Amateur hour
The BBC is incoherent with shock and rage and confusion.
Braverman sparks outrage after LGBTQ+ flag comments
What mean? What mean, BBC? Sparks outrage after comments or because of comments or at comments? And what does “sparks outrage” mean anyway? Does it perhaps just mean a BBC reporter finds the comments outrageous? And what are flag comments anyway? And do you actually mean “LGBTQ+” or do you just mean one or two of those initials?
Rishi Sunak is facing calls to expel Suella Braverman from the Conservative Party following remarks she made about an LGBTQ+ flag.
Is he? Or is that just BBCese for “I think Sunak should expel her for remarks I don’t like”?
Ms Braverman, MP for Fareham and Waterlooville in Hampshire, criticised the flying of the Progress Pride flag at the Home Office in comments that some found offensive.
Oh some found offensive, did they. How very newsworthy. How many? Two? Just you?
Designed in 2018, the flag was created to represent people of colour in the LGBTQ+ community, as well as the trans community and those living with HIV/Aids.
What do you mean “as well as the trans community” when it’s already there? In the T: see it? Why does the trans communinny get a double mention when no one else does? Not to mention the familiar issue that T is not the same as LGB and shouldn’t be mashed in with it.
Casey Byrne, a former Conservative candidate for Reading Borough Council and LGBTQ+ campaigner, said Braverman should be “expelled” for the comments she made at the National Conservatism Conference in the United States.
Hey. Excuse me. You haven’t told us what they were yet. This is sly manipulative evasive incoherent “reporting.” You shouldn’t be shouting about who found some mysterious comments expulsion-worthy before telling us wtf you’re talking about.
We get three more one-sentence paragraphs of empty shouting before we finally get a particular.
Ms Braverman also criticised the flying of the Progress Pride flag at the Home Office to “show how liberal and progressive we are”.
In her speech, she said: “I couldn’t even get the flag of a horrible political campaign I disagreed with taken down from the roof of the government department I was supposed to be in charge of.”
Finally a particular.
She then appeared to describe teenagers having gender transition surgery as “mutilation”.
She said: “The Progress flag says to me, one monstrous thing: That I was a member of a government that presided over the mutilation of children in our hospitals.”
Oh the horror. The mutilation, you mean? No no, of course not: the horror is mentioning it.
On the NHS website, surgery is only listed as a treatment option for gender dysphoria for adults.
So there have been zero such “treatment options” for minors?
Then we get a huge beaming photo of Casey Byrne the former Conservative candidate for Reading Borough Council and LGBTQ+ campaigner.
Mr Byrne, from Reading, said she should be “ashamed” and that her words had “real potential to cause harm to LGBT+ people”. Speaking to the BBC, he said: “Suella Braverman has crossed a very clear line that only her expulsion from the Conservative Party, would be an appropriate consequence. Rishi Sunak, as leader, should expel her from the party and send a clear message – we will not tolerate hate.”
Is it hate to say that minors should not be mutilated?
Then we get someone else expressing shock and in conclusion
Ms Braverman made a second speech on Tuesday at a Westminster conference of Popular Conservatism where she spoke of the need to insulate government bodies from what she called the “lunatic woke virus”.
The BBC has contacted Suella Braverman, the Conservative Party and the Home Office for comment.
It’s really shockingly bad “journalism.” 90% trying to work up outrage and 10% humdrum facts about something Braverman said.
Shove all feelings about LGBTISPQstonewallmermaidswhatever aside. Just on how the things look, the newer versions of the pride flags are just gruesome eyesores, IMHO. Having those collections of clashing colors and shapes in front of me every day would be vomit-inducing.
Cue 47 one-sentence paragraphs from the BBC on what an outrageous thing you just said.
The fun thing about the “Progress” flag is that it never stops. First you had the invasion of the white dudes and pedos, using black and brown people as shields, then you had the yellow flood, which is what, pee-pee fetishists? And the purple cock ring for …. looking this up… intersex people aka people with disorders of sexual development (who mostly want nothing to do with the rest of the alphabet). But it won’t stop there – tune in next year to see what they think of next. Where are eunuchs on the flag, I ask you? And furries?
Once again, people who would never object to calling FGM “mutilation” (see–it’s right there in the M), even if the girl says she wants it, can’t see the mutilation involved in so-called “gender transition surgery”. Chopping off healthy bits is mutilation, regardless of the motivation.
(And not everyone gets the surgery? Not everyone got lobotomies back in the day either. Does that make it right? Also, she’s talking about kids, not adults. Nice attempt at deflection, though.)
Maybe the Islamists should insist that women who have been liberated from their sexual response deserve a letter in the magic alphabet, because it’s an idenniny. They’d fit in fine on the flag, along with the eunuchs and the furries.