Not sure if this has been mentioned yet but credit to the Free Speech Union for standing by their principles
'The Free Speech Union has said that, should Heather Herbert join the Free Speech Union, we would do our best to help him.
Heather Herbert posted a vile and deeply offensive statement on the social media platform BlueSky about the tragic murder of Ann Widdecombe.
The University of Aberdeen employee has now been arrested and charged over his offensive comments.
While the Free Speech Union does not support Heather’s offensive comments about Ann — a dear late friend of the FSU — it is not an offence, no matter how offensive, to speak ill of the dead.
Ann was a staunch defender of our fundamental right to free speech, and we very much doubt she would have supported Police Scotland’s actions.'
And yet the arseholes couldn’t resist a snidey wee gender dig.
What are principled Toby & co doing about supporting the ‘I support Palestine Action’ people?
Supporting their right to free speech. Along with that of their supporters. But not illegal action.
As you would know if you actually bothered to try and read up on them rather than just making snide remarks.
So you’re a fan of deliberately misgendering people for the vibes? Cool, free speech and all that. Personally I wouldn’t touch that kind of advocacy with a barge pole, and consider it a major part of the degradation of civilised discourse.
“We are aware of the political message display from Argentina. We understand it’s against the rules but we also know it’s a matter of their nationality and we respect it.
There's a trope in alternate history- "don't kill Hitler, because you risk getting someone who still does all the things you don't like but doesn't have the flaws that made it possible to defeat Mr Adolf."
I'm optimistic that Burnham doesn't have the same difficulties controlling his wallet, diary or tummy banana that Boris had. But the other echoes- the personal ambition, the willingness to undermine the boss (have we all forgotten his antics around the 2025 conference?), the saying what his immediate audience wants to hear... It all feels a bit History Repeating Itself.
Still, it's my country, but neither my circus nor my moneys. And as a good patriot, of course I hope it works. But I'm uneasy.
Not sure if this has been mentioned yet but credit to the Free Speech Union for standing by their principles
'The Free Speech Union has said that, should Heather Herbert join the Free Speech Union, we would do our best to help him.
Heather Herbert posted a vile and deeply offensive statement on the social media platform BlueSky about the tragic murder of Ann Widdecombe.
The University of Aberdeen employee has now been arrested and charged over his offensive comments.
While the Free Speech Union does not support Heather’s offensive comments about Ann — a dear late friend of the FSU — it is not an offence, no matter how offensive, to speak ill of the dead.
Ann was a staunch defender of our fundamental right to free speech, and we very much doubt she would have supported Police Scotland’s actions.'
Indeed. Preston Byrne (pro bono counsel to the FSU) is particularlly good on this point.
Linehan shouldn't have been arrested for his "kick 'em in the balls" tweet (unless someone did, in fact, commit an s20 assault, in which case he is fair game as an accessory should there be a proven causal link between his tweet and the attacker).
Speaking ill of the dead shouldn't be an offence either. It should also be remembered that Anne Widdecombe believed that trans women (at least those who have had "the op") are women, which is more than can be said for many regulars here.
Since we're on #pbfreespeech, how do we feel about JK Rowling suing amnesty international for calling the 51 gender critical organisations listed in their recent report "anti rights" (Including an org that PB's resident terf is a member of)?
I happen to disagree with the amnesty report and think it's massive overreach, but the correct response is rebuttal rather than trying to silence one's critics with lawfare.
IMHO the UK needs to introduce US-style anti SLAPP legislation to prevent the super-rich from silencing their critics.
You are allowed to believe that men can be women, but I can also believe that they cannot. I think science is on my side of the argument but I also think we will never agree.
Men and women are not scientific terms. Male and female are. Many species can switch gender. Many are hemaphrodites, and others asexual. Science does not back you up.
And there it is - the use of edge cases to try to suggest men can become women. Humans do not switch from male to female.
People really fucking despise a moralising, holier-than-thou hypocrite
SKS and Angela Rayner to name two.
I always tend to believe that Labour politicians assume they are the good guys, on the right side of history etc and that when they take a freebie it's ok because they are the good guys. But woe betide a story for taking a freebie.
And their online supporters, especially the ones with red roses in their bio, are very much ‘my side right or wrong’ which just misses the bigger picture.
In opposition they were very holier than thou and rightly criticised some poor behaviour.
They get into power and some of them are exposed as being freeloaders as well.
The scale doesn’t matter, it’s the conduct that’s the problem.
Of course scale matters. Following reporting rules also matter. Now I don't particularly want to bat on behalf of Starmer, but some of the people on your preferred current teams are absolute rascals.
Who are my supposed ‘current team’
I’m firmly in the ‘will not vote’ camp 😂
I don't know, but I know who it isn't. I am pleased you are so cool about the £10b on PPE. To me, cock up or conspiracy it's a f*****' disgrace. That's my money they pissed up a rope.
I’m not ‘cool’ about any taxpayers money being wasted but accusing govt ministers of being corrupt when they weren’t is not the solution.
I used to buy PPE and did during COVID and just securing supply was difficult. You buy to a spec so if PPE was bought that was not fit for,purpose then why ? You cannot blame the govt. Blame the supply chain. Either it was incorrectly specified and what was supplied was to spec or,it wasn’t and should have been rejected when delivered.
I’d also expect them to condition assess and concess it for for use if not to spec and it could be used. At least review it.
The investigation should be like an air crash investigation. What went wrong and what can be done to learn from it for next time rather than just a partisan witch hunt.
He has been chosen for persona/electoral not policy reasons. People with their own agendas will say he has to go this way or that way but he doesn't. He simply (although it's no simple matter) has to generate/sustain a clear poll lead for Labour. If he does this he will have delivered his side of the bargain.
But I hope he is more than this. Specifically that in addition to waxing lyrical about improving the morale/prospects of struggling working class communities (ten a penny talk from all sides of politics) he actually does (big) things in that vein. Levelling up in other words. For real not as a platitude (tory) or tied up with white identity politics (reform).
A more accurate description for levelling up, if it's going to be for real, is a significant reduction in inequalities of wealth, income and opportunity. Savvy pols on the left (which AB is) avoid that phrasing because it acknowledges there are losers and thus invites a load of superficially appealing 'rising tide lifts all boats' waffle in response.
I'm not blindly optimistic (money is tight and powerful forces will oppose him if he's serious) but I do feel energised and positive. Let's see how it pans out.
This is pretty much where I am.
Also 'Supermanc' is tremendous.
Yes, it’s top drawer stuff. 👍
Supermanc? Not a patch on WOTN.
My take from listening to him is how actually dangerous Burnham as PM is going to be. It’s a sort of sinister moment - something feels very wrong, if this was the opening of a play you’d sense something very bad to come from a party and a country sleepwalking into this with such hubris and pseudo politics. They were actually crowing at today’s announcement how unanimous the election was. Actually crowing at the sort of anti debate anti democracy election outcome Stalin would have been proud of. Actually crowing whilst they copied the same idiotic mistake the US Democrats made, to gift the world Trump 2.0.
Considering how incredibly weird and scary Burnamism is, what’s baffling is how there wasn’t a contest. Why didn’t the more intelligent wing of Labour put up a candidate against this? Even if Darren Jones lost - by no means certain on today’s performance from Burnham - the simple headed Union backed faction might at least had to share power with the more intelligent faction, by making Jones Chancellor?
Eh, I just liked the appellation ‘Supermanc’
A derivation of Supermac.
WOTN a derivation of King of the North. Sort of rhymes with Manc.
Yes I know, Conservative PM Harold Robbins was known as Super Something. It’s one of those reused politics dictionary things like “Winters of discontent” and “tanks on the lawn”
People really fucking despise a moralising, holier-than-thou hypocrite
SKS and Angela Rayner to name two.
I always tend to believe that Labour politicians assume they are the good guys, on the right side of history etc and that when they take a freebie it's ok because they are the good guys. But woe betide a story for taking a freebie.
And their online supporters, especially the ones with red roses in their bio, are very much ‘my side right or wrong’ which just misses the bigger picture.
In opposition they were very holier than thou and rightly criticised some poor behaviour.
They get into power and some of them are exposed as being freeloaders as well.
The scale doesn’t matter, it’s the conduct that’s the problem.
Of course scale matters. Following reporting rules also matter. Now I don't particularly want to bat on behalf of Starmer, but some of the people on your preferred current teams are absolute rascals.
Who are my supposed ‘current team’
I’m firmly in the ‘will not vote’ camp 😂
I don't know, but I know who it isn't. I am pleased you are so cool about the £10b on PPE. To me, cock up or conspiracy it's a f*****' disgrace. That's my money they pissed up a rope.
I’m not ‘cool’ about any taxpayers money being wasted but accusing govt ministers of being corrupt when they weren’t is not the solution.
I used to buy PPE and did during COVID and just securing supply was difficult. You buy to a spec so if PPE was bought that was not fit for,purpose then why ? You cannot blame the govt. Blame the supply chain. Either it was incorrectly specified and what was supplied was to spec or,it wasn’t and should have been rejected when delivered.
I’d also expect them to condition assess and concess it for for use if not to spec and it could be used. At least review it.
The investigation should be like an air crash investigation. What went wrong and what can be done to learn from it for next time rather than just a partisan witch hunt.
My interpretation remains wholly different to yours. There was no clean bill of health. Lady Hallett was scathing about the success of the friends and family arrangements. She established £10b was wasted.
I suspect she did not believe her brief was to aportion blame. Cock up or conspiracy, guilty people should be held to account.
And as for the spec. If it is CE marked it is fine. If it is not CE marked it is not.
There's a trope in alternate history- "don't kill Hitler, because you risk getting someone who still does all the things you don't like but doesn't have the flaws that made it possible to defeat Mr Adolf."
I'm optimistic that Burnham doesn't have the same difficulties controlling his wallet, diary or tummy banana that Boris had. But the other echoes- the personal ambition, the willingness to undermine the boss (have we all forgotten his antics around the 2025 conference?), the saying what his immediate audience wants to hear... It all feels a bit History Repeating Itself.
Still, it's my country, but neither my circus nor my moneys. And as a good patriot, of course I hope it works. But I'm uneasy.
Yes. An “uneasy” moment. I know I am not alone in feeling it.
“‘his antics around the 2025 conference, always saying what his immediate audience wants to hear. It all feels a bit History Repeating Itself” what’s so sad with Burnham and Boris so desperate for PM power, they haven’t a clue what to do with it. They don’t have the vision thing. They just want it for the wrong reasons, for themselves. That Boris didn’t have a clue or interest about macro economics played a significant part in his removal.
Not sure if this has been mentioned yet but credit to the Free Speech Union for standing by their principles
'The Free Speech Union has said that, should Heather Herbert join the Free Speech Union, we would do our best to help him.
Heather Herbert posted a vile and deeply offensive statement on the social media platform BlueSky about the tragic murder of Ann Widdecombe.
The University of Aberdeen employee has now been arrested and charged over his offensive comments.
While the Free Speech Union does not support Heather’s offensive comments about Ann — a dear late friend of the FSU — it is not an offence, no matter how offensive, to speak ill of the dead.
Ann was a staunch defender of our fundamental right to free speech, and we very much doubt she would have supported Police Scotland’s actions.'
