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.
They don't (if we're talking about the official government petition system).
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.)
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...
Given Scotch is a big export, it would be better to negotiate tariff-free trade rather than be protectionist and tax JD
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.
Particularly an issue in eg rural tourism areas.
The reason why so many people have radar keys is because it’s the only way you can keep 2 toddlers in tow or similar.
We had Radar keys as with twins and a pushchair it was impossible if you were by yourself to take them to the loo.
Reality is we probably just need more disabled loos
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.
They also only have very limited tax raising powers and methods - council tax really is a sledgehammer and other fund raising options are really required
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.
Unless you're revealing a surprising fact about yourself, I'm not sure how extensive is your experience of vitriol directed at trans people.
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.
Oh don't worry - the police are adopting a belt and braces approach to this too.
Apparently not allowing such officers to strip search women would deny them something other officers can do, which suggests that the BTP's assumption is that strip searching women is somehow a perk of the job or perhaps a service which women cannot deny those officers who identify as women.
One can only admire the many ways in which men justify to themselves their entitlement to treat women's bodies as something for them to use for their own purposes regardless of the wishes of women themselves. It's as if far too many men somehow don't think of women as fully human but merely a collection of body parts arranged into a costume.
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 shows that whatever trade agreement or bloc you might be part of, every nation remains sovereign.
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.
Especially in system that has waiting times as part and parcel of its functioning.
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
I think the agency of the individual is important - though I'm to sure if that thought is enough into the detail to help.
What happens, for example, for checks and balances in the case of an individual where a different person has a Lasting Power of Attorney?
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 vitriol at trans people?! A flit through twitter, Facebook would suggest otherwise.
No more tinkering. Real reform to give people their futures back, cut the benefits bill, and fire up the economy.
That's meaningless bollocks. It doesn't matter what he says about improving job centres, altering benefits or empowering "community leaders" if there ain't any jobs being created by businesses. The big supermarkets and retailers have all said they'll have to cut jobs to offset the NI and minimum wage increases. I guess it'll offer a bit of work for foreign owned companies manufacturing self checkouts.
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.
Particularly an issue in eg rural tourism areas.
The reason why so many people have radar keys is because it’s the only way you can keep 2 toddlers in tow or similar.
We had Radar keys as with twins and a pushchair it was impossible if you were by yourself to take them to the loo.
Reality is we probably just need more disabled loos
Quite.
I've never understood the howling by some against disabled adaptations - the war on woke before wokefinding was invented. Ramps make life so much easier for so many people, for instance - parents with prams, deliveries, and so on.
And part of the problem is ****ing architects too often design standard loos for 15" high elves on a diet. When I knackered my shoulder I was really glad to be able to use a disabled loo just for the extra space to deal with my coat etc.
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.
It is sad if British people have no idea what was important about the Corn Laws. Many of our Irish friends have not forgotten.
And it should not be seen as ancient history either. The row was less than 40 years before my grandfather was born. History has long arms.
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.
Particularly an issue in eg rural tourism areas.
The reason why so many people have radar keys is because it’s the only way you can keep 2 toddlers in tow or similar.
We had Radar keys as with twins and a pushchair it was impossible if you were by yourself to take them to the loo.
Reality is we probably just need more disabled loos
Putting my slightly harsh "law and order" hat on, does that justify accessing a disabled loo against the rules?
"But I need to" is the oldest excuse in the world. It's what people say when they park in a Blue Badge space, across a pedestrian dropped kerb at a hospital, or on the zig-zag lines blocking visibility to a Zebra crossing to drop their kid off at school, or just on the pavement.
It then escalates to "How am I affecting YOU" and on and on.
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
I think the agency of the individual is important - though I'm to sure if that thought is enough into the detail to help.
What happens, for example, for checks and balances in the case of an individual where a different person has a Lasting Power of Attorney?
(I so much preferred the term "Enduring" ! *)
If all the people involved were fit, healthy, high IQ and independently minded with excellent decision making skills…. But then they wouldn’t be needing much assisted dying.
It doesn’t require much effort to see what can happen.
Consider the long and ugly history of the police inducing confessions to hideous crimes.
FPT MattW: >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 <
Just on the process issue: the promise about later committee stages isn't "vague", but normal - 2nd reading is about whether the issue needs new legislation allowing assisted suicide or not, for which 5 hours of discussions seems reasonable. Committee stage is about whether each line of the proposals is appropriate, and unless whips manipulate the process by artficially constricting time (not unheard-of but unlikely where there's a free vote and division in Govrernment and Opposition), there is always plenty of time for all members of the committee to express their view. 3rd reading is then also non-trivial - it's about whether the committee got it right.
I'm cautiously in favour of the Bill, but open to persuasion. The persuasion, though, would need to be on other grounds than procedural, as the arrangements for that seem perfectly normal.
Biology is complicated. There are always edge cases. There are a small number of people who don't fit into a biological male v. biological female category. That makes me suspicious of any arguments that talk about a reality of a biological male v. biological female category. Life is complicated: we should try to find ways to accommodate that complexity.
I suggest that most people are accepting that some people are, in some sense, "born in the wrong body" and should be supported through a gender transition. I suggest that most people are also accepting that some transgendered individuals really have altered sex and should be treated as such for most purposes.
If I was in hospital on a male ward and Kim Petras was put in the bed next to me, I would be confused and perturbed. I imagine if you were a woman on a female ward and Balian Buschbaum was put in the bed next to you, you might feel similarly.
The question is where to draw the line. Activists who argue that no-one should be allowed to change sex, as is Cyclefree's position, and those who argue that it should be trivially simple to do so, as is Scottish Greens' position, are both taking stances that may run contrary to public support for some sort of compromise, middling way. Will this Supreme Court decision allow for some middle way?
The assisted dying Bill could be scrapped before it is voted on as a group of cross-party MPs have tabled an amendment to stop it.
MPs are scheduled to vote on the Private Members’ Bill proposed by Kim Leadbeater, the Labour MP, to legalise assisted dying for terminally ill adults on Friday.
But Ben Spencer, the Conservative MP, Munira Wilson, a Liberal Democrat, and Labour’s Anna Dixon have co-sponsored a so-called “fatal motion amendment” that could kill the Bill if enough MPs support it.
The amendment comes amid widespread concern in the Commons that such a significant change was proposed as a Private Members’ Bill, meaning there is limited detailed assessment and analysis of the provisions it includes.
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.
Particularly an issue in eg rural tourism areas.
The reason why so many people have radar keys is because it’s the only way you can keep 2 toddlers in tow or similar.
We had Radar keys as with twins and a pushchair it was impossible if you were by yourself to take them to the loo.
Reality is we probably just need more disabled loos
Quite.
I've never understood the howling by some against disabled adaptations - the war on woke before wokefinding was invented. Ramps make life so much easier for so many people, for instance - parents with prams, deliveries, and so on.
And part of the problem is ****ing architects too often design standard loos for 15" high elves on a diet. When I knackered my shoulder I was really glad to be able to use a disabled loo just for the extra space to deal with my coat etc.
Indeed. I can't manage in a toilet anymore without the help of a carer; normally Mrs C. of course.
On topic, I'm beyond amazed at the mess the Courts seem about to get us into.. I can well understand, and sympathise with, a woman's desire for 'exclusive' space. I can equally understand that a GENUINE trans, either way, wants, or at least prefers, to be able to use the toilet space aimed at their deeply felt gender. I can see, of course, that the sort of evil b*****d who claims to be trans to prey on women would abuse that. Perhaps the solution is to have a fourth toilet; men's, women's, disabled and trans.
And Good Morning to one and all; straight, gay, and unsure.
One of the cool parts of biology is that, even if you think you understand something, you can always go deeper.
Case in point: insulin. It's been studied for over a century, but a paper out today uncovers a major mechanism of how the body manages insulin recycling.
Briefly, inceptor is a protein in beta cells that acts as a lysosomal sorting receptor for insulin and proinsulin. Inceptor binds these molecules and directs them to lysosomes for degradation.
Knockout experiments in cells show that removing inceptor increases insulin stores. And if you treat cells with monoclonal antibodies targeting inceptor proteins, and thus disrupting their ability to bind to proinsulin, the same outcome happens.
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.)
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.
One of the cool parts of biology is that, even if you think you understand something, you can always go deeper.
Case in point: insulin. It's been studied for over a century, but a paper out today uncovers a major mechanism of how the body manages insulin recycling.
Briefly, inceptor is a protein in beta cells that acts as a lysosomal sorting receptor for insulin and proinsulin. Inceptor binds these molecules and directs them to lysosomes for degradation.
Knockout experiments in cells show that removing inceptor increases insulin stores. And if you treat cells with monoclonal antibodies targeting inceptor proteins, and thus disrupting their ability to bind to proinsulin, the same outcome happens.
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 shows that whatever trade agreement or bloc you might be part of, every nation remains sovereign.
If they are only trade blocks then yes. Shame we weren't part of one of those.
The assisted dying Bill could be scrapped before it is voted on as a group of cross-party MPs have tabled an amendment to stop it.
MPs are scheduled to vote on the Private Members’ Bill proposed by Kim Leadbeater, the Labour MP, to legalise assisted dying for terminally ill adults on Friday.
But Ben Spencer, the Conservative MP, Munira Wilson, a Liberal Democrat, and Labour’s Anna Dixon have co-sponsored a so-called “fatal motion amendment” that could kill the Bill if enough MPs support it.
The amendment comes amid widespread concern in the Commons that such a significant change was proposed as a Private Members’ Bill, meaning there is limited detailed assessment and analysis of the provisions it includes.
The assisted dying Bill could be scrapped before it is voted on as a group of cross-party MPs have tabled an amendment to stop it.
MPs are scheduled to vote on the Private Members’ Bill proposed by Kim Leadbeater, the Labour MP, to legalise assisted dying for terminally ill adults on Friday.
