The one positive is that the wilder and angrier and more dangerous these men get, the more their behaviour alienates the central column of ordinary Lib Dem members, those who were just trying to 'be kind' as instructed.
It's hard to squint hard enough to see the 'be kind' message hidden at the heart of "Fuck the Terfs"
Are the Lib Dems and the Greens in competition with each other for which Party gets the gold medal in offensive misogyny? Labour probably also wants a shot at it but Starmer is too busy sitting on the fence trying to pretend he’s the reasonable one.
They all competed and fell over themselves to support the rotten legislation in Scotland to allow men to trample all over women's rights if they had the whim to pretend they're females. Almost all the parties have become deranged.
They are just pathetic. How about some actual facts and protections for WOMEN you weirdos. If you are so keen to become Women, how about you respect our differences and needs for safe spaces. Lunatics. Sorry, but my patience is utterly extinguished with these maniacs. Trans does not exist..it’s a fetish and a cult.
My maths teacher cyberstalker who keeps on smearing me (and others who are sex realist) as transphobic bigotsand is an ardent Lib Dem supporter. Give me strength. God knows how awful he is to the female teachers in the school staff room. 😬
Never trust a LibDem, they’re neither liberal nor democratic. If they were they’d never countenance such a regressive and dangerous ideology, nor ignore the majority of voices that see it for the utter shite it is.
Absolutely true. I lived next door to some ardent Lib Dems. The worst, most inconsiderate people I've ever lived near. Absolute hypocrites on almost everything. It seems to be a Lib Dem characteristic.
But read down a bit, and the Reclaim party announces "There is no climate emergency". There's more than one form of science / reality denial.
And the climate emergency is already hitting women worse than men: because women have fewer resources to deal with the devastation of extreme climate events.
Plus it's a far right party founded by the awful Laurence Fox.
Do you really believe there is a climate emergency? You need to do some proper research if you do. There is no proper proof. The IPCC itself admits most of their extreme claims are outlandish and improbable. However this is not the place to debate that issue. Beware of being brainwashed, there are huge vested interests that find climate catastrophism a convenient way to strip the little people of their rights and assets.
The IPPC is a very conservative body which says it does not want to "alarm" people -- despite many climate scientists admitting to being scared stiff themselves: and who believe the public has a right to know how serious their findings are. The IPCC digs in its heels over the science of "tipping points" being not well enough established: while tipping points are already being passed in an irreversible cascade: with eg ongoing collapse of the West Antarctic ice sheet and Greenland ice sheet, loss of albedo in the Arctic, and thawing of of tundra (plus many wildfires) inside the Arctic Circle, where global heating is proceeding most rapidly. Thawing tundra releases Methane, as a "greenhouse gas" (NH4) with over 80 × the heating power of atmospheric CO2 for at least 10 years before it breaks down into nitrogen and water. Methane emissions make industrial cattle farming (plus associated deforestation) a big aggravating factor against trying to stave off an accelerating cascade of tipping points. The problem for climate science is not that its models aren't good enough (especially while extreme events eg 44° C temperatures in Jakarta are already bearing out the worst forecast scenarios) but limited computing power. Only one tenth of available climate data can currently be processed even on linked networks of supercomputers: followed by combining the results of discrete localised patterns into an overall, global pattern. Ideally, all of the data should be processed in parallel. Currently the London Met Office is building the world's largest computer for its long range weather forecasting.
Meanwhile we have more than enough evidence of an extremely serious situation which will cost far, far more to ignore than to mitigate. The biggest vested interest in denying and ignoring the damaging contribution of burning fossil fuels is, of course, the fossil fuel industry itself: whose valuation (and return on investments) is assessed on proven future assets (not those currently being exploited) so it relentlessly continues exploration for oil, gas etc which can never be burnt. And these will become "stranded assets" ie worthless: as renewables replace them. Beware of any myths put out by the fossil fuel industry that talks about the "little people" it doesn't and never did give a damn about. Exxon's own research scientists forecast the current scenario 50 years ago: and Exxon has spent $millions per year ever since, on denying it. So check out your pension fund, if you have a pension..
And PS thanks for your advice: I've been reading research papers and science magazine articles on climate for the last 30 years. Perhaps you should try it too.
I have no doubt that the climate is changing. However -- and it's a big however -- it is being used by the worst among us to impose draconian policies on us plebes while they continue using resources at an insane rate and pursuing war, the worst thing for the environment. I would suggest reading Bright Green Lies, which details -- scientifically -- what is wrong with thinking we are going to replace fossil fuels with wind, solar, and hydro, which actually use more energy than they create. I have lost sympathy with those who think we can somehow continue this profligate way of life by further industrial exploitation.
