That looks like the Seceda ridge, above Ortisei? I did that hike in one of the pandemic years, when you needed a stack of paperwork and tests to travel, and hardly anybody did. That looks horrendous, although I’d only go there in May, or at a push late September, not midsummer.
Ok so turns out ‘Your Party’ *is* the name of this new political party, but only on an interim basis until they decide on another name during the founding process of the party 🤔
It looks more like Your Party is the name of the movement to set up a new party.
Lots of sarcastic comments here, but I'm not sure it's the target audience. What strikes me most about the launch statement is that most of the programme is being left to the launch conference, avoiding one possible trap (defining everything too early) and widening another (a chaotic conference). There is certainly a gap in the market for an effective left-wing party. A lot of potential supporters will want to see more before deciding whether to get involved; it's not obviously bonkers, but quite cautious.
I agree that there is a gap in the market for a left-wing party. But don't you fear, as I do, that the main beneficiaries of a new Corbyn/Sultana party will be the right-wing parties, particularly Reform? Labour is already shedding votes to the Greens and various independents - it will shed more to the new party, splitting the left/centre-left further.
And if your answer is yes, but that's Labour's fault for being too right-wing, then I'd agree, up to a point. But if Labour shift to the left to appease that flank, Reform may hoover up more of the red wall, w/c Labour vote. It's quite a dilemma.
If the Right is anything to judge by, there is a gap for about 17 parties on the left .
But if we start with one, there will soon be at least 6.
Following an intervention from Jane Russell about misgendering, the judge asks Naomi Cunningham if she would like time to reflect. Naomi replies crisply, “no thank you”.
I assume Naomi Cunningham is the lawyer for Sandie Peggie. Who is Jane Russell and what is the name of the judge?
Jane Russel is the lawyer for NHS Fife and unbelievably Dr Upton too.
Its been hilarious with witness after witness forgetting to refer to Upton as she...
The upshot of today is the internal investigation was compromised and badly handled. There is also a strong suggestion that NHS Fife has yet another hidden letter/email that has not been produced yet.
That (hidden letter/email) may or may not be true, but it's irrelevant. The devolution of the case into procedural points distracts from the central points[0], which are below.
i) Was Dr Beth Upton (BU) entitled to be in the room?
ii) Was Nurse Sandie Peggie (SP) entitled to object to her presence?
@Cyclefree made a detailed post earlier (https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/comment/5274125/#Comment_5274125 ) which described the encounter from SP's POV that BU was a man and then questioned[1] BU's motive. This illustrates the crux of the case: can a man become a woman and if so under what circs? BU believed that she could and had. SP believed that he couldn't and hadn't. Everything flows from there and everybody on here is interpreting the situation depending on their stance.
UK is in an awkward situation. Gender reassignment is a protected characteristic. Gender criticality has acquired a protected status via the protected status of belief. Until we sort out how to handle cases when the two conflict, we will be in trouble. The pre-Supreme Court stance veered too much into "bearded men in dress" territory, the post-Supreme Court stance will veer too much into "I see a trans: call the watch!" territory. As Brexit and Covid established, the UK cannot handle anything without going to extremes.
Notes
[0] There is a subsidiary point of was there something wrong with the manner of SP objection, which I will not deal with here because I don't know enough.
[1] "...That does suggest that he wanted her to be present. Why? If his concern was simply to change as the woman he claims to be why did he need another woman to watch him? Or be present? And why did he want to be present while the nurse changed and washed?..."
I think you are missing the point about the tribunal. Its very much the case that the claimant is making the case that NHS Fife conspired with Dr Upton to frame Peggie. All the details of how procedures were not followed correctly, the failure to produce relevant emails/letters etc. The collusion with Upton. None of this was offered to Peggie. No one in the management team showed her any kindness. Its clear that Peggie was accused of not believing a man could become a woman (something I share) and that this was against the orthodoxy. And so an unblemished 30 year career would be ended.
You will note that the NHS Fife investigation has concluded that Peggie has no case to answer.
Lots of sarcastic comments here, but I'm not sure it's the target audience. What strikes me most about the launch statement is that most of the programme is being left to the launch conference, avoiding one possible trap (defining everything too early) and widening another (a chaotic conference). There is certainly a gap in the market for an effective left-wing party. A lot of potential supporters will want to see more before deciding whether to get involved; it's not obviously bonkers, but quite cautious.
I agree that there is a gap in the market for a left-wing party. But don't you fear, as I do, that the main beneficiaries of a new Corbyn/Sultana party will be the right-wing parties, particularly Reform? Labour is already shedding votes to the Greens and various independents - it will shed more to the new party, splitting the left/centre-left further.
And if your answer is yes, but that's Labour's fault for being too right-wing, then I'd agree, up to a point. But if Labour shift to the left to appease that flank, Reform may hoover up more of the red wall, w/c Labour vote. It's quite a dilemma.
It's only function will be to remove several hundred Labour votes per constituency which might be the difference between a Labour MP or a Conservative MP. So "Your Party" gets hardly any MPs but furnishes dozens and dozens of RefConners.
Ok so turns out ‘Your Party’ *is* the name of this new political party, but only on an interim basis until they decide on another name during the founding process of the party 🤔
It looks more like Your Party is the name of the movement to set up a new party.
Following an intervention from Jane Russell about misgendering, the judge asks Naomi Cunningham if she would like time to reflect. Naomi replies crisply, “no thank you”.
I assume Naomi Cunningham is the lawyer for Sandie Peggie. Who is Jane Russell and what is the name of the judge?
Jane Russel is the lawyer for NHS Fife and unbelievably Dr Upton too.
Its been hilarious with witness after witness forgetting to refer to Upton as she...
The upshot of today is the internal investigation was compromised and badly handled. There is also a strong suggestion that NHS Fife has yet another hidden letter/email that has not been produced yet.
That (hidden letter/email) may or may not be true, but it's irrelevant. The devolution of the case into procedural points distracts from the central points[0], which are below.
i) Was Dr Beth Upton (BU) entitled to be in the room?
ii) Was Nurse Sandie Peggie (SP) entitled to object to her presence?
@Cyclefree made a detailed post earlier (https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/comment/5274125/#Comment_5274125 ) which described the encounter from SP's POV that BU was a man and then questioned[1] BU's motive. This illustrates the crux of the case: can a man become a woman and if so under what circs? BU believed that she could and had. SP believed that he couldn't and hadn't. Everything flows from there and everybody on here is interpreting the situation depending on their stance.
UK is in an awkward situation. Gender reassignment is a protected characteristic. Gender criticality has acquired a protected status via the protected status of belief. Until we sort out how to handle cases when the two conflict, we will be in trouble. The pre-Supreme Court stance veered too much into "bearded men in dress" territory, the post-Supreme Court stance will veer too much into "I see a trans: call the watch!" territory. As Brexit and Covid established, the UK cannot handle anything without going to extremes.
Notes
[0] There is a subsidiary point of was there something wrong with the manner of SP objection, which I will not deal with here because I don't know enough.
[1] "...That does suggest that he wanted her to be present. Why? If his concern was simply to change as the woman he claims to be why did he need another woman to watch him? Or be present? And why did he want to be present while the nurse changed and washed?..."
You are right but in the case of changing rooms in the NHS, I wish all sides would forget their principles and provide better changing facilities for all, including (and especially) patients.
That looks like the Seceda ridge, above Ortisei? I did that hike in one of the pandemic years, when you needed a stack of paperwork and tests to travel, and hardly anybody did. That looks horrendous, although I’d only go there in May, or at a push late September, not midsummer.
Reminds me of ascending Snowdon in the 90's with my then girlfriend. Arrived near the summit after walking to find the summit rammed with folk who had sat on their arses on the train...
This is the holocaust all over again. This time done by Jews.
Oh, but you who philosophize, disgrace and criticize all fears Bury the rag deep in your face for now's the time for your tears
It's horrendous. The Israelis have slaughtered more civilians in Gaza in two years than the Nazis killed in Bergen Belsen in four. And we're still listening to the tape of Richard Attenborough's heartbreaking broadcast 80 years on.
If you want a serious debate, rather than a rant - what do you honestly think the Gazans would do to Israeli Jews, given the chance?
And how do you see this being solved? What should Israel do, to bring this to a humane resolution?
Meh. You're apologising for genocide. There may not be a solution. There may not be a resolution. That doesn't make mass starvation okay.
F off. I'm not apologising. I'm just not gonna sit here and bleat, whine and virtuously signal my outrage, performatively. There needs to be a solution. The only solution that can satisfy all sides, at this late appalling stage, is what Trump said. Mad as that sounds
Fair enough. I read implicit justification for what David linked to in your post. If that was my misread, I apologise.
I think seeking solutions to the bigger problem at this stage is a fool's game, if it serves as any distraction at all from solving the immediate problem of forcing Israel and Egypt to let aid in so that fewer innocent people starve.
I wanted to make a proper apology for my post to you last night. It was totally uncalled for. I dipped into the thread, had a strong emotional reaction to David's post and then read your reply outside of the context of your other posts on the topic e.g. the one where you agree that young Gazans will inevitably be radicalised by what is currently going on.
Having now read back through the thread it was very clear that I wasn't justified in claiming you were apologising for genocide - I was reading a subtext that just wasn't there. Sorry.
That’s very gracious of you
The thing is I’ve made my feelings clear about this horror for years. I’ve seen Israel - personally, when visiting it - go from fairly admirable democracy to something closer to fascism (apartheid is certainly a valid comparison). But I’ve also witnessed the lurid anti-Semitism of the Palestinians - they really do want to drive the Jews into the sea
How do you solve that? You can’t. The two state idea (esp after October 7) is dead, it’s even more dead after this horrific assault on Gaza - Gazans will justifiably want revenge for generations
The only possible “solution” is Trump’s - even if people hate Trump. Give Gazans loads of money (much more than he suggests) and find them a home elsewhere. Away from Israel
It’s cruel and sad and unjust but I don’t see any other superior route that actually makes Gazan lives better. Or that acknowledges Israel’s now firm refusal to live alongside Palestinians
Hey Ho. I tried. I normally avoid this topic, I shall go back to ignoring it
Where do you send Palestinians?
One of the reasons the region is in the mess it is was that the trauma of the Holocaust understandably led Jews to seek a safe haven and country of their own elsewhere. If Palestinians are moved on to a home elsewhere you repeat the cycle.
I don't think there's any alternative to the hard work of peace-building, one day, one person at a time.
It would have to be away from the Middle East. Either North Africa - which might welcome the injection of investment - or even further. Indonesia?
I know this sounds like dreamland but then it needs a bit of dreaming to fix this
The alternative is more of the same for year after year, decade after decade. Even if the “west” prevails on Israel to let up right now, the Gazans will commit some terrible Jew-killing soon enough, then Israel will go at it again, and this satanic cycle will continue
Who benefits from that? Literally no one. Manufacturers of white phosphorus maybe
You're basically advocating a new Madagascar Plan (which few people realise was originally a pre-war French and Polish scheme) without having any idea where this Madagascar will be. Anywhere capable of supporting such a large population will already be settled, and dropping them into some wilderness and expecting them to build a new Birobidzhan out of nothing isn't realistic or acceptable nowadays.
Besides, tons of Irish left for the States after the various Irish uprisings, and those that became economically successful went on to sponsor and fund terrorism back in their home country for almost a century thereafter. Distance is not a guarantee of peace.
Trump is simply looking at the real estate possibilities of creating a coastal strip, like Florida or coastal NJ, in Gaza, and neither knows nor cares where the people who live there would go.
Well, I had a go at essaying a solution. That might actually work - rather than just venting and ranting and performatively weeping
I’m not saying my solution WILL work. I am saying I cannot see anyone else suggesting any other alternatives
But I shall now shut up on this subject, again. Whenever I get into this issue I am always briskly reminded why I usually avoid it
Time for coffee
How about a one-state solution. Palestinians need work and Israel needs the workers. Just call everyone Israeli and give them a vote. Let the democratic will of all of them make the decisions without the continued interference from outside.
It will deal a blow to the munitions industry but it may be worth it.
The inconsistent triad.
Most Israelis want a state that is Jewish, democratic and stretches from the Jordan to the Med.*
But only any two of those are possible.
1) If it's Jewish and covers the whole of the old mandate, it can't be democratic.
2) If it covers the whole of the old mandate and is democratic, it won't be Jewish.
3) If it's Jewish and democratic, therefore, it cannot be all of the old mandate.
Your proposal would conflict with 2.
