Jump to content

Ghost Ship

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Ghost Ship

  1. You're right that it's not as widely known about off the island as you might expect. My point was that for thise people who are aware of it, it shows the island in a particularly bad light. Now more people will be aware of it or reminded of it because of a random newspaper article.
  2. It remains a terrible stain on the Island's reputation and character. I remember that many years ago my wife met another lawyer who, I think, as a young man had been involved in some capacity in the report into the tragedy. That experience caused him to form a very unfavourable opinion of the IoM.
  3. @Gladys - I agree with you 100% re the apparent sexualising of all this and the way it presents. As you say, that earlier image is clearly intended to (and does) present as a male fantasy image of a schoolgirl. I find it quite disturbing... Even more so when teachers and DESC don't find it disturbing. (Re schoolkids id'ing as animals, I'd have thought that was an obvious pisstake by the kids - if it happens at all) [Edit: I've just mentioned this to my wife who's a former chair of school governors at a local school. She just laughed and said if it has happened it is just the kids taking the piss out of adults who should have more sense.]
  4. Anyone remember Dave Ingham and know what happened to him? (I asked the same question on the other thread in General Chat as I got confused between that one and this one. Genuinely interested to know what happened to him. He never taught me by the way, but he struck me as somebody... not quite comfortable as a teacher... )
  5. Anyone remember Dave Ingham? What happened to him?
  6. A friend and former colleague who's had experience from a HR point of view of dealing with trans issues in the workplace in the NHS passed this on to me as they were interested to know what I thought of it. I know it's from the mail online, and I have no idea how accurate it is myself, but my friend assures me it is accurate. (It's Canadian so I suspect it probably is accurate although I don't know for sure) Assuming it is, what do others think of what is being described in the article? Is this trans teacher simply expressing how they feel about their sex/gender in a legitimate way that is acceptable in a school setting, or is there perhaps an element of misogyny here? Is the trans teacher innocently demonstrating either (1) their personal ideal of a woman or their own image of themself, or (2) are they displaying an offensive and distorted caricature that reduces women to nothing more than a pair of giant breasts? The school is apparently giving this teacher their wholehearted support and sees nothing to be concerned about regarding the way in which they present themselves at school. High school defends transgender teacher with large prosthetic breasts | Daily Mail Online
  7. I'm sorry but I think that's bit harsh. She had no choice as to what circumstances she was born into (just as people born into poverty don't have a choice either) and when she was born it was never envisaged that she might become Queen. As I posted earlier, I think she has conducted herself in an exemplary manner regarding her total political impartiality during the 70 years of her reign. With the greatest respect, I doubt that I, you, or any other posters on this forum could have conducted themselves so well over such a long period. It isn't all just about having money or access to it. As I said earlier, I'm not a royalist but I'm big enough to give credit where it is due. Some people, unfortunately, will not do so if it doesn't conform with their values or beliefs. I don't approve of the monarchy, but I think Liz II did an incredible job as Monarch.
  8. I am most certainly not a proud royalist, but I wholeheartedly agree with that final statement. For 70 years she has accomplished the impossible task of being politically impartial in her role as head of state, and at the same time heading up what seems to be a largely dysfunctional family. It's all downhill with Charles (or however he becomes styled) as head of state.
