UK Conservative Party Leadership Election

[ChopleyIOM]

Ey up it's Chopley's boy in action:

Indeed

UK Conservative Party Leadership Election - Page 42 - Casinomeister Forum

 

[ChopleyIOM]

And whilst they may pontificate about how difficult it is for them to get a potential mortgage, as they mull over it, sipping their third Starbucks coffee of the afternoon, it's worth pointing out that there are just as many able-bodied adults of working age left in the same predicament. How about training them up and levelling them up? Or is the empathy only saved for the nose-picking ingrates that have the best technology, mod-cons and gadgets to any other generation prior?

Ahhh yes it's the whole 'young people spend too much on coffee and that's why they can't afford a house' trope.

The good thing here is, I actually have some numbers. My nana died recently - (she was 97, so a good innings, as they say) - and a piece of information contained in the eulogy was that she and my gramps purchased their main family house in 1964 for £900.

In 1964 the average annual salary for a manual worker was £915.

Here is a similar house, on the same road, that is currently for sale. You're quickly going to see the problem here.

Offers over £450,000.

Still, wages are more than they were in 1964, right? Let's have a look at the numbers on that.

Oops.

Seriously goaty, it ain't the extra coffee from Starbucks that's the problem here.

 

[goatwack]

Ahhh yes it's the whole 'young people spend too much on coffee and that's why they can't afford a house' trope.

The good thing here is, I actually have some numbers. My nana died recently - (she was 97, so a good innings, as they say) - and a piece of information contained in the eulogy was that she and my gramps purchased their main family house in 1964 for £900.

In 1964 the average annual salary for a manual worker was £915.

Here is a similar house, on the same road, that is currently for sale. You're quickly going to see the problem here.

View attachment 178842

Offers over £450,000.

Still, wages are more than they were in 1964, right? Let's have a look at the numbers on that.

Oops.

View attachment 178843

Seriously goaty, it ain't the extra coffee from Starbucks that's the problem here.

One could buy a car back then for a grand too, and a pint of milk was 3p, woop-de-do

Property prices have been destined to be unsustainable, so it was always going to end up here. And with London especially, landlords are given free rein to charge whatever they please, the sort of thing other countries don't permit as readily.

So on any first-time buyer's prospects, we can agree the system's imploded, and currently in need of some kind of intervention, the kind our Government couldn't give two hoots about!

Still doesn't explain away the younger demographic being whiny, entitled workshy litterbug hypocrites, however

 

[Kroffe]

Still doesn't explain away the younger demographic being whiny, entitled workshy litterbug hypocrites, however

What the hell man, im not a litterbug.

 

[ChopleyIOM]

One could buy a car back then for a grand too, and a pint of milk was 3p, woop-de-do

Property prices have been destined to be unsustainable, so it was always going to end up here. And with London especially, landlords are given free rein to charge whatever they please, the sort of thing other countries don't permit as readily.

So on any first-time buyer's prospects, we can agree the system's imploded, and currently in need of some kind of intervention, the kind our Government couldn't give two hoots about!

Still doesn't explain away the younger demographic being whiny, entitled workshy litterbug hypocrites, however

But the point there is that house price rises have massively outstripped increases in income, whereas the prices of, for example, a car or a pint of milk have, give or take, increased roughly in line with wages. (A lot of stuff has got a lot cheaper in real terms too, such as televisions. I remember my dad used to rent our TV and video because he couldn't afford to buy one, this was quite common back in the 80s in working class families, because they were hugely expensive to buy outright, whereas now tellies are basically just cheap consumer items.)

That's all I'm getting at here, the idea that young people today can't afford houses because they spend too much money on avocado toast, rather than what the graph shown below very clearly demonstrates.

I've seen loads of old people wang on about how they pulled their socks up and bought their house no problem and young people today are just lazy and, shock horror, LIKE TO ENJOY A TAKEAWAY COFFEE. And I'm just thinking, 'Oh do shut up, you'd be absolutely fucked if you were a young person in the year 2023 trying to buy their first property on an average salary'.

 

[dunover]

Ahhh yes it's the whole 'young people spend too much on coffee and that's why they can't afford a house' trope.

The good thing here is, I actually have some numbers. My nana died recently - (she was 97, so a good innings, as they say) - and a piece of information contained in the eulogy was that she and my gramps purchased their main family house in 1964 for £900.

In 1964 the average annual salary for a manual worker was £915.

Here is a similar house, on the same road, that is currently for sale. You're quickly going to see the problem here.

View attachment 178842

Offers over £450,000.

Still, wages are more than they were in 1964, right? Let's have a look at the numbers on that.

Oops.

View attachment 178843

Seriously goaty, it ain't the extra coffee from Starbucks that's the problem here.

Blah blah blah....in real terms then a telly was so expensive most people rented one, now you can buy a flat screen 40-incher for less than the average weekly wage, a phone line and calls were about 5x dearer in real terms than now, a jar of decent coffee horrendously dear, a washing machine was a major purchase as were fridges and freezers, you can buy a fridge and freezer matching pair or a pretty good washing machine for again, far less than the average weekly wage.

But hey, a cheaper house with fuck-all in it, no double glazing, no integrated central heating, a rusty Ford Anglia on the drive (if you were lucky) and two bob in the meter on the TV to watch sodding Coronation Street, they were the days lol...

 

[ChopleyIOM]

Blah blah blah....in real terms then a telly was so expensive most people rented one, now you can buy a flat screen 40-incher for less than the average weekly wage, a phone line and calls were about 5x dearer in real terms than now, a jar of decent coffee horrendously dear, a washing machine was a major purchase as were fridges and freezers, you can buy a fridge and freezer matching pair or a pretty good washing machine for again, far less than the average weekly wage.

But hey, a cheaper house with fuck-all in it, no double glazing, no integrated central heating, a rusty Ford Anglia on the drive (if you were lucky) and two bob in the meter on the TV to watch sodding Coronation Street, they were the days lol...

Good god almighty I literally just made that exact same point about tellies in the post preceding yours, I'm fully aware of this.

Are you really suggesting that houses being completely beyond the means of young people on even quite good wages (let alone average wages), is offset by the fact that they can buy a cheap telly? (I mean, we're looping back round to the THEY BUY COFFEES FROM STARBUCKS argument now.)

I don't know how you old are dunover but I'm knocking on the door of 50, so I'm plenty old enough to remember rented tellies, going to the laundrette once a week to do the washing (we couldn't afford a washing machine), car ownership being an occasional thing depending on the household's current financial status (and even then it was an old banger) and all the rest of it - but my dad was also able to buy a house, on a British Gas wage, and bring up two children in a single parent household.

House ≠ Telly

 

[ChopleyIOM]

The key point here, just so we're absolutely crystal clear on this, is that a young person who gives up their cheap tellies and washing machines, and even forsakes their COFFEE FROM STARBUCKS THEY COST THREE POUNDS YOU KNOW, is still going to fall about sixty gazillion pounds short of being able to buy even a modest house for themselves or their families.

This nonsensical idea that they benefit from relatively cheap consumer goods, or have a small amount of discretionary spend that could be diverted towards a house purchase, and that's all that's keeping them out of their own house - is just that, an absolute nonsense.

There is no world where someone on a salary of £25K is going to get on the property ladder when a house costs £250K.