But Ben Spencer, the Conservative MP, Munira Wilson, a Liberal Democrat, and Labour’s Anna Dixon have co-sponsored a so-called “fatal motion amendment” that could kill the Bill if enough MPs support it.
The amendment comes amid widespread concern in the Commons that such a significant change was proposed as a Private Members’ Bill, meaning there is limited detailed assessment and analysis of the provisions it includes.
Given the significant public support for the principle (setting aside for now the complexities), killing the bill is likely to be pretty unpopular.
Especially, as seems likely, if the government fails to come up with a replacement on their own time.
If the government wished to provide time for a more detailed assessment, and opportunities for detailed amendment, they could already have made that clear. They haven't.
If this is how it ends, then it's another failure on the part of Parliament to adequately represent its electorate.
Soon the female sex will not have their own safe spaces. And it will be considered immoral and illiberal to be against such a frightening reality.
I see it slightly differently. We should be striving for public spaces - all spaces - where *everyone* is safe. Women. Children. Trans. Elderly. Homosexuals. Men. Little fluffy aliens from the planet Zeta 6.
As an example, I don't want women-only carriages on our trains, as happens in some other countries. It is a regressive step, segregation, does not actually address the problem, and treats all men as potential abusers.
What we need is a zero-tolerance of abuse - particularly sexual and physical abuse - and laws and courts that hammer down on it. But mostly, we need people to stop their friends and/or family when they look as though they are about to do something wrong. Too many people still look the other way.
A wishful dream? Perhaps. But I reckon we've made great progress over the last few decades, and it'll never happen if we don't try.
The assisted dying Bill could be scrapped before it is voted on as a group of cross-party MPs have tabled an amendment to stop it.
MPs are scheduled to vote on the Private Members’ Bill proposed by Kim Leadbeater, the Labour MP, to legalise assisted dying for terminally ill adults on Friday.
But Ben Spencer, the Conservative MP, Munira Wilson, a Liberal Democrat, and Labour’s Anna Dixon have co-sponsored a so-called “fatal motion amendment” that could kill the Bill if enough MPs support it.
The amendment comes amid widespread concern in the Commons that such a significant change was proposed as a Private Members’ Bill, meaning there is limited detailed assessment and analysis of the provisions it includes.
Given the significant public support for the principle (setting aside for now the complexities), killing the bill is likely to be pretty unpopular.
Especially, as seems likely, if the government fails to come up with a replacement on their own time.
If the government wished to provide time for a more detailed assessment, and opportunities for detailed amendment, they could already have made that clear. They haven't.
If this is how it ends, then it's another failure on the part of Parliament to adequately represent its electorate.
And the suffering of those terminally ill will continue.
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.)
1) North Korea is expending its stockpiles of weapons in Russia/Ukraine 2) North Korea is sending chunks of its army there. Given what has happened to Russian troops, they will be destroyed there. 3) South Korean arms exports are massively up. Apart from the economic effects, this pays for South Korean weapons development, tests their stuff and ensure that South Korea has high capacity in its factories to produce more weapons. 4) South Korea is becoming besties with a whole range of Eastern European countries.
In short, South Korea is seeing quite a bit of benefit from this.
Soon the female sex will not have their own safe spaces. And it will be considered immoral and illiberal to be against such a frightening reality.
I see it slightly differently. We should be striving for public spaces - all spaces - where *everyone* is safe. Women. Children. Trans. Elderly. Homosexuals. Men. Little fluffy aliens from the planet Zeta 6.
As an example, I don't want women-only carriages on our trains, as happens in some other countries. It is a regressive step, segregation, does not actually address the problem, and treats all men as potential abusers.
What we need is a zero-tolerance of abuse - particularly sexual and physical abuse - and laws and courts that hammer down on it. But mostly, we need people to stop their friends and/or family when they look as though they are about to do something wrong. Too many people still look the other way.
A wishful dream? Perhaps. But I reckon we've made great progress over the last few decades, and it'll never happen if we don't try.
But what happens about single sex spaces?
What happens when a trans person wants to attend a women only swimming morning? At a pool in Tower Hamlets?
I suggest that most people are accepting that some people are, in some sense, "born in the wrong body" and should be supported through a gender transition. I suggest that most people are also accepting that some transgendered individuals really have altered sex and should be treated as such for most purposes.
You argue very much in the style of Donald Trump. "A lot of people are thinking..."
Personally I am in favour of assisted dying if the safeguards are sufficient
Having said that I look at canada which has it and am perturbed by their stats
"Since its legalization in 2016, the number of deaths by medical assistance in dying (MAID) in Canada has risen dramatically each year. Within 3 years of its introduction, 2% of all deaths in Canada were by MAiD, and by 2021, MAiD had increased to 3.3% of all deaths in Canada which translates into 10,064 deaths by MAiD, surpassing all other countries for yearly reported assisted deaths. Health Canada has just released the report for 2022, in which there were 13,241 reported euthanasia deaths, which is a rate of 4.1% of all deaths in Canada. Some areas of Canada presently are reporting MAiD death rates upwards of 7%. Since legalization in 2016"
4.1% seems a lot to me at least and suggests safeguards in place may be too lax
Everything else, we don't know, another review, can't say.
Given the previous admin demolished/closed rather a lot of Jobcentres, it's a bit unfair to demand anything concrete instantly. It does take time to open new ones ... but the situation is clearly shit for rural areas in particular.
The assisted dying Bill could be scrapped before it is voted on as a group of cross-party MPs have tabled an amendment to stop it.
MPs are scheduled to vote on the Private Members’ Bill proposed by Kim Leadbeater, the Labour MP, to legalise assisted dying for terminally ill adults on Friday.
But Ben Spencer, the Conservative MP, Munira Wilson, a Liberal Democrat, and Labour’s Anna Dixon have co-sponsored a so-called “fatal motion amendment” that could kill the Bill if enough MPs support it.
The amendment comes amid widespread concern in the Commons that such a significant change was proposed as a Private Members’ Bill, meaning there is limited detailed assessment and analysis of the provisions it includes.
I suggest that most people are accepting that some people are, in some sense, "born in the wrong body" and should be supported through a gender transition. I suggest that most people are also accepting that some transgendered individuals really have altered sex and should be treated as such for most purposes.
You argue very much in the style of Donald Trump. "A lot of people are thinking..."
Given your love for Trump, I will take this as a compliment from you.
I suggest that most people are accepting that some people are, in some sense, "born in the wrong body" and should be supported through a gender transition. I suggest that most people are also accepting that some transgendered individuals really have altered sex and should be treated as such for most purposes.
You argue very much in the style of Donald Trump. "A lot of people are thinking..."
In that case I imagine you're finding these arguments persuasive.
Mr. Malmesbury, don't forgot there's a huge downside for South Korea too: the Russians are sharing weapons technology with the North, increasing the chances of conflict significantly.
Everything else, we don't know, another review, can't say.
Given the previous admin demolished/closed rather a lot of Jobcentres, it's a bit unfair to demand anything concrete instantly. It does take time to open new ones ... but the situation is clearly shit for rural areas in particular.
They clearly not done their homework as the plan is we don't know other than more money will be spent and a rebrand, we need reviews. New Labour had clear plans from the getgo of actionable streps.
Everything else, we don't know, another review, can't say.
Given the previous admin demolished/closed rather a lot of Jobcentres, it's a bit unfair to demand anything concrete instantly. It does take time to open new ones ... but the situation is clearly shit for rural areas in particular.
I suspect, although I have no experience, only hearsay, that a change of staff attitude to be positive towards those presently unemployed might help a lot.
The assisted dying Bill could be scrapped before it is voted on as a group of cross-party MPs have tabled an amendment to stop it.
MPs are scheduled to vote on the Private Members’ Bill proposed by Kim Leadbeater, the Labour MP, to legalise assisted dying for terminally ill adults on Friday.
But Ben Spencer, the Conservative MP, Munira Wilson, a Liberal Democrat, and Labour’s Anna Dixon have co-sponsored a so-called “fatal motion amendment” that could kill the Bill if enough MPs support it.
The amendment comes amid widespread concern in the Commons that such a significant change was proposed as a Private Members’ Bill, meaning there is limited detailed assessment and analysis of the provisions it includes.
Given the significant public support for the principle (setting aside for now the complexities), killing the bill is likely to be pretty unpopular.
Especially, as seems likely, if the government fails to come up with a replacement on their own time.
If the government wished to provide time for a more detailed assessment, and opportunities for detailed amendment, they could already have made that clear. They haven't.
If this is how it ends, then it's another failure on the part of Parliament to adequately represent its electorate.
Royal Commission is the answer here. Too divisive and strongly held views for a government to support despite a clear public majority in favour. Parliament won't allocate sufficient time and attention to the detail and drafting of laws from a private members bill.
Biology is complicated. There are always edge cases. There are a small number of people who don't fit into a biological male v. biological female category. That makes me suspicious of any arguments that talk about a reality of a biological male v. biological female category. Life is complicated: we should try to find ways to accommodate that complexity.
I suggest that most people are accepting that some people are, in some sense, "born in the wrong body" and should be supported through a gender transition. I suggest that most people are also accepting that some transgendered individuals really have altered sex and should be treated as such for most purposes.
If I was in hospital on a male ward and Kim Petras was put in the bed next to me, I would be confused and perturbed. I imagine if you were a woman on a female ward and Balian Buschbaum was put in the bed next to you, you might feel similarly.
The question is where to draw the line. Activists who argue that no-one should be allowed to change sex, as is Cyclefree's position, and those who argue that it should be trivially simple to do so, as is Scottish Greens' position, are both taking stances that may run contrary to public support for some sort of compromise, middling way. Will this Supreme Court decision allow for some middle way?
