gizmoman

My money's on "Undisclosed Desires", we'll find out tomorrow.

No they equate this proposed easing of the regulations as giving predatory men a way of abusing the system, this is what I said in my first post, it's all very well saying there will be safeguards but it was introduced in Scotland and immediately led to an issue. "Do you think the current system as I describe it seems reasonable, fair, or practical?", I'm sure it isn't easy, but then if i woke up tomorrow and decided I should be a women I wouldn't expect to be able to change overnight after decades of living as a man. I'm sure life as a trans person is difficult and if there are reasonable ways to improve the system then I'm sure they will eventually be found.

"Labour has ruled out introducing a self-ID system to allow people to change their legal sex without a medical diagnosis." https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66299705 You seem to be confused, no one is talking about removing self-ID as you define it, they are quite happy to continue with the current system as you describe it.

The ability to transition without medical confirmation, that seems to be the sticking point, the current system requires it, the proposed system wouldn't need it so would be open to abuse IMO, if I'm wrong I'm happy to be put right.

"Self-ID is what happens and works now. There are nuanced exceptions, and some of them need to be worked on. Most don't." Not sure of your argument here, you seem to agree the current system works pretty well. "A pretty simple position to hold re. prisons would be "self-ID doesn't apply if the crime was sexual in nature". That'd get rid of the idiocy around the case in Scotland and the fuss over it." Except it wouldn't, the proposed new system would allow you to change your gender within 6 months with no official oversight, an armed robber facing a long prison sentence could decide he would rather transition and spend a few years in a women's prison, not saying this would be a common thing but it would throw the system into disrepute. The system now, although not perfect,does work.

If you had added one of your trademark one liners such as "Sinead dead, so sad" I wouldn't have commented, still not everyone sees the In memoriam thread so fair enough.

It is actually the right decision but for the wrong reasons. Labour would clearly love to continue with the policy but have realised it would not be popular. The fact is, it is not as reported, "Labour drops pledge to introduce self-ID for trans people" the rule would apply to all, trans or not, ANYONE could claim to be another gender, this leaves the policy open to abuse and ridicule, something already seen in Scotland. Trans people are better served with the current system, once they have been through it they have a legitimate status, self ID would undermine that.

Wrong thread, unless you want to bring up Sinead's politics. sh*t news though.

Who cares what Blair thinks?, he's a war criminal who should be in jail, the only question I've got for him is "how did you end up being worth £60 million?"

Theres an easy way to shut him up, another UK bank could offer to give him an account.

"Weren’t there reports he didn’t have enough money to be in the high flyers club?" - yes that's what Coutts said to the press ( in what would seem to be a breach of confidentiality), Farage has since established by a subject access request that this wasn't true, they dropped him because of his views and public persona. The reason this is important is that public service institutions now seem to have the power to block access to their service just because they don't like what you say or stand for, it is a dangerous road to go down, you may not like Farage but what if it is someone you do support? Should they be intimidated or shut down if they say the wrong thing?

So just political discrimination then, you don't like Farage so it's o.k. that he can't get a bank account, presumably that would apply to Corbyn too since you hate him, and a case could be made by the banks that he is antisemitic. If you were running the bank would you exclude any SNP members too? (i know you are not a fan). Banks should stick to providing financial services, the irony is they claim to be non-discriminatory.

So pubs can refuse black people or gays if they wish?

We are pretty similar then, I have four kids and got in-work benefits at the time, Family Credit, the thing is I was working 2 jobs and getting some Family Credit to top us up, because of the tax situation and the way the benefit system worked, I figured I could give up the full-time job and just work part-time and be almost as well off. So I quit the job and worked part-time. (Didn't last long though, the company folded and I ended up doing 2 jobs again and working 7 days a week). Point being any benefits system won't work fairly for everyone as everyone has different circumstances, Starmer has probably decided that reverting to the old system isn't the best way of dealing with this, a new system should be implemented but it's not easy, reducing tax for lower earners is by far the best way of giving them more money, no point in taking away tax then giving them it back in benefits.

There is, only exception is your main residence, yes you could get £500k but you'd be homeless.

I don't claim to be left wing (or right wing for that matter), the reason the cap was brought in was the old system rewarded people who had more kids, more kids=more money, the reason it is stlll somewhat popular is that taxpayers don't want to see their taxes funding other peoples otherwise unaffordable large families. I'm sure the cap has unwanted consequences and is far from ideal. As the birth rate is at a historic low, below replacement level, anything that discourages people having kids is probably not wise. Overall I wouldn't mind if they scrapped it but maybe Labour are looking at some middle ground as Ozanne suggests.

That is a ridiculous argument/statistic, the reason the debt/GDP ratio was so bad then is that GDP was in the gutter after the war, the debt wasn't that bad but GDP was so low. We were still on rationing and would be for years, you can't compare the situation with the one now. The public debt in 1945 hardly registers on the chart, even allowing for inflation we are in a far worse debt situation now. I'm not saying I support the Cap, I'm in 2 minds about it actually, but this statistic isn't a valid argument.

Let me translate, Neil is pointing out that despite those people leaving efests because of his attitude (he clearly thinks they were all tories), he subsequently went on to sell efests as a going business and made a lot of money, he is now enjoying the "fruits of his labour" drinking cocktails on the beach (this may be a bit of creative language). Bit of a strange way to make socialist arguments but then he can be quite strange at times.

Someone recorded the set as it was recorded live, it's still available here, https://www.mediafire.com/file/tilcy8uyqp68yij/LDR_Glastonbury_24062023.mkv/file

BBC presenter sent abusive and menacing messages to second young person https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-66165766 Look's like this story isn't going away anytime soon.

Yep, and that is one of the reasons we should be developing a rational long term energy policy, we need a balanced system, solar and wind can be part of that but it's not always sunny or windy, As we are an island, tidal power seems like an obvious candidate for sustainable and reliable energy, the tides are predictable and constant, no unexpected outages. There are also arguments about energy independence. I'm all for investment in new green technology but Just Stop Oil are actually putting people off alternatives with their antics, if they concentrated on promoting the positive new technologies we could have instead of the hysterical doom and gloom fear mongering they might get more public support.

They want to do it in 8 years, "In eight years we need to end our reliance on fossil fuels completely." https://juststopoil.org/background/

The point is, there is no viable alternative to oil and gas in the short to medium term, if we do go for more renewables and or nuclear we would then need to massively increase the electricity grid as these technologies produce electricity which needs to be transported to the user, replacing all the oil and gas energy needed to heat our homes and run vehicles will take decades even with increased insulation and efficiency savings.