The case will go to crown court - all three released on bail The judge asked the three men to stand, telling them: “I’ve decided your trial will take place in Bristol Crown Court on 12 March. You are placed on unconditional bail. You have a legal duty to surrender to that court in good time.
Mr. Sandpit, I remember that. Stupid move by Button.
I very nearly had a 200/1 winner in Azerbaijan, having backed Perez each way for the win. Another needless collision cost me that.
The race was entertaining, but farcical too.
Incidentally, Ladbrokes has a market on fastest car in the first test. My current inclination is to avoid it at all costs.
That's a silly market. There's no scrutineering on test days, so cars can be underweight, covered in otherwise illegal aerodynamics and with the engines turned up to 11 or 12 to see how and when they fail. Definitely no bet.
Mr. Sandpit, not to mention, teams after more sponsorship will try to get artificially fast times. I think Sauber were fastest or nearly fastest one year because of that.
One of those jobs that we all think no-one in their right mind would ever want, while remaining humbly grateful to those brave men who do. Hats off to the Dark Blues on this occasion.
Mr. Sandpit, I remember that. Stupid move by Button.
I very nearly had a 200/1 winner in Azerbaijan, having backed Perez each way for the win. Another needless collision cost me that.
The race was entertaining, but farcical too.
Incidentally, Ladbrokes has a market on fastest car in the first test. My current inclination is to avoid it at all costs.
That's a silly market. There's no scrutineering on test days, so cars can be underweight, covered in otherwise illegal aerodynamics and with the engines turned up to 11 or 12 to see how and when they fail. Definitely no bet.
Without looking at the odds in detail - it sounds like the sort of market where you should just randomly bet on all the long-odds - it's a crapshoot that anyone could win (for multiple different reasons) but where there are 'false favourites' as people are incorrectly expecting the form to actually mean something. Depends on the spread and bookies margin of course.
Bit disappointing. Expected to edge down a bit. Puts off the day when wages catch up just a little longer. The real wages situation is another reason why the current Tory polling is so remarkable. Under normal circumstances a government that had delivered real wages like this one would either have been out on its ear or on borrowed time.
Don't worry about wages. They're going to take-off very shortly. Mark Carney said so.
I'll believe it when I see it. Labour economics have completely changed since I was at University. The supply of labour has become almost infinitely flexible with the consequence that there is no upward pressure on wages, even when we have almost full employment. Add in the collapse of "artificial" restrictions through Union membership and closed shops outside the public sector (doctors are still very effective in ensuring a high demand for their product) and you have a situation where only significantly increased profitability and productivity is going to improve wages. Neither of them seem likely in the short to medium term. If we are going to be better off on average we need inflation to fall.
Mr. Sandpit, not to mention, teams after more sponsorship will try to get artificially fast times. I think Sauber were fastest or nearly fastest one year because of that.
It's a bit more professional these days, but anyone looking for sponsorship will certainly be out to show good times. In the olden days they used to do all sorts of messing about and gamesmanship in testing, from over-octane fuel, to trick suspension, to engines of higher capacity than the regulations allowed etc etc.
It's a really silly thing to want to bet on, unless you have an insider tip about a team who's going to go for a banzai lap to impress or intimidate someone.
The case will go to crown court - all three released on bail The judge asked the three men to stand, telling them: “I’ve decided your trial will take place in Bristol Crown Court on 12 March. You are placed on unconditional bail. You have a legal duty to surrender to that court in good time.
Does that mean he can now get off to NZ/Aus and help us win a game?
The case will go to crown court - all three released on bail The judge asked the three men to stand, telling them: “I’ve decided your trial will take place in Bristol Crown Court on 12 March. You are placed on unconditional bail. You have a legal duty to surrender to that court in good time.
Does that mean he can now get off to NZ/Aus and help us win a game?
We could have done with him in Wellington a few hours ago!
Mr. Sandpit, I remember that. Stupid move by Button.
I very nearly had a 200/1 winner in Azerbaijan, having backed Perez each way for the win. Another needless collision cost me that.
The race was entertaining, but farcical too.
Incidentally, Ladbrokes has a market on fastest car in the first test. My current inclination is to avoid it at all costs.
That's a silly market. There's no scrutineering on test days, so cars can be underweight, covered in otherwise illegal aerodynamics and with the engines turned up to 11 or 12 to see how and when they fail. Definitely no bet.
Without looking at the odds in detail - it sounds like the sort of market where you should just randomly bet on all the long-odds - it's a crapshoot that anyone could win (for multiple different reasons) but where there are 'false favourites' as people are incorrectly expecting the form to actually mean something. Depends on the spread and bookies margin of course.
Mr. Sandpit, I remember that. Stupid move by Button.
I very nearly had a 200/1 winner in Azerbaijan, having backed Perez each way for the win. Another needless collision cost me that.
The race was entertaining, but farcical too.
Incidentally, Ladbrokes has a market on fastest car in the first test. My current inclination is to avoid it at all costs.
That's a silly market. There's no scrutineering on test days, so cars can be underweight, covered in otherwise illegal aerodynamics and with the engines turned up to 11 or 12 to see how and when they fail. Definitely no bet.
Without looking at the odds in detail - it sounds like the sort of market where you should just randomly bet on all the long-odds - it's a crapshoot that anyone could win (for multiple different reasons) but where there are 'false favourites' as people are incorrectly expecting the form to actually mean something. Depends on the spread and bookies margin of course.
I've not looked at it either (Ladbrokes is blocked for me) but yes that strategy might work if there's not a massive over-round. Treat it like the Conservative leadership contest and lay the favourite by backing the outsiders.
It's possible, for example, that as Mercedes have been working on power unit reliability over the winter, they could try and run a car non-stop during daylight hours for a week, to simulate half a race season on one PU. Meanwhile Honda and Renault, who were off the pace last year, will be trying to test performance enhancements.
Bit disappointing. Expected to edge down a bit. Puts off the day when wages catch up just a little longer. The real wages situation is another reason why the current Tory polling is so remarkable. Under normal circumstances a government that had delivered real wages like this one would either have been out on its ear or on borrowed time.
Competitive devaluation either shows up in inflation or depressed wages, or both as we are seeing now. There's no free lunch. Higher productivity with a firm currency is in theory a better way to address competition, and an article of faith for the Germans, although they didn't quite keep to it during the post-reunification years.
Bit disappointing. Expected to edge down a bit. Puts off the day when wages catch up just a little longer. The real wages situation is another reason why the current Tory polling is so remarkable. Under normal circumstances a government that had delivered real wages like this one would either have been out on its ear or on borrowed time.
Don't worry about wages. They're going to take-off very shortly. Mark Carney said so.
I'll believe it when I see it. Labour economics have completely changed since I was at University. The supply of labour has become almost infinitely flexible with the consequence that there is no upward pressure on wages, even when we have almost full employment. Add in the collapse of "artificial" restrictions through Union membership and closed shops outside the public sector (doctors are still very effective in ensuring a high demand for their product) and you have a situation where only significantly increased profitability and productivity is going to improve wages. Neither of them seem likely in the short to medium term. If we are going to be better off on average we need inflation to fall.
Indeed.
The right actually need collective wage bargaining for their liberal economy to properly function. Wealth is concentrating right at top.
Does anyone seriously believe that there is a 12-13 point difference in the voting intention of men and women at the moment? And in favour of Labour when we have a female PM and an unprecedented number of women holding Cabinet posts on the news regularly? The differentials supposedly found in both Opinium and ICM are a reason to be sceptical about their results in my opinion.
Yougov's finding with a marginal difference is much more credible. Of course that is not to say that their finding of a Tory lead was right either....
Women are more directly affected by austerity. So yes I think it’s possible.
I think Mike, unusually, underestimates Mumsnet. The question of gender identity has become extremely highly charged among those who care about it and Labour have found themselves on the wrong side of Mumsnet opinion on the subject. It occupies the “asylum seeker in £1.2 million house” slot of public debate: something that is highly marginal in reality but that acts as an emblem of what many see as something very wrong with the world.
Elsewhere on Mumsnet right now there’s a vigorous debate about whether a man who persists in showering naked in the men’s communal area of the changing rooms at a local swimming pool should be stopped from doing so when children are present. The consensus seems to be that he’s a deviant, despite that fact that so far as I can tell he is using the facilities exactly as they are designed. Self-identification as a woman needs to be understood against that background.
I don’t think we’re yet seeing an anti-trans swing to the Tories. It is, however, possible that Labour are alienating some potential supporters on this subject.
I would feel very uncomfortable having a man who is still physically a man allowed into a womens only space, regardless of how he identified. The idea that men should be permitted to be in womens refuges, for instance, on the basis of some self-identification seems extraordinary to me - and potentially open to abuse and therefore potentially dangerous. I realise that I don’t understand what it is like to be transgender but, simplistic as this may be, until a man has physically transitioned, I do not want him in a womans loo or changing space. Other arrangements can surely be made.
I also find it very odd and troubling that people should be allowed to change gender without a medical diagnosis. This seems to me to downplay what is a recognised medical condition to the detriment of those with it purely in order to please those who think that their own wishes should be the only relevant factor, regardless of the impact on others.
