NationStates

Well it looks like the Edinburgh Waverley entrances are finally getting some improvements:

Pictures showing how Edinburgh's Waverley train station would look following a major revamp have been unveiled.

The Waverley Masterplan would redevelop the historic station, which is predicted to double its annual footfall over the next 25 years.

The plan is also to make the station more accessible and environmentally friendly.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland- ... e-53653721

I don't know if many of you know what the current entrances are like, but they are very tight, especially the Waverley Steps and Market Street entrances. The photo showing the proposed Market Street entrance looks much better than the current one.

An Alan Smithee Nation wrote:

Philjia wrote:One of the only facts about him on Wikipedia is that in 2017 he said he would "like to see tougher enforcement against Gypsy Travellers".

Rather worrying.

It seems he was the only person to put their name forward for the job.

Virtually the only thing I know about him is that he has previously apologised for and withdrawn for those remarks on Travellers, stating that he was wrong; he seems to have been able to get the SNP to take down social media posts attacking him on the basis of those past remarks.

He's also apparently going to bring Ruth Davidson out of leadership retirement temporarily to act as his de facto deputy until the next Holyrood elections; Davidson is delaying her appointment to the UK House of Lords accordingly.

And that's the sum total of my knowledge of Mr Ross.

The New California Republic wrote:Well it looks like the Edinburgh Waverley entrances are finally getting some improvements:

Pictures showing how Edinburgh's Waverley train station would look following a major revamp have been unveiled.

The Waverley Masterplan would redevelop the historic station, which is predicted to double its annual footfall over the next 25 years.

The plan is also to make the station more accessible and environmentally friendly.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland- ... e-53653721

I don't know if many of you know what the current entrances are like, but they are very tight, especially the Waverley Steps and Market Street entrances. The photo showing the proposed Market Street entrance looks much better than the current one.

this will be good if they make it less of a non-euclidean hell maze

The Archregimancy wrote:

An Alan Smithee Nation wrote:
Rather worrying.

It seems he was the only person to put their name forward for the job.

Virtually the only thing I know about him is that he has previously apologised for and withdrawn for those remarks on Travellers, stating that he was wrong; he seems to have been able to get the SNP to take down social media posts attacking him on the basis of those past remarks.

He's also apparently going to bring Ruth Davidson out of leadership retirement temporarily to act as his de facto deputy until the next Holyrood elections; Davidson is delaying her appointment to the UK House of Lords accordingly.

And that's the sum total of my knowledge of Mr Ross.

Looks like he feels the need to pull a Stalin by leaning on past popular leaders to shore up his credibility/popularity. As long as he doesn't start putting up statues of Lenin Ruth in every city square.

So, you know the transphobic members of the front bench of Labour?

And the whole whining about "focusing on women" and how they're throwing a tantrum over terms like "People with cervixes" being used rather than "Women", despite it erasing transmen and putting them in danger and so on?

Consider the example of "Women" rather than "People with cervixes" example discussed in another thread versus for example, feminist rhetoric on domestic violence and erasure of male victims. They're using the same self-absorbed narcissistic shit to ignore and erase transpeople they use to ignore and erase men, that it's "Fine to focus on (biological) women", just on different issues.

The mechanics of their transphobic language and their misandrist language are identical, because they're sourced in the prioritization of (white) cis heterosexual women, and the exclusion of everyone else from consideration.

They're the same. It's the same picture.

But notably, other "Pro-trans" feminists often get the same case of this silly behavior when they come to discussing "Womens Issues", even if they're performatively woke and clapping along to things like "People with cervixes" rather than "Women".

It's interesting that 1% of the population get get (Some, sometimes) feminists to get a clue and examine their rhetoric and behavior, but 50% of the population can't. I'd suggest that's because their transphobia isn't rooted deeply in their ideology like their misandry and contempt for men is. For the ones whose bigoted ideology *does* entail anti-trans rhetoric, those are the ones throwing fits about inclusive language for trans people.

But it's the same behavior in both cases.

The difference between them is;

Is this someone who wants everything to focus on cis white women and exclude everyone else, or just white women, or just women?

It's scales of the same behavior and fault.

Notice how they blather and whine about how they're not being misandrist for erasure of men from these discussions, but SOME of them backpeddle when trans people make the same accusation, while others dig their heels in and use *the same rhetoric and strategy* that is leveled at men?

Whining about how "But there's not as many men who experience domestic violence" and so on is completely irrelevant to this conversation, as irrelevant as "But trans people are a tiny minority so I shouldn't have to change my language to be inclusive of them", even if you believe men are the minority of victims rather than a substantial minority or even that there's parity.

So can anyone explain to me which stance they expect society to take and be consistent?

Is erasure fine? Or isn't it?

Should we be inclusive? Or shouldn't we?

Because it seems to me that the civil war in feminism right now is mostly between "No, we should be allowed to focus exclusively on biological women and their experiences" and "We should be allowed to focus on women and their experiences".

I don't see all that meaningful distinction between the two in terms of being a pile of bullshit.

The Archregimancy wrote:

An Alan Smithee Nation wrote:
Rather worrying.

It seems he was the only person to put their name forward for the job.

Virtually the only thing I know about him is that he has previously apologised for and withdrawn for those remarks on Travellers, stating that he was wrong; he seems to have been able to get the SNP to take down social media posts attacking him on the basis of those past remarks.

He's also apparently going to bring Ruth Davidson out of leadership retirement temporarily to act as his de facto deputy until the next Holyrood elections; Davidson is delaying her appointment to the UK House of Lords accordingly.

And that's the sum total of my knowledge of Mr Ross.

Apparently he also opposed Brexit and resigned a post in the Scotland Office over Dominic Cummings little jaunt up to Durham.