*Avoiding a certain rather loaded phrase,
Plenty of Arabs, Druze and Bedouin living in this Jewish State as I recall, though the Bedouin get a hard time from the settlers. Seems to be another self-imposed barrier to living in peace.
One state would see the removal of the wall that stops people moving freely. An immense waste of human time and energy in queuing at the border for the workers.
If the roads that criss-cross the West Bank were open to all, there would be another boost to tourism, agriculture, transport etc. For a supposedly smart population, they have a way of causing themselves a lot of grief - or more accurately allowing others to create the grief for them.
A unified Israel would be an amazing economic powerhouse in the region if outsiders were removed from the equation.
It's just not going to happen, which is why I asked for solutions in "the realm of the do-able"
They now hate each other. Murderously. On October 7 Gazans showed that many of them will, given the chance, kill every Jew they find, babies and grannies included. Since October 7 Israelis have shown they feel quite similarly genocidal about Gazans
You cannot fix that with kumbaya and "let's hope this works", even if you got the chance (and you would not)
At the same time Israel has nukes and has made it quite apparent it will turn the entire Middle East into glass, including Israel, rather than see the Jewish state extinguished
So now we've all accepted the facts on the ground, rather than fond hopes and wishes, what can be done?
Plenty of hate in the world without it being described a wishing to kill each other. The overwhelming majority of Palestinians just want to get on with their lives and back to working in Israel and the Palestinians territories. Ethnic cleansing falls into the same category of simple solution to complex problems i.e not a solution. Israelis want to live their lives without be paranoid about who is on the bus with them.
Closer to home the same lie was spread about Northern Ireland where the bombers have been marginalised. Hate only gets you so far.
Is ethnic cleansing do-able?
How old are you? 9?
Have you been to Israel/Palestine? I have, several times
The hatred is true and real and it now runs deeper than ever - it has gotten way worse the last 25 years
To get to a position where the two sides trust each other would take maybe two generations of total peace. That's simply not going to happen. And even THEN you'd have the adamant refusal of Jews to give up the Jewish nature of the Jewish state. They want a large Jewish majority in that state, and will not tolerate anything else
Your comment is adolescent pifflewank
If we're kite flying, I would say a Belgium solution would be the best option, two mostly independent countries with a capital with a shared status.
Interesting phone in on this subject on radio Scotland yesterday morning. Not an easy problem to sort, apart from Highlands/Skye and Edinburgh, lots of Scotland has plenty more capacity.
Its easy to put a tourist tax on air b and b costs, much harder for camper vans in remote lay bys
Do what the Norwegians do, and have electronic toll points on the most popular roads, and a differential tariff such that camper vans pay a higher rate.
Lots of sarcastic comments here, but I'm not sure it's the target audience. What strikes me most about the launch statement is that most of the programme is being left to the launch conference, avoiding one possible trap (defining everything too early) and widening another (a chaotic conference). There is certainly a gap in the market for an effective left-wing party. A lot of potential supporters will want to see more before deciding whether to get involved; it's not obviously bonkers, but quite cautious.
I agree that there is a gap in the market for a left-wing party. But don't you fear, as I do, that the main beneficiaries of a new Corbyn/Sultana party will be the right-wing parties, particularly Reform? Labour is already shedding votes to the Greens and various independents - it will shed more to the new party, splitting the left/centre-left further.
And if your answer is yes, but that's Labour's fault for being too right-wing, then I'd agree, up to a point. But if Labour shift to the left to appease that flank, Reform may hoover up more of the red wall, w/c Labour vote. It's quite a dilemma.
I'm clearly not the target audience, but I'd be surprised if it did. More likely it will hoover up the votes of the Gazan Independents rather than take more votes from Labour.
My entirely anecdotal experience is younger voters (sub 25) are breaking for the Greens partly because they see Corbyn as a superannuated old fool and don't understand what the Labour left saw in him.
Lots of sarcastic comments here, but I'm not sure it's the target audience. What strikes me most about the launch statement is that most of the programme is being left to the launch conference, avoiding one possible trap (defining everything too early) and widening another (a chaotic conference). There is certainly a gap in the market for an effective left-wing party. A lot of potential supporters will want to see more before deciding whether to get involved; it's not obviously bonkers, but quite cautious.
Surely it’s simply a matter that, as with every far left movement/party/pressure group, the moment they put down any markers like names or principles or policies, it will split, and split again?
I was reading about Karl Marx and the First International. He was only invited along to the inaugural meeting by a friend, because as an ex-German he would make the gathering seem a bit more, well, international. Because he could write he got himself elected to the small committee that would work out their proposition and principles, then when the committee met, got himself volunteered to do the drafting. So he basically wrote the lot on his own. You’d not get away with that nowadays.
Ok so turns out ‘Your Party’ *is* the name of this new political party, but only on an interim basis until they decide on another name during the founding process of the party 🤔
It looks more like Your Party is the name of the movement to set up a new party.
The final ninety seconds of that clip are absolutely incredible. The Labour MPs are smirking, dumbfounded at Starmer’s answers, while he ends up with his jaw slack, looking like he’s just been told his kids aren’t his
Like I said, I expect Starmer to retire early, like Wilson.
Isn't Starmer already older than Wilson was when he left office?
Yes, and if Starmer were to serve until 2029, he would be our oldest Prime Minister since Jim Callaghan.
As Wilson wryly observed soon after, "It was time to give way to an older man".
This is the holocaust all over again. This time done by Jews.
Oh, but you who philosophize, disgrace and criticize all fears Bury the rag deep in your face for now's the time for your tears
It's horrendous. The Israelis have slaughtered more civilians in Gaza in two years than the Nazis killed in Bergen Belsen in four. And we're still listening to the tape of Richard Attenborough's heartbreaking broadcast 80 years on.
If you want a serious debate, rather than a rant - what do you honestly think the Gazans would do to Israeli Jews, given the chance?
And how do you see this being solved? What should Israel do, to bring this to a humane resolution?
Meh. You're apologising for genocide. There may not be a solution. There may not be a resolution. That doesn't make mass starvation okay.
F off. I'm not apologising. I'm just not gonna sit here and bleat, whine and virtuously signal my outrage, performatively. There needs to be a solution. The only solution that can satisfy all sides, at this late appalling stage, is what Trump said. Mad as that sounds
Fair enough. I read implicit justification for what David linked to in your post. If that was my misread, I apologise.
I think seeking solutions to the bigger problem at this stage is a fool's game, if it serves as any distraction at all from solving the immediate problem of forcing Israel and Egypt to let aid in so that fewer innocent people starve.
I wanted to make a proper apology for my post to you last night. It was totally uncalled for. I dipped into the thread, had a strong emotional reaction to David's post and then read your reply outside of the context of your other posts on the topic e.g. the one where you agree that young Gazans will inevitably be radicalised by what is currently going on.
Having now read back through the thread it was very clear that I wasn't justified in claiming you were apologising for genocide - I was reading a subtext that just wasn't there. Sorry.
That’s very gracious of you
The thing is I’ve made my feelings clear about this horror for years. I’ve seen Israel - personally, when visiting it - go from fairly admirable democracy to something closer to fascism (apartheid is certainly a valid comparison). But I’ve also witnessed the lurid anti-Semitism of the Palestinians - they really do want to drive the Jews into the sea
How do you solve that? You can’t. The two state idea (esp after October 7) is dead, it’s even more dead after this horrific assault on Gaza - Gazans will justifiably want revenge for generations
The only possible “solution” is Trump’s - even if people hate Trump. Give Gazans loads of money (much more than he suggests) and find them a home elsewhere. Away from Israel
It’s cruel and sad and unjust but I don’t see any other superior route that actually makes Gazan lives better. Or that acknowledges Israel’s now firm refusal to live alongside Palestinians
Hey Ho. I tried. I normally avoid this topic, I shall go back to ignoring it
Where do you send Palestinians?
One of the reasons the region is in the mess it is was that the trauma of the Holocaust understandably led Jews to seek a safe haven and country of their own elsewhere. If Palestinians are moved on to a home elsewhere you repeat the cycle.
I don't think there's any alternative to the hard work of peace-building, one day, one person at a time.
It would have to be away from the Middle East. Either North Africa - which might welcome the injection of investment - or even further. Indonesia?
I know this sounds like dreamland but then it needs a bit of dreaming to fix this
The alternative is more of the same for year after year, decade after decade. Even if the “west” prevails on Israel to let up right now, the Gazans will commit some terrible Jew-killing soon enough, then Israel will go at it again, and this satanic cycle will continue
Who benefits from that? Literally no one. Manufacturers of white phosphorus maybe
You're basically advocating a new Madagascar Plan (which few people realise was originally a pre-war French and Polish scheme) without having any idea where this Madagascar will be. Anywhere capable of supporting such a large population will already be settled, and dropping them into some wilderness and expecting them to build a new Birobidzhan out of nothing isn't realistic or acceptable nowadays.
Besides, tons of Irish left for the States after the various Irish uprisings, and those that became economically successful went on to sponsor and fund terrorism back in their home country for almost a century thereafter. Distance is not a guarantee of peace.
Trump is simply looking at the real estate possibilities of creating a coastal strip, like Florida or coastal NJ, in Gaza, and neither knows nor cares where the people who live there would go.
Well, I had a go at essaying a solution. That might actually work - rather than just venting and ranting and performatively weeping
I’m not saying my solution WILL work. I am saying I cannot see anyone else suggesting any other alternatives
But I shall now shut up on this subject, again. Whenever I get into this issue I am always briskly reminded why I usually avoid it
Time for coffee
How about a one-state solution. Palestinians need work and Israel needs the workers. Just call everyone Israeli and give them a vote. Let the democratic will of all of them make the decisions without the continued interference from outside.
It will deal a blow to the munitions industry but it may be worth it.
The inconsistent triad.
Most Israelis want a state that is Jewish, democratic and stretches from the Jordan to the Med.*
But only any two of those are possible.
1) If it's Jewish and covers the whole of the old mandate, it can't be democratic.
2) If it covers the whole of the old mandate and is democratic, it won't be Jewish.
3) If it's Jewish and democratic, therefore, it cannot be all of the old mandate.
Your proposal would conflict with 2.
*Avoiding a certain rather loaded phrase,
Plenty of Arabs, Druze and Bedouin living in this Jewish State as I recall, though the Bedouin get a hard time from the settlers. Seems to be another self-imposed barrier to living in peace.
One state would see the removal of the wall that stops people moving freely. An immense waste of human time and energy in queuing at the border for the workers.
If the roads that criss-cross the West Bank were open to all, there would be another boost to tourism, agriculture, transport etc. For a supposedly smart population, they have a way of causing themselves a lot of grief - or more accurately allowing others to create the grief for them.
A unified Israel would be an amazing economic powerhouse in the region if outsiders were removed from the equation.
It's just not going to happen, which is why I asked for solutions in "the realm of the do-able"
They now hate each other. Murderously. On October 7 Gazans showed that many of them will, given the chance, kill every Jew they find, babies and grannies included. Since October 7 Israelis have shown they feel quite similarly genocidal about Gazans
You cannot fix that with kumbaya and "let's hope this works", even if you got the chance (and you would not)
At the same time Israel has nukes and has made it quite apparent it will turn the entire Middle East into glass, including Israel, rather than see the Jewish state extinguished
So now we've all accepted the facts on the ground, rather than fond hopes and wishes, what can be done?
Plenty of hate in the world without it being described a wishing to kill each other. The overwhelming majority of Palestinians just want to get on with their lives and back to working in Israel and the Palestinians territories. Ethnic cleansing falls into the same category of simple solution to complex problems i.e not a solution. Israelis want to live their lives without be paranoid about who is on the bus with them.
Closer to home the same lie was spread about Northern Ireland where the bombers have been marginalised. Hate only gets you so far.
Is ethnic cleansing do-able?
How old are you? 9?
Have you been to Israel/Palestine? I have, several times
The hatred is true and real and it now runs deeper than ever - it has gotten way worse the last 25 years
To get to a position where the two sides trust each other would take maybe two generations of total peace. That's simply not going to happen. And even THEN you'd have the adamant refusal of Jews to give up the Jewish nature of the Jewish state. They want a large Jewish majority in that state, and will not tolerate anything else
Your comment is adolescent pifflewank
If we're kite flying, I would say a Belgium solution would be the best option, two mostly independent countries with a capital with a shared status.
Interesting phone in on this subject on radio Scotland yesterday morning. Not an easy problem to sort, apart from Highlands/Skye and Edinburgh, lots of Scotland has plenty more capacity.
