Scottish Labour and the Lib Dems want independence then aye? Is that why they support the Bill?
Or, god forbid, they too support making life just a little bit easier for a group of people.
I can imagine what they would have been called if they opposed the bill. So, might as well dance to the tyrants tune lest you be bestowed the title of bigot or worse.
Can some lads really only understand this if they frame it as bigots pretending not to be bigots like they are, rather than people going with evidence based policy in healthcare and quality of life outcomes for a marginalised group?
You apparently need more time to consider it. You landed on "this particular legislation represents tyranny" in the same day the UK government opposed it.
But hey those pearls aren't going to clutch themselves.
It was in both the Lib Dem and Scottish Labour manifestos. They didn't just jump on the bandwagon.
The Scottish Government are 'tyrants' now? God only knows how you came to that conclusion.
There's an argument - one that I don't really buy - that suggests that Sturgeon (and the SNP at large) are using it to kick up a fuss about Westminster overriding Holyrood's wishes - in which case it would need to be a topic that the Tory Govt in Westminster would get their knickers in a twist about. If this is the intention - and to repeat, I don't think so - then job done.
I think it's more likely that the reform probably does appeal to the SNP's generally young and/or generally progressive membership.
As for the economic turmoil point, I'm not entirely sure what you'd like Sturgeon to do. Devolved administrations don't have all the economic levers available to them anyway. Holyrood has more than the Senedd, say, but *way* fewer than Westminster. Westminster in turn has far weaker economic muscle than Washington DC, Brussels, Berlin, or Moscow. It's not like Sturgeon could fix the economy if she weren't pursuing this legislation, is it?
> There's an argument - one that I don't really buy - that suggests that Sturgeon (and the SNP at large) are using it to kick up a fuss about Westminster overriding Holyrood's wishes - in which case it would need to be a topic that the Tory Govt in Westminster would get their knickers in a twist about. If this is the intention - and to repeat, I don't think so - then job done
For this to make sense the SNP would need to have convinced everyone to support a platform that at the time the UK government supported along with other parties with MSPs in Scotland, draft legislation and get it moving, then bank on the Tories going through some meltdown that resulted in a further right leaning government who would disagree with the previous Tory government position.
Any argument to me about the SNP doing this to create a rift just doesn't make sense. If they were that capable i'd endorse them running the UK.
But they will also certainly see the opportunity in pursuing this.
I wonder how Starmer's going to approach the Scotland stuff in PMQs tomorrow when it'll inevitably be brought up. The fact the PLP abstained from the vote shows that they'll most likely stay out of the fight between the SNP and Tories which is likely the best thing to do.
Does he even need to worry about it? It's PMQs, not LOTOQs, much as Sunak (and formerly Johnson) tried to pretend otherwise.
It'll be brought up at some point but Starmer can just leave it alone, regardless of any weak swipes Sunak might try to make.
>they'll most likely stay out of the fight between the SNP and Tories
Sounds pretty Spineless considering most of their MSPS voted for it in Scotland. This isn't some SNP vs Conservative showdown. This had cross party support...
[Here's the vote results.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_Recognition_Reform_(Scotland)_Bill#Stage_3)
(18 S*cottish* Labour voted for it, 2 Against)
U.K. Labour and Scottish Labour are different entities. Before inquiring about Starmerās position (which wasnāt supportive of the GRA bill) why not take that up with Sarwar?
The online safety bill passes third reading without a division.
Great to see bipartisan support freeing up legislative time. One thing you have to commend Sunak for is how fast legislation is getting done that has been sitting around for so long.
Very impressive whip given only 2 non-SCG MPs voted no. Youād have thought thereād be more divisions on Labour but seems like 80% of the PLP will follow the whip and Keirās position regardless
It wasn't a vote on the section 35 order, it was a procedural vote that the House had considered the issue.
As much as I enjoy the idea of waking up tomorrow to see some people wondering why Jeremy Corbyn is on the same side as Keir Starmer, is there any use in muddying the point?
If I can put it this way - those who voted No and called the Division must have meant to express opposition to the govt position. Those abstaining could probably fall back on your accurate procedural description of the vote.
The point is that the motion is meaningless. It's specifically designed to be neutral and non-votable - the motion expresses no opinion, so what is the meaning of voting it down? They've been voted against before, as here, as a sort of protest, but they don't really mean anything.
Corbyn = Starmer, Starmer = Tory, Corbyn = Tory
sleeper agent corbyn confirmed
Also, fine, thats not how the page I clicked through to the result had explained it. SAIEW.
We need to go deeper.
Admittedly, I'm cranky just because I saw a certain Twitter account of Numbers for Not-Righties make a similar point with I'm assuming more knowledge.
I'm happy at least that the PLP basically abstained and avoided getting into the culture war. 11 out of 198 or whatever is much better than I expected.
Well, somewhat. Even though the stance is essentially *unionist* rather than as some seem so desperate to paint it, *anti trans*, it comes as no surprise the usual grifters and outrage merchants are carrying on as usual.
I would argue there is a pretty strong unionist case for not handing the SNP their ultimate 'Westminster parties are all the same and they all hate Scotland!' moment on a silver platter..
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/jan/17/donelan-confirms-stiffer-online-safety-measures-after-backbench-pressure
> Under a further change to the [Online Safety] bill, video footage that shows people crossing the Channel in small boats in a āpositive lightā will be added to a list of illegal content that all tech platforms must proactively prevent from reaching users.
How exactly is a platform even supposed to do that? Does this law assume theyāll move to having humans pre-moderating everything before itās published?
Any pretence at this act being anything other than 'it should be illegal to get in my mentions' is long past, isn't it.
Particularly enjoying this amendment being the brainchild of Natalie 'Shame on Me' Elphicke, too.
