Starmer: one in every thousand women has a penis

There’s no way I can agree with the logic that 99.9% of women don’t have a penis. By definition, It’s 100%.
It’s equally true by biology that 100% of men can’t have periods, or give birth.

There’s male and female. Man and woman.
That’s defined by birth. No matter what you do after that, whether it be merely make-up, a dress and a wig, or drugs, or an operation, it can’t and doesn’t change your gender.

If a male changed gender to female by self proclamation or law, their body will still be undeniably male. If their remains were excavated years down the line, their bones would be identified as having belonged to a male. So it’s inherently and undeniably biological fact that males are different to females.

We have different laws and rules and procedures between women and men in an array of areas. That’s because we recognise there’s differences, and not just by physicality.

Some of these differences have come into focus lately eg., toilets, sport, prisons and pensions. What we are seeing is more and more biological males wanting to be treated exactly as if they were a biological female.

Whilst I accept there’s a need to be inclusive to trans people, I don’t think the right answer is to treat biological males as if they are exactly female. They’re not.

By calling them ‘women’ it fundamentally changes the meaning of the word. In doing so it undermines females and put their hard earned rights, privileges, and potentially their safety at risk. There’s no justification for this.

With regards to safety, we know that men are far more likely to commit sex offences than women. So allowing men to self declare as women, opens up a huge can of worms, metaphorically if not actually. It’s not right. It’s not fair to women.

But nor should we ban anyone from being trans. We want inclusivity and fairness.

So we have to adapt to accommodate the ever increasing number of trans folk.
That may mean we need trans toilets and trans sports categories. I don’t know.

But what I do feel is that it’s far too simplistic, and in fact idiotic, to pretend that men identifying as a women can do so and that everything will be fine if we close our eyes and carry on as normal. It won’t.

What trans people don’t need, is men jumping on the band-wagon and declaring to be women for nefarious reasons. At the moment, by treating trans women as women, we are in danger of encouraging exactly that.

So I favour the action taken by the prison authorities and the sports associations where they’ve recently pushed back against the tide - back against the reckless stupidity.

We have men. We have women. We now also have trans women and trans men. They are all different. They all need handling differently. We can’t keep pretending they’re the same out of political correctness. A woman can never have a penis. 100%. Not 99.9%.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Malced said:
We have men. We have women. We now also have trans women and trans men. They are all different. They all need handling differently. We can’t keep pretending they’re the same out of political correctness. A woman can never have a penis. 100%. Not 99.9%.
Click to expand...

Somewhere out there I imagine there may very well be the perfect medical specimen that might throw doubt on this.
Perhaps there won’t be two of them though?
 
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/04/03/keir-starmer-you-still-dont-know-what-women-are/

This latest nonsense confirmed that Starmer is desperately trying to appease both sides, but this strategy has no chance of that. Female party activists are sick and tired of his prevarication on this matter. We are concerned with maintaining our sex based rights, which includes being very clear that women are in possession of female, not male, biology.

Cowardice is a very bad quality for a leader. Starmer has set the bar so low it would flummox a world champion limbo dancer. He has got himself and the party into this mess and he needs to show his integrity and strength in sorting it out. I constantly hear excuses for Starmer, but he has to take the reins on this issue. This is not a minor issue: it is about the law, it is about women’s rights, and it is about biological reality over a dangerous ideology.
 
Malced said:
There’s no way I can agree with the logic that 99.9% of women don’t have a penis. By definition, It’s 100%.
It’s equally true by biology that 100% of men can’t have periods, or give birth.

There’s male and female. Man and woman.
That’s defined by birth. No matter what you do after that, whether it be merely make-up, a dress and a wig, or drugs, or an operation, it can’t and doesn’t change your gender.

If a male changed gender to female by self proclamation or law, their body will still be undeniably male. If their remains were excavated years down the line, their bones would be identified as having belonged to a male. So it’s inherently and undeniably biological fact that males are different to females.

We have different laws and rules and procedures between women and men in an array of areas. That’s because we recognise there’s differences, and not just by physicality.

Some of these differences have come into focus lately eg., toilets, sport, prisons and pensions. What we are seeing is more and more biological males wanting to be treated exactly as if they were a biological female.

Whilst I accept there’s a need to be inclusive to trans people, I don’t think the right answer is to treat biological males as if they are exactly female. They’re not.

By calling them ‘women’ it fundamentally changes the meaning of the word. In doing so it undermines females and put their hard earned rights, privileges, and potentially their safety at risk. There’s no justification for this.