 

[mack341]

But the point there is that house price rises have massively outstripped increases in income, whereas the prices of, for example, a car or a pint of milk have, give or take, increased roughly in line with wages. (A lot of stuff has got a lot cheaper in real terms too, such as televisions. I remember my dad used to rent our TV and video because he couldn't afford to buy one, this was quite common back in the 80s in working class families, because they were hugely expensive to buy outright, whereas now tellies are basically just cheap consumer items.)

That's all I'm getting at here, the idea that young people today can't afford houses because they spend too much money on avocado toast, rather than what the graph shown below very clearly demonstrates.

I've seen loads of old people wang on about how they pulled their socks up and bought their house no problem and young people today are just lazy and, shock horror, LIKE TO ENJOY A TAKEAWAY COFFEE. And I'm just thinking, 'Oh do shut up, you'd be absolutely fucked if you were a young person in the year 2023 trying to buy their first property on an average salary'.

The thing is you don't have to go as far back as the 60's, houses in my street have increased 5 fold in value in roughly 25 years, of course mortgage interest rates dropped during that period, then you add on massive immigration that outstrips house building. The graph above says it all, the major ignition point was 1997

I think it has been a western worldwide pattern though.

 

[goatwack]

And yet younger people won't give up anything, or be more prudent with their money, I think that's the point. Apparently, the world owes them a living, and sacrificing anything to attain something else beyond their remit!

And yes, that includes budgeting correctly, which also includes overpriced lukewarm sugared gruel at £3 a pop at Starbucks (or any other well-known coffee shop......maybe Costa Coffee. Or even Cafe Rouge! Hmm! percolated perfection!)

Somehow, house prices were to always remain at 1:1 with someone's salary, until the end of time. This is despite a small country with finite resources and space and a growing population having to sustain it all, with land always the most sought-after asset.

I'm pretty sure those in e.g 1964 found home ownership so easy to come by, and could buy a mansion for thruppence, and did so without any worries, and laughed at how easy this lark is!

Have the effrontery to question 'younger people's' handling of their finances, well, that's just not on. Then ask them what means more to them, home ownership and e.g giving up their £60 p/m phone contract, or a small urban modern living space with all the mod cons as they are.

I think I know the answer to that

 

[paul7388]

The key point here, just so we're absolutely crystal clear on this, is that a young person who gives up their cheap tellies and washing machines, and even forsakes their COFFEE FROM STARBUCKS THEY COST THREE POUNDS YOU KNOW, is still going to fall about sixty gazillion pounds short of being able to buy even a modest house for themselves or their families.

This nonsensical idea that they benefit from relatively cheap consumer goods, or have a small amount of discretionary spend that could be diverted towards a house purchase, and that's all that's keeping them out of their own house - is just that, an absolute nonsense.

There is no world where someone on a salary of £25K is going to get on the property ladder when a house costs £250K.

They could always buy a house in a cheaper area. Plenty houses where I stay sell for less than £100k.

Plus many years ago it was a total different market. Many houses in those days no longer exist as they were shit to be honest. Add on fact you could buy your council house for next to nothing and also plenty of people got houses with their job and could then purchase cheap.

Totally different market now. Fewer houses now that most council areas have ripped down all the closes and high rise flats.

So basically lot of houses these days are modern new built compared to some of the really poor cramped houses from years ago. Most areas can house less people than they used to yet population of country has increased by 10 million since then.

So these days you have to build new houses to house everyone. Decent houses are in much higher demand than years ago. So does not take a genius to work out higher demand the higher the price.

Whereas years ago thinks like TV sets were new on the market and demand was so high. Hence high prices. Same as mobile phones computers etc . But once they became cheaper to make and everyone owned one and often more than one prices came down.

Where as costs a lot more to build houses now and demand is huge so stands to reason price would go sky high . If they stopped making new TV sets and there was not enough for everyone to buy one then prices would soar.

Called supply and demand. And if everyone wants a house in certain areas then prices will soar in those areas.

Like I said plenty houses where I stay at 100k or less. Yet go to similair houses in a new built area beside me with a different postcode even tho it's same area and houses cost double.

People want a house they can afford then move to the areas where they can buy them.

 

[ChopleyIOM]

So I'll kind of try to answer several points at once here, but I'll immediately address what paul7388 said above, because I think the rest of it falls into place behind that.

'People want a house they can afford then move to the areas where they can buy them.'

So where does that logically finish up then? Houses in my old neighbourhood that are actually ready to move into, small two-bedroomed mid-terraced houses, are coming in at £150K. As per my post earlier today, you're looking at £250K-£450K+ for a house on my nana's old road, this used to be considered a cheap area to live in. This is a road they bought a house on for £900, at a time when the average annual salary for a manual worker was £915.

So what are people supposed to do, just keep moving to 'cheaper places to live'? What about their family connections, their friends, their work - it's just tough shit and go somewhere cheaper and leave all that behind?

I'm sorry folks I really just don't get this, can't you see the bad guys here? Can't you see the villains of the piece? Someone is buying these houses, someone is buying crappy terraced houses in my old neighbourhood for £150K, and it ain't the people living there on minimum wage, it's the people who already have loads of money who are paying those prices, and then renting them back out to local people who have no chance whatsoever of ever owning one. Every single time this happens, that's another house that will never, ever be owned again by an ordinary working person.

Where do you think the rich are going to stop? Do you think they're going to wake up one day and decide they've got enough money, or do you think they're going to grab more, and more, and more, using their wealth to own more of everything, including the absolute essentials of life such as housing, until there's nothing left for normal people except what is essentially a life of indenture and servitude?

What happens when there are no 'cheaper areas' left? What happens when working folk have been entirely priced out of ever owning property? Hello everyone, welcome back to the 1800s! In was shit then and it's going to be shit again!

It's truly baffling to me how they've managed to get ordinary working people ripping chunks out of each other, it's the fault of the lazy young, or the struggling immigrant, or the desperate refugee, or can a woman have a penis, and in plain sight of everyone they are committing one of the biggest acts of mass larceny the UK has ever seen.

More and more wealth is being consolidated in the hands of increasingly few at the very top, the UK has more billionaires than ever before, how is everyone feeling about how well 'trickle-down' economics is working? And they don't just sit on that wealth, they don't just stuff it into their mattresses, they use it to buy assets, they use it to buy anything and everything that they know everyone else needs, and the endgame of this process is there will be nothing left for anyone else.

But whatever folks, you do you, and say it's the fault of our young people because they have, checks notes.... mobile phones.

 

[goatwack]

I think I just died and went to Straw Man Heaven

Apparently, rich people hoovering up all the wealth to make others poor is a new concept!

And JUST WHY can't everyone have the exact same housing in any location they so desire when it suits them, where everyone pays the same rent prices and wild horses roam free in their back gardens!

Everyone should have exactly the same things, because the magic Equity Fairy will wave her wand and woosh!

Where have I heard that concept before.....

 

[paul7388]

So I'll kind of try to answer several points at once here, but I'll immediately address what paul7388 said above, because I think the rest of it falls into place behind that.

'People want a house they can afford then move to the areas where they can buy them.'

So where does that logically finish up then? Houses in my old neighbourhood that are actually ready to move into, small two-bedroomed mid-terraced houses, are coming in at £150K. As per my post earlier today, you're looking at £250K-£450K+ for a house on my nana's old road, this used to be considered a cheap area to live in. This is a road they bought a house on for £900, at a time when the average annual salary for a manual worker was £915.

