Why any time is being spent on this when there are far more important things to concentrate on I do not know. Sturgeon received legal advice on her plans that it wouldn't fly. She received legal advice on how to change it so it would fly. She ignored both. It's a publicity stunt for her, the SNP and nice pay day for her lawyers. It does a disservice to the people who it directly affects and who probably deserve a well thought out proper legislation change and it does a disservice to the Scottish people as once again she concentrates resources away from actually running the country properly.
Changing your gender is a serious matter and, even for those who are most certain about their situation, having a level of caution about what you are stepping into is wise. Deciding you are not of the gender you were brought up in is a tough call, particularly if you are going to make the sacrifices and commitments that full reassignment would require, and it is important too for any person to understand that no matter how much surgery, medicine and good will they undertake, nothing can change your sex. That is an understanding that many trans people have to come to terms with as a matter of great dissapointment when the promises and dreams settle down to reality. Sadly, for some, it is more than they can take, for others a matter of extreme regret, but for most, they can and will live a life that is no less happy than any other person. Of the trans people I have known, not one of them felt that there was any need for anything but level headed, cautious and thoughtful progression from a to b. I don't see that this bill would have any truly positive impact on transgenderism for those engaged in making a serious and difficult decision. It is, like modern 'anti-racism', an attempt to stir up disfunction in society, deliberately creating a confrontational situation where it did not exist, introducing culture war battles to further political causes, rather than social causes. Everyone has a right not to be harassed because they are different or think differently; already protected by law. That includes on a football forum. I think it is pretty clear too that when a certain behaviour manifests itself in one place, it tends to extend to others.
It would be illegal, under the law, for a violent sex offender who had been assaulting other women with her penis, to be treated as a man if she had been identifying as a woman prior to her crimes. It would therefore be lawfully improper to send that woman to a men's prison. Even if the law would not permit a later transmission as a reason to change prisons. That has already been shown to be the case in England, where we do not have such a Liberal bill. Not the first time it has been brought up on here, but the case of serial rape and sexual assault convict Karen White... https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...ho-sexually-assaulted-inmates-jailed-for-life But it's OK. She didn't kill anyone whilst wearing a frock. She is, however, a Good example of the type of ends that a perverted man will go to in order to take advantage of vulnerable people, and how they may take advantage of the credulity of the law to do so.
Weren't the SNP responsible for unleashing de Pfeffel after refusing to stop preventing him calling a GE under the stipulations of 'old' FTPA?
It's a bit more than a publicity stunt though. It's a deliberate attempt to engineer an argument with UK Gov to bolster the case for independence.
Yes of course. The issue couldn’t itself have any merit nor could the Government be less obstinate. Of course had Theresa May’s reforms to GRCs not been dumped, the Nats would have had no wind in their sails. But the Tories could not possibly have done that as a deliberate attempt to engineer an argument with the Scottish Government and those pesky woke folk? Could they?
I didn’t say that, did I? I was simply responding to a particular point made by HM. Of course the issue has some merit - it certainly warrants reasoned public deliberation in a legislative forum - but of course it’s also true that Sturgeon is delighted at the outcome and political reasons are likely to explain her going against legal advice. You’re very naive if you think otherwise. No idea whether what you say in the second para is correct but how close was the SG to introducing a bill on this matter back then? And if the Tories wanted to facilitate Scottish independence why not simply grant the request for a referendum?
Of course Nicola’s loving it. I’m just refuting the nonsensical notion that only the SNP are playing politics here. If this was truly about national law, the Government could promise to bring forward legislation. Theresa May has urged it to. It won’t, because it can’t now be seen to grant any more rights to transgender people having whipped up the mob. Shameful. There is also a reasonable question as to what the devolved nations should do if Westminster refuses to legislate. What is the point of Holyrood if it cannot diverge? Ask a Brexiteer.