Its easy to put a tourist tax on air b and b costs, much harder for camper vans in remote lay bys
Do what the Norwegians do, and have electronic toll points on the most popular roads, and a differential tariff such that camper vans pay a higher rate.
Interesting phone in on this subject on radio Scotland yesterday morning. Not an easy problem to sort, apart from Highlands/Skye and Edinburgh, lots of Scotland has plenty more capacity.
Its easy to put a tourist tax on air b and b costs, much harder for camper vans in remote lay bys
Do what the Norwegians do, and have electronic toll points on the most popular roads, and a differential tariff such that camper vans pay a higher rate.
You are Jeremy Clarkson and I claim my £5
Surely Clarkson would have used bazookas to destroy camper vans?
Interesting phone in on this subject on radio Scotland yesterday morning. Not an easy problem to sort, apart from Highlands/Skye and Edinburgh, lots of Scotland has plenty more capacity.
Its easy to put a tourist tax on air b and b costs, much harder for camper vans in remote lay bys
Do what the Norwegians do, and have electronic toll points on the most popular roads, and a differential tariff such that camper vans pay a higher rate.
That looks like the Seceda ridge, above Ortisei? I did that hike in one of the pandemic years, when you needed a stack of paperwork and tests to travel, and hardly anybody did. That looks horrendous, although I’d only go there in May, or at a push late September, not midsummer.
Reminds me of ascending Snowdon in the 90's with my then girlfriend. Arrived near the summit after walking to find the summit rammed with folk who had sat on their arses on the train...
For the same reason don't ever be tempted to struggle up the Appalachian Trail to the summit of Mount Washington.
But the one time I scaled Yr Wyddfa the caff was being rebuilt and the train wasn't running and it was rammed at the top even so.
This is the holocaust all over again. This time done by Jews.
Oh, but you who philosophize, disgrace and criticize all fears Bury the rag deep in your face for now's the time for your tears
It's horrendous. The Israelis have slaughtered more civilians in Gaza in two years than the Nazis killed in Bergen Belsen in four. And we're still listening to the tape of Richard Attenborough's heartbreaking broadcast 80 years on.
If you want a serious debate, rather than a rant - what do you honestly think the Gazans would do to Israeli Jews, given the chance?
And how do you see this being solved? What should Israel do, to bring this to a humane resolution?
Meh. You're apologising for genocide. There may not be a solution. There may not be a resolution. That doesn't make mass starvation okay.
F off. I'm not apologising. I'm just not gonna sit here and bleat, whine and virtuously signal my outrage, performatively. There needs to be a solution. The only solution that can satisfy all sides, at this late appalling stage, is what Trump said. Mad as that sounds
Fair enough. I read implicit justification for what David linked to in your post. If that was my misread, I apologise.
I think seeking solutions to the bigger problem at this stage is a fool's game, if it serves as any distraction at all from solving the immediate problem of forcing Israel and Egypt to let aid in so that fewer innocent people starve.
I wanted to make a proper apology for my post to you last night. It was totally uncalled for. I dipped into the thread, had a strong emotional reaction to David's post and then read your reply outside of the context of your other posts on the topic e.g. the one where you agree that young Gazans will inevitably be radicalised by what is currently going on.
Having now read back through the thread it was very clear that I wasn't justified in claiming you were apologising for genocide - I was reading a subtext that just wasn't there. Sorry.
That’s very gracious of you
The thing is I’ve made my feelings clear about this horror for years. I’ve seen Israel - personally, when visiting it - go from fairly admirable democracy to something closer to fascism (apartheid is certainly a valid comparison). But I’ve also witnessed the lurid anti-Semitism of the Palestinians - they really do want to drive the Jews into the sea
How do you solve that? You can’t. The two state idea (esp after October 7) is dead, it’s even more dead after this horrific assault on Gaza - Gazans will justifiably want revenge for generations
The only possible “solution” is Trump’s - even if people hate Trump. Give Gazans loads of money (much more than he suggests) and find them a home elsewhere. Away from Israel
It’s cruel and sad and unjust but I don’t see any other superior route that actually makes Gazan lives better. Or that acknowledges Israel’s now firm refusal to live alongside Palestinians
Hey Ho. I tried. I normally avoid this topic, I shall go back to ignoring it
Where do you send Palestinians?
One of the reasons the region is in the mess it is was that the trauma of the Holocaust understandably led Jews to seek a safe haven and country of their own elsewhere. If Palestinians are moved on to a home elsewhere you repeat the cycle.
I don't think there's any alternative to the hard work of peace-building, one day, one person at a time.
It would have to be away from the Middle East. Either North Africa - which might welcome the injection of investment - or even further. Indonesia?
I know this sounds like dreamland but then it needs a bit of dreaming to fix this
The alternative is more of the same for year after year, decade after decade. Even if the “west” prevails on Israel to let up right now, the Gazans will commit some terrible Jew-killing soon enough, then Israel will go at it again, and this satanic cycle will continue
Who benefits from that? Literally no one. Manufacturers of white phosphorus maybe
You're basically advocating a new Madagascar Plan (which few people realise was originally a pre-war French and Polish scheme) without having any idea where this Madagascar will be. Anywhere capable of supporting such a large population will already be settled, and dropping them into some wilderness and expecting them to build a new Birobidzhan out of nothing isn't realistic or acceptable nowadays.
Besides, tons of Irish left for the States after the various Irish uprisings, and those that became economically successful went on to sponsor and fund terrorism back in their home country for almost a century thereafter. Distance is not a guarantee of peace.
Trump is simply looking at the real estate possibilities of creating a coastal strip, like Florida or coastal NJ, in Gaza, and neither knows nor cares where the people who live there would go.
Well, I had a go at essaying a solution. That might actually work - rather than just venting and ranting and performatively weeping
I’m not saying my solution WILL work. I am saying I cannot see anyone else suggesting any other alternatives
But I shall now shut up on this subject, again. Whenever I get into this issue I am always briskly reminded why I usually avoid it
Time for coffee
How about a one-state solution. Palestinians need work and Israel needs the workers. Just call everyone Israeli and give them a vote. Let the democratic will of all of them make the decisions without the continued interference from outside.
It will deal a blow to the munitions industry but it may be worth it.
The inconsistent triad.
Most Israelis want a state that is Jewish, democratic and stretches from the Jordan to the Med.*
But only any two of those are possible.
1) If it's Jewish and covers the whole of the old mandate, it can't be democratic.
2) If it covers the whole of the old mandate and is democratic, it won't be Jewish.
3) If it's Jewish and democratic, therefore, it cannot be all of the old mandate.
Your proposal would conflict with 2.
*Avoiding a certain rather loaded phrase,
Plenty of Arabs, Druze and Bedouin living in this Jewish State as I recall, though the Bedouin get a hard time from the settlers. Seems to be another self-imposed barrier to living in peace.
One state would see the removal of the wall that stops people moving freely. An immense waste of human time and energy in queuing at the border for the workers.
If the roads that criss-cross the West Bank were open to all, there would be another boost to tourism, agriculture, transport etc. For a supposedly smart population, they have a way of causing themselves a lot of grief - or more accurately allowing others to create the grief for them.
A unified Israel would be an amazing economic powerhouse in the region if outsiders were removed from the equation.
It's just not going to happen, which is why I asked for solutions in "the realm of the do-able"
They now hate each other. Murderously. On October 7 Gazans showed that many of them will, given the chance, kill every Jew they find, babies and grannies included. Since October 7 Israelis have shown they feel quite similarly genocidal about Gazans
You cannot fix that with kumbaya and "let's hope this works", even if you got the chance (and you would not)
At the same time Israel has nukes and has made it quite apparent it will turn the entire Middle East into glass, including Israel, rather than see the Jewish state extinguished
So now we've all accepted the facts on the ground, rather than fond hopes and wishes, what can be done?
Plenty of hate in the world without it being described a wishing to kill each other. The overwhelming majority of Palestinians just want to get on with their lives and back to working in Israel and the Palestinians territories. Ethnic cleansing falls into the same category of simple solution to complex problems i.e not a solution. Israelis want to live their lives without be paranoid about who is on the bus with them.
Closer to home the same lie was spread about Northern Ireland where the bombers have been marginalised. Hate only gets you so far.
Is ethnic cleansing do-able?
How old are you? 9?
Have you been to Israel/Palestine? I have, several times
The hatred is true and real and it now runs deeper than ever - it has gotten way worse the last 25 years
To get to a position where the two sides trust each other would take maybe two generations of total peace. That's simply not going to happen. And even THEN you'd have the adamant refusal of Jews to give up the Jewish nature of the Jewish state. They want a large Jewish majority in that state, and will not tolerate anything else
Your comment is adolescent pifflewank
If we're kite flying, I would say a Belgium solution would be the best option, two mostly independent countries with a capital with a shared status.
Ok so turns out ‘Your Party’ *is* the name of this new political party, but only on an interim basis until they decide on another name during the founding process of the party 🤔
It looks more like Your Party is the name of the movement to set up a new party.
Interesting phone in on this subject on radio Scotland yesterday morning. Not an easy problem to sort, apart from Highlands/Skye and Edinburgh, lots of Scotland has plenty more capacity.
Its easy to put a tourist tax on air b and b costs, much harder for camper vans in remote lay bys
Do what the Norwegians do, and have electronic toll points on the most popular roads, and a differential tariff such that camper vans pay a higher rate.
You are Jeremy Clarkson and I claim my £5
Clarkson would have added an even higher rate for motorbikes.
That looks like the Seceda ridge, above Ortisei? I did that hike in one of the pandemic years, when you needed a stack of paperwork and tests to travel, and hardly anybody did. That looks horrendous, although I’d only go there in May, or at a push late September, not midsummer.
Reminds me of ascending Snowdon in the 90's with my then girlfriend. Arrived near the summit after walking to find the summit rammed with folk who had sat on their arses on the train...
For the same reason don't ever be tempted to struggle up the Appalachian Trail to the summit of Mount Washington.
But the one time I scaled Yr Wyddfa the caff was being rebuilt and the train wasn't running and it was rammed at the top even so.
I guess its like the honeypots of the Lake District too - hundreds on Helvellyn, Skiddaw etc, far fewer on the remoter fells.
Interesting phone in on this subject on radio Scotland yesterday morning. Not an easy problem to sort, apart from Highlands/Skye and Edinburgh, lots of Scotland has plenty more capacity.
Its easy to put a tourist tax on air b and b costs, much harder for camper vans in remote lay bys
Do what the Norwegians do, and have electronic toll points on the most popular roads, and a differential tariff such that camper vans pay a higher rate.
You are Jeremy Clarkson and I claim my £5
Clarkson would have added an even higher rate for motorbikes.
This is the holocaust all over again. This time done by Jews.
Oh, but you who philosophize, disgrace and criticize all fears Bury the rag deep in your face for now's the time for your tears
It's horrendous. The Israelis have slaughtered more civilians in Gaza in two years than the Nazis killed in Bergen Belsen in four. And we're still listening to the tape of Richard Attenborough's heartbreaking broadcast 80 years on.
If you want a serious debate, rather than a rant - what do you honestly think the Gazans would do to Israeli Jews, given the chance?
And how do you see this being solved? What should Israel do, to bring this to a humane resolution?
Meh. You're apologising for genocide. There may not be a solution. There may not be a resolution. That doesn't make mass starvation okay.
F off. I'm not apologising. I'm just not gonna sit here and bleat, whine and virtuously signal my outrage, performatively. There needs to be a solution. The only solution that can satisfy all sides, at this late appalling stage, is what Trump said. Mad as that sounds
Fair enough. I read implicit justification for what David linked to in your post. If that was my misread, I apologise.
I think seeking solutions to the bigger problem at this stage is a fool's game, if it serves as any distraction at all from solving the immediate problem of forcing Israel and Egypt to let aid in so that fewer innocent people starve.
I wanted to make a proper apology for my post to you last night. It was totally uncalled for. I dipped into the thread, had a strong emotional reaction to David's post and then read your reply outside of the context of your other posts on the topic e.g. the one where you agree that young Gazans will inevitably be radicalised by what is currently going on.
Having now read back through the thread it was very clear that I wasn't justified in claiming you were apologising for genocide - I was reading a subtext that just wasn't there. Sorry.
