UK Conservative Party Leadership Election

The thing is though, who gets to decide what 'normal' and 'common sense' are, or indeed what 'normal people' are? One person's 'negative consequences' might be positive for someone else, 'traditional society' isn't a fixed entity that was defined at a single point in time and can never change.

There was a time it was normal for parents to physically assault their children as a form of punishment, it used to be normal for women not to have the vote, and I'm sure there were loads of people who thought that the legalisation of homosexuality was a 'negative consequence', brought on by the 'woke liberals' of the day no doubt.

Why do a bunch of straight, white, middle-aged men get to define what normality is for everyone else? For young people the whole trans debate is largely a non-issue, they're far more accepting of trans people and the notion that gender identity can change. Getting caught up on the whole CAN A WOMAN HAVE A PENIS thing misses the point by a country mile.

What is 'traditional society' anyway? Pick a year when this so called traditional society existed. 1955? 1968? 1947? 1972? It's a nonsense, it doesn't exist, society changes over time, normality changes over time, things that were normal 50 or 100 years ago we now rightly won't accept and/or have made illegal. 'Home correction' used to be a thing, whereby a husband could keep his wife 'well behaved' with physical violence, now we call it spousal abuse and you can get arrested for it. Or is that a bit of 'normality' and 'traditional society' that we can all agree should remain in the past?

The confected moral panic about trans people (already one of the most marginalised groups in society) is abhorrently close to what gay people had to suffer in decades past, I wonder if all the folks getting their knickers in a twist about trans people now (BUT WHICH TOILETS WILL THEY USE ZOMG?) would have been up in arms about THE GAYS in years gone by.....
 
You're comparing apples with oranges.

You are born either male or female. There is no between. Sexuality is different to changing ones sex or not recognising that you are either male or female. It is basic bioligy. Why would society want to change the basic bioligy.
 
The problem is that it's not "confected" is it, when males compete (and win) female Olympic events because.. you know.. they decided they're a woman. Or biological males walking into female dressing rooms and toilets because.. again.

No problem with people dressing up or deciding they want to live as something that they are biologically not - I think we can all agree to live and let live, if nothing else - but they have to respect the limits of basic decency and decorum. But of course, being a straight, white middle aged man I have no right to an opinion (snide reference to this group noted).... talk about shitting on your own, eh?
 
Think the UK is well on the way to a recession the likes of which we have never witnessed and will need very strong leadership
to steer us through it, cant see anyone on the horizon who is up to the job, certainly not Truss, she reeks of incompetance,
her body language reveals total lack of connection between brain and gob.God help us when she starts lecturing Putin again, she really
pissed him off last time and could start WW3 without trying if she became PM.
 
The thing is though, who gets to decide what 'normal' and 'common sense' are, or indeed what 'normal people' are? One person's 'negative consequences' might be positive for someone else, 'traditional society' isn't a fixed entity that was defined at a single point in time and can never change.

There was a time it was normal for parents to physically assault their children as a form of punishment, it used to be normal for women not to have the vote, and I'm sure there were loads of people who thought that the legalisation of homosexuality was a 'negative consequence', brought on by the 'woke liberals' of the day no doubt.

Why do a bunch of straight, white, middle-aged men get to define what normality is for everyone else? For young people the whole trans debate is largely a non-issue, they're far more accepting of trans people and the notion that gender identity can change. Getting caught up on the whole CAN A WOMAN HAVE A PENIS thing misses the point by a country mile.

What is 'traditional society' anyway? Pick a year when this so called traditional society existed. 1955? 1968? 1947? 1972? It's a nonsense, it doesn't exist, society changes over time, normality changes over time, things that were normal 50 or 100 years ago we now rightly won't accept and/or have made illegal. 'Home correction' used to be a thing, whereby a husband could keep his wife 'well behaved' with physical violence, now we call it spousal abuse and you can get arrested for it. Or is that a bit of 'normality' and 'traditional society' that we can all agree should remain in the past?

The confected moral panic about trans people (already one of the most marginalised groups in society) is abhorrently close to what gay people had to suffer in decades past, I wonder if all the folks getting their knickers in a twist about trans people now (BUT WHICH TOILETS WILL THEY USE ZOMG?) would have been up in arms about THE GAYS in years gone by.....

There were 3 letters in the times yesterday, wish I could reproduce them, all from people formerly connected to the tavistock gender clinic. Laying out all the problems, some of the kids are autistic, some lesbian, some with depression or troubled backgrounds; yet other solutions/reasons were not explored, they were promptly put on a gateway to biological realignment, first hormone drugs and blockers then surgery once 17/18.

This is a far bigger thing than the jenner guy or frank maloney, a man gets to his middle age and wants to come out as a woman, start wearing dresses etc...

An example of normal common sense would not be turning a blind eye to widespread abuse of youngsters [incl gang rape] because the perpetrators came from a certain background. You can be sure if we've got to this level, to this mindset, there'll be plenty more examples.

£40 billion wasted on a tracking app for covid, when it was already so widespread, could've built 2 nuclear power stations for that to help supply lower cost electricity to people's homes, an example of priority.

You moved to the IOM in the 90s, I bet it's almost the same today, with no dramatic changes to the size or kind of populace, low crime, low homelessness, low unemployment, can see a GP in no time etc.. etc..

From my basic maths the IOM population would have to almost triple from 85,000 to 243,000 and then you'd have the same population density as england [2016 figs] I think you'd start to notice a difference then, especially if 10% were from other parts of the world and form no go areas on the island where you can't safely walk through.
 
Last edited:
Why do a bunch of straight, white, middle-aged men get to define what normality is for everyone else?