I agree it’s helpful for others but I understand HM’s post in that the Bill was introduced by the SNP. I entirely agree with the second para from a political perspective but of course as a matter of law there are certain issues which remain at U.K. level.
It’s interesting to look back at what fired the starting gun on this issue. At this point in 2017, transgender was an issue that occupied few individuals’ attention in the UK. In the five years since, it’s become a fierce political struggle. But Theresa May’s aims seemed modest enough and the SNP chose to take them forward when Johnson dumped them. https://www.theguardian.com/society...t-people-change-gender-without-medical-checks
The irony is that the bill is not popular in Scotland where, apparently, two-thirds are opposed to the idea of giving 16 year old children the right to self identify. I think this has the potential to backfire on Nicola.
The easy way to judge that is to look to America and see if we are simply following a trend set over there by extreme liberals. This isn’t coming from anywhere else, not even the EU with any conviction, so safe to assume it is the left’s trendy, anti conservative culture war, just like BLM was. Thankfully you guys are quite fickle, and liable to turn on yourselves (if we can all choose our gender, then we can all choose our ‘colour’, surely). Let’s give it a few years and see what unpleasant names the left have given to trans people who oppose the liberalisation of the next minority on the list.
You are reliably wrong if nothing else. The Republic of Ireland is EU and it has relaxed gender recognition requirements as have Denmark, Belgium, Iceland, Luxembourg, Malta, Portugal as well as other non-EU European countries, Norway and Switzerland. I’ll repeat, these proposals were first put forward by Theresa May in 2017. Not by liberals or socialists. You demonstrate clearly your (and other right wing loons) dog in the fight here, which is not women’s safety, but fighting a culture war against non-conservatives. It really is any shyte you can throw. Theresa May plans to let people change gender without medical checks https://www.theguardian.com/society...without-medical-checks?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
Unlike in the rest of the UK where every bit of Tory legislation, the bedroom tax, anti-trade union law, the Rwanda plan etc enjoys the warm backing of the majority. I’m being sarcastic. Parliaments debate and shape law with expert advice and Governments govern. There have certainly been public majorities against laws before, like the legalisation of homosexuality or gay marriage, or for hanging, against death penalty abolition.
Of course. The point I was trying to make is that little Jimmy Krankie's bill and Westminster's decision to kick it into the long grass might not necessarily draw more Scots towards the SNP and independence as people seem to think it will. If anything the opposite might happen.
?? This is coming from America. You can interpret Europe being in the thrall of progressive US politics how you like though, but if you think (I know, I know, you don't think) the aggressive culture war approach we are currently suffering is coming from the EU you are mistaken. There are many merits and genuinely well meant causes being represented by the extremist trans lobby. They cannot get away with their aggressive extremist BS if they do not dress it up in lamb's clothing. It failed democratically under May, so now the US lobby are telling their regressive European buddies to pull their fingers out because there is a war on. Get on with the hating, they are saying, as they did with BLM - the pattern is the same, exactly. Europe (in which I include the UK) takes reasonable action and and actually discusses the matter, and takes action based on debate, but the US lobby and you and Sturgeons Nationalist Socialist party, say that is not good enough. Of course you know this, but you take the flat earth approach to the matter, because you think it hides you from effective argument. Any explanation for the lies you were telling earlier about the number of women being murdered by men on a daily basis? Can there be any justification for the disgustingly misleading exageration you made? Any murder is bad enough, so why you feel you have to lie about it, anyone can guess.
May's bill was rejected. How stupid is it then to think that it won't be rejected again when it comes in through a devolved back door? How redundant is it now to make the argument "You rejected it once already. Why are you rejecting it again?" If posters on here can't figure that one out, it is a sad reflection on the education standards among Watford followers. I'm relieved that no Luton fans can see the state of this thread.
This might seem petty, but I find the speed of Starmer's response disturbing. https://mobile.twitter.com/I_amMukhtar/status/1616179885491240961
Don’t worry, there are plenty of Scots who want to vote against the unionist parties under any circumstances. Nicola’s votes are in the bag.
