Best Of

Great to see @Cyclefree back. I hope things are going well for you.

But this is a polemic, not an argument. Today I am starting another trial about domestic violence. The accused, a man of course, has been in custody since March 2024 for this awaiting trial. It is simply false to say that violence against women is not taken seriously. I am taking it seriously. Today.

With great respect and despite your valiant efforts, this is not true.

There have been many many examples of trans activists threatening women with violence and the police have done fuck all about them. It is the contrast with how they have behaved in this case, which is striking, something utterly ignored by the Met Commissioner.

The Met promised after the Everard murder to take incidents of indecent exposure more seriously. Instead police action on this has gone down. Read the Femicide Census for the women murdered in 2022 - out a few days ago. The perpetrators have been caught and convicted. But in so many of the cases, there were lots of warnings which were ignored. If they hadn't been women would still be alive. The same lessons are ignored over and over again. The number of women killed stays the same year after year - one every 3 days on average, every year.

This does not speak to me of a society taking this seriously, frankly.

Surely the threat against women - as the Sarah Everard murder demonstrates - is men?

I don't understand why all of the focus goes onto a handful of edge cases so that little light is shone onto the vast majority of cases where the person abusing / raping / killing a woman is a cis man. Usually a white cis man. Same thing with this nonsense about wanting to persecute men with brown skin because they are all potential threats to women. With 40% of the organisers of one protest carrying convictions for assaulting women.

I am bored of the trans issue simply because extremists on both sides shriek abuse at each other. We all want to protect women - my wife is pretty strident on the topic. But the threat to her or to my 14 year old daughter isn't a trans woman, it's a man.

Edge cases, eh!

Well, let's see: the reason this matters is because the spread of this ideology has led to a KC in a Scottish employment tribunal argue that employers have a legal duty to force women to get undressed in front of men - physically intact heterosexual married men who claim to be women - regardless of their own wishes and how uncomfortable they feel. She argues that employers have a duty to force women to endure a criminal offence - voyeurism or indecent exposure because to object is "bigotry". This employer, BTW, is the NHS in Scotland and the case is the Sandie Peggie case.

And if this reasoning is adopted then women will not be able to say no to this.

What this is about and what you and others refuse to get is that this is about whether a woman's No means No. It's about respecting women and their wishes and understanding that a man's demands do not override her consent. It's about understanding that a woman is entitled to have boundaries and have those respected as of right. It's about understanding that a woman because she is a woman has rights and they are not to be ignored because of a man's feelings. It's about understanding that a woman is a material reality based on sex - not on feelings or costumes or identification - and that if you don't understand or respect those basic facts and that being of the female sex underlies every aspect of a female's life from birth to death: her life, her opportunities, her health, whether she is listened to or valued, her jobs, her safety, her position in society, everything then you are part of the problems and obstacles which so often make life much harder for women than it ought to be.

Women's rights matter. If men can call themselves women, women no longer have any rights as women. The oppression women face because of our sex and largely perpetrated by men and for the benefit of men cannot be dealt with if women are classified as some sort of fuzzy 'anyone can join in if they feel like it' group.

Yes, edge cases. As all of the data shows. I support women's rights - they absolutely matter. I just don't understand why "trans women are a threat" gets endlessly discussed whilst the vast majority of threat gets ignored.

A good mate of mine was *close* friends with Sarah Everard. She can't understand why all the noise on threats to women is trans and now migrants when they are quite literally a tiny minority of the cases where women are abused, assaulted and far worse.

I know several women (cis, or biological if you prefer) who would describe themselves as full on feminists. Some of them are bi/lesbian. They all think JKR is a knob and fully support trans rights.

So who am I to listen to? Them, or Cyclefree?

You may listen to both.
Neither have a monopoly on either truth or common sense

While I'd tend to agree with your friends, Cyclefree is I think correct in pointing out some if the perverse consequences of the well intentioned Scottish legislation on gender recognition

Everyone is entitled to their own opinions. They are not entitled to their own facts.

