First Accused of Sexual Assault, Comedian T.J. Miller Outed as Transphobe

Trans film critic Danielle Solzman just released a horrifying email she received from the former star of Silicon Valley.

www.advocate.com/transgender/2017/12/21/first-accused-sexual-assault-comedian-tj-miller-outed-transphobe

This Dating App Is Pledging to End Dating Discrimination

Let’s face it: Dating is hard enough. While most of the action has moved from the gay bar to any number of dating and social apps, new technology has introduced a whole set of new problems and pitfalls while finding your Prince Charming.

Luckily, a new app is out to help you avoid kissing so many frogs along the way.

Chappy (available on iOS and Google Play) has been helping men find more meaningful connections by allowing users to specify upfront if they’re looking for “Mr. Right” or “Mr. Right Now” and moderating profiles to include valid face photos. However, it’s not what users are including in their profiles that sets Chappy apart; it’s what’s not there — racism, ableism, ageism and discrimination.

On Chappy, users are required to agree to the Chappy Pledge promising they’ll be respectful to all users. The pledge reads in full:

“At Chappy we believe beauty is found in the way you treat others. Discrimination by race, religion, disability, gender identity, age or anything else is strictly forbidden. By using Chappy, users commit to treating their fellow members with respect, kindness and honesty, without judgment or bias.”

Or, more simply put, “Don’t be a d*ck.” The result is a much more pleasant (and less infuriating) dating experience, blissfully browsing authentic profiles without fear.

Check out how users reacted to the pledge in the video below:

We spoke to the app’s founders — reality-TV star Ollie Locke, Badoo co-founder Max Cheremkhin and mobile marketing expert Jack Rogers — about the inspiration of the pledge and how they made it central to Chappy’s mission.

Why was it important for you to include the pledge in the app?

We care about the community, and we want people to enjoy dating, not feel alienated. From our market research, we found that people weren’t being respectful on gay dating apps and we wanted to get in front the issue and address it. Chappy is a space in which you can celebrate your differences.

What was the process like writing the pledge?

The Pledge was a team project, born from experiences and research. We drew on the strengths of everyone in the team – having a diverse company helped shape The Pledge creatively, but it also ensured it had real nuance in market. We interviewed 40 diverse gay men and simply listened to their stories. It was cathartic and, empowering, we really wanted to change the existing market offering and give the community something new, something valuable. We finally chose 16 men, took the concept to production house, Pink Banana, which helped us produce the final product.

Has anything surprised you about the response to the pledge from users?

It’s a bold move in our space – so we weren’t surprised by the response. However, we were surprised by how quickly it happened. We received a huge amount of heartwarming messages and heartbreaking stories. People suddenly saw an alternative, they were grateful and that was especially emotional for us. It helped motivate us to push The Pledge as far as we could. Without sharing personal stories there was just a sense of relief and gratitude for what we are trying to do.

How do you think the pledge will change how users interact on Chappy vs. other dating/social apps?

That’s the idea that underpins The Chappy Pledge – we’re actively doing what we can to stamp out all ‘isms’ on our platform. Ageism, fatism, racism – all of them. However, we accept we may never eradicate prejudice from within the gay community, we are, as a brand taking steps to protect people from having to even see profiles with sexual ‘preferences’. We believe listing these ‘preferences’ is inherently discriminatory and there is no place for discrimination on Chappy. It’s why we have banned all racial preferences within users profiles – even those that may be deemed positive. We hope that spreads into how people treat people, in general, including other platforms.

Download Chappy now for iOS or Google Play.

The post This Dating App Is Pledging to End Dating Discrimination appeared first on Towleroad.

This New App Is Pledging to End Dating Discrimination

Warnschuss für Trump: UN-Vollversammlung stimmt für Jerusalem-Resolution

www.huffingtonpost.de/entry/un-trump-usa-jerusalem-resolution_de_5a3c0f88e4b025f99e15b28e

Rail Ticket Machines: 70% Do Not Produce Cheapest Fares
More than two-thirds of ticket machines on Britain’s railways do not inform passengers how to get the cheapest fares, the Department for Transport (DfT) has said.