Some rebuttals of the "use more energy than they create" myth:
"Myth 2: Producing renewables consumes more energy than it delivers.
"It is believed that renewable technologies take longer to produce the same amount of energy as it took to produce that technology and therefore consume more energy than they deliver. In reality, renewables take less or equal time to produce energy as conventional technologies.
"The only exception is solar electricity, and this is often taken as evidence that all renewables cannot payback their energy input under a reasonable timeframe.
"True, solar may take longer to payback energy input, but their useful lifetime is virtually infinite, as no major structural changes are needed for safety or economic reasons. Solar PVs can last for 60 or more years, while the useful lifetime of conventional technologies is usually 10 to 20 years."
"Manufacturing a wind turbine consumes more energy than the machine will be able to generate. FALSE
"A wind turbine offsets the energy used to make it in less than a year – and can function for over 30 years. Every wind turbine generates enough clean energy to cover the electrical demand from some 2,000 homes*. Moreover, the emissions produced by the manufacture and dismantling of a wind turbine represent around 1% of those it will avoid during its useful life in replacing production from coal, gas or fuel oil power stations, and this without counting the CO2 emitted during the building of those fossil fuel stations, nor the extraction or transport of fuel to those plants."
"Myth #2: Wind turbines use more energy to build than they produce.
"Fact Check:
As noted above, wind energy is an economical choice when considering the total life cycle costs of wind farm construction and maintenance. The industry looks at the ratio of energy generated by a plant compared to the energy used to create it. It’s called the Energy Return on Investment (EROI).
Energy Return on Investment Formula, also known as energy returned on energy invested (EROEI or ERoEI)
EROI formula from Wikipedia:
EROI = Energy Delivered / Energy Required to Deliver That Energy
"Wind turbines generate 20-25 times the amount of energy that goes into making them. Wind has an EROI of between 18-20. Coal’s EROI is around 18, while natural gas is in the range of 7-15. Coal and natural gas are less effective because a great deal of energy is used to transport the fuel via rail or pipeline to the plants. Solar and wind is on location! Also, 30-45 percent of energy is lost as heat in the fossil fuel electricity generation process. Not so with solar and wind."
Sorry, I have no interest in "investors." Bright Green Lies was written by three people, one of whom has a masters in mining technology. I rather think he knows more than you do about the costs involved. And one of the mistakes you make, which the three authors emphasize, is equating electricity and energy.
I'm living with the uglification of our beautiful Maine landscape -- cleared land which should be used to graze animals and grow food -- with solar panels. At least one legislator is asking what is to be done with all that waste. I'm assuming you don't mind African children picking through toxic electronic garbage to extract rare metals.
It's always been interesting looking at manifestos (yes, saddo me reads them) and seeing which policies were quietly dropped and which mysteriously appeared in the plans for other parties when they got into government. See: Monster Raving Loony.
I'm a (saddo?) manifesto reader too! So was quite surprised to find eg re UKIP when it was briefly a party with candidates, that most of their manifesto read like old-time Labour: but with a big dose of nationalism added, in separatist mode. But only really got interested in reading manifestos, from the difficult exercise of trying to write one: in 1980s Green party activist days. Group revision of an existing manifesto for putting to annual conference for debate & voting is a real challenge to making people think harder about everything.
:-). Haha. I felt obliged to look through the manifestos locally and this one new party had dashes of what I'd agree with (as you say old-time Labour) masked or underpinned with fairly actually fascist stuff that made me very uneasy indeed. But who actually reads them or cares now? I love/hate writing things by committee - you propose then debate, then you distil it down, then expand, then distil, then expand...then there's a deadline and you can wonder what few aspects you think might get heard let alone get traction. I might set up the 'not just potholes' party.
It's also terrifying to think I might successfully convince someone to do something!
Don't we all go off on one occasionally though? It's a bit inevitable when we seem to be living in clown world. I sometimes think every day is April Fool's Day. Laurence Fox is pretty sincere and on track in my opinion.
Here's a link to the information in the Swedish study of death records, where 40 times more post op females who had "gender surgeries" from 1973-2003 killed themselves by 2011, the date of the study. This means for every one female Swedish woman in the control group who ended her life, 40 post op females killed themselves. The researchers hid that data point until Dr. Stephen B. Levine outed the tidbit. The US military study of dependents' use of wrong sex hormones found 20% of males stopped and 36% of females stopped. Age range 14-22. The Dutch study had 15 drop-outs and 2 deaths, so the N=53 study from 2014 is still used to justify "gender affirming care," despite adverse events:
Ok stats upfront: dad. Male. “Cishet”. Daughter = autistic. (Not yet got at by genre cult). Doctor. (Gp). Also coward (using pseudonym). All parties pathetic except Posie Parker. Everyone of you women = sheroes. This movement has made me love every woman in my life more + hate every sick bastard who mistreats women more and see this movement as a misogynistic cult ever more clearly. Sad thing is, if I were 15 this cult is so woman-hating I might start identifying as a girl out of sympathy I can really see how that happens - Natural reaction to how strongly those woman-hating pricks portray women . God help us. Keep fighting! (Totally non medical language have had wine!)