It's messy, not enormously logical, in need of clarification/reform, but we do have something of a middle way at the moment. You can obtain a GRC after a long and difficult process. It entitles you to be treated as your changed gender for most practical purposes, ie the general principle for trans people is inclusion with exclusion allowed if deemed reasonable (sports and sex offenders in prisons being the most discussed examples).
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.
Biology is complicated. There are always edge cases. There are a small number of people who don't fit into a biological male v. biological female category. That makes me suspicious of any arguments that talk about a reality of a biological male v. biological female category. Life is complicated: we should try to find ways to accommodate that complexity.
I suggest that most people are accepting that some people are, in some sense, "born in the wrong body" and should be supported through a gender transition. I suggest that most people are also accepting that some transgendered individuals really have altered sex and should be treated as such for most purposes.
If I was in hospital on a male ward and Kim Petras was put in the bed next to me, I would be confused and perturbed. I imagine if you were a woman on a female ward and Balian Buschbaum was put in the bed next to you, you might feel similarly.
The question is where to draw the line. Activists who argue that no-one should be allowed to change sex, as is Cyclefree's position, and those who argue that it should be trivially simple to do so, as is Scottish Greens' position, are both taking stances that may run contrary to public support for some sort of compromise, middling way. Will this Supreme Court decision allow for some middle way?
Has any individual ever produced both sperm & eggs ?
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 assisted dying Bill could be scrapped before it is voted on as a group of cross-party MPs have tabled an amendment to stop it.
MPs are scheduled to vote on the Private Members’ Bill proposed by Kim Leadbeater, the Labour MP, to legalise assisted dying for terminally ill adults on Friday.
But Ben Spencer, the Conservative MP, Munira Wilson, a Liberal Democrat, and Labour’s Anna Dixon have co-sponsored a so-called “fatal motion amendment” that could kill the Bill if enough MPs support it.
The amendment comes amid widespread concern in the Commons that such a significant change was proposed as a Private Members’ Bill, meaning there is limited detailed assessment and analysis of the provisions it includes.
This is opposition in principle dressed up as concern about the detail.
It's a strength that it's a PMB rather than a government (and therefore adversarial party) matter. That is how we created our consensus on abortion, wasn't it? David Steel in 1967.
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 assisted dying Bill could be scrapped before it is voted on as a group of cross-party MPs have tabled an amendment to stop it.
MPs are scheduled to vote on the Private Members’ Bill proposed by Kim Leadbeater, the Labour MP, to legalise assisted dying for terminally ill adults on Friday.
But Ben Spencer, the Conservative MP, Munira Wilson, a Liberal Democrat, and Labour’s Anna Dixon have co-sponsored a so-called “fatal motion amendment” that could kill the Bill if enough MPs support it.
The amendment comes amid widespread concern in the Commons that such a significant change was proposed as a Private Members’ Bill, meaning there is limited detailed assessment and analysis of the provisions it includes.
Given the significant public support for the principle (setting aside for now the complexities), killing the bill is likely to be pretty unpopular.
Especially, as seems likely, if the government fails to come up with a replacement on their own time.
If the government wished to provide time for a more detailed assessment, and opportunities for detailed amendment, they could already have made that clear. They haven't.
If this is how it ends, then it's another failure on the part of Parliament to adequately represent its electorate.
Royal Commission is the answer here. Too divisive and strongly held views for a government to support despite a clear public majority in favour. Parliament won't allocate sufficient time and attention to the detail and drafting of laws from a private members bill.
Another decade and a few tens of millions for the lawyers, then.
Incidentally, businesses can help to. Remember the old meme about builders wolf-whistling at women? It, and similar acts, did happen frequently.
Nearly thirty years ago, the construction industry came up with the Considerate Contractors Scheme. A small part of this was to agree that such behaviour was unacceptable - and for some firms, meant dismissal. From what I've read, not only has this pretty much stopped such behaviour on building sites for contractors signed up to the scheme, it has trickled down to smaller contractors as well.
The assisted dying Bill could be scrapped before it is voted on as a group of cross-party MPs have tabled an amendment to stop it.
MPs are scheduled to vote on the Private Members’ Bill proposed by Kim Leadbeater, the Labour MP, to legalise assisted dying for terminally ill adults on Friday.
But Ben Spencer, the Conservative MP, Munira Wilson, a Liberal Democrat, and Labour’s Anna Dixon have co-sponsored a so-called “fatal motion amendment” that could kill the Bill if enough MPs support it.
The amendment comes amid widespread concern in the Commons that such a significant change was proposed as a Private Members’ Bill, meaning there is limited detailed assessment and analysis of the provisions it includes.
This is opposition in principle dressed up as concern about the detail.
It's a strength that it's a PMB rather than a government (and therefore adversarial party) matter. That is how we created our consensus on abortion, wasn't it? David Steel in 1967.
I am not sure the abortion bill is the best analogy.
It was promised as being safe, rare, and legal and it has proven to be anything but.
I am somebody favourable to assisted dying but this bill doesn’t inspire confidence.
The assisted dying Bill could be scrapped before it is voted on as a group of cross-party MPs have tabled an amendment to stop it.
MPs are scheduled to vote on the Private Members’ Bill proposed by Kim Leadbeater, the Labour MP, to legalise assisted dying for terminally ill adults on Friday.
But Ben Spencer, the Conservative MP, Munira Wilson, a Liberal Democrat, and Labour’s Anna Dixon have co-sponsored a so-called “fatal motion amendment” that could kill the Bill if enough MPs support it.
The amendment comes amid widespread concern in the Commons that such a significant change was proposed as a Private Members’ Bill, meaning there is limited detailed assessment and analysis of the provisions it includes.
This is opposition in principle dressed up as concern about the detail.
It's a strength that it's a PMB rather than a government (and therefore adversarial party) matter. That is how we created our consensus on abortion, wasn't it? David Steel in 1967.
Wasn't David Steel's Bill allocated adequate time at the request of the Home Secretary, Roy Jenkins?
Sadiq Khan’s rent-controlled homes to be available to solicitors and barristers
London Mayor unveils plans for at least 6,000 new properties which he claims could save key workers up to £600 a month on rent
Sadiq Khan’s rent-controlled homes in London will be available to barristers and solicitors, it has emerged.
The London Mayor has unveiled plans for at least 6,000 new rent–controlled properties, known as Key Worker Living Rent (KWLR) homes, in the city by 2030.
But the list of eligible professionals also includes solicitors and barristers, actors, vets, psychologists and the clergy, as long as their household income is less than £67,000 a year.
Mr Khan, a former solicitor himself, has claimed that the homes could save key workers up to £600 a month on rent compared with accommodation from private landlords.
The assisted dying Bill could be scrapped before it is voted on as a group of cross-party MPs have tabled an amendment to stop it.
MPs are scheduled to vote on the Private Members’ Bill proposed by Kim Leadbeater, the Labour MP, to legalise assisted dying for terminally ill adults on Friday.
But Ben Spencer, the Conservative MP, Munira Wilson, a Liberal Democrat, and Labour’s Anna Dixon have co-sponsored a so-called “fatal motion amendment” that could kill the Bill if enough MPs support it.
The amendment comes amid widespread concern in the Commons that such a significant change was proposed as a Private Members’ Bill, meaning there is limited detailed assessment and analysis of the provisions it includes.
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 shows that whatever trade agreement or bloc you might be part of, every nation remains sovereign.
If they are only trade blocks then yes. Shame we weren't part of one of those.
Whatever they were. We could have imposed tariffs on Germany if we had wanted.
Biology is complicated. There are always edge cases. There are a small number of people who don't fit into a biological male v. biological female category. That makes me suspicious of any arguments that talk about a reality of a biological male v. biological female category. Life is complicated: we should try to find ways to accommodate that complexity.
I suggest that most people are accepting that some people are, in some sense, "born in the wrong body" and should be supported through a gender transition. I suggest that most people are also accepting that some transgendered individuals really have altered sex and should be treated as such for most purposes.
If I was in hospital on a male ward and Kim Petras was put in the bed next to me, I would be confused and perturbed. I imagine if you were a woman on a female ward and Balian Buschbaum was put in the bed next to you, you might feel similarly.
The question is where to draw the line. Activists who argue that no-one should be allowed to change sex, as is Cyclefree's position, and those who argue that it should be trivially simple to do so, as is Scottish Greens' position, are both taking stances that may run contrary to public support for some sort of compromise, middling way. Will this Supreme Court decision allow for some middle way?
Has any individual ever produced both sperm & eggs ?
"Histologically the testicular tissue was described to be immature and only twice was spermatogenesis reported while the ovarian portion often appeared normal. This coincides with 21 pregnancies reported in ten true hermaphrodites while only one true hermaphrodite apparently has fathered a child"
But millions of others have never 'produced' either eggs or sperm, either because of age, illness, or condition, so production of them cannot just be seen as an indicator of male or female.
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
I think the agency of the individual is important - though I'm to sure if that thought is enough into the detail to help.
What happens, for example, for checks and balances in the case of an individual where a different person has a Lasting Power of Attorney?
(I so much preferred the term "Enduring" ! *)
If all the people involved were fit, healthy, high IQ and independently minded with excellent decision making skills…. But then they wouldn’t be needing much assisted dying.
It doesn’t require much effort to see what can happen.
Consider the long and ugly history of the police inducing confessions to hideous crimes.
Aiui one of the checks was mental capacity to make the decision so not something that could be agreed to using LPOA.
Mr. Urquhart, in the absence of forethought, planning, and considered policies, Labour's drifted back to the comfort zone of tax and spend.
It's everyone's comfort zone - the Conservatives spent many years there while in Government.
What else could Starmer and Labour have done? Brown basically carried on Clarke's policies until 1999 (which meant the Tories couldn't lay a glove on him). Should Reeves have kept to Hunt's plan, tried something radical like Liz Truss?
I do agree closing down the options to raise income tax and VAT rates was foolish and given everything that has happened Reeves could probably have gone for a 2p rise in basic rate and said it would pay for increase defence spending but as George H W Bush discovered, if you raise taxes when you had previously said you wouldn't, the electorate isn't happy.
