Emergency laws will be brought to Cabinet on Tuesday to enable the Government to send asylum seekers back to the UK. It comes after the Minister for Justice said 80% of recent IP applicants arriving here came from the UK, via Northern Ireland"
The NHS is to crack down on transgender ideology in hospitals, with terms like “chestfeeding” set to be banned. Victoria Atkins, the Health Secretary, will this week announce a series of changes to the NHS constitution which sets out patients’ rights. Referring to “people who have ovaries” rather than “women” will also be prohibited under plans to ensure hospitals use clear language based on biological sex.
The new constitution will ban transgender women from being treated on single-sex female hospital wards to ensure women and girls receive “privacy and protection” in hospitals. Patients will also be given the right to request that intimate care is carried out by someone of the same biological sex.
Dan Poulter was the Conservative health minister who was responsible for selling Britain’s supplier of blood plasma to a private equity firm for £200m.
Given Labour’s commitment to expand privatisation in our NHS, the party seems like a perfect fit for him.
Then it appears that 90%+ of voters support privatisation in the NHS.
I think Labours plans are not yet well known and people think they are against it.
Streeting and SKSs donors have huge sums invested though so its pretty obvious why
The voters have 6 months to save the NHS from red and blue Tory privatisers
Why do you think that a firm that operates in the global plasma supply market competing with the likes of Grifols (Spain), Kedrion (Italy), LFB (France), Biotest (Germany) and CSL (Australia) should be owned by the state?
🚨 EXC: Tory rebels plot ‘100 Days to Save Britain’ including plan to oust Rishi Sunak as leader
One Tory rebel told The Telegraph: “The reality is that we are facing an extinction-level event.”
“It’s for colleagues to decide if they want to go down with the sinking ship,” they added.
Except they don't have the numbers with MPs to remove him and there is no credible alternative in Parliament who would make much difference now.
Better off uniting behind Rishi, getting inflation down and immigration under control with the new Visa salary cap and Rwanda agreement
Rishi will be gone by end of May. After catastrophic results next Thursday....
If so then they should go for Truss, May, or (don't laugh) Cameron - who else in Parliament would want to be Prime Minister for only 5-6 months max, or putting Truss's record at risk? The latter two won't be PM after an election anyway, so can be a stopgap.
None of those work
May is a useless campaigner. Truss is Truss. Cameron would launch the Tory civil war before the election.
Are Gazans beginning to think more rationally? Perhaps:
"More than six months into the war in Gaza and with dimming hopes for a cease-fire deal, Palestinians there are growing more critical of Hamas, which some of them blame for the months-long conflict that has destroyed the territory — and their lives. . . . But while the majority of Palestinians in Gaza blame Israel for their suffering, according to polling conducted in March, they also appear to be turning their ire toward the militants. In interviews with more than a dozen residents of Gaza, people said they resent Hamas for the attacks in Israel and — war-weary and desperate to fulfill their basic needs — just want to see peace as soon as possible." source$: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/04/27/gaza-hamas-public-support-israel/
About 100,000 Gazans, according to another source, have left the strip.
(One of the lessons that still needs to be learned by much of the world is that terrorist attacks almost always make life worse for those who support the terrorists.)
That's what all occupation regimes say. Typically they don't say the resistance is legitimate. What armed resistance to occupation is not called "terrorist" by the occupiers?
One of the main reasons for the support for Hamas is they provide financial support for widows and orphans and the families of prisoners.
The figure of 100,000 for those who have bought their way out to Egypt, which is pretty much the only way any Palestinians have fled Gaza, is absurd.
I didn’t know Hamas was providing financial support for the families of hostages
What? You mean they are not?
Do you have any sympathy for the dozens of innocent Israeli men and women held captive for months? Or for the innocents deliberately raped and murdered?
🚨 EXC: Tory rebels plot ‘100 Days to Save Britain’ including plan to oust Rishi Sunak as leader
One Tory rebel told The Telegraph: “The reality is that we are facing an extinction-level event.”
“It’s for colleagues to decide if they want to go down with the sinking ship,” they added.
Except they don't have the numbers with MPs to remove him and there is no credible alternative in Parliament who would make much difference now.
Better off uniting behind Rishi, getting inflation down and immigration under control with the new Visa salary cap and Rwanda agreement
I think the Tories could get a significant boost if they win one or two of these close mayoral elections.
Yep. The country looks and feels fucked. My mortgage has gone shooting up and I can't see a GP. But that dormant lying bastard the Lord Houchen of Teesport just about clung on in that place I don't know where it is on the map so I think I'll vote Tory after all...
"Surprise Tory Victories" on most of the front pages will change some minds.
Yes, I agree. A few people that would have stayed home, or voted Green or LD in the GE "because labour are going to run away with it anyway" might be persuaded to come out and vote Labour just to make sure that doesn't happen again.
How would immigrants heading to Ireland show the Rwanda plan was working ?
I keep hearing the Rwanda plan is all about stopping people traffickers and people risking their lives crossing the channel ?
The plan relies on a deterrent effect existing. Noises out of Ireland suggest there may be some sort of deterrent effect. It's an indirect connection, but it is one.
"Rishi Sunak says migrants going to Ireland shows Rwanda scheme is working as a deterrent
Ireland's deputy prime minister has said migrants who arrived in the UK on small boats are crossing from Northern Ireland to the Republic. Speaking to Sky's Trevor Phillips, Rishi Sunak says that it shows the deterrent is working.
It serves the purposes of both politicians to say that, but where’s the evidence? Asylum seekers going on to Ireland has always happened. Let’s see a graph of numbers before believing there’s been a change.
Does anyone have any actual numbers, as opposed to the spin - which might or might not give an accurate representation of what’s going on ?
The presumably large fall in the numbers of immigrants from Ukraine since the initial large numbers will seriously skew any recent year to year comparison of the percentage of immigration which is cross border.
🚨 EXC: Tory rebels plot ‘100 Days to Save Britain’ including plan to oust Rishi Sunak as leader
One Tory rebel told The Telegraph: “The reality is that we are facing an extinction-level event.”
“It’s for colleagues to decide if they want to go down with the sinking ship,” they added.
Except they don't have the numbers with MPs to remove him and there is no credible alternative in Parliament who would make much difference now.
Better off uniting behind Rishi, getting inflation down and immigration under control with the new Visa salary cap and Rwanda agreement
Hopefully a enough Tory MPs have more political nous than you. They could hardly have less.
To be fair @HYUFD has been pretty much spot on with his analysis of the conservative party recently whereas the Johnson Truss Braverman supporters are in denial just how objectional they are to the electorate
Both you and Hyufd (and a few other numpties who it's kinder not to name) assured everyone that it was vital to get Sunak into number 10 to save the Tories and win the next election (lol). When it became clear the polls were going in the wrong direction, it was about keeping Sunak to 'stave off a bad defeat'. Then it was, 'It's going to be a really bad defeat, but it would have been a worse one without Sunak.'. Now it's 'it's too late to change leader and hardly anyone polls any better'.