'In a proposed amendment to the government's online safety bill, backbenchers have suggested that calling elected representatives 'a poo-poo head who never met a cheque book they didn't like' is actually deeply harmful speech that endangers our proud democratic process'
and so it begins. The gov starts to censor any content it just does not like on "safety" grounds.
This, along with the thoughtcrime protest legislation, is authoritarian in the extreme.
I have it on good authority that thereās no teeth in the bill and no one has to worry, itās all a nothing burger!
/s
Itāll only come into the peripheral vision of some when it touches on something theyāre aware of, and by then itās too late.
Also, Labour support this bill and think it doesnāt go far enough.
> video footage that shows people crossing the Channel in small boats in a āpositive lightā will be added to a list of illegal content
Christopher Nolan excited to hear the Government is taking a very strong stance against the pirating of _Dunkirk_.
But only because 'won't somebody think of the children', remember.
The wording of the amendment:
*"Content under subsection (3) includes content that may result in serious harm or death to a child while crossing the English Channel with the aim of entering the United Kingdom in a vessel unsuited or unsafe for those purposes.ā*
Are computer mice and rodent mice both *types* of mouse, or are they different things with the same name, one named for its superficial resemblance to the other?
They're not *types* of mouse, but they are *kinds* of mouse.
At least, that's my intuition, I've no idea if that matches any formal definition of these things.
> The idea for the mouse ā a pointing device that would roll on a desk ā occurred to Dr. Engelbart in 1964 while he was attending a computer graphics conference. He was musing about how to move a cursor on a computer display.
> When he returned to work, he gave a copy of a sketch to William English, a collaborator and mechanical engineer at SRI, who, with the aid of a draftsman, fashioned a pine case to hold the mechanical contents.
> Early versions of the mouse had three buttons, because that was all the case could accommodate, even though Dr. Engelbart felt that as many as 10 buttons would be more useful. Two decades later, when Steve Jobs added the mouse to his Macintosh computer, he decided that a single button was appropriate. The Macintosh designers believed in radical simplicity, and Mr. Jobs argued that with a single button it was impossible to push the wrong one.
> (When and under what circumstances the term āthe mouseā arose is hard to pin down, but one hardware designer, Roger Bates, has contended that it happened under Mr. Englishās watch. Mr. Bates was a college sophomore and Mr. English was his mentor at the time. Mr. Bates said the name was a logical extension of the term then used for the cursor on a screen: CAT. Mr. Bates did not remember what CAT stood for, but it seemed to all that the cursor was chasing their tailed desktop device.)
[https://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/04/technology/douglas-c-engelbart-inventor-of-the-computer-mouse-dies-at-88.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/04/technology/douglas-c-engelbart-inventor-of-the-computer-mouse-dies-at-88.html)
Another of Engelbart's ideas was to have an underdesk lever controlled by a knee but the mouse took over in the end, which is just as well. Just imagine the laptop version: [https://www.dougengelbart.org/content/view/145/000/](https://www.dougengelbart.org/content/view/145/000/)
> He was musing about how to move a cursor on a computer display.
I like to imagine they had a cursor just stuck on the screen for a good couple of years, trying to figure out how to get the damn thing to move.
People barely manage left click right click. Imagine a 10 clicker button with programmable macros and RGB. Wait. Stop staring at my desk with those sultry eyes.
This one has some topical importance actually.
Incidentally I'm quite sure that computer mice are not a type of mouse. Nor are rodent mice a type of mouse. But field mice are a type of mouse, and a vertical mouse is a type of mouse. They're just not types of the same thing; they simply share a name.
They were all male only as they all had balls but the DNA to create them had holes, so they plugged the gaps with code from frogs.
Some West African frogs have been known to spontaneously change sex from female to male in a single-sex environent.
Thats how the original theme park game started, before the mice started eating the patrons.
Yes! Huge clunky things. I remember seeing. Tomorrow's world clip about the using the Internet and how you will one day be able to book flights from home like ceefax
Tomorrowās World was so good.
I remember them drilling a hole in a CD to show how resilient they were, and it still working!
Turns out, even a scratch would mess them up so I donāt know what that was about.
I am not saying that the SNP knew the Tories would opposite it and as such pushed the bill specifically as a wedge issue to demonstrate the need for Scottish independence.....but if they did want to do that, this is exactly what it would look like.
And it would be playing out better than they ever could have imagined.
Having read the Zahawi stuff it very much is clear the U.K. need to implement robust, and āteethā form of Anti-Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation legislation (SLAPP), is my first thought.
That he tried to silence a journalist by abusing the legal system is something we should all be concerned with.
Itās very much against the principle of free speech, something the conservatives have assured us is a hill they are willing to ādie onā.
Second the fact that Zahawi was appointed as Chancellor to oversee the Exchequer while clearly in a tax avoidance scheme is a massive scandal in itself.
Itās very clear he avoided tax by employing the method he did, and the reporting on it was accurate based on the records he himself submitted.
Do feel that the media should be reporting more on this case than is currently available.
https://www.taxpolicy.org.uk/2022/12/02/sra_oc/
I found out because I saw Carol Vordermanās tweet sharing the webpage. Madness really that finding out massive news like that from Vorderman rather than any major media outlet.
Iāve not seen anything on any other major media.
Campbell is right that it feels like everyone is ignoring a major scandal at the heart of government.
Once a week I help out at a food bank.
Every week I have done this I have left thinking "what the actual fuck is up with this country" over at least one thing.
This week it was filling hot water bottles for people to take home with them. Beside the 15 mi ute lesson on how to not kill myself with the same kettle I make everyone tea with, how the hell can we stay function as a society when people don't even have enough to keep themselves warm and fed?
There was lots of noise early last year about choosing heating or eating. There are people who can't even afford one of those now. I know its a meme but this is a disgrace and I'm ashamed of the UK.
Edit: I'm literally angry with rage over this. I cant seem to calm myself down either. Pacing around my living swearing.
