OK-Join me in a "Who will lose their job first?" poll

[CurlewKate]

And how soon" competition.

My money's on David Lammy by February.

Seriously?
The amount of male violence against women is not going to be "skewed" by including a few trans women victims. Sadly its an epidemic. As you know 3 women a month are killed as a result of domestic violence. How many of those have ever been trans women?

I'd prefer the statistics to be as accurate as possible and to be based on factual information. That's not too much to ask surely?
It might only be small numbers now, but once we move away from fact then where do we go?
You might not be bothered but it's important to me.
One male crime recorded incorrectly as being committed by a woman is one too many in my opinion.

This doesn’t seem to be related to my comment or the discussion preceding it. It’s about whether a)Lammy is ‘thick’ and b)whether such a perception could be caused by racist stereotyping. Honestly, I don’t think any of you can read and follow an argument.

No, but it is a call back to the earlier comments made that he was thick because he made an error about Marie Curie/Antoinette rather than the later discussion.

You feel it’s a silly comment or error don’t you?

That’s from your post

So is it only women where you feel this is the case or other groups too?

Well said. Stating the facts about what a politician has said - and criticising those statements if appropriate - is part of democracy. Politicians are held to account for their actions and their words - rightly so. That doesn’t mean you have no faith in the entire party. It’s quite right to call out nonsensical comments.

Sadly the last government were not held to account over the last 14 years. It seems churlish to suddenly start with this lot when they haven't been in a week yet. Especially when the holding to account seems more about dress, accent and university attendance.

I don't disagree that the last government weren't held to account. Perhaps that's why people are less willing to give any government the benefit of the doubt now - the trust has been broken. Whilst I agree that this is unfair on the Labour government, I do think that overall strong scrutiny of politicians can only be a good thing.

I can't comment on holding to account on "dress, accent and university attendance" as I have neither commented on nor criticised those aspects of any politician. I have criticised David Lammy on the comments he made directly, as I think some of them are ridiculous and I expect better. I voted for Labour, and I wish them well (for our sakes, as well as theirs!) But that doesn't mean individual politicians shouldn't be challenged on their comments and actions - they absolutely should!

Eh? I seriously have no idea what you are talking about. What’s from my post? Is what only women?

These are my comments

‘You don’t have to say it for it to be at the root of your feelings though. And they were mistaken comments but not misogynistic. He doesn’t hate women, in the same way that you maintain you don’t hate trans women.’

‘How on earth do you get that from what I’ve said?
I actually don’t think we should call anyone thick, particularly those who have proved their academic excellence, just because they might say something silly, or misinformed, or in error or that we don’t agree with. Or at all really.
What I’m saying is that some people, some racist people, might be predisposed to assume a PoC is less intelligent.’

Do you think Lammy’s ‘rights hoarding dinosaurs’ statement fits the description of silly, misinformed, error etc in your pp?

Do you think he could say the same about any other group of people and your reaction be the same? If so, which group?

I’ve said he’s factually wrong about cervixes, but that the way it’s phrased shows he was t sure how to describe what he meant. He didn’t say ‘grow’. That’s what the discussion was about. ‘Rights hoarding dinosaurs’ is an opinion. It’s unpleasant and I disagree but it’s not presented as fact. Yes, I think other groups could be (and often are) described in similarly denigrating terms. Have a look at what is said about baby boomers, for eg, or what is said about Muslims, especially asylum seeking ones. That’s wrong too. It’s not, however, what I was discussing with that poster. That was about his intelligence and the perception of it.
Happy?

Whatever else he is a very hardworking local MP - something that can’t be said for all of them

This is a good post which provides context

Imo some more readily excuse ‘rights hoarding dinosaurs’ as it’s to do with women, but also Labour I’m guessing. Rights hoarding as a line for anyone else..

Again. Boomers. The narrative around pensions, housing etc its all about rights hoarding.
And, for clarity, it’s wrong then, too. We need to level up rights, not level them down to the lowest common denominator. I’d have thought that idea was a bit left wing for you, but well done on realising it.

No idea what insult you’re trying to lob there but I see you are getting worked up about whatever

Sun is shining go enjoy

And no Lammy wouldn’t say ‘rights hoarding dinosaurs’ about anyone else and get silly error remarks

My silly error remark, for the 29368392993th time, was about cervixes. But you know that.
Is it because you can’t find anything else wrong with what I’ve said that you suggest I’ve said something I haven’t and then patronise me by saying I’m ’worked up’ and should enjoy the sunshine? The one most worked up seems to be you, to be honest, judging by your constant repetition of the same points whether or not they are relevant.

Now that the entire Tory cabinet has lost theirs, I really couldn't give a monkeys.

Not worked up no. The opposite actually, feeling good

I thought @samedifferent made a good point but now you say you are not including the damaging ‘rights hoarding dinosaurs’ line which is probably a good idea as it’s beyond defence, Lammy or not.

Although I wonder why people would skip over it.

I haven’t tried to defend either the cervix comment or the dinosaurs one. I’ve specifically said they are both wrong.

I have seen previously that there are some people it isn't worth engaging with on here. They use non sequiturs and take so much out of context / don't make sense that it's just not worth it. You're more patient than I am with them @cardibach

How wonderful you could join in. Hope your day is better than your post suggests.

It's lovely thanks. Sitting in the sun with a cold beer. Salud 🍻

Shame you can’t take that positivity online.

Give it a rest.

Ah ditto.

If it wasn't David Lammy he must have a doppelganger