That’s very gracious of you
The thing is I’ve made my feelings clear about this horror for years. I’ve seen Israel - personally, when visiting it - go from fairly admirable democracy to something closer to fascism (apartheid is certainly a valid comparison). But I’ve also witnessed the lurid anti-Semitism of the Palestinians - they really do want to drive the Jews into the sea
How do you solve that? You can’t. The two state idea (esp after October 7) is dead, it’s even more dead after this horrific assault on Gaza - Gazans will justifiably want revenge for generations
The only possible “solution” is Trump’s - even if people hate Trump. Give Gazans loads of money (much more than he suggests) and find them a home elsewhere. Away from Israel
It’s cruel and sad and unjust but I don’t see any other superior route that actually makes Gazan lives better. Or that acknowledges Israel’s now firm refusal to live alongside Palestinians
Hey Ho. I tried. I normally avoid this topic, I shall go back to ignoring it
Where do you send Palestinians?
One of the reasons the region is in the mess it is was that the trauma of the Holocaust understandably led Jews to seek a safe haven and country of their own elsewhere. If Palestinians are moved on to a home elsewhere you repeat the cycle.
I don't think there's any alternative to the hard work of peace-building, one day, one person at a time.
It would have to be away from the Middle East. Either North Africa - which might welcome the injection of investment - or even further. Indonesia?
I know this sounds like dreamland but then it needs a bit of dreaming to fix this
The alternative is more of the same for year after year, decade after decade. Even if the “west” prevails on Israel to let up right now, the Gazans will commit some terrible Jew-killing soon enough, then Israel will go at it again, and this satanic cycle will continue
Who benefits from that? Literally no one. Manufacturers of white phosphorus maybe
You're basically advocating a new Madagascar Plan (which few people realise was originally a pre-war French and Polish scheme) without having any idea where this Madagascar will be. Anywhere capable of supporting such a large population will already be settled, and dropping them into some wilderness and expecting them to build a new Birobidzhan out of nothing isn't realistic or acceptable nowadays.
Besides, tons of Irish left for the States after the various Irish uprisings, and those that became economically successful went on to sponsor and fund terrorism back in their home country for almost a century thereafter. Distance is not a guarantee of peace.
Trump is simply looking at the real estate possibilities of creating a coastal strip, like Florida or coastal NJ, in Gaza, and neither knows nor cares where the people who live there would go.
Well, I had a go at essaying a solution. That might actually work - rather than just venting and ranting and performatively weeping
I’m not saying my solution WILL work. I am saying I cannot see anyone else suggesting any other alternatives
But I shall now shut up on this subject, again. Whenever I get into this issue I am always briskly reminded why I usually avoid it
Time for coffee
How about a one-state solution. Palestinians need work and Israel needs the workers. Just call everyone Israeli and give them a vote. Let the democratic will of all of them make the decisions without the continued interference from outside.
It will deal a blow to the munitions industry but it may be worth it.
The inconsistent triad.
Most Israelis want a state that is Jewish, democratic and stretches from the Jordan to the Med.*
But only any two of those are possible.
1) If it's Jewish and covers the whole of the old mandate, it can't be democratic.
2) If it covers the whole of the old mandate and is democratic, it won't be Jewish.
3) If it's Jewish and democratic, therefore, it cannot be all of the old mandate.
Your proposal would conflict with 2.
*Avoiding a certain rather loaded phrase,
Do most Israelis want a state that stretches from the Jordan to the Med? Many are happy with the 1967 borders; many are expansionist and want more (Gaza, West Bank, some of Lebanon, some of Syria). I'm not certain how the polling falls.
I'm hoping to visit the Isonzo in October, which is not that far away.
Go up to Livek, from where there some relatively short walks both to amazing viewpoints, and to the WW1 spots where a young Rommel first made his name. The down to the little museum in Kobarid.
Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. Fool me every damn time ... I'm a GOP 'moderate'.
GOP Sen. Lisa Murkowski says she feels “cheated” after winning clean energy concessions in Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill” for her vote, only to see him undercut it days later with an executive order:
Ok so turns out ‘Your Party’ *is* the name of this new political party, but only on an interim basis until they decide on another name during the founding process of the party 🤔
It looks more like Your Party is the name of the movement to set up a new party.
This is the holocaust all over again. This time done by Jews.
Oh, but you who philosophize, disgrace and criticize all fears Bury the rag deep in your face for now's the time for your tears
It's horrendous. The Israelis have slaughtered more civilians in Gaza in two years than the Nazis killed in Bergen Belsen in four. And we're still listening to the tape of Richard Attenborough's heartbreaking broadcast 80 years on.
If you want a serious debate, rather than a rant - what do you honestly think the Gazans would do to Israeli Jews, given the chance?
And how do you see this being solved? What should Israel do, to bring this to a humane resolution?
Meh. You're apologising for genocide. There may not be a solution. There may not be a resolution. That doesn't make mass starvation okay.
F off. I'm not apologising. I'm just not gonna sit here and bleat, whine and virtuously signal my outrage, performatively. There needs to be a solution. The only solution that can satisfy all sides, at this late appalling stage, is what Trump said. Mad as that sounds
Fair enough. I read implicit justification for what David linked to in your post. If that was my misread, I apologise.
I think seeking solutions to the bigger problem at this stage is a fool's game, if it serves as any distraction at all from solving the immediate problem of forcing Israel and Egypt to let aid in so that fewer innocent people starve.
I wanted to make a proper apology for my post to you last night. It was totally uncalled for. I dipped into the thread, had a strong emotional reaction to David's post and then read your reply outside of the context of your other posts on the topic e.g. the one where you agree that young Gazans will inevitably be radicalised by what is currently going on.
Having now read back through the thread it was very clear that I wasn't justified in claiming you were apologising for genocide - I was reading a subtext that just wasn't there. Sorry.
That’s very gracious of you
The thing is I’ve made my feelings clear about this horror for years. I’ve seen Israel - personally, when visiting it - go from fairly admirable democracy to something closer to fascism (apartheid is certainly a valid comparison). But I’ve also witnessed the lurid anti-Semitism of the Palestinians - they really do want to drive the Jews into the sea
How do you solve that? You can’t. The two state idea (esp after October 7) is dead, it’s even more dead after this horrific assault on Gaza - Gazans will justifiably want revenge for generations
The only possible “solution” is Trump’s - even if people hate Trump. Give Gazans loads of money (much more than he suggests) and find them a home elsewhere. Away from Israel
It’s cruel and sad and unjust but I don’t see any other superior route that actually makes Gazan lives better. Or that acknowledges Israel’s now firm refusal to live alongside Palestinians
Hey Ho. I tried. I normally avoid this topic, I shall go back to ignoring it
Where do you send Palestinians?
One of the reasons the region is in the mess it is was that the trauma of the Holocaust understandably led Jews to seek a safe haven and country of their own elsewhere. If Palestinians are moved on to a home elsewhere you repeat the cycle.
I don't think there's any alternative to the hard work of peace-building, one day, one person at a time.
It would have to be away from the Middle East. Either North Africa - which might welcome the injection of investment - or even further. Indonesia?
I know this sounds like dreamland but then it needs a bit of dreaming to fix this
The alternative is more of the same for year after year, decade after decade. Even if the “west” prevails on Israel to let up right now, the Gazans will commit some terrible Jew-killing soon enough, then Israel will go at it again, and this satanic cycle will continue
Who benefits from that? Literally no one. Manufacturers of white phosphorus maybe
You're basically advocating a new Madagascar Plan (which few people realise was originally a pre-war French and Polish scheme) without having any idea where this Madagascar will be. Anywhere capable of supporting such a large population will already be settled, and dropping them into some wilderness and expecting them to build a new Birobidzhan out of nothing isn't realistic or acceptable nowadays.
Besides, tons of Irish left for the States after the various Irish uprisings, and those that became economically successful went on to sponsor and fund terrorism back in their home country for almost a century thereafter. Distance is not a guarantee of peace.
Trump is simply looking at the real estate possibilities of creating a coastal strip, like Florida or coastal NJ, in Gaza, and neither knows nor cares where the people who live there would go.
Well, I had a go at essaying a solution. That might actually work - rather than just venting and ranting and performatively weeping
I’m not saying my solution WILL work. I am saying I cannot see anyone else suggesting any other alternatives
But I shall now shut up on this subject, again. Whenever I get into this issue I am always briskly reminded why I usually avoid it
Time for coffee
How about a one-state solution. Palestinians need work and Israel needs the workers. Just call everyone Israeli and give them a vote. Let the democratic will of all of them make the decisions without the continued interference from outside.
It will deal a blow to the munitions industry but it may be worth it.
The inconsistent triad.
Most Israelis want a state that is Jewish, democratic and stretches from the Jordan to the Med.*
But only any two of those are possible.
1) If it's Jewish and covers the whole of the old mandate, it can't be democratic.
2) If it covers the whole of the old mandate and is democratic, it won't be Jewish.
3) If it's Jewish and democratic, therefore, it cannot be all of the old mandate.
Your proposal would conflict with 2.
*Avoiding a certain rather loaded phrase,
Plenty of Arabs, Druze and Bedouin living in this Jewish State as I recall, though the Bedouin get a hard time from the settlers. Seems to be another self-imposed barrier to living in peace.
One state would see the removal of the wall that stops people moving freely. An immense waste of human time and energy in queuing at the border for the workers.
If the roads that criss-cross the West Bank were open to all, there would be another boost to tourism, agriculture, transport etc. For a supposedly smart population, they have a way of causing themselves a lot of grief - or more accurately allowing others to create the grief for them.
A unified Israel would be an amazing economic powerhouse in the region if outsiders were removed from the equation.
It's just not going to happen, which is why I asked for solutions in "the realm of the do-able"
They now hate each other. Murderously. On October 7 Gazans showed that many of them will, given the chance, kill every Jew they find, babies and grannies included. Since October 7 Israelis have shown they feel quite similarly genocidal about Gazans
You cannot fix that with kumbaya and "let's hope this works", even if you got the chance (and you would not)
At the same time Israel has nukes and has made it quite apparent it will turn the entire Middle East into glass, including Israel, rather than see the Jewish state extinguished
So now we've all accepted the facts on the ground, rather than fond hopes and wishes, what can be done?
Plenty of hate in the world without it being described a wishing to kill each other. The overwhelming majority of Palestinians just want to get on with their lives and back to working in Israel and the Palestinians territories. Ethnic cleansing falls into the same category of simple solution to complex problems i.e not a solution. Israelis want to live their lives without be paranoid about who is on the bus with them.
Closer to home the same lie was spread about Northern Ireland where the bombers have been marginalised. Hate only gets you so far.
Is ethnic cleansing do-able?
How old are you? 9?
Have you been to Israel/Palestine? I have, several times
The hatred is true and real and it now runs deeper than ever - it has gotten way worse the last 25 years
To get to a position where the two sides trust each other would take maybe two generations of total peace. That's simply not going to happen. And even THEN you'd have the adamant refusal of Jews to give up the Jewish nature of the Jewish state. They want a large Jewish majority in that state, and will not tolerate anything else
Your comment is adolescent pifflewank
If we're kite flying, I would say a Belgium solution would be the best option, two mostly independent countries with a capital with a shared status.
That looks like the Seceda ridge, above Ortisei? I did that hike in one of the pandemic years, when you needed a stack of paperwork and tests to travel, and hardly anybody did. That looks horrendous, although I’d only go there in May, or at a push late September, not midsummer.
Reminds me of ascending Snowdon in the 90's with my then girlfriend. Arrived near the summit after walking to find the summit rammed with folk who had sat on their arses on the train...
For the same reason don't ever be tempted to struggle up the Appalachian Trail to the summit of Mount Washington.
But the one time I scaled Yr Wyddfa the caff was being rebuilt and the train wasn't running and it was rammed at the top even so.
I guess its like the honeypots of the Lake District too - hundreds on Helvellyn, Skiddaw etc, far fewer on the remoter fells.
Indeed, the Honeypot Theory is that they are quite useful, drawing less discriminating tourists away from nicer places. Polperro being another example, enticing the crowds away from delightful Polruan.
This is the holocaust all over again. This time done by Jews.
Oh, but you who philosophize, disgrace and criticize all fears Bury the rag deep in your face for now's the time for your tears
It's horrendous. The Israelis have slaughtered more civilians in Gaza in two years than the Nazis killed in Bergen Belsen in four. And we're still listening to the tape of Richard Attenborough's heartbreaking broadcast 80 years on.
If you want a serious debate, rather than a rant - what do you honestly think the Gazans would do to Israeli Jews, given the chance?
And how do you see this being solved? What should Israel do, to bring this to a humane resolution?
Meh. You're apologising for genocide. There may not be a solution. There may not be a resolution. That doesn't make mass starvation okay.
F off. I'm not apologising. I'm just not gonna sit here and bleat, whine and virtuously signal my outrage, performatively. There needs to be a solution. The only solution that can satisfy all sides, at this late appalling stage, is what Trump said. Mad as that sounds
Fair enough. I read implicit justification for what David linked to in your post. If that was my misread, I apologise.
