Must admit reading about Nadhim Zahawi I had to check that this wasn't your Good News Edition. At this rate it's going to be over by Christmas. Please keep it up gender identity extremists!
Dear God ,can this get any worse or any more depraved ? Whatever world we're now living in is not the world I was born into ,even with all its faults. In my world ,truth and honesty were valued,as were Justice and fairness. In this world ,lies and sexual deviancy of every kind are not only permitted but actually applauded and rewarded ,while their victims are discarded and demonised ,if they even survive the abuse they've been subjected to. Every single person ,public figure or not ,who has a shred of decency ,even a miniscule amount ,should be loudly protesting this abhorrent culture and showing the evidence of the monumental damage it's causing all of which is on our side (100% ) All of the media ,if they're fit to be called journalists ,should be copying the Daily Wire in the USA ,and calling all this out.The Matt Walsh
documentary " What is a Woman ? ) is totally brilliant and is an eye opener into how much people have been either intimidated into silence / compliance or completely captured , especially the so called "professionals ". This needs to be fought at grass roots level and the popular press needs to play it's part in informing the public of all these horror stories !! Enough's Enough . Well done to you ,JL ,for all your hard work uncovering this 👍👏🙏💘
Why aren't the police arresting Reyes for hate speech? Isn't a call to arms to kill transphobes inciting murder? So a disabled women putting up stickers that don't even mention trans, let alone a call to action against them is considered hate, but this is not? I think there should be pressure on the police to arrest this person. Considering that just about anything is considered tranphobic if the TRAs say it is (hosting a charitable cause for Ukraine just becuase it involved JK Rowling for example), this can only result in an attempt on a life eventually. They are getting more emboldened, they are already violent as a movement and now this? I say we report it as hate speech on masse. I think we should also positive review bomb trip advisor for that restaurant. The rest of it... well there's plenty there that turns my stomach. It's funny how being trans attracts the sexual deviants. Thanks for the round up JL.
It's legally sanctioned abuse. Drag is misogynistic garbage that adults can participate in if they choose. But it's indefensible for them to make the same choice for children.
Those who cooperate with this despite objecting, need to find their voices and use them without giving a shit when they're called transphobic. A term that now covers so many transgressions it's become virtually meaningless. These performers aren't necessarily transgender, they are men ridiculing women in grotesque parody.
Nothing a child is going to witness at a drag show will be remotely beneficial to them, but it is potentially damaging. Kids rely on adults to keep them safe and protect them, particularly their parents, who, with some exceptions, they trust. Some children are going to be frightened by an experience like this, even if they don't appear afraid. It's going to create a lot of anxiety for them that will inevitably emerge in various ways later on.
Drag queens have been compared with pantomime dames, and as pantomimes are considered primarily children's entertainment, why is that acceptable if men in another kind of drag isn't, etc? Presumably, they aren't really so stupid they're unable to see the distinction, but it hasn't deterred some from using this argument. Widow Twankey might not be to everyone's taste, but she's an exaggerated comedic matron, very unlike the highly sexualised persona of the average drag queen.
It's bizarre and absurd that this is even being discussed. The very idea of having to explain why a drag show isn't an appropriate environment for kids throws up so many red flags. When are the adults going to come back into the room and resume their seats? By force, if necessary.
I'll tell you what I don't understand. There is normally an age requirement for even being in a bar. My foster daughter knew this and told me she couldn't go into a restaurant that is called Broad Arrow Tavern; I told her it was okay because it was a restaurant. Bars are not like pubs in the U.K.; they are NOT family places, they are ADULT places.
I complained to BBC about a particularly poor piece of journalism (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-61075197) and escalated it to ECU. I recieved the final response today, and thought some might be interested in seeing it.
"Dear Mr XXXX
BBC Newsbeat: Doctor Who: 'I wanted The Doctor to whisk me away from
everything awful'
Thank you for your email to the Executive Complaints Unit. As you know, the BBC
Complaints Team offered a response to your earlier complaint and explained it did not
believe there were grounds to take it further. You were told you could ask the
Executive Complaints Unit to review this decision, following the process set out in the
BBC’s Complaints Framework and Procedures.
