Is it really that common for people to be using a “you don’t exist” argument. I appreciate a post above says that but there are far far more people who are well aware that trans people exist - and raise the various concerns they have (some more trivial than others) precisely because of this
I’m intrigued as to the use of “LGBT characters”. You said you wouldn’t reply but do you mean people unhappy with books with any from that umbrella. Or specifically the T part. Because I’ve seen a lot of LGBTQ as a term being used as sort of a smokescreen to provide cover from any criticism of trans activists. So it’s pitched as anyone trying to challenge certain parts of their claims are full on bigots who hate everyone in that entire group. Something that I suspect isn’t always the case
Sunak did it this week at the Conservative conference. I mean I don’t know how common it is in the wild, but that is the bloomin Prime Minister pushing that rhetoric (to a glowing reception it has to be said).
In the interest of my pseudo fence sitting here - i was going to suggest you’d need to say a little more than “you’re the problem”. I think the words before have since been added or I missed them first time. So i can now at least understand why you made that comment even if I can’t say I agree without more information
I'm amazed that for something that affects so few people it's been amped up by politicians and the media so much that there are some* for whom this is, almost literally, the only thing they care about. It's also intriguing that if you replace the word "trans" with "gay" the similarities with the rhetoric of the 70s and 80s is truly startling. Vin * including the person on here who implied we are *****philes for supporting trans people.
I sometimes agree with some of the points you raise, but presuming you’re not including yourself in the “there are people with different views who actually know what they are talking about rather than being manipulated” part, seeing as you’ve amply demonstrated the opposite, particularly in the case of the Canadian footballer, which you still fail to acknowledge you made a wally of yourself over.
Firstly, the guy is supposed to be a professional, a person to be respected and entrusted with the guidance of children. I honestly didn't expect to read the musings of a chav. I can only hope it was because he'd had a few drinks when he got home after all that hard work dealing with dickheads. The use of the words dickheads, lunatics, rotted minds, bigots, hate mob and shut the **** up were all directed at the parents of his pupils. Those parents who have responsibility for their child's upbringing, how they develop and how their education shapes that development are absolutely entitled to question a teacher without being labelled a dickhead. He obviously has his views on how the world should work and he's in a position to push those views onto his pupils regardless of what the bigoted hate mob might have concerns about. But now I believe changes have been made to clarify the EHRC guidance on the equality act for schools. Up to now teachers have pleased themselves so perhaps having their wings clipped has prompted his emotional outburst. "I’m trying to teach kids about how we should see others as equals, have empathy and compassion for others and to above all else feel able to express yourself without fear." Except the parents of course, they're all dickheads.
Long time since you posted this but I believe from when I read about this when it happened you are quite wrong on this. Chris Kabba was not a good man and I fear that making him the poster boy of BLM UK will not bode well in the long term. His own parents have decided to stop pursuing justice having seen the footage. In their own words, they were going to take a step back from campaigning for justice. Rumour has it Chris Kabba was running from armed police in relation to a violent offence, got boxed in and was ramming police vehicles to try and escape, the officer got out of the car and shot him as he refused to cooperate.. Obviously we need to wait for the trial but I feel that as it occured during the US race riots it gained some traction for being a death of a black man in custody. There is a monumental difference between UK and US police and importing US social tensions is one of the stupidest aspects of modern British society.
