James105

Yes but the point of this article is that the wealthy are leaving the UK and will contribute less or nothing to the tax system based on the moronic policies of the morons in government. Seeing as the top 1% contribute 30% of the UKs tax revenue and the bottom 50% of people actually paying tax contribute 10% (note that doesn't include welfare claimants who contribute nothing of course), then really they should listen when the top one 1% vote with their feet and cease to contribute. Anyway, I'm going to set up a fund that "leftists who celebrate millionaires leaving the UK" can contribute to which will help make up for the shortfall. This way the the government can continue to spaff away the money on nonsense like dimming the sun in one of least sunny countries in the world. It needs to raise £1bn based on the 10% loss of capital gains since Rachel from accounts announced the capital gains tax increase. How much can I put you down for?

Are you suggesting that the current government knows better how to spend their money than they do? The same government that is spaffing away £50m on dimming the sun which is Canute levels of stupidity? Or £2bn on capturing carbon from the sea? Of spaffing £8n on "GB energy"? People who have money have it as they didn't spaff it all away on hare-brained schemes like the current morons who seem to think they are in charge of wasting other peoples money as fast and stupidly as they can, thinking they can just keep going back to the golden goose over and over again without consequence.

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/capital-gains-tax-receipts-h78d8tkrh#:~:text=According to data from HM,the same period last year. Raising taxes means less tax receipts. They can sit on their assets and sell them (if they want) when a more sensible government comes in that actually understands economics.

Do you personally pay more tax than you absolutely have to? If you do not why then why would you expect others to do so?

If you find yourself siding with this baby killing monster and considering what could be done to make his life more comfortable then perhaps its time to have a rethink about your values. I personally find myself thinking about the most basic of rights (the right to life) that he took away from an 11 month old baby and could care less if other inmates make him suffer for his actions.

Thats what should happen, however the wet pathetic liberals in the ministry for 2 tiered justice in the last paragraph state: “It is clear fundamental change is needed, which is why we’re also reforming our jails so they create better citizens, not better criminals.” In other words, more comforts and more using the failed and moronic tactic of appeasement in the hope that the people that want to kill them target the non-appeasers first.

Do you think men pretending to be women should be allowed in women's spaces, such as changing rooms, toilets, prisons and compete in women's sports?

Why do you think men want to use women's spaces? Just a fetish or a kink? A perversion? Or do you think they like the power they have over women in the places they used to feel safe?

I don't really understand gibberish so not really sure what point you are trying to make here. Well done.

I presume since it was the equalities act 2010 that was being clarified by the supreme court then this is indeed a law. Women have the exclusive right to single sex spaces free from men pretending to be women as clarified by the highest court in the land. If there are changing rooms or toilets designated as male/female and the organizers of the Marathon are encouraging men to use these spaces then they will be encouraging law breaking.

Sounds like someone is supporting law breaking and despite (ridiculously) needing to be told what a female is by the highest of courts, is still a reality denier. 1. Females are not "assigned" a gender at birth as though the doctor/midwife cannot fathom what they are and randomly picks a gender from the available genders list, they observe the gender and record it. 2. Trans women are men so are participating as men, in much the same way as someone who dresses as a pirate or dinosaur in the marathon isn't really participating as a pirate or dinosaur, they are participating as human females or human males. So long as the pirate doesn't steal from other participants and the humans pretending to be dinosaurs do not eat the other participants then there is no problem with this. So long as their time doesn't get recorded as a female and is recorded as what they are (male in the case of man dressed as woman) then this is no problem. Lots of people wear fancy dress to the Marathon and if men want to dress as women for this as a costume then that is fine, as long as (should they need a toilet break) then they use the male toilets if they are a man dressed as a woman.

Probably as you are not a woman and don't suffer the consequences. If you were an elite female athlete and were competing for prize money I'm sure you would have a few grumbles if a mediocre male athlete decided he was a "woman with a penis" on that day and competed and won against you and claimed the prize money for himself. It's called cheating and most normal people don't like it.

Just when you thought that they couldn't find more ridiculous ways of spaffing taxpayers money away the geniuses in the big top have come up with another one.

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.