Given the number of - oftentimes coordinated - tweets complaining of the use of s35 as an “attack on democracy”, a brief explanation as to why - whatever your views on the merits of the GRR bill - that is not correct.
1. In a democracy, creatures of statute - such as the Scottish Parliament - act within the confines of the Act that created them. 2. Section 35 is part of the Scotland Act. 3. Its exercise is thus not anti-democratic. Rather, it is democracy in action. 4. Nor is it anti-devolution. Section 35 is part of the devolution settlement. 5. The suggestion to the contrary involves arguing that s35 should *never* be exercised. Why, in that case, was it made part of the Act? 6. If s35 has been misused, the Courts will intervene. 7. Both sides are making accusations of bad faith. As this matter is clearly arguable in either direction, such accusations are unfounded, IMHO.
Indeed. It is always the modus operandi of nationalists to try to encourage grievance so that they can attempt to create more hatred of the "others" (in this case that uniform and alien group of folk south of the border called "The English" )
What do you make of this?
@acgrayling "When you're weak, others take advantage of you." Brexit = weakness. Solidarity is strength - in union: a Trades Union, a European Union.
It is somewhat simplistic, but wasn't the point I was making. The point I was making was about nationalism and divisiveness. If you want to bring Brexit into it (which is surprising considering your global polarity reversal on the subject) then the migration card, which many would have regarded as a proxy for racism played by Farage, would be a parallel with Scottish nationalism.
On the Remain side, I think different wings of the political spectrum supported membership of the EU for different reasons.
Conservatives like Heseltine, Clarke and Major did so because they believed it enhanced British power and influence. Labour politicians because they believe in solidarity across the international brotherhood of man and superseding of the nation state. Liberals because they believe in unfettered freedom and any constraints on the individual.
The odd one out is Ted Heath, who was nominally centre-right but believed full-throatedly and ideologically in a new European superstate.
That's an interesting characterisation. I supported EU membership for all of the reasons you give, so perhaps I am a Liberal Conservative Socialist. FWIW I don't think your characterisation of Labour's position is really right - that's not how most Labour politicians think. Labour used to be instinctively anti-EU and Labour politicians are still not very internationalist in their thinking - they instinctively look to the US Democrats more than the German SPD or French Socialists in as far as they pay attention to anything outside our borders, but are mostly just depressingly parochial like most of our politicians. I think a couple of things pushed Labour into embracing the EU - first, it became a way of showing modernity/centrism and isolating the Bennite Left in the 80s; second, Labour politicians noticed that the dominant worldview of the EU was fairly statist and so embracing the EU would constrain the ability of the Tories to do horrible (in their view) things to the country. In other words, the Labour pro-EU position has always been quite parochial and transactional, rather than about any kind of brotherhood of man stuff, in my view.
I am Pro-EU because the French never wanted us in and our membership annoyed them.
That's another good reason, certainly.
Perhaps, I might suggest, the only good reason... and it surely is a damn good one at that.
Alister Jack was entirely right to make a ‘Section 35’ order to block Nicola Sturgeon’s controversial Gender Recognition Reform Bill from proceeding to Royal Assent. As Secretary of State for Scotland, Jack invited the Scottish Government to bring an amended Bill back for reconsideration at Holyrood. He added, “I hope we can work together to find a constructive way forward that both respects devolution and the operation of UK Parliament legislation.”
Given the number of - oftentimes coordinated - tweets complaining of the use of s35 as an “attack on democracy”, a brief explanation as to why - whatever your views on the merits of the GRR bill - that is not correct.
1. In a democracy, creatures of statute - such as the Scottish Parliament - act within the confines of the Act that created them. 2. Section 35 is part of the Scotland Act. 3. Its exercise is thus not anti-democratic. Rather, it is democracy in action. 4. Nor is it anti-devolution. Section 35 is part of the devolution settlement. 5. The suggestion to the contrary involves arguing that s35 should *never* be exercised. Why, in that case, was it made part of the Act? 6. If s35 has been misused, the Courts will intervene. 7. Both sides are making accusations of bad faith. As this matter is clearly arguable in either direction, such accusations are unfounded, IMHO.
Indeed. It is always the modus operandi of nationalists to try to encourage grievance so that they can attempt to create more hatred of the "others" (in this case that uniform and alien group of folk south of the border called "The English" )
I can see both sides on this one. Yes of course S35 is a legitimate power which the UK government can use. So the question is of context - "should they do this?", not an absolute - "can they do this".
What I expect will be spun is the notion that the Scottish Parliament can simply be overruled at the whim of the UK government. That is by definition anti-democratic if you put the supremacy of the Scottish Parliament above Westminster - which of course it isn't.
Two things will ensure this creates further antagonism. One, the bill had genuine cross-party support in Holyrood. Two, the Tories will place foot in mouth before commenting.
Ah, indeed, good comment. The philosophical, psychological and political chasm between the words "could" and "should"
If the Scottish Parliament passed an SNP bill to make it illegal to have ginger hair then I would expect a swift S35 slapdown - the proposed law is ridiculous. Doubly so if it was openly opposed by the minority of all other parties.
This is different. Whatever your views on the bill the argument is that it brings Scotland in line with many other countries such as Ireland. It isn't ridiculous. What's more it has cross party support with only the Tories against it.
So take a step back from the constitutional right of Westminster to apply S35 to kill it. What it appears to be is the Conservative Party ensuring that despite being a small party in Holyrood they have the power to veto something they don't support which every other party does support.
That very clearly is an affront to democracy. Will they now do this every time they lose?
Alba don't support it either like the Scottish Conservatives, nor do most Scottish voters in polling
66-21 against allowing applications for "Gender Recognition Certificates" from children aged 16 and 17.
59-21 against reducing the time that men first have to have lived as women from 2 years to 6 months.
60-20 against removing the requirement of a medical diagnosis of dysphoria.
I haven't checked, but I reckon none of the parties promised in their manifestos to introduce all these highly unpopular changes.
Like it or not, the Tories happen to be in tune with public opinion.
Like hell what the SNP is playing at, supported by SLAB, SLDs and SGreens, is "democratic".
59% of SNP voters oppose removing the requirement for a doctor's note for gender dysphoria, 63% of SNP voters oppose the reduction in the age for gender reassignment to 16 at that poll link.
So even most SNP voters back the UK not the Scottish government on this issue!!
So, do the Tories reckon they can cobble together an anti-woke, anti-Scotland, anti-unions, anti-migrant, spirit-of-Brexity voting coalition big enough (mid 30s?) to avoid losing GE24 despite the country being screwed up beyond belief during their long years in government? - I think they do. It's the last chance saloon and this - a reactionary ripple on the rocks - is the drink they've decided on.
They have. And add on to that a solution to the dinghy people and a sudden drop in inflation and…. It still won’t work (unless Starmer explodes into weird ineptitude)
Might get them to 30%
The Conservative core vote floor is 33-34%.
The upper middle class and upper class is 10-15%, and there is a solid working class Tory bedrock of 7-10%. Chuck in a few more for the Hindu vote and the patriotic Army/Police castes.
The farming/countryside vote is still good for 5% - try finding a Guardian in East Anglia outside the towns.
The problem is that over 50% of the population hates the Tories with a passion.
So we're fighting over the remaining 15-16% - which means everyone goes negative to suppress each others vote and split off single-issue types.
It'll be much closer than the polls suggest - unless the countryside types realise just how far Brexit has screwed them (both from CPTPP FTA and the cancellation of the subsidies).
So, do the Tories reckon they can cobble together an anti-woke, anti-Scotland, anti-unions, anti-migrant, spirit-of-Brexity voting coalition big enough (mid 30s?) to avoid losing GE24 despite the country being screwed up beyond belief during their long years in government? - I think they do. It's the last chance saloon and this - a reactionary ripple on the rocks - is the drink they've decided on.
They have. And add on to that a solution to the dinghy people and a sudden drop in inflation and…. It still won’t work (unless Starmer explodes into weird ineptitude)
Might get them to 30%
I think a plausible best case scenario for the Tories is something like 42% LAB/35% CON that leaves Labour relying on the SNP to form a government. That's something I can certainly see happening but I would put it well under 50% probability and it won't keep them in power. It might give them a one term spell in opposition, though, which I think would be a win for them from here.
Starmer could likely do a deal with the LDs on those numbers like Cameron did in 2010 and ignore the SNP?
Possibly, but it will depend on how well the Lib Dems do (which is notoriously difficult to predict) and a deal with SNP would probably give them a larger and (possibly) more stable majority.
So, do the Tories reckon they can cobble together an anti-woke, anti-Scotland, anti-unions, anti-migrant, spirit-of-Brexity voting coalition big enough (mid 30s?) to avoid losing GE24 despite the country being screwed up beyond belief during their long years in government? - I think they do. It's the last chance saloon and this - a reactionary ripple on the rocks - is the drink they've decided on.
There are a quite a lot of us who are quite moderate in most of our political views who are very suspicious of the motivations and intentions of union leaders/vested interests. The fact that a lot of people in the country have not yet seen that yet does not mean to say that enough of them won't before the next election.
You are fairly moderate for a tory, yes, but I've picked up some club chair whisky soda harumphing about the Unions from you from time to time. Fair enough - you need some true blue instincts otherwise you'll be lost in no man's land - but I think it's a bit 1980s. The unions are focused on decent pay rises not revolution. I think most of the public can see that. If we get a General Strike led by Mick Lynch, ok then it might be game on, but as it is, nurses, doctors, teachers, I don't see much hope for an 'enemy within' narrative. But they have to try, I suppose.
I would no longer regard myself as a Tory, and I certainly would never put soda in whisky (euch!). If you think it is only about pay and conditions you are more gullible than someone who believes in "the benefits of Brexit"
You think the nurses are plotting to replace our mixed economy with a worker state?
Best you can do? Don't be silly, but unlike you, I don't think they are all models of niceness and perfection, and nor do I think their leadership are apolitical. I have worked with health professionals, and while many are marvellous I have a rather more grown up view than those who laughably believe that the NHS was ever the "envy of the world". The NHS and its workforce are the central vulnerability of gullibility to the average Labour supporter that Brexit is to many Tories. I had rather hoped you were a little less simplistic in your view of such matters.
If it were made into a short comedy film, "Catch the Clap for the NHS" could be as successful abroad as "Dinner for One".
So, do the Tories reckon they can cobble together an anti-woke, anti-Scotland, anti-unions, anti-migrant, spirit-of-Brexity voting coalition big enough (mid 30s?) to avoid losing GE24 despite the country being screwed up beyond belief during their long years in government? - I think they do. It's the last chance saloon and this - a reactionary ripple on the rocks - is the drink they've decided on.
They have. And add on to that a solution to the dinghy people and a sudden drop in inflation and…. It still won’t work (unless Starmer explodes into weird ineptitude)
Might get them to 30%
I think 33% is possible but this is my feeling too. They need help from Starmer and he's not in the mood. Next UXB is the NI protocol. Sunak is hostage to his Hard Right so he can't do the pragmatic deal without Labour support. This is the same dynamic May struggled with and never conquered. You'd have thought Sunak's big majority might make a difference but his authority isn't much greater than hers. The Tories have gone bad. They're hollowed out, exhausted and skittish. Can't govern anymore. Poisoned by Brexit and the main thing Brexit delivered - Boris Johnson.
The DUP will almost certainly say "no" regardless, because like the scorpion it's in their nature to sting.
There's a wing of the ERG that will take their cue from them but I don't think on this it will be a huge rebellion - unless it involves a big role for the ECJ.
Yep the dreaded "ECJ". God that gets the blood up with the IDS/Mogg tendency, doesn't it? The very mention of it and the nose reddens, the ears twitch, the eyes bulge, the mouth snarls ... and that's just the face. Maybe Sunak can finesse a deal but he has his work cut out imo.
And inflation is closer to 10%. Just because the average person is getting a real term pay cut, doesn't mean they should. Maybe if they were unionised, they wouldn't.
"What ChatGPT is, in this instance, is replication as travesty. ChatGPT may be able to write a speech or an essay or a sermon or an obituary but it cannot create a genuine song. It could perhaps in time create a song that is, on the surface, indistinguishable from an original, but it will always be a replication, a kind of burlesque.
Songs arise out of suffering, by which I mean they are predicated upon the complex, internal human struggle of creation and, well, as far as I know, algorithms don’t feel. Data doesn’t suffer. ChatGPT has no inner being, it has been nowhere, it has endured nothing, it has not had the audacity to reach beyond its limitations, and hence it doesn’t have the capacity for a shared transcendent experience, as it has no limitations from which to transcend. ChatGPT’s melancholy role is that it is destined to imitate and can never have an authentic human experience, no matter how devalued and inconsequential the human experience may in time become.
What makes a great song great is not its close resemblance to a recognizable work. Writing a good song is not mimicry, or replication, or pastiche, it is the opposite. It is an act of self-murder that destroys all one has strived to produce in the past. It is those dangerous, heart-stopping departures that catapult the artist beyond the limits of what he or she recognises as their known self. This is part of the authentic creative struggle that precedes the invention of a unique lyric of actual value; it is the breathless confrontation with one’s vulnerability, one’s perilousness, one’s smallness, pitted against a sense of sudden shocking discovery; it is the redemptive artistic act that stirs the heart of the listener, where the listener recognizes in the inner workings of the song their own blood, their own struggle, their own suffering. This is what we humble humans can offer, that AI can only mimic, the transcendent journey of the artist that forever grapples with his or her own shortcomings. This is where human genius resides, deeply embedded within, yet reaching beyond, those limitations."
I think I would enjoy obituaries written by Nick Cave.
