Vocal Voices

Because Boris is getting the Donald Trump treatment, 24/7 negativity.
I know some don't believe this but consider the following.

Last night ITN news interviewed "Emily" Bridges, the trans cyclist. Basically a young man wearing a dress who "identifies" as a woman.
Real women cyclist have objected to his presence in their cycling events, unsurprisingly. Until about a year ago he was competing as a man.

So the interview was conducted with the gentlest of kid gloves. Mr Bridges was asked questions in the softest and most sympathetic of tones and his pronunciations of "facts" went unchallenged. He was never interrupted, quite a difference as to when a politician is being interviewed.
Then the interviewer came out with the classic. They showed a clip of Boris Johnson saying that he felt biological men should not be competing in women's events.
Well! Mr Bridges said that the most famous man in Britain saying this had led to a load of threats against his person and that he felt "unsafe".
Whether the interviewer actually asked him if a lot of other people felt exactly the same as Boris Johnson I don't know, because I switched off in disgust.

I think most people in the country would think that men shouldn't be allowed in women's events. Certainly women athletes feel that way.
But the interviewer spun it so that it was like Johnson's opinion was outrageous and that he was responsible for transphobia.
What a load of rubbish.

I'm on the side of people like the retired swimmer Sharon Davies, who pointed out that if she had the amount of testosterone in her body that Mr Bridges has she'd get a four year ban!

But it does show that the media are on the side of the ludicrous trans ideology. That if you say you are a woman, you are and that anyone who says different is hateful.
Truth is getting buried by insanity.

I couldn't agree more with you Cromwell. I am actually starting to feel sorry for Boris now as everyone is having a go at him. The holier than thou Beth Rigby and Kay Burley are a case in point. One given six months leave of absence from Sky News for partying during Covid and the other one three months leave of absence. How Beth Rigby can lecture Boris Johnson on rule breaking amazes me, as it is a case of one rule breaker to another - and yes, I know he set the unworkable rules. Most people in the country get it quite clearly that Boris has been too lackadaisical in his approach to Partygate and the regular Friday night booze ups in No 10 (which apparently have been going on since Tony Blair's time) and want to get back to the economics of daily living and how they are going to survive over the next few years. The news channela are inundated with the disaffected anti-Boris clique - they want Brexit reversed, they don't like his policies, they don't like Boris, they are shocked at Boris' unseemly behaviour, on it goes ad infinitum. They are a Party in disarray. If they don't turn away from sniping continuously and move forward with workable policies that benefit the people that put them in Office, then deservedly the Party will be toast, including the self-righteous rebels.

The whole problem is clearly identified in the whole booing scam.

Did I say scam? Yes I did. Because it was. When the media and press jumped all over that little bit of jiggery pokery some of the pitifully inadequate MP's Boris has, supposedly, supporting him stampeded off to try and get rid of him.

But what really happened when he got to St Pauls. Well if you ask ITV, they say.

While a number of people could be heard applauding and cheering as the couple ascended the staircase, others could be heard booing.

Hang on, applauding and cheering? That's not on the script.

But it takes a bit more to really find out what went on. This is shown by the fullfact piece on the claims that the BBC doctored the audio of the arrival.

Two clips, broadcast at 10.40am and 10.43am respectively by the BBC News channel on 3 June, have been used as apparent evidence of the BBC “censoring” the sound of the crowd booing as Mr and Mrs Johnson arrived at St Paul’s Cathedral for the Jubilee thanksgiving service.

In the first clip, which is taken from the live broadcast, booing can be heard very clearly as the couple ascend the steps to St Paul’s Cathedral.

Presenter Jane Hill, who was in the process of interviewing author Catherine Butcher and royal historian Professor Anna Whitelock, interrupts the interview to note: “There is really quite a lot of booing actually, a substantial amount. Didn’t see that coming—that’s quite a moment.”

Minutes later BBC News showed the same clip of Mr and Mrs Johnson’s arrival, however the audio is different with the booing much less clear.

This difference has been used to claim that the BBC had edited the sound to cast Mr and Mrs Johnson’s arrival in a more positive light.

But the BBC has since explained that the disparity between the sound in the clips is down to the fact they were recorded by different crews—not because they were deliberately manipulated.

Right hang on a minute. So the boos were REALLY LOUD and representative of a lot of people in the crowd right??? So why didn't the other crew pick it up? I'll tell you why the other crew didn't pick it up, because a few people with an agenda got a close to the BBC recording crew as they could and booed really loudly so that it would come over the audio track very clearly as dissent from the whole crowd. After all a microphone doesn't discriminate, it picks up the closest, loudest, noised and that masks other noises.