I know lots of lesbians who are appalled at the behaviour of trans activists and, in particular, the targeting of lesbians by men demanding sex with them or the, to them, deeply insulting claim, of the "male lesbian".

No-one can change sex. No man can ever become a woman or vice versa. The law and public policy has to be on the basis of reality not fantasy. People with gender dysphoria have the same legal rights as everyone else and I support those. The current position which is that they have those rights but that women and men are entitled to same single sex provision in the appropriate circumstances strikes the right balance IMO.

It is the demand that women should lose the rights they need (I repeat once more that Stonewall expressly campaigned for just this from 2015 onwards) is not a human right. It is an aggressive demand to obliterate someone else's rights and this is wrong. If Stonewall et al had not done this there would be no issue. If they had campaigned to get appropriate provision for dysphoric people there'd be no issue. But they needed something to keep the grift going. So they deliberately misrepresented the law to infiltrate a harmful ideology into our institutions and this is why those institutions are in the mess they're in and so many women and some men have lost jobs, been bullied, faced threats and so on. It is a hideous waste of energy but those who chose to talk nonsense and lie about biology and law are the ones to be blamed.

The investigation into Angela Rayner’s tax affairs could conclude as soon as today.

An inquiry launched by Sir Laurie Magnus, the Prime Minister’s independent adviser on ministerial ethics, may finish in the coming hours.

A decision today by Sir Laurie would be significantly quicker than the usual process and would suggest the process has been expedited as far as possible.

Anna Mikhailova, the political editor of Times Radio, told listeners this morning: “I’m hearing that the investigation by Sir Laurie Magnus into Angela Rayner can conclude as quickly as today.

“So it could move very, very quickly. This is from senior well-placed sources.”

----

She isn't going anywhere.

Nobody is going to believe a proper investigation has been carried out in one day.

"Angela - Are you guilty?"
"No"
"Excellent - no case to answer!"

I am surprised these things take much more than a day to clear up to be honest.

Documents I'd want to read - whatever she sent her advisors and what she received from her advisors. That is probably enough, maybe get them reviewed by a tax expert.

Nothing else to do apart from make a decision.

Whatever her level of culpability it is politically best for her (both individually and Labour) to resign, but based on the documents above it may or may not be necessary for her to resign.

Dan Neidle got it in one question yesterday.

Did you mention the existence of the Trust to those advising you on the Hove apartment purchase?

If the answer to that question is yes then she has received bad advice. If the answer to that question is no then she is at fault.

Great to see @Cyclefree back. I hope things are going well for you.

But this is a polemic, not an argument. Today I am starting another trial about domestic violence. The accused, a man of course, has been in custody since March 2024 for this awaiting trial. It is simply false to say that violence against women is not taken seriously. I am taking it seriously. Today.

With great respect and despite your valiant efforts, this is not true.

There have been many many examples of trans activists threatening women with violence and the police have done fuck all about them. It is the contrast with how they have behaved in this case, which is striking, something utterly ignored by the Met Commissioner.

The Met promised after the Everard murder to take incidents of indecent exposure more seriously. Instead police action on this has gone down. Read the Femicide Census for the women murdered in 2022 - out a few days ago. The perpetrators have been caught and convicted. But in so many of the cases, there were lots of warnings which were ignored. If they hadn't been women would still be alive. The same lessons are ignored over and over again. The number of women killed stays the same year after year - one every 3 days on average, every year.

This does not speak to me of a society taking this seriously, frankly.

Surely the threat against women - as the Sarah Everard murder demonstrates - is men?

I don't understand why all of the focus goes onto a handful of edge cases so that little light is shone onto the vast majority of cases where the person abusing / raping / killing a woman is a cis man. Usually a white cis man. Same thing with this nonsense about wanting to persecute men with brown skin because they are all potential threats to women. With 40% of the organisers of one protest carrying convictions for assaulting women.

I am bored of the trans issue simply because extremists on both sides shriek abuse at each other. We all want to protect women - my wife is pretty strident on the topic. But the threat to her or to my 14 year old daughter isn't a trans woman, it's a man.

Edge cases, eh!

