinion though. The changing room story has no credible source. As I said I don't think that trans women should compete against biological females in many sports but the fact that Lia Thomas got further in competitions as a trans woman than as a man doesn't demonstrate any malign intent on her part. I'm sorry but your scepticism does sound a lot like prejudice to me.
It is what is called however circumstantial evidence, she was fine as a male until she realised she wasn't going to win anything then suddenly realised she was female. Just like isla bryson didn't realise she was female till just before sentencing
Thursday - from some on here (you know who you are):
"How dare Cyclefree think that there's a risk from men who identify as a woman? The silly woman has had her head turned by PR."
Saturday: London - "Men who identify as women turn up in a London square for a mass protest in which they indecently expose themselves (a criminal offence) and commit a public order offence by pissing in the street."
Well done, lads. Well done. Keep it up.
To go back to my previous analogy, do you think that homosexuals teaching in boy's schools is a risk sufficient to ban them from doing so? Or do gay officers pose too much of a risk to make soldiers? I remember many people saying both of those things and indeed some homosexual teachers are also paedophiles. Now I think it's widely accepted that it's unfair to tar all gay people with that brush.
I think the difference is that there would be no benefit in a straight man pretending to be gay in order to benefit somehow in the examples you give, whereas plenty of pretend transwomen have been able to game the system. Prisons for one, sport another
What proportion/% of "pretend transwomen" do you think are doing it purely for the purposes of "gaming the system"?
100%ish
Why would anyone pretend to be a transwoman if it wasn't to game the system?
Sorry - I'll try to rephrase the question. What proportion of transwomen do you think are just pretending for the purposes of gaming the system?
Thursday - from some on here (you know who you are):
"How dare Cyclefree think that there's a risk from men who identify as a woman? The silly woman has had her head turned by PR."
Saturday: London - "Men who identify as women turn up in a London square for a mass protest in which they indecently expose themselves (a criminal offence) and commit a public order offence by pissing in the street."
Well done, lads. Well done. Keep it up.
To go back to my previous analogy, do you think that homosexuals teaching in boy's schools is a risk sufficient to ban them from doing so? Or do gay officers pose too much of a risk to make soldiers? I remember many people saying both of those things and indeed some homosexual teachers are also paedophiles. Now I think it's widely accepted that it's unfair to tar all gay people with that brush.
I think the difference is that there would be no benefit in a straight man pretending to be gay in order to benefit somehow in the examples you give, whereas plenty of pretend transwomen have been able to game the system. Prisons for one, sport another
What proportion/% of "pretend transwomen" do you think are doing it purely for the purposes of "gaming the system"?
100%ish
Why would anyone pretend to be a transwoman if it wasn't to game the system?
I’ve already worked out that if I’m going to murder a certain person (I’m not going to name him here as I don’t want him to take precautions) I’m either going to lure him to Norway as they have cushy prisons or I’m going to build up a transitioning backstory for myself over the months before I do it so I end up in a women’s prison. I’m going to be seriously popular in one.
Thursday - from some on here (you know who you are):
"How dare Cyclefree think that there's a risk from men who identify as a woman? The silly woman has had her head turned by PR."
Saturday: London - "Men who identify as women turn up in a London square for a mass protest in which they indecently expose themselves (a criminal offence) and commit a public order offence by pissing in the street."
Well done, lads. Well done. Keep it up.
Isn't there a degree of context here. Men are/can be fathers, sons and brothers. The relationship will have an effect on the view. The same goes for mothers, daughters and wives/partners.
Much of the debate seems to be along a singular axis without a thought to the multiple viewpoints an individual might have at any given time.
Thursday - from some on here (you know who you are):
"How dare Cyclefree think that there's a risk from men who identify as a woman? The silly woman has had her head turned by PR."
Saturday: London - "Men who identify as women turn up in a London square for a mass protest in which they indecently expose themselves (a criminal offence) and commit a public order offence by pissing in the street."
Well done, lads. Well done. Keep it up.
To go back to my previous analogy, do you think that homosexuals teaching in boy's schools is a risk sufficient to ban them from doing so? Or do gay officers pose too much of a risk to make soldiers? I remember many people saying both of those things and indeed some homosexual teachers are also paedophiles. Now I think it's widely accepted that it's unfair to tar all gay people with that brush.
