Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
Guest MattP

FT General Election Poll 2019

FT General Election 2019  

501 members have voted

  1. 1. Which party will be getting your vote?

    • Conservative
      155
    • Labour
      188
    • Liberal Democrats
      93
    • Brexit Party
      17
    • Green Party
      26
    • Other
      22


Recommended Posts

17 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Yes, I appreciate that it's not crucial to every Leave supporter. But my impression was that it was a major issue for most - and THE issue for some.

 

It'll be ending, anyway, won't it - assuming we leave the EU and Single Market?

FOM won't be ending, we just won't be able to take part in it, depressingly. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

Great, so give them somewhere to change then.  Everyone is happy.

But what type of changing room sign would be installed, though, given the increase in transgender people over the years?

Can imagine many of them being put off using them, especially if other publiuc users recognise their 'differences' at the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, bovril said:

FOM won't be ending, we just won't be able to take part in it, depressingly. 

 

Yes, I meant "FOM will be ending for Brits going to EU and EU citizens arriving in UK".

 

Sorry if that was unclear due to the Britocentricity (or whatever the word is) of my expression.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Alf Bentley said:

 

Yes, I meant "FOM will be ending for Brits going to EU and EU citizens arriving in UK".

 

Sorry if that was unclear due to the Britocentricity (or whatever the word is) of my expression.

Yeah I realised that.

 

Just find it incredibly depressing how many people are celebrating their rights being taken away. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, leicsmac said:

I'm sorry Jon, but this idea is entirely both fallacious and prejudiced as well as discriminatory - seeing as there have been almost (and I think exactly) zero incidents of what the "bathroom guardians" fear might happen, and far far more of blokes identifying as blokes doing the same thing instead.

 

The whole argument is a strawman based on the mythical and archaic idea that many or even most trans folks are in fact secret perverts who are just doing it for the rush, and it's ridiculous.

One quick Google proves it isn't zero.

 

https://www.scotsman.com/news-2-15012/female-spaces-need-better-protection-after-trans-woman-sex-assault-on-girl-say-campaigners-1-4868945

 

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/oct/11/karen-white-how-manipulative-and-controlling-offender-attacked-again-transgender-prison

 

The real fear for me is young girls in this, growing up can be a horrific experience for them, puberty, anxiety over their bodies changing, periods - then you take away the only safe space they have in public for some peace by allowing biological men who identify as women to use that space with them. 

 

Absolutely shameful. If it was your daughter I doubt you would be so keen on it.

Edited by MattP
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, LiberalFox said:

Separate spaces just for trans people? Not very workable and completely unnecessary. 

May I just interject slightly here. I work in the engineering consultancy industry and one of my current jobs is for a very high profile client who are changing their current (in house) changing and toilet facilities to be 'gender neutral', therefore allowing both male, female and (predominantly to cater to) trans to change, shower and share toilet facilities. This was done without consultation of the people who will be using the facilities. Low and behold, half way through the design process, the women at the location have raised concerns saying they are not comfortable with it. Believe it or not, trying to force things upon people, really isn't the way.  

 

There are already separate spaces for male and female, and while there are a tiny handful of trans who fully transition and live that life, the fact is, most haven't gone that far and are still biologically opposite to how they claim to be, and it tends to make women feel uncomfortable. That doesn't make them bigots or transphobes, and to say so, belittles genuine concerns and shuts down the conversation.

 

EDIT: I don't want to derail the actual politics, but felt this needed to be pointed out. Also, after not posting on here for probably 2 years, i had to choose THIS to start again lol 

Edited by Darkon84
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, MattP said:

One quick Google proves it isn't zero.

 

https://www.scotsman.com/news-2-15012/female-spaces-need-better-protection-after-trans-woman-sex-assault-on-girl-say-campaigners-1-4868945

 

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/oct/11/karen-white-how-manipulative-and-controlling-offender-attacked-again-transgender-prison

 

The real fear for me is young girls in this, growing up can be a horrific experience for them, puberty, anxiety over their bodies changing, periods - then you take away the only safe space they have in public for some peace by allowing biological men who identify as women to use that space with them. 

 

Absolutely shameful. If it was your daughter I doubt you would be so keen on it.

Almost it is then (the second one being nothing to do with public toilets aside). And far, far less than the number of such incidents involving guys identifying as guys. The strawman still exists, and as such it coexists with the idea that most folks who spout it are much more interested in perpetuating it for their own self interest than in actually protecting women and girls.

 

And you should know very well now, Matt, that I believe personal is most often nowhere near the same as important.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, leicsmac said:

Almost it is then (the second one being nothing to do with public toilets aside). And far, far less than the number of such incidents involving guys identifying as guys. The strawman still exists, and as such it coexists with the idea that most folks who spout it are much more interested in perpetuating it for their own self interest than in actually protecting women and girls.

