Do you want to discuss boring politics? (240 Viewers)

Forums New posts
Sky_Blue_Dreamer

Sky_Blue_Dreamer

Well-Known Member
Otis said:
Women having the problem of a man saying they now identify as a woman and therefore being able to access women's toilets and women's changing rooms etc. And women losing their identity as women.

It's a very hot topic and I believe the Tories are the only party that have come out in favour of women on this issue.
Click to expand...

Ian1779 said:
People have the right to be safe at all times - this should supersede everything else in the first instance.
Click to expand...
Yes, but then the counter argument is made that those people who identify as women don't feel safe in the male toilets.

Basically, the correct answer is "it's an absolute fucking mess and there is no right answer because someone will feel vulnerable.

JK Rowling has been taking a lot of shit for basically taking the viewpoint Otis describes.

I have to admit I've never quite understood the toilets thing, as as far as I know the women's are all cubicles, so they would have privacy while going.

In the end it's going to have to be no gender specific toilets/changing rooms and just individual cubicles for everyone.
 
Sky_Blue_Dreamer

Sky_Blue_Dreamer

Well-Known Member
wingy said:
Oh Charley boy.
Click to expand...
This is what I was saying about the Jubilee and the conversation about the future of the monarchy.

Charles is opinionated, but he mother has kept the institution going by not being, as they're not supposed to exert their power and influence (even if I agree with his opinion). I keep hearing in the news that he's aware of his responsibilities but he keeps on being outspoken, which suggests he doesn't. Unless he literally only intends to follow it to the letter (i.e. when he becomes king)

But ultimately it's going to lead to questions about the future of the monarchy from whichever side he disagrees with.
 
Sky_Blue_Dreamer

Sky_Blue_Dreamer

Well-Known Member
shmmeee said:
Personal finance, including insurance, is in the National Curriculum:

KS3:
View attachment 24978
KS4:
View attachment 24979

The problem is, it’s in Citizenship, which is the red headed stepchild of subjects, often taught by form tutors or RE teachers, and is a general receptacle for the curriculum to put all those things people say “they should teach this in school”.

The other issue, speaking from experience of helping out at a Barclays run finance day with Y8s, was it’s quite hard to teach financial concepts to people who don’t really handle money.
Click to expand...
I agree that it's a difficult concept to work with if they're not engaged with actual budgeting decisions.

It's something that parents could definitely do more with, say keeping an account either at a bank or just at home, where they pay pocket money/chore money into and make the child pay for non-essential stuff themselves, be it sweets, music, games etc. So then they at least understand that decision making process of having to choose one thing over another.

Maybe it could be handled in school with some sort of game with a 'fake' economy and money, and if you can't cover basic expenses you 'fail'. But it would need some sort of actual qualification attached to make them take it seriously.
 
chiefdave

chiefdave

Well-Known Member
Sky_Blue_Dreamer said:
It's swings and roundabouts isn't it. WFH pay a bit more in electric etc, those travelling to work pay a fortune in fuel/travel costs. Plus travelling to work takes time.

So if WFH get a contribution to their electric bills, those going to a workplace should be paid the travel costs and time spent doing so.
Click to expand...
there's a balance to be found I'm sure. lets not forget that some businesses, my employer for example, will be making a significant savings as they look to downsize their business premises.

In an ideal world over time salaries will reflect this. If companies want you to go into the office to do a job you can easily do from home they'll have to pay a premium.
 
Sky_Blue_Dreamer

Sky_Blue_Dreamer

Well-Known Member
CCFCSteve said:
There is a limited area of land on which to build and if you have more parking there is less floor space available to build apartments as there are height restrictions. It therefore becomes uneconomic to build if you can’t utilise the area for flats rather than unnecessary parking. This is not a great area so valuations will be limited by the local market. He builds to provide rentals but if he physically can’t build a small development for a certain price to then achieve a certain valuation, he won’t be able to securing funding. The alternative is someone builds something smaller to fit planning requirements and charge more for the apartments …which will either push the local market prices up (not helping !) or they remain unsold and developer might go bust ?!! Or the land remains unbuilt on in the hope that material prices reduce and/or planning softens…again not helping housing stock issue

If someone wants a flat with two parking spaces then these wouldn’t for them but as I say, there are a large number of people that will have one or no cars who would want to live there so there is no need for 20+ spaces. This is on waste land which has now been unused for years.

If you tried to please everyone for every building, nothing would ever get built. Basic economics but price is obviously driven predominantly by supply and demand. We’ve run at high rates of net migration for years, people are living longer (so remain in properties for longer) and we’ve not had enough new housing stock built. Hence house prices have continued to rise. The nimby in some green belt areas and inconsistency of planning around the country is not helping… and it’s the younger generations who are paying and/or not able to get on the house ladder

Edit - sorry for war and peace answer
Click to expand...
I can hardly complain about someone giving a long answer! I prefer it to a one-sentence dismissal.

I admit I'm really not a fan of those doing developments to rent, as it's basically having cake and eating it at the expense of others.

I think there needs to be more thought given to certain aspects of building. Parking for example could be looked at in terms of using the ground floor for a garage (which could help in terms of potential flooding as living areas are raised up) and similar things for larger developments like flats where the development is either raised up and the ground floor underneath is parking, or an underground level is included for parking. Having to include a MSCP for a large development, or an area or street is another possibility. Not ideal solutions, but solutions that still use up the same amount of floor plan.