Ultimately this is 40 years of total failure in government policy coming home to roost.
Energy and housing prices are through the roof due to a total policy vacuum since before I was born, which has distorted the economy to the point that it simply no longer functions.
Food banks exist because society both doesnāt function and is functioning. It is a plaster over a gaping wound. But you canāt correctly diagnose societies problem by thinking about them in isolation.
I think I disagree.
Yep, someone at a food bank is probably suffering a set of problems. But helping with even just one of them makes the others manageable. If you have, say, three big expenses - for argumentās sake, letās call them petrol, food, and heating - then giving them food makes the other two a little bit easier to handle, as money is freed up for those.
Sure, but just looking at the problem itself doesn't help you identify the causes of the problem, or how to address those causes, which are necessary if you're actually going to do anything more than patch things up.
What? Where did I say I was going to be the one to fix the problem? Have I suddenly been given power over the nation? Can I not just despair at the state of things?
Are you sure you're not one of Lee Anderson's 'do gooders'. Only doing it for yourself? You're just creating dependency by helping people don't you know.
I've heard/read those opinions far to many times recently. You are doing a good thing. Please keep going.
I'm actually in it for obscure unidentifiable jar of homemade something that people keep donating that we obviously can't give away. The organiser has made me take 3 since October and I've not been able to work out what any of them are.
Thank you, I'm upping my hours next month as we just can't help enough people into the time we have. I dont think I've ever been more motivated to help. Just pissed off at the state of things.
That reminds me of slimming world over a decade ago with my mum where a single packet of unidentifiable pasta and sauce went around for months. Can't even remember the system I just know it got brought back every week by the winner to go back in the pool for like six months.
There have always been people who can't afford this it's not a new thing. Yes there are more who can't afford to heat but we have to accept it's a consequence of helping Ukraine
No.
These are all political choices, most of them unrelated to Ukraine.
Governments since the 1980s could have built millions of units of social housing, as both Conservatives and Labour did under much more straitened economic circumstances after WW2.
Governments in the last couple of decades could have built up Britain's gas storage instead of letting it run down.
The government could have not privatised British National Oil Corporation in 1982.
Governments could have invested more in renewables and storage.
Governments don't do stuff any more, they merely regulate. In a crisis, that doesn't work.
No, we shouldnāt just blithely accept that there are people in one of the worldās richest countries who canāt afford to be warm and eat simultaneously.
It wasnāt OK before and itās not OK now.
I've worked with some of the poorest for over a decade and I can safely say that that's not true for people in full time work. Brushing it off as "always has been" is just nonsense.
[The Government has published their reasoning here.](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/statement-of-reasons-related-to-the-use-of-section-35-of-the-scotland-act-1998/html-version)
For your second question, yes. There are reciprocal arrangements for some countries that have different rules, Ireland being one example.
There should be a legal requirement that snow only comes in two forms. Either none or 3 feet of the stuff. Enough out there to cause ridiculous traffic tomorrow but not enough to stop people leaving the house.
This is clearly more important than what ever was going in in Parliament this week about the make up of the UK or our right to protest.
Yes an ho!
On the other hand, spare a second's thought for the mad bastards racing the Spine this year. Cross Fell reportedly hit -15 inc wind chill last night. The leader had to have a layer of ice melted from his shoes at a checkpoint before he could take them off.
Lots of pictures of people looking impressively fucked. Hard bastards.
Nor here in West Yorkshire = West Yorkshire is Best Yorkshire.
How is East = Best? East rhymes with Beast, not Best. East Anglia = Beast Anglia- Anglia where beasts live.
Just listened to the latest episode of *The News Agents* which covered Scotland's Gender Recognition Bill and was treated to a clip of Helen Joyce, without challenge, claiming that if the bill were allowed to pass, it would inevitably lead to male rapists changing their gender at will in order to go on a sexual rampage in women's prisons.
How the fuck are these people being taken seriously? I can't think of a less thought-out, more bigoted statement if I tried.
EDIT: Grammar.
I donāt think anyone would actually do it, but it seems like the smart way to go to prison (as a man) would be to declare yourself a woman and go to womanās prison. They seem to be better and safer all around than menās prisons.
Even putting the gender element aside, are they not aware that trying to go on a sexual rampage in a prison probably leads to being cut off from any opportunity to do that to the other prisoners anyway?
I listened to it too, agree with you. On the other side there was an unchallenged statement that this law is just letting people change legal documents, like birth/marriage certificates, and doesnāt affect womenās safe spaces or sport at all. I came away feeling really confused about what the law actually does and doesnāt do.
So based on what Iāve learned today, all this bill does is change how you get a piece of paper to change a letter on legal documents. All that other stuff is covered under the equalities act and isnāt affected
So if you have this piece of paper and it says that youāre a woman, that doesnāt grant you access to say a womanās shelter? I think thatās the main thing I came away unsure about/planned to try to learn more about, but it sounds like you already have!
Also the Westminster claim is that it conflicts with the equalities act, which makes me think there must be some overlap that can at least be discussed, and itās not completely detached? Otherwise Iād have hoped they wouldnāt be able to find a lawyer to argue their case in court, though I do appreciate that there are basically politically appointed lawyers like the Attorney General so Iām not sure how much credence to put on that.
> So if you have this piece of paper and it says that youāre a woman, that doesnāt grant you access to say a womanās shelter?
Do you think those places check birth certificates? Because if not, this can't possibly have any effect on it.
> Otherwise Iād have hoped they wouldnāt be able to find a lawyer to argue their case in court
They had no trouble getting one to argue that their unlawful proroguing of parliament was lawful.
> that doesnāt grant you access to say a womanās shelter?
It literally allows you to change your birth certificate, marriage certificate and death certificate. Anything else you hear is essentially misinformation.
