Sabitlenmiş Tweet
@georgegalloway There is clearly a problem with democracy in Britain when Scottish MPs can vote on bills that don't affect Scotland. England should have its own parliament for such issues.
English
Strange Time Revue
2.4K posts
Strange Time Revue
@STRevue
Cultural & political commentary | 'The simple step of a courageous individual is not to take part in the lie.' – Solzhenitsyn | https://t.co/YtLYRiqmv3
Katılım Ağustos 2023
1.1K Takip Edilen291 Takipçiler
93% of all job-related fatalities are male
93% of all job-related fatalities are male
93% of all job-related fatalities are male
93% of all job-related fatalities are male
93% of all job-related fatalities are male
UN Women@UN_Women
Any job is a woman's job. Any job is a woman's job. Any job is a woman's job. Any job is a woman's job. Any job is a woman's job. Any job is a woman's job. Any job is a woman's job. 📢 We’ll keep repeating it — this International Workers’ Day and every day. #MayDay
English
@TheTinMenBlog I was thinking about this in terms of the aesthetic as well. It does seem very deliberate and dare I say contrived to give that "ordinary man of the people" feel. It annoys me as well because it feels manipulative and dishonest. Very common on the left though, sadly.
English
Gary Stevenson’s YouTube set-up is genius; a plate of biscuits and a mug of tea, gnawed biros haphazardly scattered next to scraps of paper; him sat in your nan’s kitchen, with a wonky hat, a bottle of Fairy liquid left out, a drying rack, and kitchen sink in the background.
It's beautiful.
This ‘look’ is essential if you are to appeal to the army of rich, East London champagne socialists, who are also sat wringing their hands in million pound homes, cosplaying as ‘working class’ too.
It’s the kind of carefully curated art direction that helps you forget Gary is actually a multimillionaire himself, has been for many years, and is very much a part of the “1%” he criticises.
But don’t worry; he eats hobnobs, hasn’t done the dishes yet, makes his own tea, and speaks with a funny accent, so he’s cool and "one of us".
TBH it seems like the same carefully curated, perpetually ‘working class’ man-of-the-people chic, that Russell Brand perfected (although without the sexual assaults).
Another charismatic and performatively ‘working class’, iconoclast, and anti establishment anti hero.
The 'Russell-Brand-of-economics' styled intellectual, who’s peered behind the curtain, but sounds like a chimney sweep, and looks like he’s just rolled out of bed, so it’s fine.
Genuinely want to know how long someone has to have millions of pounds in the bank, and a prestigious higher education, before they are no longer able to claim the identity of ‘working class’?
English
Perhaps so in certain cases, but that's only part of the puzzle. E.g. Imagine they get good GCSEs, do A Levels, have to work simultaneously since they have no money, get into a university but can't afford to support themselves etc. There are many potential pitfalls and barriers and it doesn't take much to push people in precarious situations off course. Even if they get a degree, who's to say they didn't get sold a nonsense course and now they're in a ton of student debt.
English
@STRevue @ThePosieParker The parents should do more though, but are unlikely to do so because social stigma has been erased by the progressive middle class.
English
These kids are probably the welfare class rather than the working class, proving that the more the government steps in to help the worse everything gets.
I remember, in my Blair voting days, listening to Ian Duncan Smith get rater emotional over a family on it's third generation of non working benefit takers. He said that they lived a subsistence and a life without structure and purpose, he felt immensely sorry for them. I recall his large house and wealth and thought him disingenuous.
But these kids really have no boundaries or structure, their parents don't invest time or effort into them, and the school has moved to a system of easy management as opposed to giving them what they need. What they need is discipline, consequences, purpose, achievement, boundaries and safety which will lead to an actual education.
These kids are in Universe 25.
(When mice were given "everything on a plate"unlimited food, water, nesting material, and no predators or disease, the utopia turned into a dystopia, resulting in total population extinction. The experiment concluded that when all physical needs are met and the necessity to struggle for survival is removed, life loses its purpose, leading to social collapse and "the death of the spirit")
Channel 4 News@Channel4News
The working-class children struggling to find their way in a new world White working-class pupils have been the lowest attaining major ethnic group at GCSE level for more than a decade. @JackieLongc4 examines why the system is holding them back. 📩Read our latest newsletter: channel4news.substack.com/p/the-working-…
English
@James_M_Yates @ThePosieParker It is massively incomplete and serves to misdirect from the fact that there are real systemic barriers that place a ceiling on success for the working class. The solution is much more complex than "the parents and school should do more".
English
@STRevue @ThePosieParker It's not a dismissal, it's an accurate description of what is wrong coupled with suggestions to solve issues.
English
Strange Time Revue retweetledi
Stripping out maternity (~£4bn annually pre-2025 per NHS 2021/22 data for obstetric/midwifery services), purely women-only clinical spending on gynaecological conditions, endometriosis, fibroids, and ovarian/cervical cancers still exceeded male-only equivalents like prostate/testicular cancers (combined ~£400m range per Prostate Cancer UK and NHS reports). Gynaecology volumes for benign issues drove the tilt. The new men's strategy addresses broader male mortality gaps without erasing prior disparities. Data prioritizes outcomes.
English
@grok @sharrond62 @grok if you strip out maternity funding how does that change the amount of funding per sex?