Thanks for putting this information together. It is very important. These trans issues within the Lib Dems needs wider publicity. Many people are unaware. It would put a stop to many votes.
I am astonished they've managed to get elected or re-elected considering how foul some of them are and how they openly harass women who disagree with removing our rights. Luckily we finally got rid of one of our local LibDem political representatives. I voted as tactically as I could and I'm not sure his replacement is better on any other issue, but on this one most important one I hope he is.
If you've ever been involved in local politics, you find parties are often scraping around for candidates and voters are not well informed about what the candidates are like, but mainly vote by party. Sadly it's easy to get an absolutely useless fool onto the council.
It's really not hard to see why they've let this idiocy run in, the name of the party is Liberal Democrats, aka neoliberal intersectional politics.
All this insanity is really making it difficult to vote if you're on the left (especially if you are very left economically but less so socially), I don't like the Tories for many of their ideas but they seem like one of the only parties to protect real Women, why can't we have a party like Labour used to be?
The communist party of Britain is so fringe so is practically a non entity (so the possibility of having a MP within it would be almost nill) and even they are trying to do the impossible, keeping TRAs happy while trying to keep ones Sex the basis of policy a feat that simply can't be done, as if the two influence spheres of it are having a strange tug of war competition.
The Reform Party has even less you agree with while ironically doing more for Womens rights and Childrens ability to grow up without the Gender indoctrination.
It's hard to find any Party left of centre (and beyond) talking any practical sense anymore about anything, it is like you have to stop yourself throwing the baby out with the bath water to protect it from poor economic and council policy, so you can save said baby even if they don't particularly like the economic waters they are in.
If I was able to I'd set up my own old school non woke left party with Family and Sex (alongside the usual tennants of Workers rights and the dignity and cooperation of society) at the forefront of everything, I'm a bit too unwell physically these days though so it probably won't be me doing this, unfortunately.
Just seen a clip on Twitter by a gender-critical SDP candidate -- remember them? The Social Democratic Party that briefly took off when it split from Labour, but then most of it joined the Liberals which became the LibDems.
But I think so few people even recognise what "SDP" means any more, that serious resurrection is unlikely: even though there's a real hole on the left for them to fill.
Or we need a Gender Critical Progressive Alliance!
Ok have literally cried a bit now at your lovely comment (oh no “womenly” behaviour,.. maybe I’m a girl “on the inside”) . Love+++ to all women and hate to everything that hurts women (porn, “sex work”, devalutation of same sex spaces, equivocation of gay people with gender ideology) for ever and then some and schools out of this! Now!
I know it's not the place but I've just watched a very interesting video exchange of two MEPs - the man, Cristian Terhes, I believe is Romanian, and he is rightly angry at the EU view of women. The woman who disagrees with him, let's call her, Useful Idiot, drools on about 'left' and 'right' - I could boot her ass with both left and right foot right now. https://www.facebook.com/IrexitFreetoProsper/videos/259441133226411/
That is chilling, totally chilling. This is not and should never be a right or left issue. It's sanity versus insanity. How are we here. And the smug little sneer and little clap the woman sitting next to her (seat 25?) gives! Women selling women down the river and calling out men for not accepting it.
On a different topic, I see the DM has tracked (the now sacked thank goodness) Starbucks manager who ranted at a woman for misgendering a member of staff. Name is Luna Spain and guess what 'she' is a prominent TRA in Southampton.
That footage is incredible. The same - exactly the same - behaviours from these violent, entitled, aggressive, unhinged men, who've got the same patter, the same script for how they feel they've been invalidated so they go on the attack. The same cocky jabby arm waving and physical intimidation. It's a mass societal psychosis and he assumed he would be supported and never get any pushback. He was making up rubbish about trespass, with the utter overweening overconfidence that Stonewall have been encouraging these 'activists' to run with and they've inculcated in them. They get to set where all our boundaries are. And yet again the links with 'environmental' studies which they don't seem to understand the meaning of.
I was looking at the results in my local area. The difference in votes was a few hundred in who won one seat. Looking at the spoiled or blank papers, there were more of those than the winning margin, so if those people had been able to vote or not felt they needed to spoil their ballots, another person might have been elected. These margins are tiny and the amount of power some are given based on a 20 to 30% turnout.