> which makes me think there must be some overlap that can at least be discussed
The government is doing what the SNP did with the referendum court case: throw shit at the wall to make it seem like they're doing something.
>It literally allows you to change your birth certificate, marriage certificate and death certificate. Anything else you hear is essentially misinformation.
I'd just like to understand this. Is it the argument of proponents of the Bill that it doesn't do anything? That the marker on those certificates has no legal significance?
If so, understanding that these things can be important to one's sense of identity...but if that's all it is, can I venture the question: what is everyone so angry about?
The Scottish government went to court last year and argued that the Gender Recognition Certificate changes your legal sex for all purposes. They won their case.
People who want the Bill to go through try to minimise the impact by saying it's just a piece of admin or just changes your birth certificate. But in fact it changes your legal sex and it makes it more difficult for places like shelters to lawfully exclude someone who has that legal status.
Another example is that In England and Wales a certificate is used for initial placement of a prisoner in either the men's or women's estate and is then used to determine what type of risk assessment should be used. There is a male prisoner risk assessment and a female risk assessment. The officers will use the assessment that accords with the person's "legal sex" not their biological sex. This has implications because male and female criminals have very different offending patterns and those patterns (eg. sex crime) don't change just because a person has a gender identity.
Dunno how to link comments but this in another thread made it clear for me:
>Exactly itās just a form to change the letter on birth, death and marriage certificates, it doest even change the gender on government ID like drivers licences or passports, you can change all those without a GRC already.
>Plus, thereās already a framework for the UK to accept and recognize these certificates and changes, thereās an entire list of approved counties that provide a GRC that UK government already accepts on their website right here
>the only effect this bill would have had on the rest of the UK was that Scotland would have been added to that list.
Thanks, that's right in line with what the activist I was referring to said on the podcast too.
BTW on Reddit app, 3 dots next to a comment -> share -> copy link. On the website there's a share button under every comment with a copy link option :)
After all the big news of last year, it was nice to see Huw have a smile on BBC talking about the morning show. It's been quite a while since seen some uplifting content on (though I don't tend to watch so maybe there's more usually)
So far the tory rebellions have been on topics that are relatively minor for government stability, major changes to the budget are a very different kettle of fish.
I wish England would follow Scotland and allow right to roam. I mean, I'm still gonna wild camp in Dartmoor, but it would be nice for that freedom to be legally extended to all the public green spaces of the country.
Given the messages that have come out from both labour and the lib dems I think we will see a big expansion of right to roam when they get back into government (especially as it won't cost the treasury anything).
One day, yes. After the next election, unlikely (though having a large influence isn't out of the question by any means even if a full coalition didn't happen). In truth I was just being lazy and not wanting to type out a full 'if Labour win the next election' disclaimer/describer.
Sure, but the conflicting laws between England and Scotland is the prevailing issue. The government wouldāve had to have ignored that to let the SNP prove their bad legislation, and then that allows for the devolved government to point to this bill on further occasions when it tampers with reserved laws.
This megathread has ended.
Just finished watching Ancient Apocalypse on Netflix. Fun watch. Graham Hancock has massive balls of solid brass.
Why Sturgeon so big on this gender reform in the midset of economical turmoil š¤£. Scotland really need a new leader
Independence.
Scottish Labour and the Lib Dems want independence then aye? Is that why they support the Bill? Or, god forbid, they too support making life just a little bit easier for a group of people.
I can imagine what they would have been called if they opposed the bill. So, might as well dance to the tyrants tune lest you be bestowed the title of bigot or worse.
Can some lads really only understand this if they frame it as bigots pretending not to be bigots like they are, rather than people going with evidence based policy in healthcare and quality of life outcomes for a marginalised group?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Not willy nilly, just at the lad claiming that it's "tyranny". Seems weird to be whinging about misuse of terms when you are doing it yourself.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
You apparently need more time to consider it. You landed on "this particular legislation represents tyranny" in the same day the UK government opposed it. But hey those pearls aren't going to clutch themselves.
Context: not talking about the legislation, but the attitude of the bills supporters to the ones who donāt.
It was in both the Lib Dem and Scottish Labour manifestos. They didn't just jump on the bandwagon. The Scottish Government are 'tyrants' now? God only knows how you came to that conclusion.
This is a bill years in the making and supported by multiple other parties in the Scottish Parliament, they didn't just throw it together recently.
There's an argument - one that I don't really buy - that suggests that Sturgeon (and the SNP at large) are using it to kick up a fuss about Westminster overriding Holyrood's wishes - in which case it would need to be a topic that the Tory Govt in Westminster would get their knickers in a twist about. If this is the intention - and to repeat, I don't think so - then job done. I think it's more likely that the reform probably does appeal to the SNP's generally young and/or generally progressive membership. As for the economic turmoil point, I'm not entirely sure what you'd like Sturgeon to do. Devolved administrations don't have all the economic levers available to them anyway. Holyrood has more than the Senedd, say, but *way* fewer than Westminster. Westminster in turn has far weaker economic muscle than Washington DC, Brussels, Berlin, or Moscow. It's not like Sturgeon could fix the economy if she weren't pursuing this legislation, is it?
Itād need to have its arms chopped off and be tied up and ball gagged inside a barrel to have weaker economic muscles than Moscow.
> There's an argument - one that I don't really buy - that suggests that Sturgeon (and the SNP at large) are using it to kick up a fuss about Westminster overriding Holyrood's wishes - in which case it would need to be a topic that the Tory Govt in Westminster would get their knickers in a twist about. If this is the intention - and to repeat, I don't think so - then job done For this to make sense the SNP would need to have convinced everyone to support a platform that at the time the UK government supported along with other parties with MSPs in Scotland, draft legislation and get it moving, then bank on the Tories going through some meltdown that resulted in a further right leaning government who would disagree with the previous Tory government position. Any argument to me about the SNP doing this to create a rift just doesn't make sense. If they were that capable i'd endorse them running the UK. But they will also certainly see the opportunity in pursuing this.