Indeed. Preston Byrne (pro bono counsel to the FSU) is particularlly good on this point.
Linehan shouldn't have been arrested for his "kick 'em in the balls" tweet (unless someone did, in fact, commit an s20 assault, in which case he is fair game as an accessory should there be a proven causal link between his tweet and the attacker).
Speaking ill of the dead shouldn't be an offence either. It should also be remembered that Anne Widdecombe believed that trans women (at least those who have had "the op") are women, which is more than can be said for many regulars here.
Since we're on #pbfreespeech, how do we feel about JK Rowling suing amnesty international for calling the 51 gender critical organisations listed in their recent report "anti rights" (Including an org that PB's resident terf is a member of)?
I happen to disagree with the amnesty report and think it's massive overreach, but the correct response is rebuttal rather than trying to silence one's critics with lawfare.
IMHO the UK needs to introduce US-style anti SLAPP legislation to prevent the super-rich from silencing their critics.
You are allowed to believe that men can be women, but I can also believe that they cannot. I think science is on my side of the argument but I also think we will never agree.
Men and women are not scientific terms. Male and female are. Many species can switch gender. Many are hemaphrodites, and others asexual. Science does not back you up.
How do they switch gender ? Do they physically change through a natural biological process or do they, one morning, wake up and decide their in the wrong body and can impose their demands accordingly ?
I've been enjoying the first night of the proms this evening. It's a really well-balanced programme, but Christ who thought it would it'd be a good idea to have Sandi Toksvig on the presenting team? Her vacuous enthusiasm is just so grating.
He has been chosen for persona/electoral not policy reasons. People with their own agendas will say he has to go this way or that way but he doesn't. He simply (although it's no simple matter) has to generate/sustain a clear poll lead for Labour. If he does this he will have delivered his side of the bargain.
But I hope he is more than this. Specifically that in addition to waxing lyrical about improving the morale/prospects of struggling working class communities (ten a penny talk from all sides of politics) he actually does (big) things in that vein. Levelling up in other words. For real not as a platitude (tory) or tied up with white identity politics (reform).
A more accurate description for levelling up, if it's going to be for real, is a significant reduction in inequalities of wealth, income and opportunity. Savvy pols on the left (which AB is) avoid that phrasing because it acknowledges there are losers and thus invites a load of superficially appealing 'rising tide lifts all boats' waffle in response.
I'm not blindly optimistic (money is tight and powerful forces will oppose him if he's serious) but I do feel energised and positive. Let's see how it pans out.
This is pretty much where I am.
Also 'Supermanc' is tremendous.
Yes, it’s top drawer stuff. 👍
Supermanc? Not a patch on WOTN.
My take from listening to him is how actually dangerous Burnham as PM is going to be. It’s a sort of sinister moment - something feels very wrong, if this was the opening of a play you’d sense something very bad to come from a party and a country sleepwalking into this with such hubris and pseudo politics. They were actually crowing at today’s announcement how unanimous the election was. Actually crowing at the sort of anti debate anti democracy election outcome Stalin would have been proud of. Actually crowing whilst they copied the same idiotic mistake the US Democrats made, to gift the world Trump 2.0.
Considering how incredibly weird and scary Burnamism is, what’s baffling is how there wasn’t a contest. Why didn’t the more intelligent wing of Labour put up a candidate against this? Even if Darren Jones lost - by no means certain on today’s performance from Burnham - the simple headed Union backed faction might at least had to share power with the more intelligent faction, by making Jones Chancellor?
Eh, I just liked the appellation ‘Supermanc’
A derivation of Supermac.
WOTN a derivation of King of the North. Sort of rhymes with Manc.
Yes I know, Conservative PM Harold Robbins was known as Super Something. It’s one of those reused politics dictionary things like “Winters of discontent” and “tanks on the lawn”
Not sure if this has been mentioned yet but credit to the Free Speech Union for standing by their principles
'The Free Speech Union has said that, should Heather Herbert join the Free Speech Union, we would do our best to help him.
Heather Herbert posted a vile and deeply offensive statement on the social media platform BlueSky about the tragic murder of Ann Widdecombe.
The University of Aberdeen employee has now been arrested and charged over his offensive comments.
While the Free Speech Union does not support Heather’s offensive comments about Ann — a dear late friend of the FSU — it is not an offence, no matter how offensive, to speak ill of the dead.
Ann was a staunch defender of our fundamental right to free speech, and we very much doubt she would have supported Police Scotland’s actions.'
Indeed. Preston Byrne (pro bono counsel to the FSU) is particularlly good on this point.
Linehan shouldn't have been arrested for his "kick 'em in the balls" tweet (unless someone did, in fact, commit an s20 assault, in which case he is fair game as an accessory should there be a proven causal link between his tweet and the attacker).
Speaking ill of the dead shouldn't be an offence either. It should also be remembered that Anne Widdecombe believed that trans women (at least those who have had "the op") are women, which is more than can be said for many regulars here.
Since we're on #pbfreespeech, how do we feel about JK Rowling suing amnesty international for calling the 51 gender critical organisations listed in their recent report "anti rights" (Including an org that PB's resident terf is a member of)?
I happen to disagree with the amnesty report and think it's massive overreach, but the correct response is rebuttal rather than trying to silence one's critics with lawfare.
IMHO the UK needs to introduce US-style anti SLAPP legislation to prevent the super-rich from silencing their critics.
You are allowed to believe that men can be women, but I can also believe that they cannot. I think science is on my side of the argument but I also think we will never agree.
Men and women are not scientific terms. Male and female are. Many species can switch gender. Many are hemaphrodites, and others asexual. Science does not back you up.
And there it is - the use of edge cases to try to suggest men can become women. Humans do not switch from male to female.
So let me ask you the question again. If you were (totally hypothetically) caught in flagrante, sucking the cock of a hairy, muscly, bearded trans man, would it be a) gay or b) a totally straight, hetero, cis thing to do, because the cock you happen to be sucking on belongs to a woman as people, in your opinion, cannot change sex?
Not sure if this has been mentioned yet but credit to the Free Speech Union for standing by their principles
'The Free Speech Union has said that, should Heather Herbert join the Free Speech Union, we would do our best to help him.
Heather Herbert posted a vile and deeply offensive statement on the social media platform BlueSky about the tragic murder of Ann Widdecombe.
The University of Aberdeen employee has now been arrested and charged over his offensive comments.
While the Free Speech Union does not support Heather’s offensive comments about Ann — a dear late friend of the FSU — it is not an offence, no matter how offensive, to speak ill of the dead.
Ann was a staunch defender of our fundamental right to free speech, and we very much doubt she would have supported Police Scotland’s actions.'
Indeed. Preston Byrne (pro bono counsel to the FSU) is particularlly good on this point.
Linehan shouldn't have been arrested for his "kick 'em in the balls" tweet (unless someone did, in fact, commit an s20 assault, in which case he is fair game as an accessory should there be a proven causal link between his tweet and the attacker).
Speaking ill of the dead shouldn't be an offence either. It should also be remembered that Anne Widdecombe believed that trans women (at least those who have had "the op") are women, which is more than can be said for many regulars here.
Since we're on #pbfreespeech, how do we feel about JK Rowling suing amnesty international for calling the 51 gender critical organisations listed in their recent report "anti rights" (Including an org that PB's resident terf is a member of)?
I happen to disagree with the amnesty report and think it's massive overreach, but the correct response is rebuttal rather than trying to silence one's critics with lawfare.
IMHO the UK needs to introduce US-style anti SLAPP legislation to prevent the super-rich from silencing their critics.
You are allowed to believe that men can be women, but I can also believe that they cannot. I think science is on my side of the argument but I also think we will never agree.
Men and women are not scientific terms. Male and female are. Many species can switch gender. Many are hemaphrodites, and others asexual. Science does not back you up.
How do they switch gender ? Do they physically change through a natural biological process or do they, one morning, wake up and decide their in the wrong body and can impose their demands accordingly ?
Not sure if this has been mentioned yet but credit to the Free Speech Union for standing by their principles
'The Free Speech Union has said that, should Heather Herbert join the Free Speech Union, we would do our best to help him.
Heather Herbert posted a vile and deeply offensive statement on the social media platform BlueSky about the tragic murder of Ann Widdecombe.
The University of Aberdeen employee has now been arrested and charged over his offensive comments.
While the Free Speech Union does not support Heather’s offensive comments about Ann — a dear late friend of the FSU — it is not an offence, no matter how offensive, to speak ill of the dead.
Ann was a staunch defender of our fundamental right to free speech, and we very much doubt she would have supported Police Scotland’s actions.'
Indeed. Preston Byrne (pro bono counsel to the FSU) is particularlly good on this point.
Linehan shouldn't have been arrested for his "kick 'em in the balls" tweet (unless someone did, in fact, commit an s20 assault, in which case he is fair game as an accessory should there be a proven causal link between his tweet and the attacker).
Speaking ill of the dead shouldn't be an offence either. It should also be remembered that Anne Widdecombe believed that trans women (at least those who have had "the op") are women, which is more than can be said for many regulars here.
Since we're on #pbfreespeech, how do we feel about JK Rowling suing amnesty international for calling the 51 gender critical organisations listed in their recent report "anti rights" (Including an org that PB's resident terf is a member of)?
I happen to disagree with the amnesty report and think it's massive overreach, but the correct response is rebuttal rather than trying to silence one's critics with lawfare.
IMHO the UK needs to introduce US-style anti SLAPP legislation to prevent the super-rich from silencing their critics.
You are allowed to believe that men can be women, but I can also believe that they cannot. I think science is on my side of the argument but I also think we will never agree.
Men and women are not scientific terms. Male and female are. Many species can switch gender. Many are hemaphrodites, and others asexual. Science does not back you up.
How do they switch gender ? Do they physically change through a natural biological process or do they, one morning, wake up and decide their in the wrong body and can impose their demands accordingly ?
Not sure if this has been mentioned yet but credit to the Free Speech Union for standing by their principles
'The Free Speech Union has said that, should Heather Herbert join the Free Speech Union, we would do our best to help him.
Heather Herbert posted a vile and deeply offensive statement on the social media platform BlueSky about the tragic murder of Ann Widdecombe.
The University of Aberdeen employee has now been arrested and charged over his offensive comments.
While the Free Speech Union does not support Heather’s offensive comments about Ann — a dear late friend of the FSU — it is not an offence, no matter how offensive, to speak ill of the dead.
Ann was a staunch defender of our fundamental right to free speech, and we very much doubt she would have supported Police Scotland’s actions.'
Indeed. Preston Byrne (pro bono counsel to the FSU) is particularlly good on this point.
Linehan shouldn't have been arrested for his "kick 'em in the balls" tweet (unless someone did, in fact, commit an s20 assault, in which case he is fair game as an accessory should there be a proven causal link between his tweet and the attacker).
Speaking ill of the dead shouldn't be an offence either. It should also be remembered that Anne Widdecombe believed that trans women (at least those who have had "the op") are women, which is more than can be said for many regulars here.
Since we're on #pbfreespeech, how do we feel about JK Rowling suing amnesty international for calling the 51 gender critical organisations listed in their recent report "anti rights" (Including an org that PB's resident terf is a member of)?
