The UK: The Keir Starmer years (1 Viewer)

I'm no fan of Streeting, but all we have so far are third-hand reports, and I think the obvious backbench rebellion brewing over this suggests it may well not end up happening anyway.
 


This seems... ok/sensible to me? But v open to being told if I've been tricked by him, like
 
It's complete and utter horseshit. The Cass review claimed that there was insufficient evidence re: long term impact of puberty blockers. That's because Hilary Cass excluded all the evidence based on the fact that none of the studies had a placebo group, despite the fact that this would be literally impossible to achieve and it not a requirement of good science. It is a tested usage with multiple international studies over a period of decades, Cass just threw them all out because she's a hideous bigot who wanted to engineer a specific result.

His claim that the medication is safe for most uses except this one defies basic logic and is just a repugnant prick who accidentally joined the wrong party couching his prejudice in terms that appeal to Telegraph readers. Essentially, he's saying that we need a certain number of people, given the medication in youth to die of old age and nothing else before he'll sign it off - so 80 years plus worth of data. Unscientific bullshit.

He's a disgusting bloodthirsty oaf, using the political concept of "The Child" to gain consent for his bigotry. For reference - see how much he cares about Palestinian children compared to Ukrainian children.

Cass was the only person asked to lead the report - the bigoted political class went straight for the person who would give them the result they wanted. They only care about keeping the press onside. Trans people are basically the acceptable victims of Labour's win and if you voted this, you are responsible for it.
 
Fundamentally, he's ignoring the harm that not getting puberty blockers causes to justify acting against the harm they might cause.

Very simply, if the choice is the risk of suicide, or the risk of a complication arising from the use of the drugs, then you should be choosing to minimise the risk to life every time, and hence, allow puberty blockers to continue even if the medical evidence isn't perfect.
 
Also, the cynicism of doing this on a Sunday morning when he knows everyone is talking about Trump today and will be talking about football tomorrow. Says a lot about him.
 
IMG_4428.jpeg


real housewives laughing GIF by RealityTVGIFs
 
HIGHLY tempting to have a banner with that at Pride on Saturday but I daresay it would attract the wrong crowd as well as being not 'family friendly'.
 
given the circumstances, it was right that I came :D I have friends - I don't know whether you do or not...

such a nasty weasel. God bless Emily for going straight for the throat ALWAYS!
 
Emily Maitlis is our heroine

I don't get the impression Farage has even seen his dear friend Trump in person?
 
Sir Keir asking you about your best ever sexual experience (albeit for a triggering, serious purpose re prosecuting SA)



(It’s the same video with the angry FUCK OFF at 40m32s)
 
who is the uk's Nancy Pelosi? omg, it's Diane Abbott isn't it? she'd be thrilled to dethrone him :disco:
 
Nandy also deleted her tweets supporting trans rights so she's clearly been nobbled.
 
jivafox said:
Click to expand...


Wicked whispers saying the papers have some dirt on Nandy.

Unrelated, why is she included in the photo and tags accompanying this article about Jonathan Ashworth avoiding talking publicly about Matt Hancock's workplace affair? She's not mentioned in the article. BIT WEIRD.
 
They have a six thousand person majority, why does it matter if 7 people rebel? They might have really good reasons that are specific to their constituency.

The point is to get a majority, it’s called a democracy.

I don’t understand!
 
funky said:
Suspending MPs for voting against a bill? Is that NORMAL?
Click to expand...
It's an option that parties have always used, but it isn't automatic, and for a minor rebellion over such a morally repugnant stance in the first place, it's an overreaction on Labour's part
 
funky said:
Suspending MPs for voting against a bill? Is that NORMAL?
Click to expand...
It’s not a bill, it’s an amendment to the King’s Speech. Votes on the King’s Speech are always confidence motions and so an MP of the governing party rebelling doesn’t give them a lot of choice other than to remove the whip. The MPs in question had to know that it would happen and have decided that it was worth it.
 
Well, I'm fully behind Starmer now and I think it's great to see him eradicating those who seek a genuine improvement for the people of Britain from the party. I mean, dealing with a ridiculously cruel Tory measure which had a disproportionately negative effect on women is a waste of time when we haven't banned trans people from using the toilet yet.
 
Fucking cunts.

Well there goes any tiny lingering hope that they would move to the left after getting elected, like SOME PEOPLE were telling us to believe.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top Bottom