Best Of

I've just splashed out on my dinner. I'm making a monkfish and king prawn curry

I heat ghee, add cumin seeds and black mustard seeds. Once they start popping I add fresh sliced garlic and ginger. A couple of minutes and some stirring later I throw in chopped spring onions, then sliced red peppers

When the peppers are cooking I liberally add chilli powder (fresh chilli works well too, but I didn't want leftover chilli) and a good squeeze from a lime. Then add the monkfish and the prawns. Just before they're cooked I stir in a couple of tablespoons of crème fraiche and chopped chives and coriander, heat up again and serve with rice

I'm listening to Joy Of Cooking, an awesome band from the early 70s

Only Time Will Tell - Joy Of Cooking (Joy Of Cooking 1970)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kc7jWFwuTo8

@viewcode, I believe you are writing a piece on sex/gender equality and discrimination. You might find this article interesting on the For Women Scotland case and the far reaching implications of the Supreme Court judgment.

https://nilq.qub.ac.uk/index.php/nilq/article/view/1233/1030

Thank you for the contribution. I will read it but I don't know if I will have space to fit it it.

The article is on its sixth draft and is over 2,200 words not including the 16 appendices and the three of the four (@DavidL hasn't kicked in yet) discussants. The subheadings are:

• 1. INTRODUCTION
  
• 2. THE SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENT “FWS VS THE SCOTTISH MINISTERS”: 16APR2025
  
• 3. THE SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENT AND TOILETS
  
• 4. THE EHRC INTERIM GUIDANCE: APR-JUN 2025
  
• 5. THE EQUAL TREATMENT BENCH BOOK: MAY 2025 UPDATE
  
• 6. KELLY AND PEGGIE DEC 2025
  
• 6B. THE WOMEN’S INSTITUTE: 03DEC2025
  
• 7. SULLIVAN REPORT AT RSS CONFERENCE 02SEP2025
  
• 8. GLP v EHRC NOV 2025
  
• 9. THE EHRC FINAL GUIDANCE NOV 2025
  
• 10. HARWOOD AND FORAN SUBSTACKS
  
• 11. THE SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENT AND RIGHTS
  
• 12. SUMMARY
  
• 13. AFTERWORD
  

You might want to look at this - but IANAE and leave it entirely to you to decide if it is any interest.

https://www.thenational.scot/news/25693712.sandie-peggie-judgment-doesnt-necessarily-contradict-supreme-court/

To state the obvious - but it's perhaps not stated often enough - for questions like who can use which loo, who uses which changing room etc, the answer has to be obvious, unambiguous, applicable to everyone and immediate. You can't hang on while you litigate it or consult a handbook.

The moment it is complicated, it's the wrong answer.

Brilliant observation from lawyer Eva Chipiuk on the lessons of Nuremberg...

"After the Nuremberg Trials, one of the most unsettling conclusions did not come from the courtroom, but from the psychiatrist tasked with evaluating the defendants.

Dr. Douglas Kelley, the U.S. Army psychiatrist assigned to assess many of the senior Nazi officials, expected to find monsters people fundamentally different from the rest of humanity. He did not.

What disturbed him most was how ordinary they were.

They were not raving madmen. They were not obvious sociopaths. They were intelligent, educated, and often convinced they were simply doing their duty, following orders, or serving a higher cause. Kelley warned that this was the real danger: evil does not always look abnormal. It often presents itself as competence, obedience, and institutional loyalty.

His central warning was deeply uncomfortable there are people with morally vacant or destructive tendencies everywhere. In every society. In every era. What determines the outcome is whether systems elevate those people, shield them from accountability, and normalize their behavior, and whether ordinary citizens are willing to question authority when it matters most.

Modern bureaucracies and institutions are powerful precisely because they diffuse responsibility. Decisions are broken into policies, protocols, committees, and “best practices.” Harm is rarely framed as harm; it is reframed as necessity, risk management, or compliance. Individuals are encouraged not to think morally, but procedurally.

This is how ordinary people become capable of extraordinary wrongdoing by outsourcing conscience to institutions and convincing themselves that accountability lies somewhere else.

The lesson of Nuremberg is not that “those people were different.” It is that they were not.

That is why vigilance matters. That is why blind trust in authority is dangerous. And that is why a healthy society must protect dissent, accountability, and moral courage especially when it is inconvenient.

History does not repeat itself because people forget facts. It repeats itself when people convince themselves, “It could never happen here.”