Also In The News - part 3

[dsr-burnley]

21 minutes ago, The Doctor said:

A law not mentioned anywhere in the information for candidacy, without space put on the candidacy form to do so, that just happened to be enforced for the first time when a trans person ran for office. A literal child would be more inquisitive as to what's going on there than you are.

 

So the Don't Say Gay law bans any mention of being LGBT in K-3 through to 12th grade (age 18), setting aside how regressive it is to outright ban that discussion (it's basically section 28 equivalent and that was destructive to an entire generation of LGBTQ people in the UK), the ban is deliberately vague to the point that a gay male teacher could easily be found in breach of it if the kids ask how his summer was and he says he went on holiday with his husband, or a trans woman teacher could be in breach of it for introducing herself as Mrs Smith. In essence it mandates constructive dismissal of LGBT teachers 

Can you provide a link to the times when it failed to be enforced when a non-trans person did it?  Or was it enforced for the first time because this is the first time it happened?

 

A link to the teachers who have been sacked or constructively dismissed would be helpful too.  As yet, I haven't seen evidence that the US government is working on the same lines and with the same intentions as Hitler.

[The Doctor]

4 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

Can you provide a link to the times when it failed to be enforced when a non-trans person did it?  Or was it enforced for the first time because this is the first time it happened?

 

A link to the teachers who have been sacked or constructively dismissed would be helpful too.  As yet, I haven't seen evidence that the US government is working on the same lines and with the same intentions as Hitler.

Is literacy not a skill taught in Burnley?

 

So again: this Ohio law is not enforced in any way prior to this election, and part of that is because it's never been publicised as a law, indeed it's not in the guidance for candidates seeking election: https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2024/01/22/ohio-trans-candidates/

 

"The candidate forms don’t instruct applicants to list previous names, and the statute is not listed in the state’s 33-page candidate guide."

 

Nor is it the intent of the law (there's no intent to deceive by not listing their old name). It is a non-enforced law that the election bodies didn't recognise, right up until there was a chance to use it to stop a trans candidate. 

 

As for Florida's Don't Say Gay law, learn what a hypothetical is. The law has not caused that yet, however the law is structured in a way that means it could happen and very tightly restricts LGBT teachers in their jobs in a way that it doesn't to their cishet counterparts 

[dsr-burnley]

57 minutes ago, The Doctor said:

Is literacy not a skill taught in Burnley?

 

So again: this Ohio law is not enforced in any way prior to this election, and part of that is because it's never been publicised as a law, indeed it's not in the guidance for candidates seeking election: https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2024/01/22/ohio-trans-candidates/

 

"The candidate forms don’t instruct applicants to list previous names, and the statute is not listed in the state’s 33-page candidate guide."

 

Nor is it the intent of the law (there's no intent to deceive by not listing their old name). It is a non-enforced law that the election bodies didn't recognise, right up until there was a chance to use it to stop a trans candidate. 

 

As for Florida's Don't Say Gay law, learn what a hypothetical is. The law has not caused that yet, however the law is structured in a way that means it could happen and very tightly restricts LGBT teachers in their jobs in a way that it doesn't to their cishet counterparts 

I find that gratuitous rudeness fails to persuade anyone to change their mind.  Or perhaps you mean it literally, in which case I am happy to confirm that I am able to read and write.  

 

I don't subscribe to the Washington Post.  Does it provide a list of times when candidates have failed to declare their previous names and the breach of law has been ignored?

[The Doctor]

42 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

I find that gratuitous rudeness fails to persuade anyone to change their mind.  Or perhaps you mean it literally, in which case I am happy to confirm that I am able to read and write.  

 

I don't subscribe to the Washington Post.  Does it provide a list of times when candidates have failed to declare their previous names and the breach of law has been ignored?

I mean it literally given you're not reading a thing said. Once again: there is no indication that the law exists in the candidate guide, there is no indication it exists in the candidacy papers. It is not a law that is enforced in any way, or rather was not enforced in any way until a couple of weeks ago: whether there were candidates in the past that would have fallen foul of it had it been enforced before is irrelevant because again "The candidate forms don’t instruct applicants to list previous names, and the statute is not listed in the state’s 33-page candidate guide" - in practice the law was not a thing.

 

Take into consideration that Ohio are currently pushing one of the most aggressive drag show bans going with

House Bill 245, which defines drag to include:  “performers or entertainers who exhibit a gender identity that is different from the performer’s or entertainer’s gender assigned at birth using clothing, makeup, prosthetic or imitation genitals or breasts, or other physical markers.”  (for reference this would make the royal philharmonic orchestra considered an adult only cabaret show if they so much as had a trans musician in the cast) and what this is is clearly an obscure law that was never previously enforced being brought back out to stop a minority from standing for election while the electoral bodies attempt to ban said minority from public life.