I think the difference is that there would be no benefit in a straight man pretending to be gay in order to benefit somehow in the examples you give, whereas plenty of pretend transwomen have been able to game the system. Prisons for one, sport another
What proportion/% of "pretend transwomen" do you think are doing it purely for the purposes of "gaming the system"?
100%ish
Why would anyone pretend to be a transwoman if it wasn't to game the system?
Sorry - I'll try to rephrase the question. What proportion of transwomen do you think are just pretending for the purposes of gaming the system?
Who knows, probably most are genuine, some are gaming the system. However regardless of which I would still posit the rules I stated earlier. I would however amend one thing and that is the 2 year lead up to a grc requiring you to live as a woman and not including things illegal for you to do
Thursday - from some on here (you know who you are):
"How dare Cyclefree think that there's a risk from men who identify as a woman? The silly woman has had her head turned by PR."
Saturday: London - "Men who identify as women turn up in a London square for a mass protest in which they indecently expose themselves (a criminal offence) and commit a public order offence by pissing in the street."
Well done, lads. Well done. Keep it up.
To go back to my previous analogy, do you think that homosexuals teaching in boy's schools is a risk sufficient to ban them from doing so? Or do gay officers pose too much of a risk to make soldiers? I remember many people saying both of those things and indeed some homosexual teachers are also paedophiles. Now I think it's widely accepted that it's unfair to tar all gay people with that brush.
I think the difference is that there would be no benefit in a straight man pretending to be gay in order to benefit somehow in the examples you give, whereas plenty of pretend transwomen have been able to game the system. Prisons for one, sport another
What proportion/% of "pretend transwomen" do you think are doing it purely for the purposes of "gaming the system"?
100%ish
Why would anyone pretend to be a transwoman if it wasn't to game the system?
I am given to understand by twentieth century comedies that this is necessary to escape from the law during a bungled heist. During this wacky escapade a man will, entirely out of character, profess himself enraptured by our disguised protagonist and pursue them implausibly. At some point a sad trombone will be heard.
Nearly 10% of all London properties are worth at least £1 million. I am a London millionaire. So "30,000 millionaires fleeing the capital in ten years" is not a lot. And were they all fleeing? It seems a small number to me.
This doesn’t sound like it’s just millionaire homeowners.
According to research by the Adam Smith Institute, each of the millionaires who left the capital over the last decade would have paid at least £393,957 in income tax per year.
So not millionaires but people earning over a million each year.
So have the number of London jobs paying over a million each year increased or decreased in that time period ?
If its increased then those 'fleeing' are being replaced by others.
I have tried to post about this many times on PB but usually just get abuse. I deal with a good number of these people leaving the UK and solving certain issues for them.
When I point out how many are leaving it’s not out of joy and counting my money that I make as a result - I genuinely love the UK and want it to be a success but the country is full of people who wilfully refuse to understand that these people are not just people working in a bank on a fat salary but entrepreneurs who employ many people, contribute to the tax base in many ways through personal taxation, spending and corporate taxes, on top of employment taxes and the subsequent income tax those employees make.
In the last couple of weeks I have met three people leaving the uk and their combined wealth is well over £4 billion.
This is wealth that will no longer be taxed in the UK. These are people who are moving businesses out and will not be employing in the UK anymore.
Just think about it - if you gave them some special tax rates you would get what is still a large tax take and benefit from the businesses they would continue to operate in the UK.
I know I will get the usual attack on parasites, the “don’t let the door hit their arses on the way out” ignorant bullshit but I don’t care now - I write about it because it’s happening on a large scale - tax money leaving that you will never get back until the UK makes not only the tax regime attractive but drops the envy about wealth.
It’s truly frustrating that I am unable to tell you more about these people because it would highlight what you are losing - not just tax but their businesses and all the future spin offs from them.
Maybe we should introduce the US tax system whereby you have to file a UK tax return to report your worldwide income regardless of where you live and work. The only way to avoid submitting a UK tax return would be to renounce your UK citizenship and take up some other citizenship.
I find it odd that some wealthy people are so sensitive to reducing their very large incomes by paying extra tax that they are willing to give up all that London offers them, including their friends. But that's just me. I wouldn't do it. I don't value huge amounts of income that much. I'm happy as I am.
The US worldwide tax system is not only wrong (because people like Boris Johnson who were born in the US but left as a toddler and have never used US public services are liable to US taxes) but also stupid because it's a big incentive on the most talented to renounce their citizenship if they spend a few years out of the country.