Well, let's see: the reason this matters is because the spread of this ideology has led to a KC in a Scottish employment tribunal argue that employers have a legal duty to force women to get undressed in front of men - physically intact heterosexual married men who claim to be women - regardless of their own wishes and how uncomfortable they feel. She argues that employers have a duty to force women to endure a criminal offence - voyeurism or indecent exposure because to object is "bigotry". This employer, BTW, is the NHS in Scotland and the case is the Sandie Peggie case.

And if this reasoning is adopted then women will not be able to say no to this.

What this is about and what you and others refuse to get is that this is about whether a woman's No means No. It's about respecting women and their wishes and understanding that a man's demands do not override her consent. It's about understanding that a woman is entitled to have boundaries and have those respected as of right. It's about understanding that a woman because she is a woman has rights and they are not to be ignored because of a man's feelings. It's about understanding that a woman is a material reality based on sex - not on feelings or costumes or identification - and that if you don't understand or respect those basic facts and that being of the female sex underlies every aspect of a female's life from birth to death: her life, her opportunities, her health, whether she is listened to or valued, her jobs, her safety, her position in society, everything then you are part of the problems and obstacles which so often make life much harder for women than it ought to be.

Women's rights matter. If men can call themselves women, women no longer have any rights as women. The oppression women face because of our sex and largely perpetrated by men and for the benefit of men cannot be dealt with if women are classified as some sort of fuzzy 'anyone can join in if they feel like it' group.

You argue very passionately Cyclefree and often I agree with what you say. Sometimes though I think back to my experience of being an outed gay boy at school and remember how I felt and was treated. I remember boys saying they didn't want to share a changing room with me because I might be looking at their junk. As if I was interested in every spotty thug just because I was gay. If I'd been running around with an erection trying to get off with them they might have had a point but of course I just wanted to get PE over and done with. I understand your points about women's rights and I don't disagree but I feel queasy about the view propounded by Linehan and co (which I fully accept may not be your views) that any trans woman in a female changing room is automatically committing a violent act.

My son is gay so through him I understand a little of what you must have felt.

A man who goes into a women's space is breaching boundaries. He should not be there. His presence is not physical violence but it may well be unsettling and scary - depending on his size, attitude, behaviour and also how a woman feels.

A woman faced with such a man has to make an instant calculation about the potential threat. It is automatic - just as it is when you hear a man following you in the streets late at night (man just going home like me or trouble?). It's not just the threat. Why is he here? To have a w**k? To mark his territory? To intimidate? What? Why should a woman using the loo have to go through this?

What if it's a changing room and he starts to look? Not physical violence. But voyeurism and deeply unsettling. I do not want to get undressed in front of any man other than my husband. Even in hospital male doctors and nurses give me privacy.

What if he gets undressed? Again not physical violence but unsettling and frightening. Indecent exposure is horrible for women. The presence of an unwanted male body in a situation of vulnerability is a form of assault even if the man never touches the woman. This is something which men simply do not get about indecent exposure.

I think there is a total lack of empathy for how women feel by men who claim to be women. If they really had a female sensibility they would try and understand how and why their presence is unsettling and can be very frightening. Instead, far too often, far too many of them behave exactly like the sort of men who most women will classify as "creeps".

There is a reason why we have boundaries. Men - of whatever type - should respect those of women. Just as I, a woman, would not walk into a man's changing room or loo even though I would be no threat. It is a matter of respect. And of course a trans-identified man who does not wish to share a space with fellow men should have his own private space. But I note that when these are offered, they are rejected. They want to be in women's spaces regardless of women's say-so and this is an aggressive (and, frankly, very male) attitude to take.

So I'd use the phrase "aggressive and disrespectful" rather than violent.

"But the threat to her or to my 14 year old daughter isn't a trans woman, it's a man."

They are one and the same.

It is a lie to say that a man who identifies as a woman somehow automatically becomes less of a threat. Male pattern criminality is the same for him as for other men. There is some evidence - though more research is needed - that the proportion of sex offenders among trans-identified males in British prisons is higher than it is for other males.

