Interesting general point about the need to be precise in the language in a Bill. Perhaps another reason not to do assisted dying via a private member’s Bill.
And here is the map distribution of the petition, from the petitions.gov website. 5949 signatures from Newark, for example.
I would be quite interested to see some polling, even Yougov (which has its own biases), as to whether this amount of signatures is credible - 2.5 million from 67 million is 3.5%+ of population.
We have seen these numbers before, though not on the official site. In 2014 4-5% of the Scottish population signed, on the numbers, petitions about the intelligence service having manipulated the Referendum.
I'm interested to know what are the online sources driving this - there's some encouragement from somewhere. I might take a look at the Leeanderthal Man's social media later.
I wonder if it We’ve occurs to Musk that if he has lived his life 10% differently, be would be universally loved. Wouldn’t need to have been some liberal icon, just 10% more empathic.
That realisation would require him to have the ten percent extra empathy.
Scotland created a lot of problems - including generating a significant increase in anti-transgender opinion - with well intentioned but badly thought out legislation.
However this case is decided, it won't much ameliorate that.
FPT on the Assisted Dying Bill. These are things I am thinking about and have not seen discussed:
1 - Conscience clauses.
A lot of Medics are motivated by their ethical beliefs, whether religious or other. Get this wrong and a lot of medics could be lost.
When I have seen cases of Drs killing their patients or 'helping them die' or engaging in 'mercy-killing' in the past, whatever the circumlocution used, there has often seemed to me to have been an ideologically motived decision to break the law.
I'm not sure what that says about likely adherence to any legal framework, whatever it turns out to be.
I have not seen evidence-based conversation around abuse of such laws elsewhere, slippery slopes and so on. I have previously seen claims, but mainly by people arguing one side or the other.
4 - Commons Procedure
AIUI Commons debate time is limited to 5 hours, with a vague promise about later committee stages.
That time is derisory, and with no guarantee of proper debate some may decide there is no option other than to stop the bill in its tracks until there is an opportunity for careful consideration.
Anecdote: When my own dad died from asbestosis around 2009 after some weeks basically on the sofa in the lounge set aside for him for the time, I had a short conversation with the Macmillan Nurse about amount of morphia, and she was beyond adamant that supplying more than required for pain relief could *not* be considered by them - that would be in the professional ethical framework.
I wonder if it We’ve occurs to Musk that if he has lived his life 10% differently, be would be universally loved. Wouldn’t need to have been some liberal icon, just 10% more empathic.
That realisation would require him to have the ten percent extra empathy.
When local authorities are throwing around Section 114 notices with gay abandon it is difficult to see where the money comes from. Although this is a more desperate than sinister development. Would this sort of thing be happening under a Farage-Kemi dream ticket administration?
I wonder if it We’ve occurs to Musk that if he has lived his life 10% differently, be would be universally loved. Wouldn’t need to have been some liberal icon, just 10% more empathic.
That realisation would require him to have the ten percent extra empathy.
If only Russia could further encourage their Nigerian bot-farms to generate 67 million petitioners to collapse the UK Government we could see the rouble rally.
At that sort of exchange rate, funding a Trump win would have been incredibly expensive and damaging to the Russian economy in the short term.
When local authorities are throwing around Section 114 notices with gay abandon it is difficult to see where the money comes from. Although this is a more desperate than sinister development. Would this sort of thing be happening under a Farage-Kemi dream ticket administration?
Probably, but in the manner of transforming foodbanks to food pantries, there would be some commodified gentrification going on. Buy lavishly tooled Franklin Mint Royal flood defences, one downpayment of £1 then only £500 per month for 36 months. Includes a chance to have a pint with Nigel (you’re buying)!
I may have missed it in the article, but one question: Is the UK government either intervening or a party in the SC case or is it not directly involved?
Footnote: I note that Cyclefree says Amnesty are intervening. Amnesty was a great outfit when it had exactly one remit: the interests of non violent political prisoners (no doubt that is a rough and ready definition but will have to do). Starting with campaigning on capital punishment (even though I agree with them) they have become a generalised liberalish setup with unclarity of aim.
Scotland created a lot of problems - including generating a significant increase in anti-transgender opinion - with well intentioned but badly thought out legislation.
However this case is decided, it won't much ameliorate that.
Think you mean the SNP and a handful of nutters created the problems. Public had no say in the stupidity.
FPT on the Assisted Dying Bill. These are things I am thinking about and have not seen discussed:
1 - Conscience clauses.
A lot of Medics are motivated by their ethical beliefs, whether religious or other. Get this wrong and a lot of medics could be lost.
When I have seen cases of Drs killing their patients or 'helping them die' or engaging in 'mercy-killing' in the past, whatever the circumlocution used, there has often seemed to me to have been an ideologically motived decision to break the law.
I'm not sure what that says about likely adherence to any legal framework, whatever it turns out to be.
I have not seen evidence-based conversation around abuse of such laws elsewhere, slippery slopes and so on. I have previously seen claims, but mainly by people arguing one side or the other.
4 - Commons Procedure
AIUI Commons debate time is limited to 5 hours, with a vague promise about later committee stages.
That time is derisory, and with no guarantee of proper debate some may decide there is no option other than to stop the bill in its tracks until there is an opportunity for careful consideration.
Anecdote: When my own dad died from asbestosis around 2009 after some weeks basically on the sofa in the lounge set aside for him for the time, I had a short conversation with the Macmillan Nurse about amount of morphia, and she was beyond adamant that supplying more than required for pain relief could *not* be considered by them - that would be in the professional ethical framework.
Lord Thomas excellent this morning on R4 Today, disclosing a real problem and gap. Judges have to approve the application for end of life treatment, but this would require an investigation machinery, which is not the judicial role. When it comes to disputed facts (or facts undisputed because everyone is in the same conspiracy) judges can't do it by guesswork. The legal implications are substantial.
Thank you very much indeed for the header, @Cyclefree. I've practically lost hope in our society's ability to return to any sort of common-sense realism.
If the report of President Putin's decision to ban the adoption of Russian children by people from societies such as ours is correct, I'm glad. However few might want to do it, he's made a real propaganda coup and all our own work.
On the one hand you have the legitimate concerns of biological women to have women-only spaces; while on the other where does a trans woman go if they are being abused by their male partner and other women don't recognise them as women.
I notice that @Cyclefree uses the term "men" to refer to transwomen which illustrates a particular point of view.
On assisted dying I'm afraid the answer has to be no.
For all the undoubted legitimate cases of people being in pain and about to suffer worse pain, nevertheless the potential for abuse is such that the state should not be sanctioning this.
And here is the map distribution of the petition, from the petitions.gov website. 5949 signatures from Newark, for example.
I would be quite interested to see some polling, even Yougov (which has its own biases), as to whether this amount of signatures is credible - 2.5 million from 67 million is 3.5%+ of population.
We have seen these numbers before, though not on the official site. In 2014 4-5% of the Scottish population signed, on the numbers, petitions about the intelligence service having manipulated the Referendum.