So what are people supposed to do, just keep moving to 'cheaper places to live'? What about their family connections, their friends, their work - it's just tough shit and go somewhere cheaper and leave all that behind?

I'm sorry folks I really just don't get this, can't you see the bad guys here? Can't you see the villains of the piece? Someone is buying these houses, someone is buying crappy terraced houses in my old neighbourhood for £150K, and it ain't the people living there on minimum wage, it's the people who already have loads of money who are paying those prices, and then renting them back out to local people who have no chance whatsoever of ever owning one. Every single time this happens, that's another house that will never, ever be owned again by an ordinary working person.

Where do you think the rich are going to stop? Do you think they're going to wake up one day and decide they've got enough money, or do you think they're going to grab more, and more, and more, using their wealth to own more of everything, including the absolute essentials of life such as housing, until there's nothing left for normal people except what is essentially a life of indenture and servitude?

What happens when there are no 'cheaper areas' left? What happens when working folk have been entirely priced out of ever owning property? Hello everyone, welcome back to the 1800s! In was shit then and it's going to be shit again!

It's truly baffling to me how they've managed to get ordinary working people ripping chunks out of each other, it's the fault of the lazy young, or the struggling immigrant, or the desperate refugee, or can a woman have a penis, and in plain sight of everyone they are committing one of the biggest acts of mass larceny the UK has ever seen.

More and more wealth is being consolidated in the hands of increasingly few at the very top, the UK has more billionaires than ever before, how is everyone feeling about how well 'trickle-down' economics is working? And they don't just sit on that wealth, they don't just stuff it into their mattresses, they use it to buy assets, they use it to buy anything and everything that they know everyone else needs, and the endgame of this process is there will be nothing left for anyone else.

But whatever folks, you do you, and say it's the fault of our young people because they have, checks notes.... mobile phones.

Okay do not know why but I will ask your opinion on availability of housing and what your opinion is.

We will take a few of your favourite topics and see what your view is.

Availability of housing for young. Immigrants and refugees , and young people being forced to cut ties and move away from family just to get a house.

So lets take a few of your points. You often say nothing is the fault of immigrants its always the rich. And you say people should not have to move away from where they are brought up and family just to get affordable housing.

So what about people that want to rent houses in the area they are brought up. Like the young phone owners. You know the young people that have stayed in an area since they were born. Where their family and friends stay. The ones that just want to rent a house in an area they have lived all their life's but are told no by their local housing. As any houses available are prioritised for refugees. People that want to move to a new build house to rent having stayed In a tenement for 40 years and always paid rent but get told they do not qualify and have to watch as these houses are filled with refugee families.

So are you saying its okay for them to have to move away to different areas away from family as all local housing is prioritised for foreigners since they are just going to rent, but if they were wanting to buy a house then why should they have to move away .

So immigrants are not a problem in housing according to you. The rich are pricing young people out of buying a house in the area they were brought up and that is wrong. But fact those young people can no longer rent either where they were brought up as refugees take priority is acceptable to you.

 

[ChopleyIOM]

The greatest trick ever played is convincing everyone that their problems are the fault of those below them, as opposed to those above them.

For clarity here paul, I'm not aiming this directly 'at' you, and I know you probably won't watch it anyway (it's just under ten minutes if you can spare that time), and I'm not always the biggest fan of James O'Brien myself, but he does often hit on solid points of logic and reasoning, which I think he does in this piece.

Can refugees place a strain on local housing systems? Absolutely, that can happen (and there are loads of possible answers to this, including, y'know building more fucking houses for everyone, not just refugees, or not just lumping them all into the poorest areas (but then everyone gets cross that they live somewhere nice)), but seriously, they're not the bad guys in this scenario.

Everyone needs somewhere to live, everyone needs a roof over their head, it's a basic human need, refugees aren't paying £150K for a crappy two bedroom terraced house in Radcliffe, which is where I grew up, it's the most deprived area in its borough. (As it was back then too.)

There is a way to fix these problems, it's solvable, but we have to start by deciding that instead of kicking down, we need to look up, and see where the problems really are.

The working classes, the refugees, the immigrants, they're on the same side, they just want a moderately decent standard of living in secure employment and reasonably decent housing, a safe place to live and bring up their children, with health care and education they can rely on. In the case of the refugees, they just want to not be worrying about literally being shot in the night because they're on the wrong side in some godforsaken war - they are not our enemies.

The UK's Prime Minister is personally worth about £700m, his father-in-law is worth billions, whose side do you think they're on? Whose interests do you think Rishi Sunak will govern in? Or how about Boris Johnson and his 'appeals to the ordinary person' shtick?

Destitute refugees are not the baddies here.

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

.

 

[paul7388]

The greatest trick ever played is convincing everyone that their problems are the fault of those below them, as opposed to those above them.

For clarity here paul, I'm not aiming this directly 'at' you, and I know you probably won't watch it anyway (it's just under ten minutes if you can spare that time), and I'm not always the biggest fan of James O'Brien myself, but he does often hit on solid points of logic and reasoning, which I think he does in this piece.

Can refugees place a strain on local housing systems? Absolutely, that can happen (and there are loads of possible answers to this, including, y'know building more fucking houses for everyone, not just refugees, or not just lumping them all into the poorest areas (but then everyone gets cross that they live somewhere nice)), but seriously, they're not the bad guys in this scenario.

Everyone needs somewhere to live, everyone needs a roof over their head, it's a basic human need, refugees aren't paying £150K for a crappy two bedroom terraced house in Radcliffe, which is where I grew up, it's the most deprived area in its borough. (As it was back then too.)

There is a way to fix these problems, it's solvable, but we have to start by deciding that instead of kicking down, we need to look up, and see where the problems really are.

The working classes, the refugees, the immigrants, they're on the same side, they just want a moderately decent standard of living in secure employment and reasonably decent housing, a safe place to live and bring up their children, with health care and education they can rely on. In the case of the refugees, they just want to not be worrying about literally being shot in the night because they're on the wrong side in some godforsaken war - they are not our enemies.

The UK's Prime Minister is personally worth about £700m, his father-in-law is worth billions, whose side do you think they're on? Whose interests do you think Rishi Sunak will govern in? Or how about Boris Johnson and his 'appeals to the ordinary person' shtick?

Destitute refugees are not the baddies here.

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

.

View attachment 178863

Thanks but you never answered a thing about your opinion.

As you are no longer living in UK i will sort of explain what i mean and ask your opinion if you agree with how it works. And yes way refugees get treated is unfair, not on them but on the people from the areas they are moved into.

So to explain it again and how it works. Refugees have to be housed i agree with that. Poorer areas are cheaper houses at times so costs less i also agree with in part.

But the major problem lies in fact that people stay in these areas all their lives. They work and pay their bloody rent. They then see new houses getting built on sites where tenements etc. have been ripped down. Now this is the area they have stayed all their life and paid for. They apply for one of these new houses and apart from a few lucky ones most are told no they can not get one. They then sit and watch as most of the houses have refugee families move into them.

So my problem is why can the people that live and get brought up in an area get refused a new house yet the refugees get them. What is up with giving the people from the area the houses that are built , that are dearer and they will pay full rent for and move the refugees into the houses they left. And also if an area has a lot of people wanting to move out of parents houses etc. that have been on a waiting list for years as it is a cheaper area why should any available houses in area go to refugees first. even if the youngsters have been made homeless by parents and have no house to move into the refugees still get priority on empty houses. So please explain how it is fair. And as this is how it is working in many areas and has nothing to do with money what is your opinion.