But as I say much more research is needed. Worth noting that when a (female) professor of criminology suggested just this sort of research she was horribly abused and forced out of her job.

But ask yourself this: if a man refuses to accept a woman's boundaries, refuses to take No for an answer, insists on forcing himself into a space and making a woman uncomfortable, why wouldn't a woman perceive him as a potential threat?

The other lie which is perpetrated is that no trans identified man has ever attacked a woman in a loo or a changing room. Again, untrue - as a moment's research would show. See, for instance, Katie Dolatowski - a 6 foot man who sexually assaulted a 10 year old girl in a public bathroom.

No woman, no girl should have to take the risk of assault or indecent exposure or voyeurism by any sort of man in a place where they are vulnerable and entitled to privacy, dignity and security. And, frankly, men and women who don't get this are enabling predatory behaviour. They should be ashamed of themselves not go round attacking those women pointing out this obvious and, until recently, uncontroversial truth.

It is for men to be kind and inclusive and to sort out ie stop the violence they inflict on their fellow transgender men. Not expect women to put themselves at risk.

This is ridiculous - you can find the official gov.uk guidance on higher rate stamp duty for second home purchases in two clicks from googling 'stamp duty rules' where it says

If any of you will own, or part own more than one residential property worth £40,000 or more, you will have to pay the higher rates on your new purchase (unless there is another reason why the higher rates do not apply).

Include any residential property that:

is owned on behalf of children under the age of 18 (parents are treated as the owners even if the property is held through a trust and they are not the trustees)
you have an interest in as the beneficiary of a trust
Include your current home, if you still own it at the end of the day you buy your new home.

'Expert opinion, complicated tax blah blah blah'

She can fuck right off

Based on what you know, is it clear to you it was a second home? What other home did she own?

The trust thing that was set up, that she thought she had completely withdrawn from and no longer counted for her (or that’s what she’s claiming she understood it based on advice.) is it still a crime if it happened based on someone else’s guidance from whom you sought how to do such things right, and whose answers you trusted? If the bad advice was from the trust who already had all the details of her particular position so she couldn’t have misled them in anyway.

But reading her body language, it tells me I completely agree with you - she knew she was on the make, and that she has to resign from government when the fast track investigation concludes. Do we have eta for the commissioners report?

But after resigning from Government, perhaps for the first time, what standard should she then be held to? Will you call for her to resign as an MP as well over this? when others have made strong political comebacks after very similar things, after time on back benches. Because if she doesn’t stand down as MP, and survives the election in May 2029, we know she will be back on the front bench because it’s what always happens. Ultimately can those who set themselves up as White Knights really be held to sterner punishments than everybody else? 🤷‍♀️

I think losing Rayner would be a major blow to a Starmer government that is already dead in the water. For all her faults she is one of the most dynamic and charismatic of Labour's front benches, very much her own person and not cut from the identi-cut PPE/SPAD/MP cloth. She may well have to go, and has certainly blotted her copy book very badly.

A couple of thoughts though:

Of our 650 MPs a great number have 2 or more homes, including Farage, Sunak, Jenrick etc etc, and even more notably the King and other members of the Royal family.. There may well be further casualties to this sort of scrutiny over property affairs. Rayner's came to light because of her visibility as a politician and role in charge of housing, but I bet there are a number of others looking anxiously over their property assets and tax affairs. There are some professions and domestic situations that multiple properties are a requirement rather than an extravagance.

Secondly, this entire mess has arisen from the differential treatment of second properties, and the anomalies arising from that. Stamp Duty used to be a transaction tax, but now is being used to punish second home owners, landlords etc as a way of distorting the market in favour of a perceived policy goal. Council tax replaced the Poll Tax (and that in turn replaced the Rates) and was originally designed to fund local services. At one time Council Tax had a discount for second homes (I think on the grounds that as part time residents, owners were light users of local services) but now are charged 2 or more times the rate as a way of punishing owners. If properties were merely taxed on the capital value rather than as a way of punishing second home owners then none of these issues would have arisen.