[The Doctor]

Ultimately this sort of shit is why people talk about Trump as a Hitler figure, because it's his party acolytes that are waging lawfare against gay people and trying to make border crossings from Mexico lethal (the moderate republicans have about as much control as the corbynites do of UK labour). The fact that it's all happening under Biden is an aside (although it does somewhat encourage the parallel, he could stop a lot of this with executive orders and enforcement of things like Title IX, but doesn't because he's more wedded to the system than protecting people from exceptional circumstances; a Von Hindenburg if you will)

[dsr-burnley]

15 minutes ago, The Doctor said:

I mean it literally given you're not reading a thing said. Once again: there is no indication that the law exists in the candidate guide, there is no indication it exists in the candidacy papers. It is not a law that is enforced in any way, or rather was not enforced in any way until a couple of weeks ago: whether there were candidates in the past that would have fallen foul of it had it been enforced before is irrelevant because again "The candidate forms don’t instruct applicants to list previous names, and the statute is not listed in the state’s 33-page candidate guide" - in practice the law was not a thing.

 

Take into consideration that Ohio are currently pushing one of the most aggressive drag show bans going with

House Bill 245, which defines drag to include:  “performers or entertainers who exhibit a gender identity that is different from the performer’s or entertainer’s gender assigned at birth using clothing, makeup, prosthetic or imitation genitals or breasts, or other physical markers.”  (for reference this would make the royal philharmonic orchestra considered an adult only cabaret show if they so much as had a trans musician in the cast) and what this is is clearly an obscure law that was never previously enforced being brought back out to stop a minority from standing for election while the electoral bodies attempt to ban said minority from public life.

You think this drag law would or could be applied to women wearing trousers?  They have laws about not letting children into films that aren't suitable; I don't see a great objection to children being banned from live shows that aren't suitable.  Obviously it's a bit rough on people who want to appear before children wearing obvious fake breasts and ridiculous makeup, but let's face it - some people think that children should be protected from obviously sexual shows.

 

I still don't know whether or not this law has been ignored in the past.  If you're saying that no-one has ever broken this law and so trans people should be allowed to break it, then I disagree.  If on the other hand you are saying that the law has been routinely broken without penalty, then I agree that would be wrong.  Please post the examples (preferably not behind a paywall). 

 

As to whether the candidate guides should have been made clearer, I agree.  But the US equivalent of the returning officer can't just ignore the law simply because the candidate guide was incomplete.  

 

I think your objection to my apparent illiteracy isn't that I am not reading what you say, because obviously I am.  What you are objecting to is that I don't agree with what you say.  

[Bellend Sebastian]

I tell you what we need. A George Monbiot opinion piece from The Guardian on why he thinks people vote for Trump.

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/jan/29/donald-trump-americans-us-culture-republican

 

It's interesting, if nothing else. If you run with the thinking it might explain all sorts of things

[ajthefox]

19 minutes ago, Bellend Sebastian said:

I tell you what we need. A George Monbiot opinion piece from The Guardian on why he thinks people vote for Trump.

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/jan/29/donald-trump-americans-us-culture-republican

 

It's interesting, if nothing else. If you run with the thinking it might explain all sorts of things

I find it somewhat concerning that there seems to be a lot of press coming out with the same kind of stuff that came out last time around - more stuff like this is needed.

 

I think half the reason Trump won in the first place is because he wasn't taken seriously as a candidate and neither were swathes of his supporters.

 

Obviously it is hard (nigh impossible) to take him seriously, but going around calling everyone who votes for him stupid and xenophobic isn't useful or helpful. Of course that will be an accurate description of many Trump fans, but there has to be an alternative approach to try and sway as many swing voters as possible.

[Wymsey]

Often wondered if Biden has some memory retention problems.

 

Think the US would absolutely be better off away from him and Trump.

 

Hardly any signs of improvement in the country, for example the guns situation.

 

At least their healthcare situation seems more appropriate than the UK's, though.

 

Edited 29 January by Wymsey

[Milo]

Just now, Wymsey said:

At least their healthcare situation seems more appropriate than the UK's, though.

Interesting take. 
 

How so?

[Wymsey]

5 minutes ago, Milo said:

Interesting take. 
 

How so?

From reading a couple of articles recently, over there, they seem to invest a lot more in more advanced technological healthcare infrastructure than we do here in the UK.

[Trav Le Bleu]

8 minutes ago, Wymsey said:

From reading a couple of articles recently, over there, they seem to invest a lot more in more advanced technological healthcare infrastructure than we do here in the UK.

If you can afford it

[MPH]

21 minutes ago, Wymsey said:

Often wondered if Biden has some memory retention problems.

 

Think the US would absolutely be better off away from him and Trump.

 

Hardly any signs of improvement in the country, for example the guns situation.

 

At least their healthcare situation seems more appropriate than the UK's, though.

 

 

19 minutes ago, Milo said:

Interesting take. 
 

How so?

 

12 minutes ago, Wymsey said:

From reading a couple of articles recently, over there, they seem to invest a lot more in more advanced technological healthcare infrastructure than we do here in the UK.