So you have to go back and wonder just who is yanking your chain. So Boris was booed. Big deal he was also clapped and cheered but that was ignored wasn't it. My bet is the clapping and cheering was a lot more prevalent than the booing otherwise the other crew would have picked it up.

Not only has some minority, agenda soaked, group, managed to trigger a vote of no confidence in the PM; when the evidence of their attempt to deceive the people and the government, is visible; it is then claimed to be a conspiracy.

Something to remember the next time you hear something on a TV broadcast. They don't even need to lie to you, simple selective delivery of conflicting video and audio is enough to change the entire meaning.

The video below is actually an advert from the Guardian from the 1980's.

Think about it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wF7u_hWbAw4

Bring you own boos.

I remember the media relentlessly going after Corbyn, Swinson and Sturgeon in the run up to the election and not a peep from you Tory supporters. They were fair game.

I will, therefore, not be going all precious now that Big Slob, a criminal, philanderer, charlatan and lying hypocrite, is getting the treatment. He thoroughly deserves it.

Re 'Emily' and others. There is no such thing a transgender, it is physiologically and biologically impossible.

They might 'identify' as something, but that does not mean the 'are' that thing. Surgery and pumping them with hormones does not change their biological being.

I have lots of sympathy and empathy with them. It must be hell to have a brain thinking it is one gender when their body is the other so, yes, they need help to be comfortable with what they are.

That help, however, should not stretch to all of us pretending, or forced to pretend, that they have actually become what they think they should be. They haven't.

Workingman wrote::lol:

Bring you own boos.

I remember the media relentlessly going after Corbyn, Swinson and Sturgeon in the run up to the election and not a peep from you Tory supporters. They were fair game.

I will, therefore, not be going all precious now that Big Slob, a criminal, philanderer, charlatan and lying hypocrite, is getting the treatment. He thoroughly deserves it.

Re 'Emily' and others. There is no such thing a transgender, it is physiologically and biologically impossible.

They might 'identify' as something, but that does not mean the 'are' that thing. Surgery and pumping them with hormones does not change their biological being.

I have lots of sympathy and empathy with them. It must be hell to have a brain thinking it is one gender when their body is the other so, yes, they need help to be comfortable with what they are.

That help, however, should not stretch to all of us pretending, or forced to pretend, that they have actually become what they think they should be. They haven't.

OK I agree with you on the Corbyn etc. I don't think it is overly representative of the attitude to the PM overall which is why I mentioned it. The fact that the Tory MP's are infested by a bunch of mice seems to make it worse.

The whole Trans thing, for me, comes down to empathy for their struggle but that empathy cuts off when they want to compete. Competitive sports have been divided by genome sequences between men and women since forever. Just because you are unhappy with, or cannot live with, the genome you were born with does not mean you can compete cross genome. It simply doesn't work and I don't support it.

To be clear I have already "been there" for a trans "transition" for a family member. I know what it is about and I support the decision. In fact when gender reassignment became available at a distance, right in the middle of family pre booked foreign holiday, I stepped in to take over and be there. When I say supportive I mean it.

I also don't have a lot of time for the attitude that if you don't accept everything any LGBTQ person says you are a hater. Actually the haters are coming from a different direction but that's a whole other discussion.

In the 60s, when dad died, I went to Halmer End near Stoke, I had a cousin in Audley. At the time she was described as a transvestite. She wore tweed suits, brogues and flat caps. She played slots, pool and bingo with the lads, drank pints and everyone accepted her as one of the lads / lasses. In today's world a transgender.

She never identified as male, she was what she was. We all accepted her and, for me, that is how it should be today. Deffo my favourite cousin - Terry or Tess, who cared?

Workingman wrote:In the 60s, when dad died, I went to Halmer End near Stoke, I had a cousin in Audley. At the time she was described as a transvestite. She wore tweed suits, brogues and flat caps. She played slots, pool and bingo with the lads, drank pints and everyone accepted her as one of the lads / lasses. In today's world a transgender.

She never identified as male, she was what she was. We all accepted her and, for me, that is how it should be today. Deffo my favourite cousin - Terry or Tess, who cared?

Sadly not everyone thinks that way. I have a friend who's life was quite badly knocked for six when finding out his son was Gay. Ditto a relative who couldn't get over "I had a son, now I have two daughters". I have a SIL who is about as intolerant of any gender differences as you can get.

I think for men it is part of "my line is going to die out". Women are a lot more pragmatic about that.

What really gets me is that I have no bias, but when someone with an agenda I don't agree with calls me biased, then I'm BIASED because they are different and I need to agree with everything they say.

The fact that this has now embedded itself in government is not a good move.