I happen to disagree with the amnesty report and think it's massive overreach, but the correct response is rebuttal rather than trying to silence one's critics with lawfare.
IMHO the UK needs to introduce US-style anti SLAPP legislation to prevent the super-rich from silencing their critics.
You are allowed to believe that men can be women, but I can also believe that they cannot. I think science is on my side of the argument but I also think we will never agree.
Men and women are not scientific terms. Male and female are. Many species can switch gender. Many are hemaphrodites, and others asexual. Science does not back you up.
And there it is - the use of edge cases to try to suggest men can become women. Humans do not switch from male to female.
So let me ask you the question again. If you were (totally hypothetically) caught in flagrante, sucking the cock of a hairy, muscly, bearded trans man, would it be a) gay or b) a totally straight, hetero, cis thing to do, because the cock you happen to be sucking on belongs to a woman as people, in your opinion, cannot change sex?
It's a stupid question. I have no issue with what consenting adults do with each other be they herosexual or gay. I simply believe that men cannot become women and vise versa.
We don't agree, and I respect that. Playing silly what if games doesn't make the point you think you are making.
Not sure if this has been mentioned yet but credit to the Free Speech Union for standing by their principles
'The Free Speech Union has said that, should Heather Herbert join the Free Speech Union, we would do our best to help him.
Heather Herbert posted a vile and deeply offensive statement on the social media platform BlueSky about the tragic murder of Ann Widdecombe.
The University of Aberdeen employee has now been arrested and charged over his offensive comments.
While the Free Speech Union does not support Heather’s offensive comments about Ann — a dear late friend of the FSU — it is not an offence, no matter how offensive, to speak ill of the dead.
Ann was a staunch defender of our fundamental right to free speech, and we very much doubt she would have supported Police Scotland’s actions.'
Indeed. Preston Byrne (pro bono counsel to the FSU) is particularlly good on this point.
Linehan shouldn't have been arrested for his "kick 'em in the balls" tweet (unless someone did, in fact, commit an s20 assault, in which case he is fair game as an accessory should there be a proven causal link between his tweet and the attacker).
Speaking ill of the dead shouldn't be an offence either. It should also be remembered that Anne Widdecombe believed that trans women (at least those who have had "the op") are women, which is more than can be said for many regulars here.
Since we're on #pbfreespeech, how do we feel about JK Rowling suing amnesty international for calling the 51 gender critical organisations listed in their recent report "anti rights" (Including an org that PB's resident terf is a member of)?
I happen to disagree with the amnesty report and think it's massive overreach, but the correct response is rebuttal rather than trying to silence one's critics with lawfare.
IMHO the UK needs to introduce US-style anti SLAPP legislation to prevent the super-rich from silencing their critics.
You are allowed to believe that men can be women, but I can also believe that they cannot. I think science is on my side of the argument but I also think we will never agree.
Men and women are not scientific terms. Male and female are. Many species can switch gender. Many are hemaphrodites, and others asexual. Science does not back you up.
How do they switch gender ? Do they physically change through a natural biological process or do they, one morning, wake up and decide their in the wrong body and can impose their demands accordingly ?
Wonder what the Venn Diagram is between posters certain Burnham will be an utter flop, and those who told us he couldn't find a seat, and if he did he couldn't win and that he wasn't really popular in the NW anyway?
Just number 2 for me. And hands up i was totally wrong. I do wonder how close a run thing it was for Josh Simons making the decision.
Not very I'm told. He knew he couldn't win again. And was out of favour with his Labour Together mates. His only future was a Hail Mary. And he pulled it off. He's also not alone in finding Burnham effective.
People really fucking despise a moralising, holier-than-thou hypocrite
SKS and Angela Rayner to name two.
I always tend to believe that Labour politicians assume they are the good guys, on the right side of history etc and that when they take a freebie it's ok because they are the good guys. But woe betide a story for taking a freebie.
And their online supporters, especially the ones with red roses in their bio, are very much ‘my side right or wrong’ which just misses the bigger picture.
In opposition they were very holier than thou and rightly criticised some poor behaviour.
They get into power and some of them are exposed as being freeloaders as well.
The scale doesn’t matter, it’s the conduct that’s the problem.
Of course scale matters. Following reporting rules also matter. Now I don't particularly want to bat on behalf of Starmer, but some of the people on your preferred current teams are absolute rascals.
Who are my supposed ‘current team’
I’m firmly in the ‘will not vote’ camp 😂
I don't know, but I know who it isn't. I am pleased you are so cool about the £10b on PPE. To me, cock up or conspiracy it's a f*****' disgrace. That's my money they pissed up a rope.
I’m not ‘cool’ about any taxpayers money being wasted but accusing govt ministers of being corrupt when they weren’t is not the solution.
I used to buy PPE and did during COVID and just securing supply was difficult. You buy to a spec so if PPE was bought that was not fit for,purpose then why ? You cannot blame the govt. Blame the supply chain. Either it was incorrectly specified and what was supplied was to spec or,it wasn’t and should have been rejected when delivered.
I’d also expect them to condition assess and concess it for for use if not to spec and it could be used. At least review it.
The investigation should be like an air crash investigation. What went wrong and what can be done to learn from it for next time rather than just a partisan witch hunt.
My interpretation remains wholly different to yours. There was no clean bill of health. Lady Hallett was scathing about the success of the friends and family arrangements. She established £10b was wasted.
I suspect she did not believe her brief was to aportion blame. Cock up or conspiracy, guilty people should be held to account.
And as for the spec. If it is CE marked it is fine. If it is not CE marked it is not.
Absolutely not the case in my experience of buying PPE for use in class 7 clean room applications, like many clean rooms in the NHS. There is far more to it than just a CE mark.
The company I negotiated the contract for the cleanroom we put in out several into NHS facilities
These products may also have a shelf life attached.
Either the product bought, as I said, was to spec and it was incorrectly specified or it was not to spec and should have been rejected. Either way it appears to be a supply chain failure.
I've been enjoying the first night of the proms this evening. It's a really well-balanced programme, but Christ who thought it would it'd be a good idea to have Sandi Toksvig on the presenting team? Her vacuous enthusiasm is just so grating.
And Wonderwall as an encore. Might have worked better had England reached the final.
He has been chosen for persona/electoral not policy reasons. People with their own agendas will say he has to go this way or that way but he doesn't. He simply (although it's no simple matter) has to generate/sustain a clear poll lead for Labour. If he does this he will have delivered his side of the bargain.
But I hope he is more than this. Specifically that in addition to waxing lyrical about improving the morale/prospects of struggling working class communities (ten a penny talk from all sides of politics) he actually does (big) things in that vein. Levelling up in other words. For real not as a platitude (tory) or tied up with white identity politics (reform).
A more accurate description for levelling up, if it's going to be for real, is a significant reduction in inequalities of wealth, income and opportunity. Savvy pols on the left (which AB is) avoid that phrasing because it acknowledges there are losers and thus invites a load of superficially appealing 'rising tide lifts all boats' waffle in response.
I'm not blindly optimistic (money is tight and powerful forces will oppose him if he's serious) but I do feel energised and positive. Let's see how it pans out.
This is pretty much where I am.
Also 'Supermanc' is tremendous.
Yes, it’s top drawer stuff. 👍
Supermanc? Not a patch in WOTN.
My take from listening to him is how actually dangerous Burnham as PM is going to be. It’s a sort of sinister moment - something feels very wrong, if this was the opening of a play you’d sense something very bad to come from a party and a country sleepwalking into this with such hubris and pseudo politics. They were actually crowing at today’s announcement how unanimous the election was. Actually crowing at the sort of anti debate anti democracy election outcome Stalin would have been proud of. Actually crowing whilst they copied the same idiotic mistake the US Democrats made, to gift the world Trump 2.0.
Considering how incredibly weird and scary Burnamism is, what’s baffling is how there wasn’t a contest. Why didn’t the more intelligent wing of Labour put up a candidate against this? Even if Darren Jones lost - by no means certain on today’s performance from Burnham - the simple headed Union backed faction might at least had to share power with the more intelligent faction, by making Jones Chancellor?
Outline precisely what is weird and scary?
Yes, so easy to accept that challenge and explain it to you.
Rather than just a weird old throwback for us to laugh at whilst scratching our heads, Burnham is very very dangerous to the UK. The Burnhammites see de-industrialisation and globalisation as idealogical choices that can be switched off or unmade, merely undermines their credibility and sets a clock ticking till they are flat last in the polls for promising what can’t be delivered.
But being anti privatisation will come with real biting financial costs - the only conclusion is it results in less, not more public money to spend on what is needed.
UK has difficult choices to make asap - not least on welfare, pensions, social care - just to stand still. Instead it’s got a lefty Boris Johnson telling us how wonderful it’s going to be for everyone.
Lefty gabble about “it’s affordable because we are a major economy, a rich country” etc etc is so so ignorant to how expensive the UK governments commitments have become, how fragile our income, and how so much important stuff, from defence, health, social care, is already being de-funded in order to continue to pay the other UK bills, credit card interest and loan costs.
This mixture of even less tin pot money to properly fund public spending, coupled with power and grants decentralised into the arms of the octopus to use their own brains, away from the strategic seeing the bigger picture, coordinating brain in the centre - this is the very last thing Britain needs right now.
But will there be any decentralisation. Or even more centralisation. Burnhamism is also utterly contradictory the longer any of his sentences last beyond five seconds - for example attacking some much centralised power, promising a revolution in devolution. Seconds later how he will seize centralise and control of transport for cheaper fairs, ditto housing, ditto bills.
Burnham’s government is dum lefty populism, will obviously lead to greater inequality and division across the UK, and so is dangerous. This makes Burnham Ideology much more than weirdly funny and something to be laughed at as it has been across UK media all day - it is downright dangerous and ruinous in all the ways I have just explained.
He has been chosen for persona/electoral not policy reasons. People with their own agendas will say he has to go this way or that way but he doesn't. He simply (although it's no simple matter) has to generate/sustain a clear poll lead for Labour. If he does this he will have delivered his side of the bargain.
But I hope he is more than this. Specifically that in addition to waxing lyrical about improving the morale/prospects of struggling working class communities (ten a penny talk from all sides of politics) he actually does (big) things in that vein. Levelling up in other words. For real not as a platitude (tory) or tied up with white identity politics (reform).
A more accurate description for levelling up, if it's going to be for real, is a significant reduction in inequalities of wealth, income and opportunity. Savvy pols on the left (which AB is) avoid that phrasing because it acknowledges there are losers and thus invites a load of superficially appealing 'rising tide lifts all boats' waffle in response.
I'm not blindly optimistic (money is tight and powerful forces will oppose him if he's serious) but I do feel energised and positive. Let's see how it pans out.
This is pretty much where I am.
Also 'Supermanc' is tremendous.
Yes, it’s top drawer stuff. 👍
Supermanc? Not a patch in WOTN.
My take from listening to him is how actually dangerous Burnham as PM is going to be. It’s a sort of sinister moment - something feels very wrong, if this was the opening of a play you’d sense something very bad to come from a party and a country sleepwalking into this with such hubris and pseudo politics. They were actually crowing at today’s announcement how unanimous the election was. Actually crowing at the sort of anti debate anti democracy election outcome Stalin would have been proud of. Actually crowing whilst they copied the same idiotic mistake the US Democrats made, to gift the world Trump 2.0.
