Reform

[ASCPFC]

It would be great to see a bit of balance on the Politics pages sometimes. On the local elections, no-one would have batted an eyelid about the postponements if Labour had been performing okay in the polls. The argument for delay had some merit, but it was also very politically convenient for Labour, and no doubt both things played a part in the decision. On the other hand it is entirely understandable that with democracy (in the USA) and freedom of speech / thought (in the UK) under attack that the decision would lead to an outraged response from some and disquiet from a lot more. Both positions are valid - there was good reason to delay the elections, and it is understandable that some are very upset by it and interpret it in a certain way.

But God forbid that many posters on here might understand that there is some validity in both sides of the argument. I can't wait for the abuse 🤣

I can see your point of view. Delaying for say six-twelve months to get things in order - that's fair enough. No elections for seven years, however. Clearly not on. Was completely to make sure Labour aren't massacred. Hilariously enough, in this government's typically graceful style, they have ensured a worse result than they would have already got. I'm also thinking they might appeal! Honestly.

 

[Spiderman]

Why? School is not the place for these issues to be “pushed”. I strongly doubt they are at the moment. School is where every pupil, whatever their circumstances, needs to be supported. Including those with gender dysphoria.

Doubt all you like,

 

[cryrst]

That’s why I used possibly. I did do something but have no idea if you did.

I sincerely hope you would not have taken the law into you own hands! It’s the quickest way for our society to fall apart when people believe they are entitled to do that. I don’t know how many policemen, or women you know but I know a few retired officers quite well. They don’t do lip service! Just service. One being at Hungerford!

Michael Ryan was a f***ing lunatic.
Same as the dunblane cock.
Although Islamic terrorists and Pakistani groomers you label as only criminals with no defining ideology or link have sadly killed many more and f***ed up many more live than those two did !

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

Michael Ryan was a f***ing lunatic.
Same as the dunblane cock.
Although Islamic terrorists and Pakistani groomers you label as only criminals with no defining ideology or link have sadly killed many more and f***ed up many more live than those two did !

They are only criminals. Calling them anything else has the potential to dignify what they do as well as putting all who might share a religious belief into the same category. You condemn people by what they do. Not what they claim to believe in.

Those who try to justify evil because of a religious belief need to be separated from those who don’t. Hopefully by those who share the religion but are law abiding decent citizens.

It’s not so different to the way the Westboro Baptist Church, who hold some very extreme views, are ostracised by the other Christian churches.

 

[cryrst]

They are only criminals. Calling them anything else has the potential to dignify what they do as well as putting all who might share a religious belief into the same category. You condemn people by what they do. Not what they claim to believe in.

Those who try to justify evil because of a religious belief need to be separated from those who don’t. Hopefully by those who share the religion but are law abiding decent citizens.

It’s not so different to the way the Westboro Baptist Church, who hold some very extreme views, are ostracised by the other Christian churches.

But you’re ok to label all reform voters as far right. You know all in one category !
If hypocrisy was people you would be china 🤦

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

So the courts decide on the LAW, your words. So they thought the courts would rule against them, so therefore it was illegal ( why else would the court rule against them unless it was against the law?)

The government lawyers must have decided that on the balance of probabilities the Court would rule against them so deciding not to go ahead was the best option. That doesn’t mean their decision was illegal. The Court didn’t rule. It remains undecided.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

But you’re ok to label all reform voters as far right. You know all in one category !
If hypocrisy was people you would be china 🤦

Of course I don’t label all Reform voters as far right! Where on earth does that idea come from. That they might vote for a party who hold some hard (not far) right positions doesn’t mean they are themselves. Many are just disillusioned and are doing what voters have done since voting was invented. Choosing the untried because they surely cannot be any worse and “deserve a chance”. They will learn. They always do.

 

[Spiderman]

The government lawyers must have decided that on the balance of probabilities the Court would rule against them so deciding not to go ahead was the best option. That doesn’t mean their decision was illegal. The Court didn’t rule. It remains undecided.

