Загрузка видео...
Не удалось загрузить видео
𝑨𝑪𝑯𝑹𝑨𝑭 𝑯𝑨𝑲𝑰𝑴𝑰 🆚 𝑨𝒁𝒁𝑬𝑫𝑰𝑵𝑬 𝑶𝑼𝑵𝑨𝑯𝑰 Nothing can wipe that smile off Achraf Hakimi ’s face 😁😂 #DimaMaghrib 🇲🇦 #FIFAWorldCup
88,650 просмотров • 22 дней назад •via X (Twitter)
Комментарии: 0
Нет доступных комментариев
Здесь появятся комментарии из оригинального поста
![Today, I'm doing something different. If you want the short version, watch the video below. Nearly five years ago, J.K. Rowling wrote an infamous tweet. It began: "Dress however you please. Call yourself whatever you like." She continued: "Sleep with any consenting adult who’ll have you. Live your best life in peace and security. But force women out of their jobs for stating that sex is real?" It took off like wildfire. At the time, Rowling's words suggested that pushback against transgender people/policies was not rooted in presentation, or even one's individual conceptualization of their identity. Her issue lie with the intersection of personal identity and policy, and was further inflamed by the cancel culture that engrossed social justice political dissenters. Perhaps she had a point. I didn't entirely know what to make of it. In some respects, I still don't. But her words made me think. After a few years, an unanswered question lingered in my mind. Is what Rowling describes a solution to growing gender identity dissent? Is there a lifestyle that a transgender individual could embody that would be 'acceptable' to these dissenters, or is their dissent just a veil for true contempt and disdain for those who cross gender boundaries? I projected that question upon myself. Was there a version of myself that—by accepting certain concessions—might pass muster and find acceptance amid dissenters? Was some give-and-take by transgender people all that was needed to de-escalate our growing dissent and toxic discourse? Many progressives, including many transgender people, told me the answer was an unequivocal 'No'. I was told that gender criticals/anti-woke/conservatives/[insert favourite polarizing label here] just hate transgender people and were wholly disingenuous in their concerns. I was told that their 'concerns' were mere dog whistles used to prop up their hate for the gender diverse. I wasn't convinced... in part because I appreciated some of their concerns. I knew I needed to learn more. So, I did the only thing I knew how to do. I followed my curiosity and spent the last two years amid the individuals who were purportedly out for my blood. I connected deeply within gender critical circles, listening, learning, and trying to make sense of the intersection of gender criticality, transgender experiences, and liberalism. I sought out solutions that might temper our ever-growing toxic discourse. I learned a lot and I had the most inspiring conversations of my life. And I made some of the most genuine friendships of my lifetime. As it turns out, it's very humanizing to know someone who thinks differently than you. Thousands of people shared with me the impact I imparted to them, as I was often the first transgender person they had ever known and befriended. These friendships were humanizing for me as well, bringing a new perspective to social conservative worldviews that I hadn't previously appreciated. For those who truly held no disdain towards transgender people, I embodied precisely what they had been preaching. In tune with Rowling's call, I called myself Julia and dressed from the women's side of Target, but I held no expectations of language, pronouns, or any form of affirmation. I steered clear of any space that might even plausibly be considered a women 's segregated space, be it a washroom, a changeroom, an association or a sports league. I embodied the model transgender person that many gender criticals profess is the solution to our unrest surrounding gender identity. I've been told thousands of times that if other transgender people were like me, then all of our issues would go away. And that is where things got interesting... because for quite a few years, gender-critical communities have been forming amid common concerns of various transgender accommodations and policies. For people in these communities who held no contempt toward a trans identity, I was a key ally. To them, I was living evidence that the balance they wished to achieve in transgender policy surrounding medical transition or education or compelled speech or spaces could be embodied by a transgender person. But I unwittingly became a wedge in gender-critical communities. As it turned out, there are plenty of gender-critical individuals whose convictions go far beyond mere policy concerns. These people hold tremendous contempt and disdain for transgender people. I faced bigotry and hatred firsthand. Until a transgender person comes into the gender critical community, those who saw might see me as an ally and those enraged by my existence were often indistinguishable, even to those within various communities. But the moment I would arrive on the scene, waves would form and the motivational divide would become evident. There's something rather unsettling about watching factions form and friendships fall apart merely because you entered a conversation. I cannot overstate the love and acceptance I found amid