Considering how incredibly weird and scary Burnamism is, what’s baffling is how there wasn’t a contest. Why didn’t the more intelligent wing of Labour put up a candidate against this? Even if Darren Jones lost - by no means certain on today’s performance from Burnham - the simple headed Union backed faction might at least had to share power with the more intelligent faction, by making Jones Chancellor?
Outline precisely what is weird and scary?
Yes, so easy to accept that challenge and explain it to you.
Rather than just a weird old throwback for us to laugh at whilst scratching our heads, Burnham is very very dangerous to the UK. The Burnhammites see de-industrialisation and globalisation as idealogical choices that can be switched off or unmade, merely undermines their credibility and sets a clock ticking till they are flat last in the polls for promising what can’t be delivered.
But being anti privatisation will come with real biting financial costs - the only conclusion is it results in less, not more public money to spend on what is needed.
UK has difficult choices to make asap - not least on welfare, pensions, social care - just to stand still. Instead it’s got a lefty Boris Johnson telling us how wonderful it’s going to be for everyone.
Lefty gabble about “it’s affordable because we are a major economy, a rich country” etc etc is so so ignorant to how expensive the UK governments commitments have become, how fragile our income, and how so much important stuff, from defence, health, social care, is already being de-funded in order to continue to pay the other UK bills, credit card interest and loan costs.
This mixture of even less tin pot money to properly fund public spending, coupled with power and grants decentralised into the arms of the octopus to use their own brains, away from the strategic seeing the bigger picture, coordinating brain in the centre - this is the very last thing Britain needs right now.
But will there be any decentralisation. Or even more centralisation. Burnhamism is also utterly contradictory the longer any of his sentences last beyond five seconds - for example attacking some much centralised power, promising a revolution in devolution. Seconds later how he will seize centralise and control of transport for cheaper fairs, ditto housing, ditto bills.
Burnham’s government is dum lefty populism, will obviously lead to greater inequality and division across the UK, and so is dangerous. This makes Burnham Ideology much more than weirdly funny and something to be laughed at as it has been across UK media all day - it is downright dangerous and ruinous in all the ways I have just explained.
Not sure if this has been mentioned yet but credit to the Free Speech Union for standing by their principles
'The Free Speech Union has said that, should Heather Herbert join the Free Speech Union, we would do our best to help him.
Heather Herbert posted a vile and deeply offensive statement on the social media platform BlueSky about the tragic murder of Ann Widdecombe.
The University of Aberdeen employee has now been arrested and charged over his offensive comments.
While the Free Speech Union does not support Heather’s offensive comments about Ann — a dear late friend of the FSU — it is not an offence, no matter how offensive, to speak ill of the dead.
Ann was a staunch defender of our fundamental right to free speech, and we very much doubt she would have supported Police Scotland’s actions.'
Indeed. Preston Byrne (pro bono counsel to the FSU) is particularlly good on this point.
Linehan shouldn't have been arrested for his "kick 'em in the balls" tweet (unless someone did, in fact, commit an s20 assault, in which case he is fair game as an accessory should there be a proven causal link between his tweet and the attacker).
Speaking ill of the dead shouldn't be an offence either. It should also be remembered that Anne Widdecombe believed that trans women (at least those who have had "the op") are women, which is more than can be said for many regulars here.
Since we're on #pbfreespeech, how do we feel about JK Rowling suing amnesty international for calling the 51 gender critical organisations listed in their recent report "anti rights" (Including an org that PB's resident terf is a member of)?
I happen to disagree with the amnesty report and think it's massive overreach, but the correct response is rebuttal rather than trying to silence one's critics with lawfare.
IMHO the UK needs to introduce US-style anti SLAPP legislation to prevent the super-rich from silencing their critics.
You are allowed to believe that men can be women, but I can also believe that they cannot. I think science is on my side of the argument but I also think we will never agree.
Men and women are not scientific terms. Male and female are. Many species can switch gender. Many are hemaphrodites, and others asexual. Science does not back you up.
And there it is - the use of edge cases to try to suggest men can become women. Humans do not switch from male to female.
So let me ask you the question again. If you were (totally hypothetically) caught in flagrante, sucking the cock of a hairy, muscly, bearded trans man, would it be a) gay or b) a totally straight, hetero, cis thing to do, because the cock you happen to be sucking on belongs to a woman as people, in your opinion, cannot change sex?
It's a stupid question. I have no issue with what consenting adults do with each other be they herosexual or gay. I simply believe that men cannot become women and vise versa.
We don't agree, and I respect that. Playing silly what if games doesn't make the point you think you are making.
It's not a stupid question at all, it's what we call "revealed preference" designed to separate ideological dogma from real, visceral experience.
Now if - again, hypothetically speaking - you were sucking that cock, I mean really going for it, my bet is that you would feel really, *really* gay, and not like you were having sex with a woman at all. QED, your revealed preference would demonstrate that you do in fact believe that there is a practical threshold where people do for all intents and purposes change sex, despite the ideological dogma that is holding you back from saying so.
That is why I asked the question I did, as bluntly as I did.
And it is also why you refuse to answer it. Because you see the obvious trap, i.e. if you say "it's not gay to suck the cock" you sound ridiculous, but if you say it is gay you have to agree with me that there is a threshold beyond which you consider a person transitioned.
I've read Andy Burnham's speech and let's remember he was talking to a Labour Party audience.
Some interesting nuggets and as with David Cameron a speech long on diagnosis but short on treatment. It's easy to identify what is "wrong" but, and I imagine this will follow in the next few weeks, we've get really to see what a Burnham Government would do.
Inevitably, it's not what a Badenoch Government would do - there's a surprise - and the vitriol has already started in earnest from the usual suspects it would seem.
I look forward to Burnham's ideas on social care, a can repeatedly kicked down the road by the Conservatives up to 2024 and whether he's genuine about passing real power back to Councils from Whitehall and Westminster.
He's no worse than Badenoch, Farage, Davy or Polanski in being unwilling to confront the elephants such as borrowing and the Triple Lock.
I was hoping we might hear something about Land Value Taxation but perhaps his Chancellor will not tinker round the edges but go all in for income tax rate rises and perhaps VAT rises - we'll see.
Remarkable how the very same people who argue Burnham's policies don't exist beyond vibe and haven't been scrutinised, are the same ones with the simultaneous incredibly detailed insider knowledge of what they actually are.
He has been chosen for persona/electoral not policy reasons. People with their own agendas will say he has to go this way or that way but he doesn't. He simply (although it's no simple matter) has to generate/sustain a clear poll lead for Labour. If he does this he will have delivered his side of the bargain.
But I hope he is more than this. Specifically that in addition to waxing lyrical about improving the morale/prospects of struggling working class communities (ten a penny talk from all sides of politics) he actually does (big) things in that vein. Levelling up in other words. For real not as a platitude (tory) or tied up with white identity politics (reform).
A more accurate description for levelling up, if it's going to be for real, is a significant reduction in inequalities of wealth, income and opportunity. Savvy pols on the left (which AB is) avoid that phrasing because it acknowledges there are losers and thus invites a load of superficially appealing 'rising tide lifts all boats' waffle in response.
I'm not blindly optimistic (money is tight and powerful forces will oppose him if he's serious) but I do feel energised and positive. Let's see how it pans out.
This is pretty much where I am.
Also 'Supermanc' is tremendous.
Yes, it’s top drawer stuff. 👍
Supermanc? Not a patch in WOTN.
My take from listening to him is how actually dangerous Burnham as PM is going to be. It’s a sort of sinister moment - something feels very wrong, if this was the opening of a play you’d sense something very bad to come from a party and a country sleepwalking into this with such hubris and pseudo politics. They were actually crowing at today’s announcement how unanimous the election was. Actually crowing at the sort of anti debate anti democracy election outcome Stalin would have been proud of. Actually crowing whilst they copied the same idiotic mistake the US Democrats made, to gift the world Trump 2.0.
Considering how incredibly weird and scary Burnamism is, what’s baffling is how there wasn’t a contest. Why didn’t the more intelligent wing of Labour put up a candidate against this? Even if Darren Jones lost - by no means certain on today’s performance from Burnham - the simple headed Union backed faction might at least had to share power with the more intelligent faction, by making Jones Chancellor?
Outline precisely what is weird and scary?
Yes, so easy to accept that challenge and explain it to you.
Rather than just a weird old throwback for us to laugh at whilst scratching our heads, Burnham is very very dangerous to the UK. The Burnhammites see de-industrialisation and globalisation as idealogical choices that can be switched off or unmade, merely undermines their credibility and sets a clock ticking till they are flat last in the polls for promising what can’t be delivered.
But being anti privatisation will come with real biting financial costs - the only conclusion is it results in less, not more public money to spend on what is needed.
UK has difficult choices to make asap - not least on welfare, pensions, social care - just to stand still. Instead it’s got a lefty Boris Johnson telling us how wonderful it’s going to be for everyone.
Lefty gabble about “it’s affordable because we are a major economy, a rich country” etc etc is so so ignorant to how expensive the UK governments commitments have become, how fragile our income, and how so much important stuff, from defence, health, social care, is already being de-funded in order to continue to pay the other UK bills, credit card interest and loan costs.
This mixture of even less tin pot money to properly fund public spending, coupled with power and grants decentralised into the arms of the octopus to use their own brains, away from the strategic seeing the bigger picture, coordinating brain in the centre - this is the very last thing Britain needs right now.
But will there be any decentralisation. Or even more centralisation. Burnhamism is also utterly contradictory the longer any of his sentences last beyond five seconds - for example attacking some much centralised power, promising a revolution in devolution. Seconds later how he will seize centralise and control of transport for cheaper fairs, ditto housing, ditto bills.
Burnham’s government is dum lefty populism, will obviously lead to greater inequality and division across the UK, and so is dangerous. This makes Burnham Ideology much more than weirdly funny and something to be laughed at as it has been across UK media all day - it is downright dangerous and ruinous in all the ways I have just explained.
So... He isn't a Thatcherite seems to be your argument.
Not sure if this has been mentioned yet but credit to the Free Speech Union for standing by their principles
'The Free Speech Union has said that, should Heather Herbert join the Free Speech Union, we would do our best to help him.
Heather Herbert posted a vile and deeply offensive statement on the social media platform BlueSky about the tragic murder of Ann Widdecombe.
The University of Aberdeen employee has now been arrested and charged over his offensive comments.
While the Free Speech Union does not support Heather’s offensive comments about Ann — a dear late friend of the FSU — it is not an offence, no matter how offensive, to speak ill of the dead.
Ann was a staunch defender of our fundamental right to free speech, and we very much doubt she would have supported Police Scotland’s actions.'
And yet the arseholes couldn’t resist a snidey wee gender dig.
What are principled Toby & co doing about supporting the ‘I support Palestine Action’ people?
Supporting their right to free speech. Along with that of their supporters. But not illegal action.
As you would know if you actually bothered to try and read up on them rather than just making snide remarks.