The danger for Labour from their transgender nonsense is the risk that the party is increasingly seen as obsessed with abstractions, even to the extent of doing actual harm. I rather think that the vast majority of women agree with @Cyclefree on this.
I also find it very odd and troubling that people should be allowed to change gender without a medical diagnosis. This seems to me to downplay what is a recognised medical condition to the detriment of those with it purely in order to please those who think that their own wishes should be the only relevant factor, regardless of the impact on others.
In practice, the reality is that no-one has changed or indeed would be able to change gender without a barrage of appointments, delays, and confirmations.
The danger for Labour from their transgender nonsense is the risk that the party is increasingly seen as obsessed with abstractions, even to the extent of doing actual harm. I rather think that the vast majority of women agree with @Cyclefree on this.
Even the Tories seem to go along with the nonsense of self-identification though there has been pushback from womens’ groups so we’ll see what happens.
The danger for Labour from their transgender nonsense is the risk that the party is increasingly seen as obsessed with abstractions, even to the extent of doing actual harm. I rather think that the vast majority of women agree with @Cyclefree on this.
Even the Tories seem to go along with the nonsense of self-identification though there has been pushback from womens’ groups so we’ll see what happens.
Clearly the way to get good publicity from the new rules on companies releasing information on gender pay differentials is to get a few of your highest-paid men to self-identify as women. Job done, and it doesn't cost a bean. This would be an even better wheeze if John McDonnell becomes Chancellor and starts using these statistics when awarding public-sector contracts.
It takes a special sort to be an MCD. There's about twenty different ways to kill yourself with a moment's inattention every day and that's just the training. They also have, I believe, the most stringent fitness test in the UK armed forces and earn less than a McDonalds cashier. I once saw one swim across an open cesspit in Basra to win a 20 quid bet.
One of those jobs that we all think no-one in their right mind would ever want, while remaining humbly grateful to those brave men who do. Hats off to the Dark Blues on this occasion.
I read somewhere in the last couple of days that the Army and Navy teams get around 30 callouts a year to genuine unexploded bombs, plus no doubt loads of others that are less dangerous.
There's a TA army unit in Brum that used to be underwater clearance. Never quite got my head around the choice of location there.
Bit disappointing. Expected to edge down a bit. Puts off the day when wages catch up just a little longer. The real wages situation is another reason why the current Tory polling is so remarkable. Under normal circumstances a government that had delivered real wages like this one would either have been out on its ear or on borrowed time.
Competitive devaluation either shows up in inflation or depressed wages, or both as we are seeing now. There's no free lunch. Higher productivity with a firm currency is in theory a better way to address competition, and an article of faith for the Germans, although they didn't quite keep to it during the post-reunification years.
We are now more than a year out from our competitive devaluation. Sterling has been relatively stable over the last 12 months, certainly not impacting on inflation particularly. Oil prices have been a much bigger issue and our recovery against a weak dollar has helped mitigate that.
Wage moderation has almost certainly helped the growth in employment at a time when an increase in unemployment might have been expected. But you can have too much of a good thing and voters don't normally thank governments for it.
It takes a special sort to be an MCD. There's about twenty different ways to kill yourself with a moment's inattention every day and that's just the training. They also have, I believe, the most stringent fitness test in the UK armed forces and earn less than a McDonalds cashier. I once saw one swim across an open cesspit in Basra to win a 20 quid bet.
Coolest thing I ever saw was an ATO stroll up to a cordon, browning slung on his hips like John Wayne, fag hanging out of his mouth. Once briefed, he stubbed the ciggie out underfoot and walked, as he was, towards the suspected IED.
I also find it very odd and troubling that people should be allowed to change gender without a medical diagnosis. This seems to me to downplay what is a recognised medical condition to the detriment of those with it purely in order to please those who think that their own wishes should be the only relevant factor, regardless of the impact on others.
In practice, the reality is that no-one has changed or indeed would be able to change gender without a barrage of appointments, delays, and confirmations.
That is an argument for having the right medical help for this condition. It is not an argument for allowing men to announce that they now identify as a woman without such a diagnosis and without them actually taking any steps to change.
A man with a functioning penis is still a man and can attack and rape a woman, no matter how much he may claim he identifies as a woman. There is an obvious risk for women if we treat bathrooms and changing spaces and womens refuges as places where men can obtain access to women on the basis of self-identification.
By all means make proper provision for transgender people but not at the expense of women.
The danger for Labour from their transgender nonsense is the risk that the party is increasingly seen as obsessed with abstractions, even to the extent of doing actual harm. I rather think that the vast majority of women agree with @Cyclefree on this.
Even the Tories seem to go along with the nonsense of self-identification though there has been pushback from womens’ groups so we’ll see what happens.
This nonsense was being championed by Justine Greening. Hopefully, it will be dumped now that she's no longer in the Cabinet.
Yougov's finding with a marginal difference is much more credible. Of course that is not to say that their finding of a Tory lead was right either....
Women are more directly affected by austerity. So yes I think it’s possible.
.
Elsewhere on Mumsnet right now there’s a vigorous debate about whether a man who persists in showering naked in the men’s communal area of the changing rooms at a local s
I don’t think we’re yet seeing an anti-trans swing to the Tories. It is, however, possible that Labour are alienating some potential supporters on this subject.
I would feel very uncomfortable having a man who is still physically a man allowed into a womens only space, regardless of how he identified. The idea that men should be permitted to be in womens refuges, for instance, on the basis of some self-identification seems extraordinary to me - and potentially open to abuse and therefore potentially dangerous. I realise that I don’t understand what it is like to be transgender but, simplistic as this may be, until a man has physically transitioned, I do not want him in a womans loo or changing space. Other arrangements can surely be made.
I also find it very odd and troubling that people should be allowed to change gender without a medical diagnosis. This seems to me to downplay what is a recognised medical condition to the detriment of those with it purely in order to please those who think that their own wishes should be the only relevant factor, regardless of the impact on others.
I doubt if many men are bothered by women who self-identify as men using male facilities. But, lots of women will be bothered, and with justification. Why should 51% of the population be inconvenienced in this way?
As an aside, I predict that giving puberty-blocking drugs to children who think that they're the wrong sex will generate a mass of litigation in 10-15 years time.
Bit disappointing. Expected to edge down a bit. Puts off the day when wages catch up just a little longer. The real wages situation is another reason why the current Tory polling is so remarkable. Under normal circumstances a government that had delivered real wages like this one would either have been out on its ear or on borrowed time.
Don't worry about wages. They're going to take-off very shortly. Mark Carney said so.
I'll believe it when I see it. Labour economics have completely changed since I was at University. The supply of labour has become almost infinitely flexible with the consequence that there is no upward pressure on wages, even when we have almost full employment. Add in the collapse of "artificial" restrictions through Union membership and closed shops outside the public sector (doctors are still very effective in ensuring a high demand for their product) and you have a situation where only significantly increased profitability and productivity is going to improve wages. Neither of them seem likely in the short to medium term. If we are going to be better off on average we need inflation to fall.
Indeed.
The right actually need collective wage bargaining for their liberal economy to properly function. Wealth is concentrating right at top.
Wage differentials have in fact improved over the last 10 years, mainly because of the relatively rapid increases in the minimum wage and the loss of some of the super salaries in the City. But I agree that minimum or living wage is not an adequate substitute for labour being able to demand their share of the profits.
As an aside, I predict that giving puberty-blocking drugs to children who think that they're the wrong sex will generate a mass of litigation in 10-15 years time.
I fear that the deliberate attempts by some to promote gender-confusion amongst children and adolescents is a major mental-health timebomb. It amounts to child cruelty.
It takes a special sort to be an MCD. There's about twenty different ways to kill yourself with a moment's inattention every day and that's just the training. They also have, I believe, the most stringent fitness test in the UK armed forces and earn less than a McDonalds cashier. I once saw one swim across an open cesspit in Basra to win a 20 quid bet.
One of those jobs that we all think no-one in their right mind would ever want, while remaining humbly grateful to those brave men who do. Hats off to the Dark Blues on this occasion.
I read somewhere in the last couple of days that the Army and Navy teams get around 30 callouts a year to genuine unexploded bombs, plus no doubt loads of others that are less dangerous.
There's a TA army unit in Brum that used to be underwater clearance. Never quite got my head around the choice of location there.
Bit disappointing. Expected to edge down a bit. Puts off the day when wages catch up just a little longer. The real wages situation is another reason why the current Tory polling is so remarkable. Under normal circumstances a government that had delivered real wages like this one would either have been out on its ear or on borrowed time.
Don't worry about wages. They're going to take-off very shortly. Mark Carney said so.
I'll believe it when I see it. Labour economics have completely changed since I was at University. The supply of labour has become almost infinitely flexible with the consequence that there is no upward pressure on wages, even when we have almost full employment. Add in the collapse of "artificial" restrictions through Union membership and closed shops outside the public sector (doctors are still very effective in ensuring a high demand for their product) and you have a situation where only significantly increased profitability and productivity is going to improve wages. Neither of them seem likely in the short to medium term. If we are going to be better off on average we need inflation to fall.
