Not The Politics Thread.

[Strokes]

16 minutes ago, StanSP said:

Isn't this what schools do anyway

 

 

I ****ing hope so

 

[Fox in the North]

 

[StanSP]

But no one will be named by The Met Police apparently. God knows why. 

[leicsmac]

18 minutes ago, StanSP said:

But no one will be named by The Met Police apparently. God knows why. 

And the word of whatever deity it might be is...

 

"Corruption."

[Leicester_Loyal]

 

[RoboFox]

 

If I was a cynic, I'd say it was a long term plan of our government to intentionally drive down trust in the NHS in order to drum up support for its wholesale to big US conglomerates, European insurance companies, and mutuality groups. Something that's been sped up by the pandemic. Divest then privatise. 

 

But of course I'm not a cynic. This is totally normal and the Tories are absolutely not on a decades-long crusade to line their own pockets with the commercialisation, outsourcing and offshoring of one of few things that are actually great about this country at the expense of all of us. 

[kenny]

42 minutes ago, RoboFox said:

 

If I was a cynic, I'd say it was a long term plan of our government to intentionally drive down trust in the NHS in order to drum up support for its wholesale to big US conglomerates, European insurance companies, and mutuality groups. Something that's been sped up by the pandemic. Divest then privatise. 

 

But of course I'm not a cynic. This is totally normal and the Tories are absolutely not on a decades-long crusade to line their own pockets with the commercialisation, outsourcing and offshoring of one of few things that are actually great about this country at the expense of all of us. 

Wish they would get on and sell it to these American businesses. The Tories have been doing it for 30 years and it's still here. 

 

Can they do anything right?

[CosbehFox]

Don't really where to put this but I read this earlier; https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/mar/30/11-years-10-arrests-at-least-62-women-how-did-britains-worst-cyberstalker-evade-justice-for-so-long

 

I think that's the tip of the iceberg for blokes like him. Thankfully one detective noticed it and started to join the pattern up. The sad reality he's had to cherrypick the worst offences to secure the conviction as the more 'lighter' examples could prejudice the overall case. 

[LiberalFox]

5 hours ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

 

Not a huge fan of him trying to explain away the car crash. 

[blabyboy]

On 29/03/2022 at 13:18, StanSP said:

But no one will be named by The Met Police apparently. God knows why. 

Because they never name people in receipt of a Fixed Penalty notice. It's nothing malicious in the current situation, it has always been that way.

Edited 30 March 2022 by blabyboy

[Mike Oxlong]

47 minutes ago, LiberalFox said:

Not a huge fan of him trying to explain away the car crash. 

 Nor does his Wiki page portray him in glowing terms in other respects 

 

An investigation by BuzzFeed in January 2020 found that Wallis had been a co-owner of a 'sugar daddy' dating website, "which offered students financial relationships with wealthy 'sponsors'". Although Wallis initially denied links to the company, Buzzfeed found that he had been a director and shareholder of the site's parent company.^[17] The Labour MP Jess Phillips called for Wallis to be removed.^[18][19] Since the 2019 election, Wallis has quit as director of at least seven companies.^[20]

 

Don’t think Lord Alan or Claude would have been too impressed with the business plan for sugardaddy.co.uk if presented to them 

 

 

[LiberalFox]

1 hour ago, Mike Oxlong said:

 Nor does his Wiki page portray him in glowing terms in other respects 

 

An investigation by BuzzFeed in January 2020 found that Wallis had been a co-owner of a 'sugar daddy' dating website, "which offered students financial relationships with wealthy 'sponsors'". Although Wallis initially denied links to the company, Buzzfeed found that he had been a director and shareholder of the site's parent company.^[17] The Labour MP Jess Phillips called for Wallis to be removed.^[18][19] Since the 2019 election, Wallis has quit as director of at least seven companies.^[20]

 

Don’t think Lord Alan or Claude would have been too impressed with the business plan for sugardaddy.co.uk if presented to them 

 

 

It just seems a little bit off... 

 

"I'm trans, and also I was raped. That's why I crashed my car into a telegraph pole in the middle of the night and fled the scene. Totally hadn't been drinking (or on drugs)."

 

I don't know anyone who has used those kind of details in direct relation to something they did wrong that wasn't someone to avoid. Hopefully this is a case of me being overly suspicious and I'll look like a dickhead for being critical of an LGBT+ person and a rape victim. 

[Mike Oxlong]

2 minutes ago, LiberalFox said:

It just seems a little bit off... 

 

"I'm trans, and also I was raped. That's why I crashed my car into a telegraph pole in the middle of the night and fled the scene. Totally hadn't been drinking (or on drugs)."

