rah
@rah@feddit.uk
- Comment on EHRC commissioner calls for trans people to accept reduced rights 3 weeks ago:
LOL the failure isn’t mine
- Comment on EHRC commissioner calls for trans people to accept reduced rights 3 weeks ago:
I think I see what you’ve been trying to communicate now.
as I said – they are saying one thing and doing another.
Well the problem is you didn’t say that. You seemed to assume that readers would understand what you meant without actually saying it:
my main point - that the EHRC is purposely pushing anti-trans advice to government bodies and dubiously using the SC’s verdict as vindication to do so, despite the SC’s verdict not actually changing anything.
Notice that this sentence does not mention anybody “saying one thing and doing another”. The critical part is that with “the SC’s verdict not actually changing anything” you’re presumably referring to what the commissioner said in the article and what you wrote at the start of your first comment but you never made that link explicit.
My assertion that your repetition of what the commissioner said undermined your main point was based on my understanding of what you had written, not what you had meant but never made explicit.
- Comment on EHRC commissioner calls for trans people to accept reduced rights 3 weeks ago:
I know what she said
I’m confused then. Why did you state, at the start of a load of criticism, exactly what the woman in the article stated, without mentioning the fact that you were repeating what she was saying? What was the purpose of putting that at the start of your criticism?
- Comment on EHRC commissioner calls for trans people to accept reduced rights 3 weeks ago:
This bill amendment that was submitted, but thankfully didn’t pass
“to summarise, Amendment NC21 to the Data Use and Access Bill would require sex to be defined as “sex at birth” for all identity verification requests.”
From what I can tell, this isn’t about creating a register of trans people, this is about collecting “sex at birth” alongside other data for any “identity verification requests” which might occur. Also, without looking into it, I would expect any provided data would have to be deleted when it was no longer needed, in line with existing data protection legislation.
- The Cass Report, a review of the science of trans studies the government bases many of its decisions on has been widely criticised by the international community. It was also found they tried to deliberately ban any subject experts from weighing in on the report during its construction.
- The EHRC and other government bodies frequently consult trans hate groups while preventing any trans person from weighing in on decisions about them
- Last year, the UK government banned the use of pubertymight blockers for adolescents, saying there is an unacceptable health risk to them, when in fact the risk is minor at best and witholding them is much more damaging to trans people (high suicide rate, for example).
None of this is about creating a registry of trans people.
I don’t understand how you went from this stuff you’ve linked to, to a registry of trans people. Where did that come from?
- Comment on Downing Street ‘exploring plan for digital ID cards’ 3 weeks ago:
Will the government spend money wisely on this project or syphon off millions to corrupt contractors?
I’m confused. Isn’t syphoning off money the whole purpose of a government? Why would they spend money wisely?
- Comment on EHRC commissioner calls for trans people to accept reduced rights 3 weeks ago:
I notice you’ve completely failed to address my main point
I notice you’ve completely failed to address my main point - that the woman in the article said exactly what you said at the start of your comment. (Which undermines your main point.)
I know it wasn’t the head of the EHRC that spoke in this instance
I’m glad to hear that.
- Comment on EHRC commissioner calls for trans people to accept reduced rights 3 weeks ago:
And every effort is being made to pass more laws to make things worse, such as making registries of trans people
I’m curious about this, could you possibly provide a source?
- Comment on EHRC commissioner calls for trans people to accept reduced rights 3 weeks ago:
The supreme court were very clear that their ruling was not a reduction in trans rights, but a clarification of existing legislation.
That’s exactly what the woman is saying. Did you read the article before commenting?
It’s pretty clear that the EHRC is purposely misrepresenting the SC’s conclusion
This was not the EHCR, this was the EHCR commissioner talking in a personal capacity.
- Comment on EHRC commissioner calls for trans people to accept reduced rights 3 weeks ago:
nonpeople
O_o
- Comment on Revealed: Banking giant threatened to leave UK over mooted tax increase; JP Morgan Chase wrote to Rachel Reeves to lobby against rumoured banking surcharge rise ahead of autumn budget 5 weeks ago:
Why would JP Morgan Chase, or any bank, leaving the UK be bad?