I think seeking solutions to the bigger problem at this stage is a fool's game, if it serves as any distraction at all from solving the immediate problem of forcing Israel and Egypt to let aid in so that fewer innocent people starve.
I wanted to make a proper apology for my post to you last night. It was totally uncalled for. I dipped into the thread, had a strong emotional reaction to David's post and then read your reply outside of the context of your other posts on the topic e.g. the one where you agree that young Gazans will inevitably be radicalised by what is currently going on.
Having now read back through the thread it was very clear that I wasn't justified in claiming you were apologising for genocide - I was reading a subtext that just wasn't there. Sorry.
That’s very gracious of you
The thing is I’ve made my feelings clear about this horror for years. I’ve seen Israel - personally, when visiting it - go from fairly admirable democracy to something closer to fascism (apartheid is certainly a valid comparison). But I’ve also witnessed the lurid anti-Semitism of the Palestinians - they really do want to drive the Jews into the sea
How do you solve that? You can’t. The two state idea (esp after October 7) is dead, it’s even more dead after this horrific assault on Gaza - Gazans will justifiably want revenge for generations
The only possible “solution” is Trump’s - even if people hate Trump. Give Gazans loads of money (much more than he suggests) and find them a home elsewhere. Away from Israel
It’s cruel and sad and unjust but I don’t see any other superior route that actually makes Gazan lives better. Or that acknowledges Israel’s now firm refusal to live alongside Palestinians
Hey Ho. I tried. I normally avoid this topic, I shall go back to ignoring it
Where do you send Palestinians?
One of the reasons the region is in the mess it is was that the trauma of the Holocaust understandably led Jews to seek a safe haven and country of their own elsewhere. If Palestinians are moved on to a home elsewhere you repeat the cycle.
I don't think there's any alternative to the hard work of peace-building, one day, one person at a time.
It would have to be away from the Middle East. Either North Africa - which might welcome the injection of investment - or even further. Indonesia?
I know this sounds like dreamland but then it needs a bit of dreaming to fix this
The alternative is more of the same for year after year, decade after decade. Even if the “west” prevails on Israel to let up right now, the Gazans will commit some terrible Jew-killing soon enough, then Israel will go at it again, and this satanic cycle will continue
Who benefits from that? Literally no one. Manufacturers of white phosphorus maybe
You're basically advocating a new Madagascar Plan (which few people realise was originally a pre-war French and Polish scheme) without having any idea where this Madagascar will be. Anywhere capable of supporting such a large population will already be settled, and dropping them into some wilderness and expecting them to build a new Birobidzhan out of nothing isn't realistic or acceptable nowadays.
Besides, tons of Irish left for the States after the various Irish uprisings, and those that became economically successful went on to sponsor and fund terrorism back in their home country for almost a century thereafter. Distance is not a guarantee of peace.
Trump is simply looking at the real estate possibilities of creating a coastal strip, like Florida or coastal NJ, in Gaza, and neither knows nor cares where the people who live there would go.
Well, I had a go at essaying a solution. That might actually work - rather than just venting and ranting and performatively weeping
I’m not saying my solution WILL work. I am saying I cannot see anyone else suggesting any other alternatives
But I shall now shut up on this subject, again. Whenever I get into this issue I am always briskly reminded why I usually avoid it
Time for coffee
How about a one-state solution. Palestinians need work and Israel needs the workers. Just call everyone Israeli and give them a vote. Let the democratic will of all of them make the decisions without the continued interference from outside.
It will deal a blow to the munitions industry but it may be worth it.
The inconsistent triad.
Most Israelis want a state that is Jewish, democratic and stretches from the Jordan to the Med.*
But only any two of those are possible.
1) If it's Jewish and covers the whole of the old mandate, it can't be democratic.
2) If it covers the whole of the old mandate and is democratic, it won't be Jewish.
3) If it's Jewish and democratic, therefore, it cannot be all of the old mandate.
Your proposal would conflict with 2.
*Avoiding a certain rather loaded phrase,
Do most Israelis want a state that stretches from the Jordan to the Med? Many are happy with the 1967 borders; many are expansionist and want more (Gaza, West Bank, some of Lebanon, some of Syria). I'm not certain how the polling falls.
When I was there a few years ago most of them definitely would have wanted all of it if it had been possible.
The more sensible ones understood that it wasn't. But even a fair number of those were hopeful of annexing the West Bank on its own.
How many of either are left I don't know. My impression even then was that attitudes on both sides were hardening against any form of sharing.
Who is the GOAT footballer? President Trump weighs in (50 seconds of The Rest is Football covering the Trump/Chelsea celebrations) https://www.youtube.com/shorts/CtlMmOYSJok
Lots of sarcastic comments here, but I'm not sure it's the target audience. What strikes me most about the launch statement is that most of the programme is being left to the launch conference, avoiding one possible trap (defining everything too early) and widening another (a chaotic conference). There is certainly a gap in the market for an effective left-wing party. A lot of potential supporters will want to see more before deciding whether to get involved; it's not obviously bonkers, but quite cautious.
I agree that there is a gap in the market for a left-wing party. But don't you fear, as I do, that the main beneficiaries of a new Corbyn/Sultana party will be the right-wing parties, particularly Reform? Labour is already shedding votes to the Greens and various independents - it will shed more to the new party, splitting the left/centre-left further.
And if your answer is yes, but that's Labour's fault for being too right-wing, then I'd agree, up to a point. But if Labour shift to the left to appease that flank, Reform may hoover up more of the red wall, w/c Labour vote. It's quite a dilemma.
Its only function will be to remove several hundred Labour votes per constituency which might be the difference between a Labour MP or a Conservative MP. So "Your Party" gets hardly any MPs but furnishes dozens and dozens of RefConners.
Similar to Reform/BXP/UKIP & the Tories a decade ago, but now the takeover looks odds on. In the meantime it may force Labour into taking more left wing positions, so it works as a pressure group
Who is the GOAT footballer? President Trump weighs in (50 seconds of The Rest is Football covering the Trump/Chelsea celebrations) https://www.youtube.com/shorts/CtlMmOYSJok
Who is the GOAT footballer? President Trump weighs in (50 seconds of The Rest is Football covering the Trump/Chelsea celebrations) https://www.youtube.com/shorts/CtlMmOYSJok
Who is the GOAT footballer? President Trump weighs in (50 seconds of The Rest is Football covering the Trump/Chelsea celebrations) https://www.youtube.com/shorts/CtlMmOYSJok
Graziano Pelle a strange choice from Trump, one excellent season at Southampton but otherwise a journeyman. I would have expected Trump to go for Cruyff and stay orange.
Lots of sarcastic comments here, but I'm not sure it's the target audience. What strikes me most about the launch statement is that most of the programme is being left to the launch conference, avoiding one possible trap (defining everything too early) and widening another (a chaotic conference). There is certainly a gap in the market for an effective left-wing party. A lot of potential supporters will want to see more before deciding whether to get involved; it's not obviously bonkers, but quite cautious.
I agree that there is a gap in the market for a left-wing party. But don't you fear, as I do, that the main beneficiaries of a new Corbyn/Sultana party will be the right-wing parties, particularly Reform? Labour is already shedding votes to the Greens and various independents - it will shed more to the new party, splitting the left/centre-left further.
And if your answer is yes, but that's Labour's fault for being too right-wing, then I'd agree, up to a point. But if Labour shift to the left to appease that flank, Reform may hoover up more of the red wall, w/c Labour vote. It's quite a dilemma.
Its only function will be to remove several hundred Labour votes per constituency which might be the difference between a Labour MP or a Conservative MP. So "Your Party" gets hardly any MPs but furnishes dozens and dozens of RefConners.
Similar to Reform/BXP/UKIP & the Tories a decade ago, but now the takeover looks odds on. In the meantime it may force Labour into taking more left wing positions, so it works as a pressure group
If Starmer falls on his sword in a year and a less divisive leader replaces him I think that is largely true. However Corbyn still does enough damage at the next election to deliver Conservative governments. That's what he does.
The arrogance and self belief is really quite incredible.
Interesting phone in on this subject on radio Scotland yesterday morning. Not an easy problem to sort, apart from Highlands/Skye and Edinburgh, lots of Scotland has plenty more capacity.
Its easy to put a tourist tax on air b and b costs, much harder for camper vans in remote lay bys
It's obvious - put a toll on the NC500, Skye, Glen Etive, free passes for residents.
I'm an energetic advocate for right to roam and wild camping, but "car camping" should require permits a la Loch Lomond and the Trossachs, with facilities provided like cold showers and composting toilets. Councils would make their money back and more.
There should be limited spots available on areas of critical biodiversity like machair, and a link to a registration plate would significantly cut arsehole behaviour. It would still leave plenty of freedom for the adventurous among us, willing to walk 10k+ into the hills.
This works everywhere else (particularly New Zealand) so no reason why it can't be applied here.
There's obviously reasons why authorities haven't done it so far, other than laziness. You could impose a charge fairly easily on the Western Isles, Skye is a little more difficult with the volume of traffic and you'd also need to stop contractors who work on island but live on mainland at the toll points
The ideal system would be one which charged campervans coming on leaving air b and bs able to be taxed via a tourist tax if necessary. Would still leave the problem that loads of vans park in lay bys (putting even less into the economy) and some tip waste at side of road. Beefed up ranger service/police could tackle that.
I've no idea why Western Isles haven't started to clampdown more, Vatersay machar was a free for all when I was there
NC500 clearly needs infrastructure investment, no reason why it couldn't be done by camper tax/road toll.
This is the holocaust all over again. This time done by Jews.
Oh, but you who philosophize, disgrace and criticize all fears Bury the rag deep in your face for now's the time for your tears
It's horrendous. The Israelis have slaughtered more civilians in Gaza in two years than the Nazis killed in Bergen Belsen in four. And we're still listening to the tape of Richard Attenborough's heartbreaking broadcast 80 years on.
If you want a serious debate, rather than a rant - what do you honestly think the Gazans would do to Israeli Jews, given the chance?
And how do you see this being solved? What should Israel do, to bring this to a humane resolution?
Meh. You're apologising for genocide. There may not be a solution. There may not be a resolution. That doesn't make mass starvation okay.
F off. I'm not apologising. I'm just not gonna sit here and bleat, whine and virtuously signal my outrage, performatively. There needs to be a solution. The only solution that can satisfy all sides, at this late appalling stage, is what Trump said. Mad as that sounds
Fair enough. I read implicit justification for what David linked to in your post. If that was my misread, I apologise.
I think seeking solutions to the bigger problem at this stage is a fool's game, if it serves as any distraction at all from solving the immediate problem of forcing Israel and Egypt to let aid in so that fewer innocent people starve.
I wanted to make a proper apology for my post to you last night. It was totally uncalled for. I dipped into the thread, had a strong emotional reaction to David's post and then read your reply outside of the context of your other posts on the topic e.g. the one where you agree that young Gazans will inevitably be radicalised by what is currently going on.
Having now read back through the thread it was very clear that I wasn't justified in claiming you were apologising for genocide - I was reading a subtext that just wasn't there. Sorry.
That’s very gracious of you
The thing is I’ve made my feelings clear about this horror for years. I’ve seen Israel - personally, when visiting it - go from fairly admirable democracy to something closer to fascism (apartheid is certainly a valid comparison). But I’ve also witnessed the lurid anti-Semitism of the Palestinians - they really do want to drive the Jews into the sea
How do you solve that? You can’t. The two state idea (esp after October 7) is dead, it’s even more dead after this horrific assault on Gaza - Gazans will justifiably want revenge for generations
The only possible “solution” is Trump’s - even if people hate Trump. Give Gazans loads of money (much more than he suggests) and find them a home elsewhere. Away from Israel
It’s cruel and sad and unjust but I don’t see any other superior route that actually makes Gazan lives better. Or that acknowledges Israel’s now firm refusal to live alongside Palestinians
Hey Ho. I tried. I normally avoid this topic, I shall go back to ignoring it
There’s whole cities already built in China that they can’t fill with people, that are being knocked down rather than pay the maintainance costs, because they’re never expecting anyone to move in.
It’s probably the least-worst option at this point.
This is the holocaust all over again. This time done by Jews.
Oh, but you who philosophize, disgrace and criticize all fears Bury the rag deep in your face for now's the time for your tears
It's horrendous. The Israelis have slaughtered more civilians in Gaza in two years than the Nazis killed in Bergen Belsen in four. And we're still listening to the tape of Richard Attenborough's heartbreaking broadcast 80 years on.