I wouldn't mind, but some of us said how utterly useless he was from day dot, and the Tory members could see in the hustings that he had less charisma and communication ability than Truss, which is saying something.
And still there isn't an ounce of humility from the Sunak-rampers.
I think quite a few people have said Sunak has surprised them on the downside.
The reality is that the backers of whichever Tory faction are now basically bald men fighting over a comb.
It may soon happen in reverse - RoI has signed up to the EU's migrant resettlement scheme, and so will be receiving direct flghts itself, not involving channel crossings. These people will be able to enter NI of course, and once they have citizenship, live & work in the UK.
Do we have a returns agreement with RoI if they try to claim Asylum in Belfast?
I suspect numbers will be small, though, in line with the RoI's population.
How would immigrants heading to Ireland show the Rwanda plan was working ?
I keep hearing the Rwanda plan is all about stopping people traffickers and people risking their lives crossing the channel ?
Interesting piece in the Observer today by Kenan Malik, including this link which covers the time course of the Australian offshore scheme. The number of boat arrivals reached an all time high in 2013, dropping only when Australia shifted to a policy of towbacks instead.
"Rishi Sunak says migrants going to Ireland shows Rwanda scheme is working as a deterrent
Ireland's deputy prime minister has said migrants who arrived in the UK on small boats are crossing from Northern Ireland to the Republic. Speaking to Sky's Trevor Phillips, Rishi Sunak says that it shows the deterrent is working.
It serves the purposes of both politicians to say that, but where’s the evidence? Asylum seekers going on to Ireland has always happened. Let’s see a graph of numbers before believing there’s been a change.
Does anyone have any actual numbers, as opposed to the spin - which might or might not give an accurate representation of what’s going on ?
The presumably large fall in the numbers of immigrants from Ukraine since the initial large numbers will seriously skew any recent year to year comparison of the percentage of immigration which is cross border.
Also, of course, the pandemic will have caused a hiatus, and rebound. You’d need some quite detailed like for like comparisons to work out what’s going on, unless there’s a very clear and very large rise in particular types of cross border movements.
It’s quite possibly true there’s a significant recent increase in U.K. asylum seeker numbers crossing the border, but it’s also quite possibly nothing much more than spin. And it will take some time to tell the difference.
Starmer pledges to keep the triple lock pension for 5 years . The front page of the DE . The world is turning on its axis when they give a positive front page for Labour.
Bloody pensioners! Will no one think of the working man? My father is approaching more time as a retired policeman than he actually served (28 years vs 30). He has no need of the damned triple lock.
The new constitution will ban transgender women from being treated on single-sex female hospital wards to ensure women and girls receive “privacy and protection” in hospitals. ...
Is this not clearly unlawful discrimination, according to the terms of the Equality Act 2010?
EXCLUSIVE: Alex Salmond today tells Humza Yousaf that to continue as Scottish first minister he must agree an electoral pact which would see the SNP step aside in some Holyrood seats
We have a quite good example of the sensitivity of the LOESS smooth on the Wikipedia opinion polls graph at the endpoints with the two graphs produced on the 18th and 22nd of April. 18th 22nd It suggests that at least the last two weeks on the graph are provisional.
Spring has tentatively arrived in Tallinn, the last of the snow is melting and there is a general exhalation of a sigh of relief as a few tourists have returned to the lanes and cobbled streets of the Estonian capital,
A further sigh of relief came here after last week turned into a very good week for Ukraine. The US aid package passed, the Russian deputy head of the army, Timur Ivanov, has been arrested for "corruption", in a clear personal blow to his boss, Sergei Shoigu, and a clear threat to the balance of the different fractions in the regime. More importantly still, the rumours about Chechen Leader Ramzan Kadyrov´s health seem to have been confirmed.
This last is potentially explosive for Putin. The Chechens have been an extremely useful part of his regime, and having to deal with a potentially violent succession crisis could upend significant parts of the stability of the power vertical. The cadre of 70+ year olds that form the core of Putinism must be pretty horrified that a mere stripling of 47 appears to be terminally ill, and more to the point, a particularly critical part of the circle that keeps Vlad the Bad in power. The Chechens are used to keep other parts of the regime, especially parts of the military, under control, so the arrest of Ivanov suggests strongly that Kadyrov is indeed ailing, since Putin now feels the need to intervene directly.
For the first time in several months I actually heard a senior Estonian military figure suggest that the problems in Russia are causing a direct impact on the capabilities of the Russian army offensive. With the release of the new weapons to the ZSU and the forthcoming arrival of the F-16s, it is not just the residents of Tallinn that are breathing a sigh of relief that the winter is finally over.
EXCLUSIVE: Alex Salmond today tells Humza Yousaf that to continue as Scottish first minister he must agree an electoral pact which would see the SNP step aside in some Holyrood seats
Actually, that might be bad news for the Tories too.
Their motion in Yousaf will almost certainly pass, and he's finished, in light of this.
But - if they vote for Labour's motion of no confidence in the government, that would in all probability trigger an election, which would definitely be suboptimal for them. They might even be struggling to cling to third, never mind second.
Meanwhile, if they abstain, that's not going to be well received by their supporters. (Or the SNP's supporters, admittedly.) It would be an absolute gift to Labour - 'SNP survive by grace of Tories. Nats - they're not your friends. Unionists - the Tories don't support you.'
So they face a very tricky situation too that I suspect they were secretly hoping Regan would rescue them from.
I wonder if three of their MSPs might suffer unexpected medical episodes between the votes? Or have strange malfunctions on the locks of the toilet door?
Starmer pledges to keep the triple lock pension for 5 years . The front page of the DE . The world is turning on its axis when they give a positive front page for Labour.
Bloody pensioners! Will no one think of the working man? My father is approaching more time as a retired policeman than he actually served (28 years vs 30). He has no need of the damned triple lock.
But then he was an overpaid policeman, who retired young on a fat pension...
If an SNP MSP is sacked or even suspended as a member (Nicola Sturgeon perhaps) then would be a majority against Humza Yousaf. Quite likely to happen before 2026
The new constitution will ban transgender women from being treated on single-sex female hospital wards to ensure women and girls receive “privacy and protection” in hospitals. ...
Is this not clearly unlawful discrimination, according to the terms of the Equality Act 2010?
The Equality Act prohibits detriments on the grounds of a protected characteristic. The protected characteristics include sex (but not gender) and gender reassignment. This is a bit of a rabbit hole, and I have no doubt whatsoever that some of these proposals when looked at in detail may be in breach, but to say these proposals are "clearly" in breach when you have "clearly" not read them, nor the Equality Act, suggests you are not quite the all conquering genius you make yourself out to be.
Generally, you must not indeed discriminate against someone because of the protected characteristics of sex or gender reassignment. However, the Act includes ‘exceptions’ which allow organisations lawfully to exclude, modify, or limit access to certain groups in certain circumstances. One of most obvious of these is dramatic performances but there are others that are maybe less obvious.