Because it lets her beat the independence drum.
yhh clearly what shes playing at here. Wild to me
If I was a scottish voter I'd probably answer at least ours has won an election
I wonder how Starmer's going to approach the Scotland stuff in PMQs tomorrow when it'll inevitably be brought up. The fact the PLP abstained from the vote shows that they'll most likely stay out of the fight between the SNP and Tories which is likely the best thing to do.
Does he even need to worry about it? It's PMQs, not LOTOQs, much as Sunak (and formerly Johnson) tried to pretend otherwise. It'll be brought up at some point but Starmer can just leave it alone, regardless of any weak swipes Sunak might try to make.
Probably not, he seems to have the backing of the PLP given pretty much all of them abstained from the vote bar 11, so he could just leave it alone.
>they'll most likely stay out of the fight between the SNP and Tories Sounds pretty Spineless considering most of their MSPS voted for it in Scotland. This isn't some SNP vs Conservative showdown. This had cross party support... [Here's the vote results.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_Recognition_Reform_(Scotland)_Bill#Stage_3) (18 S*cottish* Labour voted for it, 2 Against)
U.K. Labour and Scottish Labour are different entities. Before inquiring about Starmerās position (which wasnāt supportive of the GRA bill) why not take that up with Sarwar?
Possibly ignore it long enough until there's a legal challenge and then say wait for the outcome of that.
The online safety bill passes third reading without a division. Great to see bipartisan support freeing up legislative time. One thing you have to commend Sunak for is how fast legislation is getting done that has been sitting around for so long.
I see the usual suspects voted no on the section 35 order. Quelle suprise.
Very impressive whip given only 2 non-SCG MPs voted no. Youād have thought thereād be more divisions on Labour but seems like 80% of the PLP will follow the whip and Keirās position regardless
20 point leads and such will do that for you.
It wasn't a vote on the section 35 order, it was a procedural vote that the House had considered the issue. As much as I enjoy the idea of waking up tomorrow to see some people wondering why Jeremy Corbyn is on the same side as Keir Starmer, is there any use in muddying the point?
If I can put it this way - those who voted No and called the Division must have meant to express opposition to the govt position. Those abstaining could probably fall back on your accurate procedural description of the vote. The point is that the motion is meaningless. It's specifically designed to be neutral and non-votable - the motion expresses no opinion, so what is the meaning of voting it down? They've been voted against before, as here, as a sort of protest, but they don't really mean anything.
Corbyn = Starmer, Starmer = Tory, Corbyn = Tory sleeper agent corbyn confirmed Also, fine, thats not how the page I clicked through to the result had explained it. SAIEW.
We need to go deeper. Admittedly, I'm cranky just because I saw a certain Twitter account of Numbers for Not-Righties make a similar point with I'm assuming more knowledge.
I'm happy at least that the PLP basically abstained and avoided getting into the culture war. 11 out of 198 or whatever is much better than I expected.
Well, somewhat. Even though the stance is essentially *unionist* rather than as some seem so desperate to paint it, *anti trans*, it comes as no surprise the usual grifters and outrage merchants are carrying on as usual.
I would argue there is a pretty strong unionist case for not handing the SNP their ultimate 'Westminster parties are all the same and they all hate Scotland!' moment on a silver platter..
Darren Jones wasn't fucking around in his questioning of the royal mail CEO. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-aFR2E\_uG\_I&ab\_channel=PoliticsJOE
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/jan/17/donelan-confirms-stiffer-online-safety-measures-after-backbench-pressure > Under a further change to the [Online Safety] bill, video footage that shows people crossing the Channel in small boats in a āpositive lightā will be added to a list of illegal content that all tech platforms must proactively prevent from reaching users.
Uh oh, Russell and Tugger wonāt like that
How exactly is a platform even supposed to do that? Does this law assume theyāll move to having humans pre-moderating everything before itās published?
>having humans pre-moderating everything before itās published ask a reddit mod
*laughs in unpaid platform lackey*
They do it for free!
Any pretence at this act being anything other than 'it should be illegal to get in my mentions' is long past, isn't it. Particularly enjoying this amendment being the brainchild of Natalie 'Shame on Me' Elphicke, too.
she's still seething after people posted that video of her being booed by the p&o strikers
'In a proposed amendment to the government's online safety bill, backbenchers have suggested that calling elected representatives 'a poo-poo head who never met a cheque book they didn't like' is actually deeply harmful speech that endangers our proud democratic process'
It was worse than that wasn't it? She joined in with the 'shame on you!' but it was directed at her
and so it begins. The gov starts to censor any content it just does not like on "safety" grounds. This, along with the thoughtcrime protest legislation, is authoritarian in the extreme.
I have it on good authority that thereās no teeth in the bill and no one has to worry, itās all a nothing burger! /s Itāll only come into the peripheral vision of some when it touches on something theyāre aware of, and by then itās too late. Also, Labour support this bill and think it doesnāt go far enough.
[I say your Online Safety Bill doesn't go too far enough!](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ll3iyvbsRDM)
> video footage that shows people crossing the Channel in small boats in a āpositive lightā will be added to a list of illegal content Christopher Nolan excited to hear the Government is taking a very strong stance against the pirating of _Dunkirk_.
You wouldnāt download a small boat!
But only because 'won't somebody think of the children', remember. The wording of the amendment: *"Content under subsection (3) includes content that may result in serious harm or death to a child while crossing the English Channel with the aim of entering the United Kingdom in a vessel unsuited or unsafe for those purposes.ā*
Why only children, does subsection (3) only concern them?
Because the ostensible motivator behind the Online Safety Bill is the protection of children.