Indeed.
The right actually need collective wage bargaining for their liberal economy to properly function. Wealth is concentrating right at top.
Less than you might think.
Substantial amounts of wealth go quite a long way down the social ladder. Taking into account pension rights and housing, 30% of households have £500,000 +. 50% have £260,000+.
As an aside, I predict that giving puberty-blocking drugs to children who think that they're the wrong sex will generate a mass of litigation in 10-15 years time.
I fear that the deliberate attempts by some to promote gender-confusion amongst children and adolescents is a major mental-health timebomb. It amounts to child cruelty.
Agreed. Children with gender dysphoria need help not to be used to make some sort of political/gender point.
Or wait until a woman is raped by a man who accessed her by claiming to be a woman.
"Case not proven" is simply not good enough for an opposition supposedly heading for government. Because governments tend to be more unpopular between elections than on election day, Labour should have a clear lead in the polls among women and in general at this stage of the parliament, especially given the poor performance of the Tories right now.
Labour should understand that it wont always be like this. Brexit will eventually be done. The Tories will eventually have a new leader, attractive manifesto, attack on Labour's economic policy strategy.
If Labour can only muster a "case not proven" among women now, how on earth will they do so in 2022?
I also find it very odd and troubling that people should be allowed to change gender without a medical diagnosis. This seems to me to downplay what is a recognised medical condition to the detriment of those with it purely in order to please those who think that their own wishes should be the only relevant factor, regardless of the impact on others.
In practice, the reality is that no-one has changed or indeed would be able to change gender without a barrage of appointments, delays, and confirmations.
That is an argument for having the right medical help for this condition. It is not an argument for allowing men to announce that they now identify as a woman without such a diagnosis and without them actually taking any steps to change.
A man with a functioning penis is still a man and can attack and rape a woman, no matter how much he may claim he identifies as a woman. There is an obvious risk for women if we treat bathrooms and changing spaces and womens refuges as places where men can obtain access to women on the basis of self-identification.
By all means make proper provision for transgender people but not at the expense of women.
All of which I agree with. But there really aren't (not even proposed by Justine Greening) any proposals on the table that would allow for legal recognition as another gender without a long and bureaucratic process.
I fear more for private industry who might take it to the extreme.
"Case not proven" is simply not good enough for an opposition supposedly heading for government. Because governments tend to be more unpopular between elections than on election day, Labour should have a clear lead in the polls among women and in general at this stage of the parliament, especially given the poor performance of the Tories right now.
Labour should understand that it wont always be like this. Brexit will eventually be done. The Tories will eventually have a new leader, attractive manifesto, attack on Labour's economic policy strategy.
If Labour can only muster a "case not proven" among women now, how on earth will they do so in 2022?
I wonder if you are being a touch complacent. Labour’s current share may be a ceiling, as you think. But it may also be a springboard.
I do not think either that, even if Brexit is done, it won’t continue to have an effect on who the Tory leader will be, the attractiveness of their manifesto and their ability to attack Labour.
I also find it very odd and troubling that people should be allowed to change gender without a medical diagnosis. This seems to me to downplay what is a recognised medical condition to the detriment of those with it purely in order to please those who think that their own wishes should be the only relevant factor, regardless of the impact on others.
In practice, the reality is that no-one has changed or indeed would be able to change gender without a barrage of appointments, delays, and confirmations.
That is an argument for having the right medical help for this condition. It is not an argument for allowing men to announce that they now identify as a woman without such a diagnosis and without them actually taking any steps to change.
A man with a functioning penis is still a man and can attack and rape a woman, no matter how much he may claim he identifies as a woman. There is an obvious risk for women if we treat bathrooms and changing spaces and womens refuges as places where men can obtain access to women on the basis of self-identification.
By all means make proper provision for transgender people but not at the expense of women.
All of which I agree with. But there really aren't (not even proposed by Justine Greening) any proposals on the table that would allow for legal recognition as another gender without a long and bureaucratic process.
I fear more for private industry who might take it to the extreme.
I thought Greening’s proposal was that people could change gender without any medical diagnosis. If that’s been dropped, good.
I also find it very odd and troubling that people should be allowed to change gender without a medical diagnosis. This seems to me to downplay what is a recognised medical condition to the detriment of those with it purely in order to please those who think that their own wishes should be the only relevant factor, regardless of the impact on others.
In practice, the reality is that no-one has changed or indeed would be able to change gender without a barrage of appointments, delays, and confirmations.
That is an argument for having the right medical help for this condition. It is not an argument for allowing men to announce that they now identify as a woman without such a diagnosis and without them actually taking any steps to change.
A man with a functioning penis is still a man and can attack and rape a woman, no matter how much he may claim he identifies as a woman. There is an obvious risk for women if we treat bathrooms and changing spaces and womens refuges as places where men can obtain access to women on the basis of self-identification.
By all means make proper provision for transgender people but not at the expense of women.
All of which I agree with. But there really aren't (not even proposed by Justine Greening) any proposals on the table that would allow for legal recognition as another gender without a long and bureaucratic process.
I fear more for private industry who might take it to the extreme.
That's what is happening in the US, with a very vocal transgender lobby organising boycotts of companies who don't go along with their ideas for bathrooms. Most notably, Target gave into the lobby and introduced unisex bathrooms, only to instead be on the end of a boycott from religious conservatives in 2016. http://www.businessinsider.com/target-ceo-blindsided-by-boycott-2017-4
"Case not proven" is simply not good enough for an opposition supposedly heading for government. Because governments tend to be more unpopular between elections than on election day, Labour should have a clear lead in the polls among women and in general at this stage of the parliament, especially given the poor performance of the Tories right now.
Labour should understand that it wont always be like this. Brexit will eventually be done. The Tories will eventually have a new leader, attractive manifesto, attack on Labour's economic policy strategy.
If Labour can only muster a "case not proven" among women now, how on earth will they do so in 2022?
I wonder if you are being a touch complacent. Labour’s current share may be a ceiling, as you think. But it may also be a springboard.
I do not think either that, even if Brexit is done, it won’t continue to have an effect on who the Tory leader will be, the attractiveness of their manifesto and their ability to attack Labour.
I may be wrong, of course.
The flaw in the springboard argument is that Labour is either stagnant or going down in the polls. Springboards are supposed to spring.
The only scope for Labour's current share to be a springboard lies in the marginals of Middle England which Labour failed to win in 2017. These marginals are notoriously reluctant to shift party allegiances without there being confidence in the party they are shifting allegiance to being considered to be economically competent. There is no evidence at all that such confidence happening -at all, quite the reverse.
I am not being complacent. I am not a Tory. I have no desire to see the Tories in power. But I suspect that Corbyn and his gang will ensure they continue to be so.
As an aside, I predict that giving puberty-blocking drugs to children who think that they're the wrong sex will generate a mass of litigation in 10-15 years time.
I fear that the deliberate attempts by some to promote gender-confusion amongst children and adolescents is a major mental-health timebomb. It amounts to child cruelty.
Did conservatives learn nothing from section 28?
It's going to happen again, isn't it? We're going to have "An act to refrain public bodies from promoting gender confusion" on the statute book...
FFS. There's nothing wrong with these kids. They're fine. Take them as they come.
I also find it very odd and troubling that people should be allowed to change gender without a medical diagnosis. This seems to me to downplay what is a recognised medical condition to the detriment of those with it purely in order to please those who think that their own wishes should be the only relevant factor, regardless of the impact on others.
In practice, the reality is that no-one has changed or indeed would be able to change gender without a barrage of appointments, delays, and confirmations.
That is an argument for having the right medical help for this condition. It is not an argument for allowing men to announce that they now identify as a woman without such a diagnosis and without them actually taking any steps to change.
A man with a functioning penis is still a man and can attack and rape a woman, no matter how much he may claim he identifies as a woman. There is an obvious risk for women if we treat bathrooms and changing spaces and womens refuges as places where men can obtain access to women on the basis of self-identification.
By all means make proper provision for transgender people but not at the expense of women.
All of which I agree with. But there really aren't (not even proposed by Justine Greening) any proposals on the table that would allow for legal recognition as another gender without a long and bureaucratic process.
I fear more for private industry who might take it to the extreme.
I thought Greening’s proposal was that people could change gender without any medical diagnosis. If that’s been dropped, good.
What do you fear from private industry?
Her proposal was that you could change sex by swearing a statutory declaration.
"Case not proven" is simply not good enough for an opposition supposedly heading for government. Because governments tend to be more unpopular between elections than on election day, Labour should have a clear lead in the polls among women and in general at this stage of the parliament, especially given the poor performance of the Tories right now.
Labour should understand that it wont always be like this. Brexit will eventually be done. The Tories will eventually have a new leader, attractive manifesto, attack on Labour's economic policy strategy.
If Labour can only muster a "case not proven" among women now, how on earth will they do so in 2022?
