Oi! Do you 'ave a loicense for that Palestinian flag m8?
https://apnews.com/article/britain-palestine-action-arrests-protest-bf430c85a317e7e1f768c9ebd2a6131a
>More than 70 people were arrested Saturday at protests in the U.K. against the Palestine Action group being proscribed a terrorist organization by the British government following a break-in and vandalism at a Royal Air Force base.
>In London, the Metropolitan Police said 42 people had been arrested by late afternoon. All but one of the arrests were for showing support for a proscribed organization, which police have said includes chanting, wearing clothing or displaying articles such as flags, signs or logos. Another person was arrested for common assault.
>A further 16 arrests were made in Manchester, according to Greater Manchester Police, while South Wales Police said 13 people were also held in Cardiff.
>In London, it was the second straight week protesters gathered to support the pro-Palestinian activist group. Its outlawing has meant support for the organization is deemed a criminal offense. Police arrested 29 people at a similar protest last weekend.>>2392281
I partially agree, but I think a chunk of them are lower tier than that. Like a head-teacher or upper-middle ranking civil service type who has worked their way up a little bit in the public sector and thinks they're great as a result. Unlike the old Tories, they do have some perverse regard for public services, but they hold service-users and line-staff in contempt. They like the idea of (say) a health service, but they hate doctors and nurses and they hate the sick, what they like is being a manager. What bothers them is that they don't feel like they have parity of status with a Tesco head-office manager, because the latter could theoretically bankrupt the business. So they try to bring in private enterprise and schmooze with them so they can LARP as the same thing. Maybe it's because outside financial speculation and tax avoidance, the next biggest economic grift in this country is public-private parasitism. Water companies, for example, aren't so much a free-market private sector company as a license to print money. If you lose money the public will bail you out, if you gain money that's yours to keep, and win-or-lose you can have your bonus. The regulator will do fuck all to protect the public, but he'll take your financial needs into account. As a result, you wind up with this weird class of fake managers.
If you were to make a movie about it, you could have a sympathetic story about a working class boy made good who turned into an utter cunt because of the class stratification of society, who aspired to a well-ingrained idea of being a better sort of person, an aristocrat. You couldn't make a sympathetic story about a serial-crawler, a wanker who'll suck the dick of anyone above them and stomp on anyone below them, who is just like this and who is chasing the frankly pathetic dream of winning manager of the year.
I'd compare Rachel Reeves and Thatcher. Thatcher desperately wanted to be posh and the Queen mocked her behind her back for being a middle class nitwit. Rachel Reeves on the other hand doesn't try to cultivate an aristocratic image, she doesn't use the royal 'we', she's just management fodder. The person who comes in and has a chat with your teacher because she's been reported for deviating from the approved lesson plan.
Her most aspirational lies and frauds were to stretch how long she worked for the bank of England by 4 years and at HBOS by a few months on her CV, to pretend she was an economist at HBOS when she was really a manger at customer complaints, and to abuse her HBOS expenses account for big dinners and taxi rides. I mean come on. I don't think she dreams when she goes to sleep at night.
Grant Shapps was a good aspirational liar. His Get-Rich-Quick grifts and pyramid schemes. His multiple fake identities (Michael Green, Corinne Stockheath and Sebastian Fox), editing his own Wikipedia article. Slamming his own name onto the Williams Rail Review because it had some good ideas in it. He's even got a real hobby, flying a plane! Is he a cunt? Yeah, but he's a cunt who dreams!
>>2391933>LMAO at the CPGB-ML poster earlier>Weird ass cult mfers obsessed with hatred for LGBT peopleWhich amounts to saying a woman is a woman and a man is a man. You're castigating CPGB-ML for holding to a materialist position instead of an idealist one cooked up by 1960s french and American post-modern perverts who believe in "I think therefore I am" (I am a woman because I say I am). The epitomy of idealism and the opposite of materialism. Anon was referring to CPB-ML, a party created in the 1960s not CPGB-ML but
>uncritical hero-worship of StalinPray tell what is your "criticsm" of Stalin? Unvarnished Nazi, CIA and MI6 propaganda I'll bet.
>Nor will you gain support by your anti-proletarian delusion that all working class people are culturally far right Every single Marxist state in it's revolutionary period was "culturally far right". See Stalin/Semashko/Krupskya/Kollantai support for banning abortion in 1936, Article 121 and support of the family against cultural degeneration. Same for Mao until the 1970s when revisionism took reigns and same for Hoxhas Albania and the DPRK today.
>Even if the working class absolutely hated homosexuals (they don't) that wouldn't make being anti-LGBT the correct position, because Marxism is a science and based on materialism, not on what you mistakenly believe is the popular stance.Yes, Marxism is a science. And when put into practice it vanquishes propaganda from neomalthusians and degenerate predatory behaviour
>Read some fucking theory.Sure, here's Proletarian Humanism by Maxim Gorky
https://gorkiy-lit--info-ru.translate.goog/gorkiy/articles/article-361.htm?_x_tr_sl=ru&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en-US&_x_tr_pto=wapp>>2392281>UK, Wales and Scotland.A revealing construction.
>>2392296>Which amounts to saying a woman is a woman and a man is a man. This is a very glib way of putting it. Consistently within the top 10 most popular articles on the CPGB-ML website, you will find "The reactionary nightmare of ‘gender fluidity’", which was written in 2019. It has been in the top 10 without one second's break since 2019. There are two ways of reading this: The first is that the proles of the world agree, have seen the light, and are flocking in their hundreds and thousands to join the CPGB-ML and support it. Given that the party remains as irrelevant as it was in 2019, I think we can discount this. The other is that it is distracting from real issues, that the party is utterly worthless and that the one group of people it actually appeals to are a bunch of deluded old culture warriors scrabbling around to leftwash their prejudices.
It's a really fun article, too, because it doesn't actually say much about transgenderism. There's a lot of waffle, some cliche ("can a circle identify as a square???"*), but mostly: a lot of telling on themselves. Lines like
"Not enough working women are involved in our movement. Why is it that all of our YouTube videos have 80 to 90 percent hits from men? Young women don’t think politics has got anything to say to them. They’ve been pushed into this blind dead-end of bourgeois feminism." that reveal that what you've got is a cult of socially conservative old men, whining. The problem is bourgeois feminism, they cry, at a time when the TERF to end all TERFs is a billionaire "feminist". It gets better:
"the black community also … Why aren’t the black community here? They should be!",
"I can tell you there are hundreds, thousands of militant communists in London who will agree with me on pretty much everything – but they will not join our organisation, “because I’m a Turk…", I mean really: when it is not boring it is riotously funny. That's why the CPGB-ML gets a pass while the CPB needs to be destroyed.
2019 puts the article in a fun period, because in 2019 we were still pretending to be a socially liberal society. You could make a superficially credible claim that you were going against a line that was supported by all the big businesses and all the first world governments. Today that isn't true: Today the CPGB-ML's line is Keir Starmer's line, it is the supreme court's line, it is Trump's line. The big American companies are ditching the rainbow flags because the big man doesn't like 'em, and he's got much more say than the pressure
from below that put the flags up in the first place. There is, in fact, a big billionaire conspiracy out there to split the working class: But the billionaires and the aristocrats are by-and-large on the same side as the CPGB-ML. Strange, isn't it?
*As any 3D modeller will tell you, enough triangles can make anything you want.
all of this is a sophist language game. we used to speak of sex change operations. we used to have the societal understanding that what a transsexual does is change their sex. "transsexual" lost to "transgender" in the evolutionary arms race of linguistics because people don't like talking about sex, since it also means fucking. that leads into the sex/gender split as a briefly useful explanatory device, which socially conservative weirdoes then seized on as an opportunity to invent an excuse to imply that when you materially alter your body, no you haven't, actually, because by my definition the words mean something different.>>2392306
>Changing your body doesn't mean you change sex (or gender) in any meaningful regard beyond aesthetics
a completely and utterly deranged statement for a supposed materialist. when you build a house on vacant land, the land remains vacant in all but aesthetics.
>they still 98% act, sound, talk, move and have the interests of men, just now super gay, socially introverted men
you didn't say "look", perhaps out of decorum, but it's a curious omission when it's what really matters here. without reference to the physical body, you're just talking about socialization! purportedly materialist arguments for TERF-ism rely on the composition of the body, not on the socialization of the person who owns it. if the people you know acted, talked, moved, and had the interests of cis women, would you accept they were women? (absent looks, how would you be able to tell?)
I will skip over the rest of the big arguments because I do not think we will make any progress and because frankly they are irrelevant to what really interests me - which is the intersection of this issue with official power. I will appeal to you pragmatically: why do you think the entire UK legislative, judicial, and media ecosystem is anti-transgender? Knowing what you do about these entities, and knowing that this is not the case in other first world anglo countries, do you believe that this is likely to reflect some underlying material reality, or some underlying pathology?
I mean you immediately recognize the mendacious nonsense in >>2392309 but somehow turn a blind eye to the other stuff going on in the background. The UK government has destroyed the devolution settlement by taking the right to veto devolved legislation on a whim, the courts overturn legislation on the barest of justification to give the government the results it wants without taking up parliamentary time, the government commissions some policy-based evidence and uses it to justify completely ceasing treatment for a medical condition, then makes a baroness of the person who wrote it, the equalities and human rights body draws up unworkable guidance that is wrong-in-law to push a specific group out of society, and the government backs it up and tells private and quasi-private entities that they've got to segregate things according to the government's whim, not according to their own policies. The government's security advisor warns that the existence of this minority group is probably a form of psychological warfare Russia and Iran to destabilize democracy, and the government may need draconian new laws to protect democracy from this threat.
You can hate transgender people all you want and still recognize this is one hell of a set of precedents to set and one hell of a set of precedents to turn a blind eye to (or cheerlead!) until you find to your shock and horror that they're coming for you next.
>>2392306
>Another is children. No, Children do not have developed senses of self identity, especially before they've entered puberty, hell most people in their early 20s don't have fully developed sense of self, hence why LUG and GUGs are a thing. We generally do not diagnose personality and dissociation disorders in children for obvious fucking reasons, because puberty and young adulthood and experiences changes A LOT
Because of modern society extending childhood past the age of puberty.
By your logic , people don't have a sense of self even into their thirties, which is becoming increasingly common.
Young people are infantilised by modern schooling and by helicopter parents.
Before World War 2, it was expected to have an independent life by age fifteen
Nowadays, even at thirty, you still need social and financial influence from parents.
Alot of psychological phenomenon that you claim cannot be diagnosed until early adulthood is due to sociolegal definition not any biological determinism.
>Yet the entire left has to pretend that a 8 year old has a full understanding of sexual, gender dynamics, self-identity and a full map of what they want to be in life. It's absurd and there is a reason the vast majority of the public at best rolls their eyes at such claims.