You complained about a line in the above article:
A new Doctor Who podcast spin-off series is making the show more female and
LGBTQ+ than ever before.
You objected to this line as you say trans women are not female. You are of course
entitled to hold this view but it does not follow that the line is inaccurate. It suggests
the podcast the team has made is “more female and LGBTQ+”. As the piece explains,
it features a cast which is “completely led by women” in a story about three young
women, one of whom is trans. It seems to me this entirely supports the suggestion the
show is demonstrably “more female and LGBTQ+”. The piece makes entirely clear the
star and writer of the piece are transgender women and the show includes positive
transgender representation. Accordingly I struggle to see how anyone might be
materially misled by this line – which is the test set out in the BBC’s guidelines.
I hope this explains why I don’t believe you have raised the possibility of a breach of
the BBC’s standards and accordingly it seems to me the decision to not correspond
with you further was correct. There’s no provision for further appeal against this
decision within the BBC’s complaints process but it is open to you to bring the matter
to Ofcom, the BBC’s regulator, should you wish. Information on doing so can be found
here.
Yours sincerely
Richard Hutt
Complaints Director"
I've sent Mx Hutt this response:
"Dear Mr Hutt
Thanks for your letter. I note this is the end of the line re: BBC, so will escalate this outside.
I note you are blithely intent on continuing to cause unnecessary harm, despite being a public service broadcaster. As a former BBC employee I feel duty bound to point out you are incorrect, and at the most elementary of levels. It's a settled matter of fact in the sciences of biology and human biology that humans can't spontaneously change sex a la transmogrification, and medical technology has yet to develop anywhere near the point of providing a means. Possibly you have confused sex with gender.
I cordially suggest you check the dictionary: Woman: adult human female/Man: adult human male. Your attempts to frame my point as opinion implies you are either ignorant of the matter you are commenting on, or regurgitating a script based on anti-science gender identity extremism.
Would you tell an astrophysicist that their observations re: roughly spherical nature of Earth is just an opinion to appease 'Flat Earthers'? You're doing similar re: science of biology and humans changing sex. Stupid is as stupid does.
Thank you for your response to my letter. As I noted, this constituted the final position of the BBC complaints process. However, for completeness I am happy to clarify that my finding did not rest on the question of whether a trans woman was female, as I did not consider that was the meaning of the line to which you objected. Rather, I concluded that describing the impact of the podcast - as making Dr Who “more female and LGBTQ+ than ever before” (my emphasis) would not materially mislead audiences, given that two of the leads were female and one a trans woman, and the writer also a trans woman. In light of those facts I struggled to see how that formulation would have had the effect you assigned to it.
I hope that clarifies my finding. It remains open to you to bring this to Ofcom for a view.
Yours sincerely
Richard Hutt
Complaints Director"
Here's my reply:
Dear Mr Hutt
Thanks for the reply. You confirm what I have suspected since first response to my complaint from your unit: there has been a failure to comprehend my compliant and at the most fundamental level. As the complaints process has failed me, I request it is re-run. Therefore I will not be contacting OFCOM for now. If you won't re-run the process please advise how I complain to BBC about a complaint that has been misunderstood, and therefore mishandled, all the way to ECU final response.
To clarify: the article asserts addition of two trans women to the production makes it "more female and LGBTQ+ than ever before". Wether or not the "formulation would have had the effect" I fear, it's is irrelevant regarding the misleading and inaccurate content, as at time of writing humans can’t change sex so Trans women remain male. It would’ve been correct to state "more LGBTQ+ than ever before" or "more trans than ever before". The potential harms caused by this inaccuracy are significantly increased as the article is published under Newsbeat, so targeting minors and young adults.
Do you, or anyone at the BBC, really believe it's a good idea to fill youngsters heads with such anti-science nonsense?
YES, they do think it's a good idea to fill youngsters' heads with anti-science nonsense. It's how you raise a generation of people who will do what the state tells them, will attack those they are told to attack, and who will repeat meaningless slogans.