Would be good to have your own opinion on matters above, not a video or online article but your own opinion. After all you keep saying refugees do not cause issues and you can not understand the resentment to them. Well i am in no way racist, or have anything against refugees but i sure as hell disagree with the preferential treatment they get. And for reasons i stated above and other reasns i will not go into then you might see why people have a problem with it.

 

[paul7388]

And to explain from a personal point of view why it pisses people off as i know you like a personal reason rather than just an opinion. Take me as an example. Born and brought up in a pretty bad housing scheme in North Glasgow, used to the area and actually like it so would not move out of area.

Left parents house, met partner and had nowhere to stay, and no chance of a house. She fell pregnant, and no it was not to get a house. Anyway we got offered a house in worst street of area that was actually down for demolition shortly. Very rough street and half houses were empty. Took the house, Paid full rent. Then houses were coming down moved to another bad street. Again paid full rent. 3 years later that house got brought down. Moved to another bad street with partner pregnant again. No chance of getting decent house as although pay full rent you did not qualify.

Anyway after 4 years there got a great house. Still in it today 17 years later. Not because i was a good tenant. No simply because i had doctors fight for a decent house as my youngest was autistic and house i had was not suitable. Housing officers would still not entertain giving me a new house. I did not have enough points for a decent house with a garden for the boy. After one hell of an argument with housing officer who did not care what the doctors, child pyschologist etc. said i got a meeting with head of housing who went mad. Was told i would get a decent house and just to provide few letters to prove kids health problems the next day and then they would start process. Anyway i got offered this house same day before i even supplied the documents,

But point is i had to fight for it even tho i needed it. Many others are in same position. Yet they are stuck in houses not big enough etc. But they are told after many years living in a house that they do not qualify for certain houses even tho they pay full rent. Then they sit and watch as refugees with same sized families just move straight into these houses. Who knows what would have happened if it was not for my boy all those years ago. Would i still be trying to get a decent house in the area, whilst watching as all the houses get filled with people just in the country. Will never know but i do know i have friends etc. staying in houses etc. that cannot get a move. My own sister and her husband stayed in a high rise flat for 30 years. Only last year they got to move to a decent house after many years of fighting for it, So yes Chopley the way refugees get preference every time causes a lot of resentment. People should get the houses they have waited many years for and the refugees should get the houses they left,

 

[ChopleyIOM]

My understanding is that the whole 'refugees get priority' thing is a myth, there's a Red Cross piece about it here:

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

And some more specific information here, refugees have a different status to asylum seekers, their application has been accepted so they are free to stay in the UK either long term or indefinitely, i.e. They are going to need somewhere to live and we have a duty to provide that for them.

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

But for the sake of this discussion I'll take what you're saying at face value, you live in the area, I don't, so we'll work on the basis that the refugees are indeed getting priority for houses over the local population who need the same houses to stay in the area and close to their friends and family.

So sure, that sucks, I'd be pissed off too, but I wouldn't be pissed off at the refugees, I'd be pissed off at the government that has an active policy of what they call 'dispersal' to send nearly all the refugees to deprived areas that are already struggling with things like housing and local services, because they're not going to send them to leafy Tory suburbs and upset their pensioner voters. They know they'll never win in places like Glasgow anyway, so they're just like, 'Fuck it, send the refugees there'.

And this is on top of thirteen years of grinding Tory austerity that has seen council budgets cut to and beyond the bone, and again, the axe has fallen disproportionately on areas run by Labour, or the SNP, or the Liberals, or anywhere that isn't Tory, basically.

They know exactly what they're doing, they absolutely run on a policy of divide and conquer, none of this shit is accidental, they want the have-nots to be at each other's throats, because it keeps them occupied thinking the destitute refugees are the problem, or whoever else, whilst they make out like absolute fucking bandits whilst everyone's back is turned.

The refugees are not your enemies, the fucking wankers running the country are.

 

[dunover]

My understanding is that the whole 'refugees get priority' thing is a myth, there's a Red Cross piece about it here:

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

And some more specific information here, refugees have a different status to asylum seekers, their application has been accepted so they are free to stay in the UK either long term or indefinitely, i.e. They are going to need somewhere to live and we have a duty to provide that for them.

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

But for the sake of this discussion I'll take what you're saying at face value, you live in the area, I don't, so we'll work on the basis that the refugees are indeed getting priority for houses over the local population who need the same houses to stay in the area and close to their friends and family.

So sure, that sucks, I'd be pissed off too, but I wouldn't be pissed off at the refugees, I'd be pissed off at the government that has an active policy of what they call 'dispersal' to send nearly all the refugees to deprived areas that are already struggling with things like housing and local services, because they're not going to send them to leafy Tory suburbs and upset their pensioner voters. They know they'll never win in places like Glasgow anyway, so they're just like, 'Fuck it, send the refugees there'.

And this is on top of thirteen years of grinding Tory austerity that has seen council budgets cut to and beyond the bone, and again, the axe has fallen disproportionately on areas run by Labour, or the SNP, or the Liberals, or anywhere that isn't Tory, basically.

They know exactly what they're doing, they absolutely run on a policy of divide and conquer, none of this shit is accidental, they want the have-nots to be at each other's throats, because it keeps them occupied thinking the destitute refugees are the problem, or whoever else, whilst they make out like absolute fucking bandits whilst everyone's back is turned.

The refugees are not your enemies, the fucking wankers running the country are.

"The refugees, and working class are all on the same side." you said earlier. Of all the patronizing, dumb crap you spiel out, that has got to be the most ludicrous example.
Let me remind you of BREXIT lol. Who voted for it? Large tranches of the working class and poor. Why? Because in not so many words it was a vote on immigration, competition for jobs and overcrowding.
Who suffers from the actions of bogus refugees, economic migrants, social chaos it brings, who ends up next door to them? Why, the poor and working class of course! Geddit?? The pressure on local housing, doctor's surgeries, schools etc.
Yep, the spineless useless twats in charge, the watery-spunked liberals, chinless lefties and councillors seldom have to live in the squalor they themselves have actioned. As they sit there in the Commons bar, clinking glasses at their latest right-on credentials, woke credibility points eyeing up each others' ribbons and badges.
But hey, let's not let facts get in the way of chopleys insane delusions of socialist paradise, as he spouts his 'do as I say, not as I do' guff from the low-tax, low-social issues, safe IoM.

It's probably a good time to explain to him just why proponents of his views fail in almost every election, his frustration evident in all his ranting, swimming against the tide of real people and common sense - you are in a MINORITY mate, nearly always have been. Accept it, you'll be a far more balanced person, won't need to keep playing the same record over and over, seemingly unaware your audience long since dispersed into the night.

 

[goatwack]

There's no debate to be had if someone believes every refugee is fleeing genuine persecution, nor if every refugee is bogus. I'd wager it's a dollop of both really.

And taking London as an example, it was always diverse, there's always been entire enclaves and Boroughs like Southall, Brixton etc that consisted of non-indigenous populations, and it was never an issue, in real terms, not what some rag tried to insinuate to stoke 'tensions' that were never there!

Yet looking at the population of London circa 1987, it was what, six and a half million? Granted, we're 'a lot further down the line', but the population of London's nearing ten million people. London's big, but it ain't that bloody big!.....and it's bursting at the seams now to be fair.