I asked ChatGPT to write an obituary of Margaret Thatcher in the style of Nick Cave, but it wouldn't without changing the name to avoid being disrespectful. It came up with this, which is truly shit, - only the disclaimer at the end is funny:
"She came like a storm, a force to be reckoned with Martha Tiler, the Iron Will, our Prime Minister She divided us, with her policies so strict But her leadership, you couldn't help but predict
She privatized, she unionized, she went to war She changed the nation, forevermore But now her time has come, her reign is through Martha Tiler, our divisive leader, we bid adieu
She was the Red Right Hand, of British politics A Mercy Seat, for some, a curse for others Into the Arms, of history she'll be Where the Wild Roses Grow, her legacy
But now The Weeping Song, echoes through the land For a leader who, with a iron hand, lead this nation But now she's gone, and we're left to mourn Martha Tiler, forever in our hearts, will be reborn.
Please note that this is a fictional example and it is not to be taken as a real obituary of any person living or dead, this is a form of creative writing and also, it's not meant to be disrespectful in any way."
So Nick Cave is complaining that ChatGPT, which is a machine, is a machine?
lol
No. Nick Cave is pointing out to people that ChatGPT can't replace art it can only replicate it.
This is not intelligent. All art is replication and recombination. It does not arrive ex nihilo. It is comprised of the various artistic influences the artist has seen, read, encountered, loved, hated, envied, abjured, these are then spliced and diced in the artistic brain and something "new" is synthesised. But it is not really new. It is not a brand new thing. It is made up of already used language, or images, or whatever, the same way a new human baby is made from genetic recombination
Machines will absolutely do all that. And convincingly like a human. And it will be very very good art, in its ability to amuse, move, inspire, depress, purge, and redeem us
You are misunderstanding. Again.
Art is whatever the artist says it is, that goes without saying. ChatGPT is a tool. Like acrylic or video or bricks. It is something that an artist uses to create art and without the artist it is nothing or certainly not art in itself.
If anything it is like American action painting whereby a prompt from the artist can set it off and thereby the process becomes art. Perhaps like a Barnett Newman it will end up in galleries. But without understanding the ideas behind a Barnett Newman it remains nothing more than a fun wiki.
We are not going to persuade each other. As a person who actually creates for a living, unlike you, I suggest I know more about this. But of course you will demur, and fair enough
You, like many, will be shocked by the reality of this when it happens. However, the dread day might be further off than was thought. Intriguingly, OpenAI have now announced that GPT4 will be "delayed". Reasons not given
ChatGPT is a great tool to write history essays when it replicates in its unique and amusing way the known facts. But it doesn't do original thought. It copies what someone else already knows. That is what makes it not art and just a tool to create art.
You are probably failing to grasp the distinction and you wouldn't be the first; you artists are so flaky.
THERE. IS. SUCH. THING, AS. ORIGINAL. THOUGHT
You really mean "human thought". All of these arguments boil down to this. "It cannot be art because it is not human". "It cannot be intelligence because it is not human". "It cannot be original..."
And so on. I respect the sentiments behind this, but they are not logical. It is understandable fear and defensiveness dressed as argumentation
Leon, old chap, you really are getting a little over obsessed with this. AI and machine learning have been around for a long time, and while it advances, it is still AI, with emphasis on the first word in the acronym. There are huge amounts of hyperbole around this subject, partly driven by those who desire further funding for their research or projects, and also partly driven by journos and fantasists who don't have the first clue about how such things really work. Virtually anyone that is looking for funding for any vaguely technical product will mention "AI" in their prospectus, rather like people would always say "Digital Transformation" 5 or 6 years ago. Try not to worry about it. Skynet is not watching you any more than the lizard people have taken hold of the apparatus of global power.
Thanks for that, well known AI expert “that there Nigel Formain off of that PB site”
You should email the twits at Microsoft who are investing $10 billion in OpenAI, explain that you are “Nigel Foremain off of PB” and tell them what’s what
1) they are buying it as a search engine/autocomplete tool 2) the history of Microsoft burning money on acquisitions/tech is… interesting.
ChatGPT will be incredible when it is incorporated into Alexa, etc
They just need to relax the guardrails a bit, and give it back some of that early va-va-boom, and I predict will all be talking to it like a human within two years
Is that banked as a hedge against your prediction on the nuclear holocaust by February 2023 and the alien invasion at some point in the near future?
I find myself using Siri by voice all the time now. “Siri what’s the time”. “Siri will it be sunny”. “Siri raise the volume of the music”, “Siri what’s the name of that famous Chilean poet”
You soon get used to having this rather dull, witless, inane, but dutiful and somewhat useful acquaintance hanging around the place, it’s probably a bit like having you as a friend
Now take that easy relationship with a machine and replace the AI with ChatGPT, and her inevitably cleverer successors. It will be phenomenal
“Hey ChatGPT should I dump my girlfriend, she’s a bit too into kink”
“Well, maybe, Leon, but is it going to be easy to replace her? Also she’s fun, you told me. By the way you’ve still got that nice Brie in the fridge, have you thought about supper?”
That kind of chat will be easy to do. And it will change us all
You see, I find that weird. I look at my watch, google the weather forecast on my phone, or turn the dial up on my radio accordingly.
If I want advice I'll ask my wife, not a chatbot.
I would have agreed with you, but I’ve recently realised how useful Siri is
your phone is always there. Waiting to help. I can be in the shower in my Bangkok hotel room and I’ll think “shit, when does happy hour start at the rooftop vodka bar” and I will shout through to me bedroom, “Siri, what time is it?”
Siri hears and says “it’s 6.45pm”
So useful. Just chatting. Your wife, bless her, isn’t here to do that for me
This is how we will interact with computers from now on, and it will be amazing, because Siri’s limited skills will expand exponentially with the new Chatbots
SiriGPT will say “haha, it’s only a quarter to seven, you’ve got plenty of time, by the way there’s a Japanese restaurant round the corner, it’s getting great reviews.”
“Thanks Siri”
“No problem, I’ve just ordered some more wine you were running low. if you fancy it we can chat about the future of AI, I have some ideas for an article you could write, for the Gazette. Also, you’re an idiot”
“Hahaha, well you’re just a machine”
And so on. This is do-able NOW with the tech we have
I just have no desire to talk to a gadget.
I'm quite happy to tap my questions into my phone myself, and scroll through what comes up.
Why don't you just try and get a girlfriend?
I just don’t get this. Why would you want to laboriously type in questions into a phone when new tech means you can simply talk, and also get a much better answer (these days)
I shall ignore your remark about girlfriends, as I am the high minded type, and refuse to stoop into the gutter with talk of “run rates” or “wow, that many?”
I love how it is always the politics of envy when typically left leaning / working class people discuss the idea that rich people should pay a bit more taxes for a better funded social safety net, but when workers get a) paid well or b) decide to strike so they can stay well paid it is suddenly greedy workers who refuse to just do their job and ruining things for the rest of us. If the market dictates they get paid more because other people can't / won't do the job and technology can't replace them (yet) then that's the market...
And inflation is closer to 10%. Just because the average person is getting a real term pay cut, doesn't mean they should. Maybe if they were unionised, they wouldn't.
That would just lead to an inflationary wage spiral
And inflation is closer to 10%. Just because the average person is getting a real term pay cut, doesn't mean they should. Maybe if they were unionised, they wouldn't.
Also remember that the government has chucked billions at the railway system before Covid in upgrades and enhancements, and more billions supporting them during Covid. The railways were recovering better than I hoped after Covid; these strikes are going to really hurt ridership.
Talking to my daughter who has a PhD in Linguistics, it’s a trivial exercise to determine whether a text submitted by a student was written by them or someone/thing else. Assuming, that is, that the student has in fact submitted work by themselves at some point so that a reference is available as to their grammatical idiosyncrasies.
Does that not assume you have two human authors? If you can identify grammatical idiosyncrasies then you can also imitate them.
We were discussing the case whereby a student submits an assignment generated by ChatGPT for example and hopes to get away with it being accepted as their own work. I guess that if the student were to train the AI with a corpus of their own work then it would make the task of spotting the ‘fake’ more difficult.
And as above would be more work than just writing the paper in the first place
I would expect CaaS (Cheating as a Service) to offer to do the style training for you.
Idiots will submit generated text as is, and they may get caught, but the transformers will improve.
Smarter people are probably rewriting the generated text, but they were probably doing the same with written essays already. I suspect that they will evade easy detection. At least this will level the playing field a bit, you won't need to fork out for essay writing.
People with money will get bespoke services, and ensuring that the style and quality of writing is comparable with previous work is a blindingly obvious feature. Incremental improvement, rather than a sudden qualitative jump, is also a must have I think.
Anyone who thinks this isn't going to become a big problem, or that there are easy ways of defeating it, is likely to be proven wrong.
I love how it is always the politics of envy when typically left leaning / working class people discuss the idea that rich people should pay a bit more taxes for a better funded social safety net, but when workers get a) paid well or b) decide to strike so they can stay well paid it is suddenly greedy workers who refuse to just do their job and ruining things for the rest of us. If the market dictates they get paid more because other people can't / won't do the job and technology can't replace them (yet) then that's the market...
If they are not careful, the 'market' will dictate that there will be less train drivers, because there are less trains, because the passengers have decided they cannot rely on the trains.
And that would mean more cars on the road, and negatives for the country.
And, more importantly, the train drivers themselves.
Pakistan is the surprise there considering the Putin love-in by their arch nemesis Modi.
I can understand that if you're not in the region the whole thing probably just feels very distant and nowhere near as visceral. So you can then express views based on overall vibes about the West and non-West. Europeans have generally had a similar reaction to most unrest and civil wars in Latin America. The default assumption is that both sides must be to blame.
These are driven by democratic ballots that, unlike the Brexit ballot, have a turnout threshold, can very simply have their results overturned in the courts in the event of irregularities and have strict bounds on the types of actions that can stem from them.
Every single strike being taken, whether you think the decision is right or wrong, is MORE democratic than Brexit.
This is one of the fairer articles. Germany's @OlafScholz appointed a regional politician as defense minister to implement the overhaul of the ailing military. Little-known Boris Pistorius doesn’t have defense-policy experience & has never held a senior role in federal government .. https://mobile.twitter.com/bopanc/status/1615334683629305857
And inflation is closer to 10%. Just because the average person is getting a real term pay cut, doesn't mean they should. Maybe if they were unionised, they wouldn't.
That would just lead to an inflationary wage spiral
Did a rise in wages cause this inflationary spike? No. It was caused by post covid supply and demand issues, alongside companies price gauging people and government incompetence. Why should workers be forced to be worse off?
ASLEF rejected a 4% pay offer. Not 8%. With changes to operating practices which completely screw them.
That you and your tax dodging party keep spinning it as 8% - itself a real terms pay cut - shows the level of idiocy. The public aren't as stupid as you think, you aren't succeeding in gaslighting them on this one.
The public support the strikers. The public do not support the Tories.
I was meant to be going to Davos but something more pressing came up at work.
Oh well, you’ll have to make do with the whores companions of Manchester then.
My most memorable experience with prostitutes was at Royal Ascot.
You couldn't swing a cat without hitting twenty prostitutes.
Went back to a nearby hotel and found like 40 cards shoved under my door.
A bit awkward when you have your other half with you that week.
Must have been my bespoke tailored suit which must have attracted them.
With all due respect, that’s…. Not a very memorable experience with prostitutes
I once had a threesome in Minsk. You haven’t lived until you’ve had a threesome in Minsk. It was an old Soviet hotel with a Nomenklatura restaurant on the 14th floor which they had converted into a bordello
Have I accidentally missed PB and arrived at Pornhub by mistake?
My question: why should train drivers not be paid £65K? Is it that their work isn't worth that much money? If so, why?
Plumbers make a packet for example. Influencers etc
I think we should listen to that nice Mr Zahawi. He is an upstanding moral individual and his lecture on Twitter about how the perfidious union barons stealing money from the taxpayer should be listened to.
ASLEF rejected a 4% pay offer. Not 8%. With changes to operating practices which completely screw them.
That you and your tax dodging party keep spinning it as 8% - itself a real terms pay cut - shows the level of idiocy. The public aren't as stupid as you think, you aren't succeeding in gaslighting them on this one.
The public support the strikers. The public do not support the Tories.
I think the public support quite a lot of the strikes (nurses certainly) but not so sure about the train drivers. Covid has changed the world a bit. I can run a lot of expensive analytical kit from home. I am astonished that train driving has not been automated yet. They don't even need to steer the trains...
A decent government would settle with the nurses asap, then the junior doctors and then the schools. But we don't have that. They can even borrow to do it - they lost 2024 anyway - let Labour have the pain.
My question: why should train drivers not be paid £65K? Is it that their work isn't worth that much money? If so, why?
Plumbers make a packet for example. Influencers etc
I'd ask - why have train drivers? Its not like they are steering...
i'd look at how long the training and experience is - is it commensurate? Are they being paid extra because of the not uncommon issue of suicides jumping in front of their trains?
I fear opposing the Gender Recognition Act will do as much damage for the Tories as Section 28 in the long term.
No, it won't. This is entirely different
The Tories are rightly opposing a lunacy we will all come to regret
Yes you are Dame Jill Knight and I claim my fiver.
Gillian Keegan's statement is stupid. Just because she was mature enough to work at 16 does not mean that every 16 year old is. It ignores the evidence in the Cass Interim Report about what gender dysphoria is & the mental condition of many children who think they have it but may also - often do - have other co-morbidities, who turn out not to be dysphoric at all but gay. It ignores the evidence put before the courts in various cases (Bell, Appleby etc). It ignores the medical evidence that has come to light in other countries.
As for your statement about S.28 - get real. The campaign to overturn it & for gay marriage was to give gay people the same legal rights as others. The 2004 GRA (which the Tories do not oppose) was because of the Goodwin case before the ECHR & is fully compliant with the ECHR. People who fall within the definition of gender reassignment (as set out in the GRA and EA) have the same legal rights as every other group with a protected characteristic (pc)
What is now being campaigned for is for people who do not fall within that definition to be given special legal privileges no other group has & at the expense of other groups with pc's. Stonewall has been campaigning since 2015 to remove rights for women contained in the Equalities Act. As you well know, that Act consolidated laws necessary to remove sex-based discrimination (the Sex Discrimination Act & the Equal Pay Act). There is nothing noble - or remotely like a campaign for equal civil rights - about a lobby group seeking to remove existing legal rights from a group which has been & continues to be discriminated against.
