FREEDOM!!!! [4]

To make matters worse the Tories voted down amendments to the environment bill in England and Wales-

'removing a requirement for sewage companies to “take all reasonable steps to ensure untreated sewage is not discharged from storm overflows” and to “demonstrate improvements in the sewerage systems”.

It's that kind of thing in conservative politics that makes my head explode. It didn't even lock them into a rigid structure that may make operations untenable in some cases. Though perhaps the argument was that the wording was too vague.

{{ No the argument they used at the time was the cost would be too great.}}

One would think the word "reasonable" would involve some sort of cost/benefit analysis.

{{ It does, Tories think 'is it reasonable all my shares and directorships should get less money to prevent sewage going onto our beaches? Of course not, only poor people use our beaches I go to a private luxury beach in a hot sunny foreign country for which I need all the money I can get. Thats whats reasonable!' }}

{{ so couple of things, only one of which will probably start a fight with Figg.

Firstly we have just been informed of the possibility of regular 3 hour power cuts during winter to conserve energy reserves. Problem is Scotland is a net exporter of energy to the rest of the Uk. So why should we have powercuts? We produce more than enough power for the entire country (Scotland this is).
The reason? We have to put our power on the UK national grid and it goes to England.
Couple that with Ttruss putting out another round of contracts for tender for oil drilling in the north Sea, a hundred of them. This looks and sounds a lot like England exploiting Scotlands resources for its own benefit at the expense of Scots and our environment, again.
Will we get an oil fund this time? Will there be cash incentives for this to Scots as Mogg proposes for people in England who allow fracking near them?
Of course not. All the money will as always go straight to the UK Treasury to be wasted in the south of England, again.


The second topic is more controversial on here- J K Rowling. She is at it again, protesting outside the Scottish Parliament against the gender laws being discussed. She wore a t-shirt reading 'Nicola Sturgeon: noun. Destroyer of womans rights' which is patently ridiculous given the FM has fought for womens rights her whole life, not to mention the levels of mysogny she has no doubt had to put up woth both getting to be FM and whilst in the role.

But worse, I am convinved JK is simply high on her own righteous campaigning and truth does not come into it.

Her complainrts here are that the law will weaken and undermine womens rights, muddy the waters on what a women is, and make safe spaces for women unsafe.

Problem is a cross party committee scrutinises all legisaltion for the Scottish Parliament and they put out their conclusions to the new suggested changes to the law on gender-

'they were satisfied the bill would not change any of the existing protections women have under the Equality Act 2010, "including the ability to exclude trans people from single-sex services where proportionate and appropriate".
It said: "The majority is satisfied that the bill will not change or remove women's rights, make changes to how toilets and changing rooms operate, redefine what a man or a woman is, nor change or expand trans people's rights."- BBC News

So all the things JK seems to screaming from the heavens about how terrible this law is, arent in fact in the law or even effected by it. And to make it worse the report from the committee was released before JK staged her media grabbing publicity stunt. Had she simply taken the time to look at the Committee's work, or you know read the legislation she would know she is fighting the wrong battle here. But I dont think she cares, I think she is caught up in her sense of moral goodness and fighting a preceived evil that the reality of the legislation doesnt factor into it. Its the only explanation for why she has ignored everything independently said about the law, the Committee's scruitiny and outcome of it and everything the FM has said about protecting womens rights and safe spaces.

All this law does it make it less intrusive, less difficult, and less offensive a process for folk who want to transition to have to go through. All J K is really saying is she prefers trans folk to be humilated, 2nd class citizens with limited rights and made to feel bad about who they are by the system. I think she is an idiot. }}

My feeling about trans issues is it's such a small fraction, why would anyone work themselves up over it? Let 'em be what they want, so long as one doesn't have to bend over backwards...doesn't really affect women's rights in any effective sense. If trans women want into women's restrooms, how often does it happen? And if it does happen, how often will it be a problem? Let it go for chrissakes, so long as you don't pass a law specifically requiring a 3rd restroom or the like. Take the easy way and everyone will be happy 99.9% of the time.

Hell, in a European youth hostel I was exposed to a unisex bathroom for the first time. It was a shock but I got over it.

{{ Im of a similar view Halfy, I think its a lot of fuss over nothing, but in particular in the case of this new bill. I honestly dont understand in a world where in many countries including the US womens rights are under actual threat she chooses to fight this pointless fight. Everything she accuses this law of being it simply isnt. In fact worse than that this bill doesnt even affect or change any of the things she is claiming it is, now this is either pure ignorance on her part for which there is no excuse given all the information about the bill available, or she is being willfully ignorant as she likes the attention and being righteous more than she really cares about the cause she claims too or you know, stuff like facts. }}

That's typical of politicians. Here we have Republicans who say all abortions are murder but pay for them on the side, and Democrats who say we should be giving the homeless a break and let them set up camp where they want, but they don't have to deal with them because they live it gated communities.