I'm interested to know what are the online sources driving this - there's some encouragement from somewhere. I might take a look at the Leeanderthal Man's social media later.
It is kind of weird to see calls for a new election from places that elected a Tory MP. Maybe Newark wants rid of Jenrick
Not sure it's a collapse*. Deliberate move by Russia to help their internal costs?
"The developments added to pressure on the ruble amid the relaxation of capital controls by the Russian government as a weaker currency aids the Kremlin’s ability to finance its budget. Moscow eased mandatory conversion further to 25% of revenues for top export businesses, compared to 80% of revenues from earlier in the year, significantly reducing demand for rubles."
EXCL UK could strike back at Trump with taxes on Harleys/Jack Daniel’s
The UK has been wargaming how to respond to potential Trump tariffs on UK goods, with officials briefing ministers they can immediately repurpose former EU measures against the US
On the one hand you have the legitimate concerns of biological women to have women-only spaces; while on the other where does a trans woman go if they are being abused by their male partner and other women don't recognise them as women.
I notice that @Cyclefree uses the term "men" to refer to transwomen which illustrates a particular point of view.
The disabled loo.
Basically this is a problem without a solution because while a lot of Trans men are fine the fact is men (of dubious intent) can access women-only spaces by pretending to be trans is problematic given that the reason for women-only spaces is to escape from men
When local authorities are throwing around Section 114 notices with gay abandon it is difficult to see where the money comes from. Although this is a more desperate than sinister development. Would this sort of thing be happening under a Farage-Kemi dream ticket administration?
I have a great deal of sympathy for local councils at the moment. The vast majority of their resources go on social care and education, and their legal obligations are onerous.
During our cold snap on Saturday, the Met Office, council, government put out hundreds of warnings across all media to let everyone know. Council workers were up all night trying to get some grit down. Still, thousands of people decided to get in their cars during the snow storm, causing literally hundreds of collisions across the city. Then Lothian Buses had to stop because a bus slid sideways down a hill.
The collective response from residents was apoplectic rage. Apparently the "clowncil" failed them for not ensuring their God-given right to drive to Matalan on a Saturday morning. It was pathetic, and I got a lot of stick for fighting the council's case on FB.
I think the concept of "legal sex" was created when the Gender Recognition Act was done in 2004, as per Section 9 of that act
"...Section 9. General (1)Where a full gender recognition certificate is issued to a person, the person’s gender becomes for all purposes the acquired gender (so that, if the acquired gender is the male gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a man and, if it is the female gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a woman).
(2)Subsection (1) does not affect things done, or events occurring, before the certificate is issued; but it does operate for the interpretation of enactments passed, and instruments and other documents made, before the certificate is issued (as well as those passed or made afterwards).
(3)Subsection (1) is subject to provision made by this Act or any other enactment or any subordinate legislation..."
Scotland created a lot of problems - including generating a significant increase in anti-transgender opinion - with well intentioned but badly thought out legislation.
However this case is decided, it won't much ameliorate that.
I'd query "well intentioned". It's hard to see into a man's heart, but it looks a lot more like "nail your colours to the culture war flagpole". The welfare of the people affected seems at best a marginal concern.
On the one hand you have the legitimate concerns of biological women to have women-only spaces; while on the other where does a trans woman go if they are being abused by their male partner and other women don't recognise them as women.
I notice that @Cyclefree uses the term "men" to refer to transwomen which illustrates a particular point of view.
The disabled loo.
Basically this is a problem without a solution because while a lot of Trans men are fine the fact is men (of dubious intent) can access women-only spaces by pretending to be trans is problematic given that the reason for women-only spaces is to escape from men
You mean the unisex disabled loo that women with disabilities have to use?
On the one hand you have the legitimate concerns of biological women to have women-only spaces; while on the other where does a trans woman go if they are being abused by their male partner and other women don't recognise them as women.
I notice that @Cyclefree uses the term "men" to refer to transwomen which illustrates a particular point of view.
I wrote on this the other day. S9 of the Gender Recognition Act 2004 states that a person’s gender is determined by the certificate “for all purposes “. The issue, which is the right of women to be a minimum percentage of the membership of public boards, is not an exception to that. Therefore the Scottish government will win.
The implications of the decision, however, go far wider and should be reconsidered by Parliament.
Scotland created a lot of problems - including generating a significant increase in anti-transgender opinion - with well intentioned but badly thought out legislation.
However this case is decided, it won't much ameliorate that.
I'd query "well intentioned". It's hard to see into a man's heart, but it looks a lot more like "nail your colours to the culture war flagpole". The welfare of the people affected seems at best a marginal concern.
And whatever you think of the SG's legislation, it was no excuse for some of the vitriol directed at trans people in Scotland.
And here is the map distribution of the petition, from the petitions.gov website. 5949 signatures from Newark, for example.
I would be quite interested to see some polling, even Yougov (which has its own biases), as to whether this amount of signatures is credible - 2.5 million from 67 million is 3.5%+ of population.
We have seen these numbers before, though not on the official site. In 2014 4-5% of the Scottish population signed, on the numbers, petitions about the intelligence service having manipulated the Referendum.
I'm interested to know what are the online sources driving this - there's some encouragement from somewhere. I might take a look at the Leeanderthal Man's social media later.
It is kind of weird to see calls for a new election from places that elected a Tory MP. Maybe Newark wants rid of Jenrick
Scotland created a lot of problems - including generating a significant increase in anti-transgender opinion - with well intentioned but badly thought out legislation.
However this case is decided, it won't much ameliorate that.
I'd query "well intentioned". It's hard to see into a man's heart, but it looks a lot more like "nail your colours to the culture war flagpole". The welfare of the people affected seems at best a marginal concern.
Do you accept that there are two flag poles to which folk are nailing their colours in this culture war?
On the one hand you have the legitimate concerns of biological women to have women-only spaces; while on the other where does a trans woman go if they are being abused by their male partner and other women don't recognise them as women.
I notice that @Cyclefree uses the term "men" to refer to transwomen which illustrates a particular point of view.
The disabled loo.
Basically this is a problem without a solution because while a lot of Trans men are fine the fact is men (of dubious intent) can access women-only spaces by pretending to be trans is problematic given that the reason for women-only spaces is to escape from men
Yes I am aware of that hence the women-only spaces. As you say it has no solution. It's all very well for me to say that the instances of such abuse (man => specious GRC => abuse women in women-only space) is teeny tiny, nevertheless it - allowing men to self-declare and enter such spaces - might increase the incidence of such abuse.
The question turns on whether the very small number of cases of men pretending to be trans is sufficient to throw the baby out with the bathwater when it comes to women-only spaces.
What I am unclear about is whether, say, @Cyclefree would object to a 100% genuine, for the sake of argument and example let's say 5ft 3ins super-feminine biological male with a GRC who knows they are a female, coming into a "women-only" space.
ie is it the sheer fact of being a biological male that is the issue.
If you want a black swan, then the Russian economy to collapse to a point where the Ukraine adventure has to be terminated before Trump gets inaugurated would be mine.