So you’re a fan of deliberately misgendering people for the vibes? Cool, free speech and all that. Personally I wouldn’t touch that kind of advocacy with a barge pole, and consider it a major part of the degradation of civilised discourse.
Nope I am a fan of free speech. Something you seem to be rather averse to.
You cannot have meaningful civilised discourse if you do not have freedom of speech.
And I do find it amusing that, having been shown to be ignorant on the FSU as far as PA supporters are concerned, you immediately switch to an entirely different line of attack without even acknowledging you were wrong. Looks kind of desperate.
I am watching Inspector Ricciardi on Walter Presents. It is set in the 1930s and the sub stories relate to loyalty to Partito Nazionale Fascista.
What they do and how they operate is uncannily similar to Trump's Whitehouse. They even have a secret police force which rounds up people they don't like.
Is that the detective who can see ghosts/spirits? Somewhat related - "Inspector De Luca" set in the same time period. I think it was on BBC4 10-15 years ago so might have aged a bit.
I am watching Inspector Ricciardi on Walter Presents. It is set in the 1930s and the sub stories relate to loyalty to Partito Nazionale Fascista.
What they do and how they operate is uncannily similar to Trump's Whitehouse. They even have a secret police force which rounds up people they don't like.
Is that the detective who can see ghosts/spirits? Somewhat related - "Inspector De Luca" set in the same time period. I think it was on BBC4 10-15 years ago so might have aged a bit.
Not sure if this has been mentioned yet but credit to the Free Speech Union for standing by their principles
'The Free Speech Union has said that, should Heather Herbert join the Free Speech Union, we would do our best to help him.
Heather Herbert posted a vile and deeply offensive statement on the social media platform BlueSky about the tragic murder of Ann Widdecombe.
The University of Aberdeen employee has now been arrested and charged over his offensive comments.
While the Free Speech Union does not support Heather’s offensive comments about Ann — a dear late friend of the FSU — it is not an offence, no matter how offensive, to speak ill of the dead.
Ann was a staunch defender of our fundamental right to free speech, and we very much doubt she would have supported Police Scotland’s actions.'
Indeed. Preston Byrne (pro bono counsel to the FSU) is particularlly good on this point.
Linehan shouldn't have been arrested for his "kick 'em in the balls" tweet (unless someone did, in fact, commit an s20 assault, in which case he is fair game as an accessory should there be a proven causal link between his tweet and the attacker).
Speaking ill of the dead shouldn't be an offence either. It should also be remembered that Anne Widdecombe believed that trans women (at least those who have had "the op") are women, which is more than can be said for many regulars here.
Since we're on #pbfreespeech, how do we feel about JK Rowling suing amnesty international for calling the 51 gender critical organisations listed in their recent report "anti rights" (Including an org that PB's resident terf is a member of)?
I happen to disagree with the amnesty report and think it's massive overreach, but the correct response is rebuttal rather than trying to silence one's critics with lawfare.
IMHO the UK needs to introduce US-style anti SLAPP legislation to prevent the super-rich from silencing their critics.
You are allowed to believe that men can be women, but I can also believe that they cannot. I think science is on my side of the argument but I also think we will never agree.
Men and women are not scientific terms. Male and female are. Many species can switch gender. Many are hemaphrodites, and others asexual. Science does not back you up.
And there it is - the use of edge cases to try to suggest men can become women. Humans do not switch from male to female.
So let me ask you the question again. If you were (totally hypothetically) caught in flagrante, sucking the cock of a hairy, muscly, bearded trans man, would it be a) gay or b) a totally straight, hetero, cis thing to do, because the cock you happen to be sucking on belongs to a woman as people, in your opinion, cannot change sex?
It's a stupid question. I have no issue with what consenting adults do with each other be they herosexual or gay. I simply believe that men cannot become women and vise versa.
We don't agree, and I respect that. Playing silly what if games doesn't make the point you think you are making.
It's not a stupid question at all, it's what we call "revealed preference" designed to separate ideological dogma from real, visceral experience.
Now if - again, hypothetically speaking - you were sucking that cock, I mean really going for it, my bet is that you would feel really, *really* gay, and not like you were having sex with a woman at all. QED, your revealed preference would demonstrate that you do in fact believe that there is a practical threshold where people do for all intents and purposes change sex, despite the ideological dogma that is holding you back from saying so.
That is why I asked the question I did, as bluntly as I did.
And it is also why you refuse to answer it. Because you see the obvious trap, i.e. if you say "it's not gay to suck the cock" you sound ridiculous, but if you say it is gay you have to agree with me that there is a threshold beyond which you consider a person transitioned.
Do enough work and a human can look like a cat. They have not become a cat. And as I have said before the woman with the 'cick' is still a woman, just one who now has a beard through taking testosterone combined with a weird squeaky frog voice and a piece of arm or thigh tissue shaped into a tube that can either be used to urinate or be made 'erect' but not bothered. It is by no means a penis.
Can you not just accept we disagree? Sophistry does not win the argument.
For all those in the thread who are discussing whether humans can or cannot change their sex (GC people: NO! Pro-trans people: frogs and fish can!), the interesting question in the sense of carrying the conversation forward is *when* does it happen.
Back in the early 20's when I was stuck in the toilets, I introduced Viewcode's Three Questions thus:
1) Can a man become a woman or vice versa
2) If so, what is the name of this process?
3) At what point in the process does the status change?
The point was to distinguish those who believe in GC from those who believe in self-id from those who believe in physical transition: in short, sortition. The backstage discussion then deteriorated into a discussion about whether women can have penises, which didn't help.
With the coming abolition of the backstage discussions (what MoonRabbit memorably christened "the toilets"), it seems it is going to be lost as it ends up in the Backrooms where mutated versions of us wander endlessly. So I thought I'd get it down here now before it goes.
Good job the major parties didn't stand. They'd need the length of the pier to unfurl the ballot paper.
Binface (Count) presumably is first on the alphabetical ballot. I always find that to be an advantage for the Conservatives. I hover the pencil over the box and then remember what a bunch of ***** they are.
There's a trope in alternate history- "don't kill Hitler, because you risk getting someone who still does all the things you don't like but doesn't have the flaws that made it possible to defeat Mr Adolf."
I'm optimistic that Burnham doesn't have the same difficulties controlling his wallet, diary or tummy banana that Boris had. But the other echoes- the personal ambition, the willingness to undermine the boss (have we all forgotten his antics around the 2025 conference?), the saying what his immediate audience wants to hear... It all feels a bit History Repeating Itself.
Still, it's my country, but neither my circus nor my moneys. And as a good patriot, of course I hope it works. But I'm uneasy.
I am, at least until Monday, more optimistic. Firstly, the antics and disloyalty to get to the the top are just how it is. Power is never given away, it is taken. If you don't know that or won't act on that you are not the stuff required. Horrible but true.
Secondly, having climbed the greasy pole, he has work to do. There are big enough problems being PM, but at the top of the problems for Burnham is the dimness of the MPs and the members; but, as even Blair knew, you can't get to the top without them.
So he has to square them by the right talk, and saying what they want to hear; that's easy because while bright he is a member of the Labour lodge and has made a career out of it; and he has to do so also by pointing out, as he has, that they are free to think what they like as long as they agree with him and vote his way. His word is 'non negotiable' and this will apply to everything that matters.
Thirdly, and worth noting, he has so far committed not a farthing of extra cash. Including for social care. No-one has noticed that the 2024 Labour manifesto made various pledges about social care but not of them were about how it is paid for. How he send the money bit out again to the long grass will be interesting, but he will.
Good job the major parties didn't stand. They'd need the length of the pier to unfurl the ballot paper.
Binface (Count) presumably is first on the alphabetical ballot. I always find that to be an advantage for the Conservatives. I hover the pencil over the box and then remember what a bunch of ***** they are.
Due to a little mixup at the council it's actually 'AAA Taxis' first.
Good job the major parties didn't stand. They'd need the length of the pier to unfurl the ballot paper.
Binface (Count) presumably is first on the alphabetical ballot. I always find that to be an advantage for the Conservatives. I hover the pencil over the box and then remember what a bunch of ***** they are.
Documentary about one of the towns in the Clacton constituency, Walton-on-the-Naze. It's part of John Pitman's "Just Another Day" series, and was filmed in the summer of 1982 I think. In 3 parts.
Well, all but one of them could lose their deposits. That happened in the 2016 Batley and Spen by-election, with 9 candidates losing their deposit and only the winning Labour candidate saving hers.
23/26 candidates lost their deposits in David Davis's by-election, presumably a record number of lost deposits.
EDIT: Doh! I am wrong. Of course, if the vote is very evenly divided, everyone could get less than 5%. I believe this has happened in Papua New Guinea.
Not sure if this has been mentioned yet but credit to the Free Speech Union for standing by their principles
'The Free Speech Union has said that, should Heather Herbert join the Free Speech Union, we would do our best to help him.
Heather Herbert posted a vile and deeply offensive statement on the social media platform BlueSky about the tragic murder of Ann Widdecombe.
The University of Aberdeen employee has now been arrested and charged over his offensive comments.
While the Free Speech Union does not support Heather’s offensive comments about Ann — a dear late friend of the FSU — it is not an offence, no matter how offensive, to speak ill of the dead.
Ann was a staunch defender of our fundamental right to free speech, and we very much doubt she would have supported Police Scotland’s actions.'
And yet the arseholes couldn’t resist a snidey wee gender dig.
What are principled Toby & co doing about supporting the ‘I support Palestine Action’ people?
Supporting their right to free speech. Along with that of their supporters. But not illegal action.
As you would know if you actually bothered to try and read up on them rather than just making snide remarks.
So you’re a fan of deliberately misgendering people for the vibes? Cool, free speech and all that. Personally I wouldn’t touch that kind of advocacy with a barge pole, and consider it a major part of the degradation of civilised discourse.
Nope I am a fan of free speech. Something you seem to be rather averse to.
You cannot have meaningful civilised discourse if you do not have freedom of speech.
And I do find it amusing that, having been shown to be ignorant on the FSU as far as PA supporters are concerned, you immediately switch to an entirely different line of attack without even acknowledging you were wrong. Looks kind of desperate.
I referred back to my original point that undergrad Spectator wankers deliberately misgendered someone to whom they were pretending to offer help, a point which you ignored. But do carry on being amused, Istr you’re one of more tedious last word merchants on here.
Good job the major parties didn't stand. They'd need the length of the pier to unfurl the ballot paper.
Binface (Count) presumably is first on the alphabetical ballot. I always find that to be an advantage for the Conservatives. I hover the pencil over the box and then remember what a bunch of ***** they are.
Binface third on the ballot paper. Joseph 77 is first.
Not sure if this has been mentioned yet but credit to the Free Speech Union for standing by their principles
'The Free Speech Union has said that, should Heather Herbert join the Free Speech Union, we would do our best to help him.
Heather Herbert posted a vile and deeply offensive statement on the social media platform BlueSky about the tragic murder of Ann Widdecombe.
The University of Aberdeen employee has now been arrested and charged over his offensive comments.
While the Free Speech Union does not support Heather’s offensive comments about Ann — a dear late friend of the FSU — it is not an offence, no matter how offensive, to speak ill of the dead.