In the case of separate or single-sex services, providers (including the NHS) must show that providing the service differently is a ‘proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim’. This could be for reasons of privacy, decency, to prevent trauma or to ensure health and safety. ECHR guidance a few scenarios where such exceptions are possible.
The proposals here build on that. They may be, as you suggest, in breach. What would be challengeable is whether or not these proposals are a 'proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim'. But they are not, as you so confidently and arrogantly assert, "clearly" in breach.
While I am sorry to be ad hominem about this, you have a maddening propensity on here to label virtually everyone other than you (including me on many occasions) as being "stupid". Before making posts like this you might like to dial it back a bit.
EXCLUSIVE: Alex Salmond today tells Humza Yousaf that to continue as Scottish first minister he must agree an electoral pact which would see the SNP step aside in some Holyrood seats
EXCLUSIVE: Alex Salmond today tells Humza Yousaf that to continue as Scottish first minister he must agree an electoral pact which would see the SNP step aside in some Holyrood seats
I wonder if three of their MSPs might suffer unexpected medical episodes between the votes? Or have strange malfunctions on the locks of the toilet door?
Isn't "unexpected dental emergency" the time honoured excuse reason?
The new constitution will ban transgender women from being treated on single-sex female hospital wards to ensure women and girls receive “privacy and protection” in hospitals. ...
Is this not clearly unlawful discrimination, according to the terms of the Equality Act 2010?
The Equality Act prohibits detriments on the grounds of a protected characteristic. The protected characteristics include sex (but not gender) and gender reassignment. This is a bit of a rabbit hole, and I have no doubt whatsoever that some of these proposals when looked at in detail may be in breach, but to say these proposals are "clearly" in breach when you have "clearly" not read them, nor the Equality Act, suggests you are not quite the all conquering genius you make yourself out to be.
Generally, you must not indeed discriminate against someone because of the protected characteristics of sex or gender reassignment. However, the Act includes ‘exceptions’ which allow organisations lawfully to exclude, modify, or limit access to certain groups in certain circumstances. One of most obvious of these is dramatic performances but there are others that are maybe less obvious.
In the case of separate or single-sex services, providers (including the NHS) must show that providing the service differently is a ‘proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim’. This could be for reasons of privacy, decency, to prevent trauma or to ensure health and safety. ECHR guidance a few scenarios where such exceptions are possible.
The proposals here build on that. They may be, as you suggest, in breach. What would be challengeable is whether or not these proposals are a 'proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim'. But they are not, as you so confidently and arrogantly assert, "clearly" in breach.
While I am sorry to be ad hominem about this, you have a maddening propensity on here to label virtually everyone other than you (including me on many occasions) as being "stupid". Before making posts like this you might like to dial it back a bit.
I'd have thought the bigger issue was whether these proposals are designed to be enacted, or whether they're there to create a talking point the weekend before elections. What's the process/timeframe?
EXCLUSIVE: Alex Salmond today tells Humza Yousaf that to continue as Scottish first minister he must agree an electoral pact which would see the SNP step aside in some Holyrood seats
I wonder if three of their MSPs might suffer unexpected medical episodes between the votes? Or have strange malfunctions on the locks of the toilet door?
Isn't "unexpected dental emergency" the time honoured excuse reason?
I don't think the Tories would be mad keen to be accused of using Soviet tactics either. Left wing, you see.
The new constitution will ban transgender women from being treated on single-sex female hospital wards to ensure women and girls receive “privacy and protection” in hospitals. ...
Is this not clearly unlawful discrimination, according to the terms of the Equality Act 2010?
The Equality Act prohibits detriments on the grounds of a protected characteristic. The protected characteristics include sex (but not gender) and gender reassignment. This is a bit of a rabbit hole, and I have no doubt whatsoever that some of these proposals when looked at in detail may be in breach, but to say these proposals are "clearly" in breach when you have "clearly" not read them, nor the Equality Act, suggests you are not quite the all conquering genius you make yourself out to be.
Generally, you must not indeed discriminate against someone because of the protected characteristics of sex or gender reassignment. However, the Act includes ‘exceptions’ which allow organisations lawfully to exclude, modify, or limit access to certain groups in certain circumstances. One of most obvious of these is dramatic performances but there are others that are maybe less obvious.
In the case of separate or single-sex services, providers (including the NHS) must show that providing the service differently is a ‘proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim’. This could be for reasons of privacy, decency, to prevent trauma or to ensure health and safety. ECHR guidance a few scenarios where such exceptions are possible.
The proposals here build on that. They may be, as you suggest, in breach. What would be challengeable is whether or not these proposals are a 'proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim'. But they are not, as you so confidently and arrogantly assert, "clearly" in breach.
While I am sorry to be ad hominem about this, you have a maddening propensity on here to label virtually everyone other than you (including me on many occasions) as being "stupid". Before making posts like this you might like to dial it back a bit.
The ad hominem stuff is indeed tedious, particularly as I went to the trouble of checking the wording of the act before posting, to see if there was any relevant qualification of the prohibition on direct discrimination for this characteristic. I couldn't see one.
Perhaps you can cite the chapter(s) and section(s) of the act that you think could be used to justify the segregation of trans patients?
The new constitution will ban transgender women from being treated on single-sex female hospital wards to ensure women and girls receive “privacy and protection” in hospitals. ...
Is this not clearly unlawful discrimination, according to the terms of the Equality Act 2010?
The Equality Act prohibits detriments on the grounds of a protected characteristic. The protected characteristics include sex (but not gender) and gender reassignment. This is a bit of a rabbit hole, and I have no doubt whatsoever that some of these proposals when looked at in detail may be in breach, but to say these proposals are "clearly" in breach when you have "clearly" not read them, nor the Equality Act, suggests you are not quite the all conquering genius you make yourself out to be.
Generally, you must not indeed discriminate against someone because of the protected characteristics of sex or gender reassignment. However, the Act includes ‘exceptions’ which allow organisations lawfully to exclude, modify, or limit access to certain groups in certain circumstances. One of most obvious of these is dramatic performances but there are others that are maybe less obvious.
In the case of separate or single-sex services, providers (including the NHS) must show that providing the service differently is a ‘proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim’. This could be for reasons of privacy, decency, to prevent trauma or to ensure health and safety. ECHR guidance a few scenarios where such exceptions are possible.
The proposals here build on that. They may be, as you suggest, in breach. What would be challengeable is whether or not these proposals are a 'proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim'. But they are not, as you so confidently and arrogantly assert, "clearly" in breach.
While I am sorry to be ad hominem about this, you have a maddening propensity on here to label virtually everyone other than you (including me on many occasions) as being "stupid". Before making posts like this you might like to dial it back a bit.
The ad hominem stuff is indeed tedious, particularly as I went to the trouble of checking the wording of the act before posting.
Perhaps you can cite the chapter(s) and section(s) of the act that you think could be used to justify the segregation of trans patients?
"A proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim"
There is a whiff of "Labour's meat tax and seven bins" about the whole pronouncement.
The new constitution will ban transgender women from being treated on single-sex female hospital wards to ensure women and girls receive “privacy and protection” in hospitals. ...
