Bond is as he is. And his character has been incredibly successful and I think I am correct when I say he has been the 3rd or 4th most successful film franchise ever. Why are you so wanting him changed? Should we change Harry Potter to Harriet, Lord of the Rings to "Lady of the Rings"? I think everybody needs to grow up. It isn't the same as Dr Who, by the way. Who's character didn't have the same relationships or overt sexual tensions with his partners, and he was often a completely different generation. With Bond, half the storylines revolve around his flirtatious relationships with the women that he rescues (or just as often, who rescues him). Just leave the character as it is. If it becomes unfashionable or unpopular, consider an alternative. And I think you should be careful what you wish for. Currently we have the inevitable discussions over who is the best looking, sexiest, best Bond, and who is the best "equipped" to take over as topless images of Bond walking out the sea are endlessly repeated. If it was a woman "Bond" the same media attention will be about the female actors, and that would be unacceptable in woke land.
Sorry, but I don’t want Bond changed. I couldn’t care less. Have another man, have a woman, have a bloke with antennae and a prehensile tail for all I care. Are you going to say ‘woke’ in every post today? Very silly. Edit - answer the working class Bond question. How about one from Barnsley? Bah ‘eck Q, tha watch ees sumthang reet propah.
Well the fact that you keep asking about how Bond could be changed implies that you want him to change. As I said, Bond is Bond as he is. If you want a working class, female actor from Barnsley to play a secret agent in a film, I am very happy to see that. In fact my old sales manager would fit the bill perfectly. But not as James Bond.
I’m interested in why you care, why it would bother you so much to have the role changed for a woman or working class person? Seems to me it’s important to you a certain image is projected. I won’t be watching it whoever is in the role.
What, care enough to spend a few minutes posting about it? Because I don't like wokery, plain and simple, and when it comes as a pathetic gesture by the Opposition Leader because he thinks it will win votes, then I care a bit more.
Every politician makes gestures. Look at Johnson, all that ostentatious flag-waving, yet he’ll take any Russian money going. Very patriotic. Anyway, enjoy frothing about ‘woke’. I think we’ve done Bond.
The thing is there's quite a backstory to how bond got to be the person he is today. I woudl think changing this or chis class would be more difficult than chopping his Walther peepee k off.
There is no coherent back story. It’s gone way off track. If he was around 30 at the time of Dr No (1962) how come he is still leaping off bridges in 2021? It’s fantasy and the thing about fantasy is you can put whatever in it that floats the boat.
Starmer was pathetic, particularly having not long before declared it verboten to say that women possess a very specific and hystologically identifiable anatomy that men cannot. All he is proving is that he will bend the knee for whatever cause demands it. Suzanna should have offered him a tenner to do a dance. I suspect he would have considered it.
Thing is, most people would expect Johnson to flag wave, as a matter of course. He is an unashamed Briton and patriot, proud of his country. If people think there is something wrong with that, it is their look out. I’m saying it isn’t a little bit cringe though, for the nature of it. Where as Starmer is kneeling to every second hand American identitarian cause going, when he could be equally expected, or (more) respected, if he did not. Starmer is pandering. Johnson is walking his talk, however much anyone dislikes it. NB when I brought up trans gender issues a few months ago, they were dismissed by the left, specifically yourself, on here as minir issues spouted by a fringe minority of the Labour Party, and an attempt, by me, to distract from real party issues. Clearly, my criticisms of Labour for allowing trans gender issues to dominate the party, when it effects around 1% of the population, and is only representative of a small proportion of the community, were justified.
The only Trans issue is respecting the right under the Equality Act 2006 for people who have transitioned (or are substantially in the process of transitioning) to live as the gender they have chosen. The Tories and their press are playing a dangerous game here, stirring up discontent with legislation they should promote confidence in or amend, simply to bait Labour. If you or Topsy don't agree with the law do say so and everyone else can have a view of that.
You seem to be saying it is the law that no one should be permitted to say that only women have a cervix? If you are, then it is amazing how easily you have fallen into the belief that biological fact is over ridden by ideological belief, and none shall speak the truth. It is a trap that the party has made for itself, and a genuine question and one worthy of the asking given that members of both Labour and the Dems have been sanctioned for defending women’s rights by saying it. I am yet to hear it asked by someone who was against transition, simply, it is being asked by people with and understanding of the facts. No amount of wishing, or surgery, will biologically change your sex. But a caring society will treat individuals according to their wishes, and that has been formalised in law. How you could assume that I would not, law or no law, refer to any person in their preferred terms, I do not know. It would never occur to me to be so rude as you suggest. I have a question for you. How do you feel about women’s rights, and their fight not to have the definition changed so that misogynyst men (their words, not mine) can call themselves women, without any effort to transition, other than pulling their knickers down and exposing their penis in a women’s changing area? That is a serious question being asked by women. It at least deserves serious discussion, even if it does offend some people.
Starts off with a straw man and goes downhill from there. I’ve not mentioned cervixs. If you want to, knock yourself out. It’s an utterly non debate about things no one is saying that restrict no one’s freedom.
You started with a straw man, suggesting that what I said - which included no element or hint of anything that was covered under the law you quoted - and I merely treated your attempt to smear me as a trans phone politely to suggest that you were genuinely mistaken in thinking what I had said was unlawful. I have not attempted to insult or even criticise you in this new section, and I have agreed and liked some of your posts. Please stop complaining about your own behaviour. If you feel you have no further argument, try not saying anything, rather than attempting to smear me and wind me up.