I try to encourage others to vote and be engaged in local (and national) politics but I've not seen this level of 'they're all the same what's the point' at any point in my whole life. Older and younger people. The LibDems benefit from 'not being the Tories' (or Labour) which infuriates me as not many seem to make the leap to look at what they do profess to stand for - in this case the abuse and harassment of children and women. Hardly a ringing endorsement if anyone truly understood, read and heard what they are busily and proudly promoting. How those politicians conducted themselves on social media and were allowed to stay in the party and were re-elected shows what a closed shop it is.
Sadly the UK "progressive" (but not on this issue) parties all rely on a youth vote which is much more likely to be indoctrinated by the gender cult, or at least sympathetic to its ideas. It appears this is very much so for Labour & Greens: perhaps less so for LibDems given they tend to be second choice for voters fed up with Tories, who rely most on votes from oldest age groups.
It's depressing that so many people now feel disenfranchised that -- in your local area at least -- the number of spoilt "none of the above" votes actually exceeded the winning margins. Do you know if this normally happens?
I am lucky to be in a South coast ward with two very good Independent candidates, both elected, as the only ones I could vote for without any qualms.
I'm not sure if the number of spoiled votes locally is normal, but I think the low turnout is, so the extra few make all the difference. I keep being asked to stand and keep laughing. It seems you look in their direction and they try to pin a rosette on you. I've tried to engage in a few ways and over a few years and kept getting rebuffed or totally ignored which is an odd way to treat your electorate - they seem to put people off being engaged and yet pretend they want our engagement. How some act in 'safe seats' doesn't seem to have changed much in hundreds of years.
Very pleased to hear how you have options and can vote without qualms - if only that was a bit more common.
And PS: if they (who is they?) keep asking you to stand, why don't you? Though I appreciate it's a lot of work and maybe not compatible with already having a job.
Well. It's cropped up over years as I've been involved a bit with politics and service delivery in a neutral capacity. When you are and want to be engaged and keep seeing what is stopping change, improvement, quality provision or genuine progress, doing the 'politics' bit can be one way to slice through that. We all need people to be willing to step up, work hard and to represent us all. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em and there's no point snarking from the sidelines. I have great respect for those that do put themselves forward but am wary about giving up my private life. It's finding the best way to achieve what you want isn't it?
Thanks, yes low turnout would make spoiled ballot papers more critical in relation to voting margins. And re our electing a couple of Independents (in Rottingdean Coastal ward, Brighton Kemptown) we ALSO had the highest turnout, at 51.5%,! In Brighton & Hove as a City Council of three constituencies. Apparently average turnout was around 41 ~ 42%, don't remember exactly. So it seems that the engagement of Independents with a range of local community groups maybe made them better known and better supported than the usual party candidates.
Yes you do seem to have had rather a weird time at your local Count: though I think people most involved (candidates, agents, canvassers etc) tend to be both exhausted & pretty distracted: so their odd behaviour in regards to you is maybe less surprising. And yes "safe seats" is a curse: entirely due to First Past The Post as our unrepresentative and undemocratic electoral system which is way overdue for reform (to STV/PR, preferably). But with its being "not a priority" for Starmer, it looks like that's not going to happen unless Labour fails to win an outright majority and is forced into coalition -- or some kind of cooperation -- with the LibDems.
Media organizations aren't scared, they're BOUGHT and PAID FOR. Everything on my local and national news is total crap, and though I can accept that, what's difficult to accept is that people believe it. The more outrageous it gets, the more they seem to swallow it.
It's not happened for a while has it. Sometimes they are taken down by Glinner et al and sometimes with an explanation in a following post. It would be good to know if it's self-censoring or whose hand.
You're right; it has been a while. I wouldn't be surprised that it had "upset" The Usual Suspects or that it was feared that it might. I am beyond tired of Offense Collectors.
The one positive is that the wilder and angrier and more dangerous these men get, the more their behaviour alienates the central column of ordinary Lib Dem members, those who were just trying to 'be kind' as instructed.
It's hard to squint hard enough to see the 'be kind' message hidden at the heart of "Fuck the Terfs"
Are the Lib Dems and the Greens in competition with each other for which Party gets the gold medal in offensive misogyny? Labour probably also wants a shot at it but Starmer is too busy sitting on the fence trying to pretend he’s the reasonable one.
They all competed and fell over themselves to support the rotten legislation in Scotland to allow men to trample all over women's rights if they had the whim to pretend they're females. Almost all the parties have become deranged.
They are just pathetic. How about some actual facts and protections for WOMEN you weirdos. If you are so keen to become Women, how about you respect our differences and needs for safe spaces. Lunatics. Sorry, but my patience is utterly extinguished with these maniacs. Trans does not exist..it’s a fetish and a cult.