Russian collapses/revolutions tend to take about 3 days. There is now nothing much left in the reserves to support the rouble. Food/fuel/heating riots could very rapidly become a thing. North Korea isn't going to ride to the rescue in this instance. Things could really get so bad, so fast, that wider international assistance will come with some big strings attached.
The oligarchs will already have attached them to Putin's neck.
How often does the Supreme Court overturn decisions of the lower courts?
Sometimes, quite resoundingly.
In Ilott v Blue Cross (testamentary freedom v Family provision), , and Lee v Ashers Baking Company Ltd., (the “gay cake” case), they told the lower courts they’d got the law quite wrong.
It’s the role of a community to help afflicted members of the group. Government is one, but not the only, mechanism to deliver such aid.
Your argument implies there is no role in life for charity or mutual assistance - that’s a pretty bleak world view
Cracking puting words in my mouth there. Chacun à son goût but I'd prefer an elected representative to be lobbying his government for help and putting forward ideas and plans for a climate change strategy including improved flood defences rather than begging on twitter.
EXCL UK could strike back at Trump with taxes on Harleys/Jack Daniel’s
The UK has been wargaming how to respond to potential Trump tariffs on UK goods, with officials briefing ministers they can immediately repurpose former EU measures against the US
On the one hand you have the legitimate concerns of biological women to have women-only spaces; while on the other where does a trans woman go if they are being abused by their male partner and other women don't recognise them as women.
I notice that @Cyclefree uses the term "men" to refer to transwomen which illustrates a particular point of view.
You need to provide an alternative safe space.
Well I think this is not a bad solution - similar to a new sports category.
And here is the map distribution of the petition, from the petitions.gov website. 5949 signatures from Newark, for example.
I would be quite interested to see some polling, even Yougov (which has its own biases), as to whether this amount of signatures is credible - 2.5 million from 67 million is 3.5%+ of population.
We have seen these numbers before, though not on the official site. In 2014 4-5% of the Scottish population signed, on the numbers, petitions about the intelligence service having manipulated the Referendum.
I'm interested to know what are the online sources driving this - there's some encouragement from somewhere. I might take a look at the Leeanderthal Man's social media later.
Who cares.
Its as irrelevant as people demanding a rerun of a sports match because they didn't like the referee decisions.
And here is the map distribution of the petition, from the petitions.gov website. 5949 signatures from Newark, for example.
I would be quite interested to see some polling, even Yougov (which has its own biases), as to whether this amount of signatures is credible - 2.5 million from 67 million is 3.5%+ of population.
We have seen these numbers before, though not on the official site. In 2014 4-5% of the Scottish population signed, on the numbers, petitions about the intelligence service having manipulated the Referendum.
I'm interested to know what are the online sources driving this - there's some encouragement from somewhere. I might take a look at the Leeanderthal Man's social media later.
It is kind of weird to see calls for a new election from places that elected a Tory MP. Maybe Newark wants rid of Jenrick
Interesting that so many places that elected LibDems are some of the highest calls. Buyers' remorse?
Yes what on earth is going on with this petition. So what. There were x million people who got the wrong outcome at the GE so the petition has the potential to have x million signatures. Makes no difference to our political system and nor should it.
It's a bizarre idea, but a fantastic political move by the Cons to bring into and keep focus on the dissatisfaction with this government.
And here is the map distribution of the petition, from the petitions.gov website. 5949 signatures from Newark, for example.
I would be quite interested to see some polling, even Yougov (which has its own biases), as to whether this amount of signatures is credible - 2.5 million from 67 million is 3.5%+ of population.
We have seen these numbers before, though not on the official site. In 2014 4-5% of the Scottish population signed, on the numbers, petitions about the intelligence service having manipulated the Referendum.
I'm interested to know what are the online sources driving this - there's some encouragement from somewhere. I might take a look at the Leeanderthal Man's social media later.
It is kind of weird to see calls for a new election from places that elected a Tory MP. Maybe Newark wants rid of Jenrick
Interesting that so many places that elected LibDems are some of the highest calls. Buyers' remorse?
I would have thought it is more they think they would do even better now than they did in July
The thing is that more than 2 million voters didn’t vote Labour so it’s completely pointless and shows how many people don’t understand how politics actually works
Scotland created a lot of problems - including generating a significant increase in anti-transgender opinion - with well intentioned but badly thought out legislation.
However this case is decided, it won't much ameliorate that.
I'd query "well intentioned". It's hard to see into a man's heart, but it looks a lot more like "nail your colours to the culture war flagpole". The welfare of the people affected seems at best a marginal concern.
And whatever you think of the SG's legislation, it was no excuse for some of the vitriol directed at trans people in Scotland.
Nor for false accusations of transphobia as happened in this case about a rape crisis centre - https://www.gov.uk/employment-tribunal-decisions/r-d-adams-v-edinburgh-rape-crisis-centre-4102236-slash-2023. The behaviour of the centre was described as a heresy hunt, the way rape victims wanting a female only counsellor were described and treated was disgusting and the centre had to apologise - twice - because their first attempt was inadequate and pay £70k in damages. One of the people responsible for appointing the head of the centre responsible for what happened went on to be a Minister who was very free with her accusations about those having concerns about the self-ID Bill. Perhaps she should have looked at the beam in her own eye first.
"In the wake of the immigration backlash, if Labour fails to get Britons to fill roles in sectors like social care, it will simply be ejected from power.
And yet the political class lacks the guts and ideas to grasp the nettle."
How often does the Supreme Court overturn decisions of the lower courts?
Sometimes, quite resoundingly.
In Ilott v Blue Cross (testamentary freedom v Family provision), , and Lee v Ashers Baking Company Ltd., (the “gay cake” case), they told the lower courts they’d got the law quite wrong.
The law student's favourite, Donoghue v Stevenson too. Though I'm never quite sure whether Atkin invented a new legal rule or whether he was just the first in the House of Lords to recognise an already existing principle. I suppose that's the magic of his judgment. Regardless, the Lords comprehensively overruled the Session in that case and overturned established precedent.
And here is the map distribution of the petition, from the petitions.gov website. 5949 signatures from Newark, for example.
I would be quite interested to see some polling, even Yougov (which has its own biases), as to whether this amount of signatures is credible - 2.5 million from 67 million is 3.5%+ of population.
We have seen these numbers before, though not on the official site. In 2014 4-5% of the Scottish population signed, on the numbers, petitions about the intelligence service having manipulated the Referendum.
I'm interested to know what are the online sources driving this - there's some encouragement from somewhere. I might take a look at the Leeanderthal Man's social media later.
Who cares.
Its as irrelevant as people demanding a rerun of a sports match because they didn't like the referee decisions.
Maybe there’s a statto out there that might tell us if the regional level data tells us anything useful that a national poll doesn’t pick up. Self selecting sample but relative strength of feeling location to location perhaps.
Yes what on earth is going on with this petition. So what. There were x million people who got the wrong outcome at the GE so the petition has the potential to have x million signatures. Makes no difference to our political system and nor should it.