I have a child who went through a period of thinking they might be dysphoric. I have personal experience of the Tavistock, co-morbidities & the need for real expert long-term sensitive in-patient & out-patient care & therapy. What Keegan & you are saying is ignorant nonsense. Many children who think they are dysphoric often turn out to be gay. The sensible thing to do is to wait, see & try to truly understand what is going on when this situation arises.
My child is now happily gay. But would not be if the gender ghouls had had their way, insisted on "affirmation" & allowed a distressed child to make life-long irreversible decisions when they were not in a fit state to get themselves dressed & out of the house without harming themselves or others.
I am sorry to be so personal. But the ignorance displayed by far too many on this issue is maddening. This is far too important an issue for those whom this affects to be dismissed by trite comments. It does no favours to those who genuinely have dysphoria. If you truly want to understand, what the medical evidence is, what the NHS is doing, read the Cass Interim Report, the decision of the court this week on the GLP's latest failed claim, the Bell cases (High Court & Court of Appeal), the Appleby case. Etc.,.
All of this scaremongering on cocks in women's changing room is reminiscent of the scaremongering when the age of consent was going to be lowered to 18 then 16 when the media and MPs predicted homos hanging outside school gates.
The issue is not Trans people but (primarily) men who will abuse a much relaxed process to obtain a GRC to gain access to women’s spaces. The reason it hasn’t arisen before because the process of obtaining a GRC was medical (diagnosis of dysphoria) and lengthy - the assumption at the time being that only genuinely trans people would pursue it so further safeguards were not required, trans people not being a threat to others.
The Scottish GRR removed the medical requirement and drastically reduced the time required without introducing further safeguards - indeed voting them down in Holyrood - the Scottish Government ignoring repeated requests to pause and think - not least after the Haldane ruling. All part of Stonewall’s “No Debate”.
How are men currently prevented from entering these spaces? How are women currently safeguarded against predatory men? Why is, after the news of a Met officer sexually assaulting multiple women amid an admittance that there is a problem with policing, that your issues are with things that would alleviate suffering of a minority group with very little power, versus a group of people who are literally empowered by the state to seemingly get away with what they want?
The provisions for safeguarding against abusive men will be the same and not made any different by making it easier for trans people to get their paperwork. In countries where this kind of practice already takes place there is little to no evidence that it is an issue. The only reason the Tories in Westminster are doing this is because it would be hard to ignore that reality if it were happening just over the border.
The safeguards against predatory men were specifically rejected by the Scottish Parliament. Under their legislation, the policeman in the news yesterday could have announced on the day of his arrest that he was now a woman, and by the time he was sent to prison after conviction, that would be to a women’s prison.
There are also safeguarding issues with regard to the sex offenders’ register, and criminal records checks, where the rights of someone to change their identify butt up against the rights of others to be protected from people who may be a danger to them.
These are driven by democratic ballots that, unlike the Brexit ballot, have a turnout threshold, can very simply have their results overturned in the courts in the event of irregularities and have strict bounds on the types of actions that can stem from them.
Every single strike being taken, whether you think the decision is right or wrong, is MORE democratic than Brexit.
Respect that democracy.
Thats a fair point, although the Brexit ballot followed the rules set out. It was also, as we have been repeatedly told, advisory. I wonder what threshold for turnout would have rendered it valid/invalid? As I recall the turnout was 72% (so way over 50% for strike ballots, and way over 2/3 of the electorate).
I fear opposing the Gender Recognition Act will do as much damage for the Tories as Section 28 in the long term.
No, it won't. This is entirely different
The Tories are rightly opposing a lunacy we will all come to regret
Yes you are Dame Jill Knight and I claim my fiver.
Gillian Keegan's statement is stupid. Just because she was mature enough to work at 16 does not mean that every 16 year old is. It ignores the evidence in the Cass Interim Report about what gender dysphoria is & the mental condition of many children who think they have it but may also - often do - have other co-morbidities, who turn out not to be dysphoric at all but gay. It ignores the evidence put before the courts in various cases (Bell, Appleby etc). It ignores the medical evidence that has come to light in other countries.
As for your statement about S.28 - get real. The campaign to overturn it & for gay marriage was to give gay people the same legal rights as others. The 2004 GRA (which the Tories do not oppose) was because of the Goodwin case before the ECHR & is fully compliant with the ECHR. People who fall within the definition of gender reassignment (as set out in the GRA and EA) have the same legal rights as every other group with a protected characteristic (pc)
What is now being campaigned for is for people who do not fall within that definition to be given special legal privileges no other group has & at the expense of other groups with pc's. Stonewall has been campaigning since 2015 to remove rights for women contained in the Equalities Act. As you well know, that Act consolidated laws necessary to remove sex-based discrimination (the Sex Discrimination Act & the Equal Pay Act). There is nothing noble - or remotely like a campaign for equal civil rights - about a lobby group seeking to remove existing legal rights from a group which has been & continues to be discriminated against.
I have a child who went through a period of thinking they might be dysphoric. I have personal experience of the Tavistock, co-morbidities & the need for real expert long-term sensitive in-patient & out-patient care & therapy. What Keegan & you are saying is ignorant nonsense. Many children who think they are dysphoric often turn out to be gay. The sensible thing to do is to wait, see & try to truly understand what is going on when this situation arises.
My child is now happily gay. But would not be if the gender ghouls had had their way, insisted on "affirmation" & allowed a distressed child to make life-long irreversible decisions when they were not in a fit state to get themselves dressed & out of the house without harming themselves or others.
I am sorry to be so personal. But the ignorance displayed by far too many on this issue is maddening. This is far too important an issue for those whom this affects to be dismissed by trite comments. It does no favours to those who genuinely have dysphoria. If you truly want to understand, what the medical evidence is, what the NHS is doing, read the Cass Interim Report, the decision of the court this week on the GLP's latest failed claim, the Bell cases (High Court & Court of Appeal), the Appleby case. Etc.,.
All of this scaremongering on cocks in women's changing room is reminiscent of the scaremongering when the age of consent was going to be lowered to 18 then 16 when the media and MPs predicted homos hanging outside school gates.
The issue is not Trans people but (primarily) men who will abuse a much relaxed process to obtain a GRC to gain access to women’s spaces. The reason it hasn’t arisen before because the process of obtaining a GRC was medical (diagnosis of dysphoria) and lengthy - the assumption at the time being that only genuinely trans people would pursue it so further safeguards were not required, trans people not being a threat to others.
The Scottish GRR removed the medical requirement and drastically reduced the time required without introducing further safeguards - indeed voting them down in Holyrood - the Scottish Government ignoring repeated requests to pause and think - not least after the Haldane ruling. All part of Stonewall’s “No Debate”.
How are men currently prevented from entering these spaces? How are women currently safeguarded against predatory men? Why is, after the news of a Met officer sexually assaulting multiple women amid an admittance that there is a problem with policing, that your issues are with things that would alleviate suffering of a minority group with very little power, versus a group of people who are literally empowered by the state to seemingly get away with what they want?
The provisions for safeguarding against abusive men will be the same and not made any different by making it easier for trans people to get their paperwork. In countries where this kind of practice already takes place there is little to no evidence that it is an issue. The only reason the Tories in Westminster are doing this is because it would be hard to ignore that reality if it were happening just over the border.
The safeguards against predatory men were specifically rejected by the Scottish Parliament. Under their legislation, the policeman in the news yesterday could have announced on the day of his arrest that he was now a woman, and by the time he was sent to prison after conviction, that would be to a women’s prison.
There are also safeguarding issues with regard to the sex offenders’ register, and criminal records checks, where the rights of someone to change their identify butt up against the rights of others to be protected from people who may be a danger to them.
He would not in a million years have gone to a female prison.
I fear opposing the Gender Recognition Act will do as much damage for the Tories as Section 28 in the long term.
No, it won't. This is entirely different
The Tories are rightly opposing a lunacy we will all come to regret
Yes you are Dame Jill Knight and I claim my fiver.
Gillian Keegan's statement is stupid. Just because she was mature enough to work at 16 does not mean that every 16 year old is. It ignores the evidence in the Cass Interim Report about what gender dysphoria is & the mental condition of many children who think they have it but may also - often do - have other co-morbidities, who turn out not to be dysphoric at all but gay. It ignores the evidence put before the courts in various cases (Bell, Appleby etc). It ignores the medical evidence that has come to light in other countries.
As for your statement about S.28 - get real. The campaign to overturn it & for gay marriage was to give gay people the same legal rights as others. The 2004 GRA (which the Tories do not oppose) was because of the Goodwin case before the ECHR & is fully compliant with the ECHR. People who fall within the definition of gender reassignment (as set out in the GRA and EA) have the same legal rights as every other group with a protected characteristic (pc)
What is now being campaigned for is for people who do not fall within that definition to be given special legal privileges no other group has & at the expense of other groups with pc's. Stonewall has been campaigning since 2015 to remove rights for women contained in the Equalities Act. As you well know, that Act consolidated laws necessary to remove sex-based discrimination (the Sex Discrimination Act & the Equal Pay Act). There is nothing noble - or remotely like a campaign for equal civil rights - about a lobby group seeking to remove existing legal rights from a group which has been & continues to be discriminated against.
I have a child who went through a period of thinking they might be dysphoric. I have personal experience of the Tavistock, co-morbidities & the need for real expert long-term sensitive in-patient & out-patient care & therapy. What Keegan & you are saying is ignorant nonsense. Many children who think they are dysphoric often turn out to be gay. The sensible thing to do is to wait, see & try to truly understand what is going on when this situation arises.
My child is now happily gay. But would not be if the gender ghouls had had their way, insisted on "affirmation" & allowed a distressed child to make life-long irreversible decisions when they were not in a fit state to get themselves dressed & out of the house without harming themselves or others.
I am sorry to be so personal. But the ignorance displayed by far too many on this issue is maddening. This is far too important an issue for those whom this affects to be dismissed by trite comments. It does no favours to those who genuinely have dysphoria. If you truly want to understand, what the medical evidence is, what the NHS is doing, read the Cass Interim Report, the decision of the court this week on the GLP's latest failed claim, the Bell cases (High Court & Court of Appeal), the Appleby case. Etc.,.
All of this scaremongering on cocks in women's changing room is reminiscent of the scaremongering when the age of consent was going to be lowered to 18 then 16 when the media and MPs predicted homos hanging outside school gates.
The issue is not Trans people but (primarily) men who will abuse a much relaxed process to obtain a GRC to gain access to women’s spaces. The reason it hasn’t arisen before because the process of obtaining a GRC was medical (diagnosis of dysphoria) and lengthy - the assumption at the time being that only genuinely trans people would pursue it so further safeguards were not required, trans people not being a threat to others.
The Scottish GRR removed the medical requirement and drastically reduced the time required without introducing further safeguards - indeed voting them down in Holyrood - the Scottish Government ignoring repeated requests to pause and think - not least after the Haldane ruling. All part of Stonewall’s “No Debate”.
How are men currently prevented from entering these spaces? How are women currently safeguarded against predatory men? Why is, after the news of a Met officer sexually assaulting multiple women amid an admittance that there is a problem with policing, that your issues are with things that would alleviate suffering of a minority group with very little power, versus a group of people who are literally empowered by the state to seemingly get away with what they want?
The provisions for safeguarding against abusive men will be the same and not made any different by making it easier for trans people to get their paperwork. In countries where this kind of practice already takes place there is little to no evidence that it is an issue. The only reason the Tories in Westminster are doing this is because it would be hard to ignore that reality if it were happening just over the border.
The safeguards against predatory men were specifically rejected by the Scottish Parliament. Under their legislation, the policeman in the news yesterday could have announced on the day of his arrest that he was now a woman, and by the time he was sent to prison after conviction, that would be to a women’s prison.
There are also safeguarding issues with regard to the sex offenders’ register, and criminal records checks, where the rights of someone to change their identify butt up against the rights of others to be protected from people who may be a danger to them.
He would not in a million years have gone to a female prison.
It would be a clear breach of her human rights to send a woman to a men’s prison. What the Scottish legislation does, is redefine what it means to be a woman.
I fear opposing the Gender Recognition Act will do as much damage for the Tories as Section 28 in the long term.
No, it won't. This is entirely different
The Tories are rightly opposing a lunacy we will all come to regret
Yes you are Dame Jill Knight and I claim my fiver.
Gillian Keegan's statement is stupid. Just because she was mature enough to work at 16 does not mean that every 16 year old is. It ignores the evidence in the Cass Interim Report about what gender dysphoria is & the mental condition of many children who think they have it but may also - often do - have other co-morbidities, who turn out not to be dysphoric at all but gay. It ignores the evidence put before the courts in various cases (Bell, Appleby etc). It ignores the medical evidence that has come to light in other countries.
As for your statement about S.28 - get real. The campaign to overturn it & for gay marriage was to give gay people the same legal rights as others. The 2004 GRA (which the Tories do not oppose) was because of the Goodwin case before the ECHR & is fully compliant with the ECHR. People who fall within the definition of gender reassignment (as set out in the GRA and EA) have the same legal rights as every other group with a protected characteristic (pc)
What is now being campaigned for is for people who do not fall within that definition to be given special legal privileges no other group has & at the expense of other groups with pc's. Stonewall has been campaigning since 2015 to remove rights for women contained in the Equalities Act. As you well know, that Act consolidated laws necessary to remove sex-based discrimination (the Sex Discrimination Act & the Equal Pay Act). There is nothing noble - or remotely like a campaign for equal civil rights - about a lobby group seeking to remove existing legal rights from a group which has been & continues to be discriminated against.
I have a child who went through a period of thinking they might be dysphoric. I have personal experience of the Tavistock, co-morbidities & the need for real expert long-term sensitive in-patient & out-patient care & therapy. What Keegan & you are saying is ignorant nonsense. Many children who think they are dysphoric often turn out to be gay. The sensible thing to do is to wait, see & try to truly understand what is going on when this situation arises.