I don't think so, https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/rosie-duffield-labour-lgbt-trans-b1922772.html Threatened by misogynyst Labour supporting men (her words) as a TERF (trans exclusionary radical feminist - insult equivalent to the N word), did not go to conference for fear of assault (eventually did attend a fringe event apparently) https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...-banned-standing-MP-labelled-transphobic.html Opinion of a mother and victim of abuse gets her 10 year ban from standing for Lib Dems And maybe have a read of this from the Guardian. A feminist discussing the reasons she feels it is important to discuss issues between feminists and the trans lobby. https://www.theguardian.com/comment...minists-anti-trans-idea-sex-gender-oppression It is affecting people, and it is something that needs debating. Trust these women, not one of them could even vaguely be described as Conservative or right wing.
Starmer is definitely pandering. The obvious response is that there is some amazing content now created by talented women writers, with talented female leads. It’s a disservice to them to just throw a women in as James Bond to make a political statement, rather than fund the creation of new content like Fleabag, Killing Eve etc. I’m guessing people that are ‘anti-woke’ (ironically the only people who use the word woke are the right, but I digress), aren’t going to vote for him whatever he says, and more votes can be won from the socially liberal. But pretty much every person in this country, including some of Johnson’s biggest fans, know he is the biggest panderer of all and will float whichever way the votes take him. Or do you think Johnson has always been a big state, protectionist, LGBT-sensitive environmentalist?
No. But pandering to the ravages of a pandemic disease is different to kneeling to second hand American foolishness. The socially liberal are repulssed by the blatant identitarian idealism of BLM and trans activism, whose beliefs are openly authoritarian Marxism. They do not deny it. What liberal can you imagine standing up to say. " you are black, because that is the colour of your skin", "you are guilty, because you have white skin", or "you must not speak the truth about biology"? Those are not liberal ethics being reflected, and the only "liberals" who still believe that rhetoric are the ones too lazy to figure out that judging a person by their skin is racism, and telling a person what they can and can't say is authoritarian. It is absurd, and anyone who spends a moment thinking about it, would never describe the causes Starmer pandered to liberal or attractive to genuine liberals. More likely they puked their guts up.
‘Not for me’ to object to Saudi Arabian takeover of Newcastle United, Keir Starmer says https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...a-newcastle-united-keir-starmer-b1934617.html Oh grow a backbone Keir you massive wetwipe
@miked2006 getting Labour talk back on the Labour page, an interesting article here. I wonder how much you agree with and whether just a bit of this wouldn’t unite Labour left and right? https://www.theguardian.com/comment...gedy-labour-boris-johnson-britain-progressive
Sorry, but all he is doing in that article is exactly what you suggested Boris was doing in his speach. He is simply saying that Labour should commit to massive spending, in the same way that Biden is destroying the American economy right now; don't say I am lying, he actually cites Biden as an example of top notch left wing economics. So, the upshot of this Guardian article is, double down on the 2019 Labour manifesto. It is as I say, a case of middle class elites ignoring that the past had happened, and willfully remaining out of touch with the electorate.
Dominic Cummings has been opining on Labour’s need to change leaders on the Twitters today: https://twitter.com/dominic2306/status/1451147084237787143?s=21 (Plus on his blog, which is behind a paywall) It’s kicked off a few interesting side debates too which you should easily be able to find if you want to dig a bit deeper.
This is delusional? "How could Labour win? Replace dud 'dead player' Starmer with Midlands woman who can build a team & focus on target voters in marginal seats - disconnect Tories from power by focus on violent crime & small business ecosystem, marginalise trans nutjobs et al" Sounds like a plan to me. Pretty sure this would appeal to traditional Labour support, and that only the "trans nut jobs et al" (characterising marxist infiltrators rather than genuine marginalised concerns) and their ilk would disagree. In fact, it seems a little bit like he has been reading my posts. I said months ago that I could see him becoming involved in a reformed Labour party; I swear he leans more to the left than the right, and always have believed that. Looks like he has started his campaign. Jess Phillips, eh?
And ex-Labour currently independent MP Claudia Webbe has been sentenced to 10 weeks in prison suspended for 2 years and has to perform 200 hours community service. The recall process is not triggered until the appeals process has been exhausted. So she's not obligated to resign as an MP either.
Yep, it's pretty bad. As soon as the allegations came out, Starmer removed the whip. About a week before the trial, Corbyn publicly backed her, along with the usual suspects of Jones, Bastani and Sarkar...they've gone quiet.
Followed Keith Vaz into the seat for Labour. Who will they select next, Rose West? To be fair, Labour got rid of her as soon as this horror show emerged. But absolutely dreadful.
Frustratingly I agree with some of what Machiavelli Cummings says, even though I think his cynical view that politics is about tapping into peoples current fears ignores the fact that the best politicians can bring new ideas and inspire. Re: Starmer though. I get holding back policy until it is developed. I get sorting out labour internal policy first, to give yourself a platform to build on. But wading into nonsensical arguments, that people across the country care little about, undermines that you are someone to be taken at all seriously. I doubt anyone across the country, bar the Islington-left, genuinely think that James Bond should be played by a woman. It's scoring an own goal when the oppositions net is open.