This already been covered, it was deemed by their lawyers as being unlawful. You can carry on arguing the point but the fact is, the government, yet again, f***ed up

 

[Spiderman]

Of course I don’t label all Reform voters as far right! Where on earth does that idea come from. That they might vote for a party who hold some hard (not far) right positions doesn’t mean they are themselves. Many are just disillusioned and are doing what voters have done since voting was invented. Choosing the untried because they surely cannot be any worse and “deserve a chance”. They will learn. They always do.

What a patronising summary

 

[cryrst]

What a patronising summary

I really couldn’t be bothered replying 🤦

 

[georgenorman]

Of course I don’t label all Reform voters as far right! Where on earth does that idea come from. That they might vote for a party who hold some hard (not far) right positions doesn’t mean they are themselves. Many are just disillusioned and are doing what voters have done since voting was invented. Choosing the untried because they surely cannot be any worse and “deserve a chance”. They will learn. They always do.

What alternative do people have when faced with the usual incompetent, corrupt and often near-insane government? What should they learn? Perhaps recognise that governments of all shades are a necessary evil and try to elect people that will reduce government and taxation as much as is practicable to the essentials. Abolish as many tiers as possible, regional assemblies, metro-assemblies and mayors - steer well clear of the great-white whale of over-government, the EU, and associated so called courts etc.

 

[silvertop]

I don’t see how anyone can argue with this, but they will 😂

How would such a ban operate in practice?

I have no issue with someone transing from gender to gender to the extent that I could not give two hoots. It is an issue that has grown to a size vastly beyond its relevance.

However if a ban causes unhappiness in children then it's very easy to argue against.

 

[Hrolf The Ganger]

How would such a ban operate in practice?

I have no issue with someone transing from gender to gender to the extent that I could not give two hoots. It is an issue that has grown to a size vastly beyond its relevance.

However if a ban causes unhappiness in children then it's very easy to argue against.

What encourages unhappiness in children is encouraging their flirtations with gender flipping simply to satisfy a passing obsession of political activists.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

This already been covered, it was deemed by their lawyers as being unlawful. You can carry on arguing the point but the fact is, the government, yet again, f***ed up

Nothing is unlawful unless it gets tested in a Court. It was only thought likely to be unlawful.

Whether their lawyers advice changed, or was ignored, isn’t known. What is known is that Reform started a case. Why did they do that? Because of genuine concerns about voters being temporarily denied the opportunity to express their will? Or political opportunism?

Our answers might be different!

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

What a patronising summary

Regard it how you wish. Do you deny the reasoning is correct? Not for all, but enough.

 

[Spiderman]

Nothing is unlawful unless it gets tested in a Court. It was only thought likely to be unlawful.

Whether their lawyers advice changed, or was ignored, isn’t known. What is known is that Reform started a case. Why did they do that? Because of genuine concerns about voters being temporarily denied the opportunity to express their will? Or political opportunism?

Our answers might be different!

I’m sure they would. Living in an area that were being denied a vote, for a second time, I have a very good idea and it has nothing to do with saving money, despite what you may have read ( and believed)

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

I’m sure they would. Living in an area that were being denied a vote, for a second time, I have a very good idea and it has nothing to do with saving money, despite what you may have read ( and believed)

I understand, and share, the cynicism. This was certainly, at least partly, political at the national level. Not though by the hard stressed local authorities who wanted to save money and must now reverse course and spend time and effort, even if given some support.

 

[Stirlingsays]

The only boat Starmer ever cared about stopping.

 

[Stirlingsays]

How would such a ban operate in practice?

I have no issue with someone transing from gender to gender to the extent that I could not give two hoots. It is an issue that has grown to a size vastly beyond its relevance.

However if a ban causes unhappiness in children then it's very easy to argue against.

I misjudged you as someone half way sensible from the left.