The most pernicious secret about Reform

@JustSomeWaferThinHam
Why? They are not saying that a woman shouldn’t be allowed to terminate a pregnancy but due to improvements in survival rates it would be sensible to look at the limits again. Can you explain why you think that shouldn’t happen?

Not the person you were asking but I think tying abortion term limits to viability is problematic.

1. Very premature babies are often very unwell and even though medical advances have enabled more to survive at earlier ages, there is always going to be a sharp edge of that where doctors and parents have to decide whether it's worth trying to prolong life for what may only be a few hours. The point at which that dilemma may move according to advances, but it will always be there and it's fraught enough. It's probably one of the most horrible ethically tortured decisions in medicine. Bringing politics into that, and therefore people with a point to prove is a horrible mistake. I don't want premature babies born at 16 weeks being kept alive artificially when there is no long term chance of their survival because someone wants to move the abortion limit to 15 weeks. A much more sensible way to look at abortion is as early as possible as late as necessary. Most abortions happen well before 20 weeks. If someone is having an abortion closer to that cut off it's usually because of specific circumstances

1. There has already been a sharp uptick in women having miscarriages being reported to and investigated by the police under suspicion of having had an illegal abortion. (This itself is a bit sus). If you push the gestation limit for abortions down you risk catching more women having miscarriages into this trap. Which is awful (and it's hard if you have a "spontaneous abortion" to prove you didn't do anything to cause it's especially in the earlier stages. Especially if you maybe don't know you are pregnant which can happen before 20 weeks as many women aren't even showing them.

I would much rather we had a general policy that trusted women on this. Since very few women are getting pregnant and then aborting for shits and giggles.

Technically I think it's wrong to position abortion rights like that. I get why, you only need an abortion when you are pregnant. But the right to an abortion is a right all women have/should have. It's a woman's rights issue not a pregnant women's rights issue. I know that seems nitpicky, but I think when rights etc are being eroded and people are being split into smaller and smaller groups by malevolent forces, diluting/reducing who abortion rights are for is a mistake.

That's not to say Reform aren't mysogynist. But then why remove the language used to fight far right/regressive movements just as those movements are becoming stronger. Transmen who are pregnant can of course refer to themselves however they like

Many of the people now in Reform were in the Tory party previously. I don't think their voting record should be forgotten just because they hopped parties.

Taking photos with Trump isn't in itself evidence of being far right. However, the constant adoration/sucking up to Trump by the likes of Farage is distasteful. It would be cringe making enough if Trump wasn't an adjudicated rapist with multiple credible allegations of involvement in a child sex abuse scandal. Starmer has, rightly, been in the shit for appointing Mandleson when his relationship with Epstein was already known. Even if Mandleson committed no crime himself, his puppy like eagerness to be friends with someone like Epstein should have disqualified him from any post. Starmer showed terrible judgement. I also think the people glossing over Farage's relationship with the likes of Bannon and Trump also show the same terrible judgement.

Then there was his quote about Tate being "an important voice for young men".

He has a clear admiration for a certain types of "alpha male" and I think that's off-putting for many women because it sets of spider senses.

I think they also depend on leveraging male dissatisfaction to attract support. Hence the strategy to talk about Tate etc. But that makes it harder for them to attract women unless they can make sure men/women only see posts/comments directed at them. Which is easier to do on social media sites like X than the wider world.

Why exactly? There's nothing logically saying legislation is ineffective if it referred for example to people.

There are plenty of legal reasons why it is detrimental for women and girls to remove the words referring to women and girls in legislation relevant to them. There’s plenty of discussion on FWR from legal experts who can explain the technicalities if you are interested.

Medical advances on neonatal survival rates have absolutely zilch to do with whether a woman or not should be allowed to terminate their pregnancy. It's that simple.

Why? They are not saying that a woman shouldn’t be allowed to terminate a pregnancy but due to improvements in survival rates it would be sensible to look at the limits again. Can you explain why you think that shouldn’t happen?

Medical advances on neonatal survival rates have absolutely zilch to do with whether a woman or not should be allowed to terminate their pregnancy. It's that simple.

Good to know you understand how simplistic your claim is.

Removing the relevant words of woman (or girl) from abortion legislation does not help women or girls.

Why exactly? There's nothing logically saying legislation is ineffective if it referred for example to people. What doesn't help women and girls is legislation that reduces their bodily autonomy.

babies can survive from younger than they were when the legislation was originally passed in 1967, it might be good to look at it again.

Medical advances on neonatal survival rates have absolutely zilch to do with whether a woman or not should be allowed to terminate their pregnancy. It's that simple.