The BBC has lost its' corporate mind. I know a NUJ foc based in Broadcasting House London newsroom who informs it's become highly polarised along gender id extremist v science/reality lines, and with some spectacularly awful results regarding quality of output.
I didn't know the former, who hasn't noticed the latter?
Nauseous. "It's not gonna lick itself" wtf does that mean? What would make anyone think their kids need to be groomed to believe these most debased and seediest aspects of the adult world are some kind of normality already before they are ten? But I suppose I know the answer really. A group of perversions kept on the fringes of society for thousands of years precisely because they don't represent anything normal, has been given an opening due to a babbling Babylonian style post modern scrambling of our language which has enabled confusion of words like "equality", "diversity" and "inclusion" to become more or less "anything goes". And they will of course gratuitously exploit that opening for all its potential. They are desperate to make the abnormal the normal. Which is going to have vast and negative consequences for everybody. But especially children.
Meanwhile people who really really need to benefit from a more inclusive, tolerant, welcoming society - the disabled and especially the learning disabled - are being shut out. Stuffed away in hospitals and 'homes', families at breaking point, housebound because of a lack of funding for support workers and appropriate facilities.
Round of applause for Reduxx, who have been knocking it out the park with their reporting in the few months they've been running. It's the sort of resource the newly peaked should be directed to to find out more. The likes of Matt Walsh, not so much.
Me! Me! I know this one! They smoke pipes. And shelves. Or is it that the spangly shiny feeling inside tells them their true nature? Oh it's all too, too confusing.
And they can climb ladders too. Women can't for some ungodly reason. The moment I put my foot up I fall over and forget what I'm doing, probably as my brain is too full thinking of glitter and puppies.
Warwick Pride quote a survey as if it is for the whole LGBTQ+population, whereas in reality it was 161 young people between the ages of 16 and 25. As a researcher, when numbers are portrayed as percentages, it usually means the sample is quite small; we have all done it as it protects the people answering from being identified. But it cannot be presented as being indicitive of the whole population. In this case, Warwick Pride are being disingenuous and should be blasted for the stance they have taken. 35% ide'ed as female, 31% id'ed as male, 24% as non binary, and 10% as alternative. 42% id'ed as gay or lesbian, 23% as bi, 20% as something else, the other 15% didn't answer the question. Of the 85% who answered, 49% id'ed as trans. So in numbers, 67 id'ed as trans and 94 didn't. A very small number...
To hound a Minister in this way is at the very least bad behaviour. All should have been arrested for BOP. Having a charge on your CV is not a great way to start your career but to my dismay, it might be the only way to stop this criminal behaviour. How many of the students want to work with people in the future? For those that do, a criminal charge against them is never spent and for the first 15 years after graduating, it will cost them. That sort of thing filters fown through the masses like no other. It did during the anti poll tax campaign and the anti war campaigns. Only those actually dedicated to the cause kept going, others ran away because they didn't want to have to try and justify the charge. The rest of us just made sure that we didn't cross the line! That is the difference between adults and children protesting, adults know when to stop!
Okay, I checked it out and, yes, the bar in Dallas is an 18+-designated bar. Right-wingers protested outside, the police came, and the police removed the children. I began to wonder if these are same people who let their children watch X-rated videos, or if they're just brain-dead liberals.
And why don't they (the parents) even notice / aren't they horrified by the short skirts which reveal the crotch area when the storyteller/other act is sitting? Always cross-legged. Always in their children's faces.
To liar thomas: we're not 'cis' women you bloody bollock-tucking cheating fraud
As always many thanks for a darn good read JL.
Must admit reading about Nadhim Zahawi I had to check that this wasn't your Good News Edition. At this rate it's going to be over by Christmas. Please keep it up gender identity extremists!
Yes, they're doing our job for us! And thanks so much for your kind words.