It's the place all and sundry go, as people gravitate towards capital cities, it's not as though we're seeing an even distribution density across England, never mind the UK. Just a real-life example there, sorry to break the mould!

And for every genuine asylum claimant, you'll have those seeking to, erm, hmm.....'exploit' the gaping chasm in our amazing border control. Like Albanian gangs advertizing human trafficking at £18K a pop on Thick Tok, because why not. So there is that

 

[pinnit2014]

Interesting analysis, I hadn't taken note of the obvious problems a growing woker by the day, semi marxist SNP might cause catholics, who made up a large percentage of yes voters:

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

Six months prior to the first referendum on independence Professor Sir Tom Devine, Scotland’s foremost historian, suggested the Irish Catholic community would largely support a Yes vote. Following the referendum official research showed that support for independence among Scotland’s faith groups was indeed highest in the Irish Catholic community.

[But]...Mr Salmond has gone, of course, and in his absence a creeping hostility to Catholicism and the wider Christian religion has begun to poison this party. Catholics who favour an independent Scotland are becoming increasingly fidgety about what the country will look like if the SNP falls completely under the influence of its woke warriors.

Even a cursory inspection of the Twitter accounts of young SNP activists reveals an alarming degree of hostility to Catholic schools and any elected officials who dare to confess their Christian convictions. This is apparent in the intimidation of some Christian SNP politicians who dare to maintain the absolute humanity and sanctity of an unborn child.

The SNP’s proposed Gender Recognition reforms and Hate

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

legislation also pose challenges for authentic Christians. Catholic and Christian thought has been virtually cancelled in Scotland to a point where it’s now almost impossible to remain true to the tenets of your faith in public life if you want to have a rewarding career.

-------------

I don't see what right Sturgeon has to demand another 'once in a life time' independence vote, however as we share a monarch perhaps after King Charles passes that would be a reasonable milestone to decide whether to refresh the union.

Scotland won't turn to terrorism, what's the downside of saying 'sorry no can do' [speaking as someone with part scottish ancestry, who gets the comedy of 'still game'] I think both countries are stronger together.

IMO Sturgeon is not even a nationalist, hers is a socialist/liberal reflex against perpetual conservative govt from london. A real nationalist wouldn't want to join the EU and give up the hard fought sovereignty just gained.

Spot on

Only things a Scot wants in their hands is a sausage roll and a can of Tennent's, not a weapon.

Though i have witnessed a Greggs being used as one, right enough.

 

[ChopleyIOM]

"The refugees, and working class are all on the same side." you said earlier. Of all the patronizing, dumb crap you spiel out, that has got to be the most ludicrous example.
Let me remind you of BREXIT lol. Who voted for it? Large tranches of the working class and poor. Why? Because in not so many words it was a vote on immigration, competition for jobs and overcrowding.
Who suffers from the actions of bogus refugees, economic migrants, social chaos it brings, who ends up next door to them? Why, the poor and working class of course! Geddit?? The pressure on local housing, doctor's surgeries, schools etc.
Yep, the spineless useless twats in charge, the watery-spunked liberals, chinless lefties and councillors seldom have to live in the squalor they themselves have actioned. As they sit there in the Commons bar, clinking glasses at their latest right-on credentials, woke credibility points eyeing up each others' ribbons and badges.
But hey, let's not let facts get in the way of chopleys insane delusions of socialist paradise, as he spouts his 'do as I say, not as I do' guff from the low-tax, low-social issues, safe IoM.

It's probably a good time to explain to him just why proponents of his views fail in almost every election, his frustration evident in all his ranting, swimming against the tide of real people and common sense - you are in a MINORITY mate, nearly always have been. Accept it, you'll be a far more balanced person, won't need to keep playing the same record over and over, seemingly unaware your audience long since dispersed into the night.

I don't think I'd be holding Brexit up as an example of anything, except a total fiasco. It's possibly the single biggest example of misplaced anger and people voting against their own interests, based on a pack of lies told by a bunch of conmen and charlatans, that's ever been inflicted on the population of the UK.

It's also exactly what I'm talking about, we were already several years into appalling Tory austerity when the Brexit vote came around, and stoking fear of 'the other' was a major plank of the Vote Leave campaign. 'Oh it's not our fault, all us millionaires and billionaires hoovering up more and more of the country's wealth and assets, leaving you with the crumbs from the table, it's their fault over there, those refugees, bloody refugees. And immigrants too, blame them.'

Like I said over in the Brexit thread years ago, the anger people were feeling was entirely understandable, but the target of that anger was wrong.

And so it has come to pass, because Brexit has happened (and a hard Brexit at that), and it's fixed precisely nothing, and made precisely nothing better, whilst also making loads of stuff worse. It's almost as if they were lying all along, eh?

 

[ChopleyIOM]

Thirteen years the Tories have had now, and this is where we're at. The UK's economy is shagged. I don't think it's a relatively tiny number of refugees we should be blaming for that.

 

[ChopleyIOM]

Whilst in other news, Zahawi has been found to be fiddling his taxes, and has had to pay a fine numbered in the millions of pounds. This bloke was the Chancellor not so long ago.

He's also been getting very lawyer-ey about it over the last few weeks, but in the end the information has (thankfully) come out. It remains to be seen if he's been lying about it, because his public statements about this don't square up with what he's had to pay as a fine.

Look over there, a refugee! Probably pinching someone's house you know. MAYBE EVEN YOUR HOUSE.

 

[mack341]

The liberal establishment [being a tory mp does not exclude membership] overseeing the kind of 'use' of public funds below will quite happily treat the indigenous homeless as low priority.

Doesn't matter what country, sweden, france, germany etc...high immigration causes untold problems for the pre-existing society, the left/liberals can dance around it as much as they want.

The number of genuine people fleeing from war, or persecution from their govt, should be a fraction of the numbers we've had over the last 30 years, and for example, why doesn't a somalian fleeing persecution for being a christian move to another safe african country, within their continent as europeans did from time to time [e.g. Huguenots]

 

[ChopleyIOM]

We do all know the actual Chancellor of the Exchequer was proper dodging paying his taxes in the last year, right?

Maybe Abid there is actually making £60K per month renting out his hotels to migrants, who we are remember, duty-bound to find accommodation for because the idea is we're a prosperous first world country who can manage this stuff and not just nasty cunts, Brexit was founded on that fifth richest economy in the world stuff after all, so maybe we've got space for desperate people in need of somewhere to live?

Zahawi looks like he's dodged about £3.7m in tax, which he's finally been extremely reluctantly forced to pay, under the potential duress of getting brought up before the courts. (And threatening legal action all over the place if anyone dared to report on it.)

Let's do some sums, and divide Abid's 60K into Zahawi's £3.7m, oh yeah, Zahawi has done 60x the financial damage in a tax-dodge that Abid has done by providing housing for refugees, in an entirely legitimate scheme.

But hey, you know what, case closed, it's definitely the desperate refugees who are the bad guys here, and not a member of the current UK Government, who has also been the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the last year.

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

 

[mack341]

We do all know the actual Chancellor of the Exchequer was proper dodging paying his taxes in the last year, right?

Maybe Abid there is actually making £60K per month renting out his hotels to migrants, who we are remember, duty-bound to find accommodation for because the idea is we're a prosperous first world country who can manage this stuff and not just nasty cunts, Brexit was founded on that fifth richest economy in the world stuff after all, so maybe we've got space for desperate people in need of somewhere to live?