Is this not clearly unlawful discrimination, according to the terms of the Equality Act 2010?
The Equality Act prohibits detriments on the grounds of a protected characteristic. The protected characteristics include sex (but not gender) and gender reassignment. This is a bit of a rabbit hole, and I have no doubt whatsoever that some of these proposals when looked at in detail may be in breach, but to say these proposals are "clearly" in breach when you have "clearly" not read them, nor the Equality Act, suggests you are not quite the all conquering genius you make yourself out to be.
Generally, you must not indeed discriminate against someone because of the protected characteristics of sex or gender reassignment. However, the Act includes ‘exceptions’ which allow organisations lawfully to exclude, modify, or limit access to certain groups in certain circumstances. One of most obvious of these is dramatic performances but there are others that are maybe less obvious.
In the case of separate or single-sex services, providers (including the NHS) must show that providing the service differently is a ‘proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim’. This could be for reasons of privacy, decency, to prevent trauma or to ensure health and safety. ECHR guidance a few scenarios where such exceptions are possible.
The proposals here build on that. They may be, as you suggest, in breach. What would be challengeable is whether or not these proposals are a 'proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim'. But they are not, as you so confidently and arrogantly assert, "clearly" in breach.
While I am sorry to be ad hominem about this, you have a maddening propensity on here to label virtually everyone other than you (including me on many occasions) as being "stupid". Before making posts like this you might like to dial it back a bit.
The ad hominem stuff is indeed tedious, particularly as I went to the trouble of checking the wording of the act before posting, to see if there was any relevant qualification of the prohibition on direct discrimination for this characteristic. I couldn't see one.
Perhaps you can cite the chapter(s) and section(s) of the act that you think could be used to justify the segregation of trans patients?
He did...
(It's quoted from chapter 2 section 19 in case you haven't traced it.)
The new constitution will ban transgender women from being treated on single-sex female hospital wards to ensure women and girls receive “privacy and protection” in hospitals. ...
Is this not clearly unlawful discrimination, according to the terms of the Equality Act 2010?
The Equality Act prohibits detriments on the grounds of a protected characteristic. The protected characteristics include sex (but not gender) and gender reassignment. This is a bit of a rabbit hole, and I have no doubt whatsoever that some of these proposals when looked at in detail may be in breach, but to say these proposals are "clearly" in breach when you have "clearly" not read them, nor the Equality Act, suggests you are not quite the all conquering genius you make yourself out to be.
Generally, you must not indeed discriminate against someone because of the protected characteristics of sex or gender reassignment. However, the Act includes ‘exceptions’ which allow organisations lawfully to exclude, modify, or limit access to certain groups in certain circumstances. One of most obvious of these is dramatic performances but there are others that are maybe less obvious.
In the case of separate or single-sex services, providers (including the NHS) must show that providing the service differently is a ‘proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim’. This could be for reasons of privacy, decency, to prevent trauma or to ensure health and safety. ECHR guidance a few scenarios where such exceptions are possible.
The proposals here build on that. They may be, as you suggest, in breach. What would be challengeable is whether or not these proposals are a 'proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim'. But they are not, as you so confidently and arrogantly assert, "clearly" in breach.
While I am sorry to be ad hominem about this, you have a maddening propensity on here to label virtually everyone other than you (including me on many occasions) as being "stupid". Before making posts like this you might like to dial it back a bit.
Not just the Equality Act:
The Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 require employers to provide separate toilet and washing facilities for men and women, except where those facilities are in the form of separate, fully-enclosed single-occupancy rooms.
The new constitution will ban transgender women from being treated on single-sex female hospital wards to ensure women and girls receive “privacy and protection” in hospitals. ...
Is this not clearly unlawful discrimination, according to the terms of the Equality Act 2010?
The Equality Act prohibits detriments on the grounds of a protected characteristic. The protected characteristics include sex (but not gender) and gender reassignment. This is a bit of a rabbit hole, and I have no doubt whatsoever that some of these proposals when looked at in detail may be in breach, but to say these proposals are "clearly" in breach when you have "clearly" not read them, nor the Equality Act, suggests you are not quite the all conquering genius you make yourself out to be.
Generally, you must not indeed discriminate against someone because of the protected characteristics of sex or gender reassignment. However, the Act includes ‘exceptions’ which allow organisations lawfully to exclude, modify, or limit access to certain groups in certain circumstances. One of most obvious of these is dramatic performances but there are others that are maybe less obvious.
In the case of separate or single-sex services, providers (including the NHS) must show that providing the service differently is a ‘proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim’. This could be for reasons of privacy, decency, to prevent trauma or to ensure health and safety. ECHR guidance a few scenarios where such exceptions are possible.
The proposals here build on that. They may be, as you suggest, in breach. What would be challengeable is whether or not these proposals are a 'proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim'. But they are not, as you so confidently and arrogantly assert, "clearly" in breach.
While I am sorry to be ad hominem about this, you have a maddening propensity on here to label virtually everyone other than you (including me on many occasions) as being "stupid". Before making posts like this you might like to dial it back a bit.
I'd have thought the bigger issue was whether these proposals are designed to be enacted, or whether they're there to create a talking point the weekend before elections. What's the process/timeframe?
The new constitution will ban transgender women from being treated on single-sex female hospital wards to ensure women and girls receive “privacy and protection” in hospitals. ...
Is this not clearly unlawful discrimination, according to the terms of the Equality Act 2010?
The Equality Act prohibits detriments on the grounds of a protected characteristic. The protected characteristics include sex (but not gender) and gender reassignment. This is a bit of a rabbit hole, and I have no doubt whatsoever that some of these proposals when looked at in detail may be in breach, but to say these proposals are "clearly" in breach when you have "clearly" not read them, nor the Equality Act, suggests you are not quite the all conquering genius you make yourself out to be.
Generally, you must not indeed discriminate against someone because of the protected characteristics of sex or gender reassignment. However, the Act includes ‘exceptions’ which allow organisations lawfully to exclude, modify, or limit access to certain groups in certain circumstances. One of most obvious of these is dramatic performances but there are others that are maybe less obvious.
In the case of separate or single-sex services, providers (including the NHS) must show that providing the service differently is a ‘proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim’. This could be for reasons of privacy, decency, to prevent trauma or to ensure health and safety. ECHR guidance a few scenarios where such exceptions are possible.
The proposals here build on that. They may be, as you suggest, in breach. What would be challengeable is whether or not these proposals are a 'proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim'. But they are not, as you so confidently and arrogantly assert, "clearly" in breach.
While I am sorry to be ad hominem about this, you have a maddening propensity on here to label virtually everyone other than you (including me on many occasions) as being "stupid". Before making posts like this you might like to dial it back a bit.
The ad hominem stuff is indeed tedious, particularly as I went to the trouble of checking the wording of the act before posting.
Perhaps you can cite the chapter(s) and section(s) of the act that you think could be used to justify the segregation of trans patients?
"A proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim"
There is a whiff of "Labour's meat tax and seven bins" about the whole pronouncement.