Ann was a staunch defender of our fundamental right to free speech, and we very much doubt she would have supported Police Scotland’s actions.'
Indeed. Preston Byrne (pro bono counsel to the FSU) is particularlly good on this point.
Linehan shouldn't have been arrested for his "kick 'em in the balls" tweet (unless someone did, in fact, commit an s20 assault, in which case he is fair game as an accessory should there be a proven causal link between his tweet and the attacker).
Speaking ill of the dead shouldn't be an offence either. It should also be remembered that Anne Widdecombe believed that trans women (at least those who have had "the op") are women, which is more than can be said for many regulars here.
Since we're on #pbfreespeech, how do we feel about JK Rowling suing amnesty international for calling the 51 gender critical organisations listed in their recent report "anti rights" (Including an org that PB's resident terf is a member of)?
I happen to disagree with the amnesty report and think it's massive overreach, but the correct response is rebuttal rather than trying to silence one's critics with lawfare.
IMHO the UK needs to introduce US-style anti SLAPP legislation to prevent the super-rich from silencing their critics.
You are allowed to believe that men can be women, but I can also believe that they cannot. I think science is on my side of the argument but I also think we will never agree.
Men and women are not scientific terms. Male and female are. Many species can switch gender. Many are hemaphrodites, and others asexual. Science does not back you up.
And there it is - the use of edge cases to try to suggest men can become women. Humans do not switch from male to female.
So let me ask you the question again. If you were (totally hypothetically) caught in flagrante, sucking the cock of a hairy, muscly, bearded trans man, would it be a) gay or b) a totally straight, hetero, cis thing to do, because the cock you happen to be sucking on belongs to a woman as people, in your opinion, cannot change sex?
It's a stupid question. I have no issue with what consenting adults do with each other be they herosexual or gay. I simply believe that men cannot become women and vise versa.
We don't agree, and I respect that. Playing silly what if games doesn't make the point you think you are making.
It's not a stupid question at all, it's what we call "revealed preference" designed to separate ideological dogma from real, visceral experience.
Now if - again, hypothetically speaking - you were sucking that cock, I mean really going for it, my bet is that you would feel really, *really* gay, and not like you were having sex with a woman at all. QED, your revealed preference would demonstrate that you do in fact believe that there is a practical threshold where people do for all intents and purposes change sex, despite the ideological dogma that is holding you back from saying so.
That is why I asked the question I did, as bluntly as I did.
And it is also why you refuse to answer it. Because you see the obvious trap, i.e. if you say "it's not gay to suck the cock" you sound ridiculous, but if you say it is gay you have to agree with me that there is a threshold beyond which you consider a person transitioned.
Do enough work and a human can look like a cat. They have not become a cat. And as I have said before the woman with the 'cick' is still a woman, just one who now has a beard through taking testosterone combined with a weird squeaky frog voice and a piece of arm or thigh tissue shaped into a tube that can either be used to urinate or be made 'erect' but not bothered. It is by no means a penis.
Can you not just accept we disagree? Sophistry does not win the argument.
What I'm trying to do, and I apologise if using "you" as an example is a bit too visceral, but it's much harder to ignore *how you would feel in this scenario*, is to point out that irrespective of ontological descriptors i.e. "a man is a man and therefore cannot be a woman QED" which is a valid *philosophical* point to make, it lacks practical application. i.e. in the real world for all intents and purposes, once you have a penis and live as a man, most people will treat you as such.
My point is not to get at you personally - but to drive a wedge between ideological argument and lived reality, namely that many people successfully transition to the point where they a) have the functional genitals of the opposite sex in practice, b) have the appearance of the opposite sex in practice and c) their presence would be genuinely disruptive if they were treated as their birth gender - e.g. forcing the hairy, muscly, bearded guy to use the ladies (which is the law now, thanks JK!).
My argument is an attempt to short circuit the ontological definition of what is a man / woman and instead introduce consideration that we need to base policy on lived reality and everyday experience. Uncomfortably for any trans rights absolutists in this thread (of which I am not one), this also means my position is that you should probably use the gents if people perceive you as a man and the ladies if people perceive you as a lady. Where it gets hard is the edge cases, such as those with functional transitioned genitalia who still don't pass in their acquired sex. This is why it is not an easy debate, but it is still one that does need to be rooted in lived experience rather than ideological dogma.
Not sure if this has been mentioned yet but credit to the Free Speech Union for standing by their principles
'The Free Speech Union has said that, should Heather Herbert join the Free Speech Union, we would do our best to help him.
Heather Herbert posted a vile and deeply offensive statement on the social media platform BlueSky about the tragic murder of Ann Widdecombe.
The University of Aberdeen employee has now been arrested and charged over his offensive comments.
While the Free Speech Union does not support Heather’s offensive comments about Ann — a dear late friend of the FSU — it is not an offence, no matter how offensive, to speak ill of the dead.
Ann was a staunch defender of our fundamental right to free speech, and we very much doubt she would have supported Police Scotland’s actions.'
Indeed. Preston Byrne (pro bono counsel to the FSU) is particularlly good on this point.
Linehan shouldn't have been arrested for his "kick 'em in the balls" tweet (unless someone did, in fact, commit an s20 assault, in which case he is fair game as an accessory should there be a proven causal link between his tweet and the attacker).
Speaking ill of the dead shouldn't be an offence either. It should also be remembered that Anne Widdecombe believed that trans women (at least those who have had "the op") are women, which is more than can be said for many regulars here.
Since we're on #pbfreespeech, how do we feel about JK Rowling suing amnesty international for calling the 51 gender critical organisations listed in their recent report "anti rights" (Including an org that PB's resident terf is a member of)?
I happen to disagree with the amnesty report and think it's massive overreach, but the correct response is rebuttal rather than trying to silence one's critics with lawfare.
IMHO the UK needs to introduce US-style anti SLAPP legislation to prevent the super-rich from silencing their critics.
You are allowed to believe that men can be women, but I can also believe that they cannot. I think science is on my side of the argument but I also think we will never agree.
Men and women are not scientific terms. Male and female are. Many species can switch gender. Many are hemaphrodites, and others asexual. Science does not back you up.
And there it is - the use of edge cases to try to suggest men can become women. Humans do not switch from male to female.
So let me ask you the question again. If you were (totally hypothetically) caught in flagrante, sucking the cock of a hairy, muscly, bearded trans man, would it be a) gay or b) a totally straight, hetero, cis thing to do, because the cock you happen to be sucking on belongs to a woman as people, in your opinion, cannot change sex?
It's a stupid question. I have no issue with what consenting adults do with each other be they herosexual or gay. I simply believe that men cannot become women and vise versa.
We don't agree, and I respect that. Playing silly what if games doesn't make the point you think you are making.
It's not a stupid question at all, it's what we call "revealed preference" designed to separate ideological dogma from real, visceral experience.
Now if - again, hypothetically speaking - you were sucking that cock, I mean really going for it, my bet is that you would feel really, *really* gay, and not like you were having sex with a woman at all. QED, your revealed preference would demonstrate that you do in fact believe that there is a practical threshold where people do for all intents and purposes change sex, despite the ideological dogma that is holding you back from saying so.
That is why I asked the question I did, as bluntly as I did.
And it is also why you refuse to answer it. Because you see the obvious trap, i.e. if you say "it's not gay to suck the cock" you sound ridiculous, but if you say it is gay you have to agree with me that there is a threshold beyond which you consider a person transitioned.
Do enough work and a human can look like a cat. They have not become a cat. And as I have said before the woman with the 'cick' is still a woman, just one who now has a beard through taking testosterone combined with a weird squeaky frog voice and a piece of arm or thigh tissue shaped into a tube that can either be used to urinate or be made 'erect' but not bothered. It is by no means a penis.
Can you not just accept we disagree? Sophistry does not win the argument.
What I'm trying to do, and I apologise if using "you" as an example is a bit too visceral, but it's much harder to ignore *how you would feel in this scenario*, is to point out that irrespective of ontological descriptors i.e. "a man is a man and therefore cannot be a woman QED" which is a valid *philosophical* point to make, it lacks practical application. i.e. in the real world for all intents and purposes, once you have a penis and live as a man, most people will treat you as such.
My point is not to get at you personally - but to drive a wedge between ideological argument and lived reality, namely that many people successfully transition to the point where they a) have the functional genitals of the opposite sex in practice, b) have the appearance of the opposite sex in practice and c) their presence would be genuinely disruptive if they were treated as their birth gender - e.g. forcing the hairy, muscly, bearded guy to use the ladies (which is the law now, thanks JK!).
My argument is an attempt to short circuit the ontological definition of what is a man / woman and instead introduce consideration that we need to base policy on lived reality and everyday experience. Uncomfortably for any trans rights absolutists in this thread (of which I am not one), this also means my position is that you should probably use the gents if people perceive you as a man and the ladies if people perceive you as a lady. Where it gets hard is the edge cases, such as those with functional transitioned genitalia who still don't pass in their acquired sex. This is why it is not an easy debate, but it is still one that does need to be rooted in lived experience rather than ideological dogma.
But no woman has a penis. They have some flesh modelled into something that to some resembles a penis. AIUI this price of flesh can either be made to become erect OR be used to pass urine standing up, as if that's a good thing, but not bothered. It is not a penis. Your view seems to be that enough disguise makes the trick work. My counter is that it is still a trick. The woman still has her chromosomes, her DNA, etc. Yes we can flood her body with male hormones and this can effect physiological changes but the woman still remains a woman.
One highlight- three OMRLP candidates. Which is a satirical point of sorts, I suppose.
Seems to be one for Labour, one for the Tories and one for the Lib Dems, since they cost not to stand.
"Everyone is God Party"?
Also notice someone is standing from Australia.
What's the largest number of candidates to have cone equal last with zero in the past?
I'm not sure if anyone has received zero votes before.
The fewest votes at a UK by-election was Yolande Kenward (no description) in the 2021 North Shropshire by-election, with 3 votes. Joseph 77 received only 8 votes in the 2023 Uxbridge and South Ruislip by-election.
The chorus of 'You must only be three then arf arf' in response to me stating the really quite obvious fact that Starmer is the worst PM in living memory is deeply embarrassing. It seems that our centrist Dad brigade is already healing from the trauma of the era by resorting to complete denial.
You can talk about Truss all you want - there's no economic measure by which Starmer hasn't underperformed Truss's era. Truss's only real economic legacy is cancelling Sunak's National Insurance hike. That plan to put NI up by 1.25 would have completely fucked the economy - if you want to dispute that, look at what happened when Starmer and Reeves implemented a more modest increase on Employers only. It was a shrewd move that her Government gets no credit for.
There's no Truss polling low Starmer hasn't fallen beneath either. And she as far as I know had no plans to introduce banter bans, digital ID, bans on North Sea oil exploration, limits to trial by jury, or any of the rest of the daily grind of national emiseration that Starmer's Government has inflicted from his gaslighting bully pulpit.
Not sure if this has been mentioned yet but credit to the Free Speech Union for standing by their principles
'The Free Speech Union has said that, should Heather Herbert join the Free Speech Union, we would do our best to help him.
Heather Herbert posted a vile and deeply offensive statement on the social media platform BlueSky about the tragic murder of Ann Widdecombe.
