Best Of

@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.”

Not that it's of any consequence, but a personal milestone today: since roughly 2012, I've been going to my kids' Christmas nativities. Reckon I've done 30-odd. Last one today - my youngest daughter leaves primary school next summer. It wasn't the most memorable of nativities, but it was pleasingly typical - the familiar words, a mixture of songs traditional and primary-school-inane, the always-incongruous desert scene in the background, the rag, tag and bobtail of kids taking part (I particularly enjoyed the king in the too-large crown which had to balance on his ears, making them stick out; and the fact that the Angel Gabriel was wearing deely boppers bearing the legend 'Ho Ho Ho'. A slight lump in the throat as I reflected on that period of my life passing on; happiness that the rituals still go on albeit with different people doing them.
I'm generally not keen on religion but this is a bit of religion I'll happily allow into Christmas.

@ChristopherJM
News: Ukrainian SBU special operation has hit a $400mn Russian submarine in Novorossiysk.

The Security Service of Ukraine conducted what it called a “unique special operation” targeting the port of Novorossiysk. “For the first time in history, underwater ‘Sub Sea Baby’ drones blew up a Russian submarine of the class 636.3 ‘Varshavyanka’ (according to NATO classification - Kilo). As a result of the explosion, the submarine suffered critical damage and was actually put out of action.”

The SBU claimed: “On board the submarine were four launchers of Kaliber cruise missiles, which the enemy uses to strike the territory of Ukraine.”

This was a joint operation of the 13th Main Directorate of Military Counterintelligence of the SBU and the Naval Forces of Ukraine.

https://x.com/ChristopherJM/status/2000583971432718829?s=20

#Explodey

Ukrainian air strikes are certainly escalating. But so are Russian ones. Given Trump cut off all US aid to Ukraine it could certainly be worse but I'm not optimistic about things right now.

Trump is trying to force Zelensky into an awful deal because he wants to make money from business with Russia. Russia is happy to keep fighting, because Putin believes his army is winning, so is sticking to its maximalist war aims. The Europeans are running around like headless chickens with no direction or cohesion.

It's a bad situation.

Ukrainian successes with long-range strikes, or the counterattack around Kupiansk, are welcome, but they're not enough to turn the tide. And they're kinda bittersweet because they show what would be possible if Europe found the resolve and sense of purpose to fully back Ukraine.

Instead we're choosing to do enough to keep Ukraine fighting, but not enough to help them win. It's such a big mistake.

It clearly demonstrates why the EU can’t be the core of European defence structures. NATO and JEF have to be the way forward (with or without the US)

It’s been blindingly obvious since 2023 (but the signs were there in autumn 2022) that almost no one in the Western alliance wants Ukraine to “win”. Or rather they are too frightened of what might follow a decisive Russian loss - likely some
combo of wounded animal behaviour by Putin, disruption to global commodities markets and stray nukes ending up with regional Russian war lords.

This grates with me, but all of us have to accept that we have not seen the intelligence the decision makers have. It is lazy in the extreme to think the current US government’s main goal is to build a hotel in Moscow. There has been a remarkably consistent common position among the core counties even after domestic political transitions. Is what it is.

Given this seemingly immovable reality, the best thing for the Ukrainians really does now feel like getting done whatever deal will get the fighting to finish as soon as possible, followed by an influx of weapons and funding.

Is it ?
If Europe is so terrified that they can't defeat a Russian invasion, how do they deter a repeat in a few years' time ?

The sad and deeply cynical answer is what the west required was the exhaustion of the incredible quantities of kit that Russia had inherited from the Soviet Union which made them a threat. The brave resistance of Ukraine and the imbecility of the psychopath in the Kremlin mean that has been achieved. In addition the loss of over 1m men of fighting age (even on a broad definition) together with at least another million who fled has turned the already poor demographics of Russia into a catastrophe. Combine that with the profound economic damage and you are left with a country that would very probably struggle to take on Poland in a conventional war today and would have no chance whatsoever in 3 or 4 years time.

We owe Ukraine an incredible debt of gratitude for massively degrading a serious threat to our way of life. But countries, and certainly governments, are not sentimental. I hope we honour our debt and their sacrifice but I am not holding my breath.

As for the idea that an exhausted Russia is some threat to western Europe in any conventional sense? Please, don't be ridiculous.

It's far from ridiculous.

Obviously, if there's a freezing of the conflict, Russia is not going to be relaunching an inversion within a couple of years.
But five years down the road, after rebuilding trade with Trump's US, and resuming in sanctioned oil and gas exports ?

And if Europe gets tired of spending 3% plus of GDP on rearming (the UK already seems to have) ?

And Farage and whatever shitheads are leading the French and German far right in power ?

