To block GBNews from my parent’s TV?

[goslowly]

My parents retired 4 years ago. They’re both in their 60s, healthy, happy, comfortable financially.

Since they’ve retired they have been sucked in by every single thing they say on there. They can spend an entire day sat in front of the TV getting angrier and angrier. It’s to the point that if Starmer comes on the TV, they shout about how he should be killed.

it’s genuinely starting to concern me. You can’t have a rational conversation with them about anything. I miss my parents, how they used to be before all the conspiracy and anger took over.

I’m genuinely tempted to block it from their tv using parental controls and just pretending it’s some weird fault in their telly. They’d not be able to fix it.

More importantly, it suffers from a massive data recording gap. When police log arrests, 'Nationality' or 'Origin' is left blank or marked as 'Unknown' in the vast majority of cases unless a passport is physically present at booking. You can't assume everyone without a definitively logged UK origin is a foreign national—it completely breaks the math.

You do know that police have access to national databases for id checks? So I think it quite safe to assume that a British criminal who tries to claim he is not British will get a fairly dismissive reaction. You think that is a criminal refuses to identify themselves they get let off - because police need to know who they’re charging. I think that is quite a desperate each to deny the stats that are well known and backed up by other international sources.

I don’t know why you think British men can’t be identified without a passport - have you just uncovered a new criminal loophole?

As for the Ministry of Justice data on trans women, the claim about a 'higher rate per head' is a well-known statistical distortion caused by a tiny sample size. There are typically only between 100 to 170 trans women in the entire prison estate of England and Wales (out of over 85,000 prisoners). When a total group is that incredibly small, a handful of individuals completely skews the percentage.

So? It’s no surprise that a group of men who have no regard for the boundaries of women and often a delusional disorder of disassociation with their body would not respect the boundaries of consent.

Can you provide any data to the contrary?

The 'cotton ceiling' phrase was coined by a tiny group of individual bloggers over a decade ago during online debates about dating preferences. It is completely rejected by mainstream LGBT+ charities and groups, and it absolutely isn't being taught or advocated by mainstream activists to breach consent.

Nope. It was enthusiastically adopted by chunks of the ‘community’ and the guy who came up with it sounds quite a high profile by running online courses. It was such an issue that the BBC ran an expose.

But basing that protection on selective, flawed data doesn't actually help us address the root causes of violence against women, which remains a deeply entrenched issue across every single demographic.

It might be flawed because the authorities constantly attempt to suppress the information but I’m afraid you can’t refute any of it. It is true as a baseline. I think the full picture of the societal harms of gender ideology is far far worse.

Honestly, I feel like focusing so much energy on a tiny fraction of the population distracts from the massive, structural issues feminism actually needs to be fighting right now. We have a collapsing childcare system, huge gaps in maternal healthcare, widespread workplace discrimination, and the fact that domestic abuse and violence against women by ordinary cis men are at horrific levels with dismal conviction rates. That is where our focus and anger should be going, rather than letting culture wars divide us

Such a small number of disordered men, such a large impact on society. Yes, our detection and conviction rates are horrendous so prevention by not allowing men in women’s spaces or migrants from countries of extreme violence to mix freely in the general population before ANY vetting to even see if they are already convicted of terrible crimes (as some are) is important - surely?

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-57853385?app-referrer=deep-link

But does your mother talk about Vera to the exclusion of all else and make those around her uncomfortable with the strength of her love for Vera? Is it difficult to spend time with her because she's constantly ranting about Vera and turning every conversation back to the wonder of Vera? That's what the OP is actually complaining about.