With regards to safety, we know that men are far more likely to commit sex offences than women. So allowing men to self declare as women, opens up a huge can of worms, metaphorically if not actually. It’s not right. It’s not fair to women.

But nor should we ban anyone from being trans. We want inclusivity and fairness.

So we have to adapt to accommodate the ever increasing number of trans folk.
That may mean we need trans toilets and trans sports categories. I don’t know.

But what I do feel is that it’s far too simplistic, and in fact idiotic, to pretend that men identifying as a women can do so and that everything will be fine if we close our eyes and carry on as normal. It won’t.

What trans people don’t need, is men jumping on the band-wagon and declaring to be women for nefarious reasons. At the moment, by treating trans women as women, we are in danger of encouraging exactly that.

So I favour the action taken by the prison authorities and the sports associations where they’ve recently pushed back against the tide - back against the reckless stupidity.

We have men. We have women. We now also have trans women and trans men. They are all different. They all need handling differently. We can’t keep pretending they’re the same out of political correctness. A woman can never have a penis. 100%. Not 99.9%.
Click to expand...
There's a difference between sex and gender.

I think the way athletics has dealt with it is right, but in non competitive situations, does it really matter what people identify as?

Does it really impact on your life?

If a non surgically modified transgender woman went to get in your cab would you turn down the fare?
 
Wizaard said:
There's a difference between sex and gender.

I think the way athletics has dealt with it is right, but in non competitive situations, does it really matter what people identify as?

Does it really impact on your life?

If a non surgically modified transgender woman went to get in your cab would you turn down the fare?
Click to expand...
Athletics yes, for competitive reasons.

But also in situations where there maybe any safety concern. We can’t de-prioritise the safety of women and girls because some people want to identify as the opposite sex. Not a chance.
 
Lala said:
Athletics yes, for competitive reasons.

But also in situations where there maybe any safety concern. We can’t de-prioritise the safety of women and girls because some people want to identify as the opposite sex. Not a chance.
Click to expand...
Totally agree. Men able to 'identify' shouldn't use women only facilities until post op.
 
Can anyone believe any politician?

As soon as they realise that a thing they are and have been for sometime promoting is an election killer they change their mind, which means they could change their mind again after elected.

In other news, Sunak who was in Rochdale, hinted that fear of racism etc shouldn't come into any decisions when the Police are dealing with grooming gangs. Labour said it wasn't before time that something was done. My question though is, who was in charge of the Crown Prosecution Service when the grooming gangs in Rochdale, as well as other places, were at their prime. Could it have been a certain Keir Starmer?

It was certainly an Asian, Nazir Afzal, who lead the prosecution of the gang in Rochdale after years of pleading by those in the know without any avail at the time.
 
Wizaard said:
There's a difference between sex and gender.

I think the way athletics has dealt with it is right, but in non competitive situations, does it really matter what people identify as?

Does it really impact on your life?

If a non surgically modified transgender woman went to get in your cab would you turn down the fare?
Click to expand...

Have I given any indication whatsoever that I would refuse to serve a transgender person? No. I fact I've said we need to be inclusive. So your question is absolutely ridiculous, completely mis-placed, and inappropriate.

You have taken time to come on here and tell us your attitudes and values in respect of this topic. Yet you seem to have a problem with me giving my opinion.

Does it really impact on my life? A topic which is regularly reported on in the media, discussed by politicians, has impacted the sporting world, the DWP, NHS, the prison service, schools, ethics, public toilet facilities etc. A topic which society is struggling to grasp across numerous fronts to ensure the rights of women AND trans are considered. So does it impact my life? Well I'd say so, to some extent, by virtue of me being part of society.

Is that enough for you?

I hope you aren't trying to apply pressure to effectively dissuade and ultimately censor people from speaking their mind. But that's how you actually come over.
 
Curryman said:
Can anyone believe any politician?

As soon as they realise that a thing they are and have been for sometime promoting is an election killer they change their mind, which means they could change their mind again after elected.

In other news, Sunak who was in Rochdale, hinted that fear of racism etc shouldn't come into any decisions when the Police are dealing with grooming gangs. Labour said it wasn't before time that something was done. My question though is, who was in charge of the Crown Prosecution Service when the grooming gangs in Rochdale, as well as other places, were at their prime. Could it have been a certain Keir Starmer?

