haakman posted:

Ahem I am a Trotskyist Stalinist. There is no issue with this, no sir.

Guavanaut posted:

I still think you need multiple axes for that to work though, because sometimes people perform gender cues in very different ways, and that's fine too.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-iVDRwhNU58
That's a literal performance of course, but he presents much like that off stage too (love too namedrop). He's a cis guy who likes femme presentation, and while I'm sure terves would have some spicy takes about how this is blackface, help us Julies, you just have to take the presentation for what it is or else you end up with the same problem as any other gender policing.

It's a performance intersecting with an identity intersecting with a bunch of social expectations (many of them unfair), and I think that's part of what makes it complicated, interesting, and in part for him at least, a lot of fun to gently caress around with.

Like Isomermaid said though, there's no hammering it flat.

Gambrinus posted:

I don't really understand why people get so het up over trans people. They're less than 1% of the population. Live and let live ffs. I know exactly one trans lass, although I haven't even met them since they transitioned.

OwlFancier posted:

it has literally no bearing on me what other people identify as

the sex ghost posted:

I know that leather shop!!! Definitely either a front for money laundering or it's got a fetish dungeon in the back room. I've been walking past it twice a day every day for 7 years and never a single customer inside but lots of glowing online reviews about the supple quality of the leather and the excellent service they received.

It is opposite the warhammer shop in Liverpool Central so perhaps a cynical move on their part to try and create a one stop shop for the sort of people who would buy a full length leather duster for £300

Oscar Romeo Romeo posted:

Reminded me of this place in Gravesend (Had to nab a picture from Google as my photos are on the dead machine)

Not bad, not great, just ok...

Danger - Octopus! posted:

Walling off Kent and telling all the gammons in Tunbridge Wells etc that they're basically part of Europe now then watching them explode would be the most hilarious result of Brexit, so this really needs to be taken all the way.

Oscar Romeo Romeo posted:

Tunbridge Wells voted Remain so they'd probably be quite happy with that.

Danger - Octopus! posted:

I did not realise that! I grew up in Tunbridge Wells and still have family just outside it, who insist it's xenophobic Tory voter central, but that gives me some hope at least.

Danger - Octopus! posted:

I did not realise that! I grew up in Tunbridge Wells and still have family just outside it, who insist it's xenophobic Tory voter central, but that gives me some hope at least.

Oscar Romeo Romeo posted:

It wasn't a landslide win for Remain but yeah, quite a surprise for the one place in Kent to vote remain being TW.

Oscar Romeo Romeo posted:

not realising the UKIP candidate was the same former Conservative candidate they were mad at. The days after that by-election result made for interesting conversation.

Spangly A posted:

to be fair,

Oscar Romeo Romeo posted:

Huh... still going with the traffic thing.



I remember there being quite a bit of advertising promoting his campaign around the Medway towns and it was certainly out there in general discourse on social media, in the pubs, at gatherings etc but so many people I spoke to didn't make the connection that he was the former MP who'd triggered the by-election. Reckless, nor his successor Kelly Tolhurst have appeared to make any measures in addressing the daily gridlock on the A2 from Strood through to Gillingham.

Oscar Romeo Romeo posted:

the sex ghost posted:

Yorkshire would lend itself more to a traditional monarchy but Parky and Boycott are both nearly dead and I don't think you'd be able to get two Yorkshiremen (or women) to agree on a suitable candidate beyond those two, let alone all of them

justcola posted:

As usual, Fred Dibnah has an interesting bit of telly about architecture;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVLwzfyvlR0

Even 700 odd years ago they were building cathedrals that had pillars that could bear loads much heavier than what they actually did. Can't think of the last time a cathedral collapsed (that wasn't on fire)

knox_harrington posted:

Sad times, had to put the cat down today. Rest easy little guy.



He was 19 and had a great last few months up in the mountains. Sad to see him go though.

knox_harrington posted:

Sad times, had to put the cat down today. Rest easy little guy.



He was 19 and had a great last few months up in the mountains. Sad to see him go though.

knox_harrington posted:

Sad times, had to put the cat down today. Rest easy little guy.



He was 19 and had a great last few months up in the mountains. Sad to see him go though.

Renfield posted:

Jokes on me, I moved to Wales to get away from the racist chuds in Medway, and Reckless is currently a member of the Welsh Assembly.

quote:

His mother emigrated to the UK when she was 17 to train as a nurse; however, Reckless has said that he doesn't see his mother as an "immigrant" and stated "I don't consider myself to have an immigrant background".[43]

knox_harrington posted:

Sad times, had to put the cat down today. Rest easy little guy.



He was 19 and had a great last few months up in the mountains. Sad to see him go though.