The University of Aberdeen employee has now been arrested and charged over his offensive comments.
While the Free Speech Union does not support Heather’s offensive comments about Ann — a dear late friend of the FSU — it is not an offence, no matter how offensive, to speak ill of the dead.
Ann was a staunch defender of our fundamental right to free speech, and we very much doubt she would have supported Police Scotland’s actions.'
Indeed. Preston Byrne (pro bono counsel to the FSU) is particularlly good on this point.
Linehan shouldn't have been arrested for his "kick 'em in the balls" tweet (unless someone did, in fact, commit an s20 assault, in which case he is fair game as an accessory should there be a proven causal link between his tweet and the attacker).
Speaking ill of the dead shouldn't be an offence either. It should also be remembered that Anne Widdecombe believed that trans women (at least those who have had "the op") are women, which is more than can be said for many regulars here.
Since we're on #pbfreespeech, how do we feel about JK Rowling suing amnesty international for calling the 51 gender critical organisations listed in their recent report "anti rights" (Including an org that PB's resident terf is a member of)?
I happen to disagree with the amnesty report and think it's massive overreach, but the correct response is rebuttal rather than trying to silence one's critics with lawfare.
IMHO the UK needs to introduce US-style anti SLAPP legislation to prevent the super-rich from silencing their critics.
You are allowed to believe that men can be women, but I can also believe that they cannot. I think science is on my side of the argument but I also think we will never agree.
Men and women are not scientific terms. Male and female are. Many species can switch gender. Many are hemaphrodites, and others asexual. Science does not back you up.
And there it is - the use of edge cases to try to suggest men can become women. Humans do not switch from male to female.
So let me ask you the question again. If you were (totally hypothetically) caught in flagrante, sucking the cock of a hairy, muscly, bearded trans man, would it be a) gay or b) a totally straight, hetero, cis thing to do, because the cock you happen to be sucking on belongs to a woman as people, in your opinion, cannot change sex?
It's a stupid question. I have no issue with what consenting adults do with each other be they herosexual or gay. I simply believe that men cannot become women and vise versa.
We don't agree, and I respect that. Playing silly what if games doesn't make the point you think you are making.
It doesn't follow that this belief of yours should drive public policy on how transgender people should be treated or what they should or shouldn't be allowed to do.
There's a Supreme Court ruling on what sex means under the Equalities Act. It means sex at birth. And there's a piece of legislation (the GRA) which says that a person who has transitioned via the legal process should be recognised in their acquired gender for all practical purposes.
The chorus of 'You must only be three then arf arf' in response to me stating the really quite obvious fact that Starmer is the worst PM in living memory is deeply embarrassing. It seems that our centrist Dad brigade is already healing from the trauma of the era by resorting to complete denial.
You can talk about Truss all you want - there's no economic measure by which Starmer hasn't underperformed Truss's era. Truss's only real economic legacy is cancelling Sunak's National Insurance hike. That plan to put NI up by 1.25 would have completely fucked the economy - if you want to dispute that, look at what happened when Starmer and Reeves implemented a more modest increase on Employers only. It was a shrewd move that her Government gets no credit for.
There's no Truss polling low Starmer hasn't fallen beneath either. And she as far as I know had no plans to introduce banter bans, digital ID, bans on North Sea oil exploration, limits to trial by jury, or any of the rest of the daily grind of national emiseration that Starmer's Government has inflicted from his gaslighting bully pulpit.
The chorus of 'You must only be three then arf arf' in response to me stating the really quite obvious fact that Starmer is the worst PM in living memory is deeply embarrassing. It seems that our centrist Dad brigade is already healing from the trauma of the era by resorting to complete denial.
You can talk about Truss all you want - there's no economic measure by which Starmer hasn't underperformed Truss's era. Truss's only real economic legacy is cancelling Sunak's National Insurance hike. That plan to put NI up by 1.25 would have completely fucked the economy - if you want to dispute that, look at what happened when Starmer and Reeves implemented a more modest increase on Employers only. It was a shrewd move that her Government gets no credit for.
There's no Truss polling low Starmer hasn't fallen beneath either. And she as far as I know had no plans to introduce banter bans, digital ID, bans on North Sea oil exploration, limits to trial by jury, or any of the rest of the daily grind of national emiseration that Starmer's Government has inflicted from his gaslighting bully pulpit.
Just to pluck one out, how about mortgage interest rates?
Not sure if this has been mentioned yet but credit to the Free Speech Union for standing by their principles
'The Free Speech Union has said that, should Heather Herbert join the Free Speech Union, we would do our best to help him.
Heather Herbert posted a vile and deeply offensive statement on the social media platform BlueSky about the tragic murder of Ann Widdecombe.
The University of Aberdeen employee has now been arrested and charged over his offensive comments.
While the Free Speech Union does not support Heather’s offensive comments about Ann — a dear late friend of the FSU — it is not an offence, no matter how offensive, to speak ill of the dead.
Ann was a staunch defender of our fundamental right to free speech, and we very much doubt she would have supported Police Scotland’s actions.'
Indeed. Preston Byrne (pro bono counsel to the FSU) is particularlly good on this point.
Linehan shouldn't have been arrested for his "kick 'em in the balls" tweet (unless someone did, in fact, commit an s20 assault, in which case he is fair game as an accessory should there be a proven causal link between his tweet and the attacker).
Speaking ill of the dead shouldn't be an offence either. It should also be remembered that Anne Widdecombe believed that trans women (at least those who have had "the op") are women, which is more than can be said for many regulars here.
Since we're on #pbfreespeech, how do we feel about JK Rowling suing amnesty international for calling the 51 gender critical organisations listed in their recent report "anti rights" (Including an org that PB's resident terf is a member of)?
I happen to disagree with the amnesty report and think it's massive overreach, but the correct response is rebuttal rather than trying to silence one's critics with lawfare.
IMHO the UK needs to introduce US-style anti SLAPP legislation to prevent the super-rich from silencing their critics.
You are allowed to believe that men can be women, but I can also believe that they cannot. I think science is on my side of the argument but I also think we will never agree.
Men and women are not scientific terms. Male and female are. Many species can switch gender. Many are hemaphrodites, and others asexual. Science does not back you up.
And there it is - the use of edge cases to try to suggest men can become women. Humans do not switch from male to female.
So let me ask you the question again. If you were (totally hypothetically) caught in flagrante, sucking the cock of a hairy, muscly, bearded trans man, would it be a) gay or b) a totally straight, hetero, cis thing to do, because the cock you happen to be sucking on belongs to a woman as people, in your opinion, cannot change sex?
It's a stupid question. I have no issue with what consenting adults do with each other be they herosexual or gay. I simply believe that men cannot become women and vise versa.
We don't agree, and I respect that. Playing silly what if games doesn't make the point you think you are making.
It's not a stupid question at all, it's what we call "revealed preference" designed to separate ideological dogma from real, visceral experience.
Now if - again, hypothetically speaking - you were sucking that cock, I mean really going for it, my bet is that you would feel really, *really* gay, and not like you were having sex with a woman at all. QED, your revealed preference would demonstrate that you do in fact believe that there is a practical threshold where people do for all intents and purposes change sex, despite the ideological dogma that is holding you back from saying so.
That is why I asked the question I did, as bluntly as I did.
And it is also why you refuse to answer it. Because you see the obvious trap, i.e. if you say "it's not gay to suck the cock" you sound ridiculous, but if you say it is gay you have to agree with me that there is a threshold beyond which you consider a person transitioned.
Do enough work and a human can look like a cat. They have not become a cat. And as I have said before the woman with the 'cick' is still a woman, just one who now has a beard through taking testosterone combined with a weird squeaky frog voice and a piece of arm or thigh tissue shaped into a tube that can either be used to urinate or be made 'erect' but not bothered. It is by no means a penis.
Can you not just accept we disagree? Sophistry does not win the argument.
What I'm trying to do, and I apologise if using "you" as an example is a bit too visceral, but it's much harder to ignore *how you would feel in this scenario*, is to point out that irrespective of ontological descriptors i.e. "a man is a man and therefore cannot be a woman QED" which is a valid *philosophical* point to make, it lacks practical application. i.e. in the real world for all intents and purposes, once you have a penis and live as a man, most people will treat you as such.
My point is not to get at you personally - but to drive a wedge between ideological argument and lived reality, namely that many people successfully transition to the point where they a) have the functional genitals of the opposite sex in practice, b) have the appearance of the opposite sex in practice and c) their presence would be genuinely disruptive if they were treated as their birth gender - e.g. forcing the hairy, muscly, bearded guy to use the ladies (which is the law now, thanks JK!).
My argument is an attempt to short circuit the ontological definition of what is a man / woman and instead introduce consideration that we need to base policy on lived reality and everyday experience. Uncomfortably for any trans rights absolutists in this thread (of which I am not one), this also means my position is that you should probably use the gents if people perceive you as a man and the ladies if people perceive you as a lady. Where it gets hard is the edge cases, such as those with functional transitioned genitalia who still don't pass in their acquired sex. This is why it is not an easy debate, but it is still one that does need to be rooted in lived experience rather than ideological dogma.
But no woman has a penis. They have some flesh modelled into something that to some resembles a penis. AIUI this price of flesh can either be made to become erect OR be used to pass urine standing up, as if that's a good thing, but not bothered. It is not a penis. Your view seems to be that enough disguise makes the trick work. My counter is that it is still a trick. The woman still has her chromosomes, her DNA, etc. Yes we can flood her body with male hormones and this can effect physiological changes but the woman still remains a woman.
Which is why I asked you the question as viscerally as I did, because it short circuits all the hypotheticals and instead forces us to consider lived experience and practical perceptions in policymaking:
Let's say said woman has been on testosterone for ten years. She is taller than you, more muscly than you, has a beard, a deep voice, and as you put it has "some flesh modelled into something that resembles a penis". You are sucking on that penis. Is this gay or not?
If it's gay, then you admit there is a threshold where you regard that person as male - in practice if not in ideology. If it's not gay, then you've just told me it's not gay to suck dick. Which is... interesting. But hey, you do you.
Comments
My favourite is the first one I remember; he’s Human Brandy
I'm optimistic that Burnham doesn't have the same difficulties controlling his wallet, diary or tummy banana that Boris had. But the other echoes- the personal ambition, the willingness to undermine the boss (have we all forgotten his antics around the 2025 conference?), the saying what his immediate audience wants to hear... It all feels a bit History Repeating Itself.
Still, it's my country, but neither my circus nor my moneys. And as a good patriot, of course I hope it works. But I'm uneasy.
I used to buy PPE and did during COVID and just securing supply was difficult. You buy to a spec so if PPE was bought that was not fit for,purpose then why ? You cannot blame the govt. Blame the supply chain. Either it was incorrectly specified and what was supplied was to spec or,it wasn’t and should have been rejected when delivered.
I’d also expect them to condition assess and concess it for for use if not to spec and it could be used. At least review it.
The investigation should be like an air crash investigation. What went wrong and what can be done to learn from it for next time rather than just a partisan witch hunt.