I hear a lot of bellyaching from some on here about public spending but nobody has come up with anything remotely coherent (cutting the civil service by 50% isn't coherent) as an alternative.
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.
Former President Donald Trump is once again pledging to save American manufacturing and bring back jobs by rewriting a trade agreement with Mexico and Canada.
Biology is complicated. There are always edge cases. There are a small number of people who don't fit into a biological male v. biological female category. That makes me suspicious of any arguments that talk about a reality of a biological male v. biological female category. Life is complicated: we should try to find ways to accommodate that complexity.
I suggest that most people are accepting that some people are, in some sense, "born in the wrong body" and should be supported through a gender transition. I suggest that most people are also accepting that some transgendered individuals really have altered sex and should be treated as such for most purposes.
If I was in hospital on a male ward and Kim Petras was put in the bed next to me, I would be confused and perturbed. I imagine if you were a woman on a female ward and Balian Buschbaum was put in the bed next to you, you might feel similarly.
The question is where to draw the line. Activists who argue that no-one should be allowed to change sex, as is Cyclefree's position, and those who argue that it should be trivially simple to do so, as is Scottish Greens' position, are both taking stances that may run contrary to public support for some sort of compromise, middling way. Will this Supreme Court decision allow for some middle way?
It's messy, not enormously logical, in need of clarification/reform, but we do have something of a middle way at the moment. You can obtain a GRC after a long and difficult process. It entitles you to be treated as your changed gender for most practical purposes, ie the general principle for trans people is inclusion with exclusion allowed if deemed reasonable (sports and sex offenders in prisons being the most discussed examples).
There you go with your cool, focused insight over the issue again.
The assisted dying Bill could be scrapped before it is voted on as a group of cross-party MPs have tabled an amendment to stop it.
MPs are scheduled to vote on the Private Members’ Bill proposed by Kim Leadbeater, the Labour MP, to legalise assisted dying for terminally ill adults on Friday.
But Ben Spencer, the Conservative MP, Munira Wilson, a Liberal Democrat, and Labour’s Anna Dixon have co-sponsored a so-called “fatal motion amendment” that could kill the Bill if enough MPs support it.
The amendment comes amid widespread concern in the Commons that such a significant change was proposed as a Private Members’ Bill, meaning there is limited detailed assessment and analysis of the provisions it includes.
David Steel's Abortion Bill was a Private Member's Bill
Sort of. There had been several previous attempts to learn from, and Wilson put the weight of his Government behind it, bringing in things like clinical advice.
The lack of all that sort of detailed prep work is why I would vote against. For me, it would have to be a well thought through Gvt Bill.
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.
Really, we should all sign it* - there are few better political betting opportunities than general elections
What I really want though, is a market on an early general election, inspired by this. That would be some nice free money.
*if it wasn't for the fact that it's pointless... virtue? annoyance? signaling, like most petitions
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.
It illustrates fact.
What is a fact. That it is unnatural to be attracted to someone of your own sex*.
Mr. Urquhart, in the absence of forethought, planning, and considered policies, Labour's drifted back to the comfort zone of tax and spend.
It's everyone's comfort zone - the Conservatives spent many years there while in Government.
What else could Starmer and Labour have done? Brown basically carried on Clarke's policies until 1999 (which meant the Tories couldn't lay a glove on him). Should Reeves have kept to Hunt's plan, tried something radical like Liz Truss?
I do agree closing down the options to raise income tax and VAT rates was foolish and given everything that has happened Reeves could probably have gone for a 2p rise in basic rate and said it would pay for increase defence spending but as George H W Bush discovered, if you raise taxes when you had previously said you wouldn't, the electorate isn't happy.
I hear a lot of bellyaching from some on here about public spending but nobody has come up with anything remotely coherent (cutting the civil service by 50% isn't coherent) as an alternative.
You might dismiss cutting public spending proposals as incoherent but its obvious there is massive inefficiency in certain public services and bodies (try contacting HMRC for instance) -
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.
Really, we should all sign it* - there are few better political betting opportunities than general elections
What I really want though, is a market on an early general election, inspired by this. That would be some nice free money.
*if it wasn't for the fact that it's pointless... virtue? annoyance? signaling, like most petitions
What's the point of posting here on this forum, unless it's one of the small number of actual betting posts it's unlikely to change anything wrt government policy or so forth, similarly the farmer's protest. What's the point of anything political outside of a GE ? The Gov't needs to know it's doing a poor job, and it's an easy way of doing 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 shows that whatever trade agreement or bloc you might be part of, every nation remains sovereign.
If they are only trade blocks then yes. Shame we weren't part of one of those.
Whatever they were. We could have imposed tariffs on Germany if we had wanted.
Ah were we "sovereign" in the EU?
This particular Tyndall/Topping exchange is verily a PB chestnut. I could if I wanted type out the next 10 posts from each of them. But I don't want to, so I won't.
The assisted dying Bill could be scrapped before it is voted on as a group of cross-party MPs have tabled an amendment to stop it.
MPs are scheduled to vote on the Private Members’ Bill proposed by Kim Leadbeater, the Labour MP, to legalise assisted dying for terminally ill adults on Friday.
But Ben Spencer, the Conservative MP, Munira Wilson, a Liberal Democrat, and Labour’s Anna Dixon have co-sponsored a so-called “fatal motion amendment” that could kill the Bill if enough MPs support it.
The amendment comes amid widespread concern in the Commons that such a significant change was proposed as a Private Members’ Bill, meaning there is limited detailed assessment and analysis of the provisions it includes.
This is opposition in principle dressed up as concern about the detail.
It's a strength that it's a PMB rather than a government (and therefore adversarial party) matter. That is how we created our consensus on abortion, wasn't it? David Steel in 1967.
I am not sure the abortion bill is the best analogy.
It was promised as being safe, rare, and legal and it has proven to be anything but.
I am somebody favourable to assisted dying but this bill doesn’t inspire confidence.
Agree. Try this rubbish from the Guardian for a terrible argument
Sadiq Khan’s rent-controlled homes to be available to solicitors and barristers
London Mayor unveils plans for at least 6,000 new properties which he claims could save key workers up to £600 a month on rent
Sadiq Khan’s rent-controlled homes in London will be available to barristers and solicitors, it has emerged.
The London Mayor has unveiled plans for at least 6,000 new rent–controlled properties, known as Key Worker Living Rent (KWLR) homes, in the city by 2030.
But the list of eligible professionals also includes solicitors and barristers, actors, vets, psychologists and the clergy, as long as their household income is less than £67,000 a year.
Mr Khan, a former solicitor himself, has claimed that the homes could save key workers up to £600 a month on rent compared with accommodation from private landlords.
I'm not sure what the Telegrunt's problem is here. It's not really much different from key worker or affordable rent schemes run under the previous Government.
For some reason they are going on about "rent controls", which it is not. It is far more like a version of 'affordable housing'.
Whether lawyers should be key workers is a different matter.
The assisted dying Bill could be scrapped before it is voted on as a group of cross-party MPs have tabled an amendment to stop it.
MPs are scheduled to vote on the Private Members’ Bill proposed by Kim Leadbeater, the Labour MP, to legalise assisted dying for terminally ill adults on Friday.
But Ben Spencer, the Conservative MP, Munira Wilson, a Liberal Democrat, and Labour’s Anna Dixon have co-sponsored a so-called “fatal motion amendment” that could kill the Bill if enough MPs support it.
The amendment comes amid widespread concern in the Commons that such a significant change was proposed as a Private Members’ Bill, meaning there is limited detailed assessment and analysis of the provisions it includes.
Mr. Urquhart, in the absence of forethought, planning, and considered policies, Labour's drifted back to the comfort zone of tax and spend.
It's everyone's comfort zone - the Conservatives spent many years there while in Government.
What else could Starmer and Labour have done? Brown basically carried on Clarke's policies until 1999 (which meant the Tories couldn't lay a glove on him). Should Reeves have kept to Hunt's plan, tried something radical like Liz Truss?
I do agree closing down the options to raise income tax and VAT rates was foolish and given everything that has happened Reeves could probably have gone for a 2p rise in basic rate and said it would pay for increase defence spending but as George H W Bush discovered, if you raise taxes when you had previously said you wouldn't, the electorate isn't happy.
I hear a lot of bellyaching from some on here about public spending but nobody has come up with anything remotely coherent (cutting the civil service by 50% isn't coherent) as an alternative.
You might dismiss cutting public spending proposals as incoherent but its obvious there is massive inefficiency in certain public services and bodies (try contacting HMRC for instance) -
Is it not the reduction in staff at HMRC which has led to the difficulties in contact?
Sadiq Khan’s rent-controlled homes to be available to solicitors and barristers
London Mayor unveils plans for at least 6,000 new properties which he claims could save key workers up to £600 a month on rent
Sadiq Khan’s rent-controlled homes in London will be available to barristers and solicitors, it has emerged.
The London Mayor has unveiled plans for at least 6,000 new rent–controlled properties, known as Key Worker Living Rent (KWLR) homes, in the city by 2030.
But the list of eligible professionals also includes solicitors and barristers, actors, vets, psychologists and the clergy, as long as their household income is less than £67,000 a year.
Mr Khan, a former solicitor himself, has claimed that the homes could save key workers up to £600 a month on rent compared with accommodation from private landlords.
I'm not sure what the Telegrunt's problem is here. It's not really much different from key worker or affordable rent schemes run under the previous Government.
For some reason they are going on about "rent controls", which it is not. It is far more like a version of 'affordable housing'.
Whether lawyers should be key workers is a different matter.
Sadiq Khan’s rent-controlled homes to be available to solicitors and barristers
London Mayor unveils plans for at least 6,000 new properties which he claims could save key workers up to £600 a month on rent
Sadiq Khan’s rent-controlled homes in London will be available to barristers and solicitors, it has emerged.