I can see the phrase about "proportionate means ..." in the Act only in relation to indirect discrimination, or to direct discrimination based on other characteristics than transsexuality, neither of which is what I was talking about.
The new constitution will ban transgender women from being treated on single-sex female hospital wards to ensure women and girls receive “privacy and protection” in hospitals. ...
Is this not clearly unlawful discrimination, according to the terms of the Equality Act 2010?
The Equality Act prohibits detriments on the grounds of a protected characteristic. The protected characteristics include sex (but not gender) and gender reassignment. This is a bit of a rabbit hole, and I have no doubt whatsoever that some of these proposals when looked at in detail may be in breach, but to say these proposals are "clearly" in breach when you have "clearly" not read them, nor the Equality Act, suggests you are not quite the all conquering genius you make yourself out to be.
Generally, you must not indeed discriminate against someone because of the protected characteristics of sex or gender reassignment. However, the Act includes ‘exceptions’ which allow organisations lawfully to exclude, modify, or limit access to certain groups in certain circumstances. One of most obvious of these is dramatic performances but there are others that are maybe less obvious.
In the case of separate or single-sex services, providers (including the NHS) must show that providing the service differently is a ‘proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim’. This could be for reasons of privacy, decency, to prevent trauma or to ensure health and safety. ECHR guidance a few scenarios where such exceptions are possible.
The proposals here build on that. They may be, as you suggest, in breach. What would be challengeable is whether or not these proposals are a 'proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim'. But they are not, as you so confidently and arrogantly assert, "clearly" in breach.
While I am sorry to be ad hominem about this, you have a maddening propensity on here to label virtually everyone other than you (including me on many occasions) as being "stupid". Before making posts like this you might like to dial it back a bit.
The ad hominem stuff is indeed tedious, particularly as I went to the trouble of checking the wording of the act before posting, to see if there was any relevant qualification of the prohibition on direct discrimination for this characteristic. I couldn't see one.
Perhaps you can cite the chapter(s) and section(s) of the act that you think could be used to justify the segregation of trans patients?
He did...
(It's quoted from chapter 2 section 19 in case you haven't traced it.)
That is about indirect discrimination. I am asking why this would not be direct discrimination.
We have a quite good example of the sensitivity of the LOESS smooth on the Wikipedia opinion polls graph at the endpoints with the two graphs produced on the 18th and 22nd of April. 18th 22nd It suggests that at least the last two weeks on the graph are provisional.
With respect, I don't quite see your point. I think by the 22nd you had four or so extra polls which between them suggested that the Conservatives' disasterous further plunge in the polls over the past couple of months had been halted if not really reversed. You have always got to be wary of reading too much into a few polls whether they continue or change a previous trend, this is no exception. So the way a trend line is heading is always going to be "provisional".
As it happens the wiki graph is now another 5 days out of date and when the most recent polls are added in to the trend they'll also show the Conservative support pretty well unchanged from where it had reached on the 22nd and the Lab lead still around 20% or a tad over.
The more significant weakness of relying on trend lines generally is not that they are influenced by data from the most recent polls (as they should be) as well as earlier ones but that they fail to differentiate between house effects of different polling companies.
The new constitution will ban transgender women from being treated on single-sex female hospital wards to ensure women and girls receive “privacy and protection” in hospitals. ...
Is this not clearly unlawful discrimination, according to the terms of the Equality Act 2010?
The Equality Act prohibits detriments on the grounds of a protected characteristic. The protected characteristics include sex (but not gender) and gender reassignment. This is a bit of a rabbit hole, and I have no doubt whatsoever that some of these proposals when looked at in detail may be in breach, but to say these proposals are "clearly" in breach when you have "clearly" not read them, nor the Equality Act, suggests you are not quite the all conquering genius you make yourself out to be.
Generally, you must not indeed discriminate against someone because of the protected characteristics of sex or gender reassignment. However, the Act includes ‘exceptions’ which allow organisations lawfully to exclude, modify, or limit access to certain groups in certain circumstances. One of most obvious of these is dramatic performances but there are others that are maybe less obvious.
In the case of separate or single-sex services, providers (including the NHS) must show that providing the service differently is a ‘proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim’. This could be for reasons of privacy, decency, to prevent trauma or to ensure health and safety. ECHR guidance a few scenarios where such exceptions are possible.
The proposals here build on that. They may be, as you suggest, in breach. What would be challengeable is whether or not these proposals are a 'proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim'. But they are not, as you so confidently and arrogantly assert, "clearly" in breach.
While I am sorry to be ad hominem about this, you have a maddening propensity on here to label virtually everyone other than you (including me on many occasions) as being "stupid". Before making posts like this you might like to dial it back a bit.
The ad hominem stuff is indeed tedious, particularly as I went to the trouble of checking the wording of the act before posting, to see if there was any relevant qualification of the prohibition on direct discrimination for this characteristic. I couldn't see one.
Perhaps you can cite the chapter(s) and section(s) of the act that you think could be used to justify the segregation of trans patients?
Your ego blots out the Sun. You will now doubtless tell me why a few decades of case law is wrong and I am stupid. Or the Act is wrong. Either way, dial down the arrogance.
The new constitution will ban transgender women from being treated on single-sex female hospital wards to ensure women and girls receive “privacy and protection” in hospitals. ...
Is this not clearly unlawful discrimination, according to the terms of the Equality Act 2010?
The Equality Act prohibits detriments on the grounds of a protected characteristic. The protected characteristics include sex (but not gender) and gender reassignment. This is a bit of a rabbit hole, and I have no doubt whatsoever that some of these proposals when looked at in detail may be in breach, but to say these proposals are "clearly" in breach when you have "clearly" not read them, nor the Equality Act, suggests you are not quite the all conquering genius you make yourself out to be.
Generally, you must not indeed discriminate against someone because of the protected characteristics of sex or gender reassignment. However, the Act includes ‘exceptions’ which allow organisations lawfully to exclude, modify, or limit access to certain groups in certain circumstances. One of most obvious of these is dramatic performances but there are others that are maybe less obvious.
In the case of separate or single-sex services, providers (including the NHS) must show that providing the service differently is a ‘proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim’. This could be for reasons of privacy, decency, to prevent trauma or to ensure health and safety. ECHR guidance a few scenarios where such exceptions are possible.
The proposals here build on that. They may be, as you suggest, in breach. What would be challengeable is whether or not these proposals are a 'proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim'. But they are not, as you so confidently and arrogantly assert, "clearly" in breach.
While I am sorry to be ad hominem about this, you have a maddening propensity on here to label virtually everyone other than you (including me on many occasions) as being "stupid". Before making posts like this you might like to dial it back a bit.
The ad hominem stuff is indeed tedious, particularly as I went to the trouble of checking the wording of the act before posting, to see if there was any relevant qualification of the prohibition on direct discrimination for this characteristic. I couldn't see one.
Perhaps you can cite the chapter(s) and section(s) of the act that you think could be used to justify the segregation of trans patients?