gender-critical individuals. Many amid these circles are just tired of being labelled anti-trans ad nauseam merely for expressing policy concerns. But I also cannot overstate how surreal it is to face individuals—in many cases with international attention upon them—reign down on you directly and personally in the most dehumanizing ways I've ever encountered. On more than a few occasions I experienced the machination of anti-trans pushback in full force. There were days I received dozens of tweets that launched personal attacks against my appearance or derided my likeness in grotesque manners. There were also days when I received thousands. Death theats, stalkers, invasions on my family's personal privacy. I encountered it all. On a few occasions I also experienced the machination of trans-activist pushback. I came to realize something: on the extremity of this polarizing issue, both sides can behave just as poorly. It was enlightening to watch the extent to which people would mischaracterize me, selectively crafting what I would write to frame me in the worst possible light imaginable. It was even more enlightening to watch opposing sides do this simultaneously—each fixated on casting me as a demon of the enemy they had come to fixate upon. I suppose that's what extremism does. To the vocal extreme of the transgender activist camp, I was a gender critical: a grifter uncancelling gender criticals by lending transgender credibility. To the vocal extreme of the gender critical camp, I was no different than any other transgender activist. Regardless of my position on social transition in school, compelled speech or space usage, nothing could undo that I unapologetically defy sex-role norms which—for many—was always the underlying issue. I observed that both 'sides' cast me as their 'other', while neither side embraced a member. I suspect that's in part because the 'side' I align with are the views that resonate with mostly everyone who isn't in the trenches of these politics. The side my views represent aligned most closely with the 90% of our population who are not beholden to either extreme on gender politics. My major takeaway from my past two years: that the vast majority of people want a world where transgender people can exist and thrive, where language isn't compelled but people are kind to one another, and where the intersections of gender norms and physical reality are thoughtfully balanced. They want an education system that recognizes the role of the parent as an ideological steward but also holds good safeguards both to intervene in truly abusive situations and provides adequate psychological support for any child experiencing psychological distress. That sounds hard, and it's near impossible when your sounding board is the groupthink at either extreme. I feel incredibly fortunate to have been afforded the opportunity to hold so many powerful friendships amid the liberal-loving middle that espouses the center-end of both factions. So what am I doing now? I am doing a new video series—possibly my last. In Gender for the Rest of Us, I'll be laying out what I've learned over the past two years about the solutions that bring us to a place of de-escalated discourse on gender. I'll attempt to be moderate through and through, though I should clarify that I don't mean 'Twitter moderate' or 'gender critical moderate' or 'trans activist moderate'. I mean regular, run-of-the-mill, moderate that resonates with those who truly want to balance transgender rights with those of everyone else. What I'll be putting forward in this series is my best attempt at finding solutions—real solutions—that maintain all tenets of liberalism: equality, individual liberty, individual rights, pluralism, toleration, autonomy, bodily integrity and consent. If you find yourself on either extreme of this divide, you probably won't like much of what I have to say. That's probably for the best because solutions don't like on the extremes. In a nutshell: This series is the essay I've promised to more than a few politicians outlining how we might de-escalate gender matters. Sorry it's taken so long. Politics are exhausting. Thank you to everyone (on both sides of this complex conversation) who has engaged with me in thoughtful conversation over the past months and years. I've learned a lot and grown tremendously from the challenges people have put in front of me. Please keep the messages coming—I want to keep learning and growing! All the best, Julia](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1797807540056608873/ext_tw_video_thumb/1797803952387305472/pu/img/WFnk2HP-JmR0Z6Fl.jpg)