  9. They can't seriously be closing their pubs for 24 hours, can they... ?
  10. I might be mistaken, but I thought it had been announced a couple of decades ago that - when he eventually succeeded to the throne - he wouldn't take the title Charles III ? (I'm most definitely not a royalist but I think the Queen did a fantastic job over a 70 year period. However, I continue to be amazed that she and Philip decided to name the heir to the throne after two of the most divisive monarchs the country has ever seen... )
  11. I think @MrGarrison was distracted by your somewhat equivocal answer to my earlier post. My question was whether it was transphobic for a lesbian woman not to want to have a sexual relationship with a transwoman with a biologically male body and male genitals. Your answer - if I've understood you correctly - is an unequivocal "No", that that is not transphobic. However, you confusingly also went on to answer a different question of your own choosing referring only to "trans" people and excluding any reference to their biology, body shape, body size or genitalia. You appeared to suggest that in that context*, that if a lesbian did not want a sexual relationship with a transwoman that that "... could be transphobic." I think @MrGarrison understandably mistook this response to a question I never asked as your answer to the question I did ask. I'm sure @MrGarrison will be happy to accept that it is in fact your unequivocal view that it is not transphobic for lesbian women to decline to enter into sexual relationships with fully male bodied trans women. *Whether it is transphobic for lesbian women not to want to enter into sexual relationships with transwomen simply because they are trans is not a question anybody has asked yet...
  12. Do you find it confusing? It does seem to require a re-definition of various words like lesbian. I suspect that many trans people get no further than "identifying" as such and don't get anywhere close to being resculptured - whether they've thought carefully about it or not...
  13. So - if a lesbian woman were to refuse to enter into a sexual relationship with a "lesbian" transwoman on the grounds that that person was trans and was biologically male with a male body, would that be transphobic?
  14. So for the 22.9% of non-binary people who say they are "Gay/Lesbian", does this mean their preference is for other non-binary people and it isn't by reference to their birth sex? [Edit: Sorry - my question isn't very clear. If two non-binary people (one biological male and the other biological female) end up in a sexual relationship, is that a "Gay/Lesbian" relationship because they are both non-binary, or is it a "Heterosexual" one because they are different biological sexes?]
  15. I think you make an interesting point. I'm not entirely sure that "their ultimate aim" is what you suggest it is*, but I've always been a bit surprised by the ready acceptance of the idea that LGB interests are naturally aligned with trans interests. I'm not at all sure that they are always complementary with each another or even headed in the same direction. I know at least one lesbian (a former work colleague) who has been labelled as transphobic for not wholly endorsing the idea that lesbians should be accepting of sexual relationships with male-bodied transwomen. And, of course, it was the expression of perfectly legal gender-critical views like that (ie that lesbians might not wish to be in a sexual relationship with a person with a male body) that led to the barrister Allison Bailey suing her chambers for discrimination after she was accused of being transphobic. I think some trans issues are potentially quite damaging to the LGB movement. *I'm not sure if the results of the National LGBT Survey are consistent with trans respondents wanting "heteronormative" relationships rather than "Gay/Lesbian" roles?
  16. For clarification, what do the terms "Gay/Lesbian" and "Heterosexual" mean in the context of trans respondents to the above survey? For example, in the above table does (1) a biological male (2) who identifies as female gender and (3) whose sexual preference is for a biological female partner, appear under "Gay/Lesbian" or under "Heterosexual"? If the former, does the below mean that 25.1% of transwomen have a sexual preference for relationships with women rather than men? Sexual orientation (Q7-9) by gender (trans) Gender (%) All (%) Trans woman Trans man Non-binary Gender identity Bisexual 35.7 31.7 29.5 31.6 Gay/Lesbian 25.1 19.8 22.9 22.8 Asexual† 2.7 4.2 7.3 5.4 Pansexual† 8.4 12.8 17.5 14.1 Queer† 0.5 4.7 6.7 4.6 Heterosexual 15.8 16.0 3.3 9.4 Other 3.2 4.8 9.1 6.6 Don't know 6.6 5.3 3.0 4.4 Prefer not to say 1.9 0.7 0.7 1.0 Respondents (rounded) 3740 3170 7410 14320
