Actually glad at this point that Starmer won’t cut McSweeney loose. Let them both go down together then, and good riddance.

What's really going on here is that after the For Some Women Scotland decision The Times lied and lied and lied and lied and lied again to its readers about what the decision meant and the Supreme Court decided. It's now getting found out for its lies and instead of changing course it is digging in.

Basic rule of thumb: any Anon Opin post that is framed as “everybody else’s opinion about this popular thing is wrong” will be an absolutely godawful take

This. All the bad-faith takes are really desperate.

1) ZP pointed out that many carers are migrants;
2) he observed that care work can be very tough & sometimes unpleasant;
3) he suggested that we should therefore be grateful to those who come here to do it, not demonize them.

What’s the problem?

Accurate summary: “Peggie was not discriminated against, her claims of victimisation & against Beth Upton failed entirely, & her claim of harassment failed largely. Kemi Badenoch declared herself “delighted” by the verdict, slamming “a small cabal of activists” for “wasting time & taxpayers’ money.”

Cunty transphobe sees one minor point vindicated by tribunal, has claims otherwise comprehensively rejected.

The British Media:

Good for you.

Thank you for all your work, and for persevering in spite of the cruelty, abuse and harassment you experience as a result.

Unfortunately, in US journalism it is considered neutral to spread a lie, but it is considered "biased" to call out a lie. So, there is a structural asymmetry that rewards colorful lies with virality.