 

And you should know very well now, Matt, that I believe personal is most often nowhere near the same as important.

But it's not a strawman at all - we already have evidence (and that was one quick Google on a phone) that it has happened and that's with a tiny proportion of these people about. (I also presume you have no problem with trans women going to women's prison's as well so the second one is still relevant)

 

Whether you like it or not society and the public aren't just going to let you put grown men into toilets with little girls, no matter how you spin the argument, no matter how many "isms" you throw and no matter how much you think is hidden in the agenda of the opponents to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Darkon84 said:

May I just interject slightly here. I work in the engineering consultancy industry and one of my current jobs is for a very high profile client who are changing their current (in house) changing and toilet facilities to be 'gender neutral', therefore allowing both male, female and (predominantly to cater to) trans to change, shower and share toilet facilities. This was done without consultation of the people who will be using the facilities. Low and behold, half way through the design process, the women at the location have raised concerns saying they are not comfortable with it. Believe it or not, trying to force things upon people, really isn't the way.  

 

There are already separate spaces for male and female, and while there are a tiny handful of trans who fully transition and live that life, the fact is, most haven't gone that far and are still biologically opposite to how they claim to be, and it tends to make women feel uncomfortable. That doesn't make them bigots or transphobes, and to say so, belittles genuine concerns and shuts down the conversation.

 

EDIT: I don't want to derail the actual politics, but felt this needed to be pointed out. Also, after not posting on here for probably 2 years, i had to choose THIS to start again lol 

Places of work probably don't want the hassle caused by the issue. Is it okay to suggest the massive increase in press coverage often putting trans people in a negative light and some of the responses of people is transphobia? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am ahead of the game I have a gender neutral toilet at home. and a gender neutral bathroom and a gender neutral kitchen and living room and the couch is gender neutral. but having a gender neutral toilet leads to no end of arguments in the home about the important position that the seat should be left in now as any sane male that identifies as male knows that the up position is the correct position for the toilet seat. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, LiberalFox said:

Places of work probably don't want the hassle caused by the issue. Is it okay to suggest the massive increase in press coverage often putting trans people in a negative light and some of the responses of people is transphobia? 

Yeah the press should just not report it when trans people start raping women in prison or sexual assault children in toilets. 

 

Maybe we start doctoring the scorecards of sporting events. 

 

Superimpose a picture of a girl in front of these pretending they won?

 

https://www.boston.com/news/politics/2019/02/24/connecticut-runners-part-of-debate-over-transgender-athletes

Edited by MattP
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, MattP said:

But it's not a strawman at all - we already have evidence (and that was one quick Google on a phone) that it has happened and that's with a tiny proportion of these people about. (I also presume you have no problem with trans women going to women's prison's as well so the second one is still relevant)

 

Whether you like it or not society and the public aren't just going to let you put grown men into toilets with little girls, no matter how you spin the argument, no matter how many "isms" you throw and no matter how much you think is hidden in the agenda of the opponents to it.

The strawman is the stereotype that people use these incidents to push when they are a very small minority of such incidents. The same stereotype as in the second paragraph here ("grown men", the husky bulky possible sex offender you seem so intent on focusing on as your commonplace ideal of a trans woman).

 

Of course, I have no sway over the public and it may be that you are right and such prejudiced stereotypes do take or keep hold of the public consciousness (rewind a couple of decades and I'd think the narrative was a whole lot worse). I guess time will tell, as it always does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, LiberalFox said:

Places of work probably don't want the hassle caused by the issue. Is it okay to suggest the massive increase in press coverage often putting trans people in a negative light and some of the responses of people is transphobia? 

Contrary indeed. Places of work are seemingly going out of their way to cater to the tiniest percentile of the population in order to seem accepting of something which really has never been a factor up until recently. Without asking the other staff or other peoples opinion is ridiculous, especially for such a highly esteemed client (unfortunately I can't name them, sorry). 

The press coverage of trans currently is massively swaying to the positive, so personally, i think you're mistaken there. it would actually be interesting to see mainstream media report on the other side. Generally speaking, no one is scared of trans, no one is genuinely transphobic, but there are genuine concerns which mainly women raise. As said before, simply labelling any criticism or comment as transphobic is detremental to the conversation and disappointing really. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

The strawman is the stereotype that people use these incidents to push when they are a very small minority of such incidents. The same stereotype as in the second paragraph here ("grown men", the husky bulky possible sex offender you seem so intent on focusing on as your commonplace ideal of a trans woman).

 

Of course, I have no sway over the public and it may be that you are right and such prejudiced stereotypes do take or keep hold of the public consciousness (rewind a couple of decades and I'd think the narrative was a whole lot worse). I guess time will tell, as it always does.