They don't even attempt to act or look like women. They adopt the aggressive, bullying attitude of the absolutely worst side of men.
My maths teacher cyberstalker who keeps on smearing me (and others who are sex realist) as transphobic bigotsand is an ardent Lib Dem supporter. Give me strength. God knows how awful he is to the female teachers in the school staff room. 😬
Sorry about typos. I'm in the bath! 💦
Don't drop your phone!!! 😂🐳🌊
Never trust a LibDem, they’re neither liberal nor democratic. If they were they’d never countenance such a regressive and dangerous ideology, nor ignore the majority of voices that see it for the utter shite it is.
Absolutely true. I lived next door to some ardent Lib Dems. The worst, most inconsiderate people I've ever lived near. Absolute hypocrites on almost everything. It seems to be a Lib Dem characteristic.
"A woman is an adult human female.
"Organisations, agencies or sporting bodies that prioritise trans rights over those of women and girls will lose access to state funding."
https://www.reclaimparty.co.uk/manifesto
But read down a bit, and the Reclaim party announces "There is no climate emergency". There's more than one form of science / reality denial.
And the climate emergency is already hitting women worse than men: because women have fewer resources to deal with the devastation of extreme climate events.
Plus it's a far right party founded by the awful Laurence Fox.
Do you really believe there is a climate emergency? You need to do some proper research if you do. There is no proper proof. The IPCC itself admits most of their extreme claims are outlandish and improbable. However this is not the place to debate that issue. Beware of being brainwashed, there are huge vested interests that find climate catastrophism a convenient way to strip the little people of their rights and assets.
The IPPC is a very conservative body which says it does not want to "alarm" people -- despite many climate scientists admitting to being scared stiff themselves: and who believe the public has a right to know how serious their findings are. The IPCC digs in its heels over the science of "tipping points" being not well enough established: while tipping points are already being passed in an irreversible cascade: with eg ongoing collapse of the West Antarctic ice sheet and Greenland ice sheet, loss of albedo in the Arctic, and thawing of of tundra (plus many wildfires) inside the Arctic Circle, where global heating is proceeding most rapidly. Thawing tundra releases Methane, as a "greenhouse gas" (NH4) with over 80 × the heating power of atmospheric CO2 for at least 10 years before it breaks down into nitrogen and water. Methane emissions make industrial cattle farming (plus associated deforestation) a big aggravating factor against trying to stave off an accelerating cascade of tipping points. The problem for climate science is not that its models aren't good enough (especially while extreme events eg 44° C temperatures in Jakarta are already bearing out the worst forecast scenarios) but limited computing power. Only one tenth of available climate data can currently be processed even on linked networks of supercomputers: followed by combining the results of discrete localised patterns into an overall, global pattern. Ideally, all of the data should be processed in parallel. Currently the London Met Office is building the world's largest computer for its long range weather forecasting.
Meanwhile we have more than enough evidence of an extremely serious situation which will cost far, far more to ignore than to mitigate. The biggest vested interest in denying and ignoring the damaging contribution of burning fossil fuels is, of course, the fossil fuel industry itself: whose valuation (and return on investments) is assessed on proven future assets (not those currently being exploited) so it relentlessly continues exploration for oil, gas etc which can never be burnt. And these will become "stranded assets" ie worthless: as renewables replace them. Beware of any myths put out by the fossil fuel industry that talks about the "little people" it doesn't and never did give a damn about. Exxon's own research scientists forecast the current scenario 50 years ago: and Exxon has spent $millions per year ever since, on denying it. So check out your pension fund, if you have a pension..
And PS thanks for your advice: I've been reading research papers and science magazine articles on climate for the last 30 years. Perhaps you should try it too.
I have no doubt that the climate is changing. However -- and it's a big however -- it is being used by the worst among us to impose draconian policies on us plebes while they continue using resources at an insane rate and pursuing war, the worst thing for the environment. I would suggest reading Bright Green Lies, which details -- scientifically -- what is wrong with thinking we are going to replace fossil fuels with wind, solar, and hydro, which actually use more energy than they create. I have lost sympathy with those who think we can somehow continue this profligate way of life by further industrial exploitation.
Some rebuttals of the "use more energy than they create" myth:
"Myth 2: Producing renewables consumes more energy than it delivers.
"It is believed that renewable technologies take longer to produce the same amount of energy as it took to produce that technology and therefore consume more energy than they deliver. In reality, renewables take less or equal time to produce energy as conventional technologies.
"The only exception is solar electricity, and this is often taken as evidence that all renewables cannot payback their energy input under a reasonable timeframe.