It was certainly an Asian, Nazir Afzal, who lead the prosecution of the gang in Rochdale after years of pleading by those in the know without any avail at the time.
Click to expand...
I can't believe anything you post as it it's usually bullshit.

Quick question, GMP acknowledged they didn't investigate the Rochdale child sex abuse case properly, how is that the responsibility of the DPP whoever it is?
 
Malced said:
Have I given any indication whatsoever that I would refuse to serve a transgender person? No. I fact I've said we need to be inclusive. So your question is absolutely ridiculous, completely mis-placed, and inappropriate.

You have taken time to come on here and tell us your attitudes and values in respect of this topic. Yet you seem to have a problem with me giving my opinion.

Does it really impact on my life? A topic which is regularly reported on in the media, discussed by politicians, has impacted the sporting world, the DWP, NHS, the prison service, schools, ethics, public toilet facilities etc. A topic which society is struggling to grasp across numerous fronts to ensure the rights of women AND trans are considered. So does it impact my life? Well I'd say so, to some extent, by virtue of me being part of society.

Is that enough for you?

I hope you aren't trying to apply pressure to effectively dissuade and ultimately censor people from speaking their mind. But that's how you actually come over.
Click to expand...
I don't know what your personal attitude is, so I thought I'd ask.

I'm not trying to tell anyone what to think.
 
Walthamstow_Seasider said:
Quick question, GMP acknowledged they didn't investigate the Rochdale child sex abuse case properly, how is that the responsibility of the DPP whoever it is?
Click to expand...

Because the DPP sent out the guidance that told GMP not to investigate.

https://www.politicalite.com/labour...ice-not-to-investigate-muslim-grooming-gangs/

Speaking on the Radio 4’s PM programme, Mr Afzal the former North West Prosecutor............ said: “You may not know this, but back in 2008 the Home office sent a circular to all police forces in the country saying ‘as far as these young girls who are being exploited in towns and cities, we believe they have made an informed choice about their sexual behaviour and therefore it is not for you police officers to get involved in.’”
 
Lost Seasider said:
Because the DPP sent out the guidance that told GMP not to investigate.

https://www.politicalite.com/labour...ice-not-to-investigate-muslim-grooming-gangs/

Speaking on the Radio 4’s PM programme, Mr Afzal the former North West Prosecutor............ said: “You may not know this, but back in 2008 the Home office sent a circular to all police forces in the country saying ‘as far as these young girls who are being exploited in towns and cities, we believe they have made an informed choice about their sexual behaviour and therefore it is not for you police officers to get involved in.’”
Click to expand...
Where does it say that the DPP issued the guidance?
 
Walthamstow_Seasider said:
Where does it say that the DPP issued the guidance?
Click to expand...

Fair point: here's a better link: https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/i-prosecuted-rochdale-child-grooming-gang-it-wasnt-about-race-1621370

I took the then unprecedented decision to reverse an earlier decision made by other prosecutors and police in 2008/9 NOT to prosecute.

It led to us developing the first ever national guidance for how police and prosecutors should handle such cases and precipitated seismic changes in the way the courts dealt with such matters.

So it seems clear to me that the HO did not send out the original guidance purely by themselves, the CPS would undoubtedly have been consulted beforehand, and the guidance reflected CPS practice during Sir Keir's time there.

By itself, it's pretty damning, when you couple that with the fact that he doesn't seem to know what a woman is, I don't see how any woman could ever vote for him.
 
Lost Seasider said:
Fair point: here's a better link: https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/i-prosecuted-rochdale-child-grooming-gang-it-wasnt-about-race-1621370

I took the then unprecedented decision to reverse an earlier decision made by other prosecutors and police in 2008/9 NOT to prosecute.

It led to us developing the first ever national guidance for how police and prosecutors should handle such cases and precipitated seismic changes in the way the courts dealt with such matters.

So it seems clear to me that the HO did not send out the original guidance purely by themselves, the CPS would undoubtedly have been consulted beforehand, and the guidance reflected CPS practice during Sir Keir's time there.

By itself, it's pretty damning, when you couple that with the fact that he doesn't seem to know what a woman is, I don't see how any woman could ever vote for him.
Click to expand...
You have no evidence that the CPS was consulted, also do you have a date when the guidance was issued?
 
Tangerinemoss said:
How did you find him, as a person, not a politician?
Click to expand...
On reflection, when I've seen him on the TV, he comes over a bit robotic and stilted if that makes sense? In person he was much more relaxed and amiable.