Politicians should focus on things that work and let principles go hang.

{{ Today the Supreme Court is hearing the case on if Scotland can hold a referendum on independence.

For those who dont know the very basics of it are Westminster says only it can give permission for another referendum by granting a section 30 order, same as happened last time, but which they refuse to do this time.

The Scottish Government however is arguing it is only holding an advisory referendum which will seek to get the opinion of the Scottish people on independence and that it makes no material change as it would still be up to the Westminister government to follow through on any result, not the Scottish parliament.

Interestingly Westminister is not fighting this on the grounds of these arguments, rather the case they have puit so far, summed up by the BBC, is -  'the UK government wants the court to refuse to rule on the case. It argues that the question is beyond the court's jurisdiction.'

They dont want it even loooked at, let alone decided on, and their argument is somewhat circular creating a catch-22, that the court shouldnt even touch this as there isnt an actual bill to rule on, but there cant be a bill until there is ruling on what the legal position is. I'd guess this is because they know win or lose the case its a win for the independence side, whereas best they can hope for is to look like England stifling Scotlands democracy by winning a block of any possibility of a referendum, regardless of what manifesto scottish parties stand on, which isnt a good look, hence theyd rather the court not give any answer at all.

As Ive mentioned before this is a smart move from Sturgeon puttting it to the Supreme Court, as if she wins all good and well she can hold a referendum at a time of her own choosing, even a not binding one to apply pressure, and if she looses she can claim the union is not voluntary if one side is not allowed to choose to leave or not and Scotland is more akin to a hostage in the Union than a partner, with no legal means of democratically changing anything and the only way to independence being if England releases us. }}

{{ The gender bill passed its first vote overwhelmingly, with 1 SNP member resigning over it, but the rest voting for it along with the greens and labour and a handful of Tories. The rest of the Tories voted against.
But this is just stage 1 vote.
It now goes to amendments and votes on amendments, of which there are 155 proposed amendments to the bill to be voted on.
Which for me demonstrates that the system is working as intended and pretty well, with the bill getting plenty scrutiny and plenty chance for members to voice concerns, propose changes and have them voted on.

According to the BBC- 'Social Justice Secretary Shona Robison has responded by proposing new powers to block fraudulent applications and those from people who appear to lack sufficient understanding...Others proposing amendments include SNP backbencher Christine Grahame who wants 16 and 17-year-old applicants to be required to live in their acquired gender for six months, rather than three.
She also wants under-18s to demonstrate that they have sought appropriate advice.
It is thought the Scottish government is sympathetic to Ms Grahame's proposals and has been in discussion with MSPs from across parties about other changes...Tory MSPs also want to keep the requirement for a medical diagnosis and for any applicant to be at least 18 years old.
Labour MSPs want the law to make clear that it does not water down existing rights under the UK Equalities Act.
Labour MSP Michael Marra is also proposing that applications should be countersigned by a professional person.'

Theres not too much chance of the Tory proposals passing- as kind of a large part of the bill is to simplify and make less intrusive the process, and what they propoose is the staus quo- on the otherhand a green amendment to remove all waiting times from the bill is equally unlikely to pass. But good chance more middle ground amendments will get through, especially those around ensuring any new rights for trans folk do not infringe on existing womens rights or safe spaces. }}

I have no clue, but perhaps you have some idea, Petty. Why is Kavanagh not allowed to be read on the BBC.

https://ireland-calling.com/lifestyle/russell-crowe-had-many-reasons-to-be-being-angry-at-the-baftas/

{{ I cant say for certain but he was accused on more than one occasion of being anti-catholic in his works. And he was known for attacking instituitions such as the Irish Language Movement which saught to promote Irish gaelic over english. I'd assume that if the poem was cut for reasons other than time or just a random editorial decision then it may be because of his perceived anti-catholic sentiments breaking BBC impartiality rules, which as a publicly funded broadcaster they are supposed to maintain.
And good to see you about the place Blue }}

ok I totally support independence, but Sturgeon's social engineering is right out of 1984. I am glad the ludicrous and dangerous 'named person' or snoopers charter scheme was found to breach human rights to privacy and parental rights. The gender recognition stuff is just another breach of human rights.

{{ I dont see how treating trans people as human beings rather than an abnormal freak show in law is a breach of anyones human rights.

Saying so reminds of the Quatar bloke the other day talking about homosexuality and saying it was a mental illness (this of course based on a belief that an invisible superbeing from the bronze age who lives up a mountain and talks out a burning bush said so!) }}

Trans people are already treated like human beings. They have as many 'rights' in law as anyone else. The gender self ID gives them more rights than biological women. Gender self ID just means that autistic people and people with homophobic parents will just be confirmed as trans rather than getting therapy and understanding they need, with the result that many de-transitioners will be left with infertility, colostomy bags, sexual dysfunction, premature menopause, brittle bones, receding hair on females, massive scarring, and inability to sexually function. And this is for young people from the age of 16.