The London Mayor has unveiled plans for at least 6,000 new rent–controlled properties, known as Key Worker Living Rent (KWLR) homes, in the city by 2030.
But the list of eligible professionals also includes solicitors and barristers, actors, vets, psychologists and the clergy, as long as their household income is less than £67,000 a year.
Mr Khan, a former solicitor himself, has claimed that the homes could save key workers up to £600 a month on rent compared with accommodation from private landlords.
I'm not sure what the Telegrunt's problem is here. It's not really much different from key worker or affordable rent schemes run under the previous Government.
For some reason they are going on about "rent controls", which it is not. It is far more like a version of 'affordable housing'.
Whether lawyers should be key workers is a different matter.
Everything else, we don't know, another review, can't say.
Given the previous admin demolished/closed rather a lot of Jobcentres, it's a bit unfair to demand anything concrete instantly. It does take time to open new ones ... but the situation is clearly shit for rural areas in particular.
I suspect, although I have no experience, only hearsay, that a change of staff attitude to be positive towards those presently unemployed might help a lot.
It would but I wouldn't hold your breath. The Labour apparatchick on R4 this morning kept on repeating Jobcentres should be helping employers more which feels cart before the horse to me. Most people would applaud the idea of long term sick and disabled being properly supported into some sort of employment but I think headlines for Mail readers is more Lab's thing.
The assisted dying Bill could be scrapped before it is voted on as a group of cross-party MPs have tabled an amendment to stop it.
MPs are scheduled to vote on the Private Members’ Bill proposed by Kim Leadbeater, the Labour MP, to legalise assisted dying for terminally ill adults on Friday.
But Ben Spencer, the Conservative MP, Munira Wilson, a Liberal Democrat, and Labour’s Anna Dixon have co-sponsored a so-called “fatal motion amendment” that could kill the Bill if enough MPs support it.
The amendment comes amid widespread concern in the Commons that such a significant change was proposed as a Private Members’ Bill, meaning there is limited detailed assessment and analysis of the provisions it includes.
This is opposition in principle dressed up as concern about the detail.
It's a strength that it's a PMB rather than a government (and therefore adversarial party) matter. That is how we created our consensus on abortion, wasn't it? David Steel in 1967.
I am not sure the abortion bill is the best analogy.
It was promised as being safe, rare, and legal and it has proven to be anything but.
I am somebody favourable to assisted dying but this bill doesn’t inspire confidence.
Not rare. But safe and legal.
Legal is a given, of course, if you have a law to make abortion legal!
On rarity, it is quite an eye opening number for abortion - quick Google (Statista) gives me 214k abortions (E&W) in 2021 versus 695k live births (UK). There will be many more pregnancies, of course, which would be a better denominator, but it's a big proportion and slightly underestimated by excluding Scotland and NI, isn't it?
I don't have a problem with abortion - in principle, I don't think I would ever have chosen it personally - but those proportions give me pause for thought. The timings and reasons would merit investigation.
(Interestingly, live births are all over the place, from 670k up to about 812k nd back again in the last twenty years, but abortions are much more static - similar amounts of sex and accidents, I guess, but varying numbers of intentional pregnancies)
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.
This is a taste of things to come. You wake up, flick on the radio, and it's "US President Donald Trump has said ..." and there'll be another piece of his wrong-headed spiteful simplistic nonsense dominating the airwaves. It's a technique. Provoke, inflame, intimidate, dominate.
Thank you, circa 250k voters in the RustBelt. You're lovely people.
Mr. Urquhart, in the absence of forethought, planning, and considered policies, Labour's drifted back to the comfort zone of tax and spend.
It's everyone's comfort zone - the Conservatives spent many years there while in Government.
What else could Starmer and Labour have done? Brown basically carried on Clarke's policies until 1999 (which meant the Tories couldn't lay a glove on him). Should Reeves have kept to Hunt's plan, tried something radical like Liz Truss?
I do agree closing down the options to raise income tax and VAT rates was foolish and given everything that has happened Reeves could probably have gone for a 2p rise in basic rate and said it would pay for increase defence spending but as George H W Bush discovered, if you raise taxes when you had previously said you wouldn't, the electorate isn't happy.
I hear a lot of bellyaching from some on here about public spending but nobody has come up with anything remotely coherent (cutting the civil service by 50% isn't coherent) as an alternative.
Yes. There is nowhere in the world where prosperous social democracy (the actual aim of every government since 1945 if you ignore the rhetoric) can be done on the cheap. Demographics and social change + the accumulation of past incompetence + past attempts to do everything on the cheap=both very high taxation and increasing cost and unsatisfactory political climate.
This morning's government rhetoric seems to be about X billion people not feeling much like working, but preferring to live off the rest who do. Good luck. I think it was the nice Liz Kendall on the radio on about it. It was utterly dead and stultifying rhetoric with nothing new.
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.
It illustrates fact.
It illustrates prejudice, and nothing more.
But there is no point arguing with extremists.
A prejudice in favour of fact.
The extreme views in this are:
1. That we should not recognise a person as their newly assigned gender even after they have completed an extensive surgical and psychological process.
2. That a man enjoying full use of functioning male genitalia is in any way 'a woman'.
I subscribe to neither of these extremes, but you're right, arguing with extremists is hard.
Sadiq Khan’s rent-controlled homes to be available to solicitors and barristers
London Mayor unveils plans for at least 6,000 new properties which he claims could save key workers up to £600 a month on rent
Sadiq Khan’s rent-controlled homes in London will be available to barristers and solicitors, it has emerged.
The London Mayor has unveiled plans for at least 6,000 new rent–controlled properties, known as Key Worker Living Rent (KWLR) homes, in the city by 2030.
But the list of eligible professionals also includes solicitors and barristers, actors, vets, psychologists and the clergy, as long as their household income is less than £67,000 a year.
Mr Khan, a former solicitor himself, has claimed that the homes could save key workers up to £600 a month on rent compared with accommodation from private landlords.
I'm not sure what the Telegrunt's problem is here. It's not really much different from key worker or affordable rent schemes run under the previous Government.
For some reason they are going on about "rent controls", which it is not. It is far more like a version of 'affordable housing'.
Whether lawyers should be key workers is a different matter.
Frustrated neighbours have started to take an angle grinder to e-bikes abandoned in their private car park after weeks of inaction from Lime. ... They added that they had been regularly informing Lime about the abandoned bikes over the last few weeks, but that the private bike hire company only responded after residents took drastic action.
“When we send them a picture of a cut up bike, within 30 minutes a manager has phoned me up saying they will collect the bikes,” they said.
“It’s fly-tipping on private property, that’s how we see it. I’ve just got to a point where I don’t care, I just need these bikes off the property.”
The assisted dying Bill could be scrapped before it is voted on as a group of cross-party MPs have tabled an amendment to stop it.
MPs are scheduled to vote on the Private Members’ Bill proposed by Kim Leadbeater, the Labour MP, to legalise assisted dying for terminally ill adults on Friday.
But Ben Spencer, the Conservative MP, Munira Wilson, a Liberal Democrat, and Labour’s Anna Dixon have co-sponsored a so-called “fatal motion amendment” that could kill the Bill if enough MPs support it.
The amendment comes amid widespread concern in the Commons that such a significant change was proposed as a Private Members’ Bill, meaning there is limited detailed assessment and analysis of the provisions it includes.
This is opposition in principle dressed up as concern about the detail.
It's a strength that it's a PMB rather than a government (and therefore adversarial party) matter. That is how we created our consensus on abortion, wasn't it? David Steel in 1967.
I am not sure the abortion bill is the best analogy.
It was promised as being safe, rare, and legal and it has proven to be anything but.
I am somebody favourable to assisted dying but this bill doesn’t inspire confidence.
Not rare. But safe and legal.
Legal is a given, of course, if you have a law to make abortion legal!
On rarity, it is quite an eye opening number for abortion - quick Google (Statista) gives me 214k abortions (E&W) in 2021 versus 695k live births (UK). There will be many more pregnancies, of course, which would be a better denominator, but it's a big proportion and slightly underestimated by excluding Scotland and NI, isn't it?
I don't have a problem with abortion - in principle, I don't think I would ever have chosen it personally - but those proportions give me pause for thought. The timings and reasons would merit investigation.
(Interestingly, live births are all over the place, from 670k up to about 812k nd back again in the last twenty years, but abortions are much more static - similar amounts of sex and accidents, I guess, but varying numbers of intentional pregnancies)
Being an embryo has worse odds of survival than a game of Russian Roulette.
Sadiq Khan’s rent-controlled homes to be available to solicitors and barristers
London Mayor unveils plans for at least 6,000 new properties which he claims could save key workers up to £600 a month on rent
Sadiq Khan’s rent-controlled homes in London will be available to barristers and solicitors, it has emerged.
The London Mayor has unveiled plans for at least 6,000 new rent–controlled properties, known as Key Worker Living Rent (KWLR) homes, in the city by 2030.
But the list of eligible professionals also includes solicitors and barristers, actors, vets, psychologists and the clergy, as long as their household income is less than £67,000 a year.
Mr Khan, a former solicitor himself, has claimed that the homes could save key workers up to £600 a month on rent compared with accommodation from private landlords.
I'm not sure what the Telegrunt's problem is here. It's not really much different from key worker or affordable rent schemes run under the previous Government.
For some reason they are going on about "rent controls", which it is not. It is far more like a version of 'affordable housing'.
Whether lawyers should be key workers is a different matter.
Mr. Urquhart, in the absence of forethought, planning, and considered policies, Labour's drifted back to the comfort zone of tax and spend.
It's everyone's comfort zone - the Conservatives spent many years there while in Government.
What else could Starmer and Labour have done? Brown basically carried on Clarke's policies until 1999 (which meant the Tories couldn't lay a glove on him). Should Reeves have kept to Hunt's plan, tried something radical like Liz Truss?