It also wouldn't work here, because America can get tax data from foreign banks because it just about has the muscle necessary to bully them into handing it over. We don't. So people would just ignore it.
You may not understand why the wealthy are fleeing London in droves but they like their money and want more of it - that's why they're wealthy in the first place. And they are not only taking their tax revenue, but they are also taking their consumer spending, so the whole country suffers.
We need to be rolling out the red carpet for the world's most successful and talented, not driving them away to other, wiser countries.
Tax on foreign earnings could certainly be made to work here and should be implemented imo. Those greedy shits who place more value on saving money that they'll never live long enough to spend, over their British citizenship and all the rights that confers, can fuck right off.
Thursday - from some on here (you know who you are):
"How dare Cyclefree think that there's a risk from men who identify as a woman? The silly woman has had her head turned by PR."
Saturday: London - "Men who identify as women turn up in a London square for a mass protest in which they indecently expose themselves (a criminal offence) and commit a public order offence by pissing in the street."
Well done, lads. Well done. Keep it up.
Isn't there a degree of context here. Men are/can be fathers, sons and brothers. The relationship will have an effect on the view. The same goes for mothers, daughters and wives/partners.
Much of the debate seems to be along a singular axis without a thought to the multiple viewpoints an individual might have at any given time.
Sexual abuse wise you are at more danger from male members of your family than anyone else
Thursday - from some on here (you know who you are):
"How dare Cyclefree think that there's a risk from men who identify as a woman? The silly woman has had her head turned by PR."
Saturday: London - "Men who identify as women turn up in a London square for a mass protest in which they indecently expose themselves (a criminal offence) and commit a public order offence by pissing in the street."
Well done, lads. Well done. Keep it up.
To go back to my previous analogy, do you think that homosexuals teaching in boy's schools is a risk sufficient to ban them from doing so? Or do gay officers pose too much of a risk to make soldiers? I remember many people saying both of those things and indeed some homosexual teachers are also paedophiles. Now I think it's widely accepted that it's unfair to tar all gay people with that brush.
I think the difference is that there would be no benefit in a straight man pretending to be gay in order to benefit somehow in the examples you give, whereas plenty of pretend transwomen have been able to game the system. Prisons for one, sport another
What proportion/% of "pretend transwomen" do you think are doing it purely for the purposes of "gaming the system"?
100%ish
Why would anyone pretend to be a transwoman if it wasn't to game the system?
Sorry - I'll try to rephrase the question. What proportion of transwomen do you think are just pretending for the purposes of gaming the system?
I wouldn't know... I don't see why it really matters.
Thursday - from some on here (you know who you are):
"How dare Cyclefree think that there's a risk from men who identify as a woman? The silly woman has had her head turned by PR."
Saturday: London - "Men who identify as women turn up in a London square for a mass protest in which they indecently expose themselves (a criminal offence) and commit a public order offence by pissing in the street."
Well done, lads. Well done. Keep it up.
To go back to my previous analogy, do you think that homosexuals teaching in boy's schools is a risk sufficient to ban them from doing so? Or do gay officers pose too much of a risk to make soldiers? I remember many people saying both of those things and indeed some homosexual teachers are also paedophiles. Now I think it's widely accepted that it's unfair to tar all gay people with that brush.
I think the difference is that there would be no benefit in a straight man pretending to be gay in order to benefit somehow in the examples you give, whereas plenty of pretend transwomen have been able to game the system. Prisons for one, sport another
Yes that's a fair point but the argument I wanted to make was that we used to live in a climate where every gay person was widely seen as a potential risk to children based on fear and a few highly unpleasant individuals. That resulted in misery for thousands of innocent people who just wanted to get on with their lives. I just worry that people are starting to look at trans women with the same level of fear and to see them only as a risk
Nearly 10% of all London properties are worth at least £1 million. I am a London millionaire. So "30,000 millionaires fleeing the capital in ten years" is not a lot. And were they all fleeing? It seems a small number to me.
This doesn’t sound like it’s just millionaire homeowners.
According to research by the Adam Smith Institute, each of the millionaires who left the capital over the last decade would have paid at least £393,957 in income tax per year.
So not millionaires but people earning over a million each year.
So have the number of London jobs paying over a million each year increased or decreased in that time period ?
If its increased then those 'fleeing' are being replaced by others.