You’re missing the point about the police data. Nobody is saying criminals aren't identified before they're charged. The issue is that you are taking an administrative filing error on a spreadsheet and assuming it means thousands of foreign gang rapists are running around. That just isn't what the data says.
But honestly, we can go round in circles on spreadsheets all day, and you've already decided that any official data that doesn't fit your theory is a 'government cover-up.'
The reality is that you haven't actually provided any real statistics to back up your claims. You are pointing to a tiny handful of individual cases and a fringe internet group from years ago to paint an entire demographic as a threat.
If we want to talk about actual prevention and keeping women safe, the threat isn't a tiny fraction of the population. The threat is the fact that the rape conviction rate in this country is sitting at a horrific 2–3%. That means thousands of ordinary British men are committing sexual violence every single year and walking completely free because our justice system is totally broken.
I’m not denying that foreign men or trans women commit crimes. Of course they do, just like any other group. But focusing all your energy on them while ignoring the 98% of local rapists walking free in our own neighborhoods doesn't protect women—it just keeps us distracted by culture wars.

Well it did report that Pedro Sanchez was 'letting in' half a million migrants to Spain, which was not at all true. GBNews was not the only channel to use that term either.

As for your point about 'gender ideology' causing massive societal harm—let's actually look at the statistics rather than the panic.
According to the official ONS Census data, trans people make up just 0.5% of the entire population in England and Wales. That is roughly 1 in 200 people. The idea that a population this microscopic is somehow shifting the baseline of public safety completely falls apart under real scrutiny. They are not a danger to society.
In fact, official figures from the Home Office and the ONS consistently show the exact opposite: trans people are statistically twice as likely to be the victims of violent crime and hate offenses as cisgender people.
When you actually look at the reality, transitioning isn't about some political agenda or 'disordered' desire to cross boundaries—it's just about individuals wanting to live ordinary, peaceful lives as themselves. Study after study shows that access to supportive healthcare and social acceptance drastically improves mental health, reduces suicide risks, and allows people to simply exist and contribute to society like anyone els
e.

@ATrollHunter for what's it's worth I agree the data on trans criminals is limited and open to interpretation according to personal bias.
It does look as though the rates of criminal offending in trans women is much more comparable to the rates of criminal offending in "Cis"men rather than "Cis"women. Which doesn't mean all trans women are violent rapists any more than all men are. But is relevant to discussions about female only spaces, women's prisons etc.
It also leads to a natural reporting bias in that because women are less likely to commit murders or sexual offences it's a bigger news story when they do. "Woman exposes herself to children" is a more attention seeking headline than "man exposes himself". "Women exposed her penis..." Is a REALLY good headline if you are a tabloid and likely to stick in everyone's minds in this attention driven economy. So if transwomen are offending at about the rate of men, but receiving the same level of reporting as female criminals then the impression the public gets is extremely bad! I don't think the current conventions around reporting and reporting on gender help law abiding transwomen basically.

I think you’ve hit the nail on the head regarding the media reporting bias. Tabloids absolutely love a sensationalist headline, and framing a crime around a trans identity is gold dust for clicks right now. It creates a massive availability heuristic where people feel like a crime is happening constantly just because it’s highly publicized, when statistically it's incredibly rare.
You’re also right that the baseline offending rate of trans women reflects the male demographic they were socialized in prior to transition, rather than the female one. Nobody sensible argues that trans women magically inherit the lower crime statistics of cis women the moment they transition.
But I think where the nuance lies in the discussion about spaces and prisons is how we actually manage that risk. Risk management in women's spaces has always been about vetting individual behavior, not entire demographics. For example, trans women have been using women's public toilets and changing rooms for decades without issue because predatory behavior is what gets you removed, regardless of who you are.
When it comes to high-risk environments like prisons, the Ministry of Justice already uses a robust, case-by-case risk assessment system. Trans prisoners with a history of violence or sexual offending against women are routinely held in the male estate or in separate wings, precisely because the system acknowledges that baseline risk.
I completely agree with you that the current media circus does a massive disservice to law-abiding trans women who just want to use a cubicle, wash their hands, and get on with their day in peace.