If you want a serious debate, rather than a rant - what do you honestly think the Gazans would do to Israeli Jews, given the chance?
And how do you see this being solved? What should Israel do, to bring this to a humane resolution?
Meh. You're apologising for genocide. There may not be a solution. There may not be a resolution. That doesn't make mass starvation okay.
F off. I'm not apologising. I'm just not gonna sit here and bleat, whine and virtuously signal my outrage, performatively. There needs to be a solution. The only solution that can satisfy all sides, at this late appalling stage, is what Trump said. Mad as that sounds
Fair enough. I read implicit justification for what David linked to in your post. If that was my misread, I apologise.
I think seeking solutions to the bigger problem at this stage is a fool's game, if it serves as any distraction at all from solving the immediate problem of forcing Israel and Egypt to let aid in so that fewer innocent people starve.
I wanted to make a proper apology for my post to you last night. It was totally uncalled for. I dipped into the thread, had a strong emotional reaction to David's post and then read your reply outside of the context of your other posts on the topic e.g. the one where you agree that young Gazans will inevitably be radicalised by what is currently going on.
Having now read back through the thread it was very clear that I wasn't justified in claiming you were apologising for genocide - I was reading a subtext that just wasn't there. Sorry.
That’s very gracious of you
The thing is I’ve made my feelings clear about this horror for years. I’ve seen Israel - personally, when visiting it - go from fairly admirable democracy to something closer to fascism (apartheid is certainly a valid comparison). But I’ve also witnessed the lurid anti-Semitism of the Palestinians - they really do want to drive the Jews into the sea
How do you solve that? You can’t. The two state idea (esp after October 7) is dead, it’s even more dead after this horrific assault on Gaza - Gazans will justifiably want revenge for generations
The only possible “solution” is Trump’s - even if people hate Trump. Give Gazans loads of money (much more than he suggests) and find them a home elsewhere. Away from Israel
It’s cruel and sad and unjust but I don’t see any other superior route that actually makes Gazan lives better. Or that acknowledges Israel’s now firm refusal to live alongside Palestinians
Hey Ho. I tried. I normally avoid this topic, I shall go back to ignoring it
There’s whole cities already built in China that they can’t fill with people, that are being knocked down rather than pay the maintainance costs, because they’re never expecting anyone to move in.
It’s probably the least-worst option at this point.
That's what Vespasian thought.
Remind me how that's working out?
Edit - although thinking of dates it must have been Hadrian that oversaw the final expulsion.
*Thats a joke; obviously it isn't. Treating Milei as a "template" means deep cuts to all benefits But I don't think she has worked that out.
(There's also the larger question of whether we really want to be another Argentina. I'd want to set my sights a little higher.)
If we were another Argentina, wouldn't that solve the Falklands question?
Badenoch's FT interview and the Milei stuff is just recapitulation of the problem. With which we are all bored. It is true that a smaller state is one of the possible ways forward, though not the only one. That is not the issue. The issue is about what does the smaller state do in spending less on the stuff it currently spends. Where do the cuts come? Badenoch's failure to open up on that issue means it is just talk, and no better than the nonsense of Reform.
SFAICS all she offers (Guardian) is this gem:
"She said her own programme, which she is under pressure to set out in more detail, would be “not about cutting bits of the state” but rather “looking at what the state does, why it does it”.
Following an intervention from Jane Russell about misgendering, the judge asks Naomi Cunningham if she would like time to reflect. Naomi replies crisply, “no thank you”.
I assume Naomi Cunningham is the lawyer for Sandie Peggie. Who is Jane Russell and what is the name of the judge?
Jane Russel is the lawyer for NHS Fife and unbelievably Dr Upton too.
Its been hilarious with witness after witness forgetting to refer to Upton as she...
The upshot of today is the internal investigation was compromised and badly handled. There is also a strong suggestion that NHS Fife has yet another hidden letter/email that has not been produced yet.
That (hidden letter/email) may or may not be true, but it's irrelevant. The devolution of the case into procedural points distracts from the central points[0], which are below.
i) Was Dr Beth Upton (BU) entitled to be in the room?
ii) Was Nurse Sandie Peggie (SP) entitled to object to her presence?
@Cyclefree made a detailed post earlier (https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/comment/5274125/#Comment_5274125 ) which described the encounter from SP's POV that BU was a man and then questioned[1] BU's motive. This illustrates the crux of the case: can a man become a woman and if so under what circs? BU believed that she could and had. SP believed that he couldn't and hadn't. Everything flows from there and everybody on here is interpreting the situation depending on their stance.
UK is in an awkward situation. Gender reassignment is a protected characteristic. Gender criticality has acquired a protected status via the protected status of belief. Until we sort out how to handle cases when the two conflict, we will be in trouble. The pre-Supreme Court stance veered too much into "bearded men in dress" territory, the post-Supreme Court stance will veer too much into "I see a trans: call the watch!" territory. As Brexit and Covid established, the UK cannot handle anything without going to extremes.
Notes
[0] There is a subsidiary point of was there something wrong with the manner of SP objection, which I will not deal with here because I don't know enough.
[1] "...That does suggest that he wanted her to be present. Why? If his concern was simply to change as the woman he claims to be why did he need another woman to watch him? Or be present? And why did he want to be present while the nurse changed and washed?..."
I think you are missing the point about the tribunal. Its very much the case that the claimant is making the case that NHS Fife conspired with Dr Upton to frame Peggie. All the details of how procedures were not followed correctly, the failure to produce relevant emails/letters etc. The collusion with Upton. None of this was offered to Peggie. No one in the management team showed her any kindness. Its clear that Peggie was accused of not believing a man could become a woman (something I share) and that this was against the orthodoxy. And so an unblemished 30 year career would be ended.
You will note that the NHS Fife investigation has concluded that Peggie has no case to answer.
Frame her about what? The central point in this case is the encounter in the changing rooms, and discussions about email chains will not change that. Two people in a room, one thinks they should be there, another does not. That is the schwerpunkt of the case, to adopt a military term. The SC case was about representation on panels but expanded into the meaning of "man" and "woman" according to the EQ2010, and thence via the press into the meaning full stop. Similarly this case will expand into whether a trans woman can occupy a woman-only space. It is that point that excites such interest on PB and real life.
Following an intervention from Jane Russell about misgendering, the judge asks Naomi Cunningham if she would like time to reflect. Naomi replies crisply, “no thank you”.
I assume Naomi Cunningham is the lawyer for Sandie Peggie. Who is Jane Russell and what is the name of the judge?
Jane Russel is the lawyer for NHS Fife and unbelievably Dr Upton too.
Its been hilarious with witness after witness forgetting to refer to Upton as she...
The upshot of today is the internal investigation was compromised and badly handled. There is also a strong suggestion that NHS Fife has yet another hidden letter/email that has not been produced yet.
That (hidden letter/email) may or may not be true, but it's irrelevant. The devolution of the case into procedural points distracts from the central points[0], which are below.
i) Was Dr Beth Upton (BU) entitled to be in the room?
ii) Was Nurse Sandie Peggie (SP) entitled to object to her presence?
@Cyclefree made a detailed post earlier (https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/comment/5274125/#Comment_5274125 ) which described the encounter from SP's POV that BU was a man and then questioned[1] BU's motive. This illustrates the crux of the case: can a man become a woman and if so under what circs? BU believed that she could and had. SP believed that he couldn't and hadn't. Everything flows from there and everybody on here is interpreting the situation depending on their stance.
UK is in an awkward situation. Gender reassignment is a protected characteristic. Gender criticality has acquired a protected status via the protected status of belief. Until we sort out how to handle cases when the two conflict, we will be in trouble. The pre-Supreme Court stance veered too much into "bearded men in dress" territory, the post-Supreme Court stance will veer too much into "I see a trans: call the watch!" territory. As Brexit and Covid established, the UK cannot handle anything without going to extremes.
Notes
[0] There is a subsidiary point of was there something wrong with the manner of SP objection, which I will not deal with here because I don't know enough.
[1] "...That does suggest that he wanted her to be present. Why? If his concern was simply to change as the woman he claims to be why did he need another woman to watch him? Or be present? And why did he want to be present while the nurse changed and washed?..."
It is not a question of belief. It is a question of fact. No-one can change sex. The gender reassignment pc provides protection from discrimination for those who have a diagnosis of dysphoria and actually live as if they were the opposite sex. While it has its critics it does provide a solution which allows those with this condition to live as they want and be protected from discrimination. But both the law and society needs to be based in reality. Since no man can change sex, they should not be in women only spaces. The answer is unisex spaces. And closed cubicles.
The issue of transition and surgery is a red herring. There is no requirement - even for the gender reassignment pc - to take hormones or have surgery. The overwhelming number of men who claim to be trans have not had surgery and have gone through puberty. They are of the male sex and they are exactly the same threat as all other men. There is no evidence to suggest that they are less of a threat and some evidence - though more research is needed - that they may be more of a threat. Allowing a man who claims to be a woman - but who has done nothing more than grow his hair and wear lip gloss and in some cases not even that - into a woman's space is to allow a man in. It puts women at risk and compromises their dignity and privacy.
The SC has not veered into all trans people are witches territory. The issue before it was whether men with a GRC could be said to be legal women as it was accepted by all sides that men without it are not. They ruled that they could not because this would make a nonsense of the relevant legislation, was an absurd interpretation and would compromise the rights of women and, in particular, lesbians. The SC took great care to set out in some detail why those falling within the gender reassignment pc did not lose any rights. The judgment is very clear and worth reading.
One final thing: far too many people who claim to be trans do not fall within the gender reassignment of at all. Some are chancers, some are predators, some are fetishists and yet others are sex offenders using this claim to get an easier ride in prison or access to women.
It would be immensely helpful to those who do genuinely have dysphoria if such people had not embraced or been encouraged to embrace the trans label. Rapists with erect penises and ludicrous wigs claiming to be women have done immense harm to the position of those with dysphoria - as have those politicians and others supporting them.
Following an intervention from Jane Russell about misgendering, the judge asks Naomi Cunningham if she would like time to reflect. Naomi replies crisply, “no thank you”.
I assume Naomi Cunningham is the lawyer for Sandie Peggie. Who is Jane Russell and what is the name of the judge?
Jane Russel is the lawyer for NHS Fife and unbelievably Dr Upton too.
Its been hilarious with witness after witness forgetting to refer to Upton as she...
The upshot of today is the internal investigation was compromised and badly handled. There is also a strong suggestion that NHS Fife has yet another hidden letter/email that has not been produced yet.
That (hidden letter/email) may or may not be true, but it's irrelevant. The devolution of the case into procedural points distracts from the central points[0], which are below.
i) Was Dr Beth Upton (BU) entitled to be in the room?
ii) Was Nurse Sandie Peggie (SP) entitled to object to her presence?
@Cyclefree made a detailed post earlier (https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/comment/5274125/#Comment_5274125 ) which described the encounter from SP's POV that BU was a man and then questioned[1] BU's motive. This illustrates the crux of the case: can a man become a woman and if so under what circs? BU believed that she could and had. SP believed that he couldn't and hadn't. Everything flows from there and everybody on here is interpreting the situation depending on their stance.
UK is in an awkward situation. Gender reassignment is a protected characteristic. Gender criticality has acquired a protected status via the protected status of belief. Until we sort out how to handle cases when the two conflict, we will be in trouble. The pre-Supreme Court stance veered too much into "bearded men in dress" territory, the post-Supreme Court stance will veer too much into "I see a trans: call the watch!" territory. As Brexit and Covid established, the UK cannot handle anything without going to extremes.
Notes
[0] There is a subsidiary point of was there something wrong with the manner of SP objection, which I will not deal with here because I don't know enough.
[1] "...That does suggest that he wanted her to be present. Why? If his concern was simply to change as the woman he claims to be why did he need another woman to watch him? Or be present? And why did he want to be present while the nurse changed and washed?..."
Quality post.
I would add, that since the supreme court ruling two trans women are known to have taken their lives over this, with a third being saved via an 'intervention' (source - Translucent.org.uk). So this debacle has a body count already and we are only a couple of months in. Meanwhile, the number of trans women known to have assaulted cis women in toilets remains... zero. However, there are numerous reports of trans women being beaten up for using the women's loo, as well as cis women being challenged because they don't fit heteronormative beauty standards, see https://www.thepinknews.com/2025/05/07/liberty-hotel-boston-bathroom-lesbian-trans/
So when the likes of Cyclefree use 'he' and 'man' to refer to Beth Upton, it's not a point of principle or a victimless crime. It's very much an act of calculated violence that makes the life of trans people - already a tough life - even tougher, making them even less safe. And as my partner (deceased) was a trans woman, this is something I feel very strongly about, to put it mildly. To have referred to my partner as 'he', or forced her into a male changing room when she was post SRS and in receipt of a GRC would have been degrading, humiliating, and would have put her at direct risk of extreme violence. Yet that is the implied belief of people who use 'he' to refer to trans women. That they should be excluded from all female spaces. And thus put at extraordinary risk.
