Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by grey_man

  1. It's a fundamentalist religious mindset. You could see it with Adrian. There's a dogma at play and if you don't believe it, you're a heretic. There's no need to deal in facts, or address different opinions. Just stick a label on the infidel, even when it's not true. And like most cults, it makes more noise than its numbers justify and is willing to threaten people to get its way.
  2. The government has already backtracked. My views aren't antiquated because they're based in biological fact. THat doesn't change just because somebody steeped in post-modernism says so. The problem with what is being proposed is that it's regressive, in that it removes many rights and gains that women have had to fight hard for. That is why so many feminists are against them, and rightly so. As I've said, I don't have a problem with transgender people. Good luck to them and I hope they're happy and find acceptance. But they don't get that at the expense of the majority. Here's the feminist Sarah Dumit agreeing with me in the New Statesman, which should put paid to your 'Daily Mail' argument but probably won't. https://www.newstatesman.com/2016/11/whats-missing-transgender-debate-any-discussion-male-violence It's a shame that you're not engaging any more. I'd have loved to watch you refute the idea that there is such a thing as biological sex and make a case to administer hormonal treatments to block puberty in children. Finally, this is what transgender feminist Camille Paglia has to say on the subject and I agree entirely with her. "In a democracy, everyone, no matter how nonconformist or eccentric, should be free from harassment and abuse. But at the same time, no one deserves special rights, protections, or privileges on the basis of their eccentricity. The categories ‘trans-man’ and ‘trans-woman’ are highly accurate and deserving of respect. But like Germaine Greer and Sheila Jeffreys, I reject state-sponsored coercion to call someone a ’woman’ or a ‘man’ simply on the basis of his or her subjective feeling about it. We may well take the path of good will and defer to courtesy on such occasions, but it is our choice alone."
  3. There's no nuance. If transgender people have to deal with some difficulties as they transition, then tough luck. There are bigger issues affecting more people than how they feel. It's a real problem for these individuals but the amount of rubbish that has grown up around it needs to be challenged, not least the idea that gender is entirely independent of biological sex - it isn't - or even worse that there's no such thing as biological sex at all. There is. We know how the GRA proposals will change things which is why the government is backtracking. You did drop the 'Daily Mail' thing. It's just a lazy way to apply labels to people and create a straw man argument. Ironic, really. Then there's your other straw man about inspecting to check if somebody is a man or a woman. In most cases, it's pretty obvious, whether in the case of a convicted paedophile and rapist with male genitals who wants to move to a female prison. Or a transgender male playing in the woman's AFL. Then there's the whole issue of people identifying transgenderism in prepubescent children based on what they see as their failure to comply with gender stereotypes and then seeking to administer puberty blockers to them. That is just child abuse and we need to call it that.
  4. You can do your own googling. There are plenty of examples. From what I can tell, few if any involve transgender people but there are plenty of examples of men exploiting the law to enter female spaces while posing as women. And who's to say they're not women if there are no checks and it's all down to them? I note you've dropped your lazy 'Daily Mail' claim when presented with the fact that the most vocal opponents of this are feminists. There's plenty for you to see here. https://fairplayforwomen.com/thank-india-w-showing-us-women-perceive-transwomen-still-male/ I also think Camille Paglila is very good on the subject and she IS transgender
  5. The problem of men gaining access to women's spaces won't primarily be with people suffering from gender dysphoria. They have their own set of issues. As for there being no problems, there's a very good reason why it's opposed by so many people including (those notorious Daily Mail readers) feminists. Have you seen the response of the transgender lobby to people like Germaine Greer, Linda Bellos and Mary Beard? All notorious Daily Mail readers obviously. Are you aware of what is happening with Hannah Mouncey in the AFL? How about the transgender MMA fighter Fallon Fox beating the crap out of a succession of women in fights? Have you seen the footage of transgender men assaulting a feminist OAP in London? How about the rapist David Ayrton who now claims he is a woman but retains male genitalia and has asked to be transferred to a woman's prison? There are numerous examples of men posing as women gaining access to toilets and changing rooms. They are from what I can tell not largely transgender, if ever. I have sympathy with people struggling with this issue and wish them well with their lives, but the idea that they are no different to biological women when they say so is dangerous BS.
  6. Failed City of Culture bid

    I've now seen Gary's tweets with the slides from the presentation. Full of typos and poor grammar, which kind of sums up the whole approach. I don't know if Dan is dyslexic or whatever but surely somebody could have checked it before it went public. As for the content, almost entirely froth and blather and wishful thinking. The point that intrigued me was about plans 'much are which were in delivery' (sic). Unless it's referring to plans for roads, a multiplex and housing estates, I have no idea what these might be.
  7. Failed City of Culture bid