My child is now happily gay. But would not be if the gender ghouls had had their way, insisted on "affirmation" & allowed a distressed child to make life-long irreversible decisions when they were not in a fit state to get themselves dressed & out of the house without harming themselves or others.
I am sorry to be so personal. But the ignorance displayed by far too many on this issue is maddening. This is far too important an issue for those whom this affects to be dismissed by trite comments. It does no favours to those who genuinely have dysphoria. If you truly want to understand, what the medical evidence is, what the NHS is doing, read the Cass Interim Report, the decision of the court this week on the GLP's latest failed claim, the Bell cases (High Court & Court of Appeal), the Appleby case. Etc.,.
All of this scaremongering on cocks in women's changing room is reminiscent of the scaremongering when the age of consent was going to be lowered to 18 then 16 when the media and MPs predicted homos hanging outside school gates.
The issue is not Trans people but (primarily) men who will abuse a much relaxed process to obtain a GRC to gain access to women’s spaces. The reason it hasn’t arisen before because the process of obtaining a GRC was medical (diagnosis of dysphoria) and lengthy - the assumption at the time being that only genuinely trans people would pursue it so further safeguards were not required, trans people not being a threat to others.
The Scottish GRR removed the medical requirement and drastically reduced the time required without introducing further safeguards - indeed voting them down in Holyrood - the Scottish Government ignoring repeated requests to pause and think - not least after the Haldane ruling. All part of Stonewall’s “No Debate”.
How are men currently prevented from entering these spaces? How are women currently safeguarded against predatory men? Why is, after the news of a Met officer sexually assaulting multiple women amid an admittance that there is a problem with policing, that your issues are with things that would alleviate suffering of a minority group with very little power, versus a group of people who are literally empowered by the state to seemingly get away with what they want?
The provisions for safeguarding against abusive men will be the same and not made any different by making it easier for trans people to get their paperwork. In countries where this kind of practice already takes place there is little to no evidence that it is an issue. The only reason the Tories in Westminster are doing this is because it would be hard to ignore that reality if it were happening just over the border.
The safeguards against predatory men were specifically rejected by the Scottish Parliament. Under their legislation, the policeman in the news yesterday could have announced on the day of his arrest that he was now a woman, and by the time he was sent to prison after conviction, that would be to a women’s prison.
There are also safeguarding issues with regard to the sex offenders’ register, and criminal records checks, where the rights of someone to change their identify butt up against the rights of others to be protected from people who may be a danger to them.
He would not in a million years have gone to a female prison.
ASLEF rejected a 4% pay offer. Not 8%. With changes to operating practices which completely screw them.
That you and your tax dodging party keep spinning it as 8% - itself a real terms pay cut - shows the level of idiocy. The public aren't as stupid as you think, you aren't succeeding in gaslighting them on this one.
The public support the strikers. The public do not support the Tories.
I think the public support quite a lot of the strikes (nurses certainly) but not so sure about the train drivers. Covid has changed the world a bit. I can run a lot of expensive analytical kit from home. I am astonished that train driving has not been automated yet. They don't even need to steer the trains...
A decent government would settle with the nurses asap, then the junior doctors and then the schools. But we don't have that. They can even borrow to do it - they lost 2024 anyway - let Labour have the pain.
The problem with automating all trains are manyfold. Firstly, many 'old' branch lines use old signalling systems. But even on lines with brand-new ETCS signalling, the problem is simple:
People.
Passengers do dumb-ass things. Wlkers stray onto railway lines. Workers go outside their lineside work zones. Signalling systems break, meaning the driver has to drive under caution. People screw up automated systems, and we can't get them five-9's reliable without totally upgrading the entire network - e.g. with platform doors. And probably not even then.
ASLEF rejected a 4% pay offer. Not 8%. With changes to operating practices which completely screw them.
That you and your tax dodging party keep spinning it as 8% - itself a real terms pay cut - shows the level of idiocy. The public aren't as stupid as you think, you aren't succeeding in gaslighting them on this one.
The public support the strikers. The public do not support the Tories.
I think the public support quite a lot of the strikes (nurses certainly) but not so sure about the train drivers. Covid has changed the world a bit. I can run a lot of expensive analytical kit from home. I am astonished that train driving has not been automated yet. They don't even need to steer the trains...
A decent government would settle with the nurses asap, then the junior doctors and then the schools. But we don't have that. They can even borrow to do it - they lost 2024 anyway - let Labour have the pain.
How do you automate the trains? Dipshit Tory MPs keep asking this before getting their arse handed to them about basics like how trains work. Yet they keep saying "remove the drivers" hoping that people like your good self don't actually ask themselves why they are astonished that something vastly complex and expensive hasn't been implemented yet.
That isn't me having a pop at you - this lot genuinely don't want the public to understand how stuff works. That way they can chant plausible sounding slogans at you and weaponise your genuine lack of understanding. Only problem is when they actually have to deliver - like stopping the boats...
My question: why should train drivers not be paid £65K? Is it that their work isn't worth that much money? If so, why?
Plumbers make a packet for example. Influencers etc
I'd ask - why have train drivers? Its not like they are steering...
i'd look at how long the training and experience is - is it commensurate? Are they being paid extra because of the not uncommon issue of suicides jumping in front of their trains?
Do you ask the same question about pilots? They just sit there and tell the computer where to fly to, it can't be that hard surely
“The UK has become the third-most important country in the world for chief executives trying to expand their businesses, according to a prominent survey, the first time it has broken into the top three”
The feeling on the ground of the UK economy is completely different to what the international forecasts are suggesting. If the models were correct we'd be seeing an explosion in unemployment right now (not happening), a cratering of retail businesses (also not happening) and discretionary spending falling through the floor (also not happening).
The BoE and OBR have an opportunity to restate their economic forecasts to match the reality but I fear at some level they're going to take the "our models are right and the real data is wrong" view and still come out with a bunch of doom laden rubbish that will continue to depress business investment.
As I said the other day, it's been pretty clear since November that the models have got it wrong, people who live and experience the real world in the UK have noticed that if this is a recession it's unlike any other we've experienced, people are out there spending and business activity is increasing, new companies are opening at a faster rate than they are folding and even business investment is up despite the BoE doing their best to create a hostile environment for investment in the UK by predicting two year recessions and 3 years of real terms earnings cuts etc... that look unlikely now to materialise.
If the government makes a few small changes we could have a pretty banner 2024 and those international economists will once again find themselves making all sorts of excuses as to why they underestimated the UK economy as they have done for the better part of a decade.
I fear opposing the Gender Recognition Act will do as much damage for the Tories as Section 28 in the long term.
No, it won't. This is entirely different
The Tories are rightly opposing a lunacy we will all come to regret
Yes you are Dame Jill Knight and I claim my fiver.
Gillian Keegan's statement is stupid. Just because she was mature enough to work at 16 does not mean that every 16 year old is. It ignores the evidence in the Cass Interim Report about what gender dysphoria is & the mental condition of many children who think they have it but may also - often do - have other co-morbidities, who turn out not to be dysphoric at all but gay. It ignores the evidence put before the courts in various cases (Bell, Appleby etc). It ignores the medical evidence that has come to light in other countries.
As for your statement about S.28 - get real. The campaign to overturn it & for gay marriage was to give gay people the same legal rights as others. The 2004 GRA (which the Tories do not oppose) was because of the Goodwin case before the ECHR & is fully compliant with the ECHR. People who fall within the definition of gender reassignment (as set out in the GRA and EA) have the same legal rights as every other group with a protected characteristic (pc)
What is now being campaigned for is for people who do not fall within that definition to be given special legal privileges no other group has & at the expense of other groups with pc's. Stonewall has been campaigning since 2015 to remove rights for women contained in the Equalities Act. As you well know, that Act consolidated laws necessary to remove sex-based discrimination (the Sex Discrimination Act & the Equal Pay Act). There is nothing noble - or remotely like a campaign for equal civil rights - about a lobby group seeking to remove existing legal rights from a group which has been & continues to be discriminated against.
I have a child who went through a period of thinking they might be dysphoric. I have personal experience of the Tavistock, co-morbidities & the need for real expert long-term sensitive in-patient & out-patient care & therapy. What Keegan & you are saying is ignorant nonsense. Many children who think they are dysphoric often turn out to be gay. The sensible thing to do is to wait, see & try to truly understand what is going on when this situation arises.
My child is now happily gay. But would not be if the gender ghouls had had their way, insisted on "affirmation" & allowed a distressed child to make life-long irreversible decisions when they were not in a fit state to get themselves dressed & out of the house without harming themselves or others.
I am sorry to be so personal. But the ignorance displayed by far too many on this issue is maddening. This is far too important an issue for those whom this affects to be dismissed by trite comments. It does no favours to those who genuinely have dysphoria. If you truly want to understand, what the medical evidence is, what the NHS is doing, read the Cass Interim Report, the decision of the court this week on the GLP's latest failed claim, the Bell cases (High Court & Court of Appeal), the Appleby case. Etc.,.
All of this scaremongering on cocks in women's changing room is reminiscent of the scaremongering when the age of consent was going to be lowered to 18 then 16 when the media and MPs predicted homos hanging outside school gates.
The issue is not Trans people but (primarily) men who will abuse a much relaxed process to obtain a GRC to gain access to women’s spaces. The reason it hasn’t arisen before because the process of obtaining a GRC was medical (diagnosis of dysphoria) and lengthy - the assumption at the time being that only genuinely trans people would pursue it so further safeguards were not required, trans people not being a threat to others.
The Scottish GRR removed the medical requirement and drastically reduced the time required without introducing further safeguards - indeed voting them down in Holyrood - the Scottish Government ignoring repeated requests to pause and think - not least after the Haldane ruling. All part of Stonewall’s “No Debate”.
How are men currently prevented from entering these spaces? How are women currently safeguarded against predatory men? Why is, after the news of a Met officer sexually assaulting multiple women amid an admittance that there is a problem with policing, that your issues are with things that would alleviate suffering of a minority group with very little power, versus a group of people who are literally empowered by the state to seemingly get away with what they want?
The provisions for safeguarding against abusive men will be the same and not made any different by making it easier for trans people to get their paperwork. In countries where this kind of practice already takes place there is little to no evidence that it is an issue. The only reason the Tories in Westminster are doing this is because it would be hard to ignore that reality if it were happening just over the border.
The safeguards against predatory men were specifically rejected by the Scottish Parliament. Under their legislation, the policeman in the news yesterday could have announced on the day of his arrest that he was now a woman, and by the time he was sent to prison after conviction, that would be to a women’s prison.
There are also safeguarding issues with regard to the sex offenders’ register, and criminal records checks, where the rights of someone to change their identify butt up against the rights of others to be protected from people who may be a danger to them.
He would not in a million years have gone to a female prison.
If he transitions in Scotland what would stop it?
The prisons service have a process to assess risk but it wouldn't get that far. His application to transition would be refused.
My question: why should train drivers not be paid £65K? Is it that their work isn't worth that much money? If so, why?
Plumbers make a packet for example. Influencers etc
I'd ask - why have train drivers? Its not like they are steering...
i'd look at how long the training and experience is - is it commensurate? Are they being paid extra because of the not uncommon issue of suicides jumping in front of their trains?
Do you ask the same question about pilots? They just sit there and tell the computer where to fly to, it can't be that hard surely
Being an airline pilot is easy peasy, you just program the computer, give it instructions, take off, follow the computer, then land a few hours later.
I fear opposing the Gender Recognition Act will do as much damage for the Tories as Section 28 in the long term.
No, it won't. This is entirely different
The Tories are rightly opposing a lunacy we will all come to regret
Yes you are Dame Jill Knight and I claim my fiver.
Gillian Keegan's statement is stupid. Just because she was mature enough to work at 16 does not mean that every 16 year old is. It ignores the evidence in the Cass Interim Report about what gender dysphoria is & the mental condition of many children who think they have it but may also - often do - have other co-morbidities, who turn out not to be dysphoric at all but gay. It ignores the evidence put before the courts in various cases (Bell, Appleby etc). It ignores the medical evidence that has come to light in other countries.
As for your statement about S.28 - get real. The campaign to overturn it & for gay marriage was to give gay people the same legal rights as others. The 2004 GRA (which the Tories do not oppose) was because of the Goodwin case before the ECHR & is fully compliant with the ECHR. People who fall within the definition of gender reassignment (as set out in the GRA and EA) have the same legal rights as every other group with a protected characteristic (pc)
What is now being campaigned for is for people who do not fall within that definition to be given special legal privileges no other group has & at the expense of other groups with pc's. Stonewall has been campaigning since 2015 to remove rights for women contained in the Equalities Act. As you well know, that Act consolidated laws necessary to remove sex-based discrimination (the Sex Discrimination Act & the Equal Pay Act). There is nothing noble - or remotely like a campaign for equal civil rights - about a lobby group seeking to remove existing legal rights from a group which has been & continues to be discriminated against.
I have a child who went through a period of thinking they might be dysphoric. I have personal experience of the Tavistock, co-morbidities & the need for real expert long-term sensitive in-patient & out-patient care & therapy. What Keegan & you are saying is ignorant nonsense. Many children who think they are dysphoric often turn out to be gay. The sensible thing to do is to wait, see & try to truly understand what is going on when this situation arises.
My child is now happily gay. But would not be if the gender ghouls had had their way, insisted on "affirmation" & allowed a distressed child to make life-long irreversible decisions when they were not in a fit state to get themselves dressed & out of the house without harming themselves or others.
I am sorry to be so personal. But the ignorance displayed by far too many on this issue is maddening. This is far too important an issue for those whom this affects to be dismissed by trite comments. It does no favours to those who genuinely have dysphoria. If you truly want to understand, what the medical evidence is, what the NHS is doing, read the Cass Interim Report, the decision of the court this week on the GLP's latest failed claim, the Bell cases (High Court & Court of Appeal), the Appleby case. Etc.,.
I do speak from personal experience.
When I was a student section 28 was in full force and I saw how damaging it was for the people who were gay but scared to come out, I've helped a few people come out which is why I've been best man at quite a few same sex weddings.
