General Discussion for politics in the UK.
Please don't post to both [email protected] and [email protected] .
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.
Posts should be related to UK-centric politics, and should be either a link to a reputable news source for news, or a text post on this community.
Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.
If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread. (These things should be publicly discussed)
Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.
Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.
[email protected] appears to have vanished! We can still see cached content from this link, but goodbye I guess! :'(
meanwhile not a single member of labour or the gender critical movement have mentioned a word about nicola murray, who was lauded by multiple mps and followed by several gender criticals - including jk rowling.
she just was found guilty of decades of child abuse.
Idk how to be okay anymore. Its just one thing after another. All the momentum I thought we had in society toward proper trans rights seems to have died.
His new comments came as Equalities Minister Bridget Phillipson said the ruling means transgender women should use male toilets.
The SC ruling didn't even say that trans people had to be excluded from single-sex spaces, only that they could. This is the same shit they pulled with the Cass Review, which didn't call for puberty blockers to be banned, but they always assert that it did.
The SC ruling didn’t even say that trans people had to be excluded from single-sex spaces, only that they could.
This is Lord Sumption's take on it and he reckons the ruling has been misinterpreted. As a former Supreme Court judge, I'm happy to go along with that as he is an expert on interpreting and writing such judgements.
The speed with which some people have jumped on this and given their own, apparently wrong, reading of the law is worrying. Especially as one of them is Baroness Falkner who is threatening to write up "guidance" based on her misunderstanding of the judgement. Almost seems... opportunistic.
It's 2025, and there are still people with titles like "Lord" and "Baroness" somehow
We are subjects in a feudal constitutional monarchy. We can reform the House of Lords (I favour sortition) but the whole system is broken.
Yeah, but I feel that once you've got a "Lord Michael Gove", the title has essentially become meaningless :)
Starmer doesn't have a position on anything, he waits for everyone else to give their opinion and then picks the one he thinks is most popular
Isn't that most politicians?
To one extent or another, Starmer is just so blatant with it
"I believe in nothing, and I stand for nothing"
-Der Sturmer, 2025
No, he didn't make a u-turn. Kid Starver - ever the opportunist - only uses the moment to reveal his complete lack of morals and convictions yet again.