The UK is Out - New PM - and whither now for Article 50
This discussion has been closed.
Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Categories
- 1.9K All Categories
- 1 Site Stuff
- 31 Admin (FAQs, rules, queries etc.)
- The Boleyn Arms
- 51 General Chatter
- 9 Member info & Family Album
- 3 Radio Llama (music videos)
- 560 Fun & Games
- 176 BA Predictor Threads
- 6 Fantasy Football
- 52 Word Games
- 4 Quizzes
- 2 Pun Threads
- 360 Magic Minutes
- 3 Other Fun & Games
- 143 Current West Ham
- 214 Men's First Team
- 4 Women's Team
- 13 PL2 & Academy
- 36 Management & Board
- 16 Stadium & Training Ground
- 32 West Ham Miscellaneous
- West Ham Matches
- 468 Match Threads
- 138 MOTM
- 12 West Ham Nostalgia
- 37 Former Players and Staff
- 5 Past Games & Glories
- 43 Transfers
- 51 Transfer Speculation
- 88 Completed Transfers
- 59 Internationals
- 52 Men's Internationals
- 5 Women's Internationals
- 2 Youth Internationals
- 141 Football Chatter
- 43 Football Chatter
- 289 Other Teams & Matches
- 27 Other Players & Staff
Comments
I was not slinging mud at the judiciary but merely stating that for those who do mistrust the judiciary, the fact that the Supreme Court verdict of 8-3 was predicted well in advance of the actual verdict does nothing yo quell their mistrust.
As an aside the mud slinging because it's not the answer someone wants applies totally to remain voters and Clinton supporters.
No, it wasn't. It was directed at the media hysteria (and the deafening silence of HMG) which followed the result, and which does seem to have coloured your view.
How about: it was pretty well known what the result would be because it was pretty clear what the law said?
To give comfort or credence to those who sling mud at the judiciary, with absolutely no evidence, is to support them, imo.
It's exactly what Trump is doing with his 'Lying media' claims. One of the few independent institutions that could challenge him is directly under attack, precisely so that they will be discredited when his failings are pointed out.
To suggest that it is reasonable to assume the British judiciary is not impartial (without providing compelling evidence of the fact) is, imo, to undermine one of the cornerstones of its democracy.
In the absence of an effective Opposition, Ken Clarke is having to do all the work himself. ;lol ;bowdown
For example this week the BMA have instructed hospitals and doctors not to refer to pregnant women as expectant mothers in case it may offend a transgender person. Words such as mum, dad, son, daughter, boy, girl etc etc are also not to be used.
It could be spread via facebook very quickly and before you knew it taken as fact by many people who were not able or willing to verify the accuracy. It used to be limited to the Sun printing stories about Bananas needing to have a certain degree of curve as a way of suggesting 'look at these looney Europeans' but now everyone can publish anything. I think Mark Zuckerburg will make fake news a priority as it really does undermine democracy as the information published influences how people vote.
That misreporting was exactly what was the gist of the coverage in (print and online versions of) The Sun, Mail, Metro, Daily Telegraph, Mirror, The Standard, Fox News .. I could go on.
Most led with 'Doctors are banned from using the word mothers' type headlines or lead paragraphs.
Which quite blatantly 'fake news'.
The Daily Telegraph was more accurate in its headline and the body of its news report. But the end of it contains quotes from 5 people. The first is from the BMA, explaining that it is workplace guidance for its staff, and is a simple statement of a fact that is a repeat of something that's already been covered in the article. 3 more are strongly worded negative opinions calling it ridiculous and Orwellian, and using such highly emotive language, and responding as if doctors are really banned from using the word 'mother'. The final one is a positive opinion from a transgender support group rep.
How is that balanced or unbiased reporting?
This type of "fake" news - if that is what you want to call it - (e.g. news based on supposition and misrepresentation) has been more and more prevalent over the last few years as the media (including the BBC) seem hell bent on making (up) the news with misleading headlines rather than just reporting it. It was particularly apparent during the Scottish independence and UK Leave/Remain referendums (on both side of the arguments).
In my world, anyone who is pregnant could legitimately be described as simply "expecting". If you are essentially female but identify as male, assuming that you are actually pregnant then it seems perfectly reasonable to be described as "expecting"
I would imagine that "Expectant mother" would still be an appropriate handle to describe The vast majority of anyone who is actually pregnant but in the rare case where it could be determined as being an unwelcome phrase - then simply "expecting" would seem to fit the bill.
The offered up phrase "expectant person" should certainly have been "expected" to generate the screaming headlines that it appears to have done.
Just a thought
;ok
Sorry, had an outbreak of common sense ..... ;yercoat
We`ve all made this mistake...........................surely.................
Apparently, for those affected, it is not that simple.
Doesn't seem to me to be wrong to listen to what transgender people have to say about their experiences, and how they would like to be treated.
(Is the argument about how these two words are being used. It's about distinguishing 'gender' ie identity - which can be formed from various influences and factors - from sex which is more or less biologically determined.)
Also, it has become clear that there aren't only 2 sexes. Look up 'intersex'. There are a number of different syndromes where sex is not binary (in the way it is commonly understood).
And of course, people can be born one and later change to another.
(I'm ready to be corrected by those who know more about it than me, but that is my understanding based on the reading I've done. Apologies if I've misstated it.)
You'd only get ''shot down'' if you expressed prejudiced or discriminatory views on the topic. ;hmm
It's a spin-off, like happens in many of these kinds of threads. Don't think it really needs its own thread, as it is, imo, unlikely to 'run and run'.
It is a very good read, not preachy or overly medical. Just quite an engrossing story about several generations of a family in the 1st half of the 20th century.
Whilst I have every sympathy with the human in this story, school is a cruel, wicked, unforgiving place if you are different in any way, but apart from the obvious financial benefits, possibly tens of thousands of pounds I assume, what "good" does suing the school do. Highlighting the schools short comings and agitating for a better more inclusive World are one thing, but suing leaves me cold. It is the blame culture and the automatic "right" to financial recompense that gets me. Cases like this are detrimental (in my view), rather than healing wounds and promoting understanding they achieve the exact opposite.
With view to the earlier discussion, and to save any doubt or confusion, why not "pregnant human" as the catch all phrase.
I agree there could be other terms used rather than the selection offered by the Guidance.
But the point is (and it seems to be one all of us are accepting - or at least nobody has actually challenged it) that trying to choose language that is inclusive and not containing any explicit or implicit derogatory overtones is a good thing. So the actual term isn't really the issue, it seems to me.
For anybody who didn't read the booklet, there are also other categories covered, such as language to describe people with disabilities, learning difficulties etc. (Which are categories that seem to attract less scorn and ridicule from papers like the Mail and The Sun than do those associated with race and gender. Quelle surprise!)