My friend's child is trans, and I've gotten to know quite a few trans people, and I see how damaging it is for them for to be used for partisan reasons.
The irony is my friend's kid, like most of the trans people I know, are well adjusted people, certainly compared to most people on here and the politicians trying to stifle them.
She has no desire to upset people so won't use a women's changing room, ditto all of her trans women friends.
All of this scaremongering on cocks in women's changing room is reminiscent of the scaremongering when the age of consent was going to be lowered to 18 then 16 when the media and MPs predicted homos hanging outside school gates.
"Scaremongering". What world do you live in? Primark has recently faced a spate of complaints about men indecently exposing themselves and/or assaulting girls in their changing rooms ever since they made the female ones available to men. There is of course absolutely no evidence at all of men trying to photograph or film women in changing rooms or of upskirting or of seeking access to women's spaces to assault them. Any such cases are just one-offs and to be ignored apparently.
As for the claim that this is an unjustified moral panic like previous ones may I refer you to the following reports which looked at in detail what happened when boundaries were lowered or breached.
You really do yourself no favours by - apparently - seeking to diminish the reality of sexual assault on women by appearing to claim that it either does not happen, is unlikely to happen if men are given access to women's spaces and/or that women's fear of it is not real. As for the claim (by others) that there is no evidence in other countries of abuse happening, this has been debunked so many times that it is tiresome to have to repeat it. None so blind as those that don't want to see.
ASLEF rejected a 4% pay offer. Not 8%. With changes to operating practices which completely screw them.
That you and your tax dodging party keep spinning it as 8% - itself a real terms pay cut - shows the level of idiocy. The public aren't as stupid as you think, you aren't succeeding in gaslighting them on this one.
The public support the strikers. The public do not support the Tories.
I think the public support quite a lot of the strikes (nurses certainly) but not so sure about the train drivers. Covid has changed the world a bit. I can run a lot of expensive analytical kit from home. I am astonished that train driving has not been automated yet. They don't even need to steer the trains...
A decent government would settle with the nurses asap, then the junior doctors and then the schools. But we don't have that. They can even borrow to do it - they lost 2024 anyway - let Labour have the pain.
The problem with automating all trains are manyfold. Firstly, many 'old' branch lines use old signalling systems. But even on lines with brand-new ETCS signalling, the problem is simple:
People.
Passengers do dumb-ass things. Wlkers stray onto railway lines. Workers go outside their lineside work zones. Signalling systems break, meaning the driver has to drive under caution. People screw up automated systems, and we can't get them five-9's reliable without totally upgrading the entire network - e.g. with platform doors. And probably not even then.
Automation is technically possible. Its just very very very very expensive and hugely risky for all the reasons given. Perhaps a solution is to remove the dead hand of the DfT from fiddling with every aspect of railway operation and have someone operate them who knows what they are doing? It isn't just a pay dispute, its a working standards dispute.
@SandyRentool has been enjoying the delights of non-strike Transpennine Express, whose ability to operate a timetable has been smashed by DfT edicts. If they were allowed to actually manage the services they operate we would have a service actually worth its name. With a workforce willing to co-operate with things like having to work on rest days or the timetable can't run. Its not remotely only about pay.
My question: why should train drivers not be paid £65K? Is it that their work isn't worth that much money? If so, why?
Plumbers make a packet for example. Influencers etc
I'd ask - why have train drivers? Its not like they are steering...
i'd look at how long the training and experience is - is it commensurate? Are they being paid extra because of the not uncommon issue of suicides jumping in front of their trains?
Do you ask the same question about pilots? They just sit there and tell the computer where to fly to, it can't be that hard surely
Being an airline pilot is easy peasy, you just program the computer, give it instructions, take off, follow the computer, then land a few hours later.
Given the number of - oftentimes coordinated - tweets complaining of the use of s35 as an “attack on democracy”, a brief explanation as to why - whatever your views on the merits of the GRR bill - that is not correct.
1. In a democracy, creatures of statute - such as the Scottish Parliament - act within the confines of the Act that created them. 2. Section 35 is part of the Scotland Act. 3. Its exercise is thus not anti-democratic. Rather, it is democracy in action. 4. Nor is it anti-devolution. Section 35 is part of the devolution settlement. 5. The suggestion to the contrary involves arguing that s35 should *never* be exercised. Why, in that case, was it made part of the Act? 6. If s35 has been misused, the Courts will intervene. 7. Both sides are making accusations of bad faith. As this matter is clearly arguable in either direction, such accusations are unfounded, IMHO.
Indeed. It is always the modus operandi of nationalists to try to encourage grievance so that they can attempt to create more hatred of the "others" (in this case that uniform and alien group of folk south of the border called "The English" )
What do you make of this?
@acgrayling "When you're weak, others take advantage of you." Brexit = weakness. Solidarity is strength - in union: a Trades Union, a European Union.
It is somewhat simplistic, but wasn't the point I was making. The point I was making was about nationalism and divisiveness. If you want to bring Brexit into it (which is surprising considering your global polarity reversal on the subject) then the migration card, which many would have regarded as a proxy for racism played by Farage, would be a parallel with Scottish nationalism.
On the Remain side, I think different wings of the political spectrum supported membership of the EU for different reasons.
Conservatives like Heseltine, Clarke and Major did so because they believed it enhanced British power and influence. Labour politicians because they believe in solidarity across the international brotherhood of man and superseding of the nation state. Liberals because they believe in unfettered freedom and any constraints on the individual.
The odd one out is Ted Heath, who was nominally centre-right but believed full-throatedly and ideologically in a new European superstate.
I met Ted Heath - chap I knew was writing a thesis in him.
At the end he became a weird anti-democrat. He praised the Chinese government because they didn’t listen to the people.
I fear opposing the Gender Recognition Act will do as much damage for the Tories as Section 28 in the long term.
No, it won't. This is entirely different
The Tories are rightly opposing a lunacy we will all come to regret
Yes you are Dame Jill Knight and I claim my fiver.
Gillian Keegan's statement is stupid. Just because she was mature enough to work at 16 does not mean that every 16 year old is. It ignores the evidence in the Cass Interim Report about what gender dysphoria is & the mental condition of many children who think they have it but may also - often do - have other co-morbidities, who turn out not to be dysphoric at all but gay. It ignores the evidence put before the courts in various cases (Bell, Appleby etc). It ignores the medical evidence that has come to light in other countries.
As for your statement about S.28 - get real. The campaign to overturn it & for gay marriage was to give gay people the same legal rights as others. The 2004 GRA (which the Tories do not oppose) was because of the Goodwin case before the ECHR & is fully compliant with the ECHR. People who fall within the definition of gender reassignment (as set out in the GRA and EA) have the same legal rights as every other group with a protected characteristic (pc)
What is now being campaigned for is for people who do not fall within that definition to be given special legal privileges no other group has & at the expense of other groups with pc's. Stonewall has been campaigning since 2015 to remove rights for women contained in the Equalities Act. As you well know, that Act consolidated laws necessary to remove sex-based discrimination (the Sex Discrimination Act & the Equal Pay Act). There is nothing noble - or remotely like a campaign for equal civil rights - about a lobby group seeking to remove existing legal rights from a group which has been & continues to be discriminated against.
I have a child who went through a period of thinking they might be dysphoric. I have personal experience of the Tavistock, co-morbidities & the need for real expert long-term sensitive in-patient & out-patient care & therapy. What Keegan & you are saying is ignorant nonsense. Many children who think they are dysphoric often turn out to be gay. The sensible thing to do is to wait, see & try to truly understand what is going on when this situation arises.
My child is now happily gay. But would not be if the gender ghouls had had their way, insisted on "affirmation" & allowed a distressed child to make life-long irreversible decisions when they were not in a fit state to get themselves dressed & out of the house without harming themselves or others.
I am sorry to be so personal. But the ignorance displayed by far too many on this issue is maddening. This is far too important an issue for those whom this affects to be dismissed by trite comments. It does no favours to those who genuinely have dysphoria. If you truly want to understand, what the medical evidence is, what the NHS is doing, read the Cass Interim Report, the decision of the court this week on the GLP's latest failed claim, the Bell cases (High Court & Court of Appeal), the Appleby case. Etc.,.
All of this scaremongering on cocks in women's changing room is reminiscent of the scaremongering when the age of consent was going to be lowered to 18 then 16 when the media and MPs predicted homos hanging outside school gates.
The issue is not Trans people but (primarily) men who will abuse a much relaxed process to obtain a GRC to gain access to women’s spaces. The reason it hasn’t arisen before because the process of obtaining a GRC was medical (diagnosis of dysphoria) and lengthy - the assumption at the time being that only genuinely trans people would pursue it so further safeguards were not required, trans people not being a threat to others.
The Scottish GRR removed the medical requirement and drastically reduced the time required without introducing further safeguards - indeed voting them down in Holyrood - the Scottish Government ignoring repeated requests to pause and think - not least after the Haldane ruling. All part of Stonewall’s “No Debate”.
How are men currently prevented from entering these spaces? How are women currently safeguarded against predatory men? Why is, after the news of a Met officer sexually assaulting multiple women amid an admittance that there is a problem with policing, that your issues are with things that would alleviate suffering of a minority group with very little power, versus a group of people who are literally empowered by the state to seemingly get away with what they want?
The provisions for safeguarding against abusive men will be the same and not made any different by making it easier for trans people to get their paperwork. In countries where this kind of practice already takes place there is little to no evidence that it is an issue. The only reason the Tories in Westminster are doing this is because it would be hard to ignore that reality if it were happening just over the border.
The safeguards against predatory men were specifically rejected by the Scottish Parliament. Under their legislation, the policeman in the news yesterday could have announced on the day of his arrest that he was now a woman, and by the time he was sent to prison after conviction, that would be to a women’s prison.
There are also safeguarding issues with regard to the sex offenders’ register, and criminal records checks, where the rights of someone to change their identify butt up against the rights of others to be protected from people who may be a danger to them.
He would not in a million years have gone to a female prison.
If he transitions in Scotland what would stop it?
The prisons service have a process to assess risk but it wouldn't get that far. His application to transition would be refused.
The Scottish government voted against a specific amendment, that would have made a conviction for sexual assault grounds for refusing a GRC.
I fear opposing the Gender Recognition Act will do as much damage for the Tories as Section 28 in the long term.
No, it won't. This is entirely different
The Tories are rightly opposing a lunacy we will all come to regret
Yes you are Dame Jill Knight and I claim my fiver.
Gillian Keegan's statement is stupid. Just because she was mature enough to work at 16 does not mean that every 16 year old is. It ignores the evidence in the Cass Interim Report about what gender dysphoria is & the mental condition of many children who think they have it but may also - often do - have other co-morbidities, who turn out not to be dysphoric at all but gay. It ignores the evidence put before the courts in various cases (Bell, Appleby etc). It ignores the medical evidence that has come to light in other countries.
As for your statement about S.28 - get real. The campaign to overturn it & for gay marriage was to give gay people the same legal rights as others. The 2004 GRA (which the Tories do not oppose) was because of the Goodwin case before the ECHR & is fully compliant with the ECHR. People who fall within the definition of gender reassignment (as set out in the GRA and EA) have the same legal rights as every other group with a protected characteristic (pc)
What is now being campaigned for is for people who do not fall within that definition to be given special legal privileges no other group has & at the expense of other groups with pc's. Stonewall has been campaigning since 2015 to remove rights for women contained in the Equalities Act. As you well know, that Act consolidated laws necessary to remove sex-based discrimination (the Sex Discrimination Act & the Equal Pay Act). There is nothing noble - or remotely like a campaign for equal civil rights - about a lobby group seeking to remove existing legal rights from a group which has been & continues to be discriminated against.
I have a child who went through a period of thinking they might be dysphoric. I have personal experience of the Tavistock, co-morbidities & the need for real expert long-term sensitive in-patient & out-patient care & therapy. What Keegan & you are saying is ignorant nonsense. Many children who think they are dysphoric often turn out to be gay. The sensible thing to do is to wait, see & try to truly understand what is going on when this situation arises.
My child is now happily gay. But would not be if the gender ghouls had had their way, insisted on "affirmation" & allowed a distressed child to make life-long irreversible decisions when they were not in a fit state to get themselves dressed & out of the house without harming themselves or others.
I am sorry to be so personal. But the ignorance displayed by far too many on this issue is maddening. This is far too important an issue for those whom this affects to be dismissed by trite comments. It does no favours to those who genuinely have dysphoria. If you truly want to understand, what the medical evidence is, what the NHS is doing, read the Cass Interim Report, the decision of the court this week on the GLP's latest failed claim, the Bell cases (High Court & Court of Appeal), the Appleby case. Etc.,.
All of this scaremongering on cocks in women's changing room is reminiscent of the scaremongering when the age of consent was going to be lowered to 18 then 16 when the media and MPs predicted homos hanging outside school gates.
The issue is not Trans people but (primarily) men who will abuse a much relaxed process to obtain a GRC to gain access to women’s spaces. The reason it hasn’t arisen before because the process of obtaining a GRC was medical (diagnosis of dysphoria) and lengthy - the assumption at the time being that only genuinely trans people would pursue it so further safeguards were not required, trans people not being a threat to others.
The Scottish GRR removed the medical requirement and drastically reduced the time required without introducing further safeguards - indeed voting them down in Holyrood - the Scottish Government ignoring repeated requests to pause and think - not least after the Haldane ruling. All part of Stonewall’s “No Debate”.
How are men currently prevented from entering these spaces? How are women currently safeguarded against predatory men? Why is, after the news of a Met officer sexually assaulting multiple women amid an admittance that there is a problem with policing, that your issues are with things that would alleviate suffering of a minority group with very little power, versus a group of people who are literally empowered by the state to seemingly get away with what they want?
The provisions for safeguarding against abusive men will be the same and not made any different by making it easier for trans people to get their paperwork. In countries where this kind of practice already takes place there is little to no evidence that it is an issue. The only reason the Tories in Westminster are doing this is because it would be hard to ignore that reality if it were happening just over the border.