I have tried to post about this many times on PB but usually just get abuse. I deal with a good number of these people leaving the UK and solving certain issues for them.
When I point out how many are leaving it’s not out of joy and counting my money that I make as a result - I genuinely love the UK and want it to be a success but the country is full of people who wilfully refuse to understand that these people are not just people working in a bank on a fat salary but entrepreneurs who employ many people, contribute to the tax base in many ways through personal taxation, spending and corporate taxes, on top of employment taxes and the subsequent income tax those employees make.
In the last couple of weeks I have met three people leaving the uk and their combined wealth is well over £4 billion.
This is wealth that will no longer be taxed in the UK. These are people who are moving businesses out and will not be employing in the UK anymore.
Just think about it - if you gave them some special tax rates you would get what is still a large tax take and benefit from the businesses they would continue to operate in the UK.
I know I will get the usual attack on parasites, the “don’t let the door hit their arses on the way out” ignorant bullshit but I don’t care now - I write about it because it’s happening on a large scale - tax money leaving that you will never get back until the UK makes not only the tax regime attractive but drops the envy about wealth.
It’s truly frustrating that I am unable to tell you more about these people because it would highlight what you are losing - not just tax but their businesses and all the future spin offs from them.
Maybe we should introduce the US tax system whereby you have to file a UK tax return to report your worldwide income regardless of where you live and work. The only way to avoid submitting a UK tax return would be to renounce your UK citizenship and take up some other citizenship.
I find it odd that some wealthy people are so sensitive to reducing their very large incomes by paying extra tax that they are willing to give up all that London offers them, including their friends. But that's just me. I wouldn't do it. I don't value huge amounts of income that much. I'm happy as I am.
The US worldwide tax system is not only wrong (because people like Boris Johnson who were born in the US but left as a toddler and have never used US public services are liable to US taxes) but also stupid because it's a big incentive on the most talented to renounce their citizenship if they spend a few years out of the country.
It also wouldn't work here, because America can get tax data from foreign banks because it just about has the muscle necessary to bully them into handing it over. We don't. So people would just ignore it.
You may not understand why the wealthy are fleeing London in droves but they like their money and want more of it - that's why they're wealthy in the first place. And they are not only taking their tax revenue, but they are also taking their consumer spending, so the whole country suffers.
We need to be rolling out the red carpet for the world's most successful and talented, not driving them away to other, wiser countries.
Tax on foreign earnings could certainly be made to work here and should be implemented imo. Those greedy shits who place more value on saving money that they'll never live long enough to spend, over their British citizenship and all the rights that confers, can fuck right off.
Apart from for those people british citizenship is something they merely coincedentally have. Its not important they can easily switch...tax take - 0
I doubt if there is any sport where men's physiology does not give them an advantage.
And if there is such a sport then there is no need to have women's and men's categories at all. Just one competition where all participate. So the question of excluding groups would not arise.
But - forgive the cynicism - what we have instead is second or third rate sportsmen who can't win in the male category declare themselves women and proceed to cheat women out of places, prizes, opportunities and money/sponsorship opportunities.
This was my problem with your otherwise excellent previous thread. I agree that trans women shouldn't be allowed to compete with biological women in most sports but what evidence do you have other than prejudice that people are deliberately declaring themselves a trans women to gain an advantage in professional sport?
Let's see: Lia Thomas, swimmer. As a man, got nowhere in competitions. As a woman won loads, upset female competitors by wandering round the changing rooms naked with an erect penis (according to reports) and is now in a heterosexual relationship with a woman planning to start a family.
It's not prejudice. It's scepticism about the motives of men who appear to want to have their cake and eat it and have been enabled by sporting authorities with little regard for fairness in sport or the interests of female athletes.
I can’t see any reports of Thomas “wandering round the changing rooms naked with an erect penis”. Do you have a source for that?
Despite his undoubted intelligence, Hawking was modest about his gifts. When asked in a 2004 interview with The New York Times what his IQ is, Hawking gave a curt reply: "I have no idea. People who boast about their IQ are losers."
I doubt if there is any sport where men's physiology does not give them an advantage.
And if there is such a sport then there is no need to have women's and men's categories at all. Just one competition where all participate. So the question of excluding groups would not arise.
But - forgive the cynicism - what we have instead is second or third rate sportsmen who can't win in the male category declare themselves women and proceed to cheat women out of places, prizes, opportunities and money/sponsorship opportunities.