I don't really give a monkey's toss what the likes of certain posters think. They reveal themselves more and more with every cruel, inhumane post. What I do care about is that trans people should be treated with a modicum of dignity and respect, and should be allowed to go about their daily lives without the constant fear of assault. The current debate has made things a great deal less safe, both for trans women and for cis women who don't fit heteronormative beauty standards.
One thing worth looking into in greater depth is the extent to which "Sex Matters" has been given privileged access to the EHRC, indeed, allegedly many bits of the EHRC's new code have been taken from correspondence with them verbatim, see https://tacc.org.uk/2025/05/23/inside-access-outside-influence-how-sex-matters-is-shaping-the-ehrcs-agenda/ - this suggest an extraordinary amount of regulatory capture by a narrow interest group intent on dehumanising and othering a minority that already experiences a disproportionate amount of discrimination.
I know I can bang on about this stuff, and to be honest with you the hostility I've encountered on this site as a result is why I no longer regularly post here. But this is not a man telling women what to do, as I'm sure certain posters would like you to believe. This is someone attempting to speak up for their partner, a beautiful, kind woman - who is sadly no longer with us, and therefore no longer has a voice.
This is the holocaust all over again. This time done by Jews.
Oh, but you who philosophize, disgrace and criticize all fears Bury the rag deep in your face for now's the time for your tears
It's horrendous. The Israelis have slaughtered more civilians in Gaza in two years than the Nazis killed in Bergen Belsen in four. And we're still listening to the tape of Richard Attenborough's heartbreaking broadcast 80 years on.
If you want a serious debate, rather than a rant - what do you honestly think the Gazans would do to Israeli Jews, given the chance?
And how do you see this being solved? What should Israel do, to bring this to a humane resolution?
Meh. You're apologising for genocide. There may not be a solution. There may not be a resolution. That doesn't make mass starvation okay.
F off. I'm not apologising. I'm just not gonna sit here and bleat, whine and virtuously signal my outrage, performatively. There needs to be a solution. The only solution that can satisfy all sides, at this late appalling stage, is what Trump said. Mad as that sounds
Fair enough. I read implicit justification for what David linked to in your post. If that was my misread, I apologise.
I think seeking solutions to the bigger problem at this stage is a fool's game, if it serves as any distraction at all from solving the immediate problem of forcing Israel and Egypt to let aid in so that fewer innocent people starve.
I wanted to make a proper apology for my post to you last night. It was totally uncalled for. I dipped into the thread, had a strong emotional reaction to David's post and then read your reply outside of the context of your other posts on the topic e.g. the one where you agree that young Gazans will inevitably be radicalised by what is currently going on.
Having now read back through the thread it was very clear that I wasn't justified in claiming you were apologising for genocide - I was reading a subtext that just wasn't there. Sorry.
That’s very gracious of you
The thing is I’ve made my feelings clear about this horror for years. I’ve seen Israel - personally, when visiting it - go from fairly admirable democracy to something closer to fascism (apartheid is certainly a valid comparison). But I’ve also witnessed the lurid anti-Semitism of the Palestinians - they really do want to drive the Jews into the sea
How do you solve that? You can’t. The two state idea (esp after October 7) is dead, it’s even more dead after this horrific assault on Gaza - Gazans will justifiably want revenge for generations
The only possible “solution” is Trump’s - even if people hate Trump. Give Gazans loads of money (much more than he suggests) and find them a home elsewhere. Away from Israel
It’s cruel and sad and unjust but I don’t see any other superior route that actually makes Gazan lives better. Or that acknowledges Israel’s now firm refusal to live alongside Palestinians
Hey Ho. I tried. I normally avoid this topic, I shall go back to ignoring it
There’s whole cities already built in China that they can’t fill with people, that are being knocked down rather than pay the maintainance costs, because they’re never expecting anyone to move in.
It’s probably the least-worst option at this point.
That's what Vespasian thought.
Remind me how that's working out?
Edit - although thinking of dates it must have been Hadrian that oversaw the final expulsion.
Hadrian's attitude towards the Jews was genocidal, like a lot of ancient philhellenes. Caesar, Pompey, and Augustus were far more tolerant.
Albeit, Pompey did rather offend them by insisting on entering the Holy of Holies. He probably took the view that Jehovah should be flattered to meet him, rather than the other way around.
Following an intervention from Jane Russell about misgendering, the judge asks Naomi Cunningham if she would like time to reflect. Naomi replies crisply, “no thank you”.
I assume Naomi Cunningham is the lawyer for Sandie Peggie. Who is Jane Russell and what is the name of the judge?
Jane Russel is the lawyer for NHS Fife and unbelievably Dr Upton too.
Its been hilarious with witness after witness forgetting to refer to Upton as she...
The upshot of today is the internal investigation was compromised and badly handled. There is also a strong suggestion that NHS Fife has yet another hidden letter/email that has not been produced yet.
That (hidden letter/email) may or may not be true, but it's irrelevant. The devolution of the case into procedural points distracts from the central points[0], which are below.
i) Was Dr Beth Upton (BU) entitled to be in the room?
ii) Was Nurse Sandie Peggie (SP) entitled to object to her presence?
@Cyclefree made a detailed post earlier (https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/comment/5274125/#Comment_5274125 ) which described the encounter from SP's POV that BU was a man and then questioned[1] BU's motive. This illustrates the crux of the case: can a man become a woman and if so under what circs? BU believed that she could and had. SP believed that he couldn't and hadn't. Everything flows from there and everybody on here is interpreting the situation depending on their stance.
UK is in an awkward situation. Gender reassignment is a protected characteristic. Gender criticality has acquired a protected status via the protected status of belief. Until we sort out how to handle cases when the two conflict, we will be in trouble. The pre-Supreme Court stance veered too much into "bearded men in dress" territory, the post-Supreme Court stance will veer too much into "I see a trans: call the watch!" territory. As Brexit and Covid established, the UK cannot handle anything without going to extremes.
Notes
[0] There is a subsidiary point of was there something wrong with the manner of SP objection, which I will not deal with here because I don't know enough.
[1] "...That does suggest that he wanted her to be present. Why? If his concern was simply to change as the woman he claims to be why did he need another woman to watch him? Or be present? And why did he want to be present while the nurse changed and washed?..."
Quality post.
I would add, that since the supreme court ruling two trans women are known to have taken their lives over this, with a third being saved via an 'intervention' (source - Translucent.org.uk). So this debacle has a body count already and we are only a couple of months in. Meanwhile, the number of trans women known to have assaulted cis women in toilets remains... zero. However, there are numerous reports of trans women being beaten up for using the women's loo, as well as cis women being challenged because they don't fit heteronormative beauty standards, see https://www.thepinknews.com/2025/05/07/liberty-hotel-boston-bathroom-lesbian-trans/
So when the likes of Cyclefree use 'he' and 'man' to refer to Beth Upton, it's not a point of principle or a victimless crime. It's very much an act of calculated violence that makes the life of trans people - already a tough life - even tougher, making them even less safe. And as my partner (deceased) was a trans woman, this is something I feel very strongly about, to put it mildly. To have referred to my partner as 'he', or forced her into a male changing room when she was post SRS and in receipt of a GRC would have been degrading, humiliating, and would have put her at direct risk of extreme violence. Yet that is the implied belief of people who use 'he' to refer to trans women. That they should be excluded from all female spaces. And thus put at extraordinary risk.
I don't really give a monkey's toss what the likes of certain posters think. They reveal themselves more and more with every cruel, inhumane post. What I do care about is that trans people should be treated with a modicum of dignity and respect, and should be allowed to go about their daily lives without the constant fear of assault. The current debate has made things a great deal less safe, both for trans women and for cis women who don't fit heteronormative beauty standards.
One thing worth looking into in greater depth is the extent to which "Sex Matters" has been given privileged access to the EHRC, indeed, allegedly many bits of the EHRC's new code have been taken from correspondence with them verbatim, see https://tacc.org.uk/2025/05/23/inside-access-outside-influence-how-sex-matters-is-shaping-the-ehrcs-agenda/ - this suggest an extraordinary amount of regulatory capture by a narrow interest group intent on dehumanising and othering a minority that already experiences a disproportionate amount of discrimination.
I know I can bang on about this stuff, and to be honest with you the hostility I've encountered on this site as a result is why I no longer regularly post here. But this is not a man telling women what to do, as I'm sure certain posters would like you to believe. This is someone attempting to speak up for their partner, a beautiful, kind woman - who is sadly no longer with us, and therefore no longer has a voice.
Calling a man a man is not a crime. Sexing a man accurately in a court hearing is telling the truth.
As @kyf_100 well knows, in private correspondence with him I have called his late wife a "she". I have every sympathy for him and his late wife and what happened to her but as this was revealed to me privately I will say no more as it is not my story.
Male violence against men who feel they are women is for men to solve. It is not for women to give up their rights to solve male violence.
So don't you dare accuse me of a crime of violence.
In the Fife case a nurse has been accused of all sorts of crimes because she did not want to get undressed in front of a man. The disciplinary found no substance to these complaints. But she was accused, suspended and put through an appalling 18 months process without every being heard by anyone, with no kindness shown to her. No woman is obliged to get undressed in front of a man. No woman who is bleeding during her period is obliged to change and clean herself up in front of a man. The doctor was offered a private changing room where he would have been at risk from no-one. He rejected it. So I am sceptical about the claims that this was about wanting to feel safe. A private room just for the doctor was about as safe as it's possible to be. Why - exactly - was he so desperate to change in front of women and have them change in front of him? These are legitimate questions to ask in this hearing and legitimate questions to ask of any man claiming to be a woman who turns down a perfectly safe option.
Following an intervention from Jane Russell about misgendering, the judge asks Naomi Cunningham if she would like time to reflect. Naomi replies crisply, “no thank you”.
I assume Naomi Cunningham is the lawyer for Sandie Peggie. Who is Jane Russell and what is the name of the judge?
Jane Russel is the lawyer for NHS Fife and unbelievably Dr Upton too.
Its been hilarious with witness after witness forgetting to refer to Upton as she...
The upshot of today is the internal investigation was compromised and badly handled. There is also a strong suggestion that NHS Fife has yet another hidden letter/email that has not been produced yet.
That (hidden letter/email) may or may not be true, but it's irrelevant. The devolution of the case into procedural points distracts from the central points[0], which are below.
i) Was Dr Beth Upton (BU) entitled to be in the room?
ii) Was Nurse Sandie Peggie (SP) entitled to object to her presence?
@Cyclefree made a detailed post earlier (https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/comment/5274125/#Comment_5274125 ) which described the encounter from SP's POV that BU was a man and then questioned[1] BU's motive. This illustrates the crux of the case: can a man become a woman and if so under what circs? BU believed that she could and had. SP believed that he couldn't and hadn't. Everything flows from there and everybody on here is interpreting the situation depending on their stance.
UK is in an awkward situation. Gender reassignment is a protected characteristic. Gender criticality has acquired a protected status via the protected status of belief. Until we sort out how to handle cases when the two conflict, we will be in trouble. The pre-Supreme Court stance veered too much into "bearded men in dress" territory, the post-Supreme Court stance will veer too much into "I see a trans: call the watch!" territory. As Brexit and Covid established, the UK cannot handle anything without going to extremes.
Notes
[0] There is a subsidiary point of was there something wrong with the manner of SP objection, which I will not deal with here because I don't know enough.
[1] "...That does suggest that he wanted her to be present. Why? If his concern was simply to change as the woman he claims to be why did he need another woman to watch him? Or be present? And why did he want to be present while the nurse changed and washed?..."
Quality post.