I agree that Labour is doing poorly at the moment. Although I am not convinced that the likes of Burnham, Cooper or Smith would be doing any better, particularly on a platform of less appeal to the excluded young. However things can easily get worse for the government, new leader or no, particularly as, like all governments, they are vulnerable not only to the consequences of their own decisions but also the general economic climate.
And it will take another Labour government to restore the credibility of Tory negative campaigning about Labour and the economy. Meanwhile that attack line is bust.
I also find it very odd and troubling that people should be allowed to change gender without a medical diagnosis. This seems to me to downplay what is a recognised medical condition to the detriment of those with it purely in order to please those who think that their own wishes should be the only relevant factor, regardless of the impact on others.
In practice, the reality is that no-one has changed or indeed would be able to change gender without a barrage of appointments, delays, and confirmations.
That is an argument for having the right medical help for this condition. It is not an argument for allowing men to announce that they now identify as a woman without such a diagnosis and without them actually taking any steps to change.
A man with a functioning penis is still a man and can attack and rape a woman, no matter how much he may claim he identifies as a woman. There is an obvious risk for women if we treat bathrooms and changing spaces and womens refuges as places where men can obtain access to women on the basis of self-identification.
By all means make proper provision for transgender people but not at the expense of women.
All of which I agree with. But there really aren't (not even proposed by Justine Greening) any proposals on the table that would allow for legal recognition as another gender without a long and bureaucratic process.
I fear more for private industry who might take it to the extreme.
I thought Greening’s proposal was that people could change gender without any medical diagnosis. If that’s been dropped, good.
What do you fear from private industry?
What about if we are moving out of the era of fixed gender identity? In which case we would need a new paradigm of gender identification and processes. What if gender dysphoria is more common than we had previously thought?
I think all Parties, and parties, are feeling their way around this and there will be confusion and misunderstanding as we enter that new paradigm.
I also find it very odd and troubling that people should be allowed to change gender without a medical diagnosis. This seems to me to downplay what is a recognised medical condition to the detriment of those with it purely in order to please those who think that their own wishes should be the only relevant factor, regardless of the impact on others.
In practice, the reality is that no-one has changed or indeed would be able to change gender without a barrage of appointments, delays, and confirmations.
That is an argument for having the right medical help for this condition. It is not an argument for allowing men to announce that they now identify as a woman without such a diagnosis and without them actually taking any steps to change.
A man with a functioning penis is still a man and can attack and rape a woman, no matter how much he may claim he identifies as a woman. There is an obvious risk for women if we treat bathrooms and changing spaces and womens refuges as places where men can obtain access to women on the basis of self-identification.
By all means make proper provision for transgender people but not at the expense of women.
All of which I agree with. But there really aren't (not even proposed by Justine Greening) any proposals on the table that would allow for legal recognition as another gender without a long and bureaucratic process.
I fear more for private industry who might take it to the extreme.
That's what is happening in the US, with a very vocal transgender lobby organising boycotts of companies who don't go along with their ideas for bathrooms. Most notably, Target gave into the lobby and introduced unisex bathrooms, only to instead be on the end of a boycott from religious conservatives in 2016. http://www.businessinsider.com/target-ceo-blindsided-by-boycott-2017-4
Unisex loos mean fewer urinals - not good for elderly men with prostate issues
And it will take another Labour government to restore the credibility of Tory negative campaigning about Labour and the economy. Meanwhile that attack line is bust.
Certainly not bust. Last campaign, we had a Chancellor who went/was told to go AWOL. It just needs to be better aired.
"Case not proven" is simply not good enough for an opposition supposedly heading for government. Because governments tend to be more unpopular between elections than on election day, Labour should have a clear lead in the polls among women and in general at this stage of the parliament, especially given the poor performance of the Tories right now.
Labour should understand that it wont always be like this. Brexit will eventually be done. The Tories will eventually have a new leader, attractive manifesto, attack on Labour's economic policy strategy.
If Labour can only muster a "case not proven" among women now, how on earth will they do so in 2022?
I agree that Labour is doing poorly at the moment. Although I am not convinced that the likes of Burnham, Cooper or Smith would be doing any better, particularly on a platform of less appeal to the excluded young. However things can easily get worse for the government, new leader or no, particularly as, like all governments, they are vulnerable not only to the consequences of their own decisions but also the general economic climate.
And it will take another Labour government to restore the credibility of Tory negative campaigning about Labour and the economy. Meanwhile that attack line is bust.
I think if Burnham (but not Smith or Cooper) had been leader there would have been no Brexit and he would be prime minister.
I also think someone like Thornberry would ensure a Labour victory next time. But Corbyn, McDonnell and Abbott are the obstacles to victory. The young (18-25) are much less important electorally than some seem to think.They are outnumbered hugely by the over 55s. 25-45 are much more important.
The fact remains, Labour must win Tory marginals in Middle England in 2022, marginals which Labour failed to win in 2017. I do not believe that a 73 year old Marxist will win those marginals.
Ironically history shows that when there is economic uncertainty the Tories benefit, even when they are in power. People may not be willing to gamble on a Labour leadership which they have no confidence in economically at a time of economic uncertainty following Brexit.
As for Tory negative campigning about Labour and the economy, it didnt exist in 2017 -yet Labour is still behind. The Tories wont make that mistake next time and if you think voters wont listen you are in for a rude shock. I am a Labour supporter and I think Corbyn and McDonnell will crash the economy. If someone like me on the mainstream (non Blairite left thinks that, how do you think wavering voters in marginals will react?
Surely under EU law the pollsters should no longer differentiate by gender.
For example insurance companies can not offer differential premiums for men and women - despite women livving longer than men; and despite women drivers having fewer car accidents than men.
I also find it very odd and troubling that people should be allowed to change gender without a medical diagnosis. This seems to me to downplay what is a recognised medical condition to the detriment of those with it purely in order to please those who think that their own wishes should be the only relevant factor, regardless of the impact on others.
In practice, the reality is that no-one has changed or indeed would be able to change gender without a barrage of appointments, delays, and confirmations.
That is an argument for having the right medical help for this condition. It is not an argument for allowing men to announce that they now identify as a woman without such a diagnosis and without them actually taking any steps to change.
A man with a functioning penis is still a man and can attack and rape a woman, no matter how much he may claim he identifies as a woman. There is an obvious risk for women if we treat bathrooms and changing spaces and womens refuges as places where men can obtain access to women on the basis of self-identification.
By all means make proper provision for transgender people but not at the expense of women.
All of which I agree with. But there really aren't (not even proposed by Justine Greening) any proposals on the table that would allow for legal recognition as another gender without a long and bureaucratic process.
I fear more for private industry who might take it to the extreme.
I thought Greening’s proposal was that people could change gender without any medical diagnosis. If that’s been dropped, good.
What do you fear from private industry?
Her proposal was that you could change sex by swearing a statutory declaration.
I call it the Shania Twain proposal: man, I feel like a woman.
The single most important thing he said was he wouldn't have been involved in politics without the referendum. Brexit has triggered an assertive pro-European movement that is growing stronger all the time.
Surely under EU law the pollsters should no longer differentiate by gender.
For example insurance companies can not offer differential premiums for men and women - despite women livving longer than men; and despite women drivers having fewer car accidents than men.
What car/lifestyle is needed to each crossover in the different annuity/car insurance premium discounted present value ?
"Case not proven" is simply not good enough for an opposition supposedly heading for government. Because governments tend to be more unpopular between elections than on election day, Labour should have a clear lead in the polls among women and in general at this stage of the parliament, especially given the poor performance of the Tories right now.
Labour should understand that it wont always be like this. Brexit will eventually be done. The Tories will eventually have a new leader, attractive manifesto, attack on Labour's economic policy strategy.
If Labour can only muster a "case not proven" among women now, how on earth will they do so in 2022?
I wonder if you are being a touch complacent. Labour’s current share may be a ceiling, as you think. But it may also be a springboard.
I do not think either that, even if Brexit is done, it won’t continue to have an effect on who the Tory leader will be, the attractiveness of their manifesto and their ability to attack Labour.
I may be wrong, of course.
The flaw in the springboard argument is that Labour is either stagnant or going down in the polls. Springboards are supposed to spring.
The only scope for Labour's current share to be a springboard lies in the marginals of Middle England which Labour failed to win in 2017. These marginals are notoriously reluctant to shift party allegiances without there being confidence in the party they are shifting allegiance to being considered to be economically competent. There is no evidence at all that such confidence happening -at all, quite the reverse.
I am not being complacent. I am not a Tory. I have no desire to see the Tories in power. But I suspect that Corbyn and his gang will ensure they continue to be so.
I'm not so confident.
The Tories are being held up to an astonishing degree by the oldies, and need to make serious inroads into the 30 and 40somethings to retain office.
"Case not proven" is simply not good enough for an opposition supposedly heading for government. Because governments tend to be more unpopular between elections than on election day, Labour should have a clear lead in the polls among women and in general at this stage of the parliament, especially given the poor performance of the Tories right now.
Labour should understand that it wont always be like this. Brexit will eventually be done. The Tories will eventually have a new leader, attractive manifesto, attack on Labour's economic policy strategy.
If Labour can only muster a "case not proven" among women now, how on earth will they do so in 2022?