    There's nothing in it that warrants secrecy. Although I'm sure the other entrants would have been boosted by a waffling entry based on the existence of Ikea and a handful of cultural assets the council has recently tried to get rid of.
  8. Failed City of Culture bid

    I'd go but am busy. I suspect the reason why it was all such a big secret is because that's what the council does. The less people know, the better. Which I think might actually be true in this case.
  9. What's more worrying is the proposal to allow anybody to self-identify as and when they see fit. If you ever wondered what a perv's charter looks like, that it.
  10. The backlash is beginning. There's been a huge increase in the number of men in US workplaces who refuse to mentor women, meet with them alone, speak to them about anything other than work, travel with them and meet with them with the door closed. This is a direct response to the fact that a woman can now ruin a man's life simply by accusing him of asking her out or saying something she didn't like, whether he did those things or not. Refusing to engage with women you don't know very well and trust completely is just the sensible thing to do. And who benefits? Nobody. I can see us also getting to a point where firms will simply give up on saying or doing anything pretty much completely, because they'll always be offending somebody. I can guarantee that if Tesco changed all their signage to depict men, that would be wrong too.
  11. Failed City of Culture bid

    Come on Geoff. You must know why. Now the trick will be to get the local media to ask questions about it. And I hope Dan comes up with something concrete tonight. Anything at all would set it apart from the actual bid document.
  12. From The Times Ban on local council investments in risky property portfolios Andrew Ellson, Consumer Affairs Correspondent December 27 2017, 12:01am, The Times Councils will be banned from borrowing to invest in commercial properties amid concern that they are putting taxpayers’ money and local services at risk. The Department for Communities & Local Government (DCLG) has outlined rules that will stop councils borrowing money to fund the purchases unless they benefit local residents. The plans, which have been published under a consultation, are likely to derail many councils’ investment plans, which can include buying shopping centres, retail parks and supermarkets. Earlier this year an investigation by The Times revealed that local authorities were making multibillion-pound bets on commercial property to replace revenue lost through government cuts. Freedom of information requests to every council in the country found that they had paid £2.7 billion for commercial properties since 2015, up from £500 million over the previous three years. Much of the money was borrowed from the Public Works Loan Board. Experts warned that some councils were building “exceptionally risky” portfolios with little or no investment experience, raising concerns that services would have to be cut or taxes increased if the property bubble bursts. Now the DCLG wants to stop councils from borrowing solely to generate a rental income. The consultation document says: “Borrowing solely to invest in a yield-bearing opportunity is borrowing in advance of need.” Borrowing in advance of need is banned under local government finance regulations. The rules will not prevent councils buying commercial property out of existing revenues or reserves but few, if any, have enough spare cash to do that. Professional investors hailed the new rules, saying that councils’ spending sprees were driving up commercial property prices. In parts of the country local authorities make up a third of buyers. The cross-bench peer Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, chairman of OUM Property fund managers, said: “The government has woken up to this gross abuse of public money and cracked down on councils gambling on property at long last . . . Why has it taken so long and so much forensic investigative journalism before it was stopped?”
  13. And an update from The Times. One day it might be a big enough story for the local press. New curbs on councils to stop multimillion-pound gambles February 10 2018, 12:01am, Ministers have imposed new curbs on councils using cheap borrowed cash to stake multimillion-pound bets on the commercial property market. Local authorities must take more care to avoid undue risk when making investment decisions under guidelines from Sajid Javid, the housing, communities and local government secretary. Councils are also under a new obligation to ensure that relative amateurs are not staking huge bets as they chase returns to replace revenue lost through government cuts. Councils spent almost £2.8 billion on land and building in 2016, more than double the figure for the previous year. The trend, exposed in an investigation by The Times, sparked fears that low-cost Treasury loans available to local councils are fuelling a dangerous boom. One local authority spent £422 million in 2017 alone with the tiny Spelthorne district council in Surrey investing £10,600 for every household. Some councils were also found to have invested in commercial property assets such as shopping centres in areas hundreds of miles away. Last year, the Tory-run Mole Valley council in Surrey spent £11.5 million on an Asda supermarket in Ystalyfera, near Swansea, despite analysts believing that out-of-town supermarkets have a bleak future because of online shopping. Investors were “amazed” at the price it paid. Local government finance chiefs justified the investments on the grounds that ever-greater pressure to deliver services while keeping council taxes low compelled them to look for other sources of income. MPs on the public accounts committee warned the investments were in danger of getting out of hand. Meg Hillier, its Labour chairwoman, welcomed an official review launched last year. Ms Hillier, who has warned that the boom risks echoing the collapse of Icelandic banks when councils were revealed to be over-exposed to one market, said it was overdue. Guidance issued last week by Mr Javid compels councils to be more transparent about the risks of investments but stops short of setting limits — an idea mooted in the consultation. It also says that they should prioritise security over yield in choosing investments. It says: “Authorities must not borrow more than or in advance of their needs purely in order to profit from the investment of the extra sums borrowed.” It adds that where a local authority chooses to disregard this guidance, it must say why and what it is doing to manage the risk. Critics argue the rules do not go far enough. They say it is a public policy failure to let councils borrow to speculate in commercial property but not borrow to build council homes when there is a housing crisis.
  14. Failed City of Culture bid