I'm sure I read on a recent thread someone blaming celebrities for influencing gullible people to vote Labour. (You know, Schrodinger's Electorate. Both easily influenced, and intelligent people capable of making their own minds up, until we open the ballot box and see who they've supported) so I'm sure there would be support for that from certain quarters.

Ok thank you for clarifying. I think you are comparing apples and oranges though. FWR call out things like the use of statistics on niche groups like prostituted transvestites in South America to create fear in troubled teenage girls in the UK. They as good as made up suicide ‘stats’ and seek out vulnerable children (and gullible adults) to indoctrinate.

Whereas despite all the insults and juvenile name calling no pp has been able to point out a similar misrepresentation of the facts by GB News.

People can see that real things are happening. Men and women/girls have been raped and murdered by immigrants, either very recent arrivals or those who have obtained citizenship but rejected the values of our country. There have been significant demographic changes concentrated in some areas which is impacting on people’s lives.

I would bet money that if the government could produce ANY data to prove everyone’s fears wrong they would.

Given the level of cover ups and denial it may well be worse than expected.

Our own government admits there is a problem. We have investigations by the BBC uncovering extensive foreign criminal gang networks throughout the country and as it turns out we are now harbouring the ‘godfather’ of people trafficking - a multi millionaire living here, having moved from France, at taxpayers expense while his ‘asylum’ claim is processed.

We are now struggling to deport a rape and grooming gang leader with Pakistani nationality who has now been released from prison because we are hamstrung by the law. Mostly EU law has prevented us from controlling who we allow in this country and a serious conversation needs to be had to change these laws as they are being used against our national interests.

Constantly trying to silence the people trying to have this conversation by sneering at news outlets reporting the facts does not help. It just exacerbates things. The BBC seems to have some glimmers of new shoots with their brilliant investigations in this (I’m always a little surprised to see them) but has also been responsible for attempting to suppress the national conversation.

I'd not heard of that incident before, thanks for posting - just been having a read. 😓

We worry about young people online, but actually there’s some vulnerable older people who spend a lot of time in some fairly toxic online spaces.”
People forget about older people and what it might be doing to them, or just brush it off as "they're adults". Yes, but doesn't mean they can't be vulnerable or susceptible to harm as well.

@ATrollHunter

Most of what you say re gender is wrong. But I want to pick up on one particular sleight of hand, that gets wheeled out far too regularly.

They are not a danger to society.
In fact, official figures from the Home Office and the ONS consistently show the exact opposite: trans people are statistically twice as likely to be the victims of violent crime and hate offenses as cisgender people.

This is a highly misleading and messy conflation of ideas.

First a group being statistcially at risk of suffering violence in no way refutes them also being statistically more liekly to commit violence. Trans males do commit violent and sexual crimes way more than the women they claim to be.

Secondly it is meaningless to compare rates of hate crime between trans people and non trans, when hate crimes are only recorded for 5 monitored strands, of which transgender identity is one.

They’d go looking for it elsewhere if you did . Theres no helping some people . I’m in my 60’s as left as they come and I despair at the reputation our age group is getting !

I think you’ve misunderstood the point of the ONS data.
First, the reason the victimization rate is relevant isn't to say 'being a victim makes you incapable of committing a crime.' The point is to challenge the sweeping narrative that trans people are an active, predatory danger to the public. If a tiny demographic is overwhelmingly more likely to be the ones targeted for violence than the ones committing it, painting them as a massive societal threat is statistically backwards—it just doesn't fit the narrative of them being the primary threat.
Second, your point about hate crime recording is factually incorrect. The ONS statistic that trans people are twice as likely to be victims of crime comes from the Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW) not police hate crime strands. The Crime Survey asks a representative sample of the public if they have been the victim of any personal crime—assault, robbery, theft, or violence. It has nothing to do with whether the police flagged it as a 'monitored hate crime strand.' Trans people simply experience more day-to-day crime and violence, full stop.
No one is denying that people who are born male commit more violent and sexual crime than people born female—that’s a basic demographic reality. The point is about scale and proportion. Trying to frame a microscopic group (0.5% of the population) as a major public safety crisis completely falls apart when you look at the actual math of who is experiencing violence versus who is causing it. It seems people are just determined to manipulate the data to fit a specific agenda rather than looking at reality.