When he was away from the media (which was bonkers tbh) and his staff, he was positively friendly.

Yvette Cooper was very similar and even more relaxed I'd say.

Very interesting experience all round really.
 
Walthamstow_Seasider said:
You have no evidence that the CPS was consulted, also do you have a date when the guidance was issued?
Click to expand...
That's my take on it, and it seems implausible in the extreme that such guidance would be issued without consulting the CPS, but, in any event, it's largely irrelevant where the guidance originated from, it's clear that it represented CPS policy and practice during Sir Keir's time as DPP.

The link gives the date as 2008/9, it wouldn't have been changed until after the 2011 prosecutions.
 
Lost Seasider said:
That's my take on it, and it seems implausible in the extreme that such guidance would be issued without consulting the CPS, but, in any event, it's largely irrelevant where the guidance originated from, it's clear that it represented CPS policy and practice during Sir Keir's time as DPP.

The link gives the date as 2008/9, it wouldn't have been changed until after the 2011 prosecutions.
Click to expand...
'That's my take on it' - so essentially you are making stuff up, the facts are here and there isn't any evidence to support your claim;

fullfact.org

No evidence Keir Starmer tried to block the prosecution of Muslim grooming gangs - Full Fact

Widely-shared posts on Facebook make an unsubstantiated claim about Mr Starmer’s work for the Crown Prosecution Service.
fullfact.org fullfact.org

It's pretty desperate stuff, just like the lie told by Johnson about the Jimmy Savile case at the dispatch box, a low-blow smear for political purposes on someone who has served our country in a very difficult job.
 
With regards to the whole identifying as this or that, in my opinion much of it is attention seeking or some form of immaturity and insecurity.

There’s undoubtedly some folk who feel trapped in the wrong body. But the volumes we now see in the younger generation eg at school/college/Uni is sky rocketing.

It’s cool, it’s trendy, it’s the in thing. To have some different approach to gender and to have one’s own individual pronouns.

Back in the day, when someone wanted to be different, to make their mark, to rebel against their parents or be a non-conformist, they might have been a goth or a punk, or merely dyed their hair. Now they identify as some other gender - from an ever increasing pick list of the most bizarre so called gender titles. This affords them the opportunity for self-entitlement and to play the victim if we don’t fully indulge their strange version of reality.

These all come with their own bizarre pronouns which of course we are all mean to learn, adopt, and use, all without challenging common sense and rationality.
It’s all being made up at speed, as they go along, as more and more struggle to be seen as different. Being non-binary with they/them pronouns is already old hat. We now see youngsters identifying as animals, ghosts, vampires, and even inanimate objects.

The internet (namely tiktok) is swamped with their videos telling us what they identify as and their choice of pronouns. Many of them come over as mentally unstable. But I think it is more likely to be confusion, immaturity and attention seeking.

There’s some who now identify as tri-binary. Of course. Non-binary is no longer different enough. It’s being hijacked by the masses. So tri-binary is a way to try and stay ahead of the curve.

Tri-binary in their words is where their gender covers the whole spectrum of male, female and non-binary. So they’re covering all bases. Go figure.

Of course this is another one we’re meant to accept and humour and I suppose embrace.
But newsflash, binary is two choices not three. You can’t have tri-binary anymore than a woman can have a penis. But let’s not let the actual meaning of words such as ‘woman’ stand it the way of ‘progress’.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
ElBurroSinNombre said:
'That's my take on it' - so essentially you are making stuff up, the facts are here and there isn't any evidence to support your claim;

fullfact.org

No evidence Keir Starmer tried to block the prosecution of Muslim grooming gangs - Full Fact

Widely-shared posts on Facebook make an unsubstantiated claim about Mr Starmer’s work for the Crown Prosecution Service.
fullfact.org fullfact.org

It's pretty desperate stuff, just like the lie told by Johnson about the Jimmy Savile case at the dispatch box, a low-blow smear for political purposes on someone who has served our country in a very difficult job.
Click to expand...

Do you think it's likely that the HO sent out guidance on this matter without consulting the CPS first?

Nobody is claiming that he personally blocked prosecutions, but he was head of the organization when the policy was in place, and he should be held to account for it.
 