This was my problem with your otherwise excellent previous thread. I agree that trans women shouldn't be allowed to compete with biological women in most sports but what evidence do you have other than prejudice that people are deliberately declaring themselves a trans women to gain an advantage in professional sport?
Let's see: Lia Thomas, swimmer. As a man, got nowhere in competitions. As a woman won loads, upset female competitors by wandering round the changing rooms naked with an erect penis (according to reports) and is now in a heterosexual relationship with a woman planning to start a family.
It's not prejudice. It's scepticism about the motives of men who appear to want to have their cake and eat it and have been enabled by sporting authorities with little regard for fairness in sport or the interests of female athletes.
I can’t see any reports of Thomas “wandering round the changing rooms naked with an erect penis”. Do you have a source for that?
I doubt if there is any sport where men's physiology does not give them an advantage.
And if there is such a sport then there is no need to have women's and men's categories at all. Just one competition where all participate. So the question of excluding groups would not arise.
But - forgive the cynicism - what we have instead is second or third rate sportsmen who can't win in the male category declare themselves women and proceed to cheat women out of places, prizes, opportunities and money/sponsorship opportunities.
This was my problem with your otherwise excellent previous thread. I agree that trans women shouldn't be allowed to compete with biological women in most sports but what evidence do you have other than prejudice that people are deliberately declaring themselves a trans women to gain an advantage in professional sport?
Let's see: Lia Thomas, swimmer. As a man, got nowhere in competitions. As a woman won loads, upset female competitors by wandering round the changing rooms naked with an erect penis (according to reports) and is now in a heterosexual relationship with a woman planning to start a family.
It's not prejudice. It's scepticism about the motives of men who appear to want to have their cake and eat it and have been enabled by sporting authorities with little regard for fairness in sport or the interests of female athletes.
I can’t see any reports of Thomas “wandering round the changing rooms naked with an erect penis”. Do you have a source for that?
It would be indecent exposure if they did, so already a criminal offence.
I doubt if there is any sport where men's physiology does not give them an advantage.
And if there is such a sport then there is no need to have women's and men's categories at all. Just one competition where all participate. So the question of excluding groups would not arise.
But - forgive the cynicism - what we have instead is second or third rate sportsmen who can't win in the male category declare themselves women and proceed to cheat women out of places, prizes, opportunities and money/sponsorship opportunities.
This was my problem with your otherwise excellent previous thread. I agree that trans women shouldn't be allowed to compete with biological women in most sports but what evidence do you have other than prejudice that people are deliberately declaring themselves a trans women to gain an advantage in professional sport?
Let's see: Lia Thomas, swimmer. As a man, got nowhere in competitions. As a woman won loads, upset female competitors by wandering round the changing rooms naked with an erect penis (according to reports) and is now in a heterosexual relationship with a woman planning to start a family.
It's not prejudice. It's scepticism about the motives of men who appear to want to have their cake and eat it and have been enabled by sporting authorities with little regard for fairness in sport or the interests of female athletes.
I can’t see any reports of Thomas “wandering round the changing rooms naked with an erect penis”. Do you have a source for that?
It would be indecent exposure if they did, so already a criminal offence.
err this is america....rule of law no longer applies
Comments
https://www.slowboring.com/p/mailbag-the-gender-politics-of-trumponomics
...Were people actually richer in 1965 than in 2025? No, of course not. And no amount of torturing the economic data will make that true. It is also not true that men were richer in 1965 than in 2025. Nor is it true that blue collar men were richer in 1965 than in 2025. But what is true is that the majority of the economic gains over the past 60 years have accrued to women rather than to men. This purely relative loss in status turns out to have some implications for men’s absolute well-being. Women are, as a result of economic empowerment, less desperate to date, marry, or stay married to the average man. Now, of course, nobody is going to come out and say, “I favor policies that would make men somewhat poorer and also make women a lot poorer because I think in this poorer society, girls will be desperate to go out with me.” Because if you said that, you’d sound like an evil moron. So it feels better to convince yourself that people were actually richer 60 years ago and that’s why you’re nostalgic for the good old days. But it’s not true!..
Influencers fuelling misogyny in schools, teachers say
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crm3x92mpdxo
And one day, the "left" will come to see that trans ideology was a great gift to the right.
https://x.com/garylfrancione/status/1913583652274946098
Lunch with a lifelong Democrat who campaigned for Kamala, Biden, Obama.
