James105

Imagine being a grown man in your 50s and needing to be told by a court what a woman is. Absolute clown.

What is incorrect about what Murray said here? He said he claimed Jewish ancestry which seems to be accurate if he has Jewish parents. He claimed he spent the last 18 months being unfunny which is also a fact as if he is not doing a job as a comedian and acting instead as a pseudo journalist taking the side of the terrorists then he is clearly not being funny as he is not being a comedian when he does so. What specifically did Murray say that was not accurate or true or offensive here? You seem to be posting factual things that Murray has said and claiming what exactly? Murray just stated a few perfectly reasonable facts about someone and you are claiming this is "disgraceful behavior"? I know people of your ilk don't really like facts but do you have anything actually "disgraceful" he said or have you peaked already?

I must have missed that. What exactly did he do an about face on? Does he now think islam is a religion of peace? Does he think that not enough cultural rapists are entering Europe illegally? Does he think that Trans women are actually women? Does he think that Hamas are not terrorists and are the good guys in the conflict? Can you be a bit more specific?

So a male who is accused of raping a women could request he is strip searched by a female? You didn't really think this through did you?

Sure, a women's category and an open category would be sufficient as then nobody can claim (falsely) that they are "excluded". Men will not care if women pretending to be men wish to compete in mens or "open" category sports. If an elite female athlete like Serena Williams wanted to pretend to be a man and fancied a go in the open category at Wimbledon not a single man or woman would have a problem with that as she would not even be in the top 500 if competing against men. A woman or female according to the ruling that is that a woman is a female who is observed (not assigned) at birth of being a female. Same as it always has been. I'm sure when you were 4 years old you were able to tell the difference between boy/girl/man/woman. It seems you have regressed somewhat due to media brainwashing.

The reason you do not see this is that trans men are zero threat to real men. They cannot take medals away from men in sports, they cannot rape men, there is just no scenario that they pose any kind of threat in any kind of situation for men. They can use mens spaces and no-one cares. On the other hand trans women are men and they can (and have) raped women, they pose a genuine threat to women in their spaces and they have an unfair advantage in women's sports. The reason for this is that they are men, as clarified and made abundantly clear by the supreme court to leave you with zero doubt about what is a man and what is a woman. Why this needed to be clarified for anyone above the age of 4 years old remains a mystery but it is what it is.

That was the world 10+ years ago. You can thank Stonewall for pushing it so far that men were competing against women in sports, rapists were being housed in women's prisons, people were losing their jobs for simply stating biological facts and refusing to call a man a woman, and kids being given life changing treatments for something they normally just grow out of. The trans rights movement have done that kind of trans woman no favours whatsoever.

It probably wouldn't have come about if they hadn't decided to house a male rapist in women's prison as one day he decided he was a female. Or that fella who took some salon owner who only provided services to women to court as she was uncomfortable with waxing his hairy balls. No-one really had an issue with trans people before Stonewall realized that their business model would collapse after they achieved equality for gay folks and needed another money making scheme, which is of course pretending that they believed that trans women are women and should have access to actual women's spaces and sports.

Why should it? For what purpose? The whole article is based around lesser outcomes due to diversity hiring and then says it should be celebrated. If my football team was 100% black and they won the league I'd celebrate it. I would do the same if they were 100% white. The colour of someones skin is their least important characteristic and I cannot believe we have fallen so far backwards from virtually eradicating racism in the early 2000s to the racism we have today. There is nothing to celebrate about this. Absolutely shameful.

Sure no problem. I don't think it was reported in the The Morning Star so perhaps you missed it. A quick search reveals the official government stats and also the BBC reported on this. Hope this helps. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/migrants-detected-crossing-the-english-channel-in-small-boats/migrants-detected-crossing-the-english-channel-in-small-boats-last-7-days https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c87pyeej2j5o

I'm beginning to think that the biggest mistake is democracy and giving everyone the right to vote. Half the population will be lower than average intelligence who are given exactly the same voting power as their more intelligent counterparts. Kind of bonkers really. How many anti-democratic states have embraced the nightmares of multi-culturalism, or net zero, or women with penises? None.

Why do leftists always fall back to laws or regulations created in different times? What do these "rules" say about people throwing away their documents and lying about their age or origin, or people smugglers charging people for smuggling them into countries, or spreading propaganda on TikTok on how they can abuse the kindness of western countries welfare systems? Nothing, because they were created in a different time and are irrelevant to what is happening today. What we have today is equivalent to an invasion. Yesterday about 700 illegals (mostly fighting aged men) crossed the channel into the UK. This is a larger force than an army regiment in the UK which is comprised of 600 soldiers. The UK is and continues to be a sovereign country with clearly defined borders. To claim that it should not be allowed to protect those borders from those who want to rape and pillage its welfare system, its health system, its social housing, its tolerance and its women and children is absolute nonsense. The illegal immigrants present a clear threat to the UK and its citizens, and any and all measures (including the use of the Royal Navy) to defend and protect its way of life could and should be used.

Competent you say? How is his "smashing the gangs" policy going? Last time I looked illegal immigration was up 40% on this time last year and the UK is heading for record numbers of illegal immigrants which makes the UK a more dangerous place for its citizens. I presume you meant to type incompetent which is a far more accurate word to describe the absolute moron of a PM the UK is currently suffering under.

To be a net contributor to the UK someone needs to earn around £41,000 per year. The average salary in the UK is about £37,000. Even if those people do earn a salary then they will still be a fiscal drain on social housing, the health system and the welfare system. Every time someone illegally enters the UK it costs the UK financially and culturally and the fact they entered illegally in the first place shows that they have zero respect for the laws of the UK. Then you have the likes of the Abedi family who entered the UK via the Asylum system before one of their sons went on to kill 22 people (mostly kids) in the Manchester Arena bombing. Or the Rudakubana family whos son went on to murder 3 little girls in Southport. Then there is the unknown amount on the terror watchlists who have to be monitored by the security services at some probably horrendous unknown cost. To pretend that there is "any" benefit to illegal immigrants from anywhere outside Europe (other than Hong Kong of course which are probably included in those figures you quote) entering the UK is naivety or delusion of the highest order.

