The JK Rowling riposte to the BBC reminds me just how authoritarian and captured by ideology Labour is. Labour wants to censor what we see on line in favour of ‘trusted’ sources such as the BBC, which has been spewing misinformation, disinformation and outright propaganda for years. It has become the mouthpiece of the woke left/Labour. It’s been hard enough to wake people up to gender ideology even with freely available online pieces. Just imagine the levels of gaslighting and lying the govt will indulge in if they censor everything and use the lying BBC even more as a mouthpiece.
Hello Tenacious - yes, I can imagine the future under the Labour Dictatorship - and it's terrifying.
I hope you won't mind, TT, if I share your comment to my MP - and hope other Terfy freedom lovers will, too.
BBC as a 'trusted source' ????? Pull the other one ....
I understand the People's Republic of China are part owners of TikTok and do a lot of media censorship (apart from hacking/trolling/surveilling) on behalf of The People - the Chinese Starmbot & Co seem to take them as a guide!
From an non-expert perspective re the various online media, pls forgive me if I state the 'bleedin obvious' - to me, at least :
If Labour really want to protect* children and young people, eg from pro-suicide platforms aimed at children, why not demand a ban of those particular sites from service providers like TikTok and/or require parents to make sure their children do not have access either?
Aren't parents and teachers subject to prosecution if they don't safeguard the children in their care? Seems to me, giving a child an i-phone is useful for making sure you know where your child is - but otherwise, surely parents/ teachers should limit the child's access to the internet and make it their business to know what they're watching.
Of course, as a Terf, this should include any sites promoting 'trans' to children and young people imo.
* From a Terfland (ie reality-based) point of view, this would of course preclude the proposed 'Conversion Banning Bill' - let alone allowing any dangerous trial of puberty blockers on children. Not least, the reluctance to pass the grooming rape gang enquiry with teeth to prosecute, or include the testaments of victims shows where Labour are really at, ie censorship by the front *and* back door.
From what I see of Andy Burnham, I doubt very much he will be anything but worse, if he becomes PM - although he did concede a U-turn in accepting a man cannot become a woman and vice versa 2 weeks before the Makerfield election. Will he U-turn back again now he's got past that little difficulty?
(Ahem, off-topic but didn't Burnham promise a General Election if he became PM? Being crowned PM by Labour on the basis of the Makerfield win and without a GE seems very undemocratic and hypocritical to me - seeing as he criticised the Tories for doing the exact same thing when changing PM's.)
And yes, under the Labour regime, def #BeMoreDissident
Presuming Burnham proposes radical new policies that are not in the manifesto then he ought to call a GE but I doubt he will.
Malcolm Clark has done an examination of Burnham's two main advisers and it doesn't look good. They are both Gramsci lovers ( culturla Marxism). I may link to Malcolm's piece in the next update.
I agree with all that and yes, share away. Another important point to bring up- who decides what is trusted information? The BBC has been caught out doctoring information on a number of occasions. The whole point of free speech is that ideas can be discussed openly and a consensus found as to the best way forward. It’s not for one group to decide what we can or can’t hear.
As regards this authoritarian govt- the list of examples gets longer by the day, from jury trials to two tier policing and Starmer saying that anyone showing concern about grooming gangs is ‘jumping on a far right bandwagon’. I despise them all.
Well said, TT. And if their proposed bill goes through the genderborg will have its own blasphemy law to inflict on nonbelievers. The last ten years will pale in comparison with what is to come if people don’t speak up now.
Exactly. One of Burnham’s closest advisors is a tra plus he’s captured despite his trying to row back a bit. I think Orwell had this govt in mind when he wrote Animal Farm.
Like zillions of other people, I am filled with insensate rage by the media's use of the fictitious term "transgender girls/ women". As with the mainstream press coverage of the Idaho decision that boys sport is for boys, and girls sport is for girls.
SO - over and over - I write to the paper I read most often, I remind them that "facts are sacred". I tell them repeatedly that I cancelled my subscription (£135 p.a.) because of their insistent pretence that people can change sex. (Today's letter: " Have some sections of the Guardian team abandoned the mission: Comment is free… but facts are sacred? I cancelled my subscription because The Guardian editorial team allows the pretence that men can be women. Thus we read nonsense like: “Idaho became the first state to ban transgender girls from school sports...” Idaho simply banned boys from girls' sport in the interests of safety and fairness. etc etc)
Of course, they never print any letter I send that addresses their pro "trans" bias.
BUT I KEEP ON. AND ON.
And maybe, just maybe, if loads of other people did the same - sent a reprimanding nudge - the editorial teams & the subscription managers might start taking notice?
From all the coverage you would think that the defining issue of female sports was the feelings of boys and men.
Helen Joyce pointed out on TalkTV that the BBC always say they have to frame their articles in terms of transwoomen if that’s the language the courts use, but this judgment referred to biological males and was still given the trans framing by the BBC. Heaven forbid the legacy media might actually consider how women and girls have been affected when a court is having to rule in defence of their rights!
The JK Rowling riposte to the BBC reminds me just how authoritarian and captured by ideology Labour is. Labour wants to censor what we see on line in favour of ‘trusted’ sources such as the BBC, which has been spewing misinformation, disinformation and outright propaganda for years. It has become the mouthpiece of the woke left/Labour. It’s been hard enough to wake people up to gender ideology even with freely available online pieces. Just imagine the levels of gaslighting and lying the govt will indulge in if they censor everything and use the lying BBC even more as a mouthpiece.