You know what's funny? People like you will say stiff like this while ignoring the fact that schools are pushing kids to have career aspirations in ELEMENTARY SCHOOL.
We are making kids decide COLLEGE ENROLLMENT WHILE IN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL.
We don't want kids to decide their gender nor learn about war but we want them to decide what college they want to attend in elementary school.
>>2392296>Conveniently ignores half the points anon made, the party mandated polo shirts, the "proletarian haircuts", the shaming of people's appearances, banning of gay people from the org, 3 hour interrogations in locked rooms>Claims criticism of Stalin's revisionist SocDem policies, refusal to abolish capitalist production, SOIC, silencing of other communists, etc means you are a brainwashed by Western spies >Doubling down on the notion being LGBT is somehow unscientific and anti-Communist >Doubling down on your totally ignorant anti-proletarian slur that all working people are racist and far right and the bizarre conclusion view that we therefore need to appeal to thatI swear to Marx, the CPGB-ML must be some government psyop to make us all look like the most cultish reactionary idiots possible.
Stop parodying Communism as something ridiculous, your org clearly has no clue about even the first line of Capital and seeks only to promote social fascism and Stalin worship to the exclusion of any actual leftist beliefs.
>>2392360>>2392375Meanwhile, in the real world:
🚨 Net approval with 16/17 year olds 👇
🟣 Corbyn +16
🟠 Davey +3
🟢 Denyer +3
🔴 Starmer +1
🔵 Badenoch -2
➡️ Farage -6
btw, the "thin blue line" emblem the copper is wearing on his chest is generally prohibited by the police force, yet you see them wearing it to show solidarity to their own power against the public.
https://www.met.police.uk/foi-ai/metropolitan-police/disclosure-2023/august-2023/wearing-thin-blue-line-badges>The Met’s Dress Code Policy sets out the official uniform police officers must adhere to. The policy has not changed and allows for a small number of exceptions which does not currently include The Thin Blue Line badgeas some note, the thin blue line itself is farcical, since the police rarely ever face danger:
https://www.london.gov.uk/who-we-are/what-london-assembly-does/questions-mayor/find-an-answer/cause-death-met-police-officers>Since 1970, there have been 89 cases of deaths which were deemed `on duty'*. 57 (64%) are due to, or as a result of, road traffic accidents, which include some instances where officers were travelling to and from work. 16 (18%) died as a result of shooting, stabbing or assault. Five (three officers, two explosive officers - 6%) died as a result of suspect device explosions. The other causes are as a result of drowning, heart attack, falls and sudden ill health.the deaths of members of the public in police custody is over 2,100% more likely:
https://www.inquest.org.uk/deaths-in-police-custody>To date there have been 1930 deaths in police custody or otherwise following contact with the police in England & Wales since 1990>>2392392since 1970 in london (55 years), only 89 officers have died; the majority of which is in road accidents, not direct criminal harm. there is no credible concern over officer safety therefore, especially when you employ over 140,000. biggest gang in the UK with the biggest protection.
>>2392393i would prefer even stronger stipulations, but that is my precondition.
>>2392378Corbyn's party still hasn't been founded yet so we'll have to wait and see. But don't forget that this is the polling for people who are currently 16/17, the 16 year olds who'll vote in 2029 would have been 6 years old when Corbyn had any relevance, so their opinion may be different from 16-18 year olds right now.
>Davey +3No one under 40 has ever considered voting LibDem.
>Farage -6The poll must be skewed towards women because most young men that I've spoken to are either Reform supporters or are sympathetic to Reform.
If Corbyn's party does actually leave the "I'm gonna do it for real this time just you wait" phase then he could have a decent chance I reckon but either way, a Corbyn victory or a Reform victory would shake things up enough to get some actual change going.
>>2392407what is text from which you draw subtext?
i complain about the MOMENTOUS rates of illegal and exploitative asylum seeking in the UK, but have never said anything about brown britons or gays.
>>2392405>Gay people CPGB-ML is anti-LGBT, bans gay people from joining their party, interrogates members on their views on gay people, expels people who say they're okay with gay people
CPB are TERFs and buy into American conservative astroturfed arguements which caused most of their youth wing to leave the party
Defenders of both are active here trying to argue about how actually hating gay people is necessary and scientific
>Brown peopleThis thread in particular is inundated with /pol/ posters who make racist remarks, use slurs, try to stir up trouble
>>2392403>the effects of puberty blockers are irreversible you tardQuite literally false you absolute moron, the entire purpose of them is to prevent irreversible changes.
It's a block on changes, not an accelerator. Hence the name BLOCKER, not ENHANCER.
In your crusade to hate trans people you literally inverted the reality of things despite the words being in front of your face.
>>2392414>refugeesasylum seekers ≠ refugees
most asylum seekers are "economic migrants" (that doesnt necessarily make them bad people, but these are the facts).
also, you must be a bit slow if you havent seen the migrants working for deliveroo - you can watch videos of them being arrested by police for unlawful work.
on integration though, do you think it would be necessary to teach every new arrival english language, custom, history, and so on?
>>2392420>>2392414if you are a foreigner who wants to work in the UK you can also apply for visa programs, then pay your way in like many others. figures of "net migration" track the legal traffic of foreign visa holders, students, etc.
britain is not an iron-walled fortress.
>>2392423what does "integration" mean to you?
>>2392421MLism (tankie-ism) in general seems reactionary imo
>>2392570Cuba is so far down the revisionist shit hole they'll probably pull down the red flag and do a "de stalinisation" on Fidel blaming him for everything from shooting counter revolutionaries to the weather to everyone that's ever died of flu in Cuba
They recognised South Korea last year… Which is basically a bell weather for socialist collapse as the entire eastern bloc recognised that fascist shit hole SK a year or two before they surrendered to imperialism
Just think…Koreans on diplomatic missions in Cuba stood with Cuba ready for nuclear war over the missile crisis. Last year they recognised that fascist shit hole.
https://journal-neo.su/2024/03/05/cuba-and-south-korea-have-restored-diplomatic-relations/Of course you don't want to talk about workers Korea who would rather eat grass than surrender to imperialism 🤷
>>2392560I refer you to this post
>>2392321If TERFs are progressive, why are they backed by all the reactionary institutions of British society? Why, generally, do they seek to set legal precedent which can only be abused to reactionary ends, and which is, by quirk of the equalities act being stupid and open to abuse, anti-materialist? (Being a TERF is a protected philosophical belief under the equality act only ''because it does not respond to evidence."' It is the belief that sex transcends material reality, and even a total transformation of the body cannot alter it. If you say "yeah once we can change chromosomes, sex changes would be possible" that's an unprotected opinion based on facts, the equality act deals only with beliefs. As such, any ruling that says you've got to defer to "gender critical" beliefs opens the door to further rulings that you've got to defer to homophobic religious fundamentalists, anti-abortionists, xenophobes, etc.)
Why, generally, do they tend to be older and richer than pro-trans people, and why do they have such deep pocketed financial backing?
Why, outside Britain, are they unambiguously right-aligned? (Only Britain, with it's feral libs, who took down Corbyn, do we find faux progressive trans phobia)
>>2392586TERFs and transhumanists are both essentialists, so are as intellectually worthless as each other.
>>2392601fuck jannies #acab
>>2392608A political organisation must rid itself of subversives, saboteurs and vested interests before it can be a truly effective force for change.
Remember: For The Many, Not The (((Few)))
>>2392610That's great!
>>2392632Acknowledging the scientific evidence supports trans people is not the same as essentialism where biology is fixed and unalterable according to a worldview based in idealism.
I'm beginning to believe you don't even understand the terms you use.
>>2392641What's the evolutionary purpose of being born with too many teeth? Stuff just happens.
Gays are easier to just-so story: Labour without dependants.
>>2392651Soros is a million times worse. Literally running guns to all eastern European reactionaries and financing them to the hilt
Soros Open Society is based on Poppers concept of the "Open society". That liberalism can't tolerate illiberalism so has to intervene with totalitarian measures
The slide to totalitarian liberalism can be put at the feet of people like Poppers/Soros for popularising Popper and Strauss's feet
>>2392636>just say that trans women have "female brains" and be done with itThis is an attempt to make the facts seem ridiculous by reducing them into an absurd position.
The reality is much more complex than that but you clearly don't have any desire to engage in reality since it disrupts your ability to maintain reactionary ideological positions.
You are literally incapable it seems of viewing things through a materialist lense. Variance in brain structures does not imply any kind of masculine or feminine essence.
>>2392665Again, this is an attempt to make the facts seem ridiculous by reducing them into an absurd position.
There is no such point, you don't magically transform from having a male essence to a female essence because such things are idealist nonsense. Material reality is quite a complex things that you can't reduce like that.
>>2392641most MtF transsexuals are not gay beforehand, so its a separate phenomenon to that
>>2392666>ability to maintain reactionary ideological positions.no, i am attacking your essentialism, which demands that any/all transgender people must have a brain scan before we can certify them as "real" women"(tm). but anyway, could you answer this question, please?
>at what point does a male brain "become" a female brain?>>2392675interesting.
>>2392624<You are quite literally claiming there is an idealistic representation of man and woman that is unalterable and fixed to the shape of gonads and which trans people fail up uphold.I'm confused.
What is a woman then?
What is a man?
Can you provide a definition?
>>2392693Irrelevant
What is a woman?
>>2392682You're confused because someone said the idealist understanding of sexes as immaterial archetypes is fictional.
And yet you claim to be a Communist here in good faith.
You couldn't make this shit up, fucking TERFs…
>>2392693So is that fifty percent of the adult population (adult human females)
Or is it a 100 percent because anyone can become or feel like a woman depending on their mood?
>>2392698Middle class mini-hitlers who love bashing down on oppressed classes and who hate materialism.
Its sad that it is so prevalent even in a so called leftist space.
>>2392653Oh, he's absolutely evil. He's just got nothing on the British press.
>>2392662And yet the man implementing Britain's slide into illiberalism is anti-trans, the courts approving it are anti-trans, and the press demanding and cheerleading it are anti trans. Very odd!
>>2392708it's a weird one,
>>2392712 mostly. despite what you hear from these middle-class mini-hitlers in the beeb and so on normal people tend not to have an issue. Although that may be changing thanks to all this shit and being downstream of US culture.
>>2392714I don't give a shit about liberalism though and I'm not here to defend it
it's great we're sliding out of Karl Poppers Open Society hell. It opens up space for actual class struggle
>>2392716>but dont TERFs justify themselves based on a materialist discourse? they say things like "i have a female brain, so i am a woman" for example.Like i told you at
>>2392613 some do, some don't. it's a bit more complicated than that. By pretending this is the case you are not really serving yourself.
>>2392723you can define the colour red by specific quantities on the RGB scale though. everything has a definition.
>>2392726but you hopefully agree that an essentialist proposition like sexed brains is ridiculous, right?
>>2392722this actually makes sense and would explain the discrepency with other anglosphere countries
>>2392712fair but the US e.g. has at least as many middle class mini-hitlers who love bashing down and DEFINITELY hates materialism much more
>>2392734so you are separating between man and nature?
boring metaphysics 😴
>>2392737620-750 nanometers is the typical gradient
>>2392731>but you hopefully agree that an essentialist proposition like sexed brains is ridiculous, right?I'm against essentialism in all its forms. it's actually what for a minute turned me off of the trans stuff when it entered the mainstream discourse, despite knowing trans people all my life, because of that - thankfully short lived - era of 'lady brains'.
Ironically it was initially radical feminists, gender critical types which landed me at this position against gender essentialism and the project of deconstructing gender.
>>2392744>so you are separating between man and nature?I’m not, I’m simply pointing out that RGB scales are a man made abstraction and cant really be used to define colours. It would be like saying that a woman is someone who wears a skirt. Skirts are a man made thing and on their own dont mean anything so they can’t be used to define genders.
When you look at the colour red, you don’t think about the RGB values of it, you just recognise it as red subconsciously because you’ve seen the colour red before and know the word for it.
>>2392788All the antitrans stuff, especially the stuff that comes more out of the US culture-war sphere is simply rehashed anti-gay stuff.
Much like that stuff it stops holding weight with normal people when they know, and many already do, an out gay person or a trans person or two.
>>2392991Why does /leftybritpol/ stan Cromwell.
He's reviled in Ireland, so what did he do to make up for it?
>>2393189Yet, 18 is too young for guns, smoke, and booze.
Yet you're expected to get full criminal responsibility
And fight in war
>>2392403You cannot change your mind about student loan debt either fucking retard.
That's far more irreversible than puberty blockers.
Puberty blockers aren't even permanent.
Although your body may not be exactly the same way as before.
>>2392641This is a dumb question.
>>2393186I like how people get upset about giving you ger people any form of rights but have no problem taking away any natural freedom of childhood
At sixteen you're already criminally responsible.
You're expected to have a at least a part time job.
Yet, we live in a time where the arbitration of adulthood doesn't align with the reality.
We see more adults who don't work nor pay taxes nor have any survival skills nowadays
And we have third world kids who work like racehorses for mere pennies.
>>2392327I remember when US Democrats suggested this in 2016 with Hillary Clintons rising approval rating and 4chan flipped the fuck out about it.
>>2393304Voting doesn't do shit to get in with
A lot of votes are really just for incentivising preplanned agendas.
Even if voting age dropped to fifteen, it wouldn't really change the political climate that much.
Anyone who thinks otherwise is just juvenoic boomer
>>2393704
you are the one who is claiming it is aesthetics. I am the one who would point out that changing one's physical body, in particularly the secondary sex characteristics we use to actually socially classify someone (you do not analyze brain structure before deciding whether to call someone Sir, brain structure changes over time, blah blah blah), is in fact affecting a material change. But let's not dwell on this: it is boring, you could have this argument with anyone.
>Because the vast majority of Normies are
This is an output of a massive anti-transgender media campaign, not an organic and stable opinion. In 2020 the public supported being able to legally change your gender, in 2024 they did not. In 2020 the Tories were polling 50+%, in 2024 Labour were ahead. I'm sure you'll have the comfortable answer that it's because le transhumanists "pushed too far", but it's not even true: Boris Johnson had no intention of liberalizing the GRA, there was no pushing to speak of, and he was out before Sunak opportunistically vetoed the Scottish GRA reforms in the hopes that a culture war could save him from the wrath of the press.
The purported legislative nightmare has emerged in no other country. Only the US stands out for any high-profile rollback. Most of the practical stuff discussed has literally nothing to do with legislation (for example: sex-segregation of bathrooms is social convention, if a man enters the women's restroom in a supermarket, that's a matter for the manager not for the law. it would only become a matter for the law if he refused to leave, trespassing on private property. "single sex spaces" do exist in law, but a bathroom isn't one of them: there's a reason they've got all those signs about how they may be cleaned by staff of either sex.) or is trivial to handle on a case-by-case basis. (this is already how we do things: who freaks out when a mother brings a male child into the women's restroom?)
>Pretty sure giving Trans people the exact same rights they had a few years ago and not super special unique rights, is not actually coming for me next.
They do not have the exact same rights they had a few years ago. From 2004 until 2024 your sex, for all legal purposes, was changed by obtaining a gender recognition certificate. This was the thing that justified vetoing the Scottish GRA reforms: It technically infringed on a reserved issue. (Legalizing gay marriage in Scotland also infringed on this issue, but that never comes up, even though it infringed in exactly the same way and the UK government actively facilitated the Scottish legislation. That's how the relationship between devolved and central administration is supposed to work.)
In 2024 the supreme court found that actually, a gender recognition certificate does nothing. You cannot, for legal purposes, change sex. Sorry, in the marginalia of the Equality Act 2010, they actually stripped away some rights. Tee hee. That door is closed. But conveniently, the Scottish legislation remains vetoed, even though it now affects nothing.
More practically still, the EHRC now puts out guidance telling private entities that it's unlawful to provide only gender neutral bathrooms, or that it's unlawful to allow transgender women into women's bathrooms, that it's unlawful to let transgender women into a bird watching group if you call it "women's bird watching", which simply is not true: this simply is not the law.
A government entity is lying about the law to transgender people's detriment. I cannot emphasize this enough - there is no law prohibiting you from giving something a name that implies it is a single-sex group and then allowing whoever you want in. (There's the opposite: protections in law allowing you to discriminate if your group is supposed to be a single sex group. You are allowed, not required.)
It is, to me, intuitively obvious how such a story - overwhelming bad-faith press hostility, a weaponized legal system, bad faith use of executive power, and outright official mendaciousness regarding the law - dovetails regardless of whether we're speaking of Palestine or of Transgender issues. It brings me no great trouble to build this into a general model of how a system of governance works. You, on the other hand, really do have to explain why the British political system, which is actively incapable of doing anything the public wants, seems to have gotten this one right. Answers on a postcard - not a green one, though, that might be construed as support for the loathsome, evil, proscribed terrorist group "Palestine Action".
>>2393731Pedantically, not really. What's really important to me is questions of power and the law. The rights of fishermen would be violated if
- in 2017 both major party leaders were vaguely committed to some form of simplfiying the process to get a permit to flyfish on public land, and public opinion was basically 50/50 on the matter.
- the press, speaking with one voice, launched a large anti-flyfishing campaign. while the american right seem fond of the issue, only in britain does the nominally center and center-left press join in.
- by 2022 both major party leaders were openly hostile to flyfishing.
- public celebrities announced their willingness to fund anti-flyfishing legal cases, and celebrities who spoke out against this were hounded back into line by the anti-flyfishing press
- the scottish government proposed new fishing permit legislation, and it was vetoed on the spurious grounds that it interfered with UK-wide issues. (plausible: they did this with bottle returns once the precedent was set) despite the fact that in 2010, the cameron government had facilitated similar changes to scottish fishing legislation.
- the supreme court found that actually, the fishing (advertising and promotion) act 2010 rendered the fishing permits act 2004 a dead letter, and it was no longer possible to obtain a permit to flyfish on public land.
- the law regarding fishing on private property is perfectly clear - you just need the owner's permission. nevertheless, the UK's fishing and meat council starts telling land owners that they're breaking the law if they let people engage in flyfishing on their land. this is simply not true, but when asked about some people allowing flyfishing, the PM tells them they'd better cut it out and follow the law. the law, again, says that this is perfectly legal: the fishing and meat council are lying. the PM is a lawyer and should know this.
It would certainly further arouse my suspicion if, for example, the home of "FishWell", a purportedly progressive and pro-fishing organization (which seems exclusively dedicated to anti-flyfishing campaigns and court cases) was clearly funded by American cranks who want all forms of hobby-fishing outlawed as contradictory to the bible, and shared an office with the taxpayers alliance, migration watch, and global warming denialists.
>>2393737>trans rights have nothing to do with legal identitycomplete bullshit, but lets continue
<anti-flyfishingyou havent specified the laws; thats your issue. what anti-trans laws have been pushed? what does it mean for power to be anti-trans? my perspective is that it includes the denial of one's self-preferred identity, but you deny this. what is anti-trans legislation then?
>>2393741I have spelled out repeatedly for you how the supreme court rendered a piece of legislation a dead letter, just as effectively as if parliament had passed a law repealing it. This is law.
What does it mean for power to be anti-flyfishing, to be anti-left? That is an interesting question. It is hard to pin down: I would summarize, very vaguely, that it is an inconsistency in how the rules are created, implemented, and enforced, which always tilts in one direction. It's like a selective gravity: gravity for Corbyn, but not for Johnson, gravity for Sunak, but not for Starmer. You can infer its presence by how difficult a time they're having, compared to what you would expect if they were being subject to the same forces. To take a historical example: Jeremy Corbyn's Labour? Institutionally antisemitic. Johnson's Tories? Not institutionally islamophobic. Keir Starmer's Labour? (once Corbyn's Labour, and therefore, we'd assume, with at least some legacy of antisemitism?) Not institutionally antisemitic.
What is the rule that gets you this result? I tell you: it is to ignore the purported issue, of prejudice, and to look at the end-goal: Fuck Corbyn, help Johnson. Help Starmer.
("Fuck Johnson" happened, yeah, but that was with partygate, and the same principles generalize. Johnson going to a party during lockdown was a resigning issue. Sunak, who had to be helped over Truss? Well, he got away with being
at the same party, didn't he?
What is the rule that gets you this result?)
>>2393746we need less yapping.
you mentioned the supreme court. this stated that womanhood is defined by biological sex, therefore denying trans women the identity of womanhood. the supreme court has a definition of womanhood; what would be your counter-definition?
>>2392732You seem to be a cowardly libshit afraid of illiberalism
You say "worse" but Britain is already facilitating a genocide, is now killing babies up til birth and passed laws for Euthanasia.
We already are in fascism.
You're just upset that this new bout of illiberalism will require class conflict and youre too obsessed with your creature comforts like a "nichean last man" that you'll defend liberalism to the last
>>2393748I will disappoint you and give my definition thus: The definition as it stood in law circa 2009.
This predates the EA2010 and with it, the sophistry of the court. The Gender Recognition Act 2004 remains in force, and as such:
>Where a full gender recognition certificate is issued to a person, the person’s gender becomes for all purposes the acquired gender (so that, if the acquired gender is the male gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a man and, if it is the female gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a woman).To say the court just said "womanhood is biological sex" is to glibly simplify a judgement you do not understand. So far as womanhood in law circa 2009 might be considered merely "biological sex", a holder of a GRC is held to share that sex for all purposes. You may think this irrational - it matters not,
it is the law, and it is the law that the court overturned through an interpretation of the Equality Act 2010 through frankly American feats of judicial activism and spurious interpretation. (Pissing all over parliamentary sovereignty while it did so, by-the-by.)
>>2393753and what qualifies one for a gender cerificate? to my knowledge; it is granted where one "lives" as their acquired gender for a period of time - how then, is this determined?
>EA2010so you would repeal the EA2010 to endure the precedence of the 2004 gender recognition act?
>>2393754Go read the legislation for yourself if you care. What am I, your law lecturer?
What I would do is irrelevant. You could give me complete legislative power and it wouldn't matter - with an executive and a court system in the same hands as today, not one of my edicts would be implemented.
The court's judgement on the contents of the EA2010 is fanciful, it owes more to wishful thinking than to the actual text or intent of the legislation.
>>2393758i was right about the GRC:
>Under current UK law, trans people applying for a Gender Recognition Certificate should provide: the completed form their original birth certificate their deed poll “Proof” that you’ve “lived in your acquired gender” for 2 years (this takes the form of your passport, driving licence, bills, payslips, other correspondence). 2 medical reports, one of which has to be a medical practitioner from the “approved list”. Please note that you may have to pay a fee for each medical report. A fee of £5https://transactual.org.uk/the-gender-recognition-act-2004/under "evidence" of the act, it states that you need a formal diagnosis of gender dysphoria:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/7/section/3>it doesnt matter what i would dorhen stop complaining, because a complaint suggests an alternative solution. your selective cynicism is quite irritating.
>the interpretation of the EA2010 is unfoundedthen sue them.
>>2393761I'm not at all selective in my cynicism. If you want me to put it as simply as possible: British public life is completely, utterly, irredeemably corrupt and false. If you attempt to understand anything as the normal operation of a functioning society, you will fail because nothing about this is normal. Why did the PM go from a landslide victory to the plausible elimination of his party as a going concern at the next election? Why has this happened
twice?
Ask yourself, plainly and simply: Do you think it is plausible that when they passed the EA2010, they were thinking "For the purposes of this act, the line
"for all purposes" in the GRA 2004 will not apply, but we won't write that into the EA2010 itself because it's just
so obvious that "for all purposes" doesn't really mean "for all purposes" here"? Does that seem, to you, a plausible idea? Does it seem plausible to you that it took a full 14 years for this ever-so-plausible interpretation to come up?
If it does not seem plausible to you, do you really believe the system that made this error would right itself were you to sue? Or is it a category error to speak of "error" at all - the purpose of the supreme court being not to do what the law says, but to deliver the outcome desired by those in power.
>>2393766>British public life is completely, utterly, irredeemably corrupt and falsetouch grass
>the purpose of the supreme court being not to do what the law says, but to deliver the outcome desired by those in powerso we arrive back at the original proposition. what are "trans rights", exactly? my position is that trans rights only amount to legal confirmation in one's self-identity. to have a gender identity entails both assignment and acquirement, which impress normative standards upon definitions. to have identity, therefore, is to at least have the terms of a definition in place. in the GRA 2004, this amounts to a "transsexual" notion of being legally sexed as the acquired gender (defining gender and sex in synonymity, no?) if we separate between gender and sex, the precedent is problematised therefore, yet we still grant the condition of transgender identity. what then, is this condition, as it should be legally recognised? you claim that we should simply pertain to the GRA 2004, and so gender identity should be termed by official diagnosis - one's legality should be in the judgement of health officials?
>>2393772You are talking about what should happen, I am talking about how power actually operates, how it has actually operated. I can take my model of British society and apply it to explain why the UK went through 5 prime ministers in 5 years, how a party wins less support than it got when it was wiped out in 2019, yet now dominates parliament. I can take it and explain Orgreave, Bloody Sunday, Hillsborough, to our unquestioning support of Israel or to why Peter Mandelson is our fucking Ambassador to the USA despite (perhaps thanks to!) being on Epstein's list.
Where does your line of questioning lead? From first principles: "Oh. Well none of that should have happened." Or perhaps not: perhaps you would put to me, on dry principle, that one shouldn't be disbarred from employment just because their name appeared in a little book? Is it really such a bad outcome? Maybe the system is working just fine, and I'm crazy to think that this is a deeply anomalous series of events even by the standards of bourgeois democracy, all papered over with some astoundingly incompetent consent manufacturing.
>>2393775all this yapping to avoid the question "what is a woman?"
the GRA2004 and EA2010 both define gender and sex as the same thing - a GRC then permits one to identify as the opposite gender/sex. there is no difference in law, youre right, because its operating as it should. the only difference is in the rhetoric, not precedent. if you have a GRC, then you can surely go into a ladies toilets.
>>2393781"What is a woman" is a boring question. I don't care.
A miserable pile of secrets. "How does Britain work, and why does it -
and it alone - work like this?" Now that's an interesting question. One that has failed to generate any interesting discussion, true, but it's an interesting question.
A GRC does no such thing, which is precisely why the court's decision is transparent nonsense. The court found that you are not a woman for EA2010 purposes even if you have a GRC, despite the legislation that created the GRC specifying that it makes you a woman for all purposes, and despite the EA2010 not explicitly stating, anywhere, that you were supposed to disregard that provision when interpreting it.
The court made it up.To bring up bathrooms merely confirms you've not paid attention to a single thing I've said. If you accept what institutions say, you are wrong: They cannot go into the ladies toilets. The interim EHRC guidance (which tells companies and government bodies how to comply with the EA2010) says that you
must prohibit trans women, with or without a GRC, from entering women's bathrooms. The law itself doesn't actually require this, but why should that get in their way?
>>2393787>"What is a woman" is a boring question. I don't care.then you have no place to speak on transgender topics
>The court found that you are not a woman for EA2010 purposes even if you have a GRCyes, but it still has continuity to the GRA2004
the separation between sex and identity has just become foregrounded by the contemporary context. we might then say that the shifting notion from "transsexual" to "transgender" is the decisive severance which affords this interpretation. if indeed, however, a GRC does legally change your sex, then the EA2010 is overruled on this motion, since a definition of "sex" is surely legally mandated.
>The law itself doesn't actually require this, but why should that get in their way?so we are not dealing with legal prohibition, just prejudice?
>>2393781The stupid thing about this is that theres lots of trans people who have had bottom surgery who don't have a GRS, so what facilities should they use?
In fact basically all the government and courts policies seem to totally ignore not just FtMs but anyone who has had surgery. Someone who's had surgery can't exactly use a urinal.
>>2394029The "left" is 99 percent cucks, libs and trots(cuck-libs)
<The big question raised by the grooming gangs is not that some men, especially in tightly knit communities, might seek to take advantage. It is how on earth such abuse went on for decades…
<The blight of the sustained and organised sexual abuse of vulnerable young white girls by gangs of British men of Pakistani origin has been a stain on many of our towns and cities.
<Why is it that over the years the response of local authorities and others charged with investigating this abuse, with some notable exceptions, has been to downplay it? It was done either by denying the problem exists, or by burying any investigation in such time-consuming and bureaucratic processes that the impetus to seek answers was stifled.
<Downplaying the abuse continues. In January, Oldham council requested government funding to enable it to re-examine historical claims of such abuse in its area, but safeguarding minister Jess Phillips refused. A rare unanimous vote of the council on 13 February rejected Phillips’s claim that local inquiries were best and called for a statutory judge-led review as it would have more powers.…
<British workers cannot expect the British state to remedy the situation of its own volition. It will offer regrets, excuses and apologies, but nothing more. We cannot allow cultural sensitivities to prevent the investigation and prosecution of criminal exploitation of children. Above all we need a change of ideology: put class interests first, don’t allow imposed ideas of “community” to obscure class needs and action to protect children.https://cpbml.org.uk/news/british-state-and-grooming-gangs >>2394070I don't know if leftists are keeping a pulse on the right wing, but they are escalating into a genocidal frenzy.
So far, the imperial supremacy of the West allowed fascism to be kept at bay for two reasons. One is the higher profits which allowed the working class to be bought out. Second is the need to appear "respectable" which gives the imperial country "legitimacy". Once both these are gone, there's nothing holding the ruling class back, nor will the ruling class hold back the reactionary masses as they have done so far.
>>2394104>I don't know if leftists are keeping a pulse on the right wing, but they are escalating into a genocidal frenzy.The far-right chuddery would have been more scary if they did it before 50% of under 20s were brown. Now it is pure Capeshit.
So far the only demographic they are being meaningfuly violent toward are transgenders, who are whiter and younger than the general western population.
The left don't care about this though, they mostly support it.
>>2393882I have called nearly a decade ago that some of the western elites will attempt to create a dalit cast out of transgenders to savegard the disgusting culture they created by scapeagoating them for civilization having turned this ugly way. Saint Augustine did this with the Gallus of Rome, Rome got terminally raped by stone cold germanic bvlls afterward regardless.
Of course trans people have nothing to do with the disgusting pond England have become but you need something to unify indegenous europeans and nu-europeans since jews, feminists and gays are off-limit now.
>>2393900Hopefuly they get mollested out of existence in the coming elections. "Anti-Racist LGBterf conservatism with free money for hedonistic boomers" is truly a civilizational abomination, worst of all worlds, full wokeness wasnt as bad. Even Hitler is better than this.
>>2393886In the view of the people pushing this shit: They should use no facilities. They shouldn't exist, or so far as they exist, they shouldn't exist in public life.
When it isn't publicly acceptable to say so, they'll say something silly instead: Why don't the super-powerful transactivists (who haven't even been able to get the NHS to
actually provide basic care) just lobby for
every public facility in the country to add separate transgender facilities at great expense? Yes, Add. Converting existing facilities to gender neutral ones wouldn't be satisfactory. People have an equality act protected right not to suffer a transgender entering their field of vision.
>>2394259I'm not sure if you mean eno or the wealth tax, but the wealth tax is a tax on assets as such, which includes the ability to upkeep and maintain ownership over the means of production. It's not really a clean one or the other. I think it would have a measurable effect on the power of the bourgeoisie. Although of course 2% is just a token amount.
But I'm interested in hearing what you think
>>2394104>I don't know if leftists are keeping a pulse on the right wing, but they are escalating into a genocidal frenzy.A few middle aged overweight pooftahs are making frantic tweets in between 12 cans of beer who think they've taken a red pill because Musks ai supports Hitlerism. If you keep track of Nick Griffin of BNP he routinely calls the right lazy fuckers who can't get off their couches.