 

More appropriate can be debated, but shorter wait times, more staff, better quality of buildings/ equipment.  Better staff to patient ratio. These are the things that  ‘ more money ‘ can solve. 
 

without wishing this to spark into a. Greater debate, I don’t think it can be said the NHS is Inherently wrong,  but a badly funded NHS is.

Edited 29 January by MPH

[Tommy G]

18 minutes ago, MPH said:

 

 

 

More appropriate can be debated, but shorter wait times, more staff, better quality of buildings/ equipment.  Better staff to patient ratio. These are the things that  ‘ more money ‘ can solve. 
 

without wishing this to spark into a. Greater debate, I don’t think it can be said the NHS is Inherently wrong,  but a badly funded NHS is.

Funded fine, abhorrently managed from top to bottom. Throw more money at it and more will be wasted with little improvement in service.

[MPH]

1 minute ago, Tommy G said:

Funded fine, abhorrently managed from top to bottom. Throw more money at it and more will be wasted with little improvement in service.

 

wages increase haven’t  been in line with inflation for decades now.. you’re suggesting this would rectify with better management. I’m suggesting that’s more to do with funding.

[jgtuk]

41 minutes ago, Wymsey said:

From reading a couple of articles recently, over there, they seem to invest a lot more in more advanced technological healthcare infrastructure than we do here in the UK.

Failure to pay medical bills is a major driver of personal bankruptcy  in the US...

Edited 29 January by jgtuk
Addition

[Bryn]

16 minutes ago, Tommy G said:

Funded fine, abhorrently managed from top to bottom. Throw more money at it and more will be wasted with little improvement in service.

 

We spend less in public money per capita than the US, Switzerland, Norway, Germany, Netherlands, Austria, Sweden, Denmark, Belgium, Luxembourg, Canada, France, IReland, Australia, Japan, Finland and Iceland.

 

We need more hospitals, community services, diagnostic services and staff.

[Otis]

45 minutes ago, Bryn said:

 

We spend less in public money per capita than the US, Switzerland, Norway, Germany, Netherlands, Austria, Sweden, Denmark, Belgium, Luxembourg, Canada, France, IReland, Australia, Japan, Finland and Iceland.

 

We need more hospitals, community services, diagnostic services and staff.

But how much more are people willing to pay?

[Bryn]

3 minutes ago, Otis said:

But how much more are people willing to pay?

 

A long hard look at where money goes in this country needs to be taken, it's not public services where the waste is. It's egregious corporate profiteering and corruption. There is plenty of money in the economy, it's the distribution that is scuffed.

[Bellend Sebastian]

Oh no that's sad

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/laurence-fox-loses-libel-case-high-court-b2486600.html

[Tommy G]

4 minutes ago, Bryn said:

 

A long hard look at where money goes in this country needs to be taken, it's not public services where the waste is. It's egregious corporate profiteering and corruption. There is plenty of money in the economy, it's the distribution that is scuffed.

Are you Oz Leicester under an Alias

[Tommy G]

11 minutes ago, Bryn said:

 

A long hard look at where money goes in this country needs to be taken, it's not public services where the waste is. It's egregious corporate profiteering and corruption. There is plenty of money in the economy, it's the distribution that is scuffed.

Have a look at the covid spending, then you'll see plenty of waste. ''There is no waste in public services'' I about fell off my chair. 

[Bryn]

Just now, Tommy G said:

Have a look at the covid spending, then you'll see plenty of waste. ''There is no waste in public services'' I about fell off my chair. 

 

The wasted money there went to dodgy companies set up-by Tory cronies and has nothing to do with a well-funded healthcare system. That is government corruption.

[Tommy G]

1 minute ago, Bryn said:

 

The wasted money there went to dodgy companies set up-by Tory cronies and has nothing to do with a well-funded healthcare system. That is government corruption.

Did the government set up the Furlough scheme through a dodgy company? No. I think they burned £4bn of unusable PPE during the first year of the pandemic. You can argue the toss between corruption and waste, either way its the same outcome of wasted money. 

[Bryn]

Just now, Tommy G said:

Did the government set up the Furlough scheme through a dodgy company? No. I think they burned £4bn of unusable PPE during the first year of the pandemic. You can argue the toss between corruption and waste, either way its the same outcome of wasted money. 

 

You mean the furlough scheme that kept millions of people going and is widely regarded as a success?

 

I can argue the difference between corruption and waste as one implies a deliberate attempt to siphon public funds to private individuals for gain, as with the majority of the clearly bogus PPE contracts to Tory donors. I'm not saying there isn't areas in which efficiencies can be achieved but for the most part the NHS achieves great things with inferior funds to other countries where citizens have to make higher contributions to their health care in both taxation and personal expenditure or insurance costs. The constant shitting on it and other public services is used as a smokescreen for people using public money to enrich themselves and if people would put the Daily Mail down and start scrutinising these things properly we'd still have a great country.