Dear God ,can this get any worse or any more depraved ? Whatever world we're now living in is not the world I was born into ,even with all its faults. In my world ,truth and honesty were valued,as were Justice and fairness. In this world ,lies and sexual deviancy of every kind are not only permitted but actually applauded and rewarded ,while their victims are discarded and demonised ,if they even survive the abuse they've been subjected to. Every single person ,public figure or not ,who has a shred of decency ,even a miniscule amount ,should be loudly protesting this abhorrent culture and showing the evidence of the monumental damage it's causing all of which is on our side (100% ) All of the media ,if they're fit to be called journalists ,should be copying the Daily Wire in the USA ,and calling all this out.The Matt Walsh
documentary " What is a Woman ? ) is totally brilliant and is an eye opener into how much people have been either intimidated into silence / compliance or completely captured , especially the so called "professionals ". This needs to be fought at grass roots level and the popular press needs to play it's part in informing the public of all these horror stories !! Enough's Enough . Well done to you ,JL ,for all your hard work uncovering this 👍👏🙏💘
Thank you, Susan!
Why aren't the police arresting Reyes for hate speech? Isn't a call to arms to kill transphobes inciting murder? So a disabled women putting up stickers that don't even mention trans, let alone a call to action against them is considered hate, but this is not? I think there should be pressure on the police to arrest this person. Considering that just about anything is considered tranphobic if the TRAs say it is (hosting a charitable cause for Ukraine just becuase it involved JK Rowling for example), this can only result in an attempt on a life eventually. They are getting more emboldened, they are already violent as a movement and now this? I say we report it as hate speech on masse. I think we should also positive review bomb trip advisor for that restaurant. The rest of it... well there's plenty there that turns my stomach. It's funny how being trans attracts the sexual deviants. Thanks for the round up JL.
That last item about the drag show for kids… No words. It is just perverted.
It's legally sanctioned abuse. Drag is misogynistic garbage that adults can participate in if they choose. But it's indefensible for them to make the same choice for children.
Those who cooperate with this despite objecting, need to find their voices and use them without giving a shit when they're called transphobic. A term that now covers so many transgressions it's become virtually meaningless. These performers aren't necessarily transgender, they are men ridiculing women in grotesque parody.
Agree wholeheartedly.
And parents who take their children to something like this are of course endangering their children.
Nothing a child is going to witness at a drag show will be remotely beneficial to them, but it is potentially damaging. Kids rely on adults to keep them safe and protect them, particularly their parents, who, with some exceptions, they trust. Some children are going to be frightened by an experience like this, even if they don't appear afraid. It's going to create a lot of anxiety for them that will inevitably emerge in various ways later on.
Drag queens have been compared with pantomime dames, and as pantomimes are considered primarily children's entertainment, why is that acceptable if men in another kind of drag isn't, etc? Presumably, they aren't really so stupid they're unable to see the distinction, but it hasn't deterred some from using this argument. Widow Twankey might not be to everyone's taste, but she's an exaggerated comedic matron, very unlike the highly sexualised persona of the average drag queen.
It's bizarre and absurd that this is even being discussed. The very idea of having to explain why a drag show isn't an appropriate environment for kids throws up so many red flags. When are the adults going to come back into the room and resume their seats? By force, if necessary.
I'll tell you what I don't understand. There is normally an age requirement for even being in a bar. My foster daughter knew this and told me she couldn't go into a restaurant that is called Broad Arrow Tavern; I told her it was okay because it was a restaurant. Bars are not like pubs in the U.K.; they are NOT family places, they are ADULT places.
I complained to BBC about a particularly poor piece of journalism (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-61075197) and escalated it to ECU. I recieved the final response today, and thought some might be interested in seeing it.
"Dear Mr XXXX
BBC Newsbeat: Doctor Who: 'I wanted The Doctor to whisk me away from
everything awful'
Thank you for your email to the Executive Complaints Unit. As you know, the BBC
Complaints Team offered a response to your earlier complaint and explained it did not
believe there were grounds to take it further. You were told you could ask the
Executive Complaints Unit to review this decision, following the process set out in the
BBC’s Complaints Framework and Procedures.
You complained about a line in the above article:
A new Doctor Who podcast spin-off series is making the show more female and
LGBTQ+ than ever before.
