Mailwatch(ed) Forum

Edit: see later post.

Has she?

Actually, Malc, you’re right - she hasn’t and I’d forgotten exactly what she had said: specifically a fan asking if it was safe to assume she would forgive Radcliffe etc. if they apologised after the Cass report came out (not sure why - they may disagree, but all they’d ever said is they support trans rights), and she basically said no, and that they should apologise to “…traumatised detransitioners and vulnerable women reliant on single sex spaces”.

The conjecture they owe her something came from discussion around that by others interpreting what she’d said/implied. She didn’t say it herself.

Happy to correct the record and I have deleted my previous post.

I think this line of what the actors from Potter “owe” Rowling is down to Mail shit stirring

Mind you, Daniel Radders is a crap actor.

In evidence I enter his work for Sky. And the movie 'Ginsberg'.

of the three leads Emma Watson was the best in terms of acting in my view. Radcliffe was ok and Grint just gurned throughout.

Malcolm Armsteen wrote: ↑Sat May 04, 2024 10:09 pm Mind you, Daniel Radders is a crap actor.

In evidence I enter his work for Sky. And the movie 'Ginsberg'.

I thought he was serviceable if not spectacular as Arthur Kipps in The Woman in Black, and he is ridiculously good fun - and clearly having the time of his life - in that Weird Al Yankovic biopic I mentioned in the movie thread, but I’ve not seen the others, so can’t really comment.

Watson did her best work, or so I thought, in The Bling Ring, playing a character nothing whatsoever like Hermione.

Well, this is a quite interesting story, on KGB News, though I dare say it’s right up their anti-woke street. A British woman professional darts player forfeits a tournament because she refuses to play against a transgender opponent, apparently saying “I’m not playing against a man in a woman’s event”.

Interesting, because it seems to reveal nothing less than naked prejudice on the part of Deta Hedman. I’m aware of the arguments against trans players/athletes competing against female competitors on the basis that they may benefit from unequal physical advantages relating to their pre-trans gender. But in darts? Surely no unfair advantage, physical or otherwise, is to be gained by a trans player competing “in a woman’s event” ? Ergo, sheer prejudice on parade. No?

https://www.gbnews.com/sport/darts/fem ... yUNDGEujnn

Another reason why this issue confuses me - can these people not see that they're being supported by the sort who would otherwise be their opponents?

I don't follow the darts closely.
But weren't they making a big thing about having female players in the world championships?

Men’s darts is a higher level than women’s tournaments. Sometimes put down to men on average possessing superior visual-spacial skills. Or men on average more likely to have nothing better to do than practice throwing darts in the shed for two hours per day.
If the first is true and you’re a woman trapped in a man’s body, your dart throwing is likely to be feminine in trait not Phil Taylor in drag.

It takes a lot to piss off LGBT+ Labour, but I think we’ve finally found the line.

Context please.

LGB Alliance is an organisation best summed up as "....but not those people". It doesn't take kindly to trans people. Very much a socks on, buttoned down, Andrew Pierce style, 'respectable' image. The sort of alternative sexuality the Mail reading old harridan down your street would find it hard to fault. More decent upstanding chaps than assless.

The above, plus the fact that there are some fairly serious questions about what - besides anti trans lobbying - they actually do in terms of helping LGB people. One of their founders described the orgs mission as combatting “the lie of gender identity” which puts them pretty seriously at odds with the rest of what, for want of a better term, you could call the LGB community, even before you add the T.

The fact that they operate out of 55 Tufton St was just the icing on the cake reveal.

Do we know why she met with them? There are many demands for meetings from fringe groups, it's a stretch to assume she agrees with them.

I'd have hoped that she, or one of her advisers, would spot the Tufton Street connection, and tell her to give them a swerve. Then again those organisations are very good at playing the media, and I imagine there would be no shortage of outlets happy to report that so-called inclusive Labour chair Dodds refused to meet with leading gay rights advocacy group....

Seriously, transparency of the lobbying industry is very much needed. While I get that sometimes people need to be able to approach the government on the quiet (e.g. actual gay rights campaigners afraid of being outed), the ability to affect government policy with nothing more than a blandly plausible sounding name and a presentable spokesperson to go on the Daily Politics needs to stop.

That or interviewers are supplied with a box of rubber bands, which they can flick at the face of the Tufton street goon as they try to present whatever wheeze they've come up with.

Wearing my tinfoil hat; with the Tufton link, are they simply agent provocateurs

Malcolm Armsteen wrote: ↑Wed May 15, 2024 1:08 pm Do we know why she met with them? There are many demands for meetings from fringe groups, it's a stretch to assume she agrees with them.

Exactly all we know is she had a meeting we don't know what was said or even agreed.

No need to meet with them and give them credibility though.