Paul T Richards

Okay, “treat all trans prisoners differently” because “men generally commit more violent crime than women” is getting to a level of broad generalisation that makes little legal or social sense. I’m tapping out of this one.

Try talking to some trans people. They’re people. They’re not the enemy.

That’s insane. Women can be horrifically violent too. Asserting this behaviour is because they were male at birth is speculative nonsense.

You are obsessed about the trans aspect of this person’s identity. Rather than their history of violence, their childhood trauma, their nationality, their age, their race, their hobbies, their shoe size.

When a cisgender person assaults someone, we don’t treat all cis people the same as a result.

Being trans has nothing to do with the behaviour.

Where do we put violent women who rape women? Men’s prison?

Those are three different answers. In a character-limited format, I’ll say “privacy, competition and it varies”, but it’s a much longer conversation.

If we’re doing new questions, let me go. This person was Irish. Should we ban all
Irish people from women’s prisons because of these actions?

I can’t see the connection because you’re comparing ‘chocolate cake’ to ‘subtraction’.

Gun laws exist because guns make it very easy to cause harm to people.

Assuming everyone who belongs to a specific demographic behaves the same is basic prejudice.

They are different conversations.

Saying that we can't allow Irish people in women's prisons because of these actions would be wrong.

Saying we can't allow 23-year-olds in women's prisons because of these actions would be wrong.

But sure, let's tar all trans people with this brush.

Yes, I support restrictions on the object designed for the sole purpose of killing people.

Not quite sure how that relates to treating entire demographics of humans the same, based on one characteristic.

Full disclosure: I'm a White British man - GCSE English Grade A (2000), don't think I've claimed any benefits (it helps I've never had kids or need tax credits, like the majority of people)...but emphatically have never done any volunteering that wasn't either paid or mandatory.

Deport me. 🇦🇺

Would love to see the stats on White British people who volunteer at the weekend, have never claimed any benefits and have a GCSE Grade 4 ability in English

I think you’re missing my point. They don’t take their shirts off when their team-mates score, or when the keeper makes a good save.

It’s not instinct and ingrained. It’s on purpose. It’s learned behaviour. It can be unlearned. All this “but, but, they’re excited!” makes zero sense.

Still waiting to hear why it’s something to do after you’ve scored a goal. I understand scoring a goal is exciting. Why take your shirt off?

And I’m still yet to understand why “scoring a goal” leads to “remove clothing”.

Yeah, but he gets paid and instructed to do all those things. Whereas there’s a rule that says he’s not allowed to do the thing I said.

If I punch my colleague, I get disciplined. If he punches his, he gets disciplined. It’s like there are rules saying what’s acceptable and what isn’t.

Well, let's put the laws to one side for a second.

Why does he need to take his shirt off?

Do you take your shirt off at work? I'd get disciplined if I took my shirt off at work.

Why does he need to do that thing?

Right-backs defending against Callum Hudson-Odoi HATE this one simple trick

I disagree. Tory bollocks would be replacing him for selfish, power-trip reasons.

There's absolutely a route to replacing Starmer with Burnham. KS has been the statesmanlike safe pair of hands taking Lab from Corbyn to a landslide. Now the UK needs local delivery, and a leader people believe in.

Is it good that a man was shot? No.

Is it quite funny that the far-right spent 36 hours blaming the left for the shooting, and saying 'they' - as a collective - should face ridiculously extreme consequences for being associated with this crime, only for the culprit to be far-right? Yes. Yes, it is.

JD Vance abortion buffer zone comments branded 'dangerous' by MSP The American vice-president said people praying in their homes could be arrested under Scots law.

1. JD Vance was just very wrong: www.bbc.co.uk/news/article...

2. "Even though England repealed its blasphemy laws in 2008" - not relevant. Crime & Disorder Act 1998, Public Order Act 1986; they're literally in the article you linked.

3. Trans people exist. They're not the boogeyman. Engage them.

'People are angry': Behind the wave of asylum hotel protests The BBC visits sites of protests to hear the voices of those opposed to the hotels and others in support of asylum seekers.

"Useful Idiots" is spot on.

Exhibit B: Whatever this special article was two weeks ago - www.bbc.co.uk/news/article...

It's actually slightly terrifying, the lack of push-back. Or at least the tacit acceptance of racism/fascism/violence/misinformation as legitimate.

archive.is/whVcs

Maybe it's because it's 3pm on a Friday, but a Bread Giant sounds absolutely delicious right now.

As a once-teacher (and once-career-advisor-person for 14-year-olds) - we weren't so much aiming kids at 'jobs for the future'.

More that we were emphasising skills (of all sorts - coding, sure, but also lateral thinking, comprehension, emotional intelligence, whatever) over picking a career at 16.

BBC International Editor Jeremy Bowen has confirmed that the entire Al Jazeera team in Gaza City has been killed.

'People are angry': Behind the wave of asylum hotel protests The BBC visits sites of protests to hear the voices of those opposed to the hotels and others in support of asylum seekers.

They see brown men and think their women and children are under attack. And they get a bbc article about their 'legitimate concerns'. How long before they have legitimate concerns about the rest of us?

www.bbc.co.uk/news/article...

47% of people think immigration is primarily illegal. There were 4% irregular arrivals in March

New YouGov polling. A monumental failure of our political class to educate, a monumental failure of our media to report fairly, for a generation

I think this is pretty close.

I also think that from 1997-2020, people with quietly racist views were constantly reminded that those views were wrong.

Now, there's a backlash against that ("woke has gone too far" etc) and a general distrust of "mainstream" opinion (post-covid, post-Trump etc).

It would make for a really uncompetitive Seven Nations rugby union tournament.

Just based on the way I hear politicos discuss this (and not any formal knowledge/training)...

...I think junior ministers are NOT 'frontbench', although they share some characteristics since they're 'on payroll' for votes etc.

It’s probably also true that those sent off to fight (and die, horrifically) believed they were doing so for good reasons. Whether defending their nation, or making the world a better place.

I don’t think that optimism exists any more. Fewer and fewer people believe in a flag, or their own future.