|
Post by Miles Offside on Feb 9, 2020 14:01:16 GMT
Lisa Nanady or Starmer for me, although the problem facing both is that their views are unlikely to be Left enough to win the support of a lot of Labour activists.
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Feb 9, 2020 15:08:51 GMT
Isnt it Long Baileys people with their Labour hats on accusing Starmer of doing what that have done the problem with labour is like in life of brian they are still stuck on the peoples front of judea / judean peoples front argument only obviously it would have to be the peoples front of palestine / palestine peoples front for them......
|
|
|
Post by wagsastokie on Feb 9, 2020 16:55:01 GMT
I personally hope Starmer gets it
I'm convinced there shit to come out on the lack of prosecutions of Asian child grooming gangs whilst he was DPP
|
|
|
Post by Clayton Wood on Feb 11, 2020 21:32:20 GMT
Labour could be fined up to £15m for failing to protect members' dataThe potential fines for data protection failings have significantly increased as a result of changes to the Data Protection Act last year, which enacted the European General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR) in UK law.
Although there are a range of sanctions the ICO is able to issue for data protection failures, the maximum fine the party could face if it were found to have failed to secure the data could be more than £15m.
The regulations stipulate that infringements of the principles for processing personal data are subject to the highest tier of GDPR administrative fines, which are set at the equivalent of €20m, or 4% of an organisation's total worldwide annual turnover if that is higher.
|
|
|
Post by Davef on Feb 11, 2020 22:18:11 GMT
www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-51465800Well as long as Starmer doesn't get involved in this nonsense, he'll walk it. Check out the #expelme hashtag on Twitter tonight. There are a lot of very pissed off women who're Labour Party members.
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Feb 11, 2020 22:33:49 GMT
www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-51465800Well as long as Starmer doesn't get involved in this nonsense, he'll walk it. Check out the #expelme hashtag on Twitter tonight. There are a lot of very pissed off women who're Labour Party members. What a load of bollocks. Or no bollocks Labour is morphing into a party just for minorities, take up minority campaigns but still ignoring their supposed core support You have to respect views from across the trans spectrum even if you don’t agree with them. They are only discriminatory if you discriminate.
|
|
|
Post by felonious on Feb 12, 2020 5:36:37 GMT
www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-51465800Well as long as Starmer doesn't get involved in this nonsense, he'll walk it. Check out the #expelme hashtag on Twitter tonight. There are a lot of very pissed off women who're Labour Party members. Sounds like another vote winner.
|
|
|
Post by thevoid on Feb 12, 2020 8:49:51 GMT
Identity politics, that'll get the average working folk flocking back to Labour
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2020 9:31:34 GMT
It won't get the average working folk back to Labour. But the average folk don't seem to particularly believe in trans rights for some reason.
I'm not a big fan of RLB, but why is she wrong in saying Labour should expel discriminatory members? Should she accept discrimination because the average working class folk will accept it too?
|
|
|
Post by Davef on Feb 12, 2020 9:38:06 GMT
Nandy on the bandwagon now.
|
|
|
Post by foster on Feb 12, 2020 9:44:47 GMT
Honestly, what a fucking waste of time.
Maybe one day one of these parties will actually climb down from their self righteous ivory towers and focus their efforts on something important to everyone.
|
|
|
Post by rogerjonesisgod on Feb 12, 2020 11:50:25 GMT
www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-51465800Well as long as Starmer doesn't get involved in this nonsense, he'll walk it. Check out the #expelme hashtag on Twitter tonight. There are a lot of very pissed off women who're Labour Party members. You mean Starmer the 'moderate'? Starter for 10. Who's were these campaign policies? Keir's or Jeremy's? 1. Increase income tax for the top 5% of earners. 2. Reverse Tories Corporation tax cuts. 3. Clampdown on large company tax avoidance. 4. Abolish Universal Credit. 5. Stand up for the NHS. 6. Abolish tuition fees. 7. A New Green Energy deal. 8. Introduce a Prevention of Military Action Act. 9. Nationalise rail, water, mail and energy. 10. Full voting rights for EU Nationals. 11. Close detention centres. 12. Defend freedom of movement. 13. Repeal the Trade Union Act. 12. Regional investment banks. 13. Abolish the House of Lords.