The safeguards against predatory men were specifically rejected by the Scottish Parliament. Under their legislation, the policeman in the news yesterday could have announced on the day of his arrest that he was now a woman, and by the time he was sent to prison after conviction, that would be to a women’s prison.
There are also safeguarding issues with regard to the sex offenders’ register, and criminal records checks, where the rights of someone to change their identify butt up against the rights of others to be protected from people who may be a danger to them.
He would not in a million years have gone to a female prison.
It would be a clear breach of her human rights to send a woman to a men’s prison. What the Scottish legislation does, is redefine what it means to be a woman.
It doesn't. Transition happens now, this just makes the process less of trial to go through. It'll be easier but not so easy that this guy would be successful. Not a cats chance in hell. You're scaremongering.
My question: why should train drivers not be paid £65K? Is it that their work isn't worth that much money? If so, why?
Plumbers make a packet for example. Influencers etc
I'd ask - why have train drivers? Its not like they are steering...
i'd look at how long the training and experience is - is it commensurate? Are they being paid extra because of the not uncommon issue of suicides jumping in front of their trains?
Do you ask the same question about pilots? They just sit there and tell the computer where to fly to, it can't be that hard surely
Being an airline pilot is easy peasy, you just program the computer, give it instructions, take off, follow the computer, then land a few hours later.
At least, that’s what happens 99% of the time.
Exactly! Can't we automate them...?
Well actually, there are moves underway to allow single-pilot operation, backed with a secure data down-link to a control room. How they train the one pilot to the requisite level, is an exercise best left to the reader.
I fear opposing the Gender Recognition Act will do as much damage for the Tories as Section 28 in the long term.
No, it won't. This is entirely different
The Tories are rightly opposing a lunacy we will all come to regret
Yes you are Dame Jill Knight and I claim my fiver.
Gillian Keegan's statement is stupid. Just because she was mature enough to work at 16 does not mean that every 16 year old is. It ignores the evidence in the Cass Interim Report about what gender dysphoria is & the mental condition of many children who think they have it but may also - often do - have other co-morbidities, who turn out not to be dysphoric at all but gay. It ignores the evidence put before the courts in various cases (Bell, Appleby etc). It ignores the medical evidence that has come to light in other countries.
As for your statement about S.28 - get real. The campaign to overturn it & for gay marriage was to give gay people the same legal rights as others. The 2004 GRA (which the Tories do not oppose) was because of the Goodwin case before the ECHR & is fully compliant with the ECHR. People who fall within the definition of gender reassignment (as set out in the GRA and EA) have the same legal rights as every other group with a protected characteristic (pc)
What is now being campaigned for is for people who do not fall within that definition to be given special legal privileges no other group has & at the expense of other groups with pc's. Stonewall has been campaigning since 2015 to remove rights for women contained in the Equalities Act. As you well know, that Act consolidated laws necessary to remove sex-based discrimination (the Sex Discrimination Act & the Equal Pay Act). There is nothing noble - or remotely like a campaign for equal civil rights - about a lobby group seeking to remove existing legal rights from a group which has been & continues to be discriminated against.
I have a child who went through a period of thinking they might be dysphoric. I have personal experience of the Tavistock, co-morbidities & the need for real expert long-term sensitive in-patient & out-patient care & therapy. What Keegan & you are saying is ignorant nonsense. Many children who think they are dysphoric often turn out to be gay. The sensible thing to do is to wait, see & try to truly understand what is going on when this situation arises.
My child is now happily gay. But would not be if the gender ghouls had had their way, insisted on "affirmation" & allowed a distressed child to make life-long irreversible decisions when they were not in a fit state to get themselves dressed & out of the house without harming themselves or others.
I am sorry to be so personal. But the ignorance displayed by far too many on this issue is maddening. This is far too important an issue for those whom this affects to be dismissed by trite comments. It does no favours to those who genuinely have dysphoria. If you truly want to understand, what the medical evidence is, what the NHS is doing, read the Cass Interim Report, the decision of the court this week on the GLP's latest failed claim, the Bell cases (High Court & Court of Appeal), the Appleby case. Etc.,.
All of this scaremongering on cocks in women's changing room is reminiscent of the scaremongering when the age of consent was going to be lowered to 18 then 16 when the media and MPs predicted homos hanging outside school gates.
The issue is not Trans people but (primarily) men who will abuse a much relaxed process to obtain a GRC to gain access to women’s spaces. The reason it hasn’t arisen before because the process of obtaining a GRC was medical (diagnosis of dysphoria) and lengthy - the assumption at the time being that only genuinely trans people would pursue it so further safeguards were not required, trans people not being a threat to others.
The Scottish GRR removed the medical requirement and drastically reduced the time required without introducing further safeguards - indeed voting them down in Holyrood - the Scottish Government ignoring repeated requests to pause and think - not least after the Haldane ruling. All part of Stonewall’s “No Debate”.
How are men currently prevented from entering these spaces? How are women currently safeguarded against predatory men? Why is, after the news of a Met officer sexually assaulting multiple women amid an admittance that there is a problem with policing, that your issues are with things that would alleviate suffering of a minority group with very little power, versus a group of people who are literally empowered by the state to seemingly get away with what they want?
The provisions for safeguarding against abusive men will be the same and not made any different by making it easier for trans people to get their paperwork. In countries where this kind of practice already takes place there is little to no evidence that it is an issue. The only reason the Tories in Westminster are doing this is because it would be hard to ignore that reality if it were happening just over the border.
The safeguards against predatory men were specifically rejected by the Scottish Parliament. Under their legislation, the policeman in the news yesterday could have announced on the day of his arrest that he was now a woman, and by the time he was sent to prison after conviction, that would be to a women’s prison.
There are also safeguarding issues with regard to the sex offenders’ register, and criminal records checks, where the rights of someone to change their identify butt up against the rights of others to be protected from people who may be a danger to them.
He would not in a million years have gone to a female prison.
If he transitions in Scotland what would stop it?
The prisons service have a process to assess risk but it wouldn't get that far. His application to transition would be refused.
The Scottish government voted against a specific amendment, that would have made a conviction for sexual assault grounds for refusing a GRC.
From which it doesn't follow that David Carrick would be granted one. He wouldn't. C'mon.
My question: why should train drivers not be paid £65K? Is it that their work isn't worth that much money? If so, why?
Plumbers make a packet for example. Influencers etc
I think we should listen to that nice Mr Zahawi. He is an upstanding moral individual and his lecture on Twitter about how the perfidious union barons stealing money from the taxpayer should be listened to.
Quite why Simon Case is still in his job given the appalling story about Boris in the ST and Case's approval of yet another dodgy financial arrangement beats me. Case is fast becoming the Dido Harding of the Civil Service.
I fear opposing the Gender Recognition Act will do as much damage for the Tories as Section 28 in the long term.
No, it won't. This is entirely different
The Tories are rightly opposing a lunacy we will all come to regret
Yes you are Dame Jill Knight and I claim my fiver.
Gillian Keegan's statement is stupid. Just because she was mature enough to work at 16 does not mean that every 16 year old is. It ignores the evidence in the Cass Interim Report about what gender dysphoria is & the mental condition of many children who think they have it but may also - often do - have other co-morbidities, who turn out not to be dysphoric at all but gay. It ignores the evidence put before the courts in various cases (Bell, Appleby etc). It ignores the medical evidence that has come to light in other countries.
As for your statement about S.28 - get real. The campaign to overturn it & for gay marriage was to give gay people the same legal rights as others. The 2004 GRA (which the Tories do not oppose) was because of the Goodwin case before the ECHR & is fully compliant with the ECHR. People who fall within the definition of gender reassignment (as set out in the GRA and EA) have the same legal rights as every other group with a protected characteristic (pc)
What is now being campaigned for is for people who do not fall within that definition to be given special legal privileges no other group has & at the expense of other groups with pc's. Stonewall has been campaigning since 2015 to remove rights for women contained in the Equalities Act. As you well know, that Act consolidated laws necessary to remove sex-based discrimination (the Sex Discrimination Act & the Equal Pay Act). There is nothing noble - or remotely like a campaign for equal civil rights - about a lobby group seeking to remove existing legal rights from a group which has been & continues to be discriminated against.
I have a child who went through a period of thinking they might be dysphoric. I have personal experience of the Tavistock, co-morbidities & the need for real expert long-term sensitive in-patient & out-patient care & therapy. What Keegan & you are saying is ignorant nonsense. Many children who think they are dysphoric often turn out to be gay. The sensible thing to do is to wait, see & try to truly understand what is going on when this situation arises.
My child is now happily gay. But would not be if the gender ghouls had had their way, insisted on "affirmation" & allowed a distressed child to make life-long irreversible decisions when they were not in a fit state to get themselves dressed & out of the house without harming themselves or others.
I am sorry to be so personal. But the ignorance displayed by far too many on this issue is maddening. This is far too important an issue for those whom this affects to be dismissed by trite comments. It does no favours to those who genuinely have dysphoria. If you truly want to understand, what the medical evidence is, what the NHS is doing, read the Cass Interim Report, the decision of the court this week on the GLP's latest failed claim, the Bell cases (High Court & Court of Appeal), the Appleby case. Etc.,.
All of this scaremongering on cocks in women's changing room is reminiscent of the scaremongering when the age of consent was going to be lowered to 18 then 16 when the media and MPs predicted homos hanging outside school gates.
The issue is not Trans people but (primarily) men who will abuse a much relaxed process to obtain a GRC to gain access to women’s spaces. The reason it hasn’t arisen before because the process of obtaining a GRC was medical (diagnosis of dysphoria) and lengthy - the assumption at the time being that only genuinely trans people would pursue it so further safeguards were not required, trans people not being a threat to others.
The Scottish GRR removed the medical requirement and drastically reduced the time required without introducing further safeguards - indeed voting them down in Holyrood - the Scottish Government ignoring repeated requests to pause and think - not least after the Haldane ruling. All part of Stonewall’s “No Debate”.
How are men currently prevented from entering these spaces? How are women currently safeguarded against predatory men? Why is, after the news of a Met officer sexually assaulting multiple women amid an admittance that there is a problem with policing, that your issues are with things that would alleviate suffering of a minority group with very little power, versus a group of people who are literally empowered by the state to seemingly get away with what they want?
The provisions for safeguarding against abusive men will be the same and not made any different by making it easier for trans people to get their paperwork. In countries where this kind of practice already takes place there is little to no evidence that it is an issue. The only reason the Tories in Westminster are doing this is because it would be hard to ignore that reality if it were happening just over the border.
The safeguards against predatory men were specifically rejected by the Scottish Parliament. Under their legislation, the policeman in the news yesterday could have announced on the day of his arrest that he was now a woman, and by the time he was sent to prison after conviction, that would be to a women’s prison.
There are also safeguarding issues with regard to the sex offenders’ register, and criminal records checks, where the rights of someone to change their identify butt up against the rights of others to be protected from people who may be a danger to them.
He would not in a million years have gone to a female prison.
If he transitions in Scotland what would stop it?
The prisons service have a process to assess risk but it wouldn't get that far. His application to transition would be refused.
In England it might be. In Scotland under the proposed law, there would be no basis for refusing. All he'd have to do is be resident in Scotland for 3 months and then after a further 3 months and a self-declaration that he has every intention of living as a woman (the criteria for which are left entirely blank) and bingo he gets his GRC. At that point, following the Haldane judgment he is a "woman" for all purposes, including under the Equality Act.
Also Google the case in Scotland of Katie Dolatowski: a male paedophile who assaulted a girl, was sent to a man's prison, then assaulted a man and was moved to a woman's prison. In solitary confinement I understand. If so, they could be in solitary confinement for their own protection in a men's prison.
Quite why a 6ft 4inch tall male sex offender should be in a women's prison at all is not explained. The fact that one of the people who helped draft the current Scottish guidance on trans prison policy later turned out to have a stash of thousands of child porn pictures is no doubt merely an unfortunate coincidence.
Guardian's live politics blog says this about the Scotland debate:
"Douglas Ross, the Scottish Conservative leader (he is an MSP as well as an MP), accuses Nicola Sturgeon of trying to turn this into a “political battle” when all the UK government is trying to do is protect the rights of women and girls."
This is the exact problem that Dross has so eloquently carved out. As an MSP he led the opposition to the bill, and thanks to cross party support he lost. Now as an MP he says it is right for Westminster to veto the bill to "protect the rights of women and girls". Whether you agree with him or the bill or whatever is not the issue.
There was a debate. Dross was outvoted by the other parties. Dross now thinks it isn't offside to simply have his other job overrule his failure in Holyrood.
I fear opposing the Gender Recognition Act will do as much damage for the Tories as Section 28 in the long term.
No, it won't. This is entirely different
The Tories are rightly opposing a lunacy we will all come to regret
Yes you are Dame Jill Knight and I claim my fiver.
Gillian Keegan's statement is stupid. Just because she was mature enough to work at 16 does not mean that every 16 year old is. It ignores the evidence in the Cass Interim Report about what gender dysphoria is & the mental condition of many children who think they have it but may also - often do - have other co-morbidities, who turn out not to be dysphoric at all but gay. It ignores the evidence put before the courts in various cases (Bell, Appleby etc). It ignores the medical evidence that has come to light in other countries.
As for your statement about S.28 - get real. The campaign to overturn it & for gay marriage was to give gay people the same legal rights as others. The 2004 GRA (which the Tories do not oppose) was because of the Goodwin case before the ECHR & is fully compliant with the ECHR. People who fall within the definition of gender reassignment (as set out in the GRA and EA) have the same legal rights as every other group with a protected characteristic (pc)
What is now being campaigned for is for people who do not fall within that definition to be given special legal privileges no other group has & at the expense of other groups with pc's. Stonewall has been campaigning since 2015 to remove rights for women contained in the Equalities Act. As you well know, that Act consolidated laws necessary to remove sex-based discrimination (the Sex Discrimination Act & the Equal Pay Act). There is nothing noble - or remotely like a campaign for equal civil rights - about a lobby group seeking to remove existing legal rights from a group which has been & continues to be discriminated against.