He did...
(It's quoted from chapter 2 section 19 in case you haven't traced it.)
That is about indirect discrimination. I am asking why this would not be direct discrimination.
But that's not what you asked. He cited his chapter and verse. You said he hadn't. Now you're shifting your ground again to say that a solicitor who works with this law all the time (from an employment perspective admittedly) must be wrong because that's not what it's about, somehow.
I would also suggest that you remember there are two protected characteristics at play here. You are looking at it form one side. Doug is suggesting a court might under that clause find an exemption looking at it the other way.
Edit - and I see he's actually provided an even clearer reference where this is made explicit.
The new constitution will ban transgender women from being treated on single-sex female hospital wards to ensure women and girls receive “privacy and protection” in hospitals. ...
Is this not clearly unlawful discrimination, according to the terms of the Equality Act 2010?
The Equality Act prohibits detriments on the grounds of a protected characteristic. The protected characteristics include sex (but not gender) and gender reassignment. This is a bit of a rabbit hole, and I have no doubt whatsoever that some of these proposals when looked at in detail may be in breach, but to say these proposals are "clearly" in breach when you have "clearly" not read them, nor the Equality Act, suggests you are not quite the all conquering genius you make yourself out to be.
Generally, you must not indeed discriminate against someone because of the protected characteristics of sex or gender reassignment. However, the Act includes ‘exceptions’ which allow organisations lawfully to exclude, modify, or limit access to certain groups in certain circumstances. One of most obvious of these is dramatic performances but there are others that are maybe less obvious.
In the case of separate or single-sex services, providers (including the NHS) must show that providing the service differently is a ‘proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim’. This could be for reasons of privacy, decency, to prevent trauma or to ensure health and safety. ECHR guidance a few scenarios where such exceptions are possible.
The proposals here build on that. They may be, as you suggest, in breach. What would be challengeable is whether or not these proposals are a 'proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim'. But they are not, as you so confidently and arrogantly assert, "clearly" in breach.
While I am sorry to be ad hominem about this, you have a maddening propensity on here to label virtually everyone other than you (including me on many occasions) as being "stupid". Before making posts like this you might like to dial it back a bit.
The ad hominem stuff is indeed tedious, particularly as I went to the trouble of checking the wording of the act before posting, to see if there was any relevant qualification of the prohibition on direct discrimination for this characteristic. I couldn't see one.
Perhaps you can cite the chapter(s) and section(s) of the act that you think could be used to justify the segregation of trans patients?
Your ego blots out the Sun. You will now doubtless tell me why a few decades of case law is wrong and I am stupid. Or the Act is wrong. Either way, dial down the arrogance.
Thank you for answering my question.
But regarding your insufferable rudeness, I can only suggest you take a look in the mirror some time!
The new constitution will ban transgender women from being treated on single-sex female hospital wards to ensure women and girls receive “privacy and protection” in hospitals. ...
Is this not clearly unlawful discrimination, according to the terms of the Equality Act 2010?
The Equality Act prohibits detriments on the grounds of a protected characteristic. The protected characteristics include sex (but not gender) and gender reassignment. This is a bit of a rabbit hole, and I have no doubt whatsoever that some of these proposals when looked at in detail may be in breach, but to say these proposals are "clearly" in breach when you have "clearly" not read them, nor the Equality Act, suggests you are not quite the all conquering genius you make yourself out to be.
Generally, you must not indeed discriminate against someone because of the protected characteristics of sex or gender reassignment. However, the Act includes ‘exceptions’ which allow organisations lawfully to exclude, modify, or limit access to certain groups in certain circumstances. One of most obvious of these is dramatic performances but there are others that are maybe less obvious.
In the case of separate or single-sex services, providers (including the NHS) must show that providing the service differently is a ‘proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim’. This could be for reasons of privacy, decency, to prevent trauma or to ensure health and safety. ECHR guidance a few scenarios where such exceptions are possible.
The proposals here build on that. They may be, as you suggest, in breach. What would be challengeable is whether or not these proposals are a 'proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim'. But they are not, as you so confidently and arrogantly assert, "clearly" in breach.
While I am sorry to be ad hominem about this, you have a maddening propensity on here to label virtually everyone other than you (including me on many occasions) as being "stupid". Before making posts like this you might like to dial it back a bit.
The ad hominem stuff is indeed tedious, particularly as I went to the trouble of checking the wording of the act before posting, to see if there was any relevant qualification of the prohibition on direct discrimination for this characteristic. I couldn't see one.
Perhaps you can cite the chapter(s) and section(s) of the act that you think could be used to justify the segregation of trans patients?
He did...
(It's quoted from chapter 2 section 19 in case you haven't traced it.)
That is about indirect discrimination. I am asking why this would not be direct discrimination.
Part 7 of Schedule 7, sections 26 to 28. As I have already said you arrogant poltroon.
You may have trouble working a URL but you might be specifically interested in paragraph 28 of Schedule 7 - "28 (1)A person does not contravene section 29, so far as relating to gender reassignment discrimination, only because of anything done in relation to a matter within sub-paragraph (2) if the conduct in question is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. (2)The matters are—
(a)the provision of separate services for persons of each sex;
(b)the provision of separate services differently for persons of each sex;
(c)the provision of a service only to persons of one sex."
Yes, yes, I'm stupid, yours is the superior intellect, Yada yada yada. We've heard it all before.
The new constitution will ban transgender women from being treated on single-sex female hospital wards to ensure women and girls receive “privacy and protection” in hospitals. ...
Is this not clearly unlawful discrimination, according to the terms of the Equality Act 2010?
The Equality Act prohibits detriments on the grounds of a protected characteristic. The protected characteristics include sex (but not gender) and gender reassignment. This is a bit of a rabbit hole, and I have no doubt whatsoever that some of these proposals when looked at in detail may be in breach, but to say these proposals are "clearly" in breach when you have "clearly" not read them, nor the Equality Act, suggests you are not quite the all conquering genius you make yourself out to be.
Generally, you must not indeed discriminate against someone because of the protected characteristics of sex or gender reassignment. However, the Act includes ‘exceptions’ which allow organisations lawfully to exclude, modify, or limit access to certain groups in certain circumstances. One of most obvious of these is dramatic performances but there are others that are maybe less obvious.
In the case of separate or single-sex services, providers (including the NHS) must show that providing the service differently is a ‘proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim’. This could be for reasons of privacy, decency, to prevent trauma or to ensure health and safety. ECHR guidance a few scenarios where such exceptions are possible.
The proposals here build on that. They may be, as you suggest, in breach. What would be challengeable is whether or not these proposals are a 'proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim'. But they are not, as you so confidently and arrogantly assert, "clearly" in breach.
While I am sorry to be ad hominem about this, you have a maddening propensity on here to label virtually everyone other than you (including me on many occasions) as being "stupid". Before making posts like this you might like to dial it back a bit.
The ad hominem stuff is indeed tedious, particularly as I went to the trouble of checking the wording of the act before posting, to see if there was any relevant qualification of the prohibition on direct discrimination for this characteristic. I couldn't see one.