I agree that Labour is doing poorly at the moment. Although I am not convinced that the likes of Burnham, Cooper or Smith would be doing any better, particularly on a platform of less appeal to the excluded young. However things can easily get worse for the government, new leader or no, particularly as, like all governments, they are vulnerable not only to the consequences of their own decisions but also the general economic climate.
And it will take another Labour government to restore the credibility of Tory negative campaigning about Labour and the economy. Meanwhile that attack line is bust.
I think if Burnham (but not Smith or Cooper) had been leader there would have been no Brexit and he would be prime minister.
I also think someone like Thornberry would ensure a Labour victory next time. But Corbyn, McDonnell and Abbott are the obstacles to victory. The young (18-25) are much less important electorally than some seem to think.They are outnumbered hugely by the over 55s. 25-45 are much more important.
The fact remains, Labour must win Tory marginals in Middle England in 2022, marginals which Labour failed to win in 2017. I do not believe that a 73 year old Marxist will win those marginals.
Ironically history shows that when there is economic uncertainty the Tories benefit, even when they are in power. People may not be willing to gamble on a Labour leadership which they have no confidence in economically at a time of economic uncertainty following Brexit.
As for Tory negative campigning about Labour and the economy, it didnt exist in 2017 -yet Labour is still behind. The Tories wont make that mistake next time and if you think voters wont listen you are in for a rude shock. I am a Labour supporter and I think Corbyn and McDonnell will crash the economy. If someone like me on the mainstream (non Blairite left thinks that, how do you think wavering voters in marginals will react?
Either Burnham or Cooper would have made remarkably insipid leaders.
As an aside, I predict that giving puberty-blocking drugs to children who think that they're the wrong sex will generate a mass of litigation in 10-15 years time.
I fear that the deliberate attempts by some to promote gender-confusion amongst children and adolescents is a major mental-health timebomb. It amounts to child cruelty.
Did conservatives learn nothing from section 28?
It's going to happen again, isn't it? We're going to have "An act to refrain public bodies from promoting gender confusion" on the statute book...
FFS. There's nothing wrong with these kids. They're fine. Take them as they come.
It takes a special sort to be an MCD. There's about twenty different ways to kill yourself with a moment's inattention every day and that's just the training. They also have, I believe, the most stringent fitness test in the UK armed forces and earn less than a McDonalds cashier. I once saw one swim across an open cesspit in Basra to win a 20 quid bet.
One of those jobs that we all think no-one in their right mind would ever want, while remaining humbly grateful to those brave men who do. Hats off to the Dark Blues on this occasion.
I read somewhere in the last couple of days that the Army and Navy teams get around 30 callouts a year to genuine unexploded bombs, plus no doubt loads of others that are less dangerous.
There's a TA army unit in Brum that used to be underwater clearance. Never quite got my head around the choice of location there.
My late father-in-law spent the last two or thereabouts years of WWII in unexploded bomb disposal. He said the best thing about it was when he did one on an American airbase and they were taken to the PX afterwards for a slap up meal. Only trouble was they always gave them steak and he was vegetarian! Told me all about it when, in the late 50's, I was courting his daughter.
As an aside, I predict that giving puberty-blocking drugs to children who think that they're the wrong sex will generate a mass of litigation in 10-15 years time.
I fear that the deliberate attempts by some to promote gender-confusion amongst children and adolescents is a major mental-health timebomb. It amounts to child cruelty.
Did conservatives learn nothing from section 28?
It's going to happen again, isn't it? We're going to have "An act to refrain public bodies from promoting gender confusion" on the statute book...
FFS. There's nothing wrong with these kids. They're fine. Take them as they come.
Elise Christie tries to push her way through again.
BBC say she was robbed.
They must be blind as well as ridiculously biased.
Eurosport calls it correctly
She wasn't going to win, but her arm was taken out inadvertently by the skater on the inside, she wasn't pushing through at the point the incident happened
As an aside, I predict that giving puberty-blocking drugs to children who think that they're the wrong sex will generate a mass of litigation in 10-15 years time.
I fear that the deliberate attempts by some to promote gender-confusion amongst children and adolescents is a major mental-health timebomb. It amounts to child cruelty.
Did conservatives learn nothing from section 28?
It's going to happen again, isn't it? We're going to have "An act to refrain public bodies from promoting gender confusion" on the statute book...
FFS. There's nothing wrong with these kids. They're fine. Take them as they come.
"Case not proven" is simply not good enough for an opposition supposedly heading for government. Because governments tend to be more unpopular between elections than on election day, Labour should have a clear lead in the polls among women and in general at this stage of the parliament, especially given the poor performance of the Tories right now.
Labour should understand that it wont always be like this. Brexit will eventually be done. The Tories will eventually have a new leader, attractive manifesto, attack on Labour's economic policy strategy.
If Labour can only muster a "case not proven" among women now, how on earth will they do so in 2022?
I agree that Labour is doing poorly at the moment. Although I am not convinced that the likes of Burnham, Cooper or Smith would be doing any better, particularly on a platform of less appeal to the excluded young. However things can easily get worse for the government, new leader or no, particularly as, like all governments, they are vulnerable not only to the consequences of their own decisions but also the general economic climate.
And it will take another Labour government to restore the credibility of Tory negative campaigning about Labour and the economy. Meanwhile that attack line is bust.
I think if Burnham (but not Smith or Cooper) had been leader there would have been no Brexit and he would be prime minister.
I also think someone like Thornberry would ensure a Labour victory next time. But Corbyn, McDonnell and Abbott are the obstacles to victory. The young (18-25) are much less important electorally than some seem to think.They are outnumbered hugely by the over 55s. 25-45 are much more important.
The fact remains, Labour must win Tory marginals in Middle England in 2022, marginals which Labour failed to win in 2017. I do not believe that a 73 year old Marxist will win those marginals.
Ironically history shows that when there is economic uncertainty the Tories benefit, even when they are in power. People may not be willing to gamble on a Labour leadership which they Labour is still behind. The Tories wont make that mistake next time and if you think voters wont listen you are in for a rude shock. I am a Labour supporter and I think Corbyn and McDonnell will crash the economy. If someone like me on the mainstream (non Blairite left thinks that, how do you think wavering voters in marginals will react?
Either Burnham or Cooper would have made remarkably insipid leaders.
Thornberry is a bit better, to be fair.
Agree with Casino Cooper in particular is just rubbish and makes May look decisive.
The case will go to crown court - all three released on bail The judge asked the three men to stand, telling them: “I’ve decided your trial will take place in Bristol Crown Court on 12 March. You are placed on unconditional bail. You have a legal duty to surrender to that court in good time.
"Case not proven" is simply not good enough for an opposition supposedly heading for government. Because governments tend to be more unpopular between elections than on election day, Labour should have a clear lead in the polls among women and in general at this stage of the parliament, especially given the poor performance of the Tories right now.
Labour should understand that it wont always be like this. Brexit will eventually be done. The Tories will eventually have a new leader, attractive manifesto, attack on Labour's economic policy strategy.
If Labour can only muster a "case not proven" among women now, how on earth will they do so in 2022?
I wonder if you are being a touch complacent. Labour’s current share may be a ceiling, as you think. But it may also be a springboard.
I do not think either that, even if Brexit is done, it won’t continue to have an effect on who the Tory leader will be, the attractiveness of their manifesto and their ability to attack Labour.
I may be wrong, of course.
The flaw in the springboard argument is that Labour is either stagnant or going down in the polls. Springboards are supposed to spring.
The only scope for Labour's current share to be a springboard lies in the marginals of Middle England which Labour failed to win in 2017. These marginals are notoriously reluctant to shift party allegiances without there being confidence in the party they are shifting allegiance to being considered to be economically competent. There is no evidence at all that such confidence happening -at all, quite the reverse.
I am not being complacent. I am not a Tory. I have no desire to see the Tories in power. But I suspect that Corbyn and his gang will ensure they continue to be so.
I'm not so confident.
The Tories are being held up to an astonishing degree by the oldies, and need to make serious inroads into the 30 and 40somethings to retain office.
I'm pleased to see that the number of first time buyers is at its highest since 2006.
Agree with Casino Cooper in particular is just rubbish and makes May look decisive.
There was always Liz Kendall. I just can't fathom why her leadership campaign message of "hey, members, you're all idiots, now vote for me because I'm good at winning elections (despite consistently trailing a distance fourth in this one)" didn't work.
Bit disappointing. Expected to edge down a bit. Puts off the day when wages catch up just a little longer. The real wages situation is another reason why the current Tory polling is so remarkable. Under normal circumstances a government that had delivered real wages like this one would either have been out on its ear or on borrowed time.
Agreed. It's another reason why Freedom of Movement has to end; big business get an easy ride with the supply of low-wage, public subsidised labour, presently...
As an aside, I predict that giving puberty-blocking drugs to children who think that they're the wrong sex will generate a mass of litigation in 10-15 years time.
I fear that the deliberate attempts by some to promote gender-confusion amongst children and adolescents is a major mental-health timebomb. It amounts to child cruelty.
Did conservatives learn nothing from section 28?