"True, solar may take longer to payback energy input, but their useful lifetime is virtually infinite, as no major structural changes are needed for safety or economic reasons. Solar PVs can last for 60 or more years, while the useful lifetime of conventional technologies is usually 10 to 20 years."
https://wwfint.awsassets.panda.org/downloads/myth_buster_brochure.pdf
"Manufacturing a wind turbine consumes more energy than the machine will be able to generate. FALSE
"A wind turbine offsets the energy used to make it in less than a year – and can function for over 30 years. Every wind turbine generates enough clean energy to cover the electrical demand from some 2,000 homes*. Moreover, the emissions produced by the manufacture and dismantling of a wind turbine represent around 1% of those it will avoid during its useful life in replacing production from coal, gas or fuel oil power stations, and this without counting the CO2 emitted during the building of those fossil fuel stations, nor the extraction or transport of fuel to those plants."
https://www.activesustainability.com/renewable-energy/debunking-myths-renewable-energy/?_adin=02021864894
"Myth #2: Wind turbines use more energy to build than they produce.
"Fact Check:
As noted above, wind energy is an economical choice when considering the total life cycle costs of wind farm construction and maintenance. The industry looks at the ratio of energy generated by a plant compared to the energy used to create it. It’s called the Energy Return on Investment (EROI).
Energy Return on Investment Formula, also known as energy returned on energy invested (EROEI or ERoEI)
EROI formula from Wikipedia:
EROI = Energy Delivered / Energy Required to Deliver That Energy
"Wind turbines generate 20-25 times the amount of energy that goes into making them. Wind has an EROI of between 18-20. Coal’s EROI is around 18, while natural gas is in the range of 7-15. Coal and natural gas are less effective because a great deal of energy is used to transport the fuel via rail or pipeline to the plants. Solar and wind is on location! Also, 30-45 percent of energy is lost as heat in the fossil fuel electricity generation process. Not so with solar and wind."
https://www.pathto100.org/fact-checking-the-myths-of-renewable-energy/
Many other such myths are also refuted below:
https://www.energymonitor.ai/tech/renewables/opinion-dispelling-myths-around-renewable-energy-technologies/
https://www.technologyreview.com/2023/02/02/1067641/busting-myths-about-materials-and-renewable-energy/
https://www.there100.org/our-work/publications/mythbusting-renewable-electricity
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/03/renewable-energy-myths-debunked/
https://e360.yale.edu/features/three-myths-about-renewable-energy-and-the-grid-debunked
https://oceana.org/renewable-energy-myth-vs-fact-0/
Sorry, I have no interest in "investors." Bright Green Lies was written by three people, one of whom has a masters in mining technology. I rather think he knows more than you do about the costs involved. And one of the mistakes you make, which the three authors emphasize, is equating electricity and energy.
I'm living with the uglification of our beautiful Maine landscape -- cleared land which should be used to graze animals and grow food -- with solar panels. At least one legislator is asking what is to be done with all that waste. I'm assuming you don't mind African children picking through toxic electronic garbage to extract rare metals.
It's always been interesting looking at manifestos (yes, saddo me reads them) and seeing which policies were quietly dropped and which mysteriously appeared in the plans for other parties when they got into government. See: Monster Raving Loony.
I'm a (saddo?) manifesto reader too! So was quite surprised to find eg re UKIP when it was briefly a party with candidates, that most of their manifesto read like old-time Labour: but with a big dose of nationalism added, in separatist mode. But only really got interested in reading manifestos, from the difficult exercise of trying to write one: in 1980s Green party activist days. Group revision of an existing manifesto for putting to annual conference for debate & voting is a real challenge to making people think harder about everything.
:-). Haha. I felt obliged to look through the manifestos locally and this one new party had dashes of what I'd agree with (as you say old-time Labour) masked or underpinned with fairly actually fascist stuff that made me very uneasy indeed. But who actually reads them or cares now? I love/hate writing things by committee - you propose then debate, then you distil it down, then expand, then distil, then expand...then there's a deadline and you can wonder what few aspects you think might get heard let alone get traction. I might set up the 'not just potholes' party.
It's also terrifying to think I might successfully convince someone to do something!
He does talk an awful lot of sense most of the time but occasionally goes off on one
Don't we all go off on one occasionally though? It's a bit inevitable when we seem to be living in clown world. I sometimes think every day is April Fool's Day. Laurence Fox is pretty sincere and on track in my opinion.
Yes. He's partly off his head.