Perhaps you can cite the chapter(s) and section(s) of the act that you think could be used to justify the segregation of trans patients?
Your ego blots out the Sun. You will now doubtless tell me why a few decades of case law is wrong and I am stupid. Or the Act is wrong. Either way, dial down the arrogance.
Thank you for answering my question.
But regarding your insufferable rudeness, I can only suggest you take a look in the mirror some time!
I don't deny being rude to arrogant pricks. I am suggesting you are an arrogant prick. There's a difference.
The new constitution will ban transgender women from being treated on single-sex female hospital wards to ensure women and girls receive “privacy and protection” in hospitals. ...
Is this not clearly unlawful discrimination, according to the terms of the Equality Act 2010?
The Equality Act prohibits detriments on the grounds of a protected characteristic. The protected characteristics include sex (but not gender) and gender reassignment. This is a bit of a rabbit hole, and I have no doubt whatsoever that some of these proposals when looked at in detail may be in breach, but to say these proposals are "clearly" in breach when you have "clearly" not read them, nor the Equality Act, suggests you are not quite the all conquering genius you make yourself out to be.
Generally, you must not indeed discriminate against someone because of the protected characteristics of sex or gender reassignment. However, the Act includes ‘exceptions’ which allow organisations lawfully to exclude, modify, or limit access to certain groups in certain circumstances. One of most obvious of these is dramatic performances but there are others that are maybe less obvious.
In the case of separate or single-sex services, providers (including the NHS) must show that providing the service differently is a ‘proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim’. This could be for reasons of privacy, decency, to prevent trauma or to ensure health and safety. ECHR guidance a few scenarios where such exceptions are possible.
The proposals here build on that. They may be, as you suggest, in breach. What would be challengeable is whether or not these proposals are a 'proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim'. But they are not, as you so confidently and arrogantly assert, "clearly" in breach.
While I am sorry to be ad hominem about this, you have a maddening propensity on here to label virtually everyone other than you (including me on many occasions) as being "stupid". Before making posts like this you might like to dial it back a bit.
The ad hominem stuff is indeed tedious, particularly as I went to the trouble of checking the wording of the act before posting, to see if there was any relevant qualification of the prohibition on direct discrimination for this characteristic. I couldn't see one.
Perhaps you can cite the chapter(s) and section(s) of the act that you think could be used to justify the segregation of trans patients?
He did...
(It's quoted from chapter 2 section 19 in case you haven't traced it.)
That is about indirect discrimination. I am asking why this would not be direct discrimination.
Part 7 of Schedule 7, sections 26 to 28. As I have already said you arrogant poltroon.
You may have trouble working a URL but you might be specifically interested in paragraph 28 of Schedule 7 - "28 (1)A person does not contravene section 29, so far as relating to gender reassignment discrimination, only because of anything done in relation to a matter within sub-paragraph (2) if the conduct in question is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. (2)The matters are—
(a)the provision of separate services for persons of each sex;
(b)the provision of separate services differently for persons of each sex;
(c)the provision of a service only to persons of one sex."
Yes, yes, I'm stupid, yours is the superior intellect, Yada yada yada. We've heard it all before.
?
You sent me the URL after ydoethur cited the section about indirect discrimination. I was replying to him.
I thanked you for giving me the correct citation and the URL before you came out with the latest bit of name-calling.
Calm down, take things slowly and enjoy your Sunday morning.
The new constitution will ban transgender women from being treated on single-sex female hospital wards to ensure women and girls receive “privacy and protection” in hospitals. ...
Is this not clearly unlawful discrimination, according to the terms of the Equality Act 2010?
The Equality Act prohibits detriments on the grounds of a protected characteristic. The protected characteristics include sex (but not gender) and gender reassignment. This is a bit of a rabbit hole, and I have no doubt whatsoever that some of these proposals when looked at in detail may be in breach...
...Generally, you must not indeed discriminate against someone because of the protected characteristics of sex or gender reassignment. However, the Act includes ‘exceptions’ which allow organisations lawfully to exclude, modify, or limit access to certain groups in certain circumstances...
...In the case of separate or single-sex services, providers (including the NHS) must show that providing the service differently is a ‘proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim’. This could be for reasons of privacy, decency, to prevent trauma or to ensure health and safety. ECHR guidance a few scenarios where such exceptions are possible.
The proposals here build on that. They may be, as you suggest, in breach. What would be challengeable is whether or not these proposals are a 'proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim'...
(stripped out the adhominens for clarity)
In short, it's going to end up in court at some point.
In long, two other points
If the Government strips away trans rights in all cases, then it guts the Act, as the exceptions clause is expanded to include all cases. I assume this is the gender critical intent.
If the regulations target trans women but not trans men, then that would fail the EHRC. Under its current administration it has refactored equality to say that trans equality means trans women should be equal to trans men, instead of trans women being equal to cis women (this has triggered a special review of the EHRC by the UN[1] body GANHRI[2] by the way). In sports this was resolved by labelling men's sports as "open". I wonder if they will do the same for wards.
Comments
@Mike_Fabricant
#Rwanda sanction beginning to work even before the first flights have taken off says the Republic of Ireland👇"
https://twitter.com/Mike_Fabricant/status/1783753473265107359
"RTÉ News
@rtenews
Emergency laws will be brought to Cabinet on Tuesday to enable the Government to send asylum seekers back to the UK. It comes after the Minister for Justice said 80% of recent IP applicants arriving here came from the UK, via Northern Ireland"
https://twitter.com/rtenews/status/1784298588362653938
The new constitution will ban transgender women from being treated on single-sex female hospital wards to ensure women and girls receive “privacy and protection” in hospitals. Patients will also be given the right to request that intimate care is carried out by someone of the same biological sex.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/04/27/nhs-to-limit-trans-ideology-with-new-constitution/
https://thinpinstripedline.blogspot.com/2024/04/op-keystone-top-secret-story-of-royal.html
May is a useless campaigner. Truss is Truss. Cameron would launch the Tory civil war before the election.
What? You mean they are not?
Do you have any sympathy for the dozens of innocent Israeli men and women held captive for months? Or for the innocents deliberately raped and murdered?
I keep hearing the Rwanda plan is all about stopping people traffickers and people risking their lives crossing the channel ?
The official immigration figures show a steady rise since 2021, but some of that will be Ukraine.
https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/ep/p-pme/populationandmigrationestimatesapril2023/keyfindings/
The presumably large fall in the numbers of immigrants from Ukraine since the initial large numbers will seriously skew any recent year to year comparison of the percentage of immigration which is cross border.
Do we have a returns agreement with RoI if they try to claim Asylum in Belfast?
I suspect numbers will be small, though, in line with the RoI's population.
https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2024/03/14/madeline-gleeson-theodore-konstadinides-the-uks-rwanda-policy-and-lessons-from-australia/
You’d need some quite detailed like for like comparisons to work out what’s going on, unless there’s a very clear and very large rise in particular types of cross border movements.