Ms Adequate posted:

Sorry to you and your little buddy, we're probably going to have to have Jinx put down tomorrow, so I know how poo poo it is. Condolences <3

Ms Adequate posted:

Sorry to you and your little buddy, we're probably going to have to have Jinx put down tomorrow, so I know how poo poo it is. Condolences <3

Darth Walrus posted:

This is a... surprising point of principle for him to stick to:

https://twitter.com/skynews/status/1308817247675256833?s=21

knox_harrington posted:

Sad times, had to put the cat down today. Rest easy little guy.



He was 19 and had a great last few months up in the mountains. Sad to see him go though.

Ms Adequate posted:

Sorry to you and your little buddy, we're probably going to have to have Jinx put down tomorrow, so I know how poo poo it is. Condolences <3

Darth Walrus posted:

This is a... surprising point of principle for him to stick to:

https://twitter.com/skynews/status/1308817247675256833?s=21

Clive Lewis MP posted:

The upcoming legislation entitled the Overseas Operation Bill is about to begin its passage through Parliament. I wanted to set out here my thoughts on it for two key reasons:

1. I believe this to be an extremely important bill that has implications for human rights, the rule of law and the treatment of our armed forces.
2. It is possible the Labour party frontbench position may, at the 3rd (and final) reading, be to whip to either abstain or vote for the bill. This is of course subject to any amendments that may yet change the worst aspects of the bill. However, as things stand, the party’s front bench position seems to be that this legislation is a government trap - one we must not walk into by opposing.
Turning now to the bill itself.

Part of the bill relates a new six-year limit for veterans themselves to bring claims for conditions such as post-traumatic stress disorder or hearing loss. The MoD insists the changes will not prevent personnel and veterans from bringing claims. However, the British Legion is concerned this could be in breach of the Armed Forces Covenant and disadvantage military personnel when seeking redress from government.
This part of the bill and it’s stated intention, as per the Ministry of Defence (MoD), is to stop ‘vexatious legal action’ against veterans who have served overseas. In other words - stronger legal protection for service personnel and veterans by restricting investigations against them for historic acts

It does this by severely restricting the ability to prosecute serious criminal wrongdoing by overseas personnel by installing a presumption against doing so after five years. It also requires the attorney general’s consent. The bill then goes on to interfere with the courts’ discretionary ability to allow civil claims against the Ministry of Defence after six years. This would include claims by veterans hurt by friendly fire during overseas operations, as well as civilian victims of torture, arbitrary detention and unlawful killing.

The bill also requires the secretary of state to consider opt-outs from the European Court of Human Rights (EHCR) in respect of any significant overseas operation. In effect this means if we were to sign up to peacekeeping and humanitarian operations, the government could decide to withdraw from the most fundamental of international post-war legal norms.

The reality is this bill would, if enacted, effectively grant veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan campaigns immunity from prosecution. In other words it would decriminalise torture and murder. Aside from the damaging consequences this will have to Britain’s standing in the world as to the rule of international law, it would also be a breach of our basic obligation to global Human Rights. That’s because this bill will not apply to the British mainland.

That in effect means we would have a two-tier system of human rights justice. Overseas, dealing predominantly in post-colonial countries, we are in effect saying black and brown lives or the victims of torture, matter less. The whole concept of universal human rights is that we are ALL human beings and therefore equal before the law. This legislation fundamentally undermines that principle and, in my opinion, must be opposed.

As the climate crisis deepens, refugee numbers increase, and more states destabilise, how we respond to these crisis’ will be more important than ever. Donald Trump and other authoritarian nationalist leaders want to undermine the post-war human rights-based world order. Whilst it has many faults and inconsistencies, it is a base nonetheless to build on for the future. What Boris Johnson is doing here is to undermine and regress those gains rather than build on them.

It is my belief the Labour Party and all progressives must oppose this attack on a fundamental principle. We must always make the argument for universal human rights – no matter however difficult that is. I understand we need to win over people whose votes we have been losing since the 1990s. But no one, not even those who perhaps support such measures as are in this bill, respect a political party that will not stand fast on its principles.

Therefore, we must stand our ground on this bill and make the case for the kind of world we wish to live in. As such, unless major changes are made, I will be voting against this bill at its final reading irrespective of the party whip.

Regarde Aduck posted:

It’s possible he thinks it’s remote enough of an issue that he can do a bit of token progressiveness that won’t ever come up.

Guavanaut posted:

Why isn't this guy Labour leader again?

justcola posted:

As usual, Fred Dibnah has an interesting bit of telly about architecture;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVLwzfyvlR0

Even 700 odd years ago they were building cathedrals that had pillars that could bear loads much heavier than what they actually did. Can't think of the last time a cathedral collapsed (that wasn't on fire)