I do agree closing down the options to raise income tax and VAT rates was foolish and given everything that has happened Reeves could probably have gone for a 2p rise in basic rate and said it would pay for increase defence spending but as George H W Bush discovered, if you raise taxes when you had previously said you wouldn't, the electorate isn't happy.
I hear a lot of bellyaching from some on here about public spending but nobody has come up with anything remotely coherent (cutting the civil service by 50% isn't coherent) as an alternative.
Yes. There is nowhere in the world where prosperous social democracy (the actual aim of every government since 1945 if you ignore the rhetoric) can be done on the cheap. Demographics and social change + the accumulation of past incompetence + past attempts to do everything on the cheap=both very high taxation and increasing cost and unsatisfactory political climate.
This morning's government rhetoric seems to be about X billion people not feeling much like working, but preferring to live off the rest who do. Good luck. I think it was the nice Liz Kendall on the radio on about it. It was utterly dead and stultifying rhetoric with nothing new.
Nice to see the party of labour prioritising working people, rather than the workshy, scroungers and layabouts.
The assisted dying Bill could be scrapped before it is voted on as a group of cross-party MPs have tabled an amendment to stop it.
MPs are scheduled to vote on the Private Members’ Bill proposed by Kim Leadbeater, the Labour MP, to legalise assisted dying for terminally ill adults on Friday.
But Ben Spencer, the Conservative MP, Munira Wilson, a Liberal Democrat, and Labour’s Anna Dixon have co-sponsored a so-called “fatal motion amendment” that could kill the Bill if enough MPs support it.
The amendment comes amid widespread concern in the Commons that such a significant change was proposed as a Private Members’ Bill, meaning there is limited detailed assessment and analysis of the provisions it includes.
This is opposition in principle dressed up as concern about the detail.
It's a strength that it's a PMB rather than a government (and therefore adversarial party) matter. That is how we created our consensus on abortion, wasn't it? David Steel in 1967.
I am not sure the abortion bill is the best analogy.
It was promised as being safe, rare, and legal and it has proven to be anything but.
I am somebody favourable to assisted dying but this bill doesn’t inspire confidence.
Not rare. But safe and legal.
Legal is a given, of course, if you have a law to make abortion legal!
On rarity, it is quite an eye opening number for abortion - quick Google (Statista) gives me 214k abortions (E&W) in 2021 versus 695k live births (UK). There will be many more pregnancies, of course, which would be a better denominator, but it's a big proportion and slightly underestimated by excluding Scotland and NI, isn't it?
I don't have a problem with abortion - in principle, I don't think I would ever have chosen it personally - but those proportions give me pause for thought. The timings and reasons would merit investigation.
(Interestingly, live births are all over the place, from 670k up to about 812k nd back again in the last twenty years, but abortions are much more static - similar amounts of sex and accidents, I guess, but varying numbers of intentional pregnancies)
I am very much in a minority on PB I think, but it seems to me that in a civilised society with contraception and a welfare state abortion levels really should be quite low, and quite exceptional, and should not be routinely normalised.
I am loads more comfortable about assisted dying than seeing abortion as routine minor procedure; I am puzzled there is not a stronger sense of this in a society which would be generally sympathetic to humanism and with an appreciation of new life for its intrinsic worth.
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.
Particularly an issue in eg rural tourism areas.
The reason why so many people have radar keys is because it’s the only way you can keep 2 toddlers in tow or similar.
We had Radar keys as with twins and a pushchair it was impossible if you were by yourself to take them to the loo.
Reality is we probably just need more disabled loos
Quite.
I've never understood the howling by some against disabled adaptations - the war on woke before wokefinding was invented. Ramps make life so much easier for so many people, for instance - parents with prams, deliveries, and so on.
And part of the problem is ****ing architects too often design standard loos for 15" high elves on a diet. When I knackered my shoulder I was really glad to be able to use a disabled loo just for the extra space to deal with my coat etc.
Indeed. I can't manage in a toilet anymore without the help of a carer; normally Mrs C. of course.
On topic, I'm beyond amazed at the mess the Courts seem about to get us into.. I can well understand, and sympathise with, a woman's desire for 'exclusive' space. I can equally understand that a GENUINE trans, either way, wants, or at least prefers, to be able to use the toilet space aimed at their deeply felt gender. I can see, of course, that the sort of evil b*****d who claims to be trans to prey on women would abuse that. Perhaps the solution is to have a fourth toilet; men's, women's, disabled and trans.
And Good Morning to one and all; straight, gay, and unsure.
Arguably loos should simply be private booths - male public latrines are nearly always seedy, and seem rare in new buildings. If they were private, then the issue largely goes away - who cares who is in a booth behind a closed door? I appreciate that this doesn't provide the "refuge" which some women see as an essential element, but perhaps that issue needs to be addressed separately, by having a non-latrinal room where women can chill out?
Sadiq Khan’s rent-controlled homes to be available to solicitors and barristers
London Mayor unveils plans for at least 6,000 new properties which he claims could save key workers up to £600 a month on rent
Sadiq Khan’s rent-controlled homes in London will be available to barristers and solicitors, it has emerged.
The London Mayor has unveiled plans for at least 6,000 new rent–controlled properties, known as Key Worker Living Rent (KWLR) homes, in the city by 2030.
But the list of eligible professionals also includes solicitors and barristers, actors, vets, psychologists and the clergy, as long as their household income is less than £67,000 a year.
Mr Khan, a former solicitor himself, has claimed that the homes could save key workers up to £600 a month on rent compared with accommodation from private landlords.
I'm not sure what the Telegrunt's problem is here. It's not really much different from key worker or affordable rent schemes run under the previous Government.
For some reason they are going on about "rent controls", which it is not. It is far more like a version of 'affordable housing'.
Whether lawyers should be key workers is a different matter.
Biology is complicated. There are always edge cases. There are a small number of people who don't fit into a biological male v. biological female category. That makes me suspicious of any arguments that talk about a reality of a biological male v. biological female category. Life is complicated: we should try to find ways to accommodate that complexity.
I suggest that most people are accepting that some people are, in some sense, "born in the wrong body" and should be supported through a gender transition. I suggest that most people are also accepting that some transgendered individuals really have altered sex and should be treated as such for most purposes.
If I was in hospital on a male ward and Kim Petras was put in the bed next to me, I would be confused and perturbed. I imagine if you were a woman on a female ward and Balian Buschbaum was put in the bed next to you, you might feel similarly.
The question is where to draw the line. Activists who argue that no-one should be allowed to change sex, as is Cyclefree's position, and those who argue that it should be trivially simple to do so, as is Scottish Greens' position, are both taking stances that may run contrary to public support for some sort of compromise, middling way. Will this Supreme Court decision allow for some middle way?
An excellent and nuanced post. I struggle to imagine the concept of being "born in the wrong body" but then I struggle to imagine how a man could sexually desire other men, because I am 100% straight, but I know that is not the case for everyone.
You are totally correct that the issues and those making the noise are the extremists on both sides. This is always the case. I can understand Cyclefree, and other feminists who believe that the hard won gains of feminism over the years are in danger of being eroded. The bad actors (such as the Scottish men claiming to be trans for dubious reasons, as we are led to believe) severely complicate the issues. I think its reasonable to say that if someone born as a man has had their male genitalia removed then to a point society ought to regard them as female. But its all horribly complicated.
The assisted dying Bill could be scrapped before it is voted on as a group of cross-party MPs have tabled an amendment to stop it.
MPs are scheduled to vote on the Private Members’ Bill proposed by Kim Leadbeater, the Labour MP, to legalise assisted dying for terminally ill adults on Friday.
But Ben Spencer, the Conservative MP, Munira Wilson, a Liberal Democrat, and Labour’s Anna Dixon have co-sponsored a so-called “fatal motion amendment” that could kill the Bill if enough MPs support it.
The amendment comes amid widespread concern in the Commons that such a significant change was proposed as a Private Members’ Bill, meaning there is limited detailed assessment and analysis of the provisions it includes.
This is opposition in principle dressed up as concern about the detail.
It's a strength that it's a PMB rather than a government (and therefore adversarial party) matter. That is how we created our consensus on abortion, wasn't it? David Steel in 1967.
I am not sure the abortion bill is the best analogy.
It was promised as being safe, rare, and legal and it has proven to be anything but.
I am somebody favourable to assisted dying but this bill doesn’t inspire confidence.
Not rare. But safe and legal.
Legal is a given, of course, if you have a law to make abortion legal!
On rarity, it is quite an eye opening number for abortion - quick Google (Statista) gives me 214k abortions (E&W) in 2021 versus 695k live births (UK). There will be many more pregnancies, of course, which would be a better denominator, but it's a big proportion and slightly underestimated by excluding Scotland and NI, isn't it?
I don't have a problem with abortion - in principle, I don't think I would ever have chosen it personally - but those proportions give me pause for thought. The timings and reasons would merit investigation.
(Interestingly, live births are all over the place, from 670k up to about 812k nd back again in the last twenty years, but abortions are much more static - similar amounts of sex and accidents, I guess, but varying numbers of intentional pregnancies)
Being an embryo has worse odds of survival than a game of Russian Roulette.
Yes. Also need to add in miscarriages (best estimates 110-150k/year in E&W) and stillbirths of course.
Congratulations folks, for not only being the lucky gamete that met another gamete, but also making it to the outside in one piece.
Sadiq Khan’s rent-controlled homes to be available to solicitors and barristers
London Mayor unveils plans for at least 6,000 new properties which he claims could save key workers up to £600 a month on rent
Sadiq Khan’s rent-controlled homes in London will be available to barristers and solicitors, it has emerged.
The London Mayor has unveiled plans for at least 6,000 new rent–controlled properties, known as Key Worker Living Rent (KWLR) homes, in the city by 2030.