![COMMONS HOUSING SELECT COMMITTEE: STATEMENT FROM FREE LEASEHOLDERS 3/3/26 Today, we told Parliament the truth. About the cynical games Conservative and Labour governments have been playing with your homes, money and lives. It was awkward. We had to motor through to cover as many points as humanely possible in a short time. Sorry if we didn’t cover yours. We are the insurgents against a very closed and broken political system. We will go away when they finally free the people from the property servitude of leasehold. Until then, we will keep challenging the official line and holding power to account, however uncomfortable that may be. Parliament has been talking about abolishing leasehold, a legacy of serfdom, since the 1880s, before working men and women had the right to vote. In 2026, we keep hearing it’s “complicated” and our politicians need more time because they might get sued by the wealthy landowners. What happened to the will of the people? Isn’t Parliament sovereign? Wasn’t that what all the Brexit lark was about? And doesn’t this Labour government have the second biggest parliamentary majority in its 126-year history as the so-called working people’s party? Keir Starmer can do a TikTok stunt on ground rents. But he can’t run away from the truth. His government are peddling a draft Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill that has been purged of policies that you voted for in the The Labour Party manifesto. Policies promised again in the July 2024 King’s Speech: the remaining Law Commission enfranchisement and Right to Manage recommendations. So you can finally “take back control”. The Starmer administration appears to be captured by the deep-pocketed freeholder lobby and property cartels. And the Prime Minister is in thrall to the hand-wringing lawyers who bleat on about the risk of judicial review and ECHR lawfare, as if the rights of extortionists, many offshore, and lofty international law matter more than the British people being looted in their homes and what election manifestos have promised time and time again. This government claims that they are ending the feudal leasehold system. Instead, they keep it on life support by protecting money-for-nothing ground rents until 2068. We’ll have flying cars before feudalism is banished from our homes! And buried away in the small print, the Labour government concedes our point: “leasehold as a tenure will not disappear overnight and it will be a feature of the housing market for many years to come.” The government is also siding with the leasehold grifters by failing to restrict development value in the draft legislation, which means many flat leaseholders will never be able to afford to buy their freehold, something that must happen before conversion to commonhold. Remember, the freeholders’ main lobby group, the Residential Freehold Association, admits that the typical freeholder owns just 2.5% capital value in a block of flats. These wealth-destroying corporates own a sliver of our homes and have the cheek to talk about their human rights. We are not Mugabeists. We will, of course, pay a fair rate to compensate the freeholder to leave our homes for good. But demanding more of our money so they can thwart our right to buy them out, on the basis that they could theoretically build a skyscraper in the garden, is taking the mick and must end, as the government first promised in 2021. Don’t take our word on the scam of freeholders invoking development value to block leaseholders’ bid for self-rule. Barrister Nicola Muir, of Tanfield Chambers, has written that “it is amazing what developments landlords believe are possible and the profits they claim they will generate”, citing a telling example from practice: “The landlord initially claimed £34 million for the alleged potential to build a skyscraper in the front garden of the block. Such claims can obviously be a deterrent to leaseholders, who probably have no intention of developing.” And we were the ONLY campaign group that urged the Housing, Communities & Local Government Committee to ensure that this government sets enfranchisement rates high in the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024, to the benefit of leaseholders. There is a major risk that, due to the influence peddling of ground rent grifters and their lobbyists in Westminster and Whitehall, the government will fail to implement these long-awaited reforms already on the statute books. Matthew Pennycook MP promised in November 2024 to put enfranchisement rates out to public consultation last summer, but it never happened. And if the government is forced to begin the enfranchisement changes in the 2024 Act, it will likely set the deferment and capitalisation rates artificially low, stuffing freeholders’ mouths with gold when desperate leaseholders try to extend their leases or buy out the freehold. These deferment and capitalisation rates are already derived from freeholder-friendly case law, specifically the 2006 Upper Tribunal decision known as Sportelli, with the deferment rate set at 4.75% for houses and 5.0% for flats, and a capitalisation rate of 6.0%. While the 2024 Act is vague on what these rates should be, we know that investors routinely buy freeholds at auction or directly from developers at higher rates than those implied by Sportelli, meaning they pay significantly less than leaseholders are already required to pay under statutory schemes with the low Sportelli rates. For example, an analysis of Allsop Ground Rent Auctions found that investors have been paying an average 9% capitalisation rate for the ground rent in freehold titles – well above Sportelli’s 6%. This situation is clearly unfair, and there is significant industry lobbying to keep the deferment and capitalisation rates low, i.e. below the going market rates, so that freeholders are excessively compensated by leaseholders. Once the rates are set in the 