The issue is that you are taking an administrative filing error on a spreadsheet and assuming it means thousands of foreign gang rapists are running around. That just isn't what the data says.

No, your opinion is that it’s an ‘administrative error’ that is by complete coincidence equally spread across all nationalities.

My opinion is that it’s an administrative error caused by the difficulty of identifying the exact nationality of foreign men who have refused to disclose compared to the ease of identifying the nationality of a white British man who may even have strong regional accent to give the game away.

The reality is that you haven't actually provided any real statistics to back up your claims. You are pointing to a tiny handful of individual cases and a fringe internet group from years ago to paint an entire demographic as a threat.

Are you suggesting that the high profile murders, rapes and attempted beheadings (as well as the numerous Islamist terror attacks over recent years) have not happened?

Or are you switching subjects again and trying to minimise the impact that trans activists have have on our children, schools, police, judiciary, the NHS etc? You may need to pop over to the Feminist board to find how how wrong that is.

Yes, not quite accurate - it’s turned out that over 1million applied to be ‘let in’ ( as opposed to ‘turned away’) ie gain legal status after arriving by irregular routes and managing to stay there for 5 months.

@ATrollHunter

No i dont think i do misunderstand. You, like countless before you, tried to refute the levels of violence by trans people using as evidence the levels of violence against them. It is fallacious and manipulative.

You then specifically made the claim that trans people were twice as likely to be victims of hate offenses[sic], so I was right to also dispute that.

As for the rest of your argument, it is as far as I can tell a straw man. The GC argument was never that transwomen are somehow a leading cause of violence despite their small number. Just that because they are at least as dangerous as other males, laws and policies that safeguard women from men, should treat them as men.

No harm in people being passionate about things.

GBNews has been at the forefront of highlighting the evil of grooming gangs for example ... meanwhile our so called womens champion (Labour's Jess Phillips) has been trying to hush them up and avoiding any scrutiny in this area. If the government won't do then thankfully GBN will.

Your post is wrong on so many counts but I don’t want to derail further by addressing your every point. I suggest you go and make your claims in the Feminist board and the ladies there will help you with your huge misconceptions.

A diagnosis of gender dysphoria/incongruence requires excluding transvestic fetishism. See the ICD 11.

Many men who claim a 'trans' identity are men with transvestic fetishism.

Yeah but who/where has the radicalisation trend been documented?

Prevent has info on radicalisation.

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/get-help-if-youre-worried-about-someone-being-radicalised

'Radicalisation can happen both in person or online.

Everyone is different, and there is no checklist that can tell us if someone is being radicalised or becoming involved in terrorism. But these signs may mean someone is being radicalised:

• accessing extremist content online or downloading propaganda material
• justifying the use of violence to solve societal issues
• altering their style of dress or appearance to accord with an extremist group
• being unwilling to engage with people who they see as different
• using certain symbols associated with terrorist organisations

What to do if you’re worried about someone Try to speak with them If it’s somebody that you know well, try talking to them about what you’ve noticed if you feel comfortable doing so. Find advice on how to do this:

• for talking to friends and family on the ACT Early website
• for those working in schools on the Educate Against Hate website

Be aware that your concern might not be welcome at first, and the person may get angry or defensive. You could try talking to other family and friends to see if they have noticed anything similar before getting expert advice.'

I have to admit OP that I told my DF that the reason he got his email hacked was the pop-ups on the GB News website. I couldn't deal with some of the opinions that a formerly lovely man was coming out with.

OP might find this website useful.

actearly.uk/

There is lots of advice on there.

It is very ironic that the thread is about a telly channel allegedly generating hate and the ones supporting that weird opinion are the ones being very nasty.