Rishi Sunak pushing for Britain to become a technology hub and working on AI etc. Fair play. That’s probably the first coherent/good idea from a British politician in about a decade
I have to admit that I have felt that Berlusconi was in power about 2000 years too late. He would have made an excellent Roman emperor with the corruption and debauchery. It is a shame that Seutonius never had the opportunity to write about him.
More evidence of lunatics taking over the asylum (or in this case university) from America. I'm sure there's a perfectly good reason for eliminating the word woman but not man and look forward to hearing from someone trying to justify this nonsense. please log in to view this image
It's the glossary from an obscure corner of a university's website. It has no tangible real world impact. Nothing is "taking over" (it's been there for quite some time before it was discovered and made The Big Story of the Day on the right), you just need new hobbies.
The usual tactic of trying to discredit the source rather than address the point hasn't left your armoury I see. The truth is you can't defend this nonsense, no one can, it's trans gobbledygook swallowed only by the gullible and the self righteous. The above story is one of many that happen around the world. I did look at having a new hobby of bringing irrelevant stories from only North America but that's being done already.
My old pal in Soton gave me a 1960 Roy of the Rovers Annual last week for a laugh - so far I`ve found the word queer used twice, and gay once, but not in a homosexual context. I wish our vocabulary hadn`t been hijacked.
https://rumble.com/v2rmaqm-emergency-meeting-counter-attack.html Andrew Tate in his own words speaks about the fake charges brought against him. Interesting that so many people believed the media narrative against him without any evidence whatsoever
Quote from the report as posted in the Guardian. Sandals and beard alert. Edit: I haven't got a beard. Commons privileges committee says Johnson misled MPs and was 'deliberately disingenuous' This is what the report summary says about what the committee concluded. We established that Mr Johnson: a) had knowledge of the Covid Rules and Guidance b) had knowledge of breaches of the Rules and Guidance that occurred in No. 10. c) misled the House: i) when he said that Guidance was followed completely in No. 10, that the Rules and Guidance were followed at all times, that events in No. 10 were within the Rules and Guidance, and that the Rules and Guidance had been followed at all times when he was present at gatherings ii) when he failed to tell the House about his own knowledge of the gatherings where rules or guidance had been broken iii) when he said that he relied on repeated assurances that the rules had not been broken. The assurances he received were not accurately represented by him to the House, nor were they appropriate to be cited to the House as an authoritative indication of No. 10’s compliance with Covid restrictions i v) when he gave the impression that there needed to be an investigation by Sue Gray before he could answer questions when he had personal knowledge that he did not reveal. v) when he purported to correct the record but instead continued to mislead the House and, by his continuing denials, this Committee d) was deliberately disingenuous when he tried to reinterpret his statements to the House to avoid their plain meaning and reframe the clear impression that he intended to give, namely i) when he advanced unsustainable interpretations of the Rules and Guidance to advance the argument that the lack of social distancing at gatherings was permissible within the exceptions which allowed for gatherings, and ii) when he advanced legally impermissible reasons to justify the gatherings. 5m ago09.13 BST Why committee says it decided Johnson 'deliberately misled' MPs about Partygate And this is what the committee says in its summary about why it thinks Boris Johnson deliberately misled MPs about Partygate. We considered the nature and extent of Mr Johnson’s culpability in misleading the House. In coming to the conclusion that Mr Johnson deliberately misled the House, we considered: a) His repeated and continuing denials of the facts, for example his refusal to accept that there were insufficient efforts to enforce social distancing at gatherings where a lack of social distancing is documented in official photographs, and that he neither saw nor heard anything to alert him to the breaches that occurred. b) The frequency with which he closed his mind to those facts and to what was obvious so that eventually the only conclusion that could be drawn was that he was deliberately closing his mind. c) The fact that he sought to re-write the meaning of the Rules and Guidance to fit his own evidence, for example, his assertion that “imperfect” social distancing was perfectly acceptable when there were no mitigations in place rather than cancelling a gathering or holding it online, and his assertion that a leaving gathering or a gathering to boost morale was a lawful reason to hold a gathering. d) His own after-the-event rationalisations, for example the nature and extent of the assurances he received, the words used, the purpose of the assurances, who they came from, the warning he received about that from Martin Reynolds (his Principal Private Secretary) and his failure to take advice from others whose advice would have been authoritative. His view about his own Fixed Penalty Notice (that he was baffled as to why he received it) is instructive. We came to the view that some of Mr Johnson’s denials and explanations were so disingenuous that they were by their very nature deliberate attempts to mislead the Committee and the House, while others demonstrated deliberation because of the frequency with which he closed his mind to the truth.
I have found today's developments regarding Boris well overdue albeit I am still surprised that there are still those within the Conservative party still ignorant enough to believe the speil that Johnson was the victim of a kangeroo court. The case has been presented logically and clearly on the BBC yet there are still a few issues I felt needed to be considered. Firstly, I am wondering how those politicians who have expressed support for Boris have been considered by their constituent party and the people they represent. Given the fact that the verdict and subsequent ban were both so conclusive, I would suggest that sticking with Boris would show a lack of judgment. No one seems to have asked how the politicians feel about their constituents who might have a sensible opinion, I was wondering if constiuents were vociferous enough, they might remove some MPs. It will be interesting to see how many Tory MPs will be deselected before the next election. The other issue is that no one has really discussed the implications to Boris outside of Parliament. I was wondering if today's events had made him more susceptable to civil action. As Boris was fined for the party, I think he cannot be prosecuted twice for the same offence but did the report that has been published involved other matters that could deemed to be criminal. My impression is that this is not the end of the line for Boris but no one has seen fit to predict how bad it could get.
Not trying to discredit the source. I'm pointing out that the source has zero real-world relevance. The clumsy definition was added to that page in October 2022: https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/johns-hopkins-lesbian-definition-1.6877698 It mattered to such an extent that no one even noticed for eight months. If it hadn't become a right-wing firestorm, it would have sat there being inane but harmless for eons thereafter, because nobody cares -- nor should they care -- what some low-level employee in the HR department put up for a definition on a website. With zero consultation with anyone, from the sounds, given that no actual gay/trans/women's rights organizations agree with their definition.
