Yes, I believe so
A good movie, worth a watch. I'm in the crazy revolutionary robot girl's corner though.
"At Capita, we keep the Capital, but you get the 'L'"
Goes hard, not gonna lie
Thank you! I have corrected my comment
Another Armand?! That's illegal.
The article does not say "male", just "first Muslim Senator".
Ilhan Omar is in Congress The House rather than the Senate, does that mean she's "representative" not a "senator"? I don't know how this stuff works.
Stonewall was not, Blake stressed, aiming to overturn the supreme court ruling. “We understand that this is the law. But we also want to ensure that trans people are protected and, along with other organisations, we are looking at what that would look like.”
And this is is why I don't like Stonewall.
They've forgotten about their roots, the Stonewall Riots in 1969 that their name comes from and their founding to counter Section 28 in 1989:
The law should not be respected if it is unjust.
Thanks friend. I expect you'll get more traction too.
...says the "user" with a 9 day old account and hundreds of comments to a (minor) trans rights activist who has been on here for 3 years. 😄
Well, this one is good.
Though you could say it's a followup.
It mentions that Translucent have come to help weigh in, and that 86% of respondents voted to keep it inclusive from back in January, which is covered here:
Both things are missing from that article, which basically just repeat the talking points of Sex Matters. Interesting that that is all the BBC has to say.
It's not misinformation to post their article though. Sometimes it's better to post the BBC rather than nothing, but it's good to put a major asterisk on anything they say.
This is not a personal attack. Keep up the good work. I've seen you spread good stuff.
Lets not link BBC articles about trans topics. They are famously terrible at properly covering them.
For example, calling Sex Matters a charity and not a hate group is a big mischaracterization.
A corporate landlord’s attempt to raise rent by £17.92 a month has backfired spectacularly after a tribunal forced the firm to instead charge its tenant £210 less.
London-based buy-to-rent firm Get Living was ordered to cut the monthly charge from £2,560 to £2,350 in August after tenant Davide Martinelli took his case to a first-tier tribunal.
Martinelli’s contract had a “rent review clause” under which rent could be increased with inflation, but such clauses were abolished under the Renters’ Rights Act, the tribunal noted. It then went further and ruled that the amount he was already being charged was above market rates.
It is the eighth time a landlord has been made to reduce rent after trying to increase it since the act came into force in May. On average, tribunals have ordered a reduction of £58 a month, according to industry advisory firm LonRes.
Get rekt parasites
If we all still had fireplaces, then at least these would serve for something.
Can you imagine staying in a hostel for literally months? With children?
Shabana Mahmood is someone who hates immigrants, refugees and poor people. She's the most far-right member of the current party leadership. She's left over from Kier's government, and for whatever reason has not been fired. I want her out of here so much and all her xenophobic policies revoked. Her and her policies comically clash with Andy Burnham's whole EU initiative.
It is genuinely an improvement, we're just hoping for more. I think that more or less sums up Labour at the moment actually.
Well the problem is we're not taxing them significantly more, we're assigning manpower to gently cajol them into paying the small amount we do tax them.
This was in 2023, but that doesn't mean it isn't relevant. Now this sort of treatment is policy.
That's Von Karma and Gumshoe from Ace Attorney, right? Seems about right.
view more:
next ›