Options
Law vs Reality – politicalbetting.com
Law vs Reality – politicalbetting.com
Will the Supreme Court (“SC”) deprive women of their sex-based rights?
0
This discussion has been closed.
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 PostF1: 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