But the list of eligible professionals also includes solicitors and barristers, actors, vets, psychologists and the clergy, as long as their household income is less than £67,000 a year.
Mr Khan, a former solicitor himself, has claimed that the homes could save key workers up to £600 a month on rent compared with accommodation from private landlords.
I'm not sure what the Telegrunt's problem is here. It's not really much different from key worker or affordable rent schemes run under the previous Government.
For some reason they are going on about "rent controls", which it is not. It is far more like a version of 'affordable housing'.
Whether lawyers should be key workers is a different matter.
Isn't the Telegraph's problem that the suggestion comes from a Labour politician and therefore MUST be a Bad Idea?
We are in a phase where democracy is being relentlessly attacked by the billionaire class, including foreign adversaries.
Most people just haven't realised it yet and far too many are willing to go along with the ride when the attacks are against their perceived enemies. Divide and conquer.
The assisted dying Bill could be scrapped before it is voted on as a group of cross-party MPs have tabled an amendment to stop it.
MPs are scheduled to vote on the Private Members’ Bill proposed by Kim Leadbeater, the Labour MP, to legalise assisted dying for terminally ill adults on Friday.
But Ben Spencer, the Conservative MP, Munira Wilson, a Liberal Democrat, and Labour’s Anna Dixon have co-sponsored a so-called “fatal motion amendment” that could kill the Bill if enough MPs support it.
The amendment comes amid widespread concern in the Commons that such a significant change was proposed as a Private Members’ Bill, meaning there is limited detailed assessment and analysis of the provisions it includes.
This is opposition in principle dressed up as concern about the detail.
It's a strength that it's a PMB rather than a government (and therefore adversarial party) matter. That is how we created our consensus on abortion, wasn't it? David Steel in 1967.
I am not sure the abortion bill is the best analogy.
It was promised as being safe, rare, and legal and it has proven to be anything but.
I am somebody favourable to assisted dying but this bill doesn’t inspire confidence.
Not rare. But safe and legal.
Legal is a given, of course, if you have a law to make abortion legal!
On rarity, it is quite an eye opening number for abortion - quick Google (Statista) gives me 214k abortions (E&W) in 2021 versus 695k live births (UK). There will be many more pregnancies, of course, which would be a better denominator, but it's a big proportion and slightly underestimated by excluding Scotland and NI, isn't it?
I don't have a problem with abortion - in principle, I don't think I would ever have chosen it personally - but those proportions give me pause for thought. The timings and reasons would merit investigation.
(Interestingly, live births are all over the place, from 670k up to about 812k nd back again in the last twenty years, but abortions are much more static - similar amounts of sex and accidents, I guess, but varying numbers of intentional pregnancies)
I am very much in a minority on PB I think, but it seems to me that in a civilised society with contraception and a welfare state abortion levels really should be quite low, and quite exceptional, and should not be routinely normalised.
I am loads more comfortable about assisted dying than seeing abortion as routine minor procedure; I am puzzled there is not a stronger sense of this in a society which would be generally sympathetic to humanism and with an appreciation of new life for its intrinsic worth.
The assisted dying Bill could be scrapped before it is voted on as a group of cross-party MPs have tabled an amendment to stop it.
MPs are scheduled to vote on the Private Members’ Bill proposed by Kim Leadbeater, the Labour MP, to legalise assisted dying for terminally ill adults on Friday.
But Ben Spencer, the Conservative MP, Munira Wilson, a Liberal Democrat, and Labour’s Anna Dixon have co-sponsored a so-called “fatal motion amendment” that could kill the Bill if enough MPs support it.
The amendment comes amid widespread concern in the Commons that such a significant change was proposed as a Private Members’ Bill, meaning there is limited detailed assessment and analysis of the provisions it includes.
Given the significant public support for the principle (setting aside for now the complexities), killing the bill is likely to be pretty unpopular.
Especially, as seems likely, if the government fails to come up with a replacement on their own time.
If the government wished to provide time for a more detailed assessment, and opportunities for detailed amendment, they could already have made that clear. They haven't.
If this is how it ends, then it's another failure on the part of Parliament to adequately represent its electorate.
Royal Commission is the answer here. Too divisive and strongly held views for a government to support despite a clear public majority in favour. Parliament won't allocate sufficient time and attention to the detail and drafting of laws from a private members bill.
Another decade and a few tens of millions for the lawyers, then.
"The long grass is the answer here."
I'm not convinced it is.
Why on earth a decade?
The last two we started were Long Term Care for the Elderly which ran from 1997-1999 and House of Lords Reform 1999-2000 which was done in 11 months.
I don't see why it should it take more than a year.
Should the country pay £100m to lawyers to get this law 10% better? Absolutely.
Comments
We had Radar keys as with twins and a pushchair it was impossible if you were by yourself to take them to the loo.
Reality is we probably just need more disabled loos
https://sex-matters.org/posts/updates/sex-matters-threatens-british-transport-police-with-legal-action/
Apparently not allowing such officers to strip search women would deny them something other officers can do, which suggests that the BTP's assumption is that strip searching women is somehow a perk of the job or perhaps a service which women cannot deny those officers who identify as women.
One can only admire the many ways in which men justify to themselves their entitlement to treat women's bodies as something for them to use for their own purposes regardless of the wishes of women themselves. It's as if far too many men somehow don't think of women as fully human but merely a collection of body parts arranged into a costume.
What happens, for example, for checks and balances in the case of an individual where a different person has a Lasting Power of Attorney?
(I so much preferred the term "Enduring" ! *)
Indeed, these guys charged 84 people with it, and their handy graph demonstrates it is getting worse, with a significant spike around the GRR bill: https://www.copfs.gov.uk/publications/hate-crime-in-scotland-2023-24/html/
The big supermarkets and retailers have all said they'll have to cut jobs to offset the NI and minimum wage increases.
I guess it'll offer a bit of work for foreign owned companies manufacturing self checkouts.
I've never understood the howling by some against disabled adaptations - the war on woke before wokefinding was invented. Ramps make life so much easier for so many people, for instance - parents with prams, deliveries, and so on.
And part of the problem is ****ing architects too often design standard loos for 15" high elves on a diet. When I knackered my shoulder I was really glad to be able to use a disabled loo just for the extra space to deal with my coat etc.
And it should not be seen as ancient history either. The row was less than 40 years before my grandfather was born. History has long arms.
"But I need to" is the oldest excuse in the world. It's what people say when they park in a Blue Badge space, across a pedestrian dropped kerb at a hospital, or on the zig-zag lines blocking visibility to a Zebra crossing to drop their kid off at school, or just on the pavement.
It then escalates to "How am I affecting YOU" and on and on.
It doesn’t require much effort to see what can happen.
Consider the long and ugly history of the police inducing confessions to hideous crimes.
Russia says that South Korean arms shipments to Ukraine will "fully destroy" relations between Moscow and Seoul
https://x.com/SamRamani2/status/1860686568513478723
>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 <
Just on the process issue: the promise about later committee stages isn't "vague", but normal - 2nd reading is about whether the issue needs new legislation allowing assisted suicide or not, for which 5 hours of discussions seems reasonable. Committee stage is about whether each line of the proposals is appropriate, and unless whips manipulate the process by artficially constricting time (not unheard-of but unlikely where there's a free vote and division in Govrernment and Opposition), there is always plenty of time for all members of the committee to express their view. 3rd reading is then also non-trivial - it's about whether the committee got it right.
I'm cautiously in favour of the Bill, but open to persuasion. The persuasion, though, would need to be on other grounds than procedural, as the arrangements for that seem perfectly normal.
I suggest that most people are accepting that some people are, in some sense, "born in the wrong body" and should be supported through a gender transition. I suggest that most people are also accepting that some transgendered individuals really have altered sex and should be treated as such for most purposes.
If I was in hospital on a male ward and Kim Petras was put in the bed next to me, I would be confused and perturbed. I imagine if you were a woman on a female ward and Balian Buschbaum was put in the bed next to you, you might feel similarly.
The question is where to draw the line. Activists who argue that no-one should be allowed to change sex, as is Cyclefree's position, and those who argue that it should be trivially simple to do so, as is Scottish Greens' position, are both taking stances that may run contrary to public support for some sort of compromise, middling way. Will this Supreme Court decision allow for some middle way?
Today in the office corridor, about the Assisted Dying Bill.
(And ER now know that Ref UK MPs all office next to each other !)
https://x.com/LeeAndersonMP_/status/1861325601996460364
MPs are scheduled to vote on the Private Members’ Bill proposed by Kim Leadbeater, the Labour MP, to legalise assisted dying for terminally ill adults on Friday.
But Ben Spencer, the Conservative MP, Munira Wilson, a Liberal Democrat, and Labour’s Anna Dixon have co-sponsored a so-called “fatal motion amendment” that could kill the Bill if enough MPs support it.
The amendment comes amid widespread concern in the Commons that such a significant change was proposed as a Private Members’ Bill, meaning there is limited detailed assessment and analysis of the provisions it includes.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/11/26/assisted-dying-bill-could-be-scrapped-before-vote/
On topic, I'm beyond amazed at the mess the Courts seem about to get us into.. I can well understand, and sympathise with, a woman's desire for 'exclusive' space. I can equally understand that a GENUINE trans, either way, wants, or at least prefers, to be able to use the toilet space aimed at their deeply felt gender. I can see, of course, that the sort of evil b*****d who claims to be trans to prey on women would abuse that.
Perhaps the solution is to have a fourth toilet; men's, women's, disabled and trans.
And Good Morning to one and all; straight, gay, and unsure.
Case in point: insulin. It's been studied for over a century, but a paper out today uncovers a major mechanism of how the body manages insulin recycling.
Briefly, inceptor is a protein in beta cells that acts as a lysosomal sorting receptor for insulin and proinsulin. Inceptor binds these molecules and directs them to lysosomes for degradation.