It's a bizarre idea, but a fantastic political move by the Cons to bring into and keep focus on the dissatisfaction with this government.
Presumably Conservative supporters can't get their heads around the idea of not changing PM every few months.
And here is the map distribution of the petition, from the petitions.gov website. 5949 signatures from Newark, for example.
I would be quite interested to see some polling, even Yougov (which has its own biases), as to whether this amount of signatures is credible - 2.5 million from 67 million is 3.5%+ of population.
We have seen these numbers before, though not on the official site. In 2014 4-5% of the Scottish population signed, on the numbers, petitions about the intelligence service having manipulated the Referendum.
I'm interested to know what are the online sources driving this - there's some encouragement from somewhere. I might take a look at the Leeanderthal Man's social media later.
It is kind of weird to see calls for a new election from places that elected a Tory MP. Maybe Newark wants rid of Jenrick
This petition is Russian interference bollocks.
I disagree, but only on the basis that, as we well know, we are well capable of our own stupidity without any outside interference.
F1: last year Piastri was better than Norris in both the race and sprint. backed him at 6.5, each way, for the race win and 5.25 each way to top sprint qualifying.
How often does the Supreme Court overturn decisions of the lower courts?
Sometimes, quite resoundingly.
In Ilott v Blue Cross (testamentary freedom v Family provision), , and Lee v Ashers Baking Company Ltd., (the “gay cake” case), they told the lower courts they’d got the law quite wrong.
The law student's favourite, Donoghue v Stevenson too. Though I'm never quite sure whether Atkin invented a new legal rule or whether he was just the first in the House of Lords to recognise an already existing principle. I suppose that's the magic of his judgment. Regardless, the Lords comprehensively overruled the Session in that case and overturned established precedent.
One of the two cases where snails affected the law.
"In the wake of the immigration backlash, if Labour fails to get Britons to fill roles in sectors like social care, it will simply be ejected from power.
And yet the political class lacks the guts and ideas to grasp the nettle."
Yes what on earth is going on with this petition. So what. There were x million people who got the wrong outcome at the GE so the petition has the potential to have x million signatures. Makes no difference to our political system and nor should it.
It's a bizarre idea, but a fantastic political move by the Cons to bring into and keep focus on the dissatisfaction with this government.
Presumably Conservative supporters can't get their heads around the idea of not changing PM every few months.
In the future, everybody will be a Conservative PM for 15 minutes...
How often does the Supreme Court overturn decisions of the lower courts?
Sometimes, quite resoundingly.
In Ilott v Blue Cross (testamentary freedom v Family provision), , and Lee v Ashers Baking Company Ltd., (the “gay cake” case), they told the lower courts they’d got the law quite wrong.
This sets me wondering about how many levels of hearing is the maximum in UK law? The more levels, the more chance that not all will be on the same side (just like multiples in betting).
The standard minimum is 3: KBD/Chancery Division or whatever, Court of Appeal, Supreme Court.
Here is a a 4 level example: Industrial tribunal, Employment Appeals Tribunal, Court of Appeal, Supreme Court.
Are there any 5s or 6s? I am sure Cyclefree will know.
(Footnote: The SC can reverse lower decisions because it has a power they don't: lower courts are bound by earlier SC decisions, the SC can overrule itself)
And here is the map distribution of the petition, from the petitions.gov website. 5949 signatures from Newark, for example.
I would be quite interested to see some polling, even Yougov (which has its own biases), as to whether this amount of signatures is credible - 2.5 million from 67 million is 3.5%+ of population.
We have seen these numbers before, though not on the official site. In 2014 4-5% of the Scottish population signed, on the numbers, petitions about the intelligence service having manipulated the Referendum.
I'm interested to know what are the online sources driving this - there's some encouragement from somewhere. I might take a look at the Leeanderthal Man's social media later.
It is kind of weird to see calls for a new election from places that elected a Tory MP. Maybe Newark wants rid of Jenrick
Interesting that so many places that elected LibDems are some of the highest calls. Buyers' remorse?
I would have thought it is more they think they would do even better now than they did in July
The thing is that more than 2 million voters didn’t vote Labour so it’s completely pointless and shows how many people don’t understand how politics actually works
Indeed and had there been such things as online petitions in 1980 or 1981 they'd have got millions of signatures as well.
Anout 10 million (just under) voted Labour, another 18 million voted for other parties and a further 20 million didn't vote at all. You can certainly argue it's not much of a mandate but more than enough under FPTP.
Newark has attracted just under 6,000 signatures - actual electorate over 80,000 - so not much of a mandate there either you could also argue.
I suppose we should we grateful we have a quasi-democratic system where people can register their disaffection - if we had some authoritarian hard-right populist nonsense in charge anyone signing the petition would be arrested and presumably anyone trying a peaceful protest on the streets would be beaten up either by the Police or by agents provoacateurs of the Government.
Churchill was of course right about democracy even if some don't like the current Government.
Trump has announced he will impose 25% tariffs on Canada, Mexico and China. Does this mean NAFTA is dead? How can you impose tariffs on apartner country ina free trade area?
EXCL UK could strike back at Trump with taxes on Harleys/Jack Daniel’s
The UK has been wargaming how to respond to potential Trump tariffs on UK goods, with officials briefing ministers they can immediately repurpose former EU measures against the US
What is your point? "The EU once imposed tariffs on Jack Daniels so if we now do the same we would be copying them and proving that we are too stupid to come up with our own ideas"?
I wonder if it We’ve occurs to Musk that if he has lived his life 10% differently, be would be universally loved. Wouldn’t need to have been some liberal icon, just 10% more empathic.
That realisation would require him to have the ten percent extra empathy.
"In the wake of the immigration backlash, if Labour fails to get Britons to fill roles in sectors like social care, it will simply be ejected from power.
And yet the political class lacks the guts and ideas to grasp the nettle."
Telegraph, but surely right that Labour will be one term unless they show they are solving big problems.
Governments need to solve more problems than they create.
So far Labour is in negative territory because of the great economist's delayed, duff budget.
This morning's white paper media stuff seems odd. I am pretty sure Kendall on Laura K was asked about the work capability assessments and disability benefits and she said 'wait for the white paper on Tuesday'. And yet media saying there will no stuff today on work capbility etc.
How often does the Supreme Court overturn decisions of the lower courts?
Sometimes, quite resoundingly.
In Ilott v Blue Cross (testamentary freedom v Family provision), , and Lee v Ashers Baking Company Ltd., (the “gay cake” case), they told the lower courts they’d got the law quite wrong.
The law student's favourite, Donoghue v Stevenson too. Though I'm never quite sure whether Atkin invented a new legal rule or whether he was just the first in the House of Lords to recognise an already existing principle. I suppose that's the magic of his judgment. Regardless, the Lords comprehensively overruled the Session in that case and overturned established precedent.
One of the two cases where snails affected the law.
And a case in which the explication of the law was explicitly based on how we should understand the Christian tradition - in this case the Great Commandment and the Good Samaritan.
Perhaps today the RSPCA or the Snail Society would be intervening on behalf of the injured rights of the snail.