A joint action plan launched in December last year by the Government, rail industry and consumer groups pledged to ensure machines tell passengers if they could save money by waiting a few minutes to buy an off-peak ticket or going to a ticket office.

But a DfT update a year later revealed just 30% of machines are compliant.

The partnership railway is working together with government and other groups to change and improve for passengers – including making it easier to choose the best ticket for your journey. Read the DfT fares and ticketing action plan review, published today t.co/XHYrrfsFTo pic.twitter.com/u4oH6kKKE9

December 21, 2017
Research by the Office of Rail and Road published in July showed that around a third of operators had failed to agree to reimburse passengers for additional costs if they found they could have bought a cheaper ticket for their journey.

The regulator found that a fifth of people do not select the most appropriate fare from ticket machines, including 13% who pay more than they need to.

Paul Plummer, chief executive of the Rail Delivery Group, which represents the industry, said it is committed to providing simpler ticketing information and “we will continue to work with the Government and others to get this right”.

The DfT reported progress in a number of areas on fares and ticketing, including the sale of cheaper advance tickets up to 15 minutes before travel and greater flexibility when passengers forget railcards.

Planning for trials to test the impact of reforming fares will continue next year.

Rail minister Paul Maynard said passengers can be left “scratching their heads” when trying to pay for train travel.

He went on: “Working with the train companies and consumer groups has helped us make some really positive changes, and work will continue into the new year to improve ticket vending machines and bring forward fare pilots, to ensure buying the right ticket is simple, easy and straightforward.”

Alex Hayman, a managing director at consumer group Which?, accepted that “good progress has been made” but warned that the Government and the rail industry must “continue to deliver improvements”.

Anthony Smith, the boss of passenger watchdog Transport Focus, said he looked forward to seeing “further wins for passengers from wider reform of the complicated issues”.

Rail fares will increase by an average of 3.4% on January 2, the largest hike in five years.

www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/rail-ticket-machines_uk_5a3bfadae4b06d1621b2d48b

Tyson Beckford gives a birthday flex, but people are looking elsewhere
O. M… G.

www.queerty.com/tyson-beckford-gives-birthday-flex-people-looking-elsewhere-20171221?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+queerty2+%28Queerty%29

Homophobe Launches Slur-Laden Attack on Gay Man at Gas Station: WATCH

Brendan de la Hay, a gay Sydney man, says he is regularly attacked because of what he wears, and filmed an encounter he had with a homophobe at a gay station and posted it to Facebook, where it’s being widely shared.

Says the homophobe: “Look what’s your fucking problem? … ‘I called you a f**king ing gay c**t, you’re a f**king fag.”

Asks De La Hay on Facebook: “Any chance anyone else has had the displeasure of meeting this charming specimen? I’d love to know a name so I may properly credit him for his thrilling performance when I use this in my art exhibition. It would only be fair. This is a daily occurrence, and at a public petrol station of all places, all because of a little colourful clothing. So… I ask you… how far have we REALLY come? Don’t stop fighting. Don’t stop marching. SHARE IF YOU WISH.”

Watch:

The post Homophobe Launches Slur-Laden Attack on Gay Man at Gas Station: WATCH appeared first on Towleroad.

Homophobe Launches Slur-Laden Attack on Gay Man at Gas Station: WATCH

David Davis’s Secret Brexit Reports Ridiculed As ‘Wikipedia-Lite’
David Davis’s Brexit impact reports have been ridiculed as “meaningless”, “shoddy” and “Wikipedia-lite” after Parliament finally published the secret documents.

Edited versions of the long-awaited papers were released by the Commons Exiting The European Union Select Committee on Thursday – only to be greeted with a mixture of mockery and disdain for their lack of analysis.

Critics dismissed the documents, with jibes claiming they were “as illuminating as an in-flight travel magazine”, “clueless”, “dog-ate-my-homework” and emptier than the “Iraq dodgy dossier”.

But it also emerged that parts of the documents – which were not published because of Government worries about the impact on talks with Brussels – included pleas from industry to ministers to ensure a ‘soft Brexit’.

The Lords EU Committee, which has also seen the full papers, revealed that “sector views” showed British firms wanted minimal disruption from the UK’s departure from the EU.