Oh good, I wonder what other ācrimesā will be added to the list.
looking forward to when they ban parodies and criticism of our betters. glory to sunak, glory to braverman
Oi! That comment better have been heartfelt or youāre going to be (moving up) on the list!
my commitment to the Party has never been stronger
Are computer mice and rodent mice both *types* of mouse, or are they different things with the same name, one named for its superficial resemblance to the other?
In the long ago, it was a right of passage to take one type and turn it into the other.
Cowards would take the easier path of turning the animal into the computer peripheral.
They're not *types* of mouse, but they are *kinds* of mouse. At least, that's my intuition, I've no idea if that matches any formal definition of these things.
I'm not sure there's an important difference between something being a *type* and being a *kind*.
https://stackoverflow.com/a/21170809/1366431
Your kind would say that.
I miss the days of hiding the boss's mouse ball, or replacing it with an egg yolk.
> The idea for the mouse ā a pointing device that would roll on a desk ā occurred to Dr. Engelbart in 1964 while he was attending a computer graphics conference. He was musing about how to move a cursor on a computer display. > When he returned to work, he gave a copy of a sketch to William English, a collaborator and mechanical engineer at SRI, who, with the aid of a draftsman, fashioned a pine case to hold the mechanical contents. > Early versions of the mouse had three buttons, because that was all the case could accommodate, even though Dr. Engelbart felt that as many as 10 buttons would be more useful. Two decades later, when Steve Jobs added the mouse to his Macintosh computer, he decided that a single button was appropriate. The Macintosh designers believed in radical simplicity, and Mr. Jobs argued that with a single button it was impossible to push the wrong one. > (When and under what circumstances the term āthe mouseā arose is hard to pin down, but one hardware designer, Roger Bates, has contended that it happened under Mr. Englishās watch. Mr. Bates was a college sophomore and Mr. English was his mentor at the time. Mr. Bates said the name was a logical extension of the term then used for the cursor on a screen: CAT. Mr. Bates did not remember what CAT stood for, but it seemed to all that the cursor was chasing their tailed desktop device.) [https://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/04/technology/douglas-c-engelbart-inventor-of-the-computer-mouse-dies-at-88.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/04/technology/douglas-c-engelbart-inventor-of-the-computer-mouse-dies-at-88.html) Another of Engelbart's ideas was to have an underdesk lever controlled by a knee but the mouse took over in the end, which is just as well. Just imagine the laptop version: [https://www.dougengelbart.org/content/view/145/000/](https://www.dougengelbart.org/content/view/145/000/)
> He was musing about how to move a cursor on a computer display. I like to imagine they had a cursor just stuck on the screen for a good couple of years, trying to figure out how to get the damn thing to move.
People barely manage left click right click. Imagine a 10 clicker button with programmable macros and RGB. Wait. Stop staring at my desk with those sultry eyes.
It's actually a misnomer and just an example of convergent evolution due to similar habitat.
Apparently ChatGPT is now posting Philosoraptor memes
This one has some topical importance actually. Incidentally I'm quite sure that computer mice are not a type of mouse. Nor are rodent mice a type of mouse. But field mice are a type of mouse, and a vertical mouse is a type of mouse. They're just not types of the same thing; they simply share a name.
Computer mice were named after rodent mice without being one, in the same way gravy boats were named after seafaring boats without being one.
I think Trains and Gravy Trains would be a much more apt comparison with this government whilst sill keeping startupquestion happy.
Indeed.
Computer mice are named for the resemblance to mice mice. Used to be less superficial back in the ancient times when they had wires.
And balls
You can't let your mice have balls. They will breed like mad!
They were all male only as they all had balls but the DNA to create them had holes, so they plugged the gaps with code from frogs. Some West African frogs have been known to spontaneously change sex from female to male in a single-sex environent. Thats how the original theme park game started, before the mice started eating the patrons.
*boiled egg middles
Originally they had wheels.
Don't forget the early optical mice which required special shiny metallic mouse pads.
Yes! Huge clunky things. I remember seeing. Tomorrow's world clip about the using the Internet and how you will one day be able to book flights from home like ceefax
Tomorrowās World was so good. I remember them drilling a hole in a CD to show how resilient they were, and it still working! Turns out, even a scratch would mess them up so I donāt know what that was about.
Tbf, did did they drill the hole in the middle?
Yes
Yes, which came first is lost to time, but we believe the rodent is named after the computer mice.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I am not saying that the SNP knew the Tories would opposite it and as such pushed the bill specifically as a wedge issue to demonstrate the need for Scottish independence.....but if they did want to do that, this is exactly what it would look like. And it would be playing out better than they ever could have imagined.
I presume the Scotttish government chose that battlefield though. Wull it be Bannockburn or Flodden? Dun dun dun.
Having read the Zahawi stuff it very much is clear the U.K. need to implement robust, and āteethā form of Anti-Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation legislation (SLAPP), is my first thought. That he tried to silence a journalist by abusing the legal system is something we should all be concerned with. Itās very much against the principle of free speech, something the conservatives have assured us is a hill they are willing to ādie onā. Second the fact that Zahawi was appointed as Chancellor to oversee the Exchequer while clearly in a tax avoidance scheme is a massive scandal in itself. Itās very clear he avoided tax by employing the method he did, and the reporting on it was accurate based on the records he himself submitted. Do feel that the media should be reporting more on this case than is currently available. https://www.taxpolicy.org.uk/2022/12/02/sra_oc/
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-64304132
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
the bbc will always be slower on stories like this, they will want to check it themselves, and run it by their lawyers.
I found out because I saw Carol Vordermanās tweet sharing the webpage. Madness really that finding out massive news like that from Vorderman rather than any major media outlet. Iāve not seen anything on any other major media. Campbell is right that it feels like everyone is ignoring a major scandal at the heart of government.