I would add, that since the supreme court ruling two trans women are known to have taken their lives over this, with a third being saved via an 'intervention' (source - Translucent.org.uk). So this debacle has a body count already and we are only a couple of months in. Meanwhile, the number of trans women known to have assaulted cis women in toilets remains... zero. However, there are numerous reports of trans women being beaten up for using the women's loo, as well as cis women being challenged because they don't fit heteronormative beauty standards, see https://www.thepinknews.com/2025/05/07/liberty-hotel-boston-bathroom-lesbian-trans/
So when the likes of Cyclefree use 'he' and 'man' to refer to Beth Upton, it's not a point of principle or a victimless crime. It's very much an act of calculated violence that makes the life of trans people - already a tough life - even tougher, making them even less safe. And as my partner (deceased) was a trans woman, this is something I feel very strongly about, to put it mildly. To have referred to my partner as 'he', or forced her into a male changing room when she was post SRS and in receipt of a GRC would have been degrading, humiliating, and would have put her at direct risk of extreme violence. Yet that is the implied belief of people who use 'he' to refer to trans women. That they should be excluded from all female spaces. And thus put at extraordinary risk.
I don't really give a monkey's toss what the likes of certain posters think. They reveal themselves more and more with every cruel, inhumane post. What I do care about is that trans people should be treated with a modicum of dignity and respect, and should be allowed to go about their daily lives without the constant fear of assault. The current debate has made things a great deal less safe, both for trans women and for cis women who don't fit heteronormative beauty standards.
One thing worth looking into in greater depth is the extent to which "Sex Matters" has been given privileged access to the EHRC, indeed, allegedly many bits of the EHRC's new code have been taken from correspondence with them verbatim, see https://tacc.org.uk/2025/05/23/inside-access-outside-influence-how-sex-matters-is-shaping-the-ehrcs-agenda/ - this suggest an extraordinary amount of regulatory capture by a narrow interest group intent on dehumanising and othering a minority that already experiences a disproportionate amount of discrimination.
I know I can bang on about this stuff, and to be honest with you the hostility I've encountered on this site as a result is why I no longer regularly post here. But this is not a man telling women what to do, as I'm sure certain posters would like you to believe. This is someone attempting to speak up for their partner, a beautiful, kind woman - who is sadly no longer with us, and therefore no longer has a voice.
Calling a man a man is not a crime. Sexing a man accurately in a court hearing is telling the truth.
As @kyf_100 well knows, in private correspondence with him I have called his late wife a "she". I have every sympathy for him and his late wife and what happened to her but as this was revealed to me privately I will say no more as it is not my story.
Male violence against men who feel they are women is for men to solve. It is not for women to give up their rights to solve male violence.
So don't you dare accuse me of a crime of violence.
In the Fife case a nurse has been accused of all sorts of crimes because she did not want to get undressed in front of a man. The disciplinary found no substance to these complaints. But she was accused, suspended and put through an appalling 18 months process without every being heard by anyone, with no kindness shown to her. No woman is obliged to get undressed in front of a man. No woman who is bleeding during her period is obliged to change and clean herself up in front of a man. The doctor was offered a private changing room where he would have been at risk from no-one. He rejected it. So I am sceptical about the claims that this was about wanting to feel safe. A private room just for the doctor was about as safe as it's possible to be. Why - exactly - was he so desperate to change in front of women and have them change in front of him? These are legitimate questions to ask in this hearing and legitimate questions to ask of any man claiming to be a woman who turns down a perfectly safe option.
From both your misgendering of Dr Upton, and your language in your post above, "Calling a man a man is not a crime." and "Male violence against men who feel they are women is for men to solve" it is clear to me that you regard all trans women as 'men' and the only reason you referred to my partner as 'she' was due to the sensitivity of the issue in addressing me directly. Take me out of the equation and I am confident you would refer to her as 'he', as you appear to do with all other trans people.
I believe if it were my partner who was in the news in a tribunal and you were posting about her not knowing my relationship to her, you would call her a 'he' as well.
You've made yourself very clear on what you believe, as have I. The language employed by gender critical types such as yourself, as I highlighted in my previous post, has direct real world consequences, increasing trans suicides as well as violence against trans women and non-conforming cis women. So no, I don't have any problem calling out the very real world consequences of weaponised language.
You have your opinion, I have mine. We're clearly not going to budge on this. But so long as PB remains a place for free speech, I will continue to express my opinion, particularly when I see language that would have directly harmed my partner, were she still alive.
Lots of sarcastic comments here, but I'm not sure it's the target audience. What strikes me most about the launch statement is that most of the programme is being left to the launch conference, avoiding one possible trap (defining everything too early) and widening another (a chaotic conference). There is certainly a gap in the market for an effective left-wing party. A lot of potential supporters will want to see more before deciding whether to get involved; it's not obviously bonkers, but quite cautious.
An effective left wing party is something that cant exist....you can be left wing or you can be effective.....an effective left wing party is a unicorn
Fife has one odd feature not directly related to cis and trans women. Doctors and nurses look at naked people for a living so why have they suddenly become so precious about it? Certainly as a patient I've had my bits hanging out in front of both professions and however many genders, sometimes mob-handed, and next month will do again.
Comments
https://www.thetimes.com/world/asia/article/why-are-thailand-cambodia-fighting-dispute-jxtnq2px9
Maybe the Spectator should send in that Thailand specialist Sean Thomas to investigate.
But if we start with one, there will soon be at least 6.
You will note that the NHS Fife investigation has concluded that Peggie has no case to answer.
My entirely anecdotal experience is younger voters (sub 25) are breaking for the Greens partly because they see Corbyn as a superannuated old fool and don't understand what the Labour left saw in him.
I was reading about Karl Marx and the First International. He was only invited along to the inaugural meeting by a friend, because as an ex-German he would make the gathering seem a bit more, well, international. Because he could write he got himself elected to the small committee that would work out their proposition and principles, then when the committee met, got himself volunteered to do the drafting. So he basically wrote the lot on his own. You’d not get away with that nowadays.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Partition_Plan_for_Palestine
But the one time I scaled Yr Wyddfa the caff was being rebuilt and the train wasn't running and it was rammed at the top even so.
https://news.sky.com/story/plane-with-49-people-on-board-crashes-in-russias-far-east-13400976
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14933199/plane-nosedives-crashes-motorway-cars-fireball-Italy.html#:~:text=At least two people were killed today when,into the road and exploded into a fireball
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/live/cdjl0r1d2rwt#LiveReporting
The more sensible ones understood that it wasn't. But even a fair number of those were hopeful of annexing the West Bank on its own.
How many of either are left I don't know. My impression even then was that attitudes on both sides were hardening against any form of sharing.
(50 seconds of The Rest is Football covering the Trump/Chelsea celebrations)
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/CtlMmOYSJok
NEW THREAD
The arrogance and self belief is really quite incredible.
The ideal system would be one which charged campervans coming on leaving air b and bs able to be taxed via a tourist tax if necessary. Would still leave the problem that loads of vans park in lay bys (putting even less into the economy) and some tip waste at side of road. Beefed up ranger service/police could tackle that.
I've no idea why Western Isles haven't started to clampdown more, Vatersay machar was a free for all when I was there
NC500 clearly needs infrastructure investment, no reason why it couldn't be done by camper tax/road toll.
It’s probably the least-worst option at this point.
Remind me how that's working out?
Edit - although thinking of dates it must have been Hadrian that oversaw the final expulsion.
SFAICS all she offers (Guardian) is this gem:
"She said her own programme, which she is under pressure to set out in more detail, would be “not about cutting bits of the state” but rather “looking at what the state does, why it does it”.
The issue of transition and surgery is a red herring. There is no requirement - even for the gender reassignment pc - to take hormones or have surgery. The overwhelming number of men who claim to be trans have not had surgery and have gone through puberty. They are of the male sex and they are exactly the same threat as all other men. There is no evidence to suggest that they are less of a threat and some evidence - though more research is needed - that they may be more of a threat. Allowing a man who claims to be a woman - but who has done nothing more than grow his hair and wear lip gloss and in some cases not even that - into a woman's space is to allow a man in. It puts women at risk and compromises their dignity and privacy.
The SC has not veered into all trans people are witches territory. The issue before it was whether men with a GRC could be said to be legal women as it was accepted by all sides that men without it are not. They ruled that they could not because this would make a nonsense of the relevant legislation, was an absurd interpretation and would compromise the rights of women and, in particular, lesbians. The SC took great care to set out in some detail why those falling within the gender reassignment pc did not lose any rights. The judgment is very clear and worth reading.
One final thing: far too many people who claim to be trans do not fall within the gender reassignment of at all. Some are chancers, some are predators, some are fetishists and yet others are sex offenders using this claim to get an easier ride in prison or access to women.
It would be immensely helpful to those who do genuinely have dysphoria if such people had not embraced or been encouraged to embrace the trans label. Rapists with erect penises and ludicrous wigs claiming to be women have done immense harm to the position of those with dysphoria - as have those politicians and others supporting them.
I would add, that since the supreme court ruling two trans women are known to have taken their lives over this, with a third being saved via an 'intervention' (source - Translucent.org.uk). So this debacle has a body count already and we are only a couple of months in. Meanwhile, the number of trans women known to have assaulted cis women in toilets remains... zero. However, there are numerous reports of trans women being beaten up for using the women's loo, as well as cis women being challenged because they don't fit heteronormative beauty standards, see https://www.thepinknews.com/2025/05/07/liberty-hotel-boston-bathroom-lesbian-trans/
So when the likes of Cyclefree use 'he' and 'man' to refer to Beth Upton, it's not a point of principle or a victimless crime. It's very much an act of calculated violence that makes the life of trans people - already a tough life - even tougher, making them even less safe. And as my partner (deceased) was a trans woman, this is something I feel very strongly about, to put it mildly. To have referred to my partner as 'he', or forced her into a male changing room when she was post SRS and in receipt of a GRC would have been degrading, humiliating, and would have put her at direct risk of extreme violence. Yet that is the implied belief of people who use 'he' to refer to trans women. That they should be excluded from all female spaces. And thus put at extraordinary risk.
I don't really give a monkey's toss what the likes of certain posters think. They reveal themselves more and more with every cruel, inhumane post. What I do care about is that trans people should be treated with a modicum of dignity and respect, and should be allowed to go about their daily lives without the constant fear of assault. The current debate has made things a great deal less safe, both for trans women and for cis women who don't fit heteronormative beauty standards.
One thing worth looking into in greater depth is the extent to which "Sex Matters" has been given privileged access to the EHRC, indeed, allegedly many bits of the EHRC's new code have been taken from correspondence with them verbatim, see https://tacc.org.uk/2025/05/23/inside-access-outside-influence-how-sex-matters-is-shaping-the-ehrcs-agenda/ - this suggest an extraordinary amount of regulatory capture by a narrow interest group intent on dehumanising and othering a minority that already experiences a disproportionate amount of discrimination.
I know I can bang on about this stuff, and to be honest with you the hostility I've encountered on this site as a result is why I no longer regularly post here. But this is not a man telling women what to do, as I'm sure certain posters would like you to believe. This is someone attempting to speak up for their partner, a beautiful, kind woman - who is sadly no longer with us, and therefore no longer has a voice.
Albeit, Pompey did rather offend them by insisting on entering the Holy of Holies. He probably took the view that Jehovah should be flattered to meet him, rather than the other way around.
As @kyf_100 well knows, in private correspondence with him I have called his late wife a "she". I have every sympathy for him and his late wife and what happened to her but as this was revealed to me privately I will say no more as it is not my story.
Male violence against men who feel they are women is for men to solve. It is not for women to give up their rights to solve male violence.
So don't you dare accuse me of a crime of violence.
In the Fife case a nurse has been accused of all sorts of crimes because she did not want to get undressed in front of a man. The disciplinary found no substance to these complaints. But she was accused, suspended and put through an appalling 18 months process without every being heard by anyone, with no kindness shown to her. No woman is obliged to get undressed in front of a man. No woman who is bleeding during her period is obliged to change and clean herself up in front of a man. The doctor was offered a private changing room where he would have been at risk from no-one. He rejected it. So I am sceptical about the claims that this was about wanting to feel safe. A private room just for the doctor was about as safe as it's possible to be. Why - exactly - was he so desperate to change in front of women and have them change in front of him? These are legitimate questions to ask in this hearing and legitimate questions to ask of any man claiming to be a woman who turns down a perfectly safe option.
I believe if it were my partner who was in the news in a tribunal and you were posting about her not knowing my relationship to her, you would call her a 'he' as well.
You've made yourself very clear on what you believe, as have I. The language employed by gender critical types such as yourself, as I highlighted in my previous post, has direct real world consequences, increasing trans suicides as well as violence against trans women and non-conforming cis women. So no, I don't have any problem calling out the very real world consequences of weaponised language.
You have your opinion, I have mine. We're clearly not going to budge on this. But so long as PB remains a place for free speech, I will continue to express my opinion, particularly when I see language that would have directly harmed my partner, were she still alive.