2024 Act, they remain fixed for ten years, creating jeopardy that they will be set to the disadvantage of leaseholders, who are less organised and resourced than industry interests to influence policy. If the rates are set substantially below Sportelli rates, the savings from other provisions of the 2024 Act – such as the removal of marriage value, the 0.1% restriction on ground rents, and the end of the requirement to pay the freeholder’s reasonable legal and valuation costs – would be more than cancelled out, leaving leaseholders paying more than they do today under the current rules. Minister Pennycook highlighted this risk while in opposition during the passage of the 2024 Act, stating that Labour “remain[s] convinced that this government, or a future one, could be lobbied by vested interests to set a deferment rate that will be punitive to leaseholders.” He proposed an amendment on the deferment rate to guide the Secretary of State, requiring that “in setting the deferment rate, the Secretary of State must have regard to the desirability of encouraging leaseholders to extend their lease at the lowest possible cost”, although the amendment was not passed. This policy ought to be in the draft Bill, yet it remains absent. We are urging that the 2024 Act be amended to require that the enfranchisement rates must not fall below an absolute floor of the existing Sportelli rates (with the deferment rate of 4.75% for houses and 5.0% for flats, and a capitalisation rate of 6.0%). But leaseholders should really benefit from market rates, i.e. those which developers and investors already enjoy being significantly above Sportelli, to ensure that they do not pay excessive compensation to freeholders, as occurs under the current system, to buy their freehold or extend a lease. And this isn’t just about what goes into the algorithm for the online enfranchisement calculator under the 2024 Act, or about ending the development value scam, a reform dropped from the legislation after behind-the-scenes lobbying. We will not accept a failure to bring forward a Universal Right to Manage, as part of a glidepath to commonhold. Watch what our founder said about a well-connected landlord and tenant barrister who bragged to the property tribunal last year that he had worked on the Law Commission’s Right to Manage reforms, all while representing an offshore billionaire freeholder trying to block leaseholders’ quest for Right to Manage. It should be easy. But the leaseholders at this development had to spend £150,000 just to defend their no-fault right against this legal onslaught at the First-tier Tribunal. They won, but the freeholder is now appealing… Beyond Right to Manage reform, we need a Right to Participate in collective enfranchisement so that all flat leaseholders can buy a share of the freehold even if they miss out the first time when one group of neighbours has enough support to enfranchise the block. It is unfair for leaseholders to be locked out of decisions over the charges they pay and the services affecting their home when they are ready to buy their share of the freehold. Sorting this inequity was the will of Parliament with Right to Enfranchise provisions in the 2002 Act. It’s also what the Law Commission originally recommended before seemingly being pressured by vested interests to drop the policy from their final recommendations in 2020. Also, why on earth should leaseholders have to contort themselves to get 50% support of all unit-owners in a block? Satisfying the onerous 50% participation threshold is near impossible in bigger buildings and those with high levels of buy-to-let, yet scummy investors face no qualifying criteria when hoovering up the freeholds of our homes from developers or auctioneers behind our backs. Don’t patronise us with Lord Best’s scheme for managing agents. We want liberation, not regulation. There’s a reason both the freeholder and managing agent lobbies are gagging for the cosy Lord Best policy, which wasn’t promised in either the Labour manifesto or the King’s Speech. It will jack up leaseholders’ already sky-high service charges, repeat the cruel joke of the Building Safety Regulator, and keep freeholders and their managing agent cronies firmly in the ecosystem. At the same time, a statutory regulator of managing agents will no doubt restrict competition by keeping out small ethical new entrants. It will also allow the government to claim job done while failing to end leasehold. Even without leasehold abolition, leaseholders will still be denied rightful control of their service charges and the power to easily sack their managing agent - the real regulation needed to rein in rip-off service providers and put them out of business, not some powerless or captured regulator in Whitehall. Labour should be for the grafters. If the government wants to win back public support after the Gordon and Denton by-election drubbing, salvaging this draft legislation and swiftly commencing the 2024 Act must be its priority. Show that politics can be a force for good. Stand up to the ground rent grifters and offshore property mafia. Free leaseholders. 5.3 million households in England and Wales are watching.](https://image.24vids.com/tw-2028949666432205114/media/HChK-xoXEAAI0u3.jpg)