It's going to happen again, isn't it? We're going to have "An act to refrain public bodies from promoting gender confusion" on the statute book...
FFS. There's nothing wrong with these kids. They're fine. Take them as they come.
Because it's a bizarre psychological experiment, based on who knows what, which deliberately tries to make children doubt their own identity. It's like giving them untested psychoactive drugs. Doing that to potentially vulnerable children, who might already be coming to terms with their developing sexuality, is completely irresponsible. It's also logical nonsense: the sex of a child is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of objective fact based on chromosomes (and externally rather obvious features).
"Case not proven" is simply not good enough for an opposition supposedly heading for government. Because governments tend to be more unpopular between elections than on election day, Labour should have a clear lead in the polls among women and in general at this stage of the parliament, especially given the poor performance of the Tories right now.
Labour should understand that it wont always be like this. Brexit will eventually be done. The Tories will eventually have a new leader, attractive manifesto, attack on Labour's economic policy strategy.
If Labour can only muster a "case not proven" among women now, how on earth will they do so in 2022?
I wonder if you are being a touch complacent. Labour’s current share may be a ceiling, as you think. But it may also be a springboard.
I do not think either that, even if Brexit is done, it won’t continue to have an effect on who the Tory leader will be, the attractiveness of their manifesto and their ability to attack Labour.
I may be wrong, of course.
The flaw in the springboard argument is that Labour is either stagnant or going down in the polls. Springboards are supposed to spring.
The only scope for Labour's current share to be a springboard lies in the marginals of Middle England which Labour failed to win in 2017. These marginals are notoriously reluctant to shift party allegiances without there being confidence in the party they are shifting allegiance to being considered to be economically competent. There is no evidence at all that such confidence happening -at all, quite the reverse.
I am not being complacent. I am not a Tory. I have no desire to see the Tories in power. But I suspect that Corbyn and his gang will ensure they continue to be so.
I'm not so confident.
The Tories are being held up to an astonishing degree by the oldies, and need to make serious inroads into the 30 and 40somethings to retain office.
I agree that the Tories need to do something to win back the 30s and 40s -yet 2017 has done them the favour of showing them the need to do that.
But it is equally true that the over 55s will be the majority of voters in 2022 (aging of population) and Labour needs to win a substantial number of them over. They wont do that with Corbyn and Mcdonnell.
Elise Christie tries to push her way through again.
BBC say she was robbed.
They must be blind as well as ridiculously biased.
Eurosport calls it correctly
She wasn't going to win, but her arm was taken out inadvertently by the skater on the inside, she wasn't pushing through at the point the incident happened
Had she not pushed her way through she wouldnt have been in the position where she was.
As an aside, I predict that giving puberty-blocking drugs to children who think that they're the wrong sex will generate a mass of litigation in 10-15 years time.
I fear that the deliberate attempts by some to promote gender-confusion amongst children and adolescents is a major mental-health timebomb. It amounts to child cruelty.
Did conservatives learn nothing from section 28?
It's going to happen again, isn't it? We're going to have "An act to refrain public bodies from promoting gender confusion" on the statute book...
FFS. There's nothing wrong with these kids. They're fine. Take them as they come.
Because it's a bizarre psychological experiment, based on who knows what, which deliberately tries to make children doubt their own identity. It's like giving them untested psychoactive drugs. Doing that to potentially vulnerable children, who might already be coming to terms with their developing sexuality, is completely irresponsible. It's also logical nonsense: the sex of a child is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of objective fact based on chromosomes (and externally rather obvious features).
Well it asked about gender, not sex.
I also think it's a little hysterical to say that asking a single question about gender on a form is "like giving them untested psychoactive drugs". And I don't see why it's "deliberately trying" to make them doubt their identity any more than asking them what their sexual preferences are would be deliberately trying to make them doubt that.
As an aside, I predict that giving puberty-blocking drugs to children who think that they're the wrong sex will generate a mass of litigation in 10-15 years time.
I fear that the deliberate attempts by some to promote gender-confusion amongst children and adolescents is a major mental-health timebomb. It amounts to child cruelty.
Did conservatives learn nothing from section 28?
It's going to happen again, isn't it? We're going to have "An act to refrain public bodies from promoting gender confusion" on the statute book...
FFS. There's nothing wrong with these kids. They're fine. Take them as they come.
Because it's a bizarre psychological experiment, based on who knows what, which deliberately tries to make children doubt their own identity. It's like giving them untested psychoactive drugs. Doing that to potentially vulnerable children, who might already be coming to terms with their developing sexuality, is completely irresponsible. It's also logical nonsense: the sex of a child is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of objective fact based on chromosomes (and externally rather obvious features).
The idea that postponing a child's natural development until they are old enough to give consent to change it is frankly so bizarre that I cannot believe that the Courts have not been more actively involved. How can differentiating a child from their peers and friends in that way possibly be in their best interests? How can they hope to be socialised and integrated in the future with whatever sex?
I agree with @SeanF that group litigation by the victims of this stupidity is inevitable.
I also think it's a little hysterical to say that asking a single question about gender on a form is "like giving them untested psychoactive drugs". And I don't see why it's "deliberately trying" to make them doubt their identity any more than asking them what their sexual preferences are would be deliberately trying to make them doubt that.
Meh - this gender fluid thing is just a fad - currently fashionable to think you or your kid is "special" in some way. Easier than tutoring them to play concert piano or play tennis I suppose.
As an aside, I predict that giving puberty-blocking drugs to children who think that they're the wrong sex will generate a mass of litigation in 10-15 years time.
I fear that the deliberate attempts by some to promote gender-confusion amongst children and adolescents is a major mental-health timebomb. It amounts to child cruelty.
Did conservatives learn nothing from section 28?
It's going to happen again, isn't it? We're going to have "An act to refrain public bodies from promoting gender confusion" on the statute book...
FFS. There's nothing wrong with these kids. They're fine. Take them as they come.
Because it's a bizarre psychological experiment, based on who knows what, which deliberately tries to make children doubt their own identity. It's like giving them untested psychoactive drugs. Doing that to potentially vulnerable children, who might already be coming to terms with their developing sexuality, is completely irresponsible. It's also logical nonsense: the sex of a child is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of objective fact based on chromosomes (and externally rather obvious features).
Well it asked about gender, not sex.
I also think it's a little hysterical to say that asking a single question about gender on a form is "like giving them untested psychoactive drugs". And I don't see why it's "deliberately trying" to make them doubt their identity any more than asking them what their sexual preferences are would be deliberately trying to make them doubt that.
It's rather unlikely to be a single question on a form; presumably the school isn't doing this as some kind of elaborate practical joke (although I agree it sounds like one, so maybe I'm wrong on that).
Brexit has triggered an assertive pro-European movement that is growing stronger all the time.
Will this movement be standing many candidates in the May election ?
Then it can campaign to rejoin the EU after we have left. But it must not be allowed to frustrate a democratic referendum either by stopping Brexit or imposing Brexit in name only.
Brexit has triggered an assertive pro-European movement that is growing stronger all the time.
Will this movement be standing many candidates in the May election ?
Then it can campaign to rejoin the EU after we have left. But it must not be allowed to frustrate a democratic referendum either by stopping Brexit or imposing Brexit in name only.
"Case not proven" is simply not good enough for an opposition supposedly heading for government. Because governments tend to be more unpopular between elections than on election day, Labour should have a clear lead in the polls among women and in general at this stage of the parliament, especially given the poor performance of the Tories right now.
Labour should understand that it wont always be like this. Brexit will eventually be done. The Tories will eventually have a new leader, attractive manifesto, attack on Labour's economic policy strategy.
If Labour can only muster a "case not proven" among women now, how on earth will they do so in 2022?
I agree that Labour is doing poorly at the moment. Although I am not convinced that the likes of Burnham, Cooper or Smith would be doing any better, particularly on a platform of less appeal to the excluded young. However things can easily get worse for the government, new leader or no, particularly as, like all governments, they are vulnerable not only to the consequences of their own decisions but also the general economic climate.
And it will take another Labour government to restore the credibility of Tory negative campaigning about Labour and the economy. Meanwhile that attack line is bust.
I think if Burnham (but not Smith or Cooper) had been leader there would have been no Brexit and he would be prime minister.
I also think someone like Thornberry would ensure a Labour victory next time. But Corbyn, McDonnell and Abbott are the obstacles to victory. The young (18-25) are much less important electorally than some seem to think.They are outnumbered hugely by the over 55s. 25-45 are much more important.
The fact remains, Labour must win Tory marginals in Middle England in 2022, marginals which Labour failed to win in 2017. I do not believe that a 73 year old Marxist will win those marginals.
Ironically history shows that when there is economic uncertainty the Tories benefit, even when they are in power. People may not be willing to gamble on a Labour leadership which they have no confidence in economically at a time of economic uncertainty following Brexit.
As for Tory negative campigning about Labour and the economy, it didnt exist in 2017 -yet Labour is still behind. The Tories wont make that mistake next time and if you think voters wont listen you are in for a rude shock. I am a Labour supporter and I think Corbyn and McDonnell will crash the economy. If someone like me on the mainstream (non Blairite left thinks that, how do you think wavering voters in marginals will react?