  17. I like the S1 Continental. Hmm.... 19 October... Duxford... not too far away... And the Maserati Bi-turbo...
  18. Actually, reading that report I can understand* the DHSC's position. It goes back to the point I was trying to make (obviously very badly!) yesterday as to whether or not the ET had the jurisdiction to hold such an investigation (sorry) hearing and whether they were the appropriate body to do so. * PLEASE EVERYBODY! I'm not saying I agree with it - I'm saying I understand it, which is entirely different
  19. Reading the decision again I think you are right that the disclosure hearing is primarily to clarify whether the respondent's failure to comply fully with disclosure should impact on the assessment of remedies and potential awarding of costs in the Dr Ranson case. It would appear not to be intended to go any deeper than that... ... which would be a pity because as the tribunal said at para 28 "... there might have been a serious miscarriage of justice because so many documents were not produced... " It strikes me that at the very least it still requires an appropriately qualified and competent investigation to determine what happened here. If evidence was not disclosed when it should have been, and in the knowledge that it would impact on the outcome of the tribunal, I'd have thought that that might potentially amount to serious criminal offence. But of course, nobody knows what happened...
  20. And is that considered good or bad?
  21. You tell me. Habit? Incompetence? Stupidity? (Of course, as I've already been at pains to point out, I might be completely mistaken as to what the court hearing is about. But I just don't see how an employment tribunal could investigate these allegations effectively. It needs a proper forensic investigation, not one by an employment tribunal. I think Quilp has referred to ExPol - but who are they?)
  22. If you can attend it would be good to get a first hand account as to either (1) whose dirty laundry is going to be washed in public, or (2) what carpet said laundry will be brushed under.
  23. Errr... No I suggest you read my post again. You might also want to check a dictionary definition of "obviously". But for people who have difficulties with reading comprehension, I'll try to make it easier... My simple (and quite possibly mistaken) opinion is that the members of an employment tribunal on the Isle of Man probably do not possess the sort of knowledge, qualifications, experience, skills or investigatory powers to look into what seem to be potentially quite serious allegations about government conduct in a tribunal case. Indeed, if I understand correctly, there may even have been rumours that certain aspects of that alleged conduct might amount to fraud or other illegal behaviour. And even if the tribunal does uncover evidence of wrong-doing, I doubt that they will have the legal powers to apply appropriate sanctions against any individual or individuals. It is just an employment tribunal. I suspect that effective action against people who may have acted wrongly would inevitably require a police investigation and subsequent prosecution in a criminal court. That is why I was surprised when the original verdict was delivered that the tribunal announced it would carry out its own investigation, and that it wasn't referred to the police there and then. If it is subsequently found necessary that a polce investigation be carried out, it would seem to me to be better to carry it out immediately and not several months later - when who knows what may have disappeared. Of course, if you are suggesting that the IoM Constabulary is inefficient, incompetent or otherwise deficient in executing its duties, then that is an entirely different question from the one I am addressing. As I said in my earlier post, I have no particular knowledge about today's court case. What I have posted is mere speculation based on my initial surprise that the ET had decided to investigate the alleged disclosure failings itself, and not refer it to the police, who I would have thought would have been better placed to do so. And if you read my other contributions on this thread you will see that they have all been scathing of the government in this matter.
  24. I've only just come back to this thread today and would make the following observation. (NB - I have no particular knowledge whatsoever of proceedings today in court or what prompted them). I was a bit surprised when the Employment Tribunal originally delivered its judgment on the Dr Ranson case that the Tribunal also announced that it was dissatisfied with various aspects relating to the disclosure of evidence by the respondent (DHSC/Govt), and that the Employment Tribunal would be carrying out a further hearing to look into that. I was surprised because I wouldn't have thought that another hearing by the tribunal would be either the appropriate or the correct forum to investigate issues regarding disclosure in this case. The Tribunal is an adversarial one surely, and not an investigative one. I'd be surprised if they had the skills or resources to carry out such an investigation. I would have thought the correct course of action would have been for the Chair of the Tribunal to refer the matter to the police for investigation. If there were any question at all that evidence had not been properly disclosed, isn't that how it should have been handled? Is that perhaps what today's court hearing has been about?
  25. How is that crossing lawful? No zig-zags and vehicles (like high-sided vans) can park right up to the boundary of the crossing, largely obstructing drivers from seeing pedestrians waiting to cross. And - of course - impeding the line of sight of pedestrians waiting to cross.
  • Create New...