You objected to this line as you say trans women are not female. You are of course
entitled to hold this view but it does not follow that the line is inaccurate. It suggests
the podcast the team has made is “more female and LGBTQ+”. As the piece explains,
it features a cast which is “completely led by women” in a story about three young
women, one of whom is trans. It seems to me this entirely supports the suggestion the
show is demonstrably “more female and LGBTQ+”. The piece makes entirely clear the
star and writer of the piece are transgender women and the show includes positive
transgender representation. Accordingly I struggle to see how anyone might be
materially misled by this line – which is the test set out in the BBC’s guidelines.
I hope this explains why I don’t believe you have raised the possibility of a breach of
the BBC’s standards and accordingly it seems to me the decision to not correspond
with you further was correct. There’s no provision for further appeal against this
decision within the BBC’s complaints process but it is open to you to bring the matter
to Ofcom, the BBC’s regulator, should you wish. Information on doing so can be found
here.
Yours sincerely
Richard Hutt
Complaints Director"
I've sent Mx Hutt this response:
"Dear Mr Hutt
Thanks for your letter. I note this is the end of the line re: BBC, so will escalate this outside.
I note you are blithely intent on continuing to cause unnecessary harm, despite being a public service broadcaster. As a former BBC employee I feel duty bound to point out you are incorrect, and at the most elementary of levels. It's a settled matter of fact in the sciences of biology and human biology that humans can't spontaneously change sex a la transmogrification, and medical technology has yet to develop anywhere near the point of providing a means. Possibly you have confused sex with gender.
I cordially suggest you check the dictionary: Woman: adult human female/Man: adult human male. Your attempts to frame my point as opinion implies you are either ignorant of the matter you are commenting on, or regurgitating a script based on anti-science gender identity extremism.
Would you tell an astrophysicist that their observations re: roughly spherical nature of Earth is just an opinion to appease 'Flat Earthers'? You're doing similar re: science of biology and humans changing sex. Stupid is as stupid does.
Cheers - John"
Well done!
I got a reply from MX Hutt!
"Dear Mr XXXX
Thank you for your response to my letter. As I noted, this constituted the final position of the BBC complaints process. However, for completeness I am happy to clarify that my finding did not rest on the question of whether a trans woman was female, as I did not consider that was the meaning of the line to which you objected. Rather, I concluded that describing the impact of the podcast - as making Dr Who “more female and LGBTQ+ than ever before” (my emphasis) would not materially mislead audiences, given that two of the leads were female and one a trans woman, and the writer also a trans woman. In light of those facts I struggled to see how that formulation would have had the effect you assigned to it.
I hope that clarifies my finding. It remains open to you to bring this to Ofcom for a view.
Yours sincerely
Richard Hutt
Complaints Director"
Here's my reply:
Dear Mr Hutt
Thanks for the reply. You confirm what I have suspected since first response to my complaint from your unit: there has been a failure to comprehend my compliant and at the most fundamental level. As the complaints process has failed me, I request it is re-run. Therefore I will not be contacting OFCOM for now. If you won't re-run the process please advise how I complain to BBC about a complaint that has been misunderstood, and therefore mishandled, all the way to ECU final response.
To clarify: the article asserts addition of two trans women to the production makes it "more female and LGBTQ+ than ever before". Wether or not the "formulation would have had the effect" I fear, it's is irrelevant regarding the misleading and inaccurate content, as at time of writing humans can’t change sex so Trans women remain male. It would’ve been correct to state "more LGBTQ+ than ever before" or "more trans than ever before". The potential harms caused by this inaccuracy are significantly increased as the article is published under Newsbeat, so targeting minors and young adults.
Do you, or anyone at the BBC, really believe it's a good idea to fill youngsters heads with such anti-science nonsense?
Cheers - Mr XXXX"
Brilliant response!
YES, they do think it's a good idea to fill youngsters' heads with anti-science nonsense. It's how you raise a generation of people who will do what the state tells them, will attack those they are told to attack, and who will repeat meaningless slogans.
Ah the lovely Charlie 'suck my girl dick' Craggs. Such a role model for young girls.