Where did pp mention them working? She said they are hanging around smoking and harassing women. That is not a job.

Eh? Women are female. Girls are female. Only females can get pregnant. It’s not difficult. Removing the relevant words of woman (or girl) from abortion legislation does not help women or girls.

Many people have different views on abortion. You claimed that he wants to legislate to restrict women’s right to abortion. He has said he’s pro choice but makes a valid point that as medical advances now mean that babies can survive from younger than they were when the legislation was originally passed in 1967, it might be good to look at it again.

And again, why are you on about who I have voted for? You have no idea who I vote for.

My DD has white english patients where they have to go in pairs because of the sexual harassment they have to put up with.

Who let in all these migrants to do the jobs we don't want to do? Sunak and Bojo, 4m of them, inc dependents, we used to take workers from mainly white Christian European countries, thanks to Brexit, another rightwing policy... its SE Asia and Africa.

But if you think these asylum seekers are working illegally, i do hope you've reported this and the firm employing them? inc the overall site contractor...

You're literally quoting him stating he thinks our current access to abortion is ridiculous while making a silly comparison to a wanted healthy child. A typical male perspective on abortion that has zero understanding of why abortion and access to it up to 24 weeks can be essential.

Women and females are not bloody synonyms! Girls are not women simply because they're pregnant. You are not advocating for anyone by demanding on a particular word while voting for someone who would restrict their bodily autonomy and reduce maternity rights, don't be so ridiculous.

I have no idea what you’re on about, who am I supposed to be supporting and who is trying to restrict women’s access to abortion?

Btw for you and PPs who keep lying about this, a quote from Farage on his views on abortion:

The Reform UK leader said he believes abortion and assisted dying are "issues of personal conscience".

Speaking at a news conference on Tuesday, Mr Farage said: "I am pro-choice, but I think it's ludicrous, utterly ludicrous that we can allow abortion up to 24 weeks.
"And yet, if a child is born prematurely at 22 weeks, your local hospital will move heaven and earth and probably succeed in that child surviving and going on and living a normal life.
"So I believe there is an inconsistency in the law. I believe it is totally out of date."

Only women (females) can get pregnant and could need to access abortion. Your ludicrous attempt at erasure of our essential word to advocate for ourselves only harms us. ‘Gender identity’ is not the same as sex. It’s not even a verifiable thing - just what people say they are.

If you're campaigning for women's rights but not at all considering factors that contribute to the likelihood of VAWG actually occurring, then you're being a bit myopic at best.

I know the cause of VAWG: Men!

At least part of the reason IMHO is liberals that prioritise virtue signalling over addressing uncomfortable truths.

Voting to "own the libs*" is costly and stupid. As Americans are increasingly finding out.

Reform UK are no good for women's rights!🙄 They're no good running councils🤷‍♀️ and they'd be shit at running the country. I'm hopeful that the non-racist, potential Reform voters will work it out before the next GE.

In the meantime I'll challenge their bullshit and use of victims for their own racist agenda.

Why do you assume that we are "virtue signalling" and not "addressing uncomfortable truths"? Has it not perhaps occurred to you that we might just have a different perception of what constitutes "the truth"?

I live in an area where a lot of people vote for Reform. We have a Reform-led council. There are a lot of asylum seekers near where I live. I have volunteered with these asylum seekers. My young adult daughter has also volunteered with them, and now continues to do so in a different part of the country. Yes, there are a lot of young men. Yes, some of them are deeply traumatised. But neither of us have ever been treated by these young men with anything other than the utmost respect. Same for the many other women I know who have worked with them.

There have of course been cases of rapes and assaults committed by asylum seekers in this country. They are horrific and abhorrent crimes. However, there are horrific and abhorrent crimes committed by British men too. I don't believe on that basis that all British men are dangerous and predatory and that they should be got rid of. So why would I leap to the conclusion that all asylum seekers are dangerous and predatory either?

Yeah, but you're missing the point a little I feel. If you're campaigning for women's rights but not at all considering factors that contribute to the likelihood of VAWG actually occurring, then you're being a bit myopic at best.

It's not just about whether Reform would be good for women. It's why so many people are turning to them out of desperation. At least part of the reason IMHO is liberals that prioritise virtue signalling over addressing uncomfortable truths. A lot of these educated people live in relatively safe areas, unlike the people voting Reform.

I regularly attend a construction site literally next door to a hotel housing male asylum seekers. They've had to stop sending female engineers to site due to the sexual harassment they were experiencing. There was an unsuccessful petition by the locals and nearby shops (mostly run by Indians/Pakistanis btw) to have the men relocated as locals were avoiding the street, causing the shops to lose business.