Should we be inclusive? Or shouldn't we?

well you clearly don't want to be inclusive.
The slogan "Woman - adult human female" is already banned for islamophobia.

You want to ban the slogan "people with cervices" because they are cis scum and white scum and adult scum and human scum and female scum. Everybody is excluded in your system.

Auristania wrote:

Should we be inclusive? Or shouldn't we?

well you clearly don't want to be inclusive.
The slogan "Woman - adult human female" is already banned for islamophobia.

You want to ban the slogan "people with cervices" because they are cis scum and white scum and adult scum and human scum and female scum. Everybody is excluded in your system.

What?

Vassenor wrote:

Auristania wrote: well you clearly don't want to be inclusive.
The slogan "Woman - adult human female" is already banned for islamophobia.

You want to ban the slogan "people with cervices" because they are cis scum and white scum and adult scum and human scum and female scum. Everybody is excluded in your system.

What?

That might be the most bizarre post I've ever come across tbh.

The Notorious Mad Jack wrote:

Vassenor wrote:
What?

That might be the most bizarre post I've ever come across tbh.

Look back through their post history. It’s probably the weirdest, but lets just say it’s not exactly ‘off-brand’ for them...

Auristania wrote:

Should we be inclusive? Or shouldn't we?

well you clearly don't want to be inclusive.
The slogan "Woman - adult human female" is already banned for islamophobia.

You want to ban the slogan "people with cervices" because they are cis scum and white scum and adult scum and human scum and female scum. Everybody is excluded in your system.

Can I have a translation please?

The Blaatschapen wrote:

The Archregimancy wrote:
Poor Wales; forgotten again.

Does Wales speak with its own voice?

Like, ever?

I mean, not that Northern Ireland does so, well, at least not coherently.

Listen future lamb chops, dont make me come over there.

CoraSpia wrote:

Auristania wrote: well you clearly don't want to be inclusive.
The slogan "Woman - adult human female" is already banned for islamophobia.

You want to ban the slogan "people with cervices" because they are cis scum and white scum and adult scum and human scum and female scum. Everybody is excluded in your system.

Can I have a translation please?

The cervices is where a gynoid on a long journey pulls in off the motorway to recharge.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-53675467

So a less severe decline than expected, but likely to take longer to recover than was first anticipated.

Assuming no serious second wave, of course.

Also looks like cronyism may be screwing up PPE procurement again.

Fifty million face masks bought by the government in April will not be used in the NHS because of safety concerns.

The government says the masks, which use ear-loop fastenings rather than head loops, may not fit tightly enough.

They were bought for healthcare workers from supplier Ayanda Capital as part of a £252m contract.

Ayanda says the masks meet the specifications the government had set out. The government says its safety standards process is "robust".

It also emerged that the person who originally approached the government about the deal was a government trade adviser who also advises the board of Ayanda.

But he told the BBC his position played no part in the awarding of the contract.

On the one hand, at least this company actually delivered equipment. It's just the wrong spec and everyone's passing the buck about who was at fault.

Vassenor wrote:Also looks like cronyism may be screwing up PPE procurement again.

Fifty million face masks bought by the government in April will not be used in the NHS because of safety concerns.

The government says the masks, which use ear-loop fastenings rather than head loops, may not fit tightly enough.

They were bought for healthcare workers from supplier Ayanda Capital as part of a £252m contract.

Ayanda says the masks meet the specifications the government had set out. The government says its safety standards process is "robust".

It also emerged that the person who originally approached the government about the deal was a government trade adviser who also advises the board of Ayanda.

But he told the BBC his position played no part in the awarding of the contract.

On the one hand, at least this company actually delivered equipment. It's just the wrong spec and everyone's passing the buck about who was at fault.

Well, they can be distributed to the population free of charge then.

The Alma Mater wrote:

Vassenor wrote:Also looks like cronyism may be screwing up PPE procurement again.



On the one hand, at least this company actually delivered equipment. It's just the wrong spec and everyone's passing the buck about who was at fault.

Well, they can be distributed to the population free of charge then.

Somehow I don't see the government going for that. Can't have the plebeians being safe after all.

Vassenor wrote:OK so apparently the cronyism goes deeper than that. We're into Insider Trading too.

Ayanda specialises in wrote:“currency trading, offshore property, private equity and trade financing”.

Is it just me who sees the utter idiocy of asking banksters to provide medical equipment?

Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:

Vassenor wrote:OK so apparently the cronyism goes deeper than that. We're into Insider Trading too.

Ayanda specialises in wrote:“currency trading, offshore property, private equity and trade financing”.

Is it just me who sees the utter idiocy of asking banksters to provide medical equipment?

It's normal in the country that also asks ratcatchers and chocolate shops to provide medical equipment.

I think they open up the 'companies house guide to 10000 companies you've never heard of,' and ring through random people asking 'Hi, do you do masks?' If they say 'No, we're (a chocolate shop, a bank, a Chinese takeaway, closed down, bankrupt etc) they say 'Great! Give me 3500000 masks, you set the price.

Dumb Ideologies wrote:

CoraSpia wrote:Can I have a translation please?

The cervices is where a gynoid on a long journey pulls in off the motorway to recharge.

Thanks DI, I needed a good laugh.

Hurdergaryp wrote:

(Image)

M. C. Escher's Greasy Spoon Café.

Hurdergaryp wrote:

(Image)

I'm less bothered by them being upsidedown than I am by them not being mushy peas. Who has pie, chips, and peas with regular peas? So fucking heathen, that's who.

Fartsniffage wrote:

Hurdergaryp wrote:

(Image)

I'm less bothered by them being upsidedown than I am by them not being mushy peas. Who has pie, chips, and peas with regular peas? So fucking heathen, that's who.

Needs more gravy.