Go women!! Nice job on spending 11 minutes in space in a rocket designed by men, remotely controlled by men and paid for by men. Women are re-inventing what it means to be a passenger. The skills required to get into a vehicle and go up and then down again is quite remarkable. Can't wait to see the movie about their heroic exploits as further proof that men are just surplus to requirements in these modern times.

How much are they paying for the hotels they are staying in? Do you have a link to back up this patently false claim they are not getting a free ride?

It currently costs £5bn+ to put these illegals into hotels, feed them, give them pocket money, pay for their legal aid, pay for their clothes, playstations, mobile phones, and I have no idea if this includes the extra policing cost, prison cost when they rape or murder someone and actually get caught, followed by the endless appeals when they have served their sentence as they don't want to leave the land of free money. If there were no illegal immigrants as there were literally zero incentives to risk coming to the UK, then by my maths this reduces to approximately zero. So a saving of £5bn there or thereabouts. So zero is a bit less than your solution which seems to be bury head in sand and do nothing or engage in endless talks with other clueless leaders to do nothing which is costing £5bn a year. Some of that money saved could even be used to help genuine asylum seekers from culturally equivalent countries such as Ukraine who would want to actually return to their country when safe to do so.

You didn't go to school? I probably should have guessed that from your response. Let me educate you. This symbol > means greater than. Big boats (that the navy has) > rubber dinghies. You also asked me if I had power what would I do. I told you what I would do. Now you are saying my powers are limited, that somehow my powers come along with a parliament full of wet lettuces that would prevent me from making the laws required? You claim that a sovereign country is not allowed to defend its borders or make its laws? There is a movie called Field of Dreams where the slogan was "build it and they will come". My proposal is somewhat the opposite, call it "Beach of nightmares" if you will. Take it away and they will not come. Take away the incentives, take away their legal aid, take away any possibility they will be allowed to stay, take away their money to pay for their flight back and they will not come. Problem solved within a week.

1. They would be fed in the detention center. 2. They would be in detention for a short while. No housing required. 3. 48 hours or so. There would be high throughput as since they would not have legal aid it won't take long. 4. Their home country or Ascention or Falklands. Safe countries. 5. Royal navy. Big boat > rubber dinghy. It's all moot anyway as the migrant problem will be over in less than 1 week. If you think that the illegals will want to risk their lives for no incentives then you must think they are really stupid, which goes back to my point that you are a bit racist for thinking that way.

I would do the same as any sensible country. Remove incentives, no free money, no free housing, detention on arrival, no free legal representation and deportation as soon as possible thereafter using any money they turned up with to pay for their flight. The UK being an island has a unique advantage also of being able to defend its seas from invasion, so stopping boats from arriving in the first place seems to be the easiest approach. I'm not completely heartless though so I would also set up a scheme that lefties can pay into to fund these illegal migrants lives outside of the UK, some kind of sponsor a migrant scheme where you get a photo of the illegal migrant you are sponsoring that you can carry in your wallet so you can show people how virtuous you are. Like all of these schemes of this nature I would of course take my cut for administration costs but would guarantee that around 10% of your money gets into the migrants hands.

I do live about 5000Km from where I grew up as I live in Thailand. So with your logic should I be able to claim free money and housing from Thailand to fund my stay here? If I arrived illegally should they fund my legal battle to stay here? If I commit a crime should they provide legal aid to defend me and pay again for this to fight my deportation? If your answer to one or more of those questions is no, then why do you think that western countries like the UK should have to provide these services to those who rock up on its shores illegally? I have no problem with you helping the poor if you use your own money and resources to do so. I have a problem with it if you want to spend someone else's money, or worse, want someone else to put themselves further into debt to do so against their will, on the racist notion that other races are inferior and are unable to help themselves.

It's incredibly racist to assume that the people on small boats do not have the facility or agency to make their own lives better in their own countries. You must think the white race so superior that only white, western countries are capable of fixing the problems they create for themselves in their own countries. Whilst you are making quite the racist point, it is one that does have some merit as they are certainly dragging the UK down to the level of the countries that they are leaving and turning what was a high trust society into a low trust ghettoized society. The question is, who do the western countries turn to for help when their own countries are turned into 3rd world cesspits?

There is no such thing as "positive" discrimination. It's negative, it's racist, it breeds resentment, and every single time it happens it causes more and more people to become a bit more racist than they were yesterday. Racism was just about defeated in the 90s/2000s and its made a huge comeback thanks to the racists on the left that seem to think by being racist to white people they are anti-racist, such is the level of their stupidity.

When their MPs are being arrested for child rape it doesn't take a lot to join the dots and wonder why they might not want Labour councils to be investigated. Utterly shameful that little girls can be raped and the rapist enablers are protected by the government. Labour, its MPs and its councils are a direct threat to women and girls (and probably little boys) who are unfortunate to have to live in the cesspit of cultural enrichment that is now the UK.

How anyone can express surprise or shock that tariffs were introduced is beyond my comprehension. Every time Trump spoke before the election he was talking about implementing tariffs. Now he has implemented exactly what he talked about implementing. The fact that the markets didn't price this in when Trump was elected just goes to show how the system is so used to presidents making and then breaking promises simply to get elected. This should not have come as a shock to the markets or the likes of Bill Ackman unless they presumed that they were getting yet another controllable puppet as president that they can manipulate to their will.