Starmer's wife and kids are Jewish. Why would he want to sit next to a chap who may well, on a political level, be an anti-Semite? Your comment about politics is pretty apt. Particularly given that Corbyn, undeniably, led a Labour Party with a serious anti-Jewish problem, according to everyone involved, and everyone who investigated them. I couldn't say Jezza is an anti-Semite himself. But I think it is fair to say, at the very least, that it was something that did not concern him very much with regard to his political allies. Still. I'd rather sit next to him than Morgan.
All this Labour mob have to do to gain office at the next G.E. is to say nothing . Let the Tories dig their own grave . But oh no .....Owen Jones et Al ? Tory enablers
Sturgeon's finding out the hard way just how ridiculous it is to allow people to self identify their gender. Now two cases, in as many weeks, where she has had to intervene when people with penises, convicted of violent crimes against other women, have had to be reassigned to male prisons; and that in a country the size of Scotland. How confident are you now that this law won't be abused, or that it is impervious enough to misuse that the government, and common sense, will not have to be applied on a regular basis that renders the law redundant. How confident are men, like you, that their political ideology will not endanger women? And how small an amount of poop do you give if the application of your ideologies does do harm? Yes. The abusers are men. That is the whole point. PS. Two interesting statistics. In the UK, trans people are less likely to be violently assaulted than non trans, and according to a Swedish study cited in Parliament, trans women continue to exhibit the same tendency towards violent crimes, after the transition, as the male population. Funny that.
It's quite amusing how the thumbnail stills for Starmer consistently capture him with varied comical expressions. In this case, his faintly horrified expression seems appropriate for the subject matter (Liz Truss 2: Electric Boogaloo).
What do comrades think of the decision to cut Jezza adrift? It'll be a brave person who stands against him as the Labour candidate in Islington if he decides to run as an independent at the General election
Without question, Comrade Corbynov has been badly treated and some aspects of the allegations were hugely played up, but he knew what he had to do and hasn’t done it. He had to be a part of ensuring that the party would not be associated with antisemitism going forward, which required an enormous acts of both contrition and selfless tongue biting. He simply couldn’t do it. I can understand why he couldn’t, but he needs to understand that’s game over for him as far as being a Labour MP is concerned, because him standing for election, as things stand, is pure ammunition for Starmer’s opponents.
It's a shame for him that he'll be remembered by many for the antisemitism stuff. I don't think he's antisemitic. Anti Israel, yes. But there's a difference
If you listen to today's News Agents you will hear Diane Abbott confirm that Corbyn was a brexiteer, basically because Tony Benn told him to from the grave.
So are Labour the soft right now? I'm guessing getting rid of Corbyn was the price they had to pay for Murdochs support. The turn out at the next GE is going to be so low unless something drastic happens with a new party. Any Gov elected when voter turn out is going to be under 50% is not legitimate. **** the Tories, **** the Tory lites, **** the establishment.
I know it isnt the same but the recent by election only had a 31% turnout i think. People are getting wise to the fact the real people in control have their tentacles all over the place and are just bored of the self serving ******* to be honest.
Starmer says Labour has changed. Anyone who doesn't like it can leave. Well I wasn't a member, I left years ago over clause 4 in Kinnock's time. However I have stopped my union political fund contributions and of course I won't vote Labour. They're just the Tory B team now. Outflanking them on the right in some cases. Flag-draped frauds. I would think that, whether you agree or not, believing in the nationalisation of rail, energy, water etc, in more workers' rights, in protection of tenants against landlords, in a humane asylum policy etc etc, is a perfectly reasonable political position to hold. We that believe in such things have absolutely nobody to vote for anymore. I haven't bothered registering to vote and won't vote from now on. It makes no difference anyway. I have absolutely no say in the way I'm governed, no representation. This supposed democracy is a farce.
