Because The United Kingdom?

[Stuart Galbraith]

9 hours ago, R011 said:

Mother Jones is an American magazine.  I very much doubt they're writing about England at all there let alone in some coded fashion.

Well the dog is pissing on the left, so he is probably American. In Europe, dogs always piss on the right.

[Stuart Galbraith]

 

[TrustMe]

Liverpool is in Merseyside not Cheshire. 

You can tell it wasn't scousers cause there's still a wheel attached  

[JWB]

Is she a Tory?

[Stuart Galbraith]

This is a year ago when she was shadow, now she is sec of state for Education.

Ive got to say Im finding the Telegraph and others digging this up as pretty desperate. People here are not like Americans, they are not obsessed by this issue. We are more concerned about the cost of groceries than what someone said last year before the courts made a judgement. What is more, I dont remember the conservatives been any more consistent on it either.

Just one more example of the Tories desperately borrowing American culture war because they have no other ideas on how to get back into power. Its pretty shoddy stuff really.

[rmgill]

7 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Just one more example of the Tories desperately borrowing American culture war because they have no other ideas on how to get back into power. Its pretty shoddy stuff really.

Tories are borrowing the Culture war? Really? Who was organizing the Anti-Trump and Anti Musk/Tesla protests in the UK? Was it the Tories? 

[Stuart Galbraith]

That isnt culture war. Thats British folk expressing dislike of dickheads and fascists.

This too was not culture war. You being an expert on all things British, you recognise the guy being manhandled im sure.

[Murph]

Starmer discovers that Women actually exist, after being told what they are by UK court.  

[Mr King]

6 hours ago, Murph said:

Starmer discovers that Women actually exist, after being told what they are by UK court.  

He is very brave to state it now.

[rmgill]

There is no culture war in the UK. That is why British courts had to hear a case determining what constitutes a woman. 

[Stuart Galbraith]

This is just the kind of inane shit I would expect, insisting on viewing what happened through American culture war eyes.

What really happened is that several women (not DJ's, not my pillow guys, not real estate developers) took the case to the supreme court to clarify what it meant. You can even read what the judgement was, rather than having to get the take of Sargon of Twatford or sundry other legal experts.

https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/press-summary/uksc-2024-0042

Its actually a clarification of what was meant in the 2010 equality act. It is not new law. It was purely settling a dispute that promised to get out of hand, largely because Trans activists and folks like yourself wanted it to get out of hand.

Im so sorry that common sense prevailed, you must be absolutely gutted you dont have anything to complain about now.

[rmgill]

8 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

This is just the kind of inane shit I would expect, insisting on viewing what happened through American culture war eyes.

Western Culture war. It's in the UK too. As is evidenced. 

8 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

What really happened is that several women (not DJ's, not my pillow guys, not real estate developers) took the case to the supreme court to clarify what it meant. You can even read what the judgement was, rather than having to get the take of Sargon of Twatford or sundry other legal experts.

Twats can't figure out what women are? So it needs a legal case? But there's no culture war? Where'd you get that news from Stu? Mini-Truth? 
 

8 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/press-summary/uksc-2024-0042

Its actually a clarification of what was meant in the 2010 equality act. It is not new law.

No kidding. Did they also have comparative cases to relitigate what all the other words in the Equality act mean? Just to go over the terms? 

8 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

It was purely settling a dispute that promised to get out of hand, largely because Trans activists and folks like yourself wanted it to get out of hand.

The trans activist are the culture warriors Stuart. You can stand at the edge of the water but making you drink (Or think), is too far. 

 

Edited April 23, 2025 by rmgill

[Murph]

8 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

This is just the kind of inane shit I would expect, insisting on viewing what happened through American culture war eyes.

What really happened is that several women (not DJ's, not my pillow guys, not real estate developers) took the case to the supreme court to clarify what it meant. You can even read what the judgement was, rather than having to get the take of Sargon of Twatford or sundry other legal experts.

https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/press-summary/uksc-2024-0042

Its actually a clarification of what was meant in the 2010 equality act. It is not new law. It was purely settling a dispute that promised to get out of hand, largely because Trans activists and folks like yourself wanted it to get out of hand.

Im so sorry that common sense prevailed, you must be absolutely gutted you dont have anything to complain about now.

Stuart, anyone with two functioning brain cells KNOWS what a man is, and what a woman is, they do not need a court to tell them that.  A Woman has an XX chromosone mix and a man has an XY.  Its not really hard except to the cultural communists who want to destroy Western Civilization.  That it took a court to actually state this is beyond Monty Python levels of parody.  

[rmgill]

He only uses his brain cells when he’s told to do so by the Ministry of Truth. And only what he’s allowed to think about. 