|
|
|
Post by RichieBarkerOut! on Feb 12, 2020 11:51:43 GMT
It won't get the average working folk back to Labour. But the average folk don't seem to particularly believe in trans rights for some reason. I'm not a big fan of RLB, but why is she wrong in saying Labour should expel discriminatory members? Should she accept discrimination because the average working class folk will accept it too? You make it sound like trans rights are a simple matter. For instance, saying that a trans person should not have the right to self determine their sex, is a transphobic comment, yet this in effect means that a man can reassign themselves as female whenever it suits. The subject is highly complex and there's a full blown battleground to define boundaries and both sides need to be heard and have their views heard and considered.
|
|
|
Post by yeokel on Feb 12, 2020 12:17:02 GMT
It won't get the average working folk back to Labour. But the average folk don't seem to particularly believe in trans rights for some reason. I'm not a big fan of RLB, but why is she wrong in saying Labour should expel discriminatory members? Should she accept discrimination because the average working class folk will accept it too? It’s not that they don’t “believe in trans rights”, but that they don’t care about them one way or another. And it’s not just your “average working folk”, it is virtually everyone. We don’t care, we don’t give a fuck. We just want to get on with our day to day lives and want everyone else to get on with theirs too without worrying about whether they are straight, bent, trans, male, female, overpaid, underpaid, overweight, overhere, black, white, tan, a virgin, a slapper, left wing, right wing, religious, anti-religious, or any other group who seem to get the torch of publicity shone on them from time to time. We don’t want them to be terrorists, we don’t want them to be criminals and we don’t want them to be too anti-social. Other than that, most of us don’t give a toss about how anyone else behaves or thinks and it seems to me, from my white, middle aged, privileged male position, that the more people go on about things like “trans rights” the more people get pissed off about hearing it as they realise they care less and less about these things and just get turned off from politics in general because they don’t feel that it is about or relevant to them. Just shut the fuck up, and let us get on with our lives, and do the same for everyone else and most wont give a toss about whether someone is ‘trans’ or not.
|
|
|
Post by Davef on Feb 12, 2020 12:30:19 GMT
www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-51465800Well as long as Starmer doesn't get involved in this nonsense, he'll walk it. Check out the #expelme hashtag on Twitter tonight. There are a lot of very pissed off women who're Labour Party members. You mean Starmer the 'moderate'? Starter for 10. Who's were these campaign policies? Keir's or Jeremy's? 1. Increase income tax for the top 5% of earners. 2. Reverse Tories Corporation tax cuts. 3. Clampdown on large company tax avoidance. 4. Abolish Universal Credit. 5. Stand up for the NHS. 6. Abolish tuition fees. 7. A New Green Energy deal. 8. Introduce a Prevention of Military Action Act. 9. Nationalise rail, water, mail and energy. 10. Full voting rights for EU Nationals. 11. Close detention centres. 12. Defend freedom of movement. 13. Repeal the Trade Union Act. 12. Regional investment banks. 13. Abolish the House of Lords. And how many of these campaign policies have Labour members so up in arms that many are threatening to quit the party or challenging the party to expel them?
|
|
|
Post by Davef on Feb 12, 2020 12:41:59 GMT
It won't get the average working folk back to Labour. But the average folk don't seem to particularly believe in trans rights for some reason. I'm not a big fan of RLB, but why is she wrong in saying Labour should expel discriminatory members? Should she accept discrimination because the average working class folk will accept it too? You don't think it's worrying that a couple of Labour leadership contenders (and women at that) have condemned a movement that campaigns for women's rights as a "hate group"? twitter.com/Womans_Place_UK
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2020 13:01:52 GMT
It won't get the average working folk back to Labour. But the average folk don't seem to particularly believe in trans rights for some reason. I'm not a big fan of RLB, but why is she wrong in saying Labour should expel discriminatory members? Should she accept discrimination because the average working class folk will accept it too? You make it sound like trans rights are a simple matter. For instance, saying that a trans person should not have the right to self determine their sex, is a transphobic comment, yet this in effect means that a man can reassign themselves as female whenever it suits. The subject is highly complex and there's a full blown battleground to define boundaries and both sides need to be heard and have their views heard and considered. Saying that they cannot have the right to self determine is a transphobic comment, correct.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2020 13:02:58 GMT