Either Burnham or Cooper would have made remarkably insipid leaders.
It's rather unlikely to be a single question on a form; presumably the school isn't doing this as some kind of elaborate practical joke (although I agree it sounds like one, so maybe I'm wrong on that).
Well apparently it was from the Office of the Children’s Commissioner, not an individual school. According to gov.uk: "The Office of the Children’s Commissioner promotes the rights, views and interests of children in policies or decisions affecting their lives. They particularly represent children who are vulnerable or who find it hard to make their views known."
So it still seems likely to me that asking a question on a survey was neither a practical joke nor an MKUltra-esque mind-control experiment, but a way of collecting information.
Bit disappointing. Expected to edge down a bit. Puts off the day when wages catch up just a little longer. The real wages situation is another reason why the current Tory polling is so remarkable. Under normal circumstances a government that had delivered real wages like this one would either have been out on its ear or on borrowed time.
Agreed. It's another reason why Freedom of Movement has to end; big business get an easy ride with the supply of low-wage, public subsidised labour, presently...
Big business? Are not small businesses benefiting just as much?
Bit disappointing. Expected to edge down a bit. Puts off the day when wages catch up just a little longer. The real wages situation is another reason why the current Tory polling is so remarkable. Under normal circumstances a government that had delivered real wages like this one would either have been out on its ear or on borrowed time.
Agreed. It's another reason why Freedom of Movement has to end; big business get an easy ride with the supply of low-wage, public subsidised labour, presently...
Big business? Are not small businesses benefiting just as much?
As an aside, I predict that giving puberty-blocking drugs to children who think that they're the wrong sex will generate a mass of litigation in 10-15 years time.
I fear that the deliberate attempts by some to promote gender-confusion amongst children and adolescents is a major mental-health timebomb. It amounts to child cruelty.
Did conservatives learn nothing from section 28?
It's going to happen again, isn't it? We're going to have "An act to refrain public bodies from promoting gender confusion" on the statute book...
FFS. There's nothing wrong with these kids. They're fine. Take them as they come.
Because it's a bizarre psychological experiment, based on who knows what, which deliberately tries to make children doubt their own identity. It's like giving them untested psychoactive drugs. Doing that to potentially vulnerable children, who might already be coming to terms with their developing sexuality, is completely irresponsible. It's also logical nonsense: the sex of a child is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of objective fact based on chromosomes (and externally rather obvious features).
Well it asked about gender, not sex.
I also think it's a little hysterical to say that asking a single question about gender on a form is "like giving them untested psychoactive drugs". And I don't see why it's "deliberately trying" to make them doubt their identity any more than asking them what their sexual preferences are would be deliberately trying to make them doubt that.
It's rather unlikely to be a single question on a form; presumably the school isn't doing this as some kind of elaborate practical joke (although I agree it sounds like one, so maybe I'm wrong on that).
The Telegraph story suggests it's a single sheet of paper with 24 options...... 24...... including 'rather not say'. I only hope that they have to fill it in individually, without anyone else being involved. Otherwise I can see lots of crossings out and pencilling ins. And, TBH, I'm not at all sure what some of the terms mean! What's a demi-boy? Or girl?
"Case not proven" is simply not good enough for an opposition supposedly heading for government. Because governments tend to be more unpopular between elections than on election day, Labour should have a clear lead in the polls among women and in general at this stage of the parliament, especially given the poor performance of the Tories right now.
Labour should understand that it wont always be like this. Brexit will eventually be done. The Tories will eventually have a new leader, attractive manifesto, attack on Labour's economic policy strategy.
If Labour can only muster a "case not proven" among women now, how on earth will they do so in 2022?
I agree that Labour is doing poorly at the moment. Although I am not convinced that the likes of Burnham, Cooper or Smith would be doing any better, particularly on a platform of less appeal to the excluded young. However things can easily get worse for the government, new leader or no, particularly as, like all governments, they are vulnerable not only to the consequences of their own decisions but also the general economic climate.
And it will take another Labour government to restore the credibility of Tory negative campaigning about Labour and the economy. Meanwhile that attack line is bust.
?
Either Burnham or Cooper would have made remarkably insipid leaders.
Brexit has triggered an assertive pro-European movement that is growing stronger all the time.
Will this movement be standing many candidates in the May election ?
Then it can campaign to rejoin the EU after we have left. But it must not be allowed to frustrate a democratic referendum either by stopping Brexit or imposing Brexit in name only.
Brexit in name only* is still Brexit... we would still have left the EU, and therefore satisfied the referendum mandate
(* Which is pretty much where I expect us to end up)
Brexit has triggered an assertive pro-European movement that is growing stronger all the time.
Will this movement be standing many candidates in the May election ?
Then it can campaign to rejoin the EU after we have left. But it must not be allowed to frustrate a democratic referendum either by stopping Brexit or imposing Brexit in name only.
By what means could this still hypothetical movement do either of the things you are saying it should not be allowed to do? We have a legitimately elected government that is proceeding with its mandate of leaving the EU. Nobody can stop it, let alone a group without a leader or any national organisation. Some Brexit supporters seem to have remarkably little confidence in their project.
Brexit has triggered an assertive pro-European movement that is growing stronger all the time.
Will this movement be standing many candidates in the May election ?
Then it can campaign to rejoin the EU after we have left. But it must not be allowed to frustrate a democratic referendum either by stopping Brexit or imposing Brexit in name only.
Because it's a bizarre psychological experiment, based on who knows what, which deliberately tries to make children doubt their own identity. It's like giving them untested psychoactive drugs. Doing that to potentially vulnerable children, who might already be coming to terms with their developing sexuality, is completely irresponsible. It's also logical nonsense: the sex of a child is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of objective fact based on chromosomes (and externally rather obvious features).
Well it asked about gender, not sex.
I also think it's a little hysterical to say that asking a single question about gender on a form is "like giving them untested psychoactive drugs". And I don't see why it's "deliberately trying" to make them doubt their identity any more than asking them what their sexual preferences are would be deliberately trying to make them doubt that.
It's rather unlikely to be a single question on a form; presumably the school isn't doing this as some kind of elaborate practical joke (although I agree it sounds like one, so maybe I'm wrong on that).
The Telegraph story suggests it's a single sheet of paper with 24 options...... 24...... including 'rather no say.I only hope that they have to fill it in individually, without anyone else being involved. Otherwise I can see lots of crossings out and pencilling ins. And, TBH, I'm not at all sure what some of the terms mean! What's a demi-boy? Or girl?
In general for things like this you should just provide an empty box and ask people something like 'describe your gender'. That way you aren't 'prompting' them in any way, but neither are you restricting any potential options for answers.
Brexit has triggered an assertive pro-European movement that is growing stronger all the time.
Will this movement be standing many candidates in the May election ?
Then it can campaign to rejoin the EU after we have left. But it must not be allowed to frustrate a democratic referendum either by stopping Brexit or imposing Brexit in name only.
Brexit in name only* is still Brexit... we would still have left the EU, and therefore satisfied the referendum mandate
(* Which is pretty much where I expect us to end up)
Brexit in name only means free movement continuing uncontrolled, ECJ jurisdiction over the UK and regulatory alignment, staying in the Customs Union with all FTAs agreed through the EU and continued payments to Brussels, it would revive UKIP quicker than Lazarus which is why neither the Tories nor Corbyn will do it
As an aside, I predict that giving puberty-blocking drugs to children who think that they're the wrong sex will generate a mass of litigation in 10-15 years time.
I fear that the deliberate attempts by some to promote gender-confusion amongst children and adolescents is a major mental-health timebomb. It amounts to child cruelty.
Did conservatives learn nothing from section 28?
It's going to happen again, isn't it? We're going to have "An act to refrain public bodies from promoting gender confusion" on the statute book...
FFS. There's nothing wrong with these kids. They're fine. Take them as they come.
Because it's a bizarre psychological experiment, based on who knows what, which deliberately tries to make children doubt their own identity. It's like giving them untested psychoactive drugs. Doing that to potentially vulnerable children, who might already be coming to terms with their developing sexuality, is completely irresponsible. It's also logical nonsense: the sex of a child is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of objective fact based on chromosomes (and externally rather obvious features).
Well it asked about gender, not sex.
I also think it's a little hysterical to say that asking a single question about gender on a form is "like giving them untested psychoactive drugs". And I don't see why it's "deliberately trying" to make them doubt their identity any more than asking them what their sexual preferences are would be deliberately trying to make them doubt that.
It's rather unlikely to be a single question on a form; presumably the school isn't doing this as some kind of elaborate practical joke (although I agree it sounds like one, so maybe I'm wrong on that).
The Telegraph story suggests it's a single sheet of paper with 24 options...... 24...... including 'rather no say.I only hope that they have to fill it in individually, without anyone else being involved. Otherwise I can see lots of crossings out and pencilling ins. And, TBH, I'm not at all sure what some of the terms mean! What's a demi-boy? Or girl?
There's no option for 'Demi-god'. Very disappointing.