[JWB]

A bit dated but it probably still a problem.

Most of the 2m people in England and Wales contacted by bailiffs report intimidating behaviour

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/mar/22/most-of-the-2m-people-in-uk-contacted-by-bailiffs-report-intimidating-behaviour

[Stuart Galbraith]

57 minutes ago, Murph said:

Stuart, anyone with two functioning brain cells KNOWS what a man is, and what a woman is, they do not need a court to tell them that.  A Woman has an XX chromosone mix and a man has an XY.  Its not really hard except to the cultural communists who want to destroy Western Civilization.  That it took a court to actually state this is beyond Monty Python levels of parody.  

It's a simple matter of law. You are an ex Lawman, knowing something to be true and proving it to be a legal fact are not the same thing.

[TrustMe]

19 minutes ago, JWB said:

A bit dated but it probably still a problem.

Most of the 2m people in England and Wales contacted by bailiffs report intimidating behaviour

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/mar/22/most-of-the-2m-people-in-uk-contacted-by-bailiffs-report-intimidating-behaviour

Quite a lot of the time, baliffs cannot legally take money from people but they continue to try to get it. Sad but true.

[rmgill]

50 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

It's a simple matter of law. You are an ex Lawman, knowing something to be true and proving it to be a legal fact are not the same thing.

Yes. It is. Why did it need relitigation? Are people horses too? Is that going to be relitigated? 

[Mr King]

1 hour ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

It's a simple matter of law. You are an ex Lawman, knowing something to be true and proving it to be a legal fact are not the same thing.

lmao

Do you need the high court to decide that you are legally not a zebra or a boat too?

[Sinistar]

1 hour ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

It's a simple matter of law. You are an ex Lawman, knowing something to be true and proving it to be a legal fact are not the same thing.

 

which is why there are evidence based methods for interpreting events or gathering facts or data

 

you have literally jurists and academics and lawmakers and politicians who are on record either hedging or doing a tapdance when asked about this or promoting the fact that men can get pregnant or by playing with language to change female or mother to birthing persons in order to somehow throw screwballs at it until something sticks

 

if you challenge those assumptions on an evidence basis of where these pregnant lactating menstruating men are

often the argument simply turns towards emotion or offending the public or somehow it placing people into danger by risking their lives because of violence against trans-persons are more likely to be committed

 

this appears to has more to do with an agenda more than anything else 

there is evidence to support that it is more a component or a symptom of a culture war than somehow attempting to bring clarity to anyone who has any doubt there are biological differences between the sexes

you see it in the way these ideas are introduced into elementary schools or to organizations and the way it hammers away 

 

there is also a racket which comes riding on it

public speakers or individuals or groups which earn a living on speaking engagements or acting as advisors and consultants

which there is evidence of all that as well

 

which is to say it often behaves as a scam rather than a fact finding regime

[Murph]

3 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

It's a simple matter of law. You are an ex Lawman, knowing something to be true and proving it to be a legal fact are not the same thing.

At some point basic biology is a fact.  Even liberals know if, despite refusing to acknowledge truth or facts.  

[rmgill]

2 hours ago, Mr King said:

lmao

Do you need the high court to decide that you are legally not a zebra or a boat too?

In his spare time, he might be able to declare himself a Class 80 and get a yearly stipend for paint, lubricants and maintenance. 

[Stuart Galbraith]

11 hours ago, Murph said:

At some point basic biology is a fact.  Even liberals know if, despite refusing to acknowledge truth or facts.  

But law isnt necessarily based on actual fact, but it is how society is oriented as if it was.

You only have to watch the movie 'Lincoln' where they had endless political debates about whether a freed slave had equal rights according to the law or not, when in reality they were always free. The law just took some time to catch up with such a novel concept.

If we didnt orient society according to law, everyones opinion would be regarded as sacrosant and we would be in an even bigger mess than we are. And yes, thats allowing the fact that the law sometimes is wrong.

I may have my flaws, but anarchist I am not.

[Stuart Galbraith]

14 hours ago, Mr King said:

lmao

Do you need the high court to decide that you are legally not a zebra or a boat too?

 

One can argue about whether things needed to get as far as they did before the law decided things for once and all. What can I say, our politicians are as cowardly about taking unpopular positions  as yours.

Its decided now, so once again, I fail to see your problem. Unless you are a fan of taking arbitrary decisions without touching on legality, which I personally am not.

[rmgill]

7 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

If we didnt orient society according to law, everyones opinion would be regarded as sacrosant and we would be in an even bigger mess than we are. And yes, thats allowing the fact that the law sometimes is wrong.

Edited April 24, 2025 by rmgill