On the one hand you have the legitimate concerns of biological women to have women-only spaces; while on the other where does a trans woman go if they are being abused by their male partner and other women don't recognise them as women.
I notice that @Cyclefree uses the term "men" to refer to transwomen which illustrates a particular point of view.
The disabled loo.
Basically this is a problem without a solution because while a lot of Trans men are fine the fact is men (of dubious intent) can access women-only spaces by pretending to be trans is problematic given that the reason for women-only spaces is to escape from men
Disabled loos are usually unisex anyway (as are most loos in small firms or households). In any case, since no-one guards loos, would-be rapists do not need to ‘pretend to be trans’ in order to march in and assault women.
EXCL UK could strike back at Trump with taxes on Harleys/Jack Daniel’s
The UK has been wargaming how to respond to potential Trump tariffs on UK goods, with officials briefing ministers they can immediately repurpose former EU measures against the US
What is your point? "The EU once imposed tariffs on Jack Daniels so if we now do the same we would be copying them and proving that we are too stupid to come up with our own ideas"?
Likewise the EU isn't in any way obligated to use its previous tariff list.
The only 'advantage' to the previous list is that it already exists and might save someone's time in drawing up a new list.
Trump has announced he will impose 25% tariffs on Canada, Mexico and China. Does this mean NAFTA is dead? How can you impose tariffs on apartner country ina free trade area?
With respect, you are making the mistake of looking at a Trump proposal through the lens of logic.
Scotland created a lot of problems - including generating a significant increase in anti-transgender opinion - with well intentioned but badly thought out legislation.
However this case is decided, it won't much ameliorate that.
I'd query "well intentioned". It's hard to see into a man's heart, but it looks a lot more like "nail your colours to the culture war flagpole". The welfare of the people affected seems at best a marginal concern.
And whatever you think of the SG's legislation, it was no excuse for some of the vitriol directed at trans people in Scotland.
It quite clearly provided an excuse for not a few folk.
On the one hand you have the legitimate concerns of biological women to have women-only spaces; while on the other where does a trans woman go if they are being abused by their male partner and other women don't recognise them as women.
I notice that @Cyclefree uses the term "men" to refer to transwomen which illustrates a particular point of view.
The disabled loo.
Basically this is a problem without a solution because while a lot of Trans men are fine the fact is men (of dubious intent) can access women-only spaces by pretending to be trans is problematic given that the reason for women-only spaces is to escape from men
Disabled loos are usually unisex anyway (as are most loos in small firms or households). In any case, since no-one guards loos, would-be rapists do not need to ‘pretend to be trans’ in order to march in and assault women.
If you want to "have your way with women" a police warrant card is more useful than a GRC.
Trump has announced he will impose 25% tariffs on Canada, Mexico and China. Does this mean NAFTA is dead? How can you impose tariffs on apartner country ina free trade area?
Don't know (interesting question) but NAFTA was replaced by USMCA - which is so much less memorable - in 2020.
EXCL UK could strike back at Trump with taxes on Harleys/Jack Daniel’s
The UK has been wargaming how to respond to potential Trump tariffs on UK goods, with officials briefing ministers they can immediately repurpose former EU measures against the US
What is your point? "The EU once imposed tariffs on Jack Daniels so if we now do the same we would be copying them and proving that we are too stupid to come up with our own ideas"?
It fascinates me how for some people Brexit and their ex post opposition to it is almost the defining moment of their entire lives and feature of their personality. Will 22nd century ramblers wander bemused around the cemeteries of metropolitan London, reading lichen covered stones marked FBPE, in their own little corner opposite the 20th century war graves?
Trump has announced he will impose 25% tariffs on Canada, Mexico and China. Does this mean NAFTA is dead? How can you impose tariffs on apartner country ina free trade area?
Possibly under national security provisions (if they exist).
It sounds like something which will head to the courts, especially if imposed by executive order and not through congress.
I've signed the petition. Obviously there's no way it's enforceable but there's no reason not to make Starmer feel as uncomfortable as possible. The link was sent by a friend I did airsoft a few years back with who has never posted about politics on his Facebook.
"In the wake of the immigration backlash, if Labour fails to get Britons to fill roles in sectors like social care, it will simply be ejected from power.
And yet the political class lacks the guts and ideas to grasp the nettle."
Telegraph, but surely right that Labour will be one term unless they show they are solving big problems.
Governments need to solve more problems than they create...
Which reminds me of one of the best scenes in The Crown, when Harold Wilson is counselling HMQ on the difference between the private and public persona. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DT-eH0iC87w&t=257s
Yes what on earth is going on with this petition. So what. There were x million people who got the wrong outcome at the GE so the petition has the potential to have x million signatures. Makes no difference to our political system and nor should it.
It's a bizarre idea, but a fantastic political move by the Cons to bring into and keep focus on the dissatisfaction with this government.
Presumably Conservative supporters can't get their heads around the idea of not changing PM every few months.
In the future, everybody will be a Conservative PM for 15 minutes...
I've bought myself a copy of "Kingmaker" as I enjoy a nice bit of comedy and this looks a book replete with comedic material.
Trump has announced he will impose 25% tariffs on Canada, Mexico and China. Does this mean NAFTA is dead? How can you impose tariffs on apartner country ina free trade area?
It would be a blatant breach of (Trump's own) treaty, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's dead. What happens next would decide whether it's just in abeyance, or beyond recovery.
And here is the map distribution of the petition, from the petitions.gov website. 5949 signatures from Newark, for example.
I would be quite interested to see some polling, even Yougov (which has its own biases), as to whether this amount of signatures is credible - 2.5 million from 67 million is 3.5%+ of population.
We have seen these numbers before, though not on the official site. In 2014 4-5% of the Scottish population signed, on the numbers, petitions about the intelligence service having manipulated the Referendum.
I'm interested to know what are the online sources driving this - there's some encouragement from somewhere. I might take a look at the Leeanderthal Man's social media later.
It is kind of weird to see calls for a new election from places that elected a Tory MP. Maybe Newark wants rid of Jenrick
My further edit, which was time barred, was that on this one Newark has 6k, whilst Ashfield, Bolsover, are 5k-5.5k.
On a simplistic interpretation that might say it is more farming driven, but it would be a speculation.
On assisted dying I'm afraid the answer has to be no.
For all the undoubted legitimate cases of people being in pain and about to suffer worse pain, nevertheless the potential for abuse is such that the state should not be sanctioning this.
How often does the Supreme Court overturn decisions of the lower courts?
Sometimes, quite resoundingly.
In Ilott v Blue Cross (testamentary freedom v Family provision), , and Lee v Ashers Baking Company Ltd., (the “gay cake” case), they told the lower courts they’d got the law quite wrong.
The law student's favourite, Donoghue v Stevenson too. Though I'm never quite sure whether Atkin invented a new legal rule or whether he was just the first in the House of Lords to recognise an already existing principle. I suppose that's the magic of his judgment. Regardless, the Lords comprehensively overruled the Session in that case and overturned established precedent.