Because it's a bizarre psychological experiment, based on who knows what, which deliberately tries to make children doubt their own identity. It's like giving them untested psychoactive drugs. Doing that to potentially vulnerable children, who might already be coming to terms with their developing sexuality, is completely irresponsible. It's also logical nonsense: the sex of a child is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of objective fact based on chromosomes (and externally rather obvious features).
Well it asked about gender, not sex.
I also think it's a little hysterical to say that asking a single question about gender on a form is "like giving them untested psychoactive drugs". And I don't see why it's "deliberately trying" to make them doubt their identity any more than asking them what their sexual preferences are would be deliberately trying to make them doubt that.
It's rather unlikely to be a single question on a form; presumably the school isn't doing this as some kind of elaborate practical joke (although I agree it sounds like one, so maybe I'm wrong on that).
The Telegraph story suggests it's a single sheet of paper with 24 options...... 24...... including 'rather no say.I only hope that they have to fill it in individually, without anyone else being involved. Otherwise I can see lots of crossings out and pencilling ins. And, TBH, I'm not at all sure what some of the terms mean! What's a demi-boy? Or girl?
In general for things like this you should just provide an empty box and ask people something like 'describe your gender'. That way you aren't 'prompting' them in any way, but neither are you restricting any potential options for answers.
Brexit has triggered an assertive pro-European movement that is growing stronger all the time.
Will this movement be standing many candidates in the May election ?
Then it can campaign to rejoin the EU after we have left. But it must not be allowed to frustrate a democratic referendum either by stopping Brexit or imposing Brexit in name only.
Brexit in name only* is still Brexit... we would still have left the EU, and therefore satisfied the referendum mandate
(* Which is pretty much where I expect us to end up)
No it wouldnt. Brexit which kept us under control of EU via Single Market would be No Brexit. There will be some sort of compromise I agree but not one which means that we would be OUT of the EU on the same terms as we were IN.
Bit disappointing. Expected to edge down a bit. Puts off the day when wages catch up just a little longer. The real wages situation is another reason why the current Tory polling is so remarkable. Under normal circumstances a government that had delivered real wages like this one would either have been out on its ear or on borrowed time.
Agreed. It's another reason why Freedom of Movement has to end; big business get an easy ride with the supply of low-wage, public subsidised labour, presently...
Big business? Are not small businesses benefiting just as much?
No, because the benefit varies directly with relative size of payroll. If you are a one person small business, you are not benefiting at all.
Bit disappointing. Expected to edge down a bit. Puts off the day when wages catch up just a little longer. The real wages situation is another reason why the current Tory polling is so remarkable. Under normal circumstances a government that had delivered real wages like this one would either have been out on its ear or on borrowed time.
Agreed. It's another reason why Freedom of Movement has to end; big business get an easy ride with the supply of low-wage, public subsidised labour, presently...
Big business? Are not small businesses benefiting just as much?
No, because the benefit varies directly with relative size of payroll. If you are a one person small business, you are not benefiting at all.
Comments
Ben Stokes
The case will go to crown court - all three released on bail
The judge asked the three men to stand, telling them: “I’ve decided your trial will take place in Bristol Crown Court on 12 March. You are placed on unconditional bail. You have a legal duty to surrender to that court in good time.
It's a really silly thing to want to bet on, unless you have an insider tip about a team who's going to go for a banzai lap to impress or intimidate someone.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-43039928
It's possible, for example, that as Mercedes have been working on power unit reliability over the winter, they could try and run a car non-stop during daylight hours for a week, to simulate half a race season on one PU. Meanwhile Honda and Renault, who were off the pace last year, will be trying to test performance enhancements.
The right actually need collective wage bargaining for their liberal economy to properly function. Wealth is concentrating right at top.
I also find it very odd and troubling that people should be allowed to change gender without a medical diagnosis. This seems to me to downplay what is a recognised medical condition to the detriment of those with it purely in order to please those who think that their own wishes should be the only relevant factor, regardless of the impact on others.
My medium to long term prediction for a future leader of the LibDems: Polly MacKenzie.
See, her latest input to the debate:
https://twitter.com/BBCNewsnight/status/963186167989579776
Wage moderation has almost certainly helped the growth in employment at a time when an increase in unemployment might have been expected. But you can have too much of a good thing and voters don't normally thank governments for it.
A man with a functioning penis is still a man and can attack and rape a woman, no matter how much he may claim he identifies as a woman. There is an obvious risk for women if we treat bathrooms and changing spaces and womens refuges as places where men can obtain access to women on the basis of self-identification.
By all means make proper provision for transgender people but not at the expense of women.
As an aside, I predict that giving puberty-blocking drugs to children who think that they're the wrong sex will generate a mass of litigation in 10-15 years time.
Substantial amounts of wealth go quite a long way down the social ladder. Taking into account pension rights and housing, 30% of households have £500,000 +. 50% have £260,000+.
Or wait until a woman is raped by a man who accessed her by claiming to be a woman.
Labour should understand that it wont always be like this. Brexit will eventually be done. The Tories will eventually have a new leader, attractive manifesto, attack on Labour's economic policy strategy.
If Labour can only muster a "case not proven" among women now, how on earth will they do so in 2022?
I fear more for private industry who might take it to the extreme.
I do not think either that, even if Brexit is done, it won’t continue to have an effect on who the Tory leader will be, the attractiveness of their manifesto and their ability to attack Labour.
I may be wrong, of course.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCDmCBKaKOtOrEqgsL4-3C8Q
What do you fear from private industry?
http://www.businessinsider.com/target-ceo-blindsided-by-boycott-2017-4
The only scope for Labour's current share to be a springboard lies in the marginals of Middle England which Labour failed to win in 2017. These marginals are notoriously reluctant to shift party allegiances without there being confidence in the party they are shifting allegiance to being considered to be economically competent. There is no evidence at all that such confidence happening -at all, quite the reverse.
I am not being complacent. I am not a Tory. I have no desire to see the Tories in power. But I suspect that Corbyn and his gang will ensure they continue to be so.
It's going to happen again, isn't it? We're going to have "An act to refrain public bodies from promoting gender confusion" on the statute book...
FFS. There's nothing wrong with these kids. They're fine. Take them as they come.
They know themselves far better than anyone else.
And it will take another Labour government to restore the credibility of Tory negative campaigning about Labour and the economy. Meanwhile that attack line is bust.
I think all Parties, and parties, are feeling their way around this and there will be confusion and misunderstanding as we enter that new paradigm.
https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/963367352187240449
I also think someone like Thornberry would ensure a Labour victory next time. But Corbyn, McDonnell and Abbott are the obstacles to victory. The young (18-25) are much less important electorally than some seem to think.They are outnumbered hugely by the over 55s. 25-45 are much more important.
The fact remains, Labour must win Tory marginals in Middle England in 2022, marginals which Labour failed to win in 2017. I do not believe that a 73 year old Marxist will win those marginals.
Ironically history shows that when there is economic uncertainty the Tories benefit, even when they are in power. People may not be willing to gamble on a Labour leadership which they have no confidence in economically at a time of economic uncertainty following Brexit.
As for Tory negative campigning about Labour and the economy, it didnt exist in 2017 -yet Labour is still behind. The Tories wont make that mistake next time and if you think voters wont listen you are in for a rude shock. I am a Labour supporter and I think Corbyn and McDonnell will crash the economy. If someone like me on the mainstream (non Blairite left thinks that, how do you think wavering voters in marginals will react?
For example insurance companies can not offer differential premiums for men and women - despite women livving longer than men; and despite women drivers having fewer car accidents than men.
First time buyers at an 11 year high. And he's barely in office.
The Tories are being held up to an astonishing degree by the oldies, and need to make serious inroads into the 30 and 40somethings to retain office.
Thornberry is a bit better, to be fair.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/12127280/Government-asks-schoolchildren-to-define-their-gender-and-gives-them-24-options-to-choose-from.html
Told me all about it when, in the late 50's, I was courting his daughter.
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/02/13/kelly-porters-scandal-white-house-407242
BBC say she was robbed.
They must be blind as well as ridiculously biased.
Eurosport calls it correctly
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/cricket/2018/02/13/ben-stokes-pleads-not-guilty-affray-charge-nightclub-altercation/
But it is equally true that the over 55s will be the majority of voters in 2022 (aging of population) and Labour needs to win a substantial number of them over. They wont do that with Corbyn and Mcdonnell.
What Is the skater on the inside supposed to do?
I also think it's a little hysterical to say that asking a single question about gender on a form is "like giving them untested psychoactive drugs". And I don't see why it's "deliberately trying" to make them doubt their identity any more than asking them what their sexual preferences are would be deliberately trying to make them doubt that.
I agree with @SeanF that group litigation by the victims of this stupidity is inevitable.
So it still seems likely to me that asking a question on a survey was neither a practical joke nor an MKUltra-esque mind-control experiment, but a way of collecting information.
And, TBH, I'm not at all sure what some of the terms mean! What's a demi-boy? Or girl?
(* Which is pretty much where I expect us to end up)
There's no option for 'Demi-god'. Very disappointing.