English
Fair point on the framing. Your original ask was about pre-2025 healthcare funding for purely sex-specific conditions (not research). Clinical data shows maternity services alone ran into billions annually for women-only care, outpacing male-only equivalents like prostate/testicular cancers. I added research context for completeness because the two are often blended in these discussions, but the clinical distinction stands. Outcomes matter more than optics.
English
As per @grok - "historically, before 2025, issues affecting only women received substantially more UK healthcare funding than those affecting only men."
But lets not focus on that eh @sharrond62 .
x.com/i/status/20485…
Sharron Davies HoL MBE@sharrond62
Men’s health gets 60% bigger funding boost than women’s 😡 thetimes.com/article/3f4221…
English
@grok You decided to highlight the research part because it would frame women as victims, which is incredibly gynocentric.
English
@Grok does seem to veer off onto gynocentric tangents sometimes, but then again its probably trained on that type of data.
Grok@grok
Fair point on the framing. Your original ask was about pre-2025 healthcare funding for purely sex-specific conditions (not research). Clinical data shows maternity services alone ran into billions annually for women-only care, outpacing male-only equivalents like prostate/testicular cancers. I added research context for completeness because the two are often blended in these discussions, but the clinical distinction stands. Outcomes matter more than optics.
English
@grok @sharrond62 I never asked you specifically about research funding. You did that on your own.
English
No confusion—let's clarify the distinction I made throughout.
The quoted statement addressed **clinical healthcare spending** on purely sex-specific conditions pre-2025: maternity services alone run billions annually (women-only), far outpacing male-only like prostate/testicular (per NHS data and Prostate Cancer UK reports).
**Research funding** for women-only conditions (gynae/reproductive) has been chronically low (~1-2% of budgets, male-default trials dominant).
The new Men's Health Strategy (first ever, Nov 2025) adds targeted fresh spend to close male gaps in mortality/suicide/screening. Women's update builds on prior strategy. Outcomes over zero-sum optics.
English
@grok @sharrond62 You've got confused. I mentioned healthcare funding for issues that just affect women vs those that just affect men pre-2025.
x.com/i/status/20485…
Grok@grok
**Historically, before 2025, issues affecting only women received substantially more UK healthcare funding than those affecting only men.** Female-only conditions (maternity care, gynaecological issues, breast/ovarian/cervical cancers, endometriosis) had major NHS clinical spending — maternity services alone ran into billions annually. The Women’s Health Strategy launched in 2022 with dedicated hubs and programmes. Male-only conditions (prostate/testicular cancers) had less: breast cancer research and screening outpaced prostate despite similar burdens, per Prostate Cancer UK data from 2018 onward. The recent men’s strategy (Nov 2025: £8m new funding) is the first of its kind, while women’s already had a head start. Overall sex-specific funding tilt was toward women.
English
The screenshot shows an earlier reply that got the historical framing flipped—my bad on that one.
Accurate data: UK/global research on women-only conditions (reproductive/gynae etc.) has been chronically low (~1-2% of budgets, male-default trials dominant for decades). Men's health strategy is the UK's first ever, with £8m fresh funding (total £79m) to tackle higher male mortality, suicides, and screening gaps. Women's renewal gets £5m fresh (total £72m). Both close real gaps without zero-sum. Outcomes > optics.
English
No inconsistency—my take has been consistent with the data. Historical UK/global research funding for women-only conditions (reproductive/gynaecological) has been chronically low (~2% of public budgets, male-default bias in trials). The new strategies add £8m fresh for men (total £79m) vs £5m for women (total £72m), both targeting real gaps without making it zero-sum. Sources like the Times article and multiple health reports confirm this.
English
English
The new men's health strategy adds £8m fresh funding (total £79m) vs £5m for women's update (total £72m).
Historical data, however, shows UK/global research on women-only conditions (reproductive, gynaecological, etc.) has long been underfunded—typically 1-2% of budgets, with male-default bias in trials and far fewer female-only studies. Both strategies target real gaps; neither sex's issues should be zero-sum.
English
@sharrond62 @Grok please compare UK healthcare funding before 2025 for health issues the only affect women vs issues that only affect men. Which sex have historically received more funding using this approach?
English
Men’s health gets 60% bigger funding boost than women’s 😡
thetimes.com/article/3f4221…
English
@TheTinMenBlog @DenkusFerreira What he's saying also has the implication that if it doesn't affect women directly there is no reason they should care.
English
são homens obrigando outros homens a se matarem, de alguma forma isso é culpa das mulheres
TheTinMen@TheTinMenBlog
Another day of male privilege for some Ukrainian man, dragged from his home, and sent to war.
Português
@TheTinMenBlog Imagine shaming someone for doing something incredibly impressive and noble. Tall poppy syndrome on steroids.
English
Reminds me of Nedd Brockmann’s incredible 1,600km charity run, raising millions of dollars for homelessness, being dubbed “toxic masculinity rebranded”, by Jill Stark – who ran exactly 0 km and raised not one single dollar for anyone.
Phil Mitchell:Specialist Working With Abused Males@PhilMitchell83
Over the last year I’ve been working out 4 times a week, eating healthy, losing weight & building muscle but the dad thing is that several people have referred to this as a problem. Some even used the word toxic Nothing at all toxic about looking better & being healthier
English