It was a split 3-2 decision and involved a massive extension of the concept of 'duty of care' based on the neighbour principle. That massive generalisation bit was new.
Trump has announced he will impose 25% tariffs on Canada, Mexico and China. Does this mean NAFTA is dead? How can you impose tariffs on apartner country ina free trade area?
It would be a blatant breach of (Trump's own) treaty, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's dead. What happens next would decide whether it's just in abeyance, or beyond recovery.
NAFTA was superseded by USMCA or CUSMA (if you're Canadian). But yes, tariffs would seem to be a breach.
On the one hand you have the legitimate concerns of biological women to have women-only spaces; while on the other where does a trans woman go if they are being abused by their male partner and other women don't recognise them as women.
I notice that @Cyclefree uses the term "men" to refer to transwomen which illustrates a particular point of view.
The disabled loo.
Basically this is a problem without a solution because while a lot of Trans men are fine the fact is men (of dubious intent) can access women-only spaces by pretending to be trans is problematic given that the reason for women-only spaces is to escape from men
It's quite a thing that some people - parents wanting to look after toddlers for example - get themselves a RADAR key and occupy disabled loos for as long as they want.
That can be a real problem for time critical needs, such as people with IBD needing a loo now.
I've signed the petition. Obviously there's no way it's enforceable but there's no reason not to make Starmer feel as uncomfortable as possible. The link was sent by a friend I did airsoft a few years back with who has never posted about politics on his Facebook.
It's not a bad tactic and I imagine Conservatives are disproportionately well represented among the signatories (LDs and Reform too probably). How many of those signing are among the 20 million who didn't vote I wonder?
Obviously, it's a tactic with a limited shelf life and functions as a harmless howl of frustration and rage which is all you have in lieu of some actual coherent alternative policies and ideas.
EXCL UK could strike back at Trump with taxes on Harleys/Jack Daniel’s
The UK has been wargaming how to respond to potential Trump tariffs on UK goods, with officials briefing ministers they can immediately repurpose former EU measures against the US
What is your point? "The EU once imposed tariffs on Jack Daniels so if we now do the same we would be copying them and proving that we are too stupid to come up with our own ideas"?
No idea of the history, but could it be the EU was for once actually acting in the interests of the UK and Ireland to protect the whisky/whiskey industries? So it could have been our idea...
Trump has announced he will impose 25% tariffs on Canada, Mexico and China. Does this mean NAFTA is dead? How can you impose tariffs on apartner country ina free trade area?
Yes it is dead and from next year global free trade is dead. Trump will impose heavy tariffs on Chinese, Mexican, Canadian and EU imports as he has made clear and the UK will probably be hit too. Those nations will in turn impose significant tariffs on US imports.
The only nations Trump may exempt from tariffs are Milei's Argentina and Netanyahu's Israel.
On the one hand you have the legitimate concerns of biological women to have women-only spaces; while on the other where does a trans woman go if they are being abused by their male partner and other women don't recognise them as women.
I notice that @Cyclefree uses the term "men" to refer to transwomen which illustrates a particular point of view.
The disabled loo.
Basically this is a problem without a solution because while a lot of Trans men are fine the fact is men (of dubious intent) can access women-only spaces by pretending to be trans is problematic given that the reason for women-only spaces is to escape from men
Disabled loos are usually unisex anyway (as are most loos in small firms or households). In any case, since no-one guards loos, would-be rapists do not need to ‘pretend to be trans’ in order to march in and assault women.
Yep that was my point - a place exists there which works for everyone.
Now if you were talking about a hospital ward the choice comes down to who you want to upset more
The women on an all female ward Or the trans woman forced to be in a ward with men
That’s really what this debate boils down to - 2 options neither of which can please everyone
I've signed the petition. Obviously there's no way it's enforceable but there's no reason not to make Starmer feel as uncomfortable as possible. The link was sent by a friend I did airsoft a few years back with who has never posted about politics on his Facebook.
I have wondered whether the instigator of the petition gains the ability to email those who sign to “update” them? If so, is he a Reform member/voter? Stoking this grievance may help Farage build something for the locals.
When local authorities are throwing around Section 114 notices with gay abandon it is difficult to see where the money comes from. Although this is a more desperate than sinister development. Would this sort of thing be happening under a Farage-Kemi dream ticket administration?
I have a great deal of sympathy for local councils at the moment. The vast majority of their resources go on social care and education, and their legal obligations are onerous.
During our cold snap on Saturday, the Met Office, council, government put out hundreds of warnings across all media to let everyone know. Council workers were up all night trying to get some grit down. Still, thousands of people decided to get in their cars during the snow storm, causing literally hundreds of collisions across the city. Then Lothian Buses had to stop because a bus slid sideways down a hill.
The collective response from residents was apoplectic rage. Apparently the "clowncil" failed them for not ensuring their God-given right to drive to Matalan on a Saturday morning. It was pathetic, and I got a lot of stick for fighting the council's case on FB.
Agree. Local Authorities are in that classic situation of having responsibility without power. Thet are given a huge range of statutory duties but don't have the power to decide how much money they need to fulfil those duties. Those limits and constraints are fixed by central government/parliament.
EXCL UK could strike back at Trump with taxes on Harleys/Jack Daniel’s
The UK has been wargaming how to respond to potential Trump tariffs on UK goods, with officials briefing ministers they can immediately repurpose former EU measures against the US
EXCL UK could strike back at Trump with taxes on Harleys/Jack Daniel’s
The UK has been wargaming how to respond to potential Trump tariffs on UK goods, with officials briefing ministers they can immediately repurpose former EU measures against the US
What is your point? "The EU once imposed tariffs on Jack Daniels so if we now do the same we would be copying them and proving that we are too stupid to come up with our own ideas"?
It fascinates me how for some people Brexit and their ex post opposition to it is almost the defining moment of their entire lives and feature of their personality. Will 22nd century ramblers wander bemused around the cemeteries of metropolitan London, reading lichen covered stones marked FBPE, in their own little corner opposite the 20th century war graves?
We still talk about the repeal of the Corn Laws - which was for many at the time just such a defining issue. Even if we have little idea of what ignited such passions.
No doubt the historical memory of Brexit will be similar in a century or so.
Trump has announced he will impose 25% tariffs on Canada, Mexico and China. Does this mean NAFTA is dead? How can you impose tariffs on apartner country ina free trade area?
It would be a blatant breach of (Trump's own) treaty, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's dead. What happens next would decide whether it's just in abeyance, or beyond recovery.
NAFTA was superseded by USMCA or CUSMA (if you're Canadian). But yes, tariffs would seem to be a breach.
And here is the map distribution of the petition, from the petitions.gov website. 5949 signatures from Newark, for example.
I would be quite interested to see some polling, even Yougov (which has its own biases), as to whether this amount of signatures is credible - 2.5 million from 67 million is 3.5%+ of population.
We have seen these numbers before, though not on the official site. In 2014 4-5% of the Scottish population signed, on the numbers, petitions about the intelligence service having manipulated the Referendum.
