CPS launch a “hate crime” pack
ie, more of the same old bullshit from the same old usual suspects
Lots of stuff in there, two immediate thoughts:
1) “We have received nothing by way of substantive critique which deals directly with those objections”
absolutely, even down to the most basics – and a question I have never seen the TRAs address: why is it so important to segregate by “gender” (or “identity”) rather than sex ? Particularly where the physical sexed body is a fundamental part of the situation.
and (slight tangent but not entirely)
2) “whiteness” another concept that is so overused, and used so much out of context that it has mostly lost any useful meaning, and in comparison to sex it doesn’t map that well.
Having whatever colour of skin, in and of itself, is not oppressive. Race supremacy is an oppressive ideology, but there is no mechanism for exploitation on colour unless artificially created.
This is quite unlike physical sex where physically stronger and more brutal male persons impregnate the female ones: a hard mechanistic reality regardless of construct.
But “whiteness” has gone the same way as “privilege”, used by the libfemqueers and others who have a vested interest in scoring points without addressing real power, violence, deprivation etc.
It is always much more useful – when analysing rights and social relations – to look at actual resources and actual power. (In the news again example: Rotherham, Rochdale et al – who has the power there ? The oppression olympics, right-on, point scoring approach does not work in this situation at all)
Gambling with credit cards to be banned in bid to protect consumers
“chief executive of the Gambling Commission, said: ”Credit card gambling can lead to significant financial harm. The ban that we have announced today should minimise the risks of harm to consumers from gambling with money they do not have.
“We realise that this change will inconvenience those consumers who use credit cards responsibly but we are satisfied that reducing the risk of harm to other consumers means that action must be taken.”
“There is clear evidence of harm from consumers betting with money they do not have, so it is absolutely right that we act decisively to protect them.
“In the past year we have introduced a wave of tougher measures, including cutting the maximum stake on fixed odds betting terminals, bringing in tighter age and identity checks for online gambling and expanding national specialist support through the NHS Long Term Plan.”
Some boys are problem gamblers by 17 as one in eight admit regularly betting
“To protect these vulnerable young people from gambling harm requires a combination of education, legislation and appropriate treatment services,”
A spokesman for the Betting and Gaming Council, the UK gambling industry’s trade association, said: “Rigorous age verification checks introduced by our members mean that it is now virtually impossible for anyone under the age of 18 to gamble online.”
AND, from the prize hypocrites at the Graun: