Milliband Minor should recognise he has all the charisma of lichen, and use this to his electoral advantage - contrasting himself with untrustworthy media whores like Cameron and Blair.

Octavious - My point was that Ed will probably end up with the same result for Labour as any of the other likely Labour Party leaders. That may be a disasterious result (from a Labour Party perspectous) but no leader would be any different.

I think there is so little between the major two parties (and even less if either of the major two form a coalition with the LibDems) that talk of a 'diaster for the UK' is out of place. Whoever wins will have to continue to cut the deficient and will still face a struggling economy. You could argue that one set of polices may achieve 0.5% growth and the other may lead to flatlining or point x of negative growth. No party is likely to oversee economic salvation or economic diaster.

@YadHo - IDS tried that approach for the tories.

Ask an insurer if they consider it elective surgery or necessary surgery. If the former, fuck the prisoner, they don't get elective surgery. If the later, give it to them, but they don't get the best doctor or the best hopsital.

Being a transgender person is not an illness. Whilst the social stigma attached to gender identity can cause mental illnesses, that is a reflection on society and not on the gender identity in question.

@ Maniac

It depends how you define 'likely party leader'. If you stick purely to those who may try and take over now, then no. Ed is little poorer than the rest of them. If you open it up to the leaders you might have had instead of Ed then you are a long way short of your potential.

I personally think there is a lot more distance between the parties now than there has been for a while. The two Britains you'd find after another 5 years of Cameron and 5 years of Labour will be quite different and pointed in very different directions. I dare say the situations after the first couple of years will look rather similar though.

"Alternative" (FLOABW) sexuality is not an illness. If people didn't persecute (another FLOABW) them for it, it wouldn't be a problem. It's all stigma.

FLOABW = for lack of a better word

Just fun to say floh-ah-bwuh

Dirge,

I'm glad that you felt comfortable telling us this. I want you to know that even if some of the other players think you're a bit weird for this, that I'll do my best to try to understand what you're going through. Also, I think Chelsea is a terrific name if you're really serious that you want to live as a girl.
Would it be alright if I still called you Dirge?

@Mendax, ok i agree - but then is srs an elective procedure and not a necessary surgery?

Here's the part I don't get: transgender, wants recognition as a woman, fair enough. But I've known a few women named Bradley. It's not an entirely unprecedented female name. Sometimes also Bradlee or Bradleigh. Why not just be a woman named Bradleigh Manning? It'd be a whole lot less confusing.

Also, it sort of pisses me off that Manning's attorney implied that the reason for Manning's actions was stress resulting from gender identity confusion. If you think what you did was right and just, you should own it and make your stand. MANNING UP!

@Al ... I can't tell if you're making a really, really uncalled for joke or just have no idea what this thread's about...

@hecks ... why's that matter?

@Bo_Sox,
The name change? Well... frankly, I think it allows some room to question Manning's motive in making this announcement. Are you really coming out about who you are, or are you looking for a reason to change your name, change your identity, and change the story? Bradley Manning's notorious. Is Private Manning just looking for an excuse to lose a notorious name?

That's probably part of it, but I'm not about to question his motives. All this story does in my mind is distract from the real story, both of the leak and of what's actually in the documents, which ought to make people a lot more angry than it is.

@bo I was kidding. That wasn't funny? Heh. Oh well. I knew that one was risque as I was typing it but I had a good laugh. I'll try to be more sensitive.

FWIW I think the title of this thread is humorous.

Well, I think that creates an implied question as to whether the story itself was intended to distract from the real story.

I'm sure that's part of it, hecks. Hopefully not the whole of it.

Hopefully.

@ Bo - Gender identity in nothing to do with sexuality. The two are seperate concepts, so to refer to "alternative sexuality" is not a good thing in this context.

@Hecks - Perhaps she just liked the name Chelsea. Perhaps she wanted to mark that this was a new phase in her life. To be quite honest, we don't need to understand why she's chosen that name, all we need to do is not be dicks about it.

If this scam gets Manning into a womens prison that would be cool, I'm sure the beatings wouldn't be so bad there

Nigee, why do you think it is a scam? What incredible inside knowledge do you have of Manning's gender identity?

"My lips are sealed girlfriend"

Does the US military have women's prisons?

A soldier is a soldier. Doesn't matter if they have a penis or a vagina. So, no, it won't make a bit of difference expect possibly to get him *more* ridicule and derision for not only being a traitor but being a "freak" (that will be their term) and we all know about military detention from Abu Ghraib. If anything, she just made her life worse.

except not expect. Anagrams!

@Draug, i don't think that military prisons holding former US service (wo)men are the same as Abu Ghraib... I mean, i have my suspicions that US citizens, and former soldiers will get a sligthly better deal in a US prison... but i may be wrong.

I'm sure they will, but the military doesn't maintain separate prisons for men and women. The key difference in treatment is that *only* US military personnel (not private firms) can work in or manage military prisons like Fort Leavenworth. So the guards and the warden will be disciplined soldiers of the US armed forces, not gung-ho rejects are dischargees of questionable reputation.

@ Draug

Disciplined soldiers of the US armed forces, or war weary types who have seen one too many battles, developed a few unfortunate personality traits, and have been effectively retired to a position where nothing bad can happen to/because of them?