This is very different to gay rights though or anything of the sort as it has the potential (and already has) harmed many people outside of the barometers of the private adult consent those arguments were formed on.

 

If anything the arguments often put forward for the promotion of trans issues sound more like those from the peadophile information exchange in the 70''s and we all now know how history judged that. (I'm not conflating trans with paedophilia either before anyone says it)

 

Time will tell though as you say - but I think the first and second wave feminists will be the winners on this issue rather than the trans campaigners.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, MattP said:

This is very different to gay rights though or anything of the sort as it has the potential (and already has) harmed many people outside of the barometers of the private adult consent those arguments were formed on.

 

If anything the arguments often put forward for the promotion of trans issues sound more like those from the peadophile information exchange in the 70''s and we all now know how history judged that. (I'm not conflating trans with paedophilia either before anyone says it)

 

Time will tell though as you say - but I think the first and second wave feminists will be the winners on this issue rather than the trans campaigners.

Suffice it to say I feel entirely differently on the topic, but then I think that's reasonably obvious so I'll leave it with one last observation: in my opinion, the easier it could become to change one's appearance and identity in a variety of different ways rather than having to live with the one due to the accident of your birth, the less emphasis humanity might put on those identities as if one inherently means more or less than another. That might be no bad thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Swan Lesta said:

Where should she have got changed?

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/50151426

 

Just askin :ph34r:

Well considering she was playing mens football, with the other guys and penis owners. Or do you mean now? Still playing with the mens team, still owning a penis, so with the men. Or should literally everyone else change to accomodate the one person? You can be inclusive and accepting, but expecting everyone to change for you is nonsense, whether its this discussion or anything else. I wouldn't kick off if i went on a night out and went to a gin bar even though i dont like gin.

Perhaps I've got it wrong though. What's the correct answer?

Edited by Darkon84
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, MattP said:

This is very different to gay rights though or anything of the sort as it has the potential (and already has) harmed many people outside of the barometers of the private adult consent those arguments were formed on.

 

If anything the arguments often put forward for the promotion of trans issues sound more like those from the peadophile information exchange in the 70''s and we all now know how history judged that. (I'm not conflating trans with paedophilia either before anyone says it)

 

Time will tell though as you say - but I think the first and second wave feminists will be the winners on this issue rather than the trans campaigners.

No relations to Trans rights etc. but I'd completely forgot about all that campaign by all the trendy 70s French philosophers and "intellectuals" to end the age of consent and free people imprisoned on charges of statutory rape.

 

Feck me! When you consider that and their steadfast support of Stalin and Pol Pot it's hard to understand why 20th century French philosophy is still read and not considered quackery.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, pleatout said:

They not are talking about "seizing BT" just OpenReach that own the local loop.  The bit between the local exchange and your house.  It is already a separate organisation notionally independent of BT although wholly owned by them and is one the the biggest blockers to broadband roll out and infrastructure investment in Britain.

 

 

They really are though. The infrastructure is the valuable part of BT, the retail part is bankrupt without it. Openreach also offers wholesale broadband to other providers, if you make this free you have destroyed the wholesale business and destroyed your competitors business. Companies like Talk Talk and Virgin Media suddenly have no value in their business.

 

Its delusional to think this is a remotely good idea. A reunionised BT nationalised would be the biggest blocked of broadband roll out in Britain.

 

Deutsche Telekom are absolutely terrible at rolling out Fibre in Germany they act like they are still nationalised.

 

It's a nonsense. Only a Socialist could dream up such drivel.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, pleatout said:

Just to add

BT own Openreach that provide the "last mile" to your house unless you have cable.

 

BT own Plusnet

BT own TalkTalk

BT own EE

BT own BT Broadband

 

The competition isnt really competitive.  BT have most of it

Nonsense 

 

BT dont own Talk Talk they have their own network.

 

Plusnet and BT are worthless with free broadband. Explain that to those who work in those companies when they get their p45

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This should spice up the latter stages of the election campaign: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50436252 :rolleyes:

 

"US President Donald Trump has confirmed he will travel to London 10 days before the UK general election. He will be in the capital with the first lady for the Nato summit between 2 and 4 December.

Mr Trump will also attend a reception at Buckingham Palace, which will be hosted by the Queen. The president has previously been criticised for voicing his opinions of British political leaders, including Boris Johnson and Jeremy Corbyn".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So this broadband scheme.  

Effectively takes back the rolling out of infrastructure from companies and puts the state in charge of that bit.  Then let's companies continue to sell packages and add ons.

Perfectly sensible.  

Takes the costs away from users and onto taxpayers effectively meaning that the more you earn the more you contribute. 

I pay a big whack of tax but I am happy with that.  

BT have failed to provide the country with the broadband it needs and it's time government stepped in we all had a stake in infrastructure again. 

Edited by HappyHamza
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...