I'm interested to know what are the online sources driving this - there's some encouragement from somewhere. I might take a look at the Leeanderthal Man's social media later.
It is kind of weird to see calls for a new election from places that elected a Tory MP. Maybe Newark wants rid of Jenrick
This petition is Russian interference bollocks.
I disagree, but only on the basis that, as we well know, we are well capable of our own stupidity without any outside interference.
Has anyone on PB met anyone who has signed this petition?
There are a couple of hundred here commenting, and a couple of thousand lurkers. Someone should have seen something.
Anyone?
(I haven't, but I have been mainly at home in the cold snap.)
Scotland created a lot of problems - including generating a significant increase in anti-transgender opinion - with well intentioned but badly thought out legislation.
However this case is decided, it won't much ameliorate that.
I'd query "well intentioned". It's hard to see into a man's heart, but it looks a lot more like "nail your colours to the culture war flagpole". The welfare of the people affected seems at best a marginal concern.
And whatever you think of the SG's legislation, it was no excuse for some of the vitriol directed at trans people in Scotland.
In my experience there was no vitriol directed at trans people. There was vitriol directed at male sex offenders who were pretending to be trans to gain access to further potential victims. These are evil, dangerous men and deserve all the vitriol they get.
The problem with the Scottish legislation was that it proceeded on the premise that the very rigorous safeguards built into the 2004 Act were simply unnecessary and the choice of gender was a matter of personal choice. That has thankfully been abandoned and forms no part of the present case.
No more tinkering. Real reform to give people their futures back, cut the benefits bill, and fire up the economy.
One of those issues that crops up from time to time all my life. The minister was on the media this morning talking about sanctions and investment in Job Centres. The BBC finds people who long to work but can't get a job because of issue X. They are very bad at finding people who just don't feel like working. The accustomed scenario.
And here is the map distribution of the petition, from the petitions.gov website. 5949 signatures from Newark, for example.
I would be quite interested to see some polling, even Yougov (which has its own biases), as to whether this amount of signatures is credible - 2.5 million from 67 million is 3.5%+ of population.
We have seen these numbers before, though not on the official site. In 2014 4-5% of the Scottish population signed, on the numbers, petitions about the intelligence service having manipulated the Referendum.
I'm interested to know what are the online sources driving this - there's some encouragement from somewhere. I might take a look at the Leeanderthal Man's social media later.
It is kind of weird to see calls for a new election from places that elected a Tory MP. Maybe Newark wants rid of Jenrick
I doubt it. Jenrick is popular there holding the seat even though in 1997 Labour had won Newark and almost all seats Labour won in 1997 they also won in July.
On assisted dying I'm afraid the answer has to be no.
For all the undoubted legitimate cases of people being in pain and about to suffer worse pain, nevertheless the potential for abuse is such that the state should not be sanctioning this.
I have an interesting perspective on this. I have met medical staff (on no less than three occasions) who failed objectivity in relation to treatment/patient value. They should not be allowed to make decisions about such actions.
At the same time, there is a valid and compelling case for a mechanism by which people can end their lives, rather than. Be forced to live in pointless suffering
Comments
Thank-you for the header, @Cyclefree .
If you'll forgive me, I'll read it carefully with two courses of elevenses, later on .
Interesting general point about the need to be precise in the language in a Bill. Perhaps another reason not to do assisted dying via a private member’s Bill.
https://archive.ph/iV8nB
And here is the map distribution of the petition, from the petitions.gov website. 5949 signatures from Newark, for example.
I would be quite interested to see some polling, even Yougov (which has its own biases), as to whether this amount of signatures is credible - 2.5 million from 67 million is 3.5%+ of population.
We have seen these numbers before, though not on the official site. In 2014 4-5% of the Scottish population signed, on the numbers, petitions about the intelligence service having manipulated the Referendum.
I'm interested to know what are the online sources driving this - there's some encouragement from somewhere. I might take a look at the Leeanderthal Man's social media later.
However this case is decided, it won't much ameliorate that.
https://x.com/alexdaviesjones/status/1860698533759791479?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q
1 - Conscience clauses.
A lot of Medics are motivated by their ethical beliefs, whether religious or other. Get this wrong and a lot of medics could be lost.
When I have seen cases of Drs killing their patients or 'helping them die' or engaging in 'mercy-killing' in the past, whatever the circumlocution used, there has often seemed to me to have been an ideologically motived decision to break the law.
I'm not sure what that says about likely adherence to any legal framework, whatever it turns out to be.
( @Foxy ?)
2 - Economics & other Bias
Medics making decisions *will* take their budgets into account, and will have difficulty finding the best interest of the patient.
A decent summary of "anti" arguments is here:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/euthanasia/against/against_1.shtml
3 - Abuse in places where such laws exist
I have not seen evidence-based conversation around abuse of such laws elsewhere, slippery slopes and so on. I have previously seen claims, but mainly by people arguing one side or the other.
4 - Commons Procedure
AIUI Commons debate time is limited to 5 hours, with a vague promise about later committee stages.
That time is derisory, and with no guarantee of proper debate some may decide there is no option other than to stop the bill in its tracks until there is an opportunity for careful consideration.
Anecdote: When my own dad died from asbestosis around 2009 after some weeks basically on the sofa in the lounge set aside for him for the time, I had a short conversation with the Macmillan Nurse about amount of morphia, and she was beyond adamant that supplying more than required for pain relief could *not* be considered by them - that would be in the professional ethical framework.
https://tradingeconomics.com/russia/currency
Depends on your terms.
At that sort of exchange rate, funding a Trump win would have been incredibly expensive and damaging to the Russian economy in the short term.
...for the FCA. Irony is not dead.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cp9z332j4npo
Buy lavishly tooled Franklin Mint Royal flood defences, one downpayment of £1 then only £500 per month for 36 months. Includes a chance to have a pint with Nigel (you’re buying)!
Footnote: I note that Cyclefree says Amnesty are intervening. Amnesty was a great outfit when it had exactly one remit: the interests of non violent political prisoners (no doubt that is a rough and ready definition but will have to do). Starting with campaigning on capital punishment (even though I agree with them) they have become a generalised liberalish setup with unclarity of aim.
If the report of President Putin's decision to ban the adoption of Russian children by people from societies such as ours is correct, I'm glad. However few might want to do it, he's made a real propaganda coup and all our own work.
Good morning, everyone.
On the one hand you have the legitimate concerns of biological women to have women-only spaces; while on the other where does a trans woman go if they are being abused by their male partner and other women don't recognise them as women.
I notice that @Cyclefree uses the term "men" to refer to transwomen which illustrates a particular point of view.
For all the undoubted legitimate cases of people being in pain and about to suffer worse pain, nevertheless the potential for abuse is such that the state should not be sanctioning this.