Its all gotten out of hand, and mainly driven by MSM agendas. Last week Nashville Police were heavily criticized for " misgendering " the biologically female school shooter Audrey Hale who killed six people including three 9yr old kids. The fact that they referred to the killer as she or her triggered them so much that they succeeded in forcing an apology from the Nashville Police. They (MSM) were quick to point out that the killer had, for a number of months, identified as a man.
What ever happened to society when this is even a valid point to raise when 6 people have been murdered.
sadly, whilst the likes of Starmer and others like him refuse to come out and say that their are only two biological sexes, and that men cannot have periods, the indoctrination of infants at nursery schools will go on, cruelly exposing them to this madness.
 
Lost Seasider said:
Do you think it's likely that the HO sent out guidance on this matter without consulting the CPS first?
Click to expand...
We don't know what happened and you are making stuff up.
What we do know, from the link that I posted, is that prosecutions for these type of offenses went up almost as soon as Starmer was in post at the CPS. To quote from the article;

"What happened while Mr Starmer was in charge?​

A number of prosecutions involving grooming gangs were taking place around the time Mr Starmer took up his new post.

In the first of a series of articles exposing the grooming gangs scandal, published in January 2011, The Times identified 17 grooming gang prosecutions dating back to 1997. Of the 17 cases, 14 had taken place since 2008, the year Mr Starmer became the director of public prosecutions.

“In total, 56 people, with an average age of 28, were found guilty of crimes including rape, child abduction, indecent assault and sex with a child. Three of the 56 were white, 53 were Asian. Of those 50 were Muslim and a majority were members of the British Pakistani community,” the newspaper reported. "


So Starmer, as head of the CPS, actually dramatically increased the number of prosecutions of grooming gangs (prosecuting 14 of the total of 17 cases (after he was appointed in 2008) that went to court between the years 1997-2011). These facts completely contradict the picture that you are trying to paint, a picture that you have absolutely no evidence for.
 
ElBurroSinNombre said:
We don't know what happened
Click to expand...

That seems to be a recurring theme with Sir Keir, we don't know what he knew about his organization's policy, we don't know if he thinks a man can become a woman just by saying it, we don't know what his plan for government is, or if he'd stick to it anyway, in fact we know very little about him at all.


ElBurroSinNombre said:
So Starmer, as head of the CPS, actually dramatically increased the number of prosecutions of grooming gangs (prosecuting 14 of the total of 17 cases (after he was appointed in 2008) that went to court between the years 1997-2011). These facts completely contradict the picture that you are trying to paint, a picture that you have absolutely no evidence for.
Click to expand...
Only after Labour was kicked from power, and after the change in policy was forced on him by circumstances.
 
Lost Seasider said:
That seems to be a recurring theme with Sir Keir, we don't know what he knew about his organization's policy, we don't know if he thinks a man can become a woman just by saying it, we don't know what his plan for government is, or if he'd stick to it anyway, in fact we know very little about him at all.
Click to expand...
OK - So in the absence of any evidence we can both agree that there was no truth in what you posted about Starmer and grooming gangs. It was a another poor attempt at a smear.

On the other point, If you actually read the article that is linked in the OP, Starmer is saying that the rights of cis women that already exist should not be infringed by the trans-rights movement. Again, almost the complete opposite of what you (and others on here) are implying. IMO It's a reasonable (and the correct) answer to the question put to him.

Culture wars are so depressing. If you want to attack Starmer, attack Labour policies (or the lack of them). Attack Labour values and record in government (local and national). Don't make stuff up to support a pre-existing agenda that is fundamentally divisive. The lack of civility ends up with real people getting hurt and the cohesion of society being damaged, it's a dangerous game to play.
 
ElBurroSinNombre said:
OK - So in the absence of any evidence we can both agree that there was no truth in what you posted about Starmer and grooming gangs. It was a another poor attempt at a smear.

On the other point, If you actually read the article that is linked in the OP, Starmer is saying that the rights of cis women that already exist should not be infringed by the trans-rights movement. Again, almost the complete opposite of what you (and others on here) are implying. IMO It's a reasonable (and the correct) answer to the question put to him.

Culture wars are so depressing. If you want to attack Starmer, attack Labour policies (or the lack of them). Attack Labour values and record in government (local and national). Don't make stuff up to support a pre-existing agenda that is fundamentally divisive. The lack of civility ends up with real people getting hurt and the cohesion of society being damaged, it's a dangerous game to play.
Click to expand...
Cis women? Have a word with yourself.
We don’t need to add anything to the word women to say women. The word is fine in itself. The day I say cis women, when I’m talking about actual women, is a day that won’t ever come. You need to get a grip.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Divisive issues and culture wars/PC gone mad is going to be hyped up in the build up to the next election, because the Tories have been in power for 13 years and have done an awful job.
Watch also for voter ID legislation, borrowed from the US.