>So far, the imperial supremacy of the West allowed fascism to be kept at bay for two reasons.We already live in fascism. Just the liberal fascism advocated by H G Wells and Bertrand Russel (which you can draw a straight line from to Kissinger/Brzinski to Wef/club of rome/Bilderberg/Scwhab/Harari today)
Britain is already enacting a eugenic genocide against babies and elderly with their eugenics laws and a lebensraum project in Palestine
>Second is the need to appear "respectable" which gives the imperial country "legitimacy".Yes. As has been written before fascism and Communism become popular at heightened class war. You're just saying you're afraid of class War and want your "end of history"
Too bad, fat cuck
You have to get off your couch, stop chronic masturbation and pick a side
>>2395669you get put under terrorism charges also
our virtuous free speech warriors are also silent on this outrage
>>2395789does this not prove that police are literal ZOGbots?
they will do fuck all if youre raped or robbed
but will swarm over you if you oppose israel
>>2395789for those not in the know about Sean Clerkin, he is the man who secretly controls Scottish Politics. Crazy, but True:
>2011>SNP are polling behind Scottish Labour in the run up to the next Holyrood election>They have one big disadvantage: their leader, Iain Grey, is a bit of a dork>Iain Grey is doing a stage-managed campaign event in Glasgow Central train station>Clerkin appears, ambushing Grey while loudly protesting public sector cuts>Grey and his staff retreat to the only place available>A Subway sandwich shop>This is already humiliating, but when interviewed about it afterwards Grey goes off on some bizarre tangent about having seen the killing fields of Cambodia>The SNP go on to win an unprecedented landslide, an outright majority under Holyrood's PR voting system.he then lay dormant (well actually, he tried to disrupt the baton relay for the commonwealth games, disrupt a 2015 labour event, reported david cameron for war crimes at the local police station, protested biscuit-millionaires funding the Tories, occupied the spanish consulate protesting their treatment of Catalonia, and got arrested for flying a banner that said "get england out of scotland" at edinburgh airport because apparently that's offensive.) until the 2020s, where he'd once again have a pivotal influence on Scottish politics.
>Wings Over Scotland, once a pro-independence site, has turned massively anti-SNP (partly for the good reason that they're clearly not trying to advance independence, partially because he's become a deranged TERF who imagines the SNP are captured by an obsession with trans rights, rather than dithering and stalling with a token reform that even Theresa May wanted back when they promised to do it)>Being an obsessive, he goes through the SNP's accounts and finds out that they've got less than £600,000 which is odd, because they're supposed to have a ring-fenced £600,000 independence fund from a prior fundraiser. There's a long back-and-forth about this including some nonsense (at one point it's claimed the money is "woven through the accounts" even though, in sum, you cannot add up to £600,000 cash on hand.)>There's a lot of detail, but the long and short of it is that Sean Clerkin reads the articles and reports this apparent fraud at his local police station>Most of Scotland's major journalists sneer when one outlet covers this to get an anti-SNP headline, since the details seem implausible ("man who is regularly in the news reads anti-SNP blog, tells police what he read")>Except>There's actually something to it>Nicola Sturgeon resigns suddenly even though she's in the midst of several PR-disasters that any sane person would wait out>Shortly afterwards she's taken in for police questioning, her husband (Peter Murrell, the former SNP chief executive) is arrested, and the police dig up her garden for some bizarre reason>She leaves her husband>SNP go through a succession of leaders and are currently flailing about on the brink of bankruptcy>Murrell is charged with embezzlement and is currently on trialHe brought down Scottish Labour, he brought down the SNP, and he might just bring down you if you're not careful…
An argument I have seen increasingly being put forward by rightoids is the notion that anti-zionist protests in this country are a product of recent muslim immigrant arrivals and their agitation. That the native brit has no inclination to anti-zionism, or hostility to Israel at all, and opposition to zionism is outside of the british character and our "values".
This line of argument ignores a series of events that have completely fallen out of the public consciousness and that for some reason, nobody ever talks about. So I will here:
In August 1947 anti-Jewish rioting swept across the country from London, to Hull, to Glasgow and Wales.
Hundreds of Jewish-owned properties were damaged and vandalised, a synagogue was burned to the ground, graves in Jewish cemeteries were desecrated and abattoir workers refused to handle kosher meat. The riots in Liverpool lasted for five days before the police managed to restore order. Henry James Cumberpatch, a cinema doorman from Northampton, took a revolver and used it to club a Jewish man in the street in a fit of anger. In Eccles, Lancashire, a crowd of 700 people were heard chanting "Hitler was right" as they hurled bricks through the windows of Jewish properties.
What was the cause of this disorder? In July of that year two young British army sergeants had been kidnapped by Irgun while walking back to their base from a coffee shop in Mandatory Palestine. A few weeks later, their bloodied bodies were found hanged from eucalyptus trees near Netanya. A booby trap mine was left by Irgun in the vicinity, which injured a soldier as he was cutting down the sergeants' corpses, the explosion totally disintegrated the body of 20 year old Sgt. Paice.
This event proved to be the straw which broke the camels back for the british population. Increasingly frustrated by the invaluable support the zionist cause was receiving from British Jews, paired with a government hesitant to act on the issue of zionist terrorism, the british people took direct action. Just as many are still doing today.
>>2396638They fold really easily here so #YourVoteMatters
>>2396644It's just Zionists trying it on and Brits being so philosemitic the other rightoids don't expend political capital calling them out. I think that the non-Jewish random retards constantly throwing in Gaza protests with whatever other societal ill stems from rTommeh and his followers. Immediately after Southport before the bodies were cold he was talking about it and elbowing Zionist interests in in a very distasteful manner, having a little kvetch about how Hamas have also taken over London.
Like if you know his game it just makes him detestable in a very unique and specific way.
>>2396616Committing political violence doesn't work in this country, you're thinking of Japan. Japan's ruling class have a strong survival instinct because they nearly lost everything in WW2, they would've been out if America demanded it. Britain's ruling class are infinitely confident because they have never seriously been threatened. The only "political violence" that would get results in this country would be
an American invasion.You can go back to the Peasants revolt if you like:
>You wretches detestable on land and sea: you who seek equality with lords are unworthy to live. Give this message to your colleagues: rustics you were, and rustics you are still; you will remain in bondage, not as before, but incomparably harsher. For as long as we live we will strive to suppress you, and your misery will be an example in the eyes of posterity. However, we will spare your lives if you remain faithful and loyal. Choose now which course you want to follow. >>2396644>An argument I have seen increasingly being put forward by rightoids is the notion that anti-zionist protests in this country are a product of recent muslim immigrant arrivals and their agitation. That the native brit has no inclination to anti-zionism, or hostility to Israel at all, and opposition to zionism is outside of the british character and our "values". It's actually backwards. The anti-muslim protests of the mid 00's were a product of Zionists in this country and their agitation.
Every accusation a confession.
>>2397052A theory I like is that Parliament and the Monarchy will face off against one another again as Britain declined, like how symbolic institutions in the USSR suddenly became really important sites of power struggle towards the end.
Instinctively, though I know it's "wrong", I would side with the monarchy over parliament. The parliamentarians are just so loathsome, even if in mechanical terms it's
more reactionary.
>>2397663Kek of course he did.
I would once again like to reference an earlier post I made in this thread
>>2392607 >>2397323it's called controlled opposition
but do tell me how it's all just a conspiracy theory
>>2392578>The intellectual level of conversation here is much higher than in USApolHard disagree on this one. Hot take, but USApol is more leftist then here. On any other given day, this thread is almost indistinguishable from liberal/conservative-liberal reddit or twitter, particularly once topics like immigration or transgenderism enter the discussion. At least in the USApol thread, anons are more then willing to shit on American chauvinism and the like, and disregard myopic views on the US state that would have them getting in bed with the bourgeoisie one way or the other. On the other hand, most people here are just disenfranchised socdems that would happily sell out one way or the other. Nearly everyone in the USApol thread would proudly say "Fuck the US" and mean it in the most thorough sense, but in contrast, it's not even a surprise to find anons in this thread lament about the "degradation" of British culture here because the crown has been reduced to "tourist attraction", as if the crown was ever worth preserving at all or was some gem of British culture
or that "British culture" was ever worth something to begin with for a communist.
>>2399103Agreed.
>>2399112I'll make sure to send my regards to the Normans.
>>2399123>You hate waffles, therefore you must love pancakes!!!/pol/yp tier reasoning. This shit is what I mean, I don't think there is a single general less leftist then this one. It's all socdems in denial who would sell communism out in a millisecond if they could get some kind of "based" labour party in power.
>>2399131well, recent protests concerned a foreigner who was charged with sexual assault against 3 young girls, so this was exceptional, considering that his first offence commenced only 8 days after arrival in the UK, showing extreme cultural disregard for norms and custom, especially where it regards treatment of children. statistical data may also allow us to interpret paryicular trends of similar crimes coming from similar backgrounds. men of other backgrounds may vary in probability as far as it concerns criminal behaviour. for example, roma people may be more likely to steal, while pakistanis more likely to rape. latin american immigrants dont make up a measurable quantity of UK statistics, so i cant comment on that.
now, of course, native citizens of the UK also have criminals elements, but in lesser proportion, which we may at least account for in the notion that they have been more heavily socialised (such as a mandatory sentence of 13 years schooling, which asylum seekers have no imperative to serve).
>>2399134if you dont like the thread, then stop posting in it.
>it's betraying communism to vote for a socdem* in a consequence-free election in a fake (not "bourgeois democracy" coke or pepsi fake, outright fake) managed democracysomeone is thinking of communism as a religion that requires your faith and loyalty, not a materialist philosophy where it doesn't matter one iota whether you "believe" so long as you
do *
corbyn/green/charitably-snp/plaid/irish nationalists. not labour, which - as a whole - hasn't been socdem since 1976 at the latest, even if an administrative fuckup briefly put a nice bloke in as leader for 5 years.>>2399219no shit, who cares. take your /r/socialism 101 act and shove it.
>>2399862>>2399863Intelligence has decided the Israelis have gone too far for whatever reason, I think. Maybe just because they prefer them being tempered with an actual thorn in their side in their core territory. Or that having both the nativists and muslims radicalising rapidly against the government and seeing each other as a secondary problem is probably not ideal. Or they're just losing the confidence of their own officers? Or Israel going on a South Africa tier rampage before collapse creating a bunch of refugees before becoming refugees themself won't improve the situation pretty much anywhere. Could be a mix of reasons.
Poorly formatted post award.