Your argument implies there is no role in life for charity or mutual assistance - that’s a pretty bleak world view
"The developments added to pressure on the ruble amid the relaxation of capital controls by the Russian government as a weaker currency aids the Kremlin’s ability to finance its budget. Moscow eased mandatory conversion further to 25% of revenues for top export businesses, compared to 80% of revenues from earlier in the year, significantly reducing demand for rubles."
https://tradingeconomics.com/russia/currency
(*I'd love it if it were, but rumour of the collapse of the Russian state has been frequently gretly exaggerated.)
Oh...
@Stefan_Boscia
EXCL UK could strike back at Trump with taxes on Harleys/Jack Daniel’s
The UK has been wargaming how to respond to potential Trump tariffs on UK goods, with officials briefing ministers they can immediately repurpose former EU measures against the US
https://x.com/Stefan_Boscia/status/1861322969449984392
Basically this is a problem without a solution because while a lot of Trans men are fine the fact is men (of dubious intent) can access women-only spaces by pretending to be trans is problematic given that the reason for women-only spaces is to escape from men
During our cold snap on Saturday, the Met Office, council, government put out hundreds of warnings across all media to let everyone know. Council workers were up all night trying to get some grit down. Still, thousands of people decided to get in their cars during the snow storm, causing literally hundreds of collisions across the city. Then Lothian Buses had to stop because a bus slid sideways down a hill.
The collective response from residents was apoplectic rage. Apparently the "clowncil" failed them for not ensuring their God-given right to drive to Matalan on a Saturday morning. It was pathetic, and I got a lot of stick for fighting the council's case on FB.
"...Section 9. General
(1)Where a full gender recognition certificate is issued to a person, the person’s gender becomes for all purposes the acquired gender (so that, if the acquired gender is the male gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a man and, if it is the female gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a woman).
(2)Subsection (1) does not affect things done, or events occurring, before the certificate is issued; but it does operate for the interpretation of enactments passed, and instruments and other documents made, before the certificate is issued (as well as those passed or made afterwards).
(3)Subsection (1) is subject to provision made by this Act or any other enactment or any subordinate legislation..."
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/7/section/9
Which, incidentally, makes it 20 years old.
The implications of the decision, however, go far wider and should be reconsidered by Parliament.
The question turns on whether the very small number of cases of men pretending to be trans is sufficient to throw the baby out with the bathwater when it comes to women-only spaces.
What I am unclear about is whether, say, @Cyclefree would object to a 100% genuine, for the sake of argument and example let's say 5ft 3ins super-feminine biological male with a GRC who knows they are a female, coming into a "women-only" space.
ie is it the sheer fact of being a biological male that is the issue.
Russian collapses/revolutions tend to take about 3 days. There is now nothing much left in the reserves to support the rouble. Food/fuel/heating riots could very rapidly become a thing. North Korea isn't going to ride to the rescue in this instance. Things could really get so bad, so fast, that wider international assistance will come with some big strings attached.
The oligarchs will already have attached them to Putin's neck.
In Ilott v Blue Cross (testamentary freedom v Family provision), , and Lee v Ashers Baking Company Ltd., (the “gay cake” case), they told the lower courts they’d got the law quite wrong.
Chacun à son goût but I'd prefer an elected representative to be lobbying his government for help and putting forward ideas and plans for a climate change strategy including improved flood defences rather than begging on twitter.
The UK could impose whatever tariffs it wants against the USA.
Its as irrelevant as people demanding a rerun of a sports match because they didn't like the referee decisions.
It's a bizarre idea, but a fantastic political move by the Cons to bring into and keep focus on the dissatisfaction with this government.
The thing is that more than 2 million voters didn’t vote Labour so it’s completely pointless and shows how many people don’t understand how politics actually works
And yet the political class lacks the guts and ideas to grasp the nettle."
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/11/25/britain-has-reached-its-worklessness-tipping-point-economy/
Telegraph, but surely right that Labour will be one term unless they show they are solving big problems.
Betting Post
F1: last year Piastri was better than Norris in both the race and sprint. backed him at 6.5, each way, for the race win and 5.25 each way to top sprint qualifying.
So far Labour is in negative territory because of the great economist's delayed, duff budget.
The standard minimum is 3: KBD/Chancery Division or whatever, Court of Appeal, Supreme Court.
Here is a a 4 level example: Industrial tribunal, Employment Appeals Tribunal, Court of Appeal, Supreme Court.
Are there any 5s or 6s? I am sure Cyclefree will know.
(Footnote: The SC can reverse lower decisions because it has a power they don't: lower courts are bound by earlier SC decisions, the SC can overrule itself)
Anout 10 million (just under) voted Labour, another 18 million voted for other parties and a further 20 million didn't vote at all. You can certainly argue it's not much of a mandate but more than enough under FPTP.
Newark has attracted just under 6,000 signatures - actual electorate over 80,000 - so not much of a mandate there either you could also argue.
I suppose we should we grateful we have a quasi-democratic system where people can register their disaffection - if we had some authoritarian hard-right populist nonsense in charge anyone signing the petition would be arrested and presumably anyone trying a peaceful protest on the streets would be beaten up either by the Police or by agents provoacateurs of the Government.
Churchill was of course right about democracy even if some don't like the current Government.
Trump has announced he will impose 25% tariffs on Canada, Mexico and China. Does this mean NAFTA is dead? How can you impose tariffs on apartner country ina free trade area?
Perhaps today the RSPCA or the Snail Society would be intervening on behalf of the injured rights of the snail.
The only 'advantage' to the previous list is that it already exists and might save someone's time in drawing up a new list.
It sounds like something which will head to the courts, especially if imposed by executive order and not through congress.
What happens next would decide whether it's just in abeyance, or beyond recovery.
On a simplistic interpretation that might say it is more farming driven, but it would be a speculation.
That can be a real problem for time critical needs, such as people with IBD needing a loo now.
Particularly an issue in eg rural tourism areas.
Obviously, it's a tactic with a limited shelf life and functions as a harmless howl of frustration and rage which is all you have in lieu of some actual coherent alternative policies and ideas.
The only nations Trump may exempt from tariffs are Milei's Argentina and Netanyahu's Israel.
Now if you were talking about a hospital ward the choice comes down to who you want to upset more
The women on an all female ward
Or the trans woman forced to be in a ward with men
That’s really what this debate boils down to - 2 options neither of which can please everyone
My government will get people back to work.
No more tinkering. Real reform to give people their futures back, cut the benefits bill, and fire up the economy.
No doubt the historical memory of Brexit will be similar in a century or so.
There are a couple of hundred here commenting, and a couple of thousand lurkers. Someone should have seen something.
Anyone?
(I haven't, but I have been mainly at home in the cold snap.)
The problem with the Scottish legislation was that it proceeded on the premise that the very rigorous safeguards built into the 2004 Act were simply unnecessary and the choice of gender was a matter of personal choice. That has thankfully been abandoned and forms no part of the present case.
minister was on the media this morning talking about sanctions and investment in Job Centres. The BBC finds people who long to work but can't get a job because of issue X. They are very bad at finding people who just don't feel like working. The accustomed scenario.
More a protest against the national government
At the same time, there is a valid and compelling case for a mechanism by which people can end their lives, rather than. Be forced to live in pointless suffering