To Charlie Craggs, and his ilk, I reply suck my science!
Dear Mx Hutt
So why are there no trans men in your show? Cos, you know, equality and diversity, innit.
The BBC has lost its' corporate mind. I know a NUJ foc based in Broadcasting House London newsroom who informs it's become highly polarised along gender id extremist v science/reality lines, and with some spectacularly awful results regarding quality of output.
I didn't know the former, who hasn't noticed the latter?
Well done.
Nauseous. "It's not gonna lick itself" wtf does that mean? What would make anyone think their kids need to be groomed to believe these most debased and seediest aspects of the adult world are some kind of normality already before they are ten? But I suppose I know the answer really. A group of perversions kept on the fringes of society for thousands of years precisely because they don't represent anything normal, has been given an opening due to a babbling Babylonian style post modern scrambling of our language which has enabled confusion of words like "equality", "diversity" and "inclusion" to become more or less "anything goes". And they will of course gratuitously exploit that opening for all its potential. They are desperate to make the abnormal the normal. Which is going to have vast and negative consequences for everybody. But especially children.
Meanwhile people who really really need to benefit from a more inclusive, tolerant, welcoming society - the disabled and especially the learning disabled - are being shut out. Stuffed away in hospitals and 'homes', families at breaking point, housebound because of a lack of funding for support workers and appropriate facilities.
Yep nauseous.
When some of these children grow up to be "Ted Bundy", will their parents and the rest of society be surprised? If so, why?
If we're lucky, they will turn out like some psychologists' children do and murder their parents.
Round of applause for Reduxx, who have been knocking it out the park with their reporting in the few months they've been running. It's the sort of resource the newly peaked should be directed to to find out more. The likes of Matt Walsh, not so much.
So what is the definition of a man, then?
Me! Me! I know this one! They smoke pipes. And shelves. Or is it that the spangly shiny feeling inside tells them their true nature? Oh it's all too, too confusing.
Don’t tempt me. ( The complete inability to know where they left anything is a clue, though)
And they can climb ladders too. Women can't for some ungodly reason. The moment I put my foot up I fall over and forget what I'm doing, probably as my brain is too full thinking of glitter and puppies.
Warwick Pride quote a survey as if it is for the whole LGBTQ+population, whereas in reality it was 161 young people between the ages of 16 and 25. As a researcher, when numbers are portrayed as percentages, it usually means the sample is quite small; we have all done it as it protects the people answering from being identified. But it cannot be presented as being indicitive of the whole population. In this case, Warwick Pride are being disingenuous and should be blasted for the stance they have taken. 35% ide'ed as female, 31% id'ed as male, 24% as non binary, and 10% as alternative. 42% id'ed as gay or lesbian, 23% as bi, 20% as something else, the other 15% didn't answer the question. Of the 85% who answered, 49% id'ed as trans. So in numbers, 67 id'ed as trans and 94 didn't. A very small number...
To hound a Minister in this way is at the very least bad behaviour. All should have been arrested for BOP. Having a charge on your CV is not a great way to start your career but to my dismay, it might be the only way to stop this criminal behaviour. How many of the students want to work with people in the future? For those that do, a criminal charge against them is never spent and for the first 15 years after graduating, it will cost them. That sort of thing filters fown through the masses like no other. It did during the anti poll tax campaign and the anti war campaigns. Only those actually dedicated to the cause kept going, others ran away because they didn't want to have to try and justify the charge. The rest of us just made sure that we didn't cross the line! That is the difference between adults and children protesting, adults know when to stop!
Lia Thomas is what happens when the ventriloquist stops talking and the puppet takes over.
Okay, I checked it out and, yes, the bar in Dallas is an 18+-designated bar. Right-wingers protested outside, the police came, and the police removed the children. I began to wonder if these are same people who let their children watch X-rated videos, or if they're just brain-dead liberals.
And why don't they (the parents) even notice / aren't they horrified by the short skirts which reveal the crotch area when the storyteller/other act is sitting? Always cross-legged. Always in their children's faces.