>>2399607your conception of socialism is both individualist and stupid, both linguistically and "scientifically"
it is clear that (say) the 2017 labour party program is not socialist. you can total up all the implications of its implementation and conclude that it would form a better base on which to build socialism (in the sense that, for example, artificial controls on union organization would be relaxed), that in this sense it
advances socialism without itself delivering socialism. that's one thing. to get very worked up over whether one man, specifically, is
really a socialist is stupid.
it means nothing to be "against" capitalism and class society inside your own head. i am "against" the existence of the treaty of union or the fact only yanks have been on the moon, it is of zero practical import because i don't do anything about it. it's a little feeling there: i don't like it,
so what? if you cannot call yourself a socialist because of this-or-that flaw in your conception of socialism, you certainly cannot call yourself a socialist if you've never
done anything. i will take this to excess: tony blair is more of a socialist than the average /leftybritpol/ poster. he completely and utterly fucked it, in the most charitable interpretation possible he aimed at right-wing social democracy in 1983 and wound up at Children of Men by 2005, but for fuck sakes he got out of bed every day and did something like the careerist swine he was. the least a socialist should be able to say is that he does the same, or that if he is sitting around rotating a fucking cube in his mind, he's doing so to figure out a practical plan of short term action (trade unions, tenant unions, blah blah blah) not contemplating whether women are bourgeois or whether we'll still have The Simpsons on Channel 4 after we gut the bourgeoisie and build a working class border fence from their entrails.
>>2399607This
>>2399193>>2399194>>2399206>>2399289What's funny is that I didn't even mention Corbyn, I just responded after an anon assumed that Corbyn was what I was talking about, by joking that he wasn't a socialist (because he's not) and that the point was that people here would unironically vote for even less then Corbyn. Anons here would simp for an unironic monarchist if they were tough on migrants and gave a few gibs along the way, maybe even less then that.
>>2400306>your conception of socialism is both individualist and stupid, both linguistically and "scientifically"It's literally the bare minimum to be a socialist, nothing that anon stated was incorrect.
>that in this sense it advances socialism without itself delivering socialism. that's one thing. to get very worked up over whether one man, specifically, is really a socialist is stupid. An anon stated Corbyn was a socialist. Another anon stated that he isn't a socialist, because he doesn't even meet the bare minimum of being one. The only people who got worked up by that were anons who for some reason took it personally that he isn't, or that a Marxist would use a Marxist definition for socialism.
>you cannot call yourself a socialist because of this-or-that flaw in your conception of socialism, you certainly cannot call yourself a socialist if you've never done anything. He's not a socialist not because of some flaw in conception, he's not a socialist because (in a marxist context, which the majority of us are) he meets none of the qualifications of being one. Whether or not the person stating that does anything politically means absolutely nothing in regards to that. This is some "Well, what are you doing?!?" handwaving.
>the least a socialist should be able to say is that he does the same, or that if he is sitting around rotating a fucking cube in his mind,Most Marxist theorists you can think of largely spent the majority of the their time rotating cubes and arguing. Am I going to state that was a good use of their time? No. But I'm not going to, for example, argue that Engels wasn't a communist because he spent more then half of his later life critiquing unions from afar, writing letters to Marx, and arguing with literal who's, just like I'm not going to argue that Giuseppe Garibaldi was a communist, despite doing an awful lot as a progressive bourgeoisie revolutionary.
>he's doing so to figure out a practical plan of short term action (trade unions, tenant unions, blah blah blah) not contemplating whether women are bourgeois or whether we'll still have The Simpsons on Channel 4 after we gut the bourgeoisie and build a working class border fence from their entrails.This I'll agree with, in the sense that it's dumb naval gazing.
>>2400320how do you "Ironically vote"?
you've also got a poor assessment of the demography of the thread in my view. for my part, i would condemn any MP who was openly "tough on migrants". i don't care what the actual policy is, but i cannot abide the rhetoric.
(because it's clearly an issue where public opinion is lead, not followed. a country with low immigration and pro-immigration sentiment is much better than the inverse, so doing that inverse is clearly doing it wrong.)
the fact there's 1-2 unironic GB news watchers ("how do you ironically watch" "well, with an awareness of its flaws and a detached, often humorous, perspective, rather than genuine enjoyment") doesn't dilute this
that much.
>>2400467as has been previously discussed, the interpretation of GRA2004 and EA2010 have the same definition of gender identity as a relation to sex - a GRC changes one's legal sex, so there is no legitimate grounds of discrimination. no trans rights have been violated or ammended. if i am wrong, i would like to see some evidence to the contrary, however.
>>2400471>>2400458both of you should stop whinging that youre being victimised.
>>2400474that's a lot of words to say "ireland's legal system has not collapsed and women in ireland have lost zero rights"
>Oh man, the British institutions haven't made breathing illegal, maybe that means Breathing is reactionary! what the fuck is this metaphor. come on man.
british institutions have made flying a palestine flag into Schrödinger's crime and you're here to tell me the only reason they might crack down on something else is 'american idpol'?
come on. as i'm sure you heard a lot on your school report card: MUST TRY HARDER.
you want to talk history, why not talk about the abundance of polling evidence showing that women have traditionally been more right-wing than men in Britain? (nowadays they're not, but young women are also the most pro-trans group…)
why not talk about how suffragists and suffragettes wanted to bring down the Liberal government that was passing pro-working-class reforms, even though the only logical alternative was a Tory government opposed to those reforms
Or why not talk about how women's suffrage was only finally, cynically advanced to counterbalance the introduction of universal male suffrage?
You can either appeal to Britain's proud middle-class white feminist traditions, or you can appeal to class-conflict and materialism, but you can't have it both ways by classwashing the past.
>>2400478>>2400479the supreme court ruling found the opposite of this. a GRC does not change one's legal sex for the purposes of the EA2010. it
should and until the ruling it
did for example, in using an all-woman shortlist to select election candidates, or members of a public board, you can claim it's a proportionate means to the legitimate end of ensuring sex-balance, but you can
only claim this if you don't let trans women run on the list, because for the purposes of this act the GRC means nothing and their sex is 'male'. the supreme court case was directly about the question of whether the scottish government is allowed to appoint trans women to board spaces reserved for women under the EA2010. (ironically, the easiest way to implement this, given the mess around asking if someone has a GRC, is to just not reserve any places for women or use all women shortlists at all…)
that this is transparently contrary to the intention of both pieces of legislation is why the supreme court ruling is clearly bollocks cooked up to save Sir Keir the trouble of legislating.
>>2400485>suffragetteslesbians back then and today have always been right-wing. here is a famous female british fascist that was accused of lesbianism:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotha_Lintorn-Orman>the supreme court ruling found the opposite of this. a GRC does not change one's legal sex for the purposes of the EA2010. it should and until the ruling it did are there any cases of discrimination enforced under this justification, or is it just an advisory condition?
>>2400489>The idea that you can fully transition to another sex, based on literally just hormones or surgery, is clearly nonsense.the way its typically understood is that one "socially" transitions; they dont biologically transition. sex is not just a biological category, but a legal category as well.
>>2400508Are AIF directly affiliated? I thought they supported them through ILPS.
But yeah I agree that a proper party needs to be built. The issue Maoists have is that they are purely internationalist and fall into that critique of the New Left of not doing anything for workers where they are.
>>2400577Ok i do think you are being obtuse thoughbeit
Like think about it for a second. Do you think second wave feminists like Solanas, Dworkin, etc can talk about "revolutionary feminism" or feminist resistance if every man can just transition into a woman. What does *being* a woman even mean then? Its like how the early modern monarchy selling noble titles to the emerging bourgeoisie makes nobility worthless since now everyone can be a noble
I support this btw since im a gender accelerationist and i think the man woman dialectic will be replaced by humans vs AI but its is dishonest to say that terfs have no point. They have a point albeit one that is very misguided
the NPCC has released a report (attached file):
https://www.npcc.police.uk/our-work/police-race-action-plan/that the police exhibit racist attitudes toward ethnic minorities, but in particular, against black people - this is recorded by disproportionate criminal charges, which are verified by government statistics:
https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk/crime-justice-and-the-law/policing/number-of-arrests/latest/>in the year ending 31 March 2023, there were 668,979 arrests in England and Wales – up by over 14,000 compared with the previous yearblack people were 2.2 times as likely to be arrested as white people – there were 20.4 arrests for every 1,000 black people, and 9.4 for every 1,000 white people.in the report, it is said that anti-racist protocols will be taken, including the reduction of policing of "black communities" (do "white communities" exist in britain, i wonder?) by partaking in community action. further disproportionate statistics noted are the rates of homocide against black people being 6 times higher than whites, which can be verified in part:
https://news.sky.com/story/black-murder-victims-and-suspects-london-v-uk-11443656>Almost half of murder victims - as well as suspects - were black despite the ethnic group accounting for just 13% of London's population.this phenomena appears to be self-inflicted however, so the only racism in place would be internalised racism. if we follow from empirical trends then, we see how disproportionate charges must be granted from disproportionate criminal activity. does racism then cause black people to kill each other, and how do we resolve this issue by anti-racist protocols?
>>2400588Most TERFs have never read any of those people, nor is current UK government policy informed by such people. I will apologize for being too lazy to go into an extended discussion, but here's a summary:
Manhood and womanhood are social categories overlaid imperfectly onto people based, in practice, mostly on their secondary sex characteristics and social presentation. This system and many of its assumptions have long since become economically outmoded (thank you birth control and pensions!), and so far as the attack on transgender people represents an attempt to retain or restore it, it's an ominous sign.
(Less vaguely: If we're going to cut or close off immigration and take advantage of "China's 'demographic crisis'", we're going to have to do something about the fact our total fertility rate is less than 2 kids per woman… What, you thought we were re-affirming the importance of "woman" as a
biological category to protect them within some kind of liberal rights-based individual-choice framework? Ha-ha-ha.)
>>2400618Why do you invent such sick fictional scenarios all the time? What the fuck is wrong with you?
This shit literally never happens. If a man wants to abuse a woman he doesn't have to crossdress. LGBT people don't get aroused from children going into bathrooms.
In fact the government released guidance caving to your position saying trans people are banned from public facilities despite no evidence supporting any risk from trans people just fucking existing and having to pee like everyone else.
Fuck off you fascist TERF freak.
>>2400625This is a leftst site not a communist site, idk how many times you've been told this.
Honestly any reasonable autist would have moved on from this hyper-fixation already.
>>2400615I don't think you really read my response man. I don't even pretend that all transwomen are pervert rapists or something.
What i'm saying is that terfs do have a coherent reason to be anti trans. Because feminism and fighting patriarchy loses all meaning if the patriarch can just transition to a woman! I don't talk about "soccer fan resistance to capitalism" even though i am a soccer fan because everybody can be a soccer fan. Its not somehing that is essentially locked to my personhood.