It urged Davis to publish the full documents, including opinions from business that they want to keep access to EU workers, the lowest barriers to trade, cross-border services and data sharing.

The published papers included 39 reports on different economic sectors, with various industries’ views on the impact of Brexit edited out.

The papers were drafted following a long battle by MPs after Davis had claimed his department had “excruciating detail” on the work being done on how the EU exit would affect different industries from car manufacture to ports.

Davis later drew a distinction between impact assessments, which he said did not exist, and “sectoral analyses”, which are more limited in scope.

I asked for the rules to be emailed to me. I’m still waiting for them. If you can find any analysis of the impact of #Brexit in any of these repetitive, copy & paste, school homework level reports do let me know! 2/2

December 21, 2017
The analyses cover everything from aerospace and agriculture to tech and fisheries and life sciences.

A Brexit department spokesman said: “Our analysis is not, nor has it ever been, a series of impact assessments examining the quantitative impact of the UK’s EU exit on the 58 sectors.

“We are undertaking a comprehensive programme of analytical work. These reports are a part of that. They are not exhaustive, nor are they the final say on any of these issues.”

Yet many people were unimpressed by the actual documents, which describe each sector rather than offering analysis let alone forecasts of various types of Brexit.

Labour MP David Lammy said: “What a farce. Most of this could be found on Wikipedia or with a quick Google search.”

Eloise Todd, chief of the pro-EU Best for Britain campaign group, said: “These reports are the most useless and shoddy piece of work a government department has ever produced. Even the Iraq Dodgy Dossier had some useful information in it.

“These are a mess that a sixteen-year old wouldn’t be proud of. It is a masterclass in copy and paste.”

Other critics were vocal online.

I see ministers have published their Brexit impact assessments. Looks to me like they’ve just printed off Wikipedia pages on bits of the economy. I know it’s the end of term, but we can do better than this.

December 21, 2017
Based on my reading so far, the government’s Brexit sector analysis reports are about as illuminating as an inflight magazine travel guide. Sample insight: “The food chain includes agriculture”. Please tell me if you find anything more interesting. t.co/lIZpEEyh5N

December 21, 2017
The just-published Brexit impact report on health and social care says nothing about the impact of Brexit on health and social care. Plus all views from the sector, which must have included councils’ views, are redacted. A pointless document. t.co/DJhnQbjH4G

December 21, 2017
39 sectoral reports on Brexit published. t.co/Cr4juVwOqh Have flipped through the aerospace one. It’s entirely descriptive. Zero analysis of Brexit impact.

December 21, 2017
Tom Brake, the Lib Dem Brexit spokesman, added: “This is the biggest case of the dog ate my homework the world has ever seen.

 “We’ve been given binders of old information, extracts from Wikipedia, and a few choice quotes, and yet nothing at all on how Brexit will hit each sector.”

Labour MP Seema Malhotra, who sits on the Brexit committee, said: “In my view, the reports fall far short of the impact analysis the Government implied it was doing a year ago. It remains unclear if these are the original reports or have been written in the last two months.”

Richard Black, director of the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit (ECIU), said: “For reports that purport to analyse the impact of Brexit on different sectors, what leaps out at you is the total absence of analysis. Search, and you do not find.”

Lord Jay, the former FCO chief who now chairs the Lords EU Committee, sent an open letter to Davis urging him to publish the documents’ sections that covered the views of industry.

“Views on particular Brexit options, such as single market membership, differ across sectors, but in most cases there is a wish to minimise disruption and uncertainty.

“A number of themes recur in the views of stakeholders. These include: access to EU labour; the minimisation of tariffs and regulatory barriers to trade; data sharing; mutual recognition of qualifications; access to cross-border services; and the importance of EU R&D funding.”

www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/david-davis-secret-brexit-reports-published-to-ridicule-wikipedia-google-search-lite-lords-says-soft-brexit_uk_5a3bfa16e4b025f99e159387

The Phobies: Worst Homophobes of 2017

There were many to choose from, but Chechnya’ Ramzan Kadyrov gets the title of Phobie of the Year.

www.advocate.com/politics/2017/12/21/phobies-worst-homophobes-2017