And this is why it's so important for the centre left/right parties in power to get a handle on immigration. It is the single most corrosive debate across Europe. Public trust on the subject has been broken time and again which leaves voters feeling completely powerless resulting in 30-40% of them deciding enough is enough and voting for RN, Reform or AfD. Scenes like the one we just saw in Sydney were entirely avoidable, western nations didn't need to allow immigration from Islamic countries and voters feel conned because now we're being told we all need to live in a police state because radical Islam threatens to overrun our societies with terrorist attacks when the truth is that a majority of voters would not have let them come to our countries in the first place.

Can I understand what you are advocating?

IF you are advocating we should halt all immigration from countries which are deemed to be under the control of radical Islamic elements, I get that and I have plenty of sympathy for that line though I baulk where those facing genuine persecution are concerned such as Afghans fleeing the Taliban.

IF, however, you are of the view we should halt all Islamic immigration (including from countries which are not considered to be under radical Islamic control), then that needs some clarification. For example, would we stop all immigration from Egypt or Indonesia?

If the aim, however, is to mitigate radical Islam, it's worth noting the instances of British-born Muslims being radicalised and that would require action, including legislation, around how the Islamic faith operates in this country along with measures to prevent radicalisation from, for example, both non-UK and UK websites.

I would do what you infer yes. The “Net zero” debate isn’t about climate change any more but migration. If we are still to accept migrants from friendly western democracies, it doesn’t leave room for many others, even with a mass deportation programme.

Doubtless this makes me sound like an extremist to many ears here but it’s the increasingly mainstream view in this country now.

A mass deportation of Muslims isn't a mainstream view in this country.

I did not say that. I want a mass deportation of the ~1m illegal migrants before we do anything else.

Well that's something. But I don't think hunting down and deporting 1m people is a mainstream view either.

In the nicest way, it does not surprise me that you think that. The ~1m illegal migrants are by definition criminals. And there is high support for deporting foreign criminals.

Ask yourself what Starmer’s plan is with ID cards. Take him at face value, that he says they are necessary to crack down on illegal migration. What happens when he identifies these people? A mass amnesty? A bizarre half life where they have informal leave to remain but cannot claim benefits of legally work, meaning they must resort to crime to survive? Or… deportation after some human rights lawyer friendly process.

Even this wish washy sham of a government is in favour of mass deportation. They just haven’t dared admit it yet.

The phrase 'foreign criminals' is commonly understood to mean people from overseas living here without permission who then commit a serious offence. I think you're gilding the lily in pursuit of your rather fruity political agenda.

Foreign criminals can also be people who are here on some kind of visa or with some kind of status. I'd probably set the deportation bar very low, even something as basic as fare dodging would be deportation worthy to me. We just don't need someone with that attitude in the country. We have enough of them already among our own citizenry without having to invite more of them. People who are here based on our kindness must be model citizens, anything less should result in deportation with no right of appeal.

So long as you realise this is a far right agenda. I personally don't see any rational justification for it.

Asking people who we've invited to the country to be model citizens is a far right agenda? Pull the other one. You realise how ridiculous that sounds, don't you? We have enough of criminals and delinquents among our own citizenry, I don't see any justification for importing more from other countries.

Kinabalu does not realise what it is like to be a migrant in much of the rest of the world. I have been one in multiple types of society and economy. We are absolute f***** mugs in this country. We take the worst of every system. Make it damn near impossible for the brightest and richest to come, welcome the most lawless and economically unproductive. And have the whole thing in such chaos that no one can even be sure of the numbers. Any time you query this, morons are lining up to call you “far right”, as you despair at the decay rotting the uk body politik from the inside out.

OT. For the last three nights there has been a black guy aged about 25 sleeping on a bench in a square outside my house here in Villefranche. It's quite cold at night and I've been feeling progressively worse about sleeping in a comfortable bed while he's sleeping out in the open with just a coat on. It's very unusual to see anyone sleeping rough here and he's not begging. Infact he seems to be trying to be as inconspicuous as possible. So my choices were .....

1. Invite him in and give him a bed. (The Mother Theresa solution)
2. Give him some money so he could eat. (The good Socialist solution)
3. Call the Gendarmes and get him removed (The Max PB solution)

Give money to a local homelessness charity along with this chap's particulars. (The classic embarrassed liberal solution.)

Of course. That way the Good People working hard in administration at the homelessness charity will be able to afford plenty of Christmas presents for their children next week.

There was a Private Eye joke where they said The Big Issue was to be renamed "Homeless and Gardenless".

I used to do loads of charity volunteering as a youngster and a student. I now only donate to very small local charities, as the larger ones basically exist to fund themselves more than the cause. Any charity that sees fit to advertise on TV or national newspapers, for example, is too big.