Gender transitions essentially turned genders into fanclubs. Being a woman will have the same quality as being a Liverpool fan or a Gooner. Everyone can be a woman just from a simple operation.
I'm not bothered by this again, i've made a thread about this. But for TERFs whose entire life is defined by their gender, who constantly write articles like "the divine feminime and how the vagina subverts patriarchy" or some shit this de-essentiallizing of their primary identity gotta be painful for them
>>2400629I use 'TERF' in the more colloquial sense of 'anti-Trans', not the original sense of anti-trans radfem. For brevity, I cut what you might consider to be the bulk of my engagement with your line of thought. Roughly that: I think you're too casual with how difficult, socially and physically, transition is. "Every man could just become a woman, and every woman a man!" may technically be true, but it means nothing in practice because hardly any
want to. Pretty much every man and woman could bite a rock today, but dentists can sleep easy knowing they won't. Economics, not trans people, are the driving factor behind the declining practical relevance of sex or gender, and some pretty terrifying economics are taking place if that process is going into reverse.
I can accept academically that Radfems may have a coherent (if stupid) reason to be anti-trans, but they're basically irrelevant. They are to this issue as /leftybritpol/ is to political life. Keir Starmer is not a radical feminist and he is not manipulating administrative processes to protect the divine feminine vagina from the patriarchy. He is the patriarchy.
>>2400670You vill buy ze rug
Velcom to ze new board order!
>>2400673There's no actual way to tell when you've defeated the patriarchy so we could have a woman PM with an all woman cabinet closing down every woman's prison and offering emotional labour reparations to every woman paid for by men, and there would still be bitching about the patriarchy because the individual complaining personally hasn't grifted a promotion out of it yet
>>2400631>anti-LGBT idpolas far as i can see, he is only against the Ts
>racismwell, he is right, that most rap music is literally about glorifying crime; the contention is whether this form of fantasy leads to crime itself - i dont think so, since if someone plays violent games or watches violent movies, this doesnt "cause" them to be violent.
>nazihe is just an ML
>>2400673>>2400680the fact that cynical grifters use feminism as a means to advance their own careers doesn't mean patriarchy doesn't exist.
don't use that term if you don't want to, but there's an overarching structure of arbitrary social standards that both men and women are compared against and invariably found wanting. traditionally, this system has prioritized a certain kind of male dickhead. as of late, it's found that it's easier to let some women get in on the grift than it is to redistribute power more widely, but generally speaking it still spreads a load of bollocks to men and women so that they're both perpetually miserable and perpetually comparing themselves against an impossible standard.
that set of standards, call it what you will, should be smashed.
>>2400637i am the pro-lgbt, anti-migrant poster, just to clarify
there is the CCP anon, who is anti-T, anti-migrant
then there is the other fella who is a right-winger
>>2400699Patriarchy stopped existing around the time make primogeniture stopped being a thing. Women have all property rights, favored status in civil society, a greater share of professional positions, and in all respects mainstream society is feminist and feminized. That's just a fact that anyone with their head screwed on right can see about the legal and political system presented to the general public. Without acknowledging secret societies you wouldn't be able to see any boys club, and most of what the boys club does is arrange marriages with female support. Before long an objective view would see males as a despised and oppressed class, save for the few favored who will be ounumbered and out connived by rising women. We would start asking if there is actually a matriarchy controlling male promotion in society.
But I don't care about that. The real fate is that most of humanity has no future and the true ruling power will be an ever shrinking group of high elites that can rule in open despotism. If the despot is a girlboss that doesn't really change anything that matters
>>2400689It's basically inertia, I think. You used to have obvious problems that neatly fit into the patriarchy theory like women couldn't have their own bank accounts when these movements were moulded into their contemporary form, but now all these people have grown up and they've not really got much else to do. What, they're going to go work the tills at Tesco, when there's a perfectly good political body to sit on looking for problems?
Like they're sat on all the committees basically just being radical misandrists at this point, doing their best to make life impossible for trans people (specifically mtf) and making sure young boys' lives are just endless fingerwagging and lectures, they're never doing this out of kindness. There's nobody that hates young women more than older women in my experience. They're constantly sabotaging them. Look at how livid the women LD MPs get when Lowe is going hard on the rape gangs. But of course it's all internalised misogyny - totally unfalsifiable. It's so easy to make a tails I win, heads you lose narrative out of it.
>>2400699There is no movement to smash these standards thoughever. Actually Existing Feminism wants female prisons abolished, trans people hounded out of public life for being born male, to never have any imbalance that favours them corrected, office cleaners to be paid the same as bin men, and every boy needs to be taken aside to watch Adolescence once a week
(obvious hyperbole on the last one) >>2400699what are these unreasonable expectations?
strength and beauty? two virtues that we should all strive for. you seem to be stuck in a 20th century discourse as well - its men who are wearing makeup and women going to the gym these days. things have changed; we are seeing a shift back toward a hellenic beauty standard (read: camille paglia).
>>2400564>Reminder that the CPC literally instituted a campaign to stop your Gender woo bullshit.They don't. But they do prescribe electric shock therapy to cure homosexuality and do not allow gay marriage/adoption. They are also against pedophilia and pederasty which is ancestral LGB culture and are therefore homophobic.
>>2400566The DDR was so keyed man.
>pro-trans>Stasis sending you to labor camp for being gay>Stasis sending you to labor camp for smuggling ZOGed radfem litterature>Stasis ruining your reputation and calling you a gay subversive for being a dissident chvdI heil Honecker uygha.
>>2400612The worst part is that his top guy (Kveir Störmer) as well as his political faction (Rowlingism) won but the UK is still becoming Northern Pakistan for striver cryptotard, rich boomers and impoverished proles. Labour is also being raped despite following his Extremely Popular ideology, all the euro communist parties that do the same are irrelevant boomer clubs. And you can still get HRT over the counter in CPC controled China.
It's grim for this guy.
>>2400603>I'm from another minority cultureAnd we WILL deport you to Rwanda.
>>2400729The absence of punctuation makes you look a bit schizo, but you're basically bang on. Once you realize just how widespread LaRouche weirdness is, you can't unsee it.
You can even go historically and see how the playbook works: A weird mix of perfectly plausible Keynesian economics, deranged social conservatism, and outright wacko shit once you're in too deep.
>>2400630Nonwhite diasporic in the west have to do performative anti-trans hatred to deflect from the fact they negatively impact the quality of life wherever they agreggate. In doing so they artificially prop up a mediatic landscape and culture where what defines you as a Good Westerner QuasiWhite is not being trans, that is all. You can be a gay brown criminal welfare recipent with AIDS as long as you Name The transhumanist you can be a fellow countryman, or so they wish.
But the same mindset animate the white liberal transphobe too as you noted, for different reasons. They know that society and culture is becoming pure garbage but their ideological fanaticism prevent them from naming the cause, so they have to go all in on the transsexuals as a sacrificial lamb for the failed enthropic babylon experiment they inflicted on the people. This is the core tenet of Rowlingism.
Hoping the jannies wont -ack me again for saying this, but it had to be repeated.
I am mixed race Normand/Walloon btw, i am not racist.
>>2400758He meant white liberals who are also pro trans not that the white liberal is anti trans as a whole.
But Keir Starmer, JK Rowling, Elon Musk, Barry Weiss ((())) and Donald Trump arent pro-trans, to give a few names.
>>2400777Idiotic. Anglos are the most transphilliac people along Germanics, actually. Only some east-asian ethnicities and ancient civilizations could compare. While brown people arent as transphobic as normies making them out to be, you don't find pro-trans fanaticism anywhere else but in people of western european stock.
Pretty much all modern trans adjacent surgeries, concepts and biotechnologies were invented by anglos, germanics, frenchmen or ashkenazi jews (euromutt with hebrew ancestry).
>>2400808>then what explains the levels of transphobia from anglos today?Do you think the average Anglo is more transphobic than the average Azeri, Algerian or Russian?
But there are many things that can influence the way certain demographics are perceived in time. Homosexuality and transgenderism wasnt always seen as a positive thing in ancient Greece and Rome depending on the era and location.
Currently, in the case of the Anglosphere, it is due to trans activists being very vindicative, sometimes straight up bad at optic, coupled with big donors giving infinite money to anti-trans causes to deflect from ethnic replacement, class warfare, zionist controlling government and economic issues. During the early 2010 they did the opposite by throwing money at pro-trans causes. People get stressed and angry at things.
>the vocal opponents of trans people are all anglos, as far as i can see.And the most vocal supporters are Anglo too. When i say people of western european stock are the most pro-trans, it doesnt mean anti-trans sentiments do not exist among them.
>>2400823>Do you think the average Anglo is more transphobic than the average Azeri, Algerian or Russian? yes, by far. those people are primarily homophobic, and their transphobia is incorporated into that homophobia - it's just a more aggressive version of being gay. britain, by contrast, comes up with all kinds of contrivances: it's bad to tolerate transgender people because then it's possible a FTM will call one of our beloved gays a bigot for not being attracted to his vagina. even when transphobia is clearly motivated in large part by sublimated homophobia, the very fact that sublimation is occurring speaks to the distinction in play here.
the vindictiveness of transgender activists has basically nothing to do with our cultural change, it's one of those stupid ex-post-facto excuses. you know this to be true when you hear about vile cybernats from the SNP or vile corbynite bully-boys on twitter. it is intuitively obvious that a wealthy english geriatric zionist who sees the entire world as a collection of caste systems would hate those causes even if their activists were the nicest, kindest people you'll ever meet. (Corbyn being the best test case here! If
Jeremy Corbyn is treated the way he is, punishment clearly isn't meted out according to how nasty you are…)
In the 70s and 80s they said being gay was unscientific, unnatural, a fad, a mental disorder, a perversion.
It didn't produce kids, it went against biology, against family values.
Your kids were at risk of becoming gay if they were exposed to gay people.
Gay people were a threat, predators, paedophiles, diseased, should be banned from bathrooms and changing rooms.
What we witness in Angloid countries today, especially the UK, is quite literally an almost identical repeat, only now it's about trans people.
It's funded entirely by far right, evangelical, American organisations and by a few deranged billionaires with an all-consuming obsession and hate for trans people for no obvious reason besides boredom.
This is then utilised as an idpol culture war issue by the right wing to distract from class issues and real problems the world faces.
I really have to wonder, since TERFs are mostly old enough to remember the wave of hate against gay people… how do they do the mental gymnastics to tell themselves it's somehow different this time they bash a gender/sexual minority group?