Zahawi looks like he's dodged about £3.7m in tax, which he's finally been extremely reluctantly forced to pay, under the potential duress of getting brought up before the courts. (And threatening legal action all over the place if anyone dared to report on it.)

Let's do some sums, and divide Abid's 60K into Zahawi's £3.7m, oh yeah, Zahawi has done 60x the financial damage in a tax-dodge that Abid has done by providing housing for refugees, in an entirely legitimate scheme.

But hey, you know what, case closed, it's definitely the desperate refugees who are the bad guys here, and not a member of the current UK Government, who has also been the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the last year.

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

View attachment 178905

But I've not much time for Zahawi either, something about him feels slippery, he should not receive lenient treatment by hmrc simply because he's an mp.

You're missing the broader point again though, ironically the more immigrants you want to be 'saved' and accommodated by the uk the more cutbacks the govt have to bring in; in a household example the same as switching your shopping to the inferior value products so that you can afford to donate to a charity, would you do that?

The globalised economy, which the left are so fond of, means you cannot just set wealth and business tax rates to scandi socialist levels, firms and individuals will relocate and then you have even less coming in.

Afaik long-standing liberal Sweden has had enough of going in the direction of mass immigration/asylum and voted in a more conservative coalition to get a grip of things.

 

[goatwack]

We heard the first murmurings after Trexit, but it seems Johnson was biding his time to mark his triumphant comeback in view to the next General Election.

I guess it's why he held back from running against Sunak, when the PM is a convenient fall guy for the next couple of years, the crafty son of a gun!

Expect the fanfare to begin in earnest within the next year, but you can bet it will happen the way it's constantly brought to our attention.

But then you can envisage a lot of worried Tories fearing for their jobs, and so it would figure that the Conservatives bring out their switch hitter, Churchill- lite, with one last throw of the die. And after witnessing Sunak's 1000-yard stare public speaking antics, who can blame them?

Only real question is what catchy slogan he'll deploy, as D.U.D.E surely can't be used twice.

Make Britain Great Again?

Vote Labour, Vote Wasted?

Build Back Better Conservatives?

 

[mack341]

It'll be something along the lines of 'I owe it to the british public' but catchier

I must admit due to the way he was sent packing I believed his time in frontline politics was over, and yet he can definitely beat starmer.

Similar to Brexit he hasn't really had a period of normal time to do his stuff. Not that I'm super confident he'd be the kind of conservative I endorse, but there was certainly potential within him to increase confidence about the future.

Sunak's been alright, in the way that you don't hear much from him so assume he's very busy with the job. I think I prefer that to someone going up and down the country doing daily/weekly publicity stunts and capers. Once every so often is okay, maggie did a bit of that.

 

[ChopleyIOM]

They've sent Cleverly out this morning on the media rounds, the line they're going with is that Zahawi was 'careless' and forgot he owed millions of pounds in unpaid tax, you know, as you do, who hasn't forgotten about millions of pounds they owe in tax? Just like spilling the milk when making a cup of tea, that's careless too, totally the same thing.

Even if it's true, and this was a genuine error (yeah I know....), it just goes to show that these people exist in a completely different world to the rest of us, like, if you're so rich that millions of pounds going missing is into the realms of a clerical error, who do think they're governing in the interests of. You, or themselves?

Make no mistake, if this hadn't been pursued by the press, against a backdrop of threats of legal action from Zawahi, he'd have made off with millions of pounds that was owed to the government, which is money the government spends on stuff like the health service and schools.

EDIT - And houses, you could build a lot of houses with millions of pounds!

EDIT AGAIN - And if it was just a genuine mistake that was rectified, why all the threats of legal action to try and muzzle the press? If it's just a mistake then it's no big deal, surely? Unless of course, it wasn't a mistake and he was trying to hide something.

Look over there, a woman with a penis! Don't look at the government minister nicking millions of pounds from what are effectively your pockets.

 

[goatwack]

Or how about both? Seeing Zahawi being caught bang to rights and witnessing his public shaming and fall from grace, whilst also championing women's rights to preserve their single-sex spaces and feel safe?

Mind you, it all works on a singular level with some people I see, where the hive mindset zooms in on whatever public target they can, whilst gaslighting and straw-manning all other, just as important issues into oblivion!

Less balanced discussion, more 'projecting'

Yet seeing Labour's MPs heckle their counterparts over perfectly reasonably voiced concerns recently, and their general apathy towards what should be their bread & butter base of voters, reasonable people with reasonable concerns, it's looking rather likely that Labour look more detached than ever from everyday life.

Look over there, a woman with a penis indeed. Little wonder Labour is cited as having a problem with women. I think we can all see the proof in the pudding

 

[ChopleyIOM]

I have a wife and a daughter, and neither of them are remotely bothered, like not even the tiniest bit, about the prospect of a trans woman with a penis using a ladies public toilet that they might also be in. It's impossible to overstate how little of a fuck they both give.

You know what women do need to be afraid of? Being assaulted by cis men, who are far, far more dangerous to them than trans women.

If you think trans women using ladies toilets is 'just as important' as Zawahi being caught fiddling millions of pounds in taxes then fine, I can't decide what's important to you and what isn't. but also please be aware that not everyone, including many women, remotely has the same priorities.

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

 

[dunover]

I have a wife and a daughter, and neither of them are remotely bothered, like not even the tiniest bit, about the prospect of a trans woman with a penis using a ladies public toilet that they might also be in. It's impossible to overstate how little of a fuck they both give.

You know what women do need to be afraid of? Being assaulted by cis men, who are far, far more dangerous to them than trans women.

If you think trans women using ladies toilets is 'just as important' as Zawahi being caught fiddling millions of pounds in taxes then fine, I can't decide what's important to you and what isn't. but also please be aware that not everyone, including many women, remotely has the same priorities.

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

View attachment 178936

Your rants and outbusts this weekend have further convinced me you are far more out of touch with the real world, its people and feelings to the point of delusion, even more so than this government which you accuse of the very same.

Ladies bogs have private cubicles. Imagine a men's khazi when you're having a gypsy's and some woman comes in, stands next to you and lobs a surgery-created dick out out. Maybe on the IoM it's considered cool, but I doubt most will agree - don't tell me the survey was conducted from 16-25 year-old white agnostic uni students, no taxpayers, muzzies, mature persons?

It's meaningless as a survey - it's like asking people what they would do if they saw someone being robbed in a train. Yeah, 57% say they would say something, 33% would say they'd physically intervene and 10% would actually be honest and say I would hide behind a newspaper or pretend to be looking at my phone, in reality what most of the other 90% would do.

Words in response to casual questions are very different to actions and feelings in real-world situations. Same as people like you in the indigenous, very homogenous IoM telling the poor and working class in the rest of these islands that refugee hotels and housing bogus asylum seekers next to them is a wonderful thing. (As long as it doesn't affect YOU lol..)

People like you are the same the world over - good at playing hard and fast with the feelings and goodwill of others, like socialists are good at spending other people's money.

*edited as made a mess of quote*

 

[ChopleyIOM]

Ladies bogs have private cubicles. Imagine a men's khazi when you're having a gypsy's and some woman comes in, stands next to you and lobs a surgery-created dick out out. Maybe on the IoM it's considered cool, but I doubt most will agree - don't tell me the survey was conducted from 16-25 year-old white agnostic uni students, no taxpayers, muzzies, mature persons?