#BeMoreDissident
Completely agree with that, TT
Dusty
Hello Tenacious - yes, I can imagine the future under the Labour Dictatorship - and it's terrifying.
I hope you won't mind, TT, if I share your comment to my MP - and hope other Terfy freedom lovers will, too.
BBC as a 'trusted source' ????? Pull the other one ....
I understand the People's Republic of China are part owners of TikTok and do a lot of media censorship (apart from hacking/trolling/surveilling) on behalf of The People - the Chinese Starmbot & Co seem to take them as a guide!
From an non-expert perspective re the various online media, pls forgive me if I state the 'bleedin obvious' - to me, at least :
If Labour really want to protect* children and young people, eg from pro-suicide platforms aimed at children, why not demand a ban of those particular sites from service providers like TikTok and/or require parents to make sure their children do not have access either?
Aren't parents and teachers subject to prosecution if they don't safeguard the children in their care? Seems to me, giving a child an i-phone is useful for making sure you know where your child is - but otherwise, surely parents/ teachers should limit the child's access to the internet and make it their business to know what they're watching.
Of course, as a Terf, this should include any sites promoting 'trans' to children and young people imo.
* From a Terfland (ie reality-based) point of view, this would of course preclude the proposed 'Conversion Banning Bill' - let alone allowing any dangerous trial of puberty blockers on children. Not least, the reluctance to pass the grooming rape gang enquiry with teeth to prosecute, or include the testaments of victims shows where Labour are really at, ie censorship by the front *and* back door.
From what I see of Andy Burnham, I doubt very much he will be anything but worse, if he becomes PM - although he did concede a U-turn in accepting a man cannot become a woman and vice versa 2 weeks before the Makerfield election. Will he U-turn back again now he's got past that little difficulty?
(Ahem, off-topic but didn't Burnham promise a General Election if he became PM? Being crowned PM by Labour on the basis of the Makerfield win and without a GE seems very undemocratic and hypocritical to me - seeing as he criticised the Tories for doing the exact same thing when changing PM's.)
And yes, under the Labour regime, def #BeMoreDissident
Hi Moodie
Agree with all that.
Presuming Burnham proposes radical new policies that are not in the manifesto then he ought to call a GE but I doubt he will.
Malcolm Clark has done an examination of Burnham's two main advisers and it doesn't look good. They are both Gramsci lovers ( culturla Marxism). I may link to Malcolm's piece in the next update.
Dusty
I agree with all that and yes, share away. Another important point to bring up- who decides what is trusted information? The BBC has been caught out doctoring information on a number of occasions. The whole point of free speech is that ideas can be discussed openly and a consensus found as to the best way forward. It’s not for one group to decide what we can or can’t hear.
As regards this authoritarian govt- the list of examples gets longer by the day, from jury trials to two tier policing and Starmer saying that anyone showing concern about grooming gangs is ‘jumping on a far right bandwagon’. I despise them all.
Well said, TT. And if their proposed bill goes through the genderborg will have its own blasphemy law to inflict on nonbelievers. The last ten years will pale in comparison with what is to come if people don’t speak up now.
Hi Becca
My current three priorities are:
1. Stop the clinical trial;
2. Stop the Conversion Practices Bill
3. Stop the banning of social media for under 18s since that is a Trojan Horse.
Any more?
Dusty
England to win the World Cup? 🏴
Now that’s a really tough one 😂
Boo😂
At least you got there, Petal
Dusty (Irish fan)
No Scotland no party , albeit a very short one , we don’t care 🏴😂
I don’t care I coudny give a flying one about football
👅 😁
😂
How about:
• Return to policing without fear or favour and equality before the law
• Dismantle the schools to clinic pipeline
• World peace 😄
Haha Becca
First two are great
Dusty
Exactly. One of Burnham’s closest advisors is a tra plus he’s captured despite his trying to row back a bit. I think Orwell had this govt in mind when he wrote Animal Farm.
Ugh, it’s relentless isn’t it but we have to keep going #QuillsOut #MakeOrwellFictionAgain
Good hashtag 😀
Like zillions of other people, I am filled with insensate rage by the media's use of the fictitious term "transgender girls/ women". As with the mainstream press coverage of the Idaho decision that boys sport is for boys, and girls sport is for girls.
SO - over and over - I write to the paper I read most often, I remind them that "facts are sacred". I tell them repeatedly that I cancelled my subscription (£135 p.a.) because of their insistent pretence that people can change sex. (Today's letter: " Have some sections of the Guardian team abandoned the mission: Comment is free… but facts are sacred? I cancelled my subscription because The Guardian editorial team allows the pretence that men can be women. Thus we read nonsense like: “Idaho became the first state to ban transgender girls from school sports...” Idaho simply banned boys from girls' sport in the interests of safety and fairness. etc etc)
Of course, they never print any letter I send that addresses their pro "trans" bias.
BUT I KEEP ON. AND ON.
And maybe, just maybe, if loads of other people did the same - sent a reprimanding nudge - the editorial teams & the subscription managers might start taking notice?
Well done plugging on, Patricia. The Guardian are appalling!!
Dusty
From all the coverage you would think that the defining issue of female sports was the feelings of boys and men.
Helen Joyce pointed out on TalkTV that the BBC always say they have to frame their articles in terms of transwoomen if that’s the language the courts use, but this judgment referred to biological males and was still given the trans framing by the BBC. Heaven forbid the legacy media might actually consider how women and girls have been affected when a court is having to rule in defence of their rights!
Hi Becca
The lamestream are appalling.
Dusty
Excellent update, Dusty - thanks.
You're welcome, Moodie