Furious with the Democrats for gifting the election to Trump. “Trump is for you. Kamala is for they/them” - won it for them he reckoned. And they’re “the problem”.
"How dare Cyclefree think that there's a risk from men who identify as a woman? The silly woman has had her head turned by PR."
Saturday: London - "Men who identify as women turn up in a London square for a mass protest in which they indecently expose themselves (a criminal offence) and commit a public order offence by pissing in the street."
Well done, lads. Well done. Keep it up.
https://x.com/ChrisMcEleny/status/1913199170397012402
I am not suggesting that we normalise men going into women’s changing rooms or toilets willy nilly (lol). I am simply stating a fact that a lot of women are happy for trans women to use women’s changing rooms.
And Wormwood Scrubs
And too many right wing meetings
If PB had an aftershave..
Anyway, I was replying to "You think rabidly enforced single sex bathrooms is going stop rapists?", which I don't think was you. But I do think it would help limit opportunities to rapists/perverts if single sex bathrooms/changing rooms were rabidly enforced
I, as a man, feel obligated to call out transphobia (which is not the same as disagreeing that trans women should have the same rights as biological women) where I see it.
Sandpit, who had a personal stake in the Ukraine conflict was simply not pure enough for the Ukraine ultras here and was hounded off. Shame. Nice guy.
https://x.com/_connieshaw/status/1913586077077549285?s=61
But irrespective of the truth or otherwise of that, it's undeniable that transphobia goes hand in hand with misogyny in US politics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reynhard_Sinaga
It's not prejudice. It's scepticism about the motives of men who appear to want to have their cake and eat it and have been enabled by sporting authorities with little regard for fairness in sport or the interests of female athletes.
I wonder how JD feels about this.
Trump is preparing to make JD Vance the “tariff czar” to deal with the rising prices and other problems that are about to arise because of their tariffs on China.
https://x.com/NoLieWithBTC/status/1913357401509573042
My ex would absolutely crush me in all areas of eventing as she was just much more of a skilful rider and my competitive strength and aggression were actually handicaps.
40,000 fans watched Arsenal lose this afternoon in the Uefa Women's semi-final.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/live/c3v93n0lkgwt
or has it?
If people were thinking about transgender rights, it helped Harris. Here’s an exit poll of swing voters: https://navigatorresearch.org/2024-post-election-survey-the-reasons-for-voting-for-trump-and-harris/ Over 23 issues, transgender rights had the second highest proportion saying it was not an issue, but for those who felt it was, more (39%) felt it was a reason to support Harris than Trump (27%).
Whatever the rights and wrongs of the issue, it was not a big factor in Trump’s victory. Trump won because inflation was high.
In practice, my "butch" looking female friends rarely get challenged because women are well able to distinguish between men and women and, on the rare occasions, they are, it all gets easily sorted in a minute or two. They have never got offended at being challenged because, as women, they understand precisely why it is done.
I think you know exactly what you’re doing & would never describe you in such terms.
Why would anyone pretend to be a transwoman if it wasn't to game the system?
It also wouldn't work here, because America can get tax data from foreign banks because it just about has the muscle necessary to bully them into handing it over. We don't. So people would just ignore it.
You may not understand why the wealthy are fleeing London in droves but they like their money and want more of it - that's why they're wealthy in the first place. And they are not only taking their tax revenue, but they are also taking their consumer spending, so the whole country suffers.
We need to be rolling out the red carpet for the world's most successful and talented, not driving them away to other, wiser countries.
Much of the debate seems to be along a singular axis without a thought to the multiple viewpoints an individual might have at any given time.
https://x.com/skycricket/status/1913629574904086792?s=61
Despite his undoubted intelligence, Hawking was modest about his gifts. When asked in a 2004 interview with The New York Times what his IQ is, Hawking gave a curt reply: "I have no idea. People who boast about their IQ are losers."
https://www.newsweek.com/what-stephen-hawkings-iq-score-late-physicist-called-people-who-care-losers-843895
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2023/08/09/riley_gaines_to_bill_maher_lia_thomas_walked_around_the_locker_room_naked_we_cant_unsee_it.html
https://www.reddit.com/r/benshapiro/comments/seunrf/lia_thomas_upenn_teammate_says_trans_swimmer/
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11215537/Swimmer-lost-NCAA-race-Lia-Thomas-recalls-athlete-displaying-penis-female-locker-room.html