It’s quite possibly true there’s a significant recent increase in U.K. asylum seeker numbers crossing the border, but it’s also quite possibly nothing much more than spin. And it will take some time to tell the difference.
In reply to Carlotta’s link upthread.
https://x.com/timesscotland/status/1784281765445607627
Rock, meet hard place....
18th
22nd
It suggests that at least the last two weeks on the graph are provisional.
A further sigh of relief came here after last week turned into a very good week for Ukraine. The US aid package passed, the Russian deputy head of the army, Timur Ivanov, has been arrested for "corruption", in a clear personal blow to his boss, Sergei Shoigu, and a clear threat to the balance of the different fractions in the regime. More importantly still, the rumours about Chechen Leader Ramzan Kadyrov´s health seem to have been confirmed.
This last is potentially explosive for Putin. The Chechens have been an extremely useful part of his regime, and having to deal with a potentially violent succession crisis could upend significant parts of the stability of the power vertical. The cadre of 70+ year olds that form the core of Putinism must be pretty horrified that a mere stripling of 47 appears to be terminally ill, and more to the point, a particularly critical part of the circle that keeps Vlad the Bad in power. The Chechens are used to keep other parts of the regime, especially parts of the military, under control, so the arrest of Ivanov suggests strongly that Kadyrov is indeed ailing, since Putin now feels the need to intervene directly.
For the first time in several months I actually heard a senior Estonian military figure suggest that the problems in Russia are causing a direct impact on the capabilities of the Russian army offensive. With the release of the new weapons to the ZSU and the forthcoming arrival of the F-16s, it is not just the residents of Tallinn that are breathing a sigh of relief that the winter is finally over.
Their motion in Yousaf will almost certainly pass, and he's finished, in light of this.
But - if they vote for Labour's motion of no confidence in the government, that would in all probability trigger an election, which would definitely be suboptimal for them. They might even be struggling to cling to third, never mind second.
Meanwhile, if they abstain, that's not going to be well received by their supporters. (Or the SNP's supporters, admittedly.) It would be an absolute gift to Labour - 'SNP survive by grace of Tories. Nats - they're not your friends. Unionists - the Tories don't support you.'
So they face a very tricky situation too that I suspect they were secretly hoping Regan would rescue them from.
I wonder if three of their MSPs might suffer unexpected medical episodes between the votes? Or have strange malfunctions on the locks of the toilet door?
Not all of us were that lucky.....
Generally, you must not indeed discriminate against someone because of the protected characteristics of sex or gender reassignment. However, the Act includes ‘exceptions’ which allow organisations lawfully to exclude, modify, or limit access to certain groups in certain circumstances. One of most obvious of these is dramatic performances but there are others that are maybe less obvious.
In the case of separate or single-sex services, providers (including the NHS) must show that providing the service differently is a ‘proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim’. This could be for reasons of privacy, decency, to prevent trauma or to ensure health and safety. ECHR guidance a few scenarios where such exceptions are possible.
The proposals here build on that. They may be, as you suggest, in breach. What would be challengeable is whether or not these proposals are a 'proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim'. But they are not, as you so confidently and arrogantly assert, "clearly" in breach.
While I am sorry to be ad hominem about this, you have a maddening propensity on here to label virtually everyone other than you (including me on many occasions) as being "stupid". Before making posts like this you might like to dial it back a bit.
Perhaps you can cite the chapter(s) and section(s) of the act that you think could be used to justify the segregation of trans patients?
There is a whiff of "Labour's meat tax and seven bins" about the whole pronouncement.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-68914409?xtor=AL-72-[partner]-[bbc.news.twitter]-[headline]-[news]-[bizdev]-[isapi]&at_link_origin=BBCNews&at_format=link&at_campaign=Social_Flow&at_bbc_team=editorial&at_ptr_name=twitter&at_campaign_type=owned&at_medium=social&at_link_id=97ED492E-04E5-11EF-80BC-B59E4B3AC5C4&at_link_type=web_link
(It's quoted from chapter 2 section 19 in case you haven't traced it.)
NEW THREAD
So here’s a nice mayoral election tweet from my favourite parody account to start Sunday.
https://x.com/fakeshowbiznews/status/1784326570661843090?s=46
The Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 require employers to provide separate toilet and washing facilities for men and women, except where those facilities are in the form of separate, fully-enclosed single-occupancy rooms.
https://thecritic.co.uk/leading-for-some/
As it happens the wiki graph is now another 5 days out of date and when the most recent polls are added in to the trend they'll also show the Conservative support pretty well unchanged from where it had reached on the 22nd and the Lab lead still around 20% or a tad over.
The more significant weakness of relying on trend lines generally is not that they are influenced by data from the most recent polls (as they should be) as well as earlier ones but that they fail to differentiate between house effects of different polling companies.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/schedule/3/part/7
Your ego blots out the Sun. You will now doubtless tell me why a few decades of case law is wrong and I am stupid. Or the Act is wrong. Either way, dial down the arrogance.
I would also suggest that you remember there are two protected characteristics at play here. You are looking at it form one side. Doug is suggesting a court might under that clause find an exemption looking at it the other way.
Edit - and I see he's actually provided an even clearer reference where this is made explicit.
But regarding your insufferable rudeness, I can only suggest you take a look in the mirror some time!
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/schedule/3/part/7
You may have trouble working a URL but you might be specifically interested in paragraph 28 of Schedule 7 -
"28 (1)A person does not contravene section 29, so far as relating to gender reassignment discrimination, only because of anything done in relation to a matter within sub-paragraph (2) if the conduct in question is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.
(2)The matters are—
(a)the provision of separate services for persons of each sex;
(b)the provision of separate services differently for persons of each sex;
(c)the provision of a service only to persons of one sex."
Yes, yes, I'm stupid, yours is the superior intellect, Yada yada yada. We've heard it all before.
You sent me the URL after ydoethur cited the section about indirect discrimination. I was replying to him.
I thanked you for giving me the correct citation and the URL before you came out with the latest bit of name-calling.
Calm down, take things slowly and enjoy your Sunday morning.
In short, it's going to end up in court at some point.
In long, two other points
- If the Government strips away trans rights in all cases, then it guts the Act, as the exceptions clause is expanded to include all cases. I assume this is the gender critical intent.
- If the regulations target trans women but not trans men, then that would fail the EHRC. Under its current administration it has refactored equality to say that trans equality means trans women should be equal to trans men, instead of trans women being equal to cis women (this has triggered a special review of the EHRC by the UN[1] body GANHRI[2] by the way). In sports this was resolved by labelling men's sports as "open". I wonder if they will do the same for wards.
Notes* [1] https://www.ohchr.org/en/countries/nhri/global-alliance-national-human-rights-institutions-ganhri
* [2] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ck7p88zx2z2o https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/countries/nhri/ganhri/SCA-Report-Second-Session-2023-EN-new.pdf
Joey: You’re smoking again?!
Chandler: Well, actually, yesterday I was smoking again. Today, I’m smoking still.
In that vein, I would suggest that we are talking about trans still...