Knockout experiments in cells show that removing inceptor increases insulin stores. And if you treat cells with monoclonal antibodies targeting inceptor proteins, and thus disrupting their ability to bind to proinsulin, the same outcome happens.
There's always more to discover.
https://x.com/NikoMcCarty/status/1861188728452194435
Especially, as seems likely, if the government fails to come up with a replacement on their own time.
If the government wished to provide time for a more detailed assessment, and opportunities for detailed amendment, they could already have made that clear.
They haven't.
If this is how it ends, then it's another failure on the part of Parliament to adequately represent its electorate.
As an example, I don't want women-only carriages on our trains, as happens in some other countries. It is a regressive step, segregation, does not actually address the problem, and treats all men as potential abusers.
What we need is a zero-tolerance of abuse - particularly sexual and physical abuse - and laws and courts that hammer down on it. But mostly, we need people to stop their friends and/or family when they look as though they are about to do something wrong. Too many people still look the other way.
A wishful dream? Perhaps. But I reckon we've made great progress over the last few decades, and it'll never happen if we don't try.
Moscow going Full North Korea means that
1) North Korea is expending its stockpiles of weapons in Russia/Ukraine
2) North Korea is sending chunks of its army there. Given what has happened to Russian troops, they will be destroyed there.
3) South Korean arms exports are massively up. Apart from the economic effects, this pays for South Korean weapons development, tests their stuff and ensure that South Korea has high capacity in its factories to produce more weapons.
4) South Korea is becoming besties with a whole range of Eastern European countries.
In short, South Korea is seeing quite a bit of benefit from this.
BBC News - Starmer says UK 'isn’t working’ as he announces jobs push
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cqxwv3n87g4o
Everything else, we don't know, another review, can't say when or already happens....
What happens when a trans person wants to attend a women only swimming morning? At a pool in Tower Hamlets?
Having said that I look at canada which has it and am perturbed by their stats
"Since its legalization in 2016, the number of deaths by medical assistance in dying (MAID) in Canada has
risen dramatically each year. Within 3 years of its introduction, 2% of all deaths in Canada were by
MAiD, and by 2021, MAiD had increased to 3.3% of all deaths in Canada which translates into 10,064
deaths by MAiD, surpassing all other countries for yearly reported assisted deaths. Health Canada has
just released the report for 2022, in which there were 13,241 reported euthanasia deaths, which is a
rate of 4.1% of all deaths in Canada. Some areas of Canada presently are reporting MAiD death rates
upwards of 7%. Since legalization in 2016"
4.1% seems a lot to me at least and suggests safeguards in place may be too lax
source https://www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Committee/441/AMAD/Brief/BR12827695/br-external/CoelhoRamona-e.pdf
I suspect the pro euthanasia charities will have to work with Kim Leadbetter to produce a quality bill before MPs vote on it against.
https://x.com/sabrod123/status/1861236426135814248
It's a strength that it's a PMB rather than a government (and therefore adversarial party) matter. That is how we created our consensus on abortion, wasn't it? David Steel in 1967.
But there is no point arguing with extremists.
"The long grass is the answer here."
I'm not convinced it is.
Nearly thirty years ago, the construction industry came up with the Considerate Contractors Scheme. A small part of this was to agree that such behaviour was unacceptable - and for some firms, meant dismissal. From what I've read, not only has this pretty much stopped such behaviour on building sites for contractors signed up to the scheme, it has trickled down to smaller contractors as well.
https://ccsbestpractice.org.uk/what-is-ccs/
It was promised as being safe, rare, and legal and it has proven to be anything but.
I am somebody favourable to assisted dying but this bill doesn’t inspire confidence.
Sadiq Khan’s rent-controlled homes to be available to solicitors and barristers
London Mayor unveils plans for at least 6,000 new properties which he claims could save key workers up to £600 a month on rent
Sadiq Khan’s rent-controlled homes in London will be available to barristers and solicitors, it has emerged.
The London Mayor has unveiled plans for at least 6,000 new rent–controlled properties, known as Key Worker Living Rent (KWLR) homes, in the city by 2030.
But the list of eligible professionals also includes solicitors and barristers, actors, vets, psychologists and the clergy, as long as their household income is less than £67,000 a year.
Mr Khan, a former solicitor himself, has claimed that the homes could save key workers up to £600 a month on rent compared with accommodation from private landlords.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/11/25/sadiq-khan-rent-controlled-homes-available-to-solicitors/
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02000779
"Histologically the testicular tissue was described to be immature and only twice was spermatogenesis reported while the ovarian portion often appeared normal. This coincides with 21 pregnancies reported in ten true hermaphrodites while only one true hermaphrodite apparently has fathered a child"
But millions of others have never 'produced' either eggs or sperm, either because of age, illness, or condition, so production of them cannot just be seen as an indicator of male or female.
What else could Starmer and Labour have done? Brown basically carried on Clarke's policies until 1999 (which meant the Tories couldn't lay a glove on him). Should Reeves have kept to Hunt's plan, tried something radical like Liz Truss?
I do agree closing down the options to raise income tax and VAT rates was foolish and given everything that has happened Reeves could probably have gone for a 2p rise in basic rate and said it would pay for increase defence spending but as George H W Bush discovered, if you raise taxes when you had previously said you wouldn't, the electorate isn't happy.
I hear a lot of bellyaching from some on here about public spending but nobody has come up with anything remotely coherent (cutting the civil service by 50% isn't coherent) as an alternative.
Former President Donald Trump is once again pledging to save American manufacturing and bring back jobs by rewriting a trade agreement with Mexico and Canada.
But this time, instead of replacing the North American Free Trade Agreement, known as NAFTA, which he has often described as the “worst trade deal ever made,” he wants to renegotiate his own trade deal.
https://edition.cnn.com/2024/10/14/politics/usmca-trump-renegotiate/index.html
The lack of all that sort of detailed prep work is why I would vote against. For me, it would have to be a well thought through Gvt Bill.
What I really want though, is a market on an early general election, inspired by this. That would be some nice free money.
*if it wasn't for the fact that it's pointless... virtue? annoyance? signaling, like most petitions
*Aargh gender oh god you know what I mean...
This particular Tyndall/Topping exchange is verily a PB chestnut. I could if I wanted type out the next 10 posts from each of them. But I don't want to, so I won't.
(unusual as it is, I side with El Capitano here)
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/nov/24/slippery-slope-fears-over-assisted-dying-echoes-of-abortion-debate
https://archive.ph/0OWVD
I'm not sure what the Telegrunt's problem is here. It's not really much different from key worker or affordable rent schemes run under the previous Government.
For some reason they are going on about "rent controls", which it is not. It is far more like a version of 'affordable housing'.
Whether lawyers should be key workers is a different matter.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uG3uea-Hvy4
On second thoughts, perhaps assisted dying isn't the most appropriate topic of conversation at a Christmas social.
Legal is a given, of course, if you have a law to make abortion legal!
On rarity, it is quite an eye opening number for abortion - quick Google (Statista) gives me 214k abortions (E&W) in 2021 versus 695k live births (UK). There will be many more pregnancies, of course, which would be a better denominator, but it's a big proportion and slightly underestimated by excluding Scotland and NI, isn't it?
I don't have a problem with abortion - in principle, I don't think I would ever have chosen it personally - but those proportions give me pause for thought. The timings and reasons would merit investigation.
(Interestingly, live births are all over the place, from 670k up to about 812k nd back again in the last twenty years, but abortions are much more static - similar amounts of sex and accidents, I guess, but varying numbers of intentional pregnancies)
Thank you, circa 250k voters in the RustBelt. You're lovely people.
This morning's government rhetoric seems to be about X billion people not feeling much like working, but preferring to live off the rest who do. Good luck. I think it was the nice Liz Kendall on the radio on about it. It was utterly dead and stultifying rhetoric with nothing new.
The extreme views in this are:
1. That we should not recognise a person as their newly assigned gender even after they have completed an extensive surgical and psychological process.
2. That a man enjoying full use of functioning male genitalia is in any way 'a woman'.
I subscribe to neither of these extremes, but you're right, arguing with extremists is hard.
Society loves lawyers.
https://www.yourlocalguardian.co.uk/news/24731077.lime-bikes-abandoned-norbiton-car-park-destroyed/
Frustrated neighbours have started to take an angle grinder to e-bikes abandoned in their private car park after weeks of inaction from Lime.
...
They added that they had been regularly informing Lime about the abandoned bikes over the last few weeks, but that the private bike hire company only responded after residents took drastic action.
“When we send them a picture of a cut up bike, within 30 minutes a manager has phoned me up saying they will collect the bikes,” they said.
“It’s fly-tipping on private property, that’s how we see it. I’ve just got to a point where I don’t care, I just need these bikes off the property.”
I am loads more comfortable about assisted dying than seeing abortion as routine minor procedure; I am puzzled there is not a stronger sense of this in a society which would be generally sympathetic to humanism and with an appreciation of new life for its intrinsic worth.
You are totally correct that the issues and those making the noise are the extremists on both sides. This is always the case. I can understand Cyclefree, and other feminists who believe that the hard won gains of feminism over the years are in danger of being eroded. The bad actors (such as the Scottish men claiming to be trans for dubious reasons, as we are led to believe) severely complicate the issues. I think its reasonable to say that if someone born as a man has had their male genitalia removed then to a point society ought to regard them as female. But its all horribly complicated.
Congratulations folks, for not only being the lucky gamete that met another gamete, but also making it to the outside in one piece.
Most people just haven't realised it yet and far too many are willing to go along with the ride when the attacks are against their perceived enemies. Divide and conquer.
The last two we started were Long Term Care for the Elderly which ran from 1997-1999 and House of Lords Reform 1999-2000 which was done in 11 months.
I don't see why it should it take more than a year.
Should the country pay £100m to lawyers to get this law 10% better? Absolutely.