Sir Kier Starmer on GMB now being asked what his stance on trans gender is

[SpringLobelia]

He said he apologises to people eating their breakfast'.

He is being questioned about his treatment of Rosie Duffield but he's not answered really and moved the convo swiftly to Brianna Ghey

Susannah said you told the MP Rosie Duffield that she is wrong to say only women have a cervix and he is again deflecting.

Says he believes in safe spaces for women.

Women's prisons? - deflects again to the NHS today. no answer to any direct questions.

Says again about safe spaces being important- but again deflecting and whittering about the constituion

SR asking for clarity- is it right or wrong for RD to say only women have a cervix - KS- she is biologically right. SR- should you apologise to her?
KS- deflects. Wants discussion. Not answering the question.

I'm giving up now. He can't even string a coherent sentence together. Keeps deflecting.

IMO of course.

So, Keir Starmer told GMB viewers on Tuesday that he and Rosie Duffield 'get on very well', that they 'discuss a number of issues' together and he wants to have a further discussion with Rosie (and anyone else) about how they 'go forward in a positive way' -

but the truth is, Starmer hasn't spoken to Rosie Duffield, or acknowledged her in two and a half years?

Doesn't bode well.

I read on another thread that Rachel Reeves may at least have her head screwed on in this debate. We need at least one grown up in that room.

It sounds very bad. Either he is lying, or Rosie Duffield is lying. Neither prospects fill me with any faith in the Labour Party.
Why can't they just get their arsing act together and be a decent, appealing opposition party FFS 😡

Either he is lying, or Rosie Duffield is lying.

It’s him. Wish someone would ask him in the chamber so he cannot lie.

Is that right, do they swear an oath not to lie in the chamber?
I didn't know that.

In that case someone should definitely ask him.

They're not allowed to mislead the house. So lies are a big no no. However, you're also not allowed to call another Member a liar outright!

So, as he didn't (as far as I'm aware) claim that in Parliament, there's nowt they can do.

👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻

He is a weaselly liar.

Then someone should also ask him there, if he really believes that some females have penises.

That would be brilliant. Preferably Streeting or someone from his own side, not Sunak at PMQs where he'll crack a lame joke and wriggle out of it.

I'm just going to leave this here;

https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2024/05/tony-blair-and-his-associates-are-waiting-in-the-wings-to-seize-back-power-in-the-uk.html

Interesting, @MultiPolarista .I wouldn't go along with all it (my eyes rolled a little when it started talking about vaccines and the EU), but yeah, I always had Blair marked as a wrong 'un. Somehow, when you read articles like that, quaint concepts like 'democracy', 'worker's rights', 'the sovereignty of parliament', etc seem hopelessly old-fashioned in this post-democratic world. It's the same feeling I get when I read Private Eye: the whole world's on the fiddle, etc. Depressing.

That's really quite hilarious as batshit conspiracy theories go.

You clearly haven't been watching if that's what you believe. He regularly takes Sunak apart, as he did also with Johnson and Truss.

What utter bollocks! 😂

That's my thought too! 🤣

He is as slippery as an.eel. The fact that he avoided answering questions is proof that he wishes to conceal his true opinions. He has no.commitment to truth
I can't.believe that he and his rabble of supporters, dedicated followers of transgenderism, will likely be our next government.

And now this, an easier route to a GRC and removing the spousal veto.

Women cannot trust Labour on this.

Labour plans to simplify ‘dehumanising’ gender change process

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/604c739c-70b7-4819-866f-370ae67da6ab?shareToken=3c74a9980cd7113cfa0117680e7d1e16

So there's a cohort of really dodgy people out there, and Labour is saying, come on in, guys, we'll take all the hassle out of this for you? I suppose it gets the yoof vote. They think.

Don't collude with the whitewashing of calling it a :spousal veto" - that's the language of making it seem an unreasonable condition.

All it is, is requiring you and your spouse, as mature adults, to decide between you whether you will stay married after you change your identity or whether your spouse feels that they married your old identity and doesn't want to be married to the new identity in which case you need a divorce. Given that divorce can take a while it's unreasonable for anyone who is married to undergo a major identity change without having this resolved one way or the other. It's not the spouse vetoing it, it's that the spouse is the only person qualified to confirm whether this sensible process has happened.

"Removing the spousal veto" means in effect "making it ok for one person in a marriage partnership to completely change and rewrite the basis for the partnership without the consent of the other partner" and that is not ok.

Yes, I noticed in that article it's described as the spouse's right to object.

It's actually a spouse's right to annul their marriage in response to the transition. It's a safeguard for the (usually) wife.

I know that pps know all about it, but for any lurkers who want to know more, I found this explainer useful about the spousal veto

womansplaceuk.org/2019/09/21/spousal-consent-and-the-liberal-democrats/

What's the point of vows and a contract based on two equals if the real position is one of you is trapped?

What's the aim? Destruction of literally all the rights women fought for? I guess yes.

I honestly can't tell whether you are agreeing with me or arguing against me.