It won't get the average working folk back to Labour. But the average folk don't seem to particularly believe in trans rights for some reason. I'm not a big fan of RLB, but why is she wrong in saying Labour should expel discriminatory members? Should she accept discrimination because the average working class folk will accept it too? It’s not that they don’t “believe in trans rights”, but that they don’t care about them one way or another. And it’s not just your “average working folk”, it is virtually everyone. We don’t care, we don’t give a fuck. We just want to get on with our day to day lives and want everyone else to get on with theirs too without worrying about whether they are straight, bent, trans, male, female, overpaid, underpaid, overweight, overhere, black, white, tan, a virgin, a slapper, left wing, right wing, religious, anti-religious, or any other group who seem to get the torch of publicity shone on them from time to time. We don’t want them to be terrorists, we don’t want them to be criminals and we don’t want them to be too anti-social. Other than that, most of us don’t give a toss about how anyone else behaves or thinks and it seems to me, from my white, middle aged, privileged male position, that the more people go on about things like “trans rights” the more people get pissed off about hearing it as they realise they care less and less about these things and just get turned off from politics in general because they don’t feel that it is about or relevant to them. Just shut the fuck up, and let us get on with our lives, and do the same for everyone else and most wont give a toss about whether someone is ‘trans’ or not. If they don't give a fuck why do they all cry every time any news story comes out about trans people, pronouns, or gender dysphoria?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2020 13:03:40 GMT
It won't get the average working folk back to Labour. But the average folk don't seem to particularly believe in trans rights for some reason. I'm not a big fan of RLB, but why is she wrong in saying Labour should expel discriminatory members? Should she accept discrimination because the average working class folk will accept it too? You don't think it's worrying that a couple of Labour leadership contenders (and women at that) have condemned a movement that campaigns for women's rights as a "hate group"? twitter.com/Womans_Place_UKI have no idea, I haven't seen it. But there are certainly some 'women rights groups' that refuse to accept transgender people.
|
|
|
Post by Davef on Feb 12, 2020 13:10:07 GMT
You don't think it's worrying that a couple of Labour leadership contenders (and women at that) have condemned a movement that campaigns for women's rights as a "hate group"? twitter.com/Womans_Place_UKI have no idea, I haven't seen it. But there are certainly some 'women rights groups' that refuse to accept transgender people. Depends what you mean by "accept" though?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2020 13:15:19 GMT
I have no idea, I haven't seen it. But there are certainly some 'women rights groups' that refuse to accept transgender people. Depends what you mean by "accept" though? Well some neither accept that trans women are female, nor allow them into groups and meetings etc. Believe the term is a TERF. (trans-excluding radical feminist or something along those lines.)
|
|
|
Post by RichieBarkerOut! on Feb 12, 2020 13:21:14 GMT
You make it sound like trans rights are a simple matter. For instance, saying that a trans person should not have the right to self determine their sex, is a transphobic comment, yet this in effect means that a man can reassign themselves as female whenever it suits. The subject is highly complex and there's a full blown battleground to define boundaries and both sides need to be heard and have their views heard and considered. Saying that they cannot have the right to self determine is a transphobic comment, correct. So if I decide that I am a woman later today, I should have the right to enter a female only environment without discrimination?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2020 13:43:36 GMT
Saying that they cannot have the right to self determine is a transphobic comment, correct. So if I decide that I am a woman later today, I should have the right to enter a female only environment without discrimination? Yes. That's also exhibit A as to the prevalence of transphobia in the general public. Why is it the belief that because a very small section of people could *possibly* do harm, that we should then revoke basic rights of others? It'd be like banning coats for everyone because people can easily hide a gun under them. Or banning the internet because some people might use it maliciously.
|
|
|
Post by Davef on Feb 12, 2020 14:02:23 GMT
So if I decide that I am a woman later today, I should have the right to enter a female only environment without discrimination? Yes. That's also exhibit A as to the prevalence of transphobia in the general public. Why is it the belief that because a very small section of people could *possibly* do harm, that we should then revoke basic rights of others? It'd be like banning coats for everyone because people can easily hide a gun under them. Or banning the internet because some people might use it maliciously. Well you and others may think that way, but the tide is turning and if the likes of Long-Bailey and Raynor are joining that side then Labour are set for a very, very long time in the wilderness. A woman should absolutely have the right to say no to anybody with a penis entering their safe spaces. It's ridiculous.