Here's a link to the information in the Swedish study of death records, where 40 times more post op females who had "gender surgeries" from 1973-2003 killed themselves by 2011, the date of the study. This means for every one female Swedish woman in the control group who ended her life, 40 post op females killed themselves. The researchers hid that data point until Dr. Stephen B. Levine outed the tidbit. The US military study of dependents' use of wrong sex hormones found 20% of males stopped and 36% of females stopped. Age range 14-22. The Dutch study had 15 drop-outs and 2 deaths, so the N=53 study from 2014 is still used to justify "gender affirming care," despite adverse events:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1tWG6Rdi4iM
Ok stats upfront: dad. Male. “Cishet”. Daughter = autistic. (Not yet got at by genre cult). Doctor. (Gp). Also coward (using pseudonym). All parties pathetic except Posie Parker. Everyone of you women = sheroes. This movement has made me love every woman in my life more + hate every sick bastard who mistreats women more and see this movement as a misogynistic cult ever more clearly. Sad thing is, if I were 15 this cult is so woman-hating I might start identifying as a girl out of sympathy I can really see how that happens - Natural reaction to how strongly those woman-hating pricks portray women . God help us. Keep fighting! (Totally non medical language have had wine!)
Thanks, your daughter lucky to have a lovely dad like you watching her back x
Thanks for putting this information together. It is very important. These trans issues within the Lib Dems needs wider publicity. Many people are unaware. It would put a stop to many votes.
I am astonished they've managed to get elected or re-elected considering how foul some of them are and how they openly harass women who disagree with removing our rights. Luckily we finally got rid of one of our local LibDem political representatives. I voted as tactically as I could and I'm not sure his replacement is better on any other issue, but on this one most important one I hope he is.
If you've ever been involved in local politics, you find parties are often scraping around for candidates and voters are not well informed about what the candidates are like, but mainly vote by party. Sadly it's easy to get an absolutely useless fool onto the council.
It's really not hard to see why they've let this idiocy run in, the name of the party is Liberal Democrats, aka neoliberal intersectional politics.
All this insanity is really making it difficult to vote if you're on the left (especially if you are very left economically but less so socially), I don't like the Tories for many of their ideas but they seem like one of the only parties to protect real Women, why can't we have a party like Labour used to be?
The communist party of Britain is so fringe so is practically a non entity (so the possibility of having a MP within it would be almost nill) and even they are trying to do the impossible, keeping TRAs happy while trying to keep ones Sex the basis of policy a feat that simply can't be done, as if the two influence spheres of it are having a strange tug of war competition.
The Reform Party has even less you agree with while ironically doing more for Womens rights and Childrens ability to grow up without the Gender indoctrination.
It's hard to find any Party left of centre (and beyond) talking any practical sense anymore about anything, it is like you have to stop yourself throwing the baby out with the bath water to protect it from poor economic and council policy, so you can save said baby even if they don't particularly like the economic waters they are in.
If I was able to I'd set up my own old school non woke left party with Family and Sex (alongside the usual tennants of Workers rights and the dignity and cooperation of society) at the forefront of everything, I'm a bit too unwell physically these days though so it probably won't be me doing this, unfortunately.
Anyone else feel the same?
Just seen a clip on Twitter by a gender-critical SDP candidate -- remember them? The Social Democratic Party that briefly took off when it split from Labour, but then most of it joined the Liberals which became the LibDems.
But I think so few people even recognise what "SDP" means any more, that serious resurrection is unlikely: even though there's a real hole on the left for them to fill.
Or we need a Gender Critical Progressive Alliance!
Ok have literally cried a bit now at your lovely comment (oh no “womenly” behaviour,.. maybe I’m a girl “on the inside”) . Love+++ to all women and hate to everything that hurts women (porn, “sex work”, devalutation of same sex spaces, equivocation of gay people with gender ideology) for ever and then some and schools out of this! Now!
I know it's not the place but I've just watched a very interesting video exchange of two MEPs - the man, Cristian Terhes, I believe is Romanian, and he is rightly angry at the EU view of women. The woman who disagrees with him, let's call her, Useful Idiot, drools on about 'left' and 'right' - I could boot her ass with both left and right foot right now. https://www.facebook.com/IrexitFreetoProsper/videos/259441133226411/
That is chilling, totally chilling. This is not and should never be a right or left issue. It's sanity versus insanity. How are we here. And the smug little sneer and little clap the woman sitting next to her (seat 25?) gives! Women selling women down the river and calling out men for not accepting it.
On a different topic, I see the DM has tracked (the now sacked thank goodness) Starbucks manager who ranted at a woman for misgendering a member of staff. Name is Luna Spain and guess what 'she' is a prominent TRA in Southampton.