{{ That is utter nonsense- the law changes nothing about surgery, transitioning as a physical act or any of that, it solely pertains to the legal process of recognition within the law of the change of gender and the time frame and requirements for doing so.
This exact same law has been law in Ireland of all places for the last 7 years now, it has resulted in none of these things nor has it resulted in an attack on women or their safe spaces. And certainly has not led to the issues you outline above as a consequnece of the law change. In fact the only real changes it makes to the exisitng UK laws is to half the time required and remove the intrusive need for medical 'proof'. This brings it in line with the existing Irish version. }}

https://unherd.com/2021/07/how-the-trans-activists-fooled-ireland/

"Ireland is the trans activists’s trump card. Whenever debate flares up about self-identification or the Gender Recognition Act or transgender rights, campaigners can say “There has never been any trouble in Ireland.” And governments believe them."

"Barbie Kardashian is a troubled teenager who was “born a male but identifies as female”, and has a history of particularly nasty physical and sexual violence towards women. Having previously torn the eyelids from a female care worker, Kardashian was jailed last year in the women’s wing of Limerick prison following threats of violence against two individuals. According to the court report, Kardashian was “very anxious she be detained in a prison facility for females, as she identifies as a female”.

"Already there was a “pre-operative, pre-hormone therapy”, male-to-female transgender prisoner who had been convicted of ten counts of sexual assault and one count of cruelty against a child."

{{ So in 7 years there has been one bad apple so all trans people should be punished for it?
So by that logic if at any time in the next 7 years a teacher abuses a pupil all teachers should be punished? If any police abuse their postion all police should be punished?
No law is infallible, no law can guarantee noone wil ever break or abuse it or their position, there has never been a law made that can do that, so what you have are as many safeguards and the like you can to minimise such risks. What you cant do is use a minority as justification to punish a majority.

edit add- you also continually like to cliam this is an SNP and a Strugeon thing- yet the Stage 1 law was passed in parliament by all parties bar the Tories, and they had a free vote on it and several of the small amount of Tories in the Scottish parliament voted for it. So thats SNP, Greens, Lib Dems, Labour, independents and some Tories. Its not a one party thing, its being well scrutinised (as the proposed 155 amendments shows clearly) its getting a ton of time for debate and discussion, including being open to public debate for several years and public submissions. Its called democracy! }}

Not sure the victims of the 'one bad apple' see it like that.

{{ And Im sure the victim of any crime doesnt- but still doesnt mean it justifies villifing or punishing everyone because of it. }}

Nobody mentioned vilifying or punishing. The only people vilified and called fascists and transphobes are those who question gender ideology, the only ones punished are the women who speak out about the children going to the gender abattoir.

{{ You are vilifying them, at every turn you are implying trans folk are a threat- a threat to women, a threat to womens spaces, that making recognising a change of gender in law less intrusive is a threat, that its a threat to children. Every step of the way you vilify trans folk. }}

No. You keep lumping all trans people together. They are not a homogeneous group. There are trans teenagers who may have self identity issues, they may have autism, they may have dysmorphia, they may have depression, or they may be gay and have homophobic parents. There are so called 'trans children' which is the biggest con trick of all because children believe in Father Christmas and want to be fairy elephants when they grow up. They don't have the mental capacity or maturity to deal with the thought they are in the wrong body. They usually have homophobic or religious parents who hate the thought of having a gay kid. There are the middle aged men who get a kick out of wearing their wives dresses, there are part time trannies who know they are men, there are artistic performative trannies like Grayson Perry and Eddie izzard, who dress up part time and know they are men. There are dysmorphic women who have fallen for social contagion as a way to 'belong' to a group online, sometimes akin to self cutters and anorexics. There are the misogynists who think they are better then women, the ones who get a thrill out of entering women's spaces, there are the trans activists who enjoy sending rape and death threats to lesbians, there are the trans activists who try to destroy women's careers. There are the groomers i schools who push gender ideology on kids. There are trans allies like Owen Jones and Billy Bragg who are clearly misogynists and are either ignorant or just virtue signalling lefties. And lowest down in the food chain are the predators, pedos, and perverts.
The thing is that you just don't know until it is too late. One bad apple is one bad apple too much. The denial of biology is batshit crazy. But the majority are adults who just want to live their lives and don't want all the toxicity.

{{ Every single 'version' you just listed is listed as a threat. The one group you forgot save as a sort of amendment to your list of the horrors of trans folk is the vast majority of trans folk- people who feel they are the wrong gender and wish to change it to have peace of mind and body. To be themselves and live as such. The largest group, the group who are a threat to no one. You dont care about them all you see is a threat when you hear the word trans, you just made that perfectly clear. One bad apple, or more, exists in every walk of life in every type of persons regardless of gender, colour or anything else- you cannot do as you do and use that as an excuse to villify and deny and punish all. Thats unfair, illogical, cruel and immoral. Its no different to old justifications for racism or sexism.}}