Crosswords5 mins ago
P M Qs - Why Should The Pm Apologise?
125 Answers
https:/
It's fair game, Labour still don't know what a woman is.
Answers
No matter what surgeries they undergo, nor documentatio
13:42 Thu 08th Feb 2024
"it's the other way around for PMQs... the pm gets briefed on what the LO will ask about and he chose to respond to an unrelated question with a dig about trans people."
Are you being deliberately obtuse?
Sunak did not have a dig about trans people. He had a dig at SKS the reasons for which have already been shown on this thread.
100% of women don't have penises.
Karmer is wooing a vote by claiming that even a vanishingly small percentage of 'women' do.
Sunak (even though I am no great fan of his) was pointing out Starmer's failure to carry through his promises.....it's a pity he didn't wait 24 hours and then he could have added the implosion of Labour's Green policies to the list.
> something about her call for under 16s to be blocked from social media
That's the what, not the why ...
Let's put it this way. If Sunak was in a meeting with Esther Ghey, would Sunak refer to Brianna as Esther's daughter or Esther's son?
And would the answer be different if it was Starmer rather than Sunak?
And would the answer be different if they weren't speaking to Esther Ghey, but to ... hmm, let's say TTT.
Speaking to Esther one assumes he'd avoid the use of pronouns as it was a delicate situation.
He can be more forthright and honest elsewhere, and needs to be to a leader of a political party that apparently doesn't even understand that only women bleed. That surgery or dressing unconventionally doesn't change one's sex, or that thinking you are the sex you aren't despite the evidence to the contrary doesn't make your confusion fact.
Such a lack of basic understanding in an individual suggests they don't have what it takes to be a politician let alone a party leader. Furthermore to try to turn the incident into a slur against those unfortunate individuals, when the issue was clearly his response to the PM's observation, shows a lack of integrity on his part, and apparently he is now to meet (or has met) Esther to try to persuade her that the PM's comment to him was really against her dead son and their family instead.
That is pretty low, toying with the family's emotions like that in order to get out of apologising for his behaviour. Shame on him.
Asked if he would apologise, he [Sunak] told reporters in Cornwall: 'If you look at what I said, I was very clear, talking about Keir Starmer's proven track record of U-turns on major policies because he doesn't have a plan.
'A point only proven by today's reports that the Labour Party and Keir Starmer are apparently planning to reverse on their signature economic green spending policy.
'That just demonstrates the point I was making. He's someone who has just consistently changed his mind on a whole range of major things.
'I think that is an absolutely legitimate thing to point out and it demonstrates that he doesn't have a plan for the country.'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Okay - fair enough. But if he wanted to highlight SKS's record of U-turn why the hell finish it off with a trans joke?
Kemi Badenoch summed it up thus:
"Every murder is a tragedy. None should be trivialised by political point- scoring. As a mother, I can imagine the trauma that Esther Ghey has endured."
This is what Kemi Badenoch actually said.
//Every murder is a tragedy. None should be trivialised by political point-scoring. As a mother, I can imagine the trauma that Esther Ghey has endured. It was shameful of Starmer to link his own inability to be clear on the matter of sex and gender directly to her grief.//
Shameful to deliberately attempt to mislead by blatantly selectively editing, SP.
the only thing that's "delicate" about the situation is that some people including many tories do not wish to allow transgender people to transition. if you insist that trans women cannot and never can be women and also wish to see that position reflected in government policy then that is what that means... it is not escapable. if you're ok with people transitioning then there's no "delicacy" about it at all....