- Comment on Deal with EU will make food cheaper and add £9bn to UK economy, says No 10 5 weeks ago:
Asking to reference a lack of ambiguity
I haven’t asked to reference a lack of ambiguity, I’ve asked to reference “them” seeing things the way you do.
You haven’t provided any reference to back up what you’re saying.
After I have posted multiple explanations
As I said, your explanations are irrelevant to me. The only thing that will convince me is some other source which clearly shows that the agreement is referring to domestic sales. Without that, all I see is noise.
- Comment on Deal with EU will make food cheaper and add £9bn to UK economy, says No 10 5 weeks ago:
I ment you are seeing ambiguity that is not there.
I disagree.
The rest of the media and even fararge in another news article last night.
I haven’t seen any of that. Other people haven’t experienced the same things you have. Other people don’t have the same knowledge you do. That’s why it’s on you to back up what you’re saying by showing others what you experienced (read, watched, whatever) so that they can verify that what you’re saying is true. It isn’t on other people to experience their life the way you experience yours and you can’t assume that they do.
They see no abniguity in this meaning
Reference?
- Comment on Deal with EU will make food cheaper and add £9bn to UK economy, says No 10 5 weeks ago:
And you you did suggest a meaning, when you openly interpreted the article as a good benefit of Brexit.
I initially interpreted the article differently to you but I didn’t make any explicit suggestion of what “dynamic alignment on EU food standards” means. You did and continue to.
So you invested that meaning to make your rather pathetic point about the deal matching some Brexit benefit.
I don’t even understand what you’re claiming here. I haven’t made any point about the deal “matching” some brexit benefit, whatever that means.
I made a very clear pretty close to ELI5 maybe 10.
I’m not asking for you to explain anything. I’m expecting you to back up what you’re saying with references to information elsewhere. This is how rigorous debate and communication works. This is basic stuff. If you can’t back up what you’re saying then don’t bother saying anything, you’re just making noise.
Unless you have some source which clearly states that “dynamic alignment on EU food standards” relates to domestic sales then to me, what you’re saying is just an unverified guess. An opinion. Of no value. Noise.
- Comment on Deal with EU will make food cheaper and add £9bn to UK economy, says No 10 5 weeks ago:
You are asking for ambiguity
Eh?
- Comment on Deal with EU will make food cheaper and add £9bn to UK economy, says No 10 5 weeks ago:
You have to be pretty fucking stupid to keep insisting that dose not relate to domestic sales.
I haven’t insisted that.
What the fuck else do you think standards aligned actually means.
I’m not making any claim about what it means, you are. It’s on you to show that what you’re saying is true.
- Comment on Deal with EU will make food cheaper and add £9bn to UK economy, says No 10 5 weeks ago:
Alignment of UK food standards.
Doesn’t contain the words “domestic sales” and is open to interpretation.
Means our own standards must continue to meet the EUs.
How have you determined that? I couldn’t find any explanation of what this means, or the text of the agreement.
- Comment on Deal with EU will make food cheaper and add £9bn to UK economy, says No 10 5 weeks ago:
Yes it dose just not in ELI5 language.
I think you’re confusing “ELI5 language” and “clear, unambiguous language”.
Alignment of on EU food standards clearly states our own standards must match the EUs.
I disagree.
- Comment on Deal with EU will make food cheaper and add £9bn to UK economy, says No 10 5 weeks ago:
You know all of the promises that Boris Johnson the enormously deceitful individual gave.
No. I didn’t pay any attention to the brexit campaigning. I’d been arguing for leaving the EU for years before all that nonsense happened. Why on Earth anyone would pay any attention to anything Johnson says, ever, is beyond me.
How are we better out of the EU than we are in it if our biggest trading partner remains the EU
There’s more to life and government than just trade. If you want to know some of my arguments for why we’re better off out of the EU, I’ll repurpose a previous comment:
For a start it means that the structure of the government better reflects the concerns of the population. The EU never really made much of a dent in the consciousness of Britons. I expect the number of citizens who knew the name of their MEP off the top of their head would be dwarfed by the number of citizens who knew the name of their MP. This is in comparison to continental countries, particularly in my mind Germany, where the EU, EU political parties and MEPs are very much present in the minds of the electorate. At least, that was my experience.
Also, in my view the EU is quite undemocratic. The separate Council, Commission and Parliament are an affront. Especially the fact that the Parliament, which represents the electorate, does not have the power to introduce legislation. The people are an inconvenient afterthought in the EU power structure. Here’s Yanis Varoufakis when he was finance minister for Greece back when they had their economic meltdown, talking about the impending referendum on whether to accept European proposals regarding Greece’s debt: [in the event that the referendum accepts the European proposals] “I am not going to impede its progress through parliament. This is my commitment to democracy and my commitment to the people, that I have entrusted with the decision, with the verdict of yes/no, or no, in a way that has incensed my colleagues in the Euro group who don’t believe that ‘such complex matters’, as I’ve been told, ‘should be put to common folk’.” – youtu.be/OmqnYHmRg48?t=625 That, to me, is the EU. The British people are better off out of it.
EU Regional Development Funds are another horror. They’re run by unelected bureaucrats, stepping on the toes of existing, democratically elected regional institutions like… councils. Instead of giving hundreds of millions to councils for development projects, or even creating larger regional institutions with democratically elected leadership, someone thought it would be a good idea to give those millions to unelected bureaucrats to spend in the same area. I’m still mystified as to how this ever came to pass. Brexit couldn’t come soon enough.
- Comment on Deal with EU will make food cheaper and add £9bn to UK economy, says No 10 5 weeks ago:
That doesn’t mention domestic sales.
- Comment on Deal with EU will make food cheaper and add £9bn to UK economy, says No 10 5 weeks ago:
we’re not exactly living in the utopian society that we were promised
I’ve no idea what promises you’re referring to.
If anything brexit has proven to be as disastrous as everyone who opposed it predicted.
I’ve no idea what predictions you’re referring to.
The brexit voters are utterly unprepared to accept they made a mistake
I don’t see how voting for brexit was a mistake. Again, the UK is out of the EU. Seems successful to me.
- Comment on Deal with EU will make food cheaper and add £9bn to UK economy, says No 10 5 weeks ago:
I can’t see any mention of domestic sales, could you quote the part you’re referring to?
- Comment on Deal with EU will make food cheaper and add £9bn to UK economy, says No 10 5 weeks ago:
also on items we sell to ourselves
You’re claiming that the deal with the EU contains clauses which obligate the UK to use the EU’s rules for food sold domestically in the UK?
- Comment on Deal with EU will make food cheaper and add £9bn to UK economy, says No 10 5 weeks ago:
The Brexit faithful will never stop believing and inventing new reasons it failed.
What are you talking about, “failed”? The UK is not a member of the EU anymore.
- Comment on Deal with EU will make food cheaper and add £9bn to UK economy, says No 10 5 weeks ago:
By following EU rules on the items we sell.
On items we sell to the EU. Critical omission.
- Comment on Deal with EU will make food cheaper and add £9bn to UK economy, says No 10 5 weeks ago:
Maybe you use a VPN? Maybe you clicked “Accept” by accident once? Maybe the paywall is limited to particular networks? etc., etc.
- Comment on Deal with EU will make food cheaper and add £9bn to UK economy, says No 10 5 weeks ago:
who fucked us all over in the first place
Brexit was money well spent as far as I’m concerned. Fuck the EU.
- Comment on Deal with EU will make food cheaper and add £9bn to UK economy, says No 10 5 weeks ago:
They refuse access in the UK unless you permit tracking cookies or pay them.
- Comment on Deal with EU will make food cheaper and add £9bn to UK economy, says No 10 5 weeks ago:
Paywall-freeL archive.is/0CHsG
- Comment on Deal with EU will make food cheaper and add £9bn to UK economy, says No 10 5 weeks ago:
Oh look! We can make beneficial treaties with the EU without being a member! Yay brexit!
- Submitted 5 weeks ago to unitedkingdom@feddit.uk | 51 comments