Well I don't know about you dunover, and call me old-fashioned perhaps, but I don't routinely check out the cocks of the people stood next to me at the stall when I go for a piss in the pub.

So I most likely wouldn't even notice, but even if I did become aware of such a truly terrifying prospect (a person using a toilet, heaven forfend!) - I'm sure I'd cope.

For all I know it's already happened (we have trans people on the IOM), and somehow I seem to have survived, maybe I just got lucky

 

[ChopleyIOM]

This is quite an interesting chart.

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

 

[ChopleyIOM]

Hang on we should be talking about Zawahi's tax dodging. I've fucked it there.

Curses!

 

[ChopleyIOM]

This is some recent polling done for Conservative Home (so not some wokey lefty liberal 16-25 talking shop that dunover seems to think this type of thing must come from).

Just keep casting your eyes down the list and you'll eventually get to the trans debate. (Spoiler alert, it's in absolute last place.)

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

-----------------------

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

, for instance, that just two per cent of the public think the debate about trans people is a key issue facing the country, compared to 76 per cent who say the same about the cost of living. While most people roll their eyes at stories about snowflakes and trigger warnings, it’s also not keeping them up at night.

The biggest mistake the Conservatives could make would be to start unnecessary and inconsequential rows at a time the public are exhausted and want the Government to get on with fixing the economy, saving the NHS, and keeping their schools open.

 

[paul7388]

Well this is the thing: i think it's a case of when the next one comes and if it does, the SNP get it. Once that happens, the ball rolls and Northern Ireland and the real fall of the Empire is complete

I don't think a Labour Govt would have seen THAT much of a decline in their support but it's probably pushed some people on the socialist scale towards them having the Tories in power. You look as a Scot down at Westminster and it's hard not to think: eh?

Now, that's not to detract from the fact the SNP agenda is so far up the left it's in Chile but that's what it is.

And as i said before i don't get how people can want Brexit but can't fathom why the Scot's want the same.

Would not be so sure that if Sturgeon gets a referendum she would win it. She still has not got enough support and in fact latest polls show majority would vote against independence and that's first time in a while.

But might blow over but her latest stunt has backfired. When Westminister blocked her law during the week she tried to use it yet again how this shows Scotland should be Independent and rule themselves. Instead of getting herself more support many SNP voters have condemned the law as it was crazy and should.never have been passed and so many have actually turned around and said for first time in lives they have agreed and thanked Westminister for doing something right.

What she thought would get her more support has actually got her voters questioning what sort of woman she is and many are questioning if she is right person to lead country.

Anymore crazy actions and she and her dream will be finished. In last couple.months she has managed to upset a lot of woman voters. Upset some Catholics and even turned some of the Muslim voters against her. Lol even trying to defend her latest actions she actually said maybe time 16 year old were allowed to legally drink in pubs. She is getting more unstable and even her supporters are questioning her actions.

Think if SNP genuinely want independence they should be questioning her leadership before she blows it completely.

 

[paul7388]

I have a wife and a daughter, and neither of them are remotely bothered, like not even the tiniest bit, about the prospect of a trans woman with a penis using a ladies public toilet that they might also be in. It's impossible to overstate how little of a fuck they both give.

You know what women do need to be afraid of? Being assaulted by cis men, who are far, far more dangerous to them than trans women.

If you think trans women using ladies toilets is 'just as important' as Zawahi being caught fiddling millions of pounds in taxes then fine, I can't decide what's important to you and what isn't. but also please be aware that not everyone, including many women, remotely has the same priorities.

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

View attachment 178936

Most of the problems these days are not with whether a man who has had the OP and is now classed as a woman can use a woman's toilet. You would find majority of people agree they can.

The problem with people is that if someone identifies as a woman they are then free to use woman's toilets, changing rooms etc.

And maybe you might find that perfectly okay but personally I would not like a fully grown man naked in an area where say my 12 year old daughter was getting changed alone. And no matter what sort of polls you try and post it is a fact that majority totally agree with me.

 

[TheAddict]

 

[mack341]

This is quite an interesting chart.

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

View attachment 178937

Slightly ironic but maybe tells you the value/purpose of much polling on sensitive issues - to influence public opinion rather than record it accurately - yougov was created by zahawi, and this tax situation relates to his selling of part of it. iirc

 

[ChopleyIOM]

Most of the problems these days are not with whether a man who has had the OP and is now classed as a woman can use a woman's toilet. You would find majority of people agree they can.

The problem with people is that if someone identifies as a woman they are then free to use woman's toilets, changing rooms etc.

And maybe you might find that perfectly okay but personally I would not like a fully grown man naked in an area where say my 12 year old daughter was getting changed alone. And no matter what sort of polls you try and post it is a fact that majority totally agree with me.

Is that really a big problem though, like, are men saying 'I IDENTIFY AS A WOMAN' and then walking into female changing rooms? Is that what we're concerned about?

It's clearly possible to put checks and balances into this, and to work out a system that prevents the scenario you outline there (which I agree would be undesirable if there was no other context around it), whilst also respecting the rights of trans people to live their lives in a way that respects their gender identity.

We've had the trans conversation with our daughter (she's autistic but she's very bright and entirely capable of getting her head around this sort of stuff), it wasn't particularly complicated or difficult, and she understands that some people feel that they were born into the wrong bodies, and that some of those people may have transitioned physically into their correct gender, but some of them may have not - but in either case we should be respectful and kind.

I just don't get what's so hard about it, and neither does Mrs Chopley. I don't even remotely understand what I'm supposed to feel is 'scary' about dunover's scenario where a trans man stands next to me in a pub toilet and gets his 'surgery created dick' out, why on earth should I care? If we're both just stood there having a piss on a night out, what the fuck difference does it make to anything? Even if I did know and it came up in conversation, I'd just be like, 'Hey fella, cool you can have a piss with another bloke, and I really hope you're happy with the place your journey has taken you to'.

As for the polls/data thing, this is how data works, the whole point of collecting loads of data and aggregating it across a large sample is to remove personal bias or opinion from the equation, because otherwise we're just at 'This is what I think and my mates do too, so this must be reality'.

Honestly, have a Google around on it, broadly speaking the population of the UK is majority supportive of trans rights and trans identity (women more than men, as it happens), as per the polling results I showed above (from multiple sources), and they sampled thousands of people based on a proven methodology.

 

[TheAddict]

Is that really a big problem though, like, are men saying 'I IDENTIFY AS A WOMAN' and then walking into female changing rooms? Is that what we're concerned about?

It's clearly possible to put checks and balances into this, and to work out a system that prevents the scenario you outline there (which I agree would be undesirable if there was no other context around it), whilst also respecting the rights of trans people to live their lives in a way that respects their gender identity.

We've had the trans conversation with our daughter (she's autistic but she's very bright and entirely capable of getting her head around this sort of stuff), it wasn't particularly complicated or difficult, and she understands that some people feel that they were born into the wrong bodies, and that some of those people may have transitioned physically into their correct gender, but some of them may have not - but in either case we should be respectful and kind.

I just don't get what's so hard about it, and neither does Mrs Chopley. I don't even remotely understand what I'm supposed to feel is 'scary' about dunover's scenario where a trans man stands next to me in a pub toilet and gets his 'surgery created dick' out, why on earth should I care? If we're both just stood there having a piss on a night out, what the fuck difference does it make to anything? Even if I did know and it came up in conversation, I'd just be like, 'Hey fella, cool you can have a piss with another bloke, and I really hope you're happy with the place your journey has taken you to'.