|
|
|
Post by cheadlepotter on Feb 12, 2020 14:30:52 GMT
Yes. That's also exhibit A as to the prevalence of transphobia in the general public. Why is it the belief that because a very small section of people could *possibly* do harm, that we should then revoke basic rights of others? It'd be like banning coats for everyone because people can easily hide a gun under them. Or banning the internet because some people might use it maliciously. Well you and others may think that way, but the tide is turning and if the likes of Long-Bailey and Raynor are joining that side then Labour are set for a very, very long time in the wilderness. A woman should absolutely have the right to say no to anybody with a penis entering their safe spaces. It's ridiculous. But you could argue that a lesbian would have just as much interest in the women as a man would, assuming he’s heterosexual? My problem with trans rights, along with female rights, black rights etc is that they’re rarely fighting for rights, they want a free ticket in life and to be seen as more important than their opposite. I honestly believe that most folk couldn’t care less what gender, sexuality or colour someone is but get fed up of folk adding labels to people and banging on about it to the point where they’re actually trying to fix racism, sexism etc by adding more racism, sexism etc to it.
|
|
|
Post by yeokel on Feb 12, 2020 14:31:29 GMT
Yes. That's also exhibit A as to the prevalence of transphobia in the general public. Why is it the belief that because a very small section of people could *possibly* do harm, that we should then revoke basic rights of others? It'd be like banning coats for everyone because people can easily hide a gun under them. Or banning the internet because some people might use it maliciously. Well you and others may think that way, but the tide is turning and if the likes of Long-Bailey and Raynor are joining that side then Labour are set for a very, very long time in the wilderness. A woman should absolutely have the right to say no to anybody with a penis entering their safe spaces. It's ridiculous. Back in my younger days there were certainly plenty of women who said 'no' to my penis entering their safe space! Come to think of it, after thirty years of marriage, so does the Mrs
|
|
|
Post by yeokel on Feb 12, 2020 14:49:59 GMT
So if I decide that I am a woman later today, I should have the right to enter a female only environment without discrimination? Yes. That's also exhibit A as to the prevalence of transphobia in the general public. Why is it the belief that because a very small section of people could *possibly* do harm, that we should then revoke basic rights of others? It'd be like banning coats for everyone because people can easily hide a gun under them. Or banning the internet because some people might use it maliciously. Nobody has “revoked” any such rights. Whether you like it, or agree with it or not, people who have a cock have never had a “right” to enter a women’s toilet area, changing room or other such area. End of. Nothing has been “revoked”. You are making yourself look a bit of a cock on this one Lil.
|
|
|
Post by foster on Feb 12, 2020 15:22:23 GMT
Yes. That's also exhibit A as to the prevalence of transphobia in the general public. Why is it the belief that because a very small section of people could *possibly* do harm, that we should then revoke basic rights of others? It'd be like banning coats for everyone because people can easily hide a gun under them. Or banning the internet because some people might use it maliciously. Nobody has “revoked” any such rights. Whether you like it, or agree with it or not, people who have a cock have never had a “right” to enter a women’s toilet area, changing room or other such area. End of. Nothing has been “revoked”. You are making yourself look a bit of a cock on this one Lil. If they take the plunge and have their dicks sliced down the center and then folded inside to look like a fanny then that's fine by me. Otherwise, if you're just a man going around dressed like a woman and expecting to get their rights, then no chance. Too easy.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2020 16:25:32 GMT
Yes. That's also exhibit A as to the prevalence of transphobia in the general public. Why is it the belief that because a very small section of people could *possibly* do harm, that we should then revoke basic rights of others? It'd be like banning coats for everyone because people can easily hide a gun under them. Or banning the internet because some people might use it maliciously. Well you and others may think that way, but the tide is turning and if the likes of Long-Bailey and Raynor are joining that side then Labour are set for a very, very long time in the wilderness. A woman should absolutely have the right to say no to anybody with a penis entering their safe spaces. It's ridiculous. So should they then go against their principles and the things they believe to be true? If our country is genuinely transphobic that doesn't mean we should pander to it. Why? What business is it of theirs which genitalia other people have? Where should intersex people go? Why should it matter? This is what I mean, that view that you hold is probably the norm in the UK, despite it vehemently denying trans people basic rights. I don't think it's purposeful or malicious for most people, that's just where we currently as a populace.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2020 16:26:49 GMT
Nobody has “revoked” any such rights. Whether you like it, or agree with it or not, people who have a cock have never had a “right” to enter a women’s toilet area, changing room or other such area. End of. Nothing has been “revoked”. You are making yourself look a bit of a cock on this one Lil. If they take the plunge and have their dicks sliced down the center and then folded inside to look like a fanny then that's fine by me. Otherwise, if you're just a man going around dressed like a woman and expecting to get their rights, then no chance. Too easy. What do you do then, check everyone's genitals before entering a changing room or toilet?
|
|