I have a child who went through a period of thinking they might be dysphoric. I have personal experience of the Tavistock, co-morbidities & the need for real expert long-term sensitive in-patient & out-patient care & therapy. What Keegan & you are saying is ignorant nonsense. Many children who think they are dysphoric often turn out to be gay. The sensible thing to do is to wait, see & try to truly understand what is going on when this situation arises.
My child is now happily gay. But would not be if the gender ghouls had had their way, insisted on "affirmation" & allowed a distressed child to make life-long irreversible decisions when they were not in a fit state to get themselves dressed & out of the house without harming themselves or others.
I am sorry to be so personal. But the ignorance displayed by far too many on this issue is maddening. This is far too important an issue for those whom this affects to be dismissed by trite comments. It does no favours to those who genuinely have dysphoria. If you truly want to understand, what the medical evidence is, what the NHS is doing, read the Cass Interim Report, the decision of the court this week on the GLP's latest failed claim, the Bell cases (High Court & Court of Appeal), the Appleby case. Etc.,.
All of this scaremongering on cocks in women's changing room is reminiscent of the scaremongering when the age of consent was going to be lowered to 18 then 16 when the media and MPs predicted homos hanging outside school gates.
The issue is not Trans people but (primarily) men who will abuse a much relaxed process to obtain a GRC to gain access to women’s spaces. The reason it hasn’t arisen before because the process of obtaining a GRC was medical (diagnosis of dysphoria) and lengthy - the assumption at the time being that only genuinely trans people would pursue it so further safeguards were not required, trans people not being a threat to others.
The Scottish GRR removed the medical requirement and drastically reduced the time required without introducing further safeguards - indeed voting them down in Holyrood - the Scottish Government ignoring repeated requests to pause and think - not least after the Haldane ruling. All part of Stonewall’s “No Debate”.
How are men currently prevented from entering these spaces? How are women currently safeguarded against predatory men? Why is, after the news of a Met officer sexually assaulting multiple women amid an admittance that there is a problem with policing, that your issues are with things that would alleviate suffering of a minority group with very little power, versus a group of people who are literally empowered by the state to seemingly get away with what they want?
The provisions for safeguarding against abusive men will be the same and not made any different by making it easier for trans people to get their paperwork. In countries where this kind of practice already takes place there is little to no evidence that it is an issue. The only reason the Tories in Westminster are doing this is because it would be hard to ignore that reality if it were happening just over the border.
The safeguards against predatory men were specifically rejected by the Scottish Parliament. Under their legislation, the policeman in the news yesterday could have announced on the day of his arrest that he was now a woman, and by the time he was sent to prison after conviction, that would be to a women’s prison.
There are also safeguarding issues with regard to the sex offenders’ register, and criminal records checks, where the rights of someone to change their identify butt up against the rights of others to be protected from people who may be a danger to them.
He would not in a million years have gone to a female prison.
If he transitions in Scotland what would stop it?
The prisons service have a process to assess risk but it wouldn't get that far. His application to transition would be refused.
The Scottish government voted against a specific amendment, that would have made a conviction for sexual assault grounds for refusing a GRC.
From which it doesn't follow that David Carrick would be granted one. He wouldn't. C'mon.
The safeguards that would prevent the likes of David Carrick being granted a GRC, have been expliticly removed by the Scottish government. This is why people are so upset at the legislation that’s been passed.
This isn’t about the rights of genuinely transgender adults, it’s about the rights of the authorities to stop people like David Carrick from raping more women.
Being shouted down in the Chamber by @UKLabour men who clearly don't want women to speak up for our rights to single sex spaces. How very progressive #Section35
I fear opposing the Gender Recognition Act will do as much damage for the Tories as Section 28 in the long term.
No, it won't. This is entirely different
The Tories are rightly opposing a lunacy we will all come to regret
Yes you are Dame Jill Knight and I claim my fiver.
Gillian Keegan's statement is stupid. Just because she was mature enough to work at 16 does not mean that every 16 year old is. It ignores the evidence in the Cass Interim Report about what gender dysphoria is & the mental condition of many children who think they have it but may also - often do - have other co-morbidities, who turn out not to be dysphoric at all but gay. It ignores the evidence put before the courts in various cases (Bell, Appleby etc). It ignores the medical evidence that has come to light in other countries.
As for your statement about S.28 - get real. The campaign to overturn it & for gay marriage was to give gay people the same legal rights as others. The 2004 GRA (which the Tories do not oppose) was because of the Goodwin case before the ECHR & is fully compliant with the ECHR. People who fall within the definition of gender reassignment (as set out in the GRA and EA) have the same legal rights as every other group with a protected characteristic (pc)
What is now being campaigned for is for people who do not fall within that definition to be given special legal privileges no other group has & at the expense of other groups with pc's. Stonewall has been campaigning since 2015 to remove rights for women contained in the Equalities Act. As you well know, that Act consolidated laws necessary to remove sex-based discrimination (the Sex Discrimination Act & the Equal Pay Act). There is nothing noble - or remotely like a campaign for equal civil rights - about a lobby group seeking to remove existing legal rights from a group which has been & continues to be discriminated against.
I have a child who went through a period of thinking they might be dysphoric. I have personal experience of the Tavistock, co-morbidities & the need for real expert long-term sensitive in-patient & out-patient care & therapy. What Keegan & you are saying is ignorant nonsense. Many children who think they are dysphoric often turn out to be gay. The sensible thing to do is to wait, see & try to truly understand what is going on when this situation arises.
My child is now happily gay. But would not be if the gender ghouls had had their way, insisted on "affirmation" & allowed a distressed child to make life-long irreversible decisions when they were not in a fit state to get themselves dressed & out of the house without harming themselves or others.
I am sorry to be so personal. But the ignorance displayed by far too many on this issue is maddening. This is far too important an issue for those whom this affects to be dismissed by trite comments. It does no favours to those who genuinely have dysphoria. If you truly want to understand, what the medical evidence is, what the NHS is doing, read the Cass Interim Report, the decision of the court this week on the GLP's latest failed claim, the Bell cases (High Court & Court of Appeal), the Appleby case. Etc.,.
I do speak from personal experience.
When I was a student section 28 was in full force and I saw how damaging it was for the people who were gay but scared to come out, I've helped a few people come out which is why I've been best man at quite a few same sex weddings.
My friend's child is trans, and I've gotten to know quite a few trans people, and I see how damaging it is for them for to be used for partisan reasons.
The irony is my friend's kid, like most of the trans people I know, are well adjusted people, certainly compared to most people on here and the politicians trying to stifle them.
She has no desire to upset people so won't use a women's changing room, ditto all of her trans women friends.
All of this scaremongering on cocks in women's changing room is reminiscent of the scaremongering when the age of consent was going to be lowered to 18 then 16 when the media and MPs predicted homos hanging outside school gates.
"Scaremongering". What world do you live in? Primark has recently faced a spate of complaints about men indecently exposing themselves and/or assaulting girls in their changing rooms ever since they made the female ones available to men. There is of course absolutely no evidence at all of men trying to photograph or film women in changing rooms or of upskirting or of seeking access to women's spaces to assault them. Any such cases are just one-offs and to be ignored apparently.
As for the claim that this is an unjustified moral panic like previous ones may I refer you to the following reports which looked at in detail what happened when boundaries were lowered or breached.
You really do yourself no favours by - apparently - seeking to diminish the reality of sexual assault on women by appearing to claim that it either does not happen, is unlikely to happen if men are given access to women's spaces and/or that women's fear of it is not real. As for the claim (by others) that there is no evidence in other countries of abuse happening, this has been debunked so many times that it is tiresome to have to repeat it. None so blind as those that don't want to see.
There is scaremongering though. It's all over the place. And it really doesn't help. But I'd like to ask you something specific if I may. About this GRR v EA dynamic.
The EA allows single-sex spaces if it's a "proportionate means of achieving a legitimate goal" right? - ie it allows sexual discrimination in these circumstances.
So a Refuge in say Manchester could have a policy of natal women only, no trans, and this would be legal if it satisfies the above rule or illegal if it doesn't.
How does the Scottish change to the gender transition process make a difference to this Refuge? Does it make a previously legal admissions policy illegal or vice versa?
My question: why should train drivers not be paid £65K? Is it that their work isn't worth that much money? If so, why?
Plumbers make a packet for example. Influencers etc
I think we should listen to that nice Mr Zahawi. He is an upstanding moral individual and his lecture on Twitter about how the perfidious union barons stealing money from the taxpayer should be listened to.
Quite why Simon Case is still in his job given the appalling story about Boris in the ST and Case's approval of yet another dodgy financial arrangement beats me. Case is fast becoming the Dido Harding of the Civil Service.
I fear opposing the Gender Recognition Act will do as much damage for the Tories as Section 28 in the long term.
No, it won't. This is entirely different
The Tories are rightly opposing a lunacy we will all come to regret
Yes you are Dame Jill Knight and I claim my fiver.
Gillian Keegan's statement is stupid. Just because she was mature enough to work at 16 does not mean that every 16 year old is. It ignores the evidence in the Cass Interim Report about what gender dysphoria is & the mental condition of many children who think they have it but may also - often do - have other co-morbidities, who turn out not to be dysphoric at all but gay. It ignores the evidence put before the courts in various cases (Bell, Appleby etc). It ignores the medical evidence that has come to light in other countries.
As for your statement about S.28 - get real. The campaign to overturn it & for gay marriage was to give gay people the same legal rights as others. The 2004 GRA (which the Tories do not oppose) was because of the Goodwin case before the ECHR & is fully compliant with the ECHR. People who fall within the definition of gender reassignment (as set out in the GRA and EA) have the same legal rights as every other group with a protected characteristic (pc)
What is now being campaigned for is for people who do not fall within that definition to be given special legal privileges no other group has & at the expense of other groups with pc's. Stonewall has been campaigning since 2015 to remove rights for women contained in the Equalities Act. As you well know, that Act consolidated laws necessary to remove sex-based discrimination (the Sex Discrimination Act & the Equal Pay Act). There is nothing noble - or remotely like a campaign for equal civil rights - about a lobby group seeking to remove existing legal rights from a group which has been & continues to be discriminated against.
I have a child who went through a period of thinking they might be dysphoric. I have personal experience of the Tavistock, co-morbidities & the need for real expert long-term sensitive in-patient & out-patient care & therapy. What Keegan & you are saying is ignorant nonsense. Many children who think they are dysphoric often turn out to be gay. The sensible thing to do is to wait, see & try to truly understand what is going on when this situation arises.
My child is now happily gay. But would not be if the gender ghouls had had their way, insisted on "affirmation" & allowed a distressed child to make life-long irreversible decisions when they were not in a fit state to get themselves dressed & out of the house without harming themselves or others.
I am sorry to be so personal. But the ignorance displayed by far too many on this issue is maddening. This is far too important an issue for those whom this affects to be dismissed by trite comments. It does no favours to those who genuinely have dysphoria. If you truly want to understand, what the medical evidence is, what the NHS is doing, read the Cass Interim Report, the decision of the court this week on the GLP's latest failed claim, the Bell cases (High Court & Court of Appeal), the Appleby case. Etc.,.
All of this scaremongering on cocks in women's changing room is reminiscent of the scaremongering when the age of consent was going to be lowered to 18 then 16 when the media and MPs predicted homos hanging outside school gates.
The issue is not Trans people but (primarily) men who will abuse a much relaxed process to obtain a GRC to gain access to women’s spaces. The reason it hasn’t arisen before because the process of obtaining a GRC was medical (diagnosis of dysphoria) and lengthy - the assumption at the time being that only genuinely trans people would pursue it so further safeguards were not required, trans people not being a threat to others.
The Scottish GRR removed the medical requirement and drastically reduced the time required without introducing further safeguards - indeed voting them down in Holyrood - the Scottish Government ignoring repeated requests to pause and think - not least after the Haldane ruling. All part of Stonewall’s “No Debate”.
How are men currently prevented from entering these spaces? How are women currently safeguarded against predatory men? Why is, after the news of a Met officer sexually assaulting multiple women amid an admittance that there is a problem with policing, that your issues are with things that would alleviate suffering of a minority group with very little power, versus a group of people who are literally empowered by the state to seemingly get away with what they want?
The provisions for safeguarding against abusive men will be the same and not made any different by making it easier for trans people to get their paperwork. In countries where this kind of practice already takes place there is little to no evidence that it is an issue. The only reason the Tories in Westminster are doing this is because it would be hard to ignore that reality if it were happening just over the border.
The safeguards against predatory men were specifically rejected by the Scottish Parliament. Under their legislation, the policeman in the news yesterday could have announced on the day of his arrest that he was now a woman, and by the time he was sent to prison after conviction, that would be to a women’s prison.
There are also safeguarding issues with regard to the sex offenders’ register, and criminal records checks, where the rights of someone to change their identify butt up against the rights of others to be protected from people who may be a danger to them.
He would not in a million years have gone to a female prison.
If he transitions in Scotland what would stop it?
The prisons service have a process to assess risk but it wouldn't get that far. His application to transition would be refused.
In England it might be. In Scotland under the proposed law, there would be no basis for refusing. All he'd have to do is be resident in Scotland for 3 months and then after a further 3 months and a self-declaration that he has every intention of living as a woman (the criteria for which are left entirely blank) and bingo he gets his GRC. At that point, following the Haldane judgment he is a "woman" for all purposes, including under the Equality Act.
Also Google the case in Scotland of Katie Dolatowski: a male paedophile who assaulted a girl, was sent to a man's prison, then assaulted a man and was moved to a woman's prison. In solitary confinement I understand. If so, they could be in solitary confinement for their own protection in a men's prison.
Quite why a 6ft 4inch tall male sex offender should be in a women's prison at all is not explained. The fact that one of the people who helped draft the current Scottish guidance on trans prison policy later turned out to have a stash of thousands of child porn pictures is no doubt merely an unfortunate coincidence.