But one thing we definitely need is to be able to reuse brownfield sites and change usage to residential more easily. There is so much unused industrial land that could help ease housing shortages. Coventry has a load of retail and business parks that could easily be consolidated and leave a number of the sites free for housing developments.
 
Ian1779

Ian1779

Well-Known Member
Sky_Blue_Dreamer said:
Yes, but then the counter argument is made that those people who identify as women don't feel safe in the male toilets.

Basically, the correct answer is "it's an absolute fucking mess and there is no right answer because someone will feel vulnerable.

JK Rowling has been taking a lot of shit for basically taking the viewpoint Otis describes.

I have to admit I've never quite understood the toilets thing, as as far as I know the women's are all cubicles, so they would have privacy while going.

In the end it's going to have to be no gender specific toilets/changing rooms and just individual cubicles for everyone.
Click to expand...
Lots of schools are removing boys/girls toilets and going to blocks of cubicles. This is to eradicate bullying not really anything else
 
D

Deleted member 9744

Guest
Trans rights are a divisive issue and I remain unsure on some issue. I feel some of JK Rowling's comments, however, were demeaning of trans people. The toilet thing seems to be a bit of a non issue to me. It is not even an offence for a man to go into a women's toilet, although I would certainly not advocate to any man to do so. Loads of places have unisex toilets, including one of my former employers.
 
Sky Blue Pete

Sky Blue Pete

Well-Known Member
Otis said:
That is true, but then, on the flip side of the coin, some female MP's are getting death threats for speaking out about their concerns for the protection of women .

"Canterbury MP Rosie Duffield has been both criticised and heralded for her views on trans rights.

Ms Duffield came under fire for her opposition to "male-bodied biological men" being allowed to self-identify as female in order to access women-only spaces such as prisons and domestic violence refuges.

She opted not to attend the Labour Party conference in September after receiving threats and being branded transphobic, which she denies."

Seems that for many, even speaking of concerns results in them being labelled as transphobic.
Click to expand...
Yeah as a society nuance seems to have become undervalued
 
skybluetony176

skybluetony176

Well-Known Member
P

PVA

Well-Known Member
It is understood that the investigation relates to the late declaration of interests rather than failure to declare those interests.
Click to expand...


giphy.gif
 
chiefdave

chiefdave

Well-Known Member
What a complete shambles, on Friday 130 people were told they'd be on board the first flight, its already down to 11 and is expected to drop further. At this rate there will be more coming back the other way than we're sending out there!
www.bbc.co.uk

Rwanda asylum plan: Number of people on first flight close to single figures

Campaigners are trying to stop the first removals on Tuesday, with 11 people due to fly currently.
www.bbc.co.uk
 
fatso

fatso

Well-Known Member
Sky_Blue_Dreamer said:
Yes, but then the counter argument is made that those people who identify as women don't feel safe in the male toilets.

Basically, the correct answer is "it's an absolute fucking mess and there is no right answer because someone will feel vulnerable.

JK Rowling has been taking a lot of shit for basically taking the viewpoint Otis describes.

I have to admit I've never quite understood the toilets thing, as as far as I know the women's are all cubicles, so they would have privacy while going.

In the end it's going to have to be no gender specific toilets/changing rooms and just individual cubicles for everyone.
Click to expand...
Peado paradise then!
 
fatso

fatso

Well-Known Member
chiefdave said:
What a complete shambles, on Friday 130 people were told they'd be on board the first flight, its already down to 11 and is expected to drop further. At this rate there will be more coming back the other way than we're sending out there!
www.bbc.co.uk

Rwanda asylum plan: Number of people on first flight close to single figures

Campaigners are trying to stop the first removals on Tuesday, with 11 people due to fly currently.
www.bbc.co.uk
Click to expand...
The point is the government new full well that there would be legal challenges, and totally accepted that. So they initiate the deportations, thus triggering all the legal challenges, and then they can fight them in the courts, defeat them or change the law to suit themselves, and then continue the flights unopposed.
It's just a game of politics and it's playing out exactly to plan.
 
duffer

duffer

Well-Known Member
fatso said:
The point is the government new full well that there would be legal challenges, and totally accepted that. So they initiate the deportations, thus triggering all the legal challenges, and then they can fight them in the courts, defeat them or change the law to suit themselves, and then continue the flights unopposed.
It's just a game of politics and it's playing out exactly to plan.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure it's going exactly to plan, but I'd entirely agree that the Tories did this to provoke another culture war rather than as a serious attempt to deal with issue.

Anything to distract from Boris or the economy, basically.
 
Grendel

Grendel

Well-Known Member
Alan Dugdales Moustache

Alan Dugdales Moustache

Well-Known Member
skybluetony176 said:
Are you concerned that if he’s found guilty he’ll be displaying all the qualities that you evidently like in a PM?
Click to expand...
If he is found guilty will you be concerned ?
 
Grendel

Grendel

Well-Known Member
PVA said:
Johnson has already been found 'guilty' of the same thing. There is no punishment for it.
Click to expand...

that wasn’t his question
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 233 (members: 0, guests: 233)
Top