Whenever I go to that site there are loads of shady looking men sitting on the steps smoking. A lot of lefties would take greater issue with me mentioning this than with the actual events I'm describing.

Its a bit trite to be calling me pedantic when you're arguing pedantically about a specific word at the expense of lifesaving access to abortion. You'd literally rather support a man who wants to legislate to restrict women's access to abortion because "he knows what a woman is" while he's rolling back their rights while claiming its impossible to keep or extend our current abortion access for pregnant people whether they be women, girls, or identify as something else (it's really not!). You're either very confused in your priorities as a woman or a man if you be so silly about that.

How about the other people? Do they sound like far-right protesters?

How can you tell which people are 'far-right'? Are the 15-year-olds 'far-right'? Is your average drunken yob 'far-right'? The people high on drugs? Those people identified as having learning difficulties? The man who joined in after a shoplifting spree? Is the unidentified young man in the beanie hat (end of the article) 'far-right'? He looks mixed race.

Do you think the counter-protesters named: Ebrim Jadama, Terrell Morris, Abdinasir Hussein, Mohamed Osman and Jivara Omar are 'far-left'?

Bristol had a previous riot in 2021 - Kill the bill riot - are the people in this rogue's gallery 'far-right' or 'far-left'?

https://www.itv.com/news/westcountry/2023-03-21/activist-says-police-should-stop-investigating-kill-the-bill-riot

Those 'children' were 15 and charged with 'throwing metal beer barrels at members of the public', 'throwing metal beer barrels at a police car' and 'violent disorder'. Someone capable of that is as capable of domestic abuse as an older person, as are women

And it's just as likely that those women and teenagers were flagged as living in a household where domestic abuse has taken place, carried out by someone not involved in the riot. Apparently, Avon and Somerset Police have been logging every child in such households for over 10 years. A 15-year-old now may have been aged 5 or 10 when they were flagged. AS Police state that children witnessing domestic abuse in the home are more likely to be involved in anti-social behaviour themselves.

Therefore, we need better data to ascertain how many of those people arrested in Bristol "were the alleged perpetrators, witnesses or victims" of domestic abuse reports.

How on earth does wanting legislation that affects only women (yes girls are female and will become women) to use the word ‘woman’ (or female if you are being pedantic) make me sound like a man? And what has any of that got to do with my eyesight??

You are sounding somewhat confused.

It’s ok to just admit you have no evidence to back your claims.

I think you'll find girls also get pregnant and need abortions too. Acting as though it's impossible to word abortion legislation without using the word woman, or preferring abortion protections aren't in place because you want to throw a sulk about being called a person makes you sound like very short sighted man.

So they can't be considered to be a fundamentally racist party because they have a few black and brown members?

Isn't that the political equivalent of "I can't be racist because I have a black friend"?

Only women can get pregnant. HTH.

Erasing women by using terms like ‘pregnant people’ or ‘anyone pregnant’ is not cool.

Woman refers to their sex. ‘Gender identity’ is not a sex.

@totk Abortion rights are meaningless if the law won’t even name who they apply to

Er...they apply to anyone pregnant. It's a pretty straightforward criterion.

That’s a lot of words to confirm that the BBC (and you) used a term that you can’t justify with facts.

If the BBC had used this as a descriptive term based on facts they could point to, they would have pointed to them and rejected the complaint. But they didn’t.

You claim there is ‘plenty of evidence’ of their far right policies but still have not produced any.

I do agree that the definition is a bit difficult to pin down precisely and I have noticed in the summaries it includes things like:

A strong emphasis on national sovereignty, prioritizing the rights of native-born citizens over immigrants, wouldn’t the citizens of most countries think that reasonable within certain limits?

Populism: Positioning themselves against mainstream "elites" to represent the "ordinary people". The Labour government took this position when campaigning in relation to the Tories.

Authoritarianism: I’d say our current government is far closer to that than Reform. Cancelling elections, introducing national id and facial recognition, removing the right to trial by jury for some, shutting down free speech, state sponsored suicide programme being rammed through Parliament against the wishes of many. Etc.

And if you are going to point at the ‘white supremacy’ or racist aspects of ‘far right’, you might get some pushback from Zia Yusuf.

Yes, I thought @snowbear22 addressed the ridiculous half truths and misrepresentations in italics very well.

Agree. Of course they’re misogynistic. It’s all a big sham to convince a demographic of stupid (ignorant? Poorly educated?) (white) men whom are culturally somewhat lost at this time, to vote for them. So they can then serve their own interests. It’s the tories dressed up differently and more extreme. Not really good for anyone other than maybe Farage himself, Trump, and probably Putin.