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
- 1.4K All Categories
- 1 Site Stuff
- 31 Admin (FAQs, rules, queries etc.)
- The Boleyn Arms
- 28 General Chatter
- 7 Member info & Family Album
- 3 Radio Llama (music videos)
- 359 Fun & Games
- 81 BA Predictor Threads
- 27 Word Games
- 4 Quizzes
- 2 Pun Threads
- 280 Magic Minutes
- 3 Other Fun & Games
- 107 Current West Ham
- 196 Men's First Team
- 3 Women's Team
- 10 PL2 & Academy
- 31 Management & Board
- 15 Stadium & Training Ground
- 24 West Ham Miscellaneous
- West Ham Matches
- 378 Match Threads
- 52 MOTM
- 8 West Ham Nostalgia
- 34 Former Players and Staff
- 4 Past Games & Glories
- 34 Transfers
- 45 Transfer Speculation
- 85 Completed Transfers
- 51 Internationals
- 44 Men's Internationals
- 5 Women's Internationals
- 2 Youth Internationals
- 104 Football Chatter
- 41 Football Chatter
- 258 Other Teams & Matches
- 23 Other Players & Staff
Comments
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!)
How do you know if a school has been negligent in their conforming with the law and fulfilling their responsibilities? Until the day they put you in charge of deciding ( ;wink ), a case has to be taken to court to test that.
Who will do that, unless a 'victim' steps forward.
Also, if there is no punitive impact on the offending organisations, they can just carry on ignoring the law. And if they get taken to court and lose, ah well. Never mind.
But I think under the 2010 Act Part 9 (Enforcement) the tribunals and courts are empowered to award compensation and damages (subject to various criteria and limits).
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/question-time-woman-banana-is-straight-audience-member-brexit-vote-last-minute-eu-referendum-a7560781.html
How many more of them had a similar reason ;puzzled
would ofwould've been cucumbers ;biggrinIt has been debunked so many times, but some people still believe it. Even after Boris admitted he made it up.
The regulation applies to unripened green bananas, and thus to growers and wholesalers rather than retailers.[3] The main provisions of the regulation were that bananas sold as unripened, green bananas should be green and unripened, firm and intact, fit for human consumption, not "affected by rotting", clean, free of pests and damage from pests, free from deformation or abnormal curvature, free from bruising, free of any foreign smell or taste.[1] The minimum size (with tolerances and exceptions) is a length of 14 cm and a thickness (grade) of 2.7 cm. It specifies minimum standards for specific quality classifications of bananas (Extra, Class I, Class II).[1] Only Extra class bananas have to comply fully with the shape specifications. Class II bananas, for instance are permitted to have "defects of shape"; Class I bananas are permitted only "slight defects of shape".[1][4] This is not true, however, of the size specifications; sale of bananas below the minimum size is almost always prohibited (with exceptions only for bananas from a few regions where bananas are traditionally smaller).
If you don't read all the information and just focus on section underlines it is easy to see why people misinterpreted the regulation. Also at the time, a lot of the bananas imported to the UK came from the West Indies which tended to be smaller and curvier so imports from that area suffered, as importers switched to other countries who grew products that were more in line with the highest classification - it also lead to accusations (from those losing out) of the EU protecting it's own as many of the EU's big agricultural companies had interests in those areas producing the new higher classification fruits.
The real problem is that there is a lot of legislation and regulations out there from the EU regards fruit and vegetables that is produced for marketing and trade purposes - i.e. when you buy the product badged as Grade A or Class 1 that is what you get (as per the EU regulation), if not you can send it back and have it replaced or pay the costs of the lower grade it actually is (claim back a credit if already paid), which when it gets into the public domain is deliberately misinterpreted (for various reasons) or misunderstood.
"which when it gets into the public domain is deliberately misinterpreted (for various reasons) or misunderstood" -
by the usual suspects:
e.g: Sun, Daily Express, Daily Mail among others