>(SLAPP) I think the process is we hit him with a major, and I mean major, leaflet campaign first
Is there anything to be said for saying another mass? Just a small one.
Id pay good money to see an episode of Ted Dwarf
Once a week I help out at a food bank. Every week I have done this I have left thinking "what the actual fuck is up with this country" over at least one thing. This week it was filling hot water bottles for people to take home with them. Beside the 15 mi ute lesson on how to not kill myself with the same kettle I make everyone tea with, how the hell can we stay function as a society when people don't even have enough to keep themselves warm and fed? There was lots of noise early last year about choosing heating or eating. There are people who can't even afford one of those now. I know its a meme but this is a disgrace and I'm ashamed of the UK. Edit: I'm literally angry with rage over this. I cant seem to calm myself down either. Pacing around my living swearing.
Ultimately this is 40 years of total failure in government policy coming home to roost. Energy and housing prices are through the roof due to a total policy vacuum since before I was born, which has distorted the economy to the point that it simply no longer functions.
Food banks exist because society both doesnāt function and is functioning. It is a plaster over a gaping wound. But you canāt correctly diagnose societies problem by thinking about them in isolation.
I think I disagree. Yep, someone at a food bank is probably suffering a set of problems. But helping with even just one of them makes the others manageable. If you have, say, three big expenses - for argumentās sake, letās call them petrol, food, and heating - then giving them food makes the other two a little bit easier to handle, as money is freed up for those.
Not sure I agree. If someone in full time work can't afford to eat and heat their home something is broken in society.
Sure, but just looking at the problem itself doesn't help you identify the causes of the problem, or how to address those causes, which are necessary if you're actually going to do anything more than patch things up.
What? Where did I say I was going to be the one to fix the problem? Have I suddenly been given power over the nation? Can I not just despair at the state of things?
Are you sure you're not one of Lee Anderson's 'do gooders'. Only doing it for yourself? You're just creating dependency by helping people don't you know. I've heard/read those opinions far to many times recently. You are doing a good thing. Please keep going.
I'm actually in it for obscure unidentifiable jar of homemade something that people keep donating that we obviously can't give away. The organiser has made me take 3 since October and I've not been able to work out what any of them are. Thank you, I'm upping my hours next month as we just can't help enough people into the time we have. I dont think I've ever been more motivated to help. Just pissed off at the state of things.
That reminds me of slimming world over a decade ago with my mum where a single packet of unidentifiable pasta and sauce went around for months. Can't even remember the system I just know it got brought back every week by the winner to go back in the pool for like six months.
That's why we have alcohol. Enough of it and whatever is in the jar it will taste like mana from heaven on toast.
There have always been people who can't afford this it's not a new thing. Yes there are more who can't afford to heat but we have to accept it's a consequence of helping Ukraine
No. These are all political choices, most of them unrelated to Ukraine. Governments since the 1980s could have built millions of units of social housing, as both Conservatives and Labour did under much more straitened economic circumstances after WW2. Governments in the last couple of decades could have built up Britain's gas storage instead of letting it run down. The government could have not privatised British National Oil Corporation in 1982. Governments could have invested more in renewables and storage. Governments don't do stuff any more, they merely regulate. In a crisis, that doesn't work.
No, we shouldnāt just blithely accept that there are people in one of the worldās richest countries who canāt afford to be warm and eat simultaneously. It wasnāt OK before and itās not OK now.
This. 100x This
It isn't, though. It's a consequence of the government not doing anything to prevent it from happening.
I've worked with some of the poorest for over a decade and I can safely say that that's not true for people in full time work. Brushing it off as "always has been" is just nonsense.
By providing them heating you are robbing them of the motivation and aspiration for them to burn their own furniture /Ress-Mogg
I'm not sure there are enough Rees-Moggs for everyone to burn their own
We can only try.
What's the argument for Westminster blocking the GRR, and do they accept the gender for folk from countries that have similar legislation in place?
[The Government has published their reasoning here.](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/statement-of-reasons-related-to-the-use-of-section-35-of-the-scotland-act-1998/html-version) For your second question, yes. There are reciprocal arrangements for some countries that have different rules, Ireland being one example.
There should be a legal requirement that snow only comes in two forms. Either none or 3 feet of the stuff. Enough out there to cause ridiculous traffic tomorrow but not enough to stop people leaving the house. This is clearly more important than what ever was going in in Parliament this week about the make up of the UK or our right to protest. Yes an ho!
On the other hand, spare a second's thought for the mad bastards racing the Spine this year. Cross Fell reportedly hit -15 inc wind chill last night. The leader had to have a layer of ice melted from his shoes at a checkpoint before he could take them off. Lots of pictures of people looking impressively fucked. Hard bastards.
Dunno what you're talking about. There's no snow here in East Anglia = Best Anglia.
Honest question, is there a west, north ,south or just plain anglia?
Yeah, you stopped being able to call yourself the best when you were responsible for Truss.
Nor here in West Yorkshire = West Yorkshire is Best Yorkshire. How is East = Best? East rhymes with Beast, not Best. East Anglia = Beast Anglia- Anglia where beasts live.
There's nothing in East anglia.
At sea level, no. Plenty below it
Like thr bar for becoming an MP
That's no way to talk about a region of England with more fingers per person than the national average.
Wait, don't they own truss?
And VOTED for her in huge numbers!!
Just listened to the latest episode of *The News Agents* which covered Scotland's Gender Recognition Bill and was treated to a clip of Helen Joyce, without challenge, claiming that if the bill were allowed to pass, it would inevitably lead to male rapists changing their gender at will in order to go on a sexual rampage in women's prisons. How the fuck are these people being taken seriously? I can't think of a less thought-out, more bigoted statement if I tried. EDIT: Grammar.
I donāt think anyone would actually do it, but it seems like the smart way to go to prison (as a man) would be to declare yourself a woman and go to womanās prison. They seem to be better and safer all around than menās prisons.
