The fall of the Tory party

The full thing is mind boggling but also quite worrying as to the over reach these politicians are having with powers that should be independent to them.

Did a lot of us see this a long time ago, its just bringing to the fore for how much of cunts they are to the general public.

Maybe they've secretly promised them qualified immunity. It does seem a bit more of a clampdown, even vs the usual?

misunderstanding how decisions are made in N10

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2PcWQWuHAzw

However gender critical views are protected per the Forstater case under section 10 of the Equalities Act.

Edit to add.. within a narrow scope.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3JdclVI9zq0&ab_channel=GoodMorningBritain

Still love that clip, mainly for Susanna Reid's involuntary exclamation when he first calls Cameron a twat.

#rep

Hahaha! Yes, same. Perfect timing.

Jimmy savile might be

Does feel like the media are starting call out the Bellshill

https://twitter.com/Zero_4/status/1709328375385387295?t=us-bRq8Q9xYfHQrU3P97FQ&s=19

Guess they will just get the C4 news treatment of no minister was available

https://x.com/christiancalgie/status/1709297230392250644?s=46&t=m2v4bz0h_UKO-SiuMrPTew

Braverman apologises for standing on a guide dogs' tail.

Just watched channel 4 Partygate. Who would dare vote Tory are watching it?

a dying star, growing super-massive with a rage of heat and light

More like a cluster of white dwarves.

Braverman sticking it to the establishment. 🙃

1 Attachment

"Liberal elite" Amazing...

I heard a US commentator articulate it in a way that I hadn't twigged.

When someone like Trump says elites, he means education, not money or power.

When two groups are using totally different definitions, it's never going to make sense.

conservative party are very liberal (if only economically and not socially)

I think it depends. You have different factions e.g. Priti Patel is not liberal at all, whereas David Cameron is.

I think this is an interesting both-sides of the new liberal elite question.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m001nvtf?partner=uk.co.bbc&origin=share-mobile

And this is excellent, albeit decidedly one sided.
https://spotify.link/QxBHK16qwDb

When two groups are using totally different definitions, it's never going to make sense.

And they rely very heavily on this bit.

Yes that is a feature not a bug

"Gender" is not a protected characteristic under UK law. Sex, sexual orientation and gender reassignment are.

What's the functional difference between 'gender' and 'gender reassignment' as far as equality law goes? I don't see one. If a person is cis then their sex and gender match and they're protected under the 'sex' characteristic. If a person is trans then their sex and gender don't match, and they're protected under 'gender reassignment'.

We know from the Jaguar Land Rover case that non binary and gender fluid identifies are protected under 'gender reassignment' even though in that case no such reassignment is likely to take place.

So it feels much more accurate and less prone to misunderstandings if we use gender to refer to all gender reassignment (and fluid, and non binary) protections under the equality act. Doesn't it you?

definition of dog whistle

Written by private school and Cambridge educated, Quentin Letts, who is definitely not part of the elite.

I used to like the stool with 3 legs analogy: one-nation conservatives, Thatcherites, and trads so when one leg comes too short the stool falls over.

But I don't that that analogy.... stands up... anymore.

Or maybe it does: libertarian nutters, anti-immigrant nutters, one-nations on their gap year(s).

Generally the error that people make is to substitute "gender" in for "sex" when describing protected characteristics. How "gender reassignment" is interpreted is a different question.