It's this sort of hateful, divisive, racist, ageist chuntering by the far left that ensures that Labour will never get into power no matter how heinous the Tories' incompetence. If we didn't have people that should know better spouting this guff on social media and forums, perhaps we'd all get along. I'll shut up now but this post has really pissed me off and the author is on the ignore list which I believe will stop their posts appearing altogether from now on. Sanity restored.
 
It's this sort of hateful, divisive, racist, ageist chuntering by the far left that ensures that Labour will never get into power no matter how heinous the Tories' incompetence. If we didn't have people that should know better spouting this guff on social media and forums, perhaps we'd all get along. I'll shut up now but this post has really pissed me off and the author is on the ignore list which I believe will stop their posts appearing altogether from now on. Sanity restored.

EDIT - << On balance, I'll delete that, it's not constructive >>
 
Last edited:
It's this sort of hateful, divisive, racist, ageist chuntering by the far left that ensures that Labour will never get into power no matter how heinous the Tories' incompetence. If we didn't have people that should know better spouting this guff on social media and forums, perhaps we'd all get along. I'll shut up now but this post has really pissed me off and the author is on the ignore list which I believe will stop their posts appearing altogether from now on. Sanity restored.
Funny post considering the NAZI Tory MP's have chosen the last 3 candidates of which 2 are women and one an ethnic, now being fought out between a woman and an ethnic.

I think @ChopleyIOM thinks most of the English southerners live in rich villages, own lots of land and all drive Jags and Range Rovers while dropping little Oliver and Phoebe off at their fee-paying schools, then going home to don their white robes and pointy hoods to burn effigies of Diane Abacus and Trevor McDonald. Then go and have afternoon tea and scones with their racist pensioner parents, before going into the fields for an hour's exercise flogging some east European labourers.

The funny thing is, he lives in a location more like old England than England is, and seemingly not choosing the multicultural paradise and Labour councils of his native city, which I do find surprising - it seems in his case, the cap doesn't really fit at all so he doesn't wear it......
 
I think we need some new parties, based more around common sense and priorities.

I really like this idea. I believe the red and blue divide is a deliberate design and would welcome a fresh approach because, currently, things are not looking good for the future.

Why do a bunch of straight, white, middle-aged men get to define what normality is for everyone else?

Mentioning colour kind of nullifies any moral high ground or point you try to make. Let me ask you this - why shouldn't a bunch of middle-aged white men decide what's best for a country if they are clean of corruption, full of good intentions, and the most qualified for the role?
 
I really like this idea. I believe the red and blue divide is a deliberate design and would welcome a fresh approach because, currently, things are not looking good for the future.



Mentioning colour kind of nullifies any moral high ground or point you try to make. Let me ask you this - why shouldn't a bunch of middle-aged white men decide what's best for a country if they are clean of corruption, full of good intentions, and the most qualified for the role?
It's true enough - @ChopleyIOM post is exactly why even many of the patriotic working class avoid voting Labour, as this toxic tripe is prevalent among their Marxist/Lib-fascist cliques. It's bad in a way, as it allows a low-standard almost permanent Conservative government an easy path to election victory. Even Starmer himself is making sure he's seen to crack down on the toxic Trots in his party but it isn't fooling anyone. Whatever your feelings about the woman, Thatcher effectively changed the landscape of UK politics permanently hence no socialist govts. elected since the 1970's and the masses wanting to avoid the bad old days of strikes, union power-grabbing and unelected commmunist firebrands trying to bring everyone down to their level.
 
Sunak going full-1984 at this point, next up, thought crimes!

I mean, I get who the 0.3% of the electorate they're trying to appeal to are, but even so, fucking hell.

Could be tricky the next time a radio station plays Burden of Shame by UB40 - ‘I'm a British subject, not proud of it, while I carry the burden of shame’.

1659534344346.png
 
Sunak going full-1984 at this point, next up, thought crimes!

I mean, I get who the 0.3% of the electorate they're trying to appeal to are, but even so, fucking hell.

Could be tricky the next time a radio station plays Burden of Shame by UB40 - ‘I'm a British subject, not proud of it, while I carry the burden of shame’.

View attachment 170705
Sunak can say what he wants it will not matter.

It is almost a certainty that Liz Truss will win the vote and be next Prime Minister.
 
Sunak can say what he wants it will not matter.

It is almost a certainty that Liz Truss will win the vote and be next Prime Minister.

I hope so, I bet a point on her winning.
 
Nothing to see here, well, apart from Rishi Sunak boasting to a load of rich Tories in a wealthy area that he deliberately siphoned funds away from poorer urban areas to give more money to the rich.

 
Last edited:
Nothing to see here, well, apart from Rishi Sunak boasting to a load of rich Tories in a wealthy area that he deliberately siphoned funds away from poorer urban areas to give more money to the rich.


OK, OK, you convinced me I will not vote for Truss and will support Risky instead.
:cheerleader:
 
OK, OK, you convinced me I will not vote for Truss and will support Risky instead.
:cheerleader:

That is the harsh reality of British Politics. Two parties are in contention and neither inspires confidence because of the history of lies and false promises. Voting, or supporting either is hard for some.

What happened to Screaming Lord Sutch? That's the party for a lunatics vote.
 
The gender ideologists, in govt and political circles, after pushing their agenda will now end up costing the NHS a fortune in damages, plus obviously life time problems to what were confused children:


Yeah they should never have been able to give treatment to children. If adults want to change their sex thats their choice. But no way should children ever be able to get treatment. Feel sorry for some kids but guess it is the sociery we now live in. Where parents actually go about telling people there 3 year old boy wants to be a girl and they then start dressing and treating the 3 year old like a girl and change their name. WTF a young kid is way too young to ever know what they are or what they want to be,.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Click here for Red Cherry Casino

Meister Ratings

Back
Top