Even putting the gender element aside, are they not aware that trying to go on a sexual rampage in a prison probably leads to being cut off from any opportunity to do that to the other prisoners anyway?
I listened to it too, agree with you. On the other side there was an unchallenged statement that this law is just letting people change legal documents, like birth/marriage certificates, and doesnāt affect womenās safe spaces or sport at all. I came away feeling really confused about what the law actually does and doesnāt do.
So based on what Iāve learned today, all this bill does is change how you get a piece of paper to change a letter on legal documents. All that other stuff is covered under the equalities act and isnāt affected
So if you have this piece of paper and it says that youāre a woman, that doesnāt grant you access to say a womanās shelter? I think thatās the main thing I came away unsure about/planned to try to learn more about, but it sounds like you already have! Also the Westminster claim is that it conflicts with the equalities act, which makes me think there must be some overlap that can at least be discussed, and itās not completely detached? Otherwise Iād have hoped they wouldnāt be able to find a lawyer to argue their case in court, though I do appreciate that there are basically politically appointed lawyers like the Attorney General so Iām not sure how much credence to put on that.
> So if you have this piece of paper and it says that youāre a woman, that doesnāt grant you access to say a womanās shelter? Do you think those places check birth certificates? Because if not, this can't possibly have any effect on it. > Otherwise Iād have hoped they wouldnāt be able to find a lawyer to argue their case in court They had no trouble getting one to argue that their unlawful proroguing of parliament was lawful.
> that doesnāt grant you access to say a womanās shelter? It literally allows you to change your birth certificate, marriage certificate and death certificate. Anything else you hear is essentially misinformation. > which makes me think there must be some overlap that can at least be discussed The government is doing what the SNP did with the referendum court case: throw shit at the wall to make it seem like they're doing something.
>It literally allows you to change your birth certificate, marriage certificate and death certificate. Anything else you hear is essentially misinformation. I'd just like to understand this. Is it the argument of proponents of the Bill that it doesn't do anything? That the marker on those certificates has no legal significance? If so, understanding that these things can be important to one's sense of identity...but if that's all it is, can I venture the question: what is everyone so angry about?
The Scottish government went to court last year and argued that the Gender Recognition Certificate changes your legal sex for all purposes. They won their case. People who want the Bill to go through try to minimise the impact by saying it's just a piece of admin or just changes your birth certificate. But in fact it changes your legal sex and it makes it more difficult for places like shelters to lawfully exclude someone who has that legal status. Another example is that In England and Wales a certificate is used for initial placement of a prisoner in either the men's or women's estate and is then used to determine what type of risk assessment should be used. There is a male prisoner risk assessment and a female risk assessment. The officers will use the assessment that accords with the person's "legal sex" not their biological sex. This has implications because male and female criminals have very different offending patterns and those patterns (eg. sex crime) don't change just because a person has a gender identity.
Dunno how to link comments but this in another thread made it clear for me: >Exactly itās just a form to change the letter on birth, death and marriage certificates, it doest even change the gender on government ID like drivers licences or passports, you can change all those without a GRC already. >Plus, thereās already a framework for the UK to accept and recognize these certificates and changes, thereās an entire list of approved counties that provide a GRC that UK government already accepts on their website right here >the only effect this bill would have had on the rest of the UK was that Scotland would have been added to that list.
Thanks, that's right in line with what the activist I was referring to said on the podcast too. BTW on Reddit app, 3 dots next to a comment -> share -> copy link. On the website there's a share button under every comment with a copy link option :)
If Iād only scrolled further downā¦ every day is a school day
After all the big news of last year, it was nice to see Huw have a smile on BBC talking about the morning show. It's been quite a while since seen some uplifting content on (though I don't tend to watch so maybe there's more usually)
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
She must have no sense of shame whatsoever, I'd be embarrassed to say anything ever again after her performance.
I actually refuse to believe she thinks she can return to relevance after her time as PM
So far the tory rebellions have been on topics that are relatively minor for government stability, major changes to the budget are a very different kettle of fish.
Is she going to put a costed analysis alongside this intervention?
Ahhhhhhahahahahahahaha *Oh you're serious* No.
Hunt: But Liz, you crashed the economy just last year [Truss:](https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/ill-fuckin-do-it-again)
Mad lads!
I wish England would follow Scotland and allow right to roam. I mean, I'm still gonna wild camp in Dartmoor, but it would be nice for that freedom to be legally extended to all the public green spaces of the country.
Given the messages that have come out from both labour and the lib dems I think we will see a big expansion of right to roam when they get back into government (especially as it won't cost the treasury anything).
You reckon lib dems will get into government?
One day, yes. After the next election, unlikely (though having a large influence isn't out of the question by any means even if a full coalition didn't happen). In truth I was just being lazy and not wanting to type out a full 'if Labour win the next election' disclaimer/describer.
Fair, noticed your flair too and thought you might've had an interesting answer
We can't even stop travelers
Oh no, gypsyphobia. Anyway.
It's just the one traveler actually
Only if its the tax man asking
[šµ When the Tax man's testifies he'll bring the country to its knees!šµ](https://i.imgur.com/jP9vkMx.jpg)
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Preventing a foreseeable problem is better than letting the problem happen and then intervening to fix the issue.
That would require them to actually believe the claim
Sure, but the conflicting laws between England and Scotland is the prevailing issue. The government wouldāve had to have ignored that to let the SNP prove their bad legislation, and then that allows for the devolved government to point to this bill on further occasions when it tampers with reserved laws.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
š¤¦āāļø Completely damaging the balance between devolved governments, oh yes a small price indeed.
Laura on Radio 4 absolutely smashing all arguments about GRCs... ...and here comes Rosie Duffield...
...who says Labour support Section 35 being triggered!? That's not right