As for the polls/data thing, this is how data works, the whole point of collecting loads of data and aggregating it across a large sample is to remove personal bias or opinion from the equation, because otherwise we're just at 'This is what I think and my mates do too, so this must be reality'.

Honestly, have a Google around on it, broadly speaking the population of the UK is majority supportive of trans rights and trans identity (women more than men, as it happens), as per the polling results I showed above (from multiple sources), and they sampled thousands of people based on a proven methodology.

I'd be concerned with men being given the ability to say "Hey, I'm a woman now. This means you must let me in the same room as your 10 year old daughter" .
I've had a homosexual peado wanking off at me in the tray beside as i take a piss in a gents before, smiling. I was only 10. You're telling me guys that want little girls aren't going to put on a wig and give that s go now you've said you don't see a problem?

Fucking hell.

Like the thing that called itself a drag queen in the US not long ago, that coincidentally had previous for child offences, who was reading stories at a library infront of under ten year olds. Fucking clown world that any of that shit is allowed, tbqhwy. Fucking clown world that it even gets entertained.

Just take those crazy women who agree that it s ok to let the other sex into their bathrooms tp a couple of the gents on a Friday night in wetherspoons and they'll be doing a 180.

Wew. Back to my purple haze

 

[Kroffe]

If anything the poll you posted shows how unreasonable it is.
Close to 1 in 5 are uncomfortable with the idea, thats 10+ million people in the UK, and to create a 'safe space' for 0.5% of the population (give or take) they remove the 'safe space' for those 10+ million people.

On what planet does that make any sense?
Make 10+ million uncomfortable so that you can make 300k feel comfortable.

 

[ChopleyIOM]

I've had a homosexual peado wanking off at me in the tray beside as i take a piss in a gents before, smiling. I was only 10. You're telling me guys that want little girls aren't going to put on a wig and give that s go now you've said you don't see a problem?

OK so if that happened when you were ten years old - (and that sounds absolutely horrible by the way, I'm truly sorry you had to experience it) - what you're describing there is (1) A sexual predator and (2) Something that happened some considerable period of time ago as you're not posting here on CM at the age of ten, so happened long before the current (entirely confected) 'trans panic' anyway. (i.e. None of the debate we're having now made any difference whatsoever to what happened to you as a ten year old.)

'Guys who want little girls' (your words, not mine) are already breaking the fucking law, they're literally male paedophiles, the notion that they're prepared to put a wig on to aid them in that endeavour doesn't seem to be even remotely supported by any evidence, and doesn't change the fact that by your own definition, they're already male paedophiles anyway,

Show me the bit where I should be more scared of a trans woman in a toilet with my daughter, than a male paedophile with a wig on. And also please explain to me why it's the trans woman's fault.

 

[TheAddict]

I should add, that te pedo that was leaning forward and looking down at me as i did mything and he pretended to piss, was literally jerking off and smiling and glancing off. In a small toilet that already had normal random men in their, wasing hands or pissing.
This freak still had the nerve.

Now, Chop, you're telling me you're ok with allowing any dude to walk into a bathroom where there could well be an unaccompanied young girl, thatis much more defenceless than a boy, and they ight be the only 2 in the room?

You are insane, my man

 

[TheAddict]

holy shit that reply.
I'm done.

 

[paul7388]

Is that really a big problem though, like, are men saying 'I IDENTIFY AS A WOMAN' and then walking into female changing rooms? Is that what we're concerned about?

It's clearly possible to put checks and balances into this, and to work out a system that prevents the scenario you outline there (which I agree would be undesirable if there was no other context around it), whilst also respecting the rights of trans people to live their lives in a way that respects their gender identity.

We've had the trans conversation with our daughter (she's autistic but she's very bright and entirely capable of getting her head around this sort of stuff), it wasn't particularly complicated or difficult, and she understands that some people feel that they were born into the wrong bodies, and that some of those people may have transitioned physically into their correct gender, but some of them may have not - but in either case we should be respectful and kind.

I just don't get what's so hard about it, and neither does Mrs Chopley. I don't even remotely understand what I'm supposed to feel is 'scary' about dunover's scenario where a trans man stands next to me in a pub toilet and gets his 'surgery created dick' out, why on earth should I care? If we're both just stood there having a piss on a night out, what the fuck difference does it make to anything? Even if I did know and it came up in conversation, I'd just be like, 'Hey fella, cool you can have a piss with another bloke, and I really hope you're happy with the place your journey has taken you to'.

As for the polls/data thing, this is how data works, the whole point of collecting loads of data and aggregating it across a large sample is to remove personal bias or opinion from the equation, because otherwise we're just at 'This is what I think and my mates do too, so this must be reality'.

Honestly, have a Google around on it, broadly speaking the population of the UK is majority supportive of trans rights and trans identity (women more than men, as it happens), as per the polling results I showed above (from multiple sources), and they sampled thousands of people based on a proven methodology.

I would agree with you on Dunovers example. And I would also agree with uou on some of what you say.

But sorry think you also need to research what I said as well.

Fact especially in Scotland many woman's groups are against the changes. And yes it is becoming a problem in this country and around the world where everything is getting changed to unisex etc. to put a minority first.

And maybe at moment things are not that bad tho there are already cases about men in woman's changing rooms etc.

Take this week. Sturgeon managed to get a law passed in this country that thankfully got overruled by Westminister. You do know that some of it means a man without even medical proof can basically identify as a woman after time scale of living as one for 3 months and could then legally use woman's changing rooms etc . If you can not see what sort of problems this may cause then indeed you live in a sheltered world. And it is actually more female than male that are against all the changes. Okay most people will not take advantage and many will be genuine. But you are opening it up for every pervert , peadophile etc. to go hey now i don't need medical diagnose, treatment or anything I just need to identfy myself as a woman and free to go in their changing rooms. Okay many won't but guaranteed some will and even one is one too many. And no there will be no background checks or security as that is classed as against the person's right to identify as a woman. Fuck sake a sex offender could do the same and nothing could be done as they have same rights as anyone else to change their gender. And yet you still say you do not see anything wrong with way things are going.

Not even going into any of this crazy shit now where there are hundreds of different binary descriptions for a person and you are hearing you should not even call a man he as you don't know what he identifies is just getting stupid. Was bad enough when you should not useikl postman as woman thought that sexist but now you are getting advised not to use anything until you know. Even in new job during training they had junk about how to call someone by their name and never refer to a colleague as him or her etc. As it may cause offence. Really is that what the world is coming to that if you innocently say ask him if he knows where it is you can then get into trouble.

Sorry Chopley but this country is going way over the top and everyone out seems to be so sensitive and offended by the simplest thing. But hey what the hell I can identify as a non binary elephant fr9m tomorrow if i wished and people have to respect that. Sorry but whether you agree or not and whether your polls say so it's all getting out of hand and the majority would agree. Just when asked a lot are too scared to say otherwise for fear of all the backlash from a minority .

 

[cncas2123]

So pretty clear that any woman who disagrees with this is to be hated and degraded.

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

 

[cncas2123]

And what would happen if a man who wasnt transgender or identifying as a woman was to espouse this view, would the SNP still be at the rally?