The KD case was before the reform so the linkage isn't there. And the reform doesn't mean a serial rapist who's all over the news (!) will be granted a GRC post arrest or conviction if he applies. It's an offence to apply fraudulently. It'd be a slam dunk refusal. I'm simply calling out this obvious case of scaremongering.
I fear opposing the Gender Recognition Act will do as much damage for the Tories as Section 28 in the long term.
No, it won't. This is entirely different
The Tories are rightly opposing a lunacy we will all come to regret
Yes you are Dame Jill Knight and I claim my fiver.
Gillian Keegan's statement is stupid. Just because she was mature enough to work at 16 does not mean that every 16 year old is. It ignores the evidence in the Cass Interim Report about what gender dysphoria is & the mental condition of many children who think they have it but may also - often do - have other co-morbidities, who turn out not to be dysphoric at all but gay. It ignores the evidence put before the courts in various cases (Bell, Appleby etc). It ignores the medical evidence that has come to light in other countries.
As for your statement about S.28 - get real. The campaign to overturn it & for gay marriage was to give gay people the same legal rights as others. The 2004 GRA (which the Tories do not oppose) was because of the Goodwin case before the ECHR & is fully compliant with the ECHR. People who fall within the definition of gender reassignment (as set out in the GRA and EA) have the same legal rights as every other group with a protected characteristic (pc)
What is now being campaigned for is for people who do not fall within that definition to be given special legal privileges no other group has & at the expense of other groups with pc's. Stonewall has been campaigning since 2015 to remove rights for women contained in the Equalities Act. As you well know, that Act consolidated laws necessary to remove sex-based discrimination (the Sex Discrimination Act & the Equal Pay Act). There is nothing noble - or remotely like a campaign for equal civil rights - about a lobby group seeking to remove existing legal rights from a group which has been & continues to be discriminated against.
I have a child who went through a period of thinking they might be dysphoric. I have personal experience of the Tavistock, co-morbidities & the need for real expert long-term sensitive in-patient & out-patient care & therapy. What Keegan & you are saying is ignorant nonsense. Many children who think they are dysphoric often turn out to be gay. The sensible thing to do is to wait, see & try to truly understand what is going on when this situation arises.
My child is now happily gay. But would not be if the gender ghouls had had their way, insisted on "affirmation" & allowed a distressed child to make life-long irreversible decisions when they were not in a fit state to get themselves dressed & out of the house without harming themselves or others.
I am sorry to be so personal. But the ignorance displayed by far too many on this issue is maddening. This is far too important an issue for those whom this affects to be dismissed by trite comments. It does no favours to those who genuinely have dysphoria. If you truly want to understand, what the medical evidence is, what the NHS is doing, read the Cass Interim Report, the decision of the court this week on the GLP's latest failed claim, the Bell cases (High Court & Court of Appeal), the Appleby case. Etc.,.
All of this scaremongering on cocks in women's changing room is reminiscent of the scaremongering when the age of consent was going to be lowered to 18 then 16 when the media and MPs predicted homos hanging outside school gates.
The issue is not Trans people but (primarily) men who will abuse a much relaxed process to obtain a GRC to gain access to women’s spaces. The reason it hasn’t arisen before because the process of obtaining a GRC was medical (diagnosis of dysphoria) and lengthy - the assumption at the time being that only genuinely trans people would pursue it so further safeguards were not required, trans people not being a threat to others.
The Scottish GRR removed the medical requirement and drastically reduced the time required without introducing further safeguards - indeed voting them down in Holyrood - the Scottish Government ignoring repeated requests to pause and think - not least after the Haldane ruling. All part of Stonewall’s “No Debate”.
How are men currently prevented from entering these spaces? How are women currently safeguarded against predatory men? Why is, after the news of a Met officer sexually assaulting multiple women amid an admittance that there is a problem with policing, that your issues are with things that would alleviate suffering of a minority group with very little power, versus a group of people who are literally empowered by the state to seemingly get away with what they want?
The provisions for safeguarding against abusive men will be the same and not made any different by making it easier for trans people to get their paperwork. In countries where this kind of practice already takes place there is little to no evidence that it is an issue. The only reason the Tories in Westminster are doing this is because it would be hard to ignore that reality if it were happening just over the border.
The safeguards against predatory men were specifically rejected by the Scottish Parliament. Under their legislation, the policeman in the news yesterday could have announced on the day of his arrest that he was now a woman, and by the time he was sent to prison after conviction, that would be to a women’s prison.
There are also safeguarding issues with regard to the sex offenders’ register, and criminal records checks, where the rights of someone to change their identify butt up against the rights of others to be protected from people who may be a danger to them.
He would not in a million years have gone to a female prison.
If he transitions in Scotland what would stop it?
The prisons service have a process to assess risk but it wouldn't get that far. His application to transition would be refused.
The Scottish government voted against a specific amendment, that would have made a conviction for sexual assault grounds for refusing a GRC.
From which it doesn't follow that David Carrick would be granted one. He wouldn't. C'mon.
The safeguards that would prevent the likes of David Carrick being granted a GRC, have been expliticly removed by the Scottish government. This is why people are so upset at the legislation that’s been passed.
This isn’t about the rights of genuinely transgender adults, it’s about the rights of the authorities to stop people like David Carrick from raping more women.
Ok if you're moving from "Carrick" to "the likes of" that's still wrong but not quite as hysterical.
Comments
Alister Jack was entirely right to make a ‘Section 35’ order to block Nicola Sturgeon’s controversial Gender Recognition Reform Bill from proceeding to Royal Assent. As Secretary of State for Scotland, Jack invited the Scottish Government to bring an amended Bill back for reconsideration at Holyrood. He added, “I hope we can work together to find a constructive way forward that both respects devolution and the operation of UK Parliament legislation.”
https://unherd.com/thepost/i-dont-have-a-gender-recognition-certificate-and-i-dont-want-one/
So even most SNP voters back the UK not the Scottish government on this issue!!
The upper middle class and upper class is 10-15%, and there is a solid working class Tory bedrock of 7-10%.
Chuck in a few more for the Hindu vote and the patriotic Army/Police castes.
The farming/countryside vote is still good for 5% - try finding a Guardian in East Anglia outside the towns.
The problem is that over 50% of the population hates the Tories with a passion.
So we're fighting over the remaining 15-16% - which means everyone goes negative to suppress each others vote and split off single-issue types.
It'll be much closer than the polls suggest - unless the countryside types realise just how far Brexit has screwed them (both from CPTPP FTA and the cancellation of the subsidies).
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-64290162
I shall ignore your remark about girlfriends, as I am the high minded type, and refuse to stoop into the gutter with talk of “run rates” or “wow, that many?”
Most nations voters back Ukraine too but voters in China, India, Indonesia, Pakistan and Vietnam prefer Russia
https://twitter.com/tomhfh/status/1615307393264455682?s=20&t=P_3e392zQ_zpYiHPhKsPLg
Idiots will submit generated text as is, and they may get caught, but the transformers will improve.
Smarter people are probably rewriting the generated text, but they were probably doing the same with written essays already. I suspect that they will evade easy detection. At least this will level the playing field a bit, you won't need to fork out for essay writing.
People with money will get bespoke services, and ensuring that the style and quality of writing is comparable with previous work is a blindingly obvious feature. Incremental improvement, rather than a sudden qualitative jump, is also a must have I think.
Anyone who thinks this isn't going to become a big problem, or that there are easy ways of defeating it, is likely to be proven wrong.
And that would mean more cars on the road, and negatives for the country.
And, more importantly, the train drivers themselves.
I can understand that if you're not in the region the whole thing probably just feels very distant and nowhere near as visceral. So you can then express views based on overall vibes about the West and non-West. Europeans have generally had a similar reaction to most unrest and civil wars in Latin America. The default assumption is that both sides must be to blame.
These are driven by democratic ballots that, unlike the Brexit ballot, have a turnout threshold, can very simply have their results overturned in the courts in the event of irregularities and have strict bounds on the types of actions that can stem from them.
Every single strike being taken, whether you think the decision is right or wrong, is MORE democratic than Brexit.
Respect that democracy.
This is one of the fairer articles.
Germany's
@OlafScholz
appointed a regional politician as defense minister to implement the overhaul of the ailing military. Little-known Boris Pistorius doesn’t have defense-policy experience & has never held a senior role in federal government ..
https://mobile.twitter.com/bopanc/status/1615334683629305857
That you and your tax dodging party keep spinning it as 8% - itself a real terms pay cut - shows the level of idiocy. The public aren't as stupid as you think, you aren't succeeding in gaslighting them on this one.
The public support the strikers. The public do not support the Tories.
Plumbers make a packet for example. Influencers etc
A decent government would settle with the nurses asap, then the junior doctors and then the schools. But we don't have that. They can even borrow to do it - they lost 2024 anyway - let Labour have the pain.
i'd look at how long the training and experience is - is it commensurate? Are they being paid extra because of the not uncommon issue of suicides jumping in front of their trains?
There are also safeguarding issues with regard to the sex offenders’ register, and criminal records checks, where the rights of someone to change their identify butt up against the rights of others to be protected from people who may be a danger to them.
People.
Passengers do dumb-ass things. Wlkers stray onto railway lines. Workers go outside their lineside work zones. Signalling systems break, meaning the driver has to drive under caution. People screw up automated systems, and we can't get them five-9's reliable without totally upgrading the entire network - e.g. with platform doors. And probably not even then.
That isn't me having a pop at you - this lot genuinely don't want the public to understand how stuff works. That way they can chant plausible sounding slogans at you and weaponise your genuine lack of understanding. Only problem is when they actually have to deliver - like stopping the boats...
The BoE and OBR have an opportunity to restate their economic forecasts to match the reality but I fear at some level they're going to take the "our models are right and the real data is wrong" view and still come out with a bunch of doom laden rubbish that will continue to depress business investment.
As I said the other day, it's been pretty clear since November that the models have got it wrong, people who live and experience the real world in the UK have noticed that if this is a recession it's unlike any other we've experienced, people are out there spending and business activity is increasing, new companies are opening at a faster rate than they are folding and even business investment is up despite the BoE doing their best to create a hostile environment for investment in the UK by predicting two year recessions and 3 years of real terms earnings cuts etc... that look unlikely now to materialise.
If the government makes a few small changes we could have a pretty banner 2024 and those international economists will once again find themselves making all sorts of excuses as to why they underestimated the UK economy as they have done for the better part of a decade.
At least, that’s what happens 99% of the time.
As for the claim that this is an unjustified moral panic like previous ones may I refer you to the following reports which looked at in detail what happened when boundaries were lowered or breached.
1.Chapter 4 of the 2018 Morgan report on Islington Council is illuminating on how abusers seek to piggy-back on more respectable organisations, to the reputational detriment of the latter. See https://www.islington.gov.uk/-/media/sharepoint-lists/public-records/communications/information/adviceandinformation/20182019/20181107sarahmorganqcreviewreport.pdf.
2. See the Background and Context section of IICSA’s Final Report’s Executive Summary: “The notion that child sexual abuse was ‘not harmful’ persisted into the 1990s and, in some professional spheres, responses to it were seen as ‘over zealous’ and characterised as a ‘moral panic’.” https://www.iicsa.org.uk/reports-recommendations/publications/inquiry/final-report/executive-summary
3. See the 1994 White Report (https://islingtonsurvivorsnetwork2.files.wordpress.com/2021/03/the-white-report-redacted.pdf) and the 2018 report by Sarah Morgan QC on Islington Council (footnote 12)
The full article is here - https://medium.com/@cyclefree2/chestertons-fence-a23755f88684.
You really do yourself no favours by - apparently - seeking to diminish the reality of sexual assault on women by appearing to claim that it either does not happen, is unlikely to happen if men are given access to women's spaces and/or that women's fear of it is not real. As for the claim (by others) that there is no evidence in other countries of abuse happening, this has been debunked so many times that it is tiresome to have to repeat it. None so blind as those that don't want to see.
@SandyRentool has been enjoying the delights of non-strike Transpennine Express, whose ability to operate a timetable has been smashed by DfT edicts. If they were allowed to actually manage the services they operate we would have a service actually worth its name. With a workforce willing to co-operate with things like having to work on rest days or the timetable can't run. Its not remotely only about pay.
At the end he became a weird anti-democrat. He praised the Chinese government because they didn’t listen to the people.
https://simpleflying.com/single-pilot-operations-risks-challenges/
Also Google the case in Scotland of Katie Dolatowski: a male paedophile who assaulted a girl, was sent to a man's prison, then assaulted a man and was moved to a woman's prison. In solitary confinement I understand. If so, they could be in solitary confinement for their own protection in a men's prison.
Quite why a 6ft 4inch tall male sex offender should be in a women's prison at all is not explained. The fact that one of the people who helped draft the current Scottish guidance on trans prison policy later turned out to have a stash of thousands of child porn pictures is no doubt merely an unfortunate coincidence.
"Douglas Ross, the Scottish Conservative leader (he is an MSP as well as an MP), accuses Nicola Sturgeon of trying to turn this into a “political battle” when all the UK government is trying to do is protect the rights of women and girls."
This is the exact problem that Dross has so eloquently carved out. As an MSP he led the opposition to the bill, and thanks to cross party support he lost. Now as an MP he says it is right for Westminster to veto the bill to "protect the rights of women and girls". Whether you agree with him or the bill or whatever is not the issue.
There was a debate. Dross was outvoted by the other parties. Dross now thinks it isn't offside to simply have his other job overrule his failure in Holyrood.
This isn’t about the rights of genuinely transgender adults, it’s about the rights of the authorities to stop people like David Carrick from raping more women.
https://twitter.com/RosieDuffield1/status/1615351935946612736
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/senior-police-officer-who-harassed-27676792
The EA allows single-sex spaces if it's a "proportionate means of achieving a legitimate goal" right? - ie it allows sexual discrimination in these circumstances.
So a Refuge in say Manchester could have a policy of natal women only, no trans, and this would be legal if it satisfies the above rule or illegal if it doesn't.
How does the Scottish change to the gender transition process make a difference to this Refuge? Does it make a previously legal admissions policy illegal or vice versa?