 

I don't know anyone who has used those kind of details in direct relation to something they did wrong that wasn't someone to avoid. Hopefully this is a case of me being overly suspicious and I'll look like a dickhead for being critical of an LGBT+ person and a rape victim. 

I regret to say that I feel a little cynical about this matter and feel a little cvnty for being so. 

[Lionator]

Just remember there’ll be people out there who can’t afford to pay their energy bills, who will have lost loved ones to covid, who will have watched the prime minister party while we were legally obliged to stay in our houses, who will still vote Tory because Labour think women have Willy’s. 
 

Not a dig at the people voting but a dig at the discourse. 

Edited 1 April 2022 by Lionator

[ClaphamFox]

31 minutes ago, Lionator said:

Just remember there’ll be people out there who can’t afford to pay their energy bills, who will have lost loved ones to covid, who will have watched the prime minister party while we were legally obliged to stay in our houses, who will still vote Tory because Labour think women have Willy’s. 
 

Not a dig at the people voting but a dig at the discourse. 

Labour could genuinely lose the next election because of this issue. If Starmer is hoping it's just going to go away, he's going to be very disappointed.

[Greg2607]

roughly 30% of voters typically are "floating votes".... but labour would need an absolute landslide to win.  sadly, I don't think it can happen. 

 

we may get a hung parliament.  

 

I have a feeling it will Sunak in the seat by the time the next election swings around anyway, so they will be able to sweep all the johnson stuff under the carpet. 

 

[leicsmac]

22 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said:

Labour could genuinely lose the next election because of this issue. If Starmer is hoping it's just going to go away, he's going to be very disappointed.

... and isn't that incredibly ridiculous.

[ealingfox]

23 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said:

Labour could genuinely lose the next election because of this issue. If Starmer is hoping it's just going to go away, he's going to be very disappointed.

 

Really? I doubt it's a big issue on the doorstep. Besides the majority of people are supportive of trans rights. I would suggest that most who are willingly swayed by a disgracefully cynical obfuscation of any nuance were probably going to vote Tory anyway.

[Dahnsouff]

2 minutes ago, ealingfox said:

 

Really? I doubt it's a big issue on the doorstep. Besides the majority of people are supportive of trans rights. I would suggest that most who are willingly swayed by a disgracefully cynical obfuscation of any nuance were probably going to vote Tory anyway.

A nuanced obfuscation if ever I saw one 

[ealingfox]

10 minutes ago, Dahnsouff said:

A nuanced obfuscation if ever I saw one 

 

What do you think I am obfuscating?

[Dahnsouff]

1 minute ago, ealingfox said:

What do you think I am obfuscating?

• You used sweeping statements about peoples opinions on the trans topic as if fact without evidence
• You tarnished any who vote Tory with another sweeping statement.

So the whole argument really

[LiberalFox]

Surely people tarnish themselves when they vote Tory 

[ClaphamFox]

9 minutes ago, ealingfox said:

 

Really? I doubt it's a big issue on the doorstep. Besides the majority of people are supportive of trans rights. I would suggest that most who are willingly swayed by a disgracefully cynical obfuscation of any nuance were probably going to vote Tory anyway.

It wasn't a doorstep issue, but it's becoming one. Not just because of high-profile stories such as Lia Thomas and Emily Bridges, etc, but also because of the way trans issues are being discussed and handled in workplaces and schools. A year ago my parents would never have mentioned anything about it - it would have been completely off their radar. But on my last two trips to Leicester they've been speaking about it. It's definitely become more of a mainstream topic.

 

Surveys indeed show that if you ask people if they're supportive of trans rights, most will say they are. However, the picture does shift when people are asked more specific questions about real-world scenarios such as single sex spaces and participation in sports, etc. I suspect that discussions about those real-world implications of trans rights are only going to intensify over the next few years and Labour may find itself losing votes over the issue if it doesn't clarify the party's position.

[Dahnsouff]

3 minutes ago, LiberalFox said:

Surely people tarnish themselves when they vote Tory 

You are becoming less and less Liberal 

[ealingfox]

1 minute ago, Dahnsouff said:

• You used sweeping statements about peoples opinions on the trans topic as if fact without evidence
• You tarnished any who vote Tory with another sweeping statement.

So the whole argument really

 

There's plenty of evidence of majority support for trans rights.

 

This issue has hit the news because of a trans woman winning a single national swimming title. As you can see from the attachment this is an area where opinion is more split, and justifiably so, its a thorny issue and requires a nuanced approach. I would suggest that the opportunity for the required consideration is being shut down as certain actors have now successfully narrowed the entire issue down to how one defines a woman and whether a woman, under a presumed definition, can have a penis. That to me is a cynical approach which is exploitative of a marginalised group and is designed to foster resentment.