Or do they just simply not care and plan to move onto bashing gays once trans people are stripped from having rights and being in public life entirely?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6lgRRgbIMXQI hope all you n3groid savage loving woke far left Muslim paedo apologist cunts die of cancer. I can't wait until the next election when a nationalist party takes back control of Britain and machine guns all the monkey chimp ape boats on the beaches of Dover
P.S Palestine is getting fucked HAHAHAHAHAHA
>>2401243brits are more transphobic and homophobic than an ISIS militia, they're just kept in line by the law.
if it was legal to kill lgbt people in UK they would do it in the streets all the time. rape capital of the world btw
>>2401278Why do you need immigration to fill job shortages when there are educated and uneducated brits willing to do those jobs? Why do you hate your own people?
What skills do these immigrants offer that your own taxpayers do not?
>>2400994>how do they do the mental gymnastics to tell themselves it's somehow different this time they bash a gender/sexual minority group?It's actually very easy: The fact that they stood up for gay rights (most didn't, but a selective memory is a common human foible)
proves that this is different, that all those right-wing talking points are true, scientific, and socially progressive now. How could they, a progressive hero, be wrong about this?
>>2401271it was on channel 4 and was after watershed, so was permitted to be broadcast.
>>2401280asylum seekers are expensive and dont pay taxes
it doesnt even make basic economic sense
thats why the only justification is "spicy food", even though these people arent opening restaurants. pure cognitive dissonance from the apologists. there is literally no justification except a hatred of the UK, which you can eventually pry out of them.
>>2401275You have said the actual truth.
>>2401250You are delusional. It is also weird to shoehorn homophobia back into the debate when some anti-trans measures are done in the name of "protecting gay kids" (lol). I mean i have no doubt nu-brits are pretty homophobic, but it's the LGB and radfems problems now, they imported them massively after all.
>>2401638they really don't
https://www.gov.uk/asylum-support/what-youll-get>You’ll be given somewhere to live if you need it. This could be in a flat, house, hostel or bed and breakfast. You cannot choose where you live.>You’ll usually get £49.18 for each person in your household. This will help you pay for things you need like food, clothing and toiletries.>Your allowance will be loaded onto a debit card (ASPEN card) each week. >If your accommodation provides your meals you’ll get £9.95 for each person in your household instead.>You may get free National Health Service (NHS) healthcare, such as to see a doctor or get hospital treatment.plus you get an extra £5.25-9.50 a week if you've got a baby. wow, we're so generous!
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn01908/>As a general rule, asylum seekers are not allowed to work in the UK>People who have claimed asylum in the UK can apply for permission to work if they have been waiting 12 months for a decision, and they are not considered responsible for the delay.>If permission is granted, the person will be allowed to take up jobs on the immigration salary list only. There are 23 jobs on the list, many of them quite specialised, although social care and some skilled trades are included. so: you get £50 a week to live in a travelodge without a kitchen and you're not allowed to work unless you're - and this really is on the list - lucky enough to be (say) a chemical scientist with a background in the nuclear industry
and to have been housed in a travelodge
in scotland. the ONS says
food alone costs the average household £71 a week, before you get into clothes, toiletries, or transport.
>>2401645>>As a general rule, asylum seekers are not allowed to work in the UKTotally unenforced
Fuck off retard
>>2401623james o brien read a letter that someone sent in. it said their wife grew up in north london and went to a 'Shabbat school', and was taught that 1000 arab lives were not worth saving 1 life.
he did the usual thing where both sides teach bad things to their kids and bla bla…. but apparently it was picked up because 'shabat school' doesnt exist and its a anti semitic canadard. and its anti-Semitic to suggest such things are taught in schools in britain.
idk, but some jewish person on twitter confirmed they were taught the same in north london.
>>2401647>UK government arrange the law so an asylum seeker can be infinitely abused by an employer>this is the asylum seeker's fault>if they're deported for not following the rules that's their fault toodid you know that until 2002 they were allowed to work? isn't it weird how Tony Blair, who clearly never balked at high immigration numbers, nevertheless loved to treat refugees like shit? isn't it weird how the rights of refugees and the rights of the british citizen have fallen in tandem? almost as though both are seen as a scum underclass by the people who're actually running the show?
but then it's a repeated pattern, isn't it?
>government doesn't build (and practically banned councils from building) any council housing>government doesn't invest in any specialized accommodation for asylum seekers>government winds up putting them in hotels because fuck you've got to put them somewhere>infinite wailing headlines about how these BASTARDS get to live in the luxury of the HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS BRADFORD on TAXPAYERS MONEY>government gets newspaper approval for promising to CRACK DOWN on the BASTARDS exploiting our GENEROUS country >>2401645>asylum seekers get free housing and free money<£50/week per person, with additional benefits of up to £10 extra per week. if you are pregnant, you can get an extra payment of £300 (luckily the vast majority of asylum seekers are young men, not pregnant women).https://www.gov.uk/asylum-support/what-youll-get>wow, we're so generous! yes, we are generous you fucking imbecile. we give away billions to foreigners and you still complain on their behalf. how much is enough in your mind? how much more should it cost britain?
>As a general rule, asylum seekers are not allowed to work in the UKtake a look at the myriad of electric bikes outside migrant hotels and the nationality of your deliveroo driver to see how theyre "not allowed" to work.
>the ONS says food alone costs the average household £71 a week, before you get into clothes, toiletries, or transport.luckily its £50 PER PERSON, not per household, eh? and you really think these people are starving in comparison to citizens? how much extra money does the average citizen have each week? and in any case, why do these people get free housing while we still have rough sleepers? doesnt seem to make sense.
>>2401653>theres a class war, so youre not allowed to resist uncultivated foreigners taking over your townshere's a compromise - all foreign criminals should be deported, no? (1 in 100 asylum seekers) we arrest people for opposing genocide in israel and people making offensive tweets, yet we cant arrest knife-wielding criminals who attack police officers?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/04/30/small-boat-migrant-spared-jail-punching-female-police-offic/>A small boat migrant who repeatedly punched two female police officers has been spared jail.explanation? why do they have preferential treatment over british citizens?
>>2401657you're not reading the (basically irrelevant) £300 payment as
weekly instead of one-off, are you?
anyway, it's not generous at all. it may pass you by that it
isn't enough to live on, according to the government's own statistics, and - for a real howler -
it comes out of the foreign aid budget. the cost in 2024 was £2.8 billion, which is a blowout caused mostly by fucking up and having to shove people in hotels at huge cost.
now in public spending terms, £2.8bn's nothing: the government once blew £10bn on an NHS IT system that didn't work. but you know what? i'll take it. here's my compromise, here's how much is "enough": fix the operational budget at £2.8bn, make a one-off investment in facilities to actually house people, allow them to work, and put every penny you save from scrapping the hotel policy into the pockets of a refugee. boom.
>how much extra money does the average citizen have each week? after all expenses, the average household saves £237 and the mean household saves £76. (this undercounts "extra money" because it only takes account of savings, not money wasted on useless crap.)
>>2401659he evidentially was arrested if he went to court, dummy.
explanation?
the jails are full, what more explanation do you need?
>>2401662your mix of american imageboard brainworms with british facebook boomer typing habits is a sight to behold.
>>2401665thank god you've got… the daily telegraph, to help you stand up against the machinations of the british security state. thank god for our allies in… the british press?
>>2401667>jails are fullthe police make 30 arrests a day for social media posts and the courts have decided to remove juries to increase processing. they are still imprisoning people, but turn a blind eye to violent crime committed by foreigners. if you actually skimmed the news story, the verdict of the judge is that the 21 year old violent offender is not "fully formed", so lacks legal responsibility. tell me this, if a 21 year old briton punched 2 female police officers after being found with a deadly weapon, would he go to jail? its two-tier justice. to me, this is unfair and unequal. what do you think?
>£50/week per person isnt enough to live onthen how are they still alive?
the average (not even median) household spending on food and drink is ~£63
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/personalandhouseholdfinances/expenditure/bulletins/familyspendingintheuk/april2022tomarch2023>Despite a nominal increase in weekly food and non-alcoholic drink expenditure of £1.30 (2%) across all UK households, this was a real-terms decrease of £7.50 (11%) a week to £63.50, with the largest contributor being a reduction in spending on meat products (£1.80, 13%).yet only 4% of adults report food shortages:
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/inflationandpriceindices/articles/costoflivinginsights/food>around 1 in 25 adults (4%) have reported that their household had run out of food and could not afford to buy more in the past two weeksyou need to post the source of your statistics.
and further, not all households for asylum seekers are single-person. last year there were apparently 23k dependants, so thats extra heads for the £50 benefit.
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/immigration-system-statistics-year-ending-september-2024/how-many-people-claim-asylum-in-the-uk>An asylum claim may relate to more than one person, if the main applicant has family members (‘dependants’) who are included in the same claim.>99,790 people claimed asylum in the UK in the year ending September 2024, which was 1% more than in the year ending September 2023. Of these, 77,066 were main applicants and 22,724 were dependants.no statistics are available on the average size of asylum seeker households unfortunately.
>having to shove people in hotels at huge cost.oh, the horror! free hotel rooms for people who have no legitimate right of stay, all while citizens are on the street. you cant seem to explain this disparity, though.
>the government wastes billions all the time, so its fineno it isnt
>fix the budget at £2.8B and keep giving them gibsno. what we should do is hold processing and living facilities offshore, on one of our islands. a sst term will be given for temporary holding, after which we will see if the country of origin is secure. if it is, they get sent back. they have come for safety, not luxury, right? but you never seemed to agree with my compromise to deport foreign rapists and violent offenders, so that says everything about your character, doesnt it?
have you guys got your gooning licenses ready?
>The days of porn users ticking a box to say they are 18 are meant to be over.From Friday, websites operating in the UK with pornographic content must "robustly" agecheck users.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1k81lj8nvpo>>2401754BREAKING:
POLLS REVEAL DECLINE IN SUPPORT FOR STARMER AFTER HE LOSES THE GOONER VOTE
>>2401754Oh no, petit-booj might get proletarianised? TERRIFYING! IT'S FINISHED!!
Lol. Lmao even. Might go as far as a rofl.
Everyone make sure to send your passports into Keir to make sure you can continue posting.
>>2401708If I knew anything about investing I'd be going all in on VPN companies right about now. About to have a whole lot of new users.
>>2402271so……
there is no party, yet?? 🤣🤣🤣
i knew this grift wasnt over
>>2402193>According to Ofcom, Can't believe this is what OFCOM are spending their time on rather than regulating youtube.
Absolute state. lot of those suit cunts want hanging.
>>2402468So are they going to email everyone then have a big consultation process boiled down to a conference?
How's that gonna work because i assume all the trot orgs are going to enter.
So long to the Revolutionary Communist Party, i guess. I wonder what they'll call their faction.
>>2402475>Trots trying to spliner as perDohohoho.
It's literally just a mailing list to sign up your interest. Add your deets if you wanna stir up shit.
Unique IPs: 170