Their only hope electorally is to blame all the economic failures on external factors, claim Brexit will come good eventually and get enough thick people riled about niche issues to vote against their own interest.

Do I think children need educating on trans issues, white privilege and gender fluid identity aged 9? No.

Would I prefer an overly woke but well intentioned government that helped the most vulnerable and weren't absolutely riven with corruption? A government that gave rises to public sector workers but wasted money funding bathrooms for people who identify as Pandas. Not great, but Yes.

Far from a Labour/Kier supporter but given our current voting system and state of the country...I struggle to see how they can make the situation worse.
 
ElBurroSinNombre said:
We don't know what happened and you are making stuff up.
What we do know, from the link that I posted, is that prosecutions for these type of offenses went up almost as soon as Starmer was in post at the CPS. To quote from the article;

"What happened while Mr Starmer was in charge?​

A number of prosecutions involving grooming gangs were taking place around the time Mr Starmer took up his new post.

In the first of a series of articles exposing the grooming gangs scandal, published in January 2011, The Times identified 17 grooming gang prosecutions dating back to 1997. Of the 17 cases, 14 had taken place since 2008, the year Mr Starmer became the director of public prosecutions.

“In total, 56 people, with an average age of 28, were found guilty of crimes including rape, child abduction, indecent assault and sex with a child. Three of the 56 were white, 53 were Asian. Of those 50 were Muslim and a majority were members of the British Pakistani community,” the newspaper reported. "

OK - So in the absence of any evidence we can both agree that there was no truth in what you posted about Starmer and grooming gangs. It was a another poor attempt at a smear.
Click to expand...
ElBurroSinNombre said:
On the other point, If you actually read the article that is linked in the OP, Starmer is saying that the rights of cis women that already exist should not be infringed by the trans-rights movement. Again, almost the complete opposite of what you (and others on here) are implying. IMO It's a reasonable (and the correct) answer to the question put to him.

Culture wars are so depressing. If you want to attack Starmer, attack Labour policies (or the lack of them). Attack Labour values and record in government (local and national). Don't make stuff up to support a pre-existing agenda that is fundamentally divisive. The lack of civility ends up with real people getting hurt and the cohesion of society being damaged, it's a dangerous game to play.
Click to expand...

ElBurroSinNombre said:
OK - So in the absence of any evidence we can both agree that there was no truth in what you posted about Starmer and grooming gangs. It was a another poor attempt at a smear.

On the other point, If you actually read the article that is linked in the OP, Starmer is saying that the rights of cis women that already exist should not be infringed by the trans-rights movement. Again, almost the complete opposite of what you (and others on here) are implying. IMO It's a reasonable (and the correct) answer to the question put to him.

Culture wars are so depressing. If you want to attack Starmer, attack Labour policies (or the lack of them). Attack Labour values and record in government (local and national). Don't make stuff up to support a pre-existing agenda that is fundamentally divisive. The lack of civility ends up with real people getting hurt and the cohesion of society being damaged, it's a dangerous game to play.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately we’re going to be bombarded with similar nonsense from the Tufton Street mob for the next 18 months.
A quote from the current Conservative Party chairman is very telling:
"In 2019 there was Brexit, Johnson and Corbyn and it was as simple as that. At the next election we haven't got those three things so we'll have to think of something else. It'll probably be a mix of culture wars and trans debate."
I think that viewpoint perfectly sums up the current state of the Tory Party: morally and intellectually bankrupt.
 
L’étranger said:
Unfortunately we’re going to be bombarded with similar nonsense from the Tufton Street mob for the next 18 months.
A quote from the current Conservative Party chairman is very telling:
"In 2019 there was Brexit, Johnson and Corbyn and it was as simple as that. At the next election we haven't got those three things so we'll have to think of something else. It'll probably be a mix of culture wars and trans debate."
I think that viewpoint perfectly sums up the current state of the Tory Party: morally and intellectually bankrupt.
Click to expand...
I was saddened to see what Braverman said at the weekend, it is exactly the sort of rhetoric we expect from the far right not a senior government minister. And of course some of what she said was completely untrue and contradicted statistics collected by the Home Office - her own department.
We can expect a lot more dog whistles before the next election I'm afraid. I'm surprised at how easily some are manipulated by this sort of thing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top