A small wrinkle on the Raynor affair that I just noticed: the trust set up for her child is almost certainly a trust for a vulnerable person. Unlike the trusts people like TSE setup for their children, the tax treatment of these is different. Trusts like TSE‘s treats all income, CGT etc as accruing to the parent / trustees for tax purposes. For Trusts for vulnerable people the tax treatment calculates the taxes owed as if they had been earned by the vulnerable person instead of the trustees even though (IIRC) they are actually paid by the trustees - the trustees can then claim the difference in taxes owed back from HMRC if necessary.

All this will have been explained to Raynor at some length by her lawyers. It’s therefore not entirely surprising that she might have thought that, having transferred property to the vulnerable persons trust, the same exemptions would apply to stamp duty calculations. Unfortunately for her these exemptions for vulnerable trust-related taxes do not include the question of whether the parent is deemed to own a property owned by the trust for the purposes of calculating stamp duty.

One could even argue that, given that the government chose to exempt the parents / trustees from tax liabilities arising from trusts for vulnerable people, the omission of property ownership for the purposes of calculating stamp duty was an oversight & that it should have been included alongside all the other taxes: The whole point appears to be to make sure that the trustees do not carry any extra tax liability as a consequence of carrying out their duties as trustees for a vulnerable person.

Nevertheless, the law is what it is & the gov.uk guidance is clear: Raynor should have known that & if she was advised otherwise then she was extremely badly advised. Can she prove that she was badly advised by the professionals she consulted? If not, then I think she’s probably toast.

See https://www.gov.uk/trusts-taxes/trusts-for-vulnerable-people for some details.

Incitement to violence in situations where the intent is possibly comedic rather than serious should perhaps be subject to the Tango test.

If people start going around punching feminine looking men in the balls, then it’s incitement to violence. If they don’t, it was a joke (or the poster doesn’t have the influence they think they have).

Take the bishop Brennan incident. Ted was told to kick him in the arse. He did so. That’s successful incitement. If he’d chickened out there’d have been no case to answer.

Surely not? Surely in the Bishop Brennan case the inciter bears no responsibility because noone reasonable would be expected to follow through? If I were to tell you, on here, to kick the Bishop of St. Edmundsbury (say) in the arse, and you did so, no legal process would go after Cookie off the internet because the suggestion is clearly ridiculous? Surely?

I'm impressed that you have very prudently covered yourself by selecting a See which currently has a Vacancy so nobody can follow your advice as there is presently no such Bishop!

Great to see @Cyclefree back. I hope things are going well for you.

But this is a polemic, not an argument. Today I am starting another trial about domestic violence. The accused, a man of course, has been in custody since March 2024 for this awaiting trial. It is simply false to say that violence against women is not taken seriously. I am taking it seriously. Today.

With great respect and despite your valiant efforts, this is not true.

There have been many many examples of trans activists threatening women with violence and the police have done fuck all about them. It is the contrast with how they have behaved in this case, which is striking, something utterly ignored by the Met Commissioner.

The Met promised after the Everard murder to take incidents of indecent exposure more seriously. Instead police action on this has gone down. Read the Femicide Census for the women murdered in 2022 - out a few days ago. The perpetrators have been caught and convicted. But in so many of the cases, there were lots of warnings which were ignored. If they hadn't been women would still be alive. The same lessons are ignored over and over again. The number of women killed stays the same year after year - one every 3 days on average, every year.

This does not speak to me of a society taking this seriously, frankly.

Surely the threat against women - as the Sarah Everard murder demonstrates - is men?

I don't understand why all of the focus goes onto a handful of edge cases so that little light is shone onto the vast majority of cases where the person abusing / raping / killing a woman is a cis man. Usually a white cis man. Same thing with this nonsense about wanting to persecute men with brown skin because they are all potential threats to women. With 40% of the organisers of one protest carrying convictions for assaulting women.

I am bored of the trans issue simply because extremists on both sides shriek abuse at each other. We all want to protect women - my wife is pretty strident on the topic. But the threat to her or to my 14 year old daughter isn't a trans woman, it's a man.