Yes I know, Conservative PM Harold Robbins was known as Super Something. It’s one of those reused politics dictionary things like “Winters of discontent” and “tanks on the lawn”
If she becomes PM and changes the law so that nobody born in the UK automatically gets citizenship, I won’t call her a hypocrite
I’ll be happy to say that she’s pulling up the drawbridge behind her because she loves this country
I suspect she did not believe her brief was to aportion blame. Cock up or conspiracy, guilty people should be held to account.
And as for the spec. If it is CE marked it is fine. If it is not CE marked it is not.
“‘his antics around the 2025 conference, always saying what his immediate audience wants to hear. It all feels a bit History Repeating Itself” what’s so sad with Burnham and Boris so desperate for PM power, they haven’t a clue what to do with it. They don’t have the vision thing. They just want it for the wrong reasons, for themselves. That Boris didn’t have a clue or interest about macro economics played a significant part in his removal.
https://www.bbcearth.com/news/fish-are-the-sex-switching-masters-of-the-animal-kingdom
If you really interested there are plenty of scientific articles.
Thanks 👍
Frog DNA got a mention in Jurastic Park.
We don't agree, and I respect that. Playing silly what if games doesn't make the point you think you are making.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-GmpstTKxo
He's also not alone in finding Burnham effective.
The company I negotiated the contract for the cleanroom we put in out several into NHS facilities
These products may also have a shelf life attached.
Either the product bought, as I said, was to spec and it was incorrectly specified or it was not to spec and should have been rejected. Either way it appears to be a supply chain failure.
Rather than just a weird old throwback for us to laugh at whilst scratching our heads, Burnham is very very dangerous to the UK. The Burnhammites see de-industrialisation and globalisation as idealogical choices that can be switched off or unmade, merely undermines their credibility and sets a clock ticking till they are flat last in the polls for promising what can’t be delivered.
But being anti privatisation will come with real biting financial costs - the only conclusion is it results in less, not more public money to spend on what is needed.
UK has difficult choices to make asap - not least on welfare, pensions, social care - just to stand still. Instead it’s got a lefty Boris Johnson telling us how wonderful it’s going to be for everyone.
Lefty gabble about “it’s affordable because we are a major economy, a rich country” etc etc is so so ignorant to how expensive the UK governments commitments have become, how fragile our income, and how so much important stuff, from defence, health, social care, is already being de-funded in order to continue to pay the other UK bills, credit card interest and loan costs.
This mixture of even less tin pot money to properly fund public spending, coupled with power and grants decentralised into the arms of the octopus to use their own brains, away from the strategic seeing the bigger picture, coordinating brain in the centre - this is the very last thing Britain needs right now.
But will there be any decentralisation. Or even more centralisation. Burnhamism is also utterly contradictory the longer any of his sentences last beyond five seconds - for example attacking some much centralised power, promising a revolution in devolution. Seconds later how he will seize centralise and control of transport for cheaper fairs, ditto housing, ditto bills.
Burnham’s government is dum lefty populism, will obviously lead to greater inequality and division across the UK, and so is dangerous. This makes Burnham Ideology much more than weirdly funny and something to be laughed at as it has been across UK media all day - it is downright dangerous and ruinous in all the ways I have just explained.
Rather than just a weird old throwback for us to laugh at whilst scratching our heads, Burnham is very very dangerous to the UK. The Burnhammites see de-industrialisation and globalisation as idealogical choices that can be switched off or unmade, merely undermines their credibility and sets a clock ticking till they are flat last in the polls for promising what can’t be delivered.
But being anti privatisation will come with real biting financial costs - the only conclusion is it results in less, not more public money to spend on what is needed.
UK has difficult choices to make asap - not least on welfare, pensions, social care - just to stand still. Instead it’s got a lefty Boris Johnson telling us how wonderful it’s going to be for everyone.
Lefty gabble about “it’s affordable because we are a major economy, a rich country” etc etc is so so ignorant to how expensive the UK governments commitments have become, how fragile our income, and how so much important stuff, from defence, health, social care, is already being de-funded in order to continue to pay the other UK bills, credit card interest and loan costs.
This mixture of even less tin pot money to properly fund public spending, coupled with power and grants decentralised into the arms of the octopus to use their own brains, away from the strategic seeing the bigger picture, coordinating brain in the centre - this is the very last thing Britain needs right now.
But will there be any decentralisation. Or even more centralisation. Burnhamism is also utterly contradictory the longer any of his sentences last beyond five seconds - for example attacking some much centralised power, promising a revolution in devolution. Seconds later how he will seize centralise and control of transport for cheaper fairs, ditto housing, ditto bills.
Burnham’s government is dum lefty populism, will obviously lead to greater inequality and division across the UK, and so is dangerous. This makes Burnham Ideology much more than weirdly funny and something to be laughed at as it has been across UK media all day - it is downright dangerous and ruinous in all the ways I have just explained.
Now if - again, hypothetically speaking - you were sucking that cock, I mean really going for it, my bet is that you would feel really, *really* gay, and not like you were having sex with a woman at all. QED, your revealed preference would demonstrate that you do in fact believe that there is a practical threshold where people do for all intents and purposes change sex, despite the ideological dogma that is holding you back from saying so.
That is why I asked the question I did, as bluntly as I did.
And it is also why you refuse to answer it. Because you see the obvious trap, i.e. if you say "it's not gay to suck the cock" you sound ridiculous, but if you say it is gay you have to agree with me that there is a threshold beyond which you consider a person transitioned.
I've read Andy Burnham's speech and let's remember he was talking to a Labour Party audience.
Some interesting nuggets and as with David Cameron a speech long on diagnosis but short on treatment. It's easy to identify what is "wrong" but, and I imagine this will follow in the next few weeks, we've get really to see what a Burnham Government would do.
Inevitably, it's not what a Badenoch Government would do - there's a surprise - and the vitriol has already started in earnest from the usual suspects it would seem.
I look forward to Burnham's ideas on social care, a can repeatedly kicked down the road by the Conservatives up to 2024 and whether he's genuine about passing real power back to Councils from Whitehall and Westminster.
He's no worse than Badenoch, Farage, Davy or Polanski in being unwilling to confront the elephants such as borrowing and the Triple Lock.
I was hoping we might hear something about Land Value Taxation but perhaps his Chancellor will not tinker round the edges but go all in for income tax rate rises and perhaps VAT rises - we'll see.
https://legacy.tendringdc.gov.uk/sites/default/files/documents/council/elections & voting/2026/Aug13/UKPGE - NOP SOP SOPN.pdf
He isn't a Thatcherite seems to be your argument.
Don't cry for me Garbage Tinny.
You cannot have meaningful civilised discourse if you do not have freedom of speech.
And I do find it amusing that, having been shown to be ignorant on the FSU as far as PA supporters are concerned, you immediately switch to an entirely different line of attack without even acknowledging you were wrong. Looks kind of desperate.
They'd need the length of the pier to unfurl the ballot paper.
Zelensky's offer to Poland after six weeks since the dispute flared up:
Opening all SBU and Foreign Intelligence Service archives on the Volhynia massacres
Issuing more permits for search and exhumation work.
https://x.com/StuartDowell_/status/2078185607746953677
Can you not just accept we disagree? Sophistry does not win the argument.
Back in the early 20's when I was stuck in the toilets, I introduced Viewcode's Three Questions thus:
- 1) Can a man become a woman or vice versa
- 2) If so, what is the name of this process?
- 3) At what point in the process does the status change?
The point was to distinguish those who believe in GC from those who believe in self-id from those who believe in physical transition: in short, sortition. The backstage discussion then deteriorated into a discussion about whether women can have penises, which didn't help.With the coming abolition of the backstage discussions (what MoonRabbit memorably christened "the toilets"), it seems it is going to be lost as it ends up in the Backrooms where mutated versions of us wander endlessly. So I thought I'd get it down here now before it goes.
Secondly, having climbed the greasy pole, he has work to do. There are big enough problems being PM, but at the top of the problems for Burnham is the dimness of the MPs and the members; but, as even Blair knew, you can't get to the top without them.
So he has to square them by the right talk, and saying what they want to hear; that's easy because while bright he is a member of the Labour lodge and has made a career out of it; and he has to do so also by pointing out, as he has, that they are free to think what they like as long as they agree with him and vote his way. His word is 'non negotiable' and this will apply to everything that matters.
Thirdly, and worth noting, he has so far committed not a farthing of extra cash. Including for social care. No-one has noticed that the 2024 Labour manifesto made various pledges about social care but not of them were about how it is paid for.
How he send the money bit out again to the long grass will be interesting, but he will.
https://x.com/marshsongs/status/2078150288393859125?s=61
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ro5Q_8ZHS-Q
23/26 candidates lost their deposits in David Davis's by-election, presumably a record number of lost deposits.
EDIT: Doh! I am wrong. Of course, if the vote is very evenly divided, everyone could get less than 5%. I believe this has happened in Papua New Guinea.
There's nowt in between I'm told.
... Widnes .. St Helens ?
My point is not to get at you personally - but to drive a wedge between ideological argument and lived reality, namely that many people successfully transition to the point where they a) have the functional genitals of the opposite sex in practice, b) have the appearance of the opposite sex in practice and c) their presence would be genuinely disruptive if they were treated as their birth gender - e.g. forcing the hairy, muscly, bearded guy to use the ladies (which is the law now, thanks JK!).
My argument is an attempt to short circuit the ontological definition of what is a man / woman and instead introduce consideration that we need to base policy on lived reality and everyday experience. Uncomfortably for any trans rights absolutists in this thread (of which I am not one), this also means my position is that you should probably use the gents if people perceive you as a man and the ladies if people perceive you as a lady. Where it gets hard is the edge cases, such as those with functional transitioned genitalia who still don't pass in their acquired sex. This is why it is not an easy debate, but it is still one that does need to be rooted in lived experience rather than ideological dogma.
Also notice someone is standing from Australia.
What's the largest number of candidates to have cone equal last with zero in the past?
You can talk about Truss all you want - there's no economic measure by which Starmer hasn't underperformed Truss's era. Truss's only real economic legacy is cancelling Sunak's National Insurance hike. That plan to put NI up by 1.25 would have completely fucked the economy - if you want to dispute that, look at what happened when Starmer and Reeves implemented a more modest increase on Employers only. It was a shrewd move that her Government gets no credit for.
There's no Truss polling low Starmer hasn't fallen beneath either. And she as far as I know had no plans to introduce banter bans, digital ID, bans on North Sea oil exploration, limits to trial by jury, or any of the rest of the daily grind of national emiseration that Starmer's Government has inflicted from his gaslighting bully pulpit.
They're all rubbish.
There's a Supreme Court ruling on what sex means under the Equalities Act. It means sex at birth. And there's a piece of legislation (the GRA) which says that a person who has transitioned via the legal process should be recognised in their acquired gender for all practical purposes.
There's a conflict there which is unresolved.
Let's say said woman has been on testosterone for ten years. She is taller than you, more muscly than you, has a beard, a deep voice, and as you put it has "some flesh modelled into something that resembles a penis". You are sucking on that penis. Is this gay or not?
If it's gay, then you admit there is a threshold where you regard that person as male - in practice if not in ideology.
If it's not gay, then you've just told me it's not gay to suck dick. Which is... interesting. But hey, you do you.