That footage is incredible. The same - exactly the same - behaviours from these violent, entitled, aggressive, unhinged men, who've got the same patter, the same script for how they feel they've been invalidated so they go on the attack. The same cocky jabby arm waving and physical intimidation. It's a mass societal psychosis and he assumed he would be supported and never get any pushback. He was making up rubbish about trespass, with the utter overweening overconfidence that Stonewall have been encouraging these 'activists' to run with and they've inculcated in them. They get to set where all our boundaries are. And yet again the links with 'environmental' studies which they don't seem to understand the meaning of.
To be found prowling the online streets howling at the moon.
I was looking at the results in my local area. The difference in votes was a few hundred in who won one seat. Looking at the spoiled or blank papers, there were more of those than the winning margin, so if those people had been able to vote or not felt they needed to spoil their ballots, another person might have been elected. These margins are tiny and the amount of power some are given based on a 20 to 30% turnout.
I try to encourage others to vote and be engaged in local (and national) politics but I've not seen this level of 'they're all the same what's the point' at any point in my whole life. Older and younger people. The LibDems benefit from 'not being the Tories' (or Labour) which infuriates me as not many seem to make the leap to look at what they do profess to stand for - in this case the abuse and harassment of children and women. Hardly a ringing endorsement if anyone truly understood, read and heard what they are busily and proudly promoting. How those politicians conducted themselves on social media and were allowed to stay in the party and were re-elected shows what a closed shop it is.
Sadly the UK "progressive" (but not on this issue) parties all rely on a youth vote which is much more likely to be indoctrinated by the gender cult, or at least sympathetic to its ideas. It appears this is very much so for Labour & Greens: perhaps less so for LibDems given they tend to be second choice for voters fed up with Tories, who rely most on votes from oldest age groups.
It's depressing that so many people now feel disenfranchised that -- in your local area at least -- the number of spoilt "none of the above" votes actually exceeded the winning margins. Do you know if this normally happens?
I am lucky to be in a South coast ward with two very good Independent candidates, both elected, as the only ones I could vote for without any qualms.
I'm not sure if the number of spoiled votes locally is normal, but I think the low turnout is, so the extra few make all the difference. I keep being asked to stand and keep laughing. It seems you look in their direction and they try to pin a rosette on you. I've tried to engage in a few ways and over a few years and kept getting rebuffed or totally ignored which is an odd way to treat your electorate - they seem to put people off being engaged and yet pretend they want our engagement. How some act in 'safe seats' doesn't seem to have changed much in hundreds of years.
Very pleased to hear how you have options and can vote without qualms - if only that was a bit more common.
And PS: if they (who is they?) keep asking you to stand, why don't you? Though I appreciate it's a lot of work and maybe not compatible with already having a job.
Well. It's cropped up over years as I've been involved a bit with politics and service delivery in a neutral capacity. When you are and want to be engaged and keep seeing what is stopping change, improvement, quality provision or genuine progress, doing the 'politics' bit can be one way to slice through that. We all need people to be willing to step up, work hard and to represent us all. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em and there's no point snarking from the sidelines. I have great respect for those that do put themselves forward but am wary about giving up my private life. It's finding the best way to achieve what you want isn't it?
Thanks, yes low turnout would make spoiled ballot papers more critical in relation to voting margins. And re our electing a couple of Independents (in Rottingdean Coastal ward, Brighton Kemptown) we ALSO had the highest turnout, at 51.5%,! In Brighton & Hove as a City Council of three constituencies. Apparently average turnout was around 41 ~ 42%, don't remember exactly. So it seems that the engagement of Independents with a range of local community groups maybe made them better known and better supported than the usual party candidates.
Yes you do seem to have had rather a weird time at your local Count: though I think people most involved (candidates, agents, canvassers etc) tend to be both exhausted & pretty distracted: so their odd behaviour in regards to you is maybe less surprising. And yes "safe seats" is a curse: entirely due to First Past The Post as our unrepresentative and undemocratic electoral system which is way overdue for reform (to STV/PR, preferably). But with its being "not a priority" for Starmer, it looks like that's not going to happen unless Labour fails to win an outright majority and is forced into coalition -- or some kind of cooperation -- with the LibDems.
Media organizations aren't scared, they're BOUGHT and PAID FOR. Everything on my local and national news is total crap, and though I can accept that, what's difficult to accept is that people believe it. The more outrageous it gets, the more they seem to swallow it.
I received that Open Letter.
But clicking on "comments" produces "Page Not Found."
Does Substack censor?
Not the first time this has happened with a Glinner post.
It's not happened for a while has it. Sometimes they are taken down by Glinner et al and sometimes with an explanation in a following post. It would be good to know if it's self-censoring or whose hand.
Phew thank goodness I thought Graham had hired some Times moderators or something
You're right; it has been a while. I wouldn't be surprised that it had "upset" The Usual Suspects or that it was feared that it might. I am beyond tired of Offense Collectors.
Same here