I have been interested in the story about the bloke who has been found guilty of treason for trying to shoot the late Queen with a crossbow and not least because he came from the village where I grew up. It is really perplexing as I think there is a mixture of genuine grievance and pure fantasy muddled up in the motivation for this assination attempt. What really fascinated me was that the story is being reported as a mental health issue and I would concur with this conclusion. However, it did remind me of the accounts of previous attempts on the assination of Queen Victoria where the same kind of conclusions were reached in at least one of the three would-be assassins. I am really surprise that this story has not gathered more traction and been subject to wall-to-wall coverage as there are so many interesting facets about this case. I believe that the cross bow was bought on line which does not come as a surprise although it is surely something that is of huge concern of this was possible. Not sure what any "normal" person woud want with a cross bow. Then there is also the fact that Chail had been influence by an online chatbot. Again, this is something that needs to be brought up in a thorough discussion. It strikes me that the internet has clearly been instrumental in allowing Chail for fulfil his fantasy. It also underscroed my impression that there is something odd about adults still being in to Star Wars! Maybe that should be made in to another crime!! The other issue for me is a legal one. I was surprised that none of the papers or sites like the BBC had discusse the fact that Chail had been found guilty of treason. In my opinion, this is something that I feel needs to be discussed because the issue in this case is one of mental health as opposed to a serious attempt to destabilse the state.The more I have thought about this, the more I start to question the logic of having "treason" on the books as a potential capital offence. (I stand corrected if this is no longer the case.) I feel that treason is a really old-fashioned concept and whilst I can see some justification for the charge where somene has worked on the behalf of a foreign state, I have to say that I am disturbed by the idea that it can be levied against an individual with a grudge. I would not disagree that a charges would be necessary in such instances but feel that treason has the unwelcome effect of politicising the offence. It might have been appropriate during a state of war yet I cannot see why it was necessary to charge Chail with this when something like attempted murder would seem more appropriate. I would probably need to look at what is defined as "treason" in English law. However, I feel that if someone can be partly motivated by being obsessed by Star Wars and find themselves charged for treason, we probably need to up grade the law. The bloke clearly had mental health issues and any desire on his part to seek redress for alleged grievances must surely mirror his level of understanding and grasp of reality. I appreciate that criminal cases are presented as being the Crown versus particular individuals yet I am uncomfortable with the idea that this might be the same for treason. In my opinion, it is a charge that needs to be used sparingly and only when a foreign state is involved or in a war situation. If the state is not threatened as a consequence of the crime, I do not feel the charge should be used. I would go as far as arguing that this would also be the case for acts of terrorism where other charges would be more appropriate and treason would politicise the situation. It feels like there is a need to change the law.
Truly horrendous news coming out of Israel. One of the longest-lasting impacts of the Second World War was the formation of Israel. I would imagine the people involved in those decisions would be aghast that, 80 years later, there's such hideous repression of Palestinians and related conflict in the area. Neither side seems even slightly keen to talk and, as I've said before, the moment open conflict starts, what little talk is occurring stops. It all seems utterly intractable and repetitively awful. I suspect I'll go to my grave with this unresolved. Vin
I agree totally. It is awful that this apparently intractable situation continues. I believe this is the forth major incident since the occupation of the Gaza strip and the blockade that has diminished the quality of life for the Palestinians. Of course the attack by Hama should be condemned violence is never going to provide a solution. What will I have no idea the extremists on both sides are in control.
Israel gets away with absolute murder in Palestine and has definitely created an apartheid system, but unfortunately Hamas may well have doomed Palestine completely here. They have given Israel the excuse to respond and unfortunately its hard to see anything other than something utterly brutal and possibly final (?) coming. That said I am sympathetic to the Israeli civilians killed and have extreme concern for the people in Gaza for what is about to befall them.
Yeah. This was an idiotic decision by Hamas, because it gives the Israeli government the green light to move beyond the small-scale ethnic cleansing it has been carrying out to the much more systemic purge of Palestinians that an awful lot of the government wants. It's also likely to result in a rally-around-the-flag effect that will make it easier for Bibi and pals to push through the anti-democratic reforms they have been pursuing. Nothing about this will end well, sadly.
I'm no fan of Hamas don't get me wrong but it isn't exactly like the Palestinians have any meaningful routes to pursue to ensure their country isn't annexed one illegal development at a time. On current trends is just a matter of time until Palestine is wiped off the face of the earth. A lurch towards extremism against the mostly despicable Israeli government is inevitable.
I agree Palestine is in a horrendous situation and I don’t know what the route is for them, but popping the boys out to kill about 30 civilians isn’t the way to go. Far from it, they have probably just prompted the extermination of their population for the sake of making a statement. Just beyond insane.
Evangelical Christians in the US are a huge part of the push for pretty much unconditional support for Israel which in turn allows Israel to do whatever it chooses. They believe that Israel ruling the whole of the Levant is a precursor to the return of Jesus. It's impossible to debate 'reasoning' like that (as it's based purely on faith) despite the real world consequences spanning the globe. Vin