    I don't think that's the major problem Geoff, although it might well be part of it. If you read the bid document it is primarily about the economy and population, not culture. That is indicative of the council's view of the town. As I've said all along, the word that attracted the council to make a bid was not 'Culture' but 'City'. There will be no cultural development in Warrington until there's a shift in thinking from those who have the power to do something about it. I suspect Dan Price's heart is in the right place, but he also displays the council's general disgust of scrutiny and questioning. Ask him anything he doesn't like and he responds like a child. I can guarantee he'd throw a tantrum if asked whether anybody really thought Ikea would make any difference to the judges.
  15. Failed City of Culture bid

    By the way, I also meant to mention what a progressive mindset about culture can get you. Just contrast what's happened with the Halifax Piece Hall with what would have happened in Warrington. If the site had been here, it would now be a 5 hectare plot of executive homes and a Spar. Everybody at the council should look at it in light of their feeble attempts at 'culture' and hang their heads in shame.
  16. Elected Mayor for Warrington?

    It's almost as if they don't like petitions isn't it?
  17. Failed City of Culture bid

    Fair comment. I always get the feeling they are very inward looking, parochial and can't always distinguish between the Town and the Council. Might be unfair, but this document doesn't do anything to make me think different.
  18. Failed City of Culture bid

    As far as I know nothing has been redacted and the FOI request was met pretty promptly. It raised all sorts of questions for me. Chief among which was why somebody didn't put an end to it all following the brainstorming session in which the list of local cultural assets included Ikea, a multiplex, a facility in St Helens and an amateur theatre group. And I'm not kidding. If you have to mention Ikea in a bid for City of Culture, you should know you're doomed. Not to mention the citing in the document of facilities the council wanted to denude, close or sell off, including Walton Hall, the Parr Hall organ and the libraries. You can also see the obsession with becoming a city, the strange idea of Warrington becoming a 'Garden City' and the focus on the economy rather than culture for its own sake. I hope the humiliation of putting this together and having it rejected out of hand forces a rethink, but my guess would be not. I also was left wondering what could have been done with the millions that have been spent propping up Live Wire. Warrington needs to develop its cultural assets and activities for far more reasons than becoming a city.
  19. Failed City of Culture bid

    For anybody who's interested, the City of Culture bid document can be found here. https://drive.google.com/open?id=1eVs5fTH3J2iypmZzBQjE9YSpItsWkWUH
  20. I don't think that is what this refers to.
  21. NHS to Social Care interface performance

    My guess would be that they're unaware of it. Much of what they report about the council is directly sourced from the council's press team because they simply don't have the resources to pick up on these things or investigate them. There may be an element of not wanting to rock the boat and / or damage relationships but that would just be speculation. So, the real question for me would be why the council hasn't issued any information or made a statement, especially given their propensity to issue statements about other reports. Now that you've raised it, it's going to be interesting to see if it makes it to the local news. I'd suspect that this website will report it, but not the Guardian.
  22. Green Belt Under Threat - Areal View

    It's not Hitler. And finally... 7. Have the last word.
  23. Green Belt Under Threat - Areal View

    No worries. It's been a trip. So, just to summarise what I've learned about you. 1. Call somebody a liar. 2. Tell other people you haven't invited them to comment. 3. Ignore straightforward facts. 4. Lie about what somebody else has said. 5. Say it was all a wind up. 6. Project your own insecurities. So cheers. An education for me.
  24. Green Belt Under Threat - Areal View

    So, having